HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-04 Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Minutes
Transportation & Infrastructure Committee
Tuesday, January 4, 2005
Minutes
Councilors Attending: John Cashwell, Susan Hawes, Frank Farrington
Staff Attending: Ed Barrett, Jim Ring, Brad Moore, Dana Wardwell, John Murphy,
Tony Caruso, Norman Heitman
Others Attending: Mr. & Mrs. Mayo, Carol Cutting
Committee convened at 5:00 p.m.
1. WWTP: Sewer Abatement Request – 69 Summit Street
Brad Moore states this is a request on behalf of the property owner. They had problems
with two fixtures in the property which have been repaired and did also include a letter
from the Bangor Water District concerning that they had discovered the problem out
there, once the property owner was notified and the two fixtures repaired. This does
meet the requirements of the Code for granting an abatement, therefore the staff
recommends it.
Councilor Hawes moves and seconded by Councilor Cashwell.
2. WWTP: Sewer User Fee Abatement Request – 49 Ohio Street
Brad Moore stated, again this is a request from the owner of the property concerning
the same thing, a fixture leaking and once it was discovered there was a problem in the
apartment it was repair. There again meeting the criteria set forth by City Code so the
staff recommends passage.
Councilor Cashwell comments they have been joined by Councilor Farrington, and
updates him.
3. WWTP: Sewer Abatement Request – 51 Glenwood Drive
Brad Moore Mr. Howes has requested an abatement in this apartment building. The
tenants in the apartment upon leaving did a lot of damage to the apartment by leaving
the water running. The damage has been repaired to the apartment and he’s
requesting an abatement. There is a provision in the code for granting an abatement
due to vandalism to property. Again, staff recommends passage of this request.
Councilor Hawes moves and Councilor Farrington seconds.
1
4. Ordinance-Amending Map of Downtown Parking Management District and Schedule III
and Schedule IV of Chapter 291, Section 39-B and 40-B of the City Code.
Jim Ring states there are materials in the packet on pages 45 and 46, this is a proposed
Ordinance Amendment amending the parking ordinance to change one current regular
space to a handicap space located at the corner of York and Exchange Street. As noted
in the Council Action form this has been requested by Protea Behavioral Health Services
who have been doing extensive renovations to the building at that location. Their client
base does include a fairly high percentage or a higher than average percentage of
handicapped or disabled folks hence their request. Sally Bates who has just joined has
some photos of the location and can answer any questions that you might have. This is
a fairly straight forward request.
Sally Bates states that when we get requests such as this that are pretty much what
they appear to be. If at that time of the year, with the Downtown Parking Advisory
Committee meeting is about to meet, we take it into account at that particular time.
This came at a time of year that is so far from parking committee time that what I did
was speak with the Bangor Police Department to make sure their parking enforcement
division was okay with the request. The screening process was done by John Roach
from the Bangor Police Department as well. It’s space number 2100.
Councilor Cashwell asks if that’s the one on the lower left hand of York Street.
Sally Bates responded, yes.
Jim Ring stated the Committee would recommend an ordinance change and go to the
full Council.
Councilor Hawes moves for passage, Councilor Farrington seconds.
5. BIA: Real Estate Action Plan for Army National Guard.
Councilor Cashwell states the next item is the extension of a hangar at the airport, For
the Real Estate Plan for a Lease Extension of existing hangar #457.
Tony Caruso stated that recently the airport was approached by the Army National
Guard to request an extension of their current lease arrangement for building 457.
Currently that building houses their support aircraft, it’s a military King Air, a C12. The
intent is to eventually move that airplane into their new facility. The army aviation
support facility, which is currently under renovations. It’s in that new construction
which is a in excess of twelve million dollar renovation project. They were requesting an
extension of the lease, which currently expires September of 2005. What they
requested from us is an extension not to exceed September of 2007. Currently the
lease is for $3,686.08 per month, which translates to about just over $44,000.00
annually. We would recommend that staff approves the extension.
Councilor Cashwell asks if that is the hangar between the commercial ramp, the old City
hangar.
2
Tony Caruso states yes that is correct, they used to call the old aircraft station.
Councilor Hawes moves for acceptance, Councilor Cashwell seconds.
Councilor Cashwell asks if we budgeted for more T-hangars.
Tony Caruso stated yes, I think we bonded for another set of ten individual hangars,
similar to the ones we’ve just constructed last year.
Councilor Cashwell asks if it is in the same place or an extension of that place.
Tony Caruso stated yes, it would be an extension of the existing hangar. It would
actually extend north.
Ed Barrett states it is in our capital plan, along with sprinkling of all of the hangars at
the airport. We are going out to bond on that. We have not yet authorized those bonds
yet, they have to come back at some point.
