Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-05-03 Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Minutes Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Tuesday, May 3, 2005 Minutes Councilors Attending: Geoffrey Gratwick, John Cashwell, Frank Farrington, Susan Hawes, Anne Allen, Dan Tremble Staff Attending: Brad Moore, John Hamer Others Attending: Tim Woodcock, Walter Cupples Committee convened at 5:00 p.m. 1. WWTP: Sewer Abatement Request – 266 Center Street Brad Moore states this was a problem in the apartment complex, and when made aware of it, Joy McIntosh did make the changes to her plumbing and is tracking the water meter usage to make sure there are no other problems in the apartment building. The request does meet the criteria for an abatement, and recommends approval. John Cashwell moves, Susan Hawes seconds. 2. WWTP: Sewer Abatement Request – 170 Parkview Avenue Brad Moore states it is a similar situation, other than Mr. Petros is in Iraq, his mother is making the request. The home is unoccupied, when they found the pipes had burst and the fixtures were leaking, that’s why the usage was so much higher. When discovered repairs were made. Councilor Cashwell moves, and Councilor Allen seconds. Councilor Gratwick comments there was a note from Jim Ring reporting a cistern that opened up on Maple Street that was perhaps related to this. Councilor Allen asks if this is something that would involve the Waste Water Treatment Plant. Brad Moore states he would suspect probably be Public Works, depending upon whether it would need to be filled with gravel, so it would no longer be an open pit. Historically those were used to catch rain water and used for fire service and other things in past years. Normally it doesn’t involve the WWTP. 1 3. Referral: Medical Facilities Committee Final Report – Council Order #05-126 Councilor Hawes states the report was finished and presented to the Council at one of the last meetings. There were concerns with additional areas being allowed to hold this type of clinic. Those three areas were urban, downtown, and service and personal. The Council asked that it be brought back to the Committee to take a look at it. The Committee that worked on it came up with definitions that are solid and would like to see that part of it remains intact. There is one Committee member and Mr. Woodcock that had some information to share, and turns it over to John Hamer who has further information. Councilor Gratwick asks for clarification from Councilor Hawes if she wants to go through recommendations or leave those to John. Councilor Hawes states John will run down through the actual recommendations of the Committee and then open it up for discussion and if needed has other information to present. John Hamer states the actual recommendations are contained on page five and six of the report. They are designed to show what would have to amended in the code implemented those changes. There are two changes the Committee is recommending. First, the definition of clinic, medical, or dental be amended to create this new definition of just a general medical clinic. Which would incorporate a lot of different types of medical uses. Perhaps new and upcoming medical uses, physical therapist, dentists, doctors, and would included former category of the chemical dependency treatment facilities. Second, recommendation not to make any changes to the existing structure of the zoning. The Committee took a look at all the places where clinics are allowed in the Code and discussed if they were appropriate there and whether there should be conditions. Ultimately decided the existing zones were appropriate. The one page hand out is a listing of the zoning districts in the City, locations where clinics are currently allowed, locations where chemical dependency treatment facilities are currently allowed. If chemical dependency treatment facilities were wrapped into the clinic definition then you’d be adding those to the other zones that have clinics listed there. The report also suggests to adopt a definition of hospital to differentiate it from medical clinic, the term hospital has been used in the Code for years without having defined it. Councilor Gratwick asks if there are questions from the Council, then the audience. Councilor Cashwell comments on what the intent of the Council was when convening a Committee and the precipitator was another chemical dependency treatment facility basically approved without question and inserted in a commercial district. What the Council was concerned with, complete with moratorium was that we didn’t seem to have a process or some sort of set of steps which would require discussion and/or approval system along the way for these treatment facilities. What came back was a good document based on hard work and a lot of discussion on a complicated issue. But the definition of clinic was not changed to absorb chemical dependency facilities 2 back into it, then expanded to four more districts. Working towards a moratorium to better corral the systems feel, what our objective was versus what the end product is. Also, stating he heard from businesses and people he spoke with expressing concern for the uncontrolled expansion of this sort of facility. He also states he’s not trying to disparage the business or businesses or those who need it, but would like a plan where the City has input and some control as to where they are. A generic definition and four more districts was not what he had in mind. Councilor Gratwick would like to note the report of the Committee as it came forth and signed by the members did not meet Councilor Cashwell’s needs. Councilor Farrington would like to answer what Councilor Cashwell articulating. He is articulating what was a common feeling of the Council when undertaking this endeavor and was able to make all but one meeting and would like to report the evolution of his thinking as a result of the discussion in this Committee. And was concerned that all of the sudden there was a new clinic with little to say. The way that will be addressed now, which is not in this report is working with the State department, they were aware their process needed a little change and thinks there’s going to be much more communication. He also stated that another thing that changed his thinking was that there was very little to say, we can not prevent this sort of clinic from coming in because of the Federal and State regulations. The other thing was the awareness of the proportion of the problem, which was just in the paper where kids that had problems stealing things and they had a meth laboratory going. And was not aware of the extent of the problem before sitting in on seven or eight Committee meetings. The Committee had many different viewpoints and what was hammered out was a good process and urges this Committee not to have a full discussion here, but move this thing forward. The brief summation would be to change the way we address the problem. Councilor Gratwick asks Councilor Farrington if he sees any other way to resolve this seeming conundrum or should it go through most likely as is. Councilor Farrington stated it is better to have a clinic treating the problem than to continue having the problem existing and flourishing without treatment. Councilor Tremble requests a map showing the current location these places could locate as well as where they can locate in the future if the recommendations go through. Also commenting on Councilor Cashwell’s statement to want to