Councilor Cashwell asks if they can have a discussion sometime on condominiumizing for
the ones that are there and even the ones that are coming, you may not have to bond
anything and have it done.
Ed Barrett comments sure, we can certainly take a look at it.
6. Acquisition of Additional Street Right-Of-Way on Eaton Place.
Councilor Cashwell invites the Mayo’s to the table.
Jim Ring states on page 74of the packet is a brief memorandum that outlines this item
and on the following page 75 is a sketch. The past Committee members will remember
last fall we had a couple of meetings where we discussed issues on Eaton Place,
primarily involving parking. Initially we were approached by Mr. & Mrs. Mayo who own
the property at 112 Eaton Place. The requested permission to use a portion of the City
right-of-way to park a vehicle. As some will recall, we had quite a bit of discussion
about that. There were concerns voiced by Mrs. Cutting, the adjacent neighbor about
insufficient room and we did a fair amount of work out there to locate where the right-
of-way was, with respect to the edge of pavement. Two things came out of that. One
we found the pavement was not centered in the street right-of-way. And second, there
was insufficient space to accommodate the request of the Mayo’s. The Mayo’s request,
unfortunately the Committee was unable to grant. When we looked further into the
encroachment of paving onto private property, we identified through our field survey
work there was a slight encroachment on the Cutting Property and subsequently Public
Works trimmed some of that back and modified the driveway approach per her request.
We also discovered a more significant encroachment of the travel way across the corner
of the Mayo property. The paving extends about 8’ or 9’ onto the Mayo’s property. The
options are to relocate the pavement, which would mean shifting it to the opposite side
of the right-of-way. That would have quite a bit of impact on the properties on the
3
opposite side of the street, two or three of them because of the position of the
driveways and the topography. Or we could acquire additional right-of-way that would
encompass the present pavement. And that is what we are proposing to do. The
Mayo’s are receptive to this. We have had the City Assessor look at what the value of
this would be and as a result we would acquire the shaded area, we have an actual
description from the Mayo’s and add that as street right-of-way, in exchange for that do
a pavement of $1,000.00, which is consistent with what the City Assessor has
determined the value to be.
Councilor Cashwell asked how long have we been driving over their lawn.
Jim Ring stated that we don’t know. It’s been awhile now, since last fall. It’s an
interesting issue that Norm and I discussion about this. If we were doing it for a period
of twenty years, then it’s like an adverse possession case, we do have an original
reconstruction plan back in the seventies that showed the travel way to be within the
right-of-way. There was some right-of-way acquired but that was quiet some time ago.
I’m sure it’s been paved at least once since then. In the earlier discussions we know
there was some work done by the Water District, etc., We really can’t be certain how
long, but it’s been quiet a period of time. If we were sure of the time we could make a
case of adverse possession, but we really don’t have the grounds to do that. Alternately
in a case where we need to acquire public right-of-way for a public purpose, which it is
here, in the interest of safety, snow removal, etc. We could go through eminent domain
proceedings if an owner was unwilling we would still pay for it and go through the whole
process. Unless the Mayo’s would like to indicate otherwise, we have an agreement on
this.
Councilor Farrington asks if there are any parking problems with this.
Jim Ring stated that initially the Mayo’s had wanted to continue parking in a corner of
the right-of-way. There isn’t enough, at least that was the judgement of the Committee
after we really looked at the where the right-of-way was and who owned what. The
understanding is that they have made other arrangements, they’re not currently asking
for that now. The issue now is beyond that, we’ve discovered the encroachment and
we’re trying to correct that, make things right so we can maintain the travel way for the
safe passage of emergency vehicles as well as residents. We feel we need to acquire
right-of-way instead of using public property.
Councilor Allen joins.
Councilor Farrington makes a motion to move, Councilor Hawes seconds.
Councilor Cashwell states it has moved and seconded to purchase the encroachment
property that we’ve encroached upon.
Mrs. Cutting comments that she is glad that this issue is being resolved but would like to
voice concern about a fence being placed so that they blocks sun coming in her
windows.
4
Councilor Cashwell informs Mrs. Cutting that the City is just purchasing the property at
this point.
Ed Barrett also points out that under City Codes people have a right to put up a fence.
That’s up to the individual as long as it meets our Code requirement.
Councilor Cashwell states this is not at issue here today.
Mrs. Cutting states it’s not an issue, but glad it’s resolved but it’s taken six years. She
would consider it a spite fence when the City was considering putting it up. That’s just a
different issue, it’s an issue for the outside court system.
Councilor Cashwell offers thanks and makes a motion to adjourned.
Councilor Allen moves, Councilor Hawes seconds.
Adjourned 5:20
5