get hands around these clinics from popping up wherever they seem to want to locate. He stated we did that a few years ago they ended up locating in places where we thought we were keeping them out of, wanted to keep them in the medical setting and hospital setting. But that seems like might be too constrictive under the laws of the Federal Disabilities Act. The Council needs to meet needs the people of the City demand, the people of the City don’t want to see clinics pop up at every corner of the City. Future clinics aren’t going to be dictated by this report or zoning, but market conditions are going to demand it. With two clinics, this new clinic is going to have a hard time stay in business. Acadia has eliminated their waiting list, the market will pretty much decide what you’re going to have in Bangor. Stated we can’t think about 3 this in terms of methadone, right now that’s what it is, but ten years from now it could be some other type of treatment people have for other additions. Ten years ago nobody thought we’d have two methadone clinics in Bangor, look at it broader than methadone and these types of additions. The responsible doesn’t need to fall all on Bangor. Washington County, Downeast we have to make sure these clinics should be spread throughout the State. He doesn’t believe the State will help limit these clinics. Two pieces of legislation were killed at Committee and doesn’t believe there is any pressure on the department to do anything at this time. Councilor Gratwick asks about the pieces of legislation that requires there to be more careful evaluation from the State being killed in the Committee. Councilor Hawes verifies this information. Councilor Tremble states he thinks we do have a responsibility to the people who do need these services, but it needs to be spread around. And hopefully with two clinics in Bangor there’s not a demand for a third one. Noting again, it’s not just methadone in the future it could be some other treatment for some other addiction. Suggests looking at the bigger picture of what the implications of this could be. Councilor Gratwick states the pragmatic part of this as well, not only an important theoretical discussion but the reality of the question of whether there will be more of a need for this. Councilor Hawes states that when redefining the new definition that they want to use as clinic they were looking down the road, not just at methadone but at other types of alternative medicines that come along. We do have to answer to the citizens, and part of it is taking the definition that seems to work that encompasses all medical facilities and trying to make it work in the districts that we have. It appears the only way to do that is put in some sort of a conditional use, most or all of these that could possibly have a not so pleasing clinic. By the conditional use, the only thing we are really saying is going to be a safety net there. They’re going to have to go through planning and public hearings and have some other things they’re not required to have now. We are prepared to make that recommendation as part of the Committee work, that we do look at putting a conditional use on there. Councilor Gratwick asks Councilor Hawes if at the end of the day is that going to be one recommendations to the Committee that there be a paragraph that the four additional ones be conditional use. Councilor Hawes responds yes. Councilor Gratwick asks Councilor Hawes if she reflects the general tenure of the Committee or is this something that she has gotten from other Committee members. Councilor Hawes stated she has spoken with Committee members individually, because it happened after the fact, the Committee had pretty much met for the last time when we started looking at some of these other issues. Most of them are 4 comfortable with putting conditions on there. A lot of them wanted to deal with whether the zones are appropriate and is the definition encompassing and appropriate for what they were tasked to do. They felt they didn’t want to change all the zones around, that was something they were comfortable leaving. The definition they are happy with and they are not going to have a problem putting conditional uses on downtown district for example or the urban district. Requesting the Committee to look at and possibly add it to the report and send it forward. Councilor Gratwick asks John Hamer if this were to a motion from Councilor Hawes to this end, being the conditional uses for those four others, briefly sketch the pros and cons. John Hamer states there are four different zones that would be impacted. What conditional use does is require an applicant that wants to move into a building in one of these zones to apply for a conditional use approval from the Planning Board. They’d have to get together a site plan and go to the board, have a public hearing, and make sure any specific conditions that we might choose to attach to clinics are met, plus four general conditions are met as well. The four general conditions deal with the development of standards and district have been complied with, if you’ve got a building that doesn’t meet setback that would preempt it from being a conditional use, or there was a variance that would preempt it from having a conditional use. The second deals with the issue of traffic, if it would create unreasonable traffic congestion, if so that could be a reason for denying a conditional use. The third is proper operation will be insured by having adequate onsite facilities such as fire protection, drainage, and so forth. The fourth has to do with the bulk of the building, where the building would fit into an area, which is more associated with large box types of developments than medical types. You could have a large medical clinic, that might be a situation for a new medical clinic. A building would have to comply with that as well. There is some expense associated with conditional use, it probably costs about three thousand dollars as a rough estimate. There are planning fees, planning board fees of about a thousand dollars. Issue of drafting a site plan could range $1,500.00 to $3,000.00 depending upon the site and existing plan. Overall figure an average of several thousand dollars for condition use approval. In that case the use could be rejected if it didn’t meet the criteria’s it could be allowed. If some of these zones were made conditional for clinics, be aware that will apply to all medical uses, that going to the shopping and personal service district or the urban service district. It wouldn’t be restricted to former chemical dependency treatment facilities that, would be any dentist, doctor, or physical therapist that went into this area would now have to have a conditional use approval. Councilor Gratwick requests a rough number of the applicants per year for clinics going into these other four areas. John Hamer states there is only one zone that has clinics as a conditional use, in the government institutional district and there haven’t been any. Councilor Gratwick asks how many people each year would be impacted by placing a medical office in an urban service district or downtown district. 5 John Hamer stated any time a new occupancy is created in any of these zones, persons are required to apply for a certificate of occupancy. If it’s a permitted use, it’s granted outright and states those figures are not on hand. More than fifty, but less than a hundred. Dan Wellington states that it is a unique thing because what they saw for a period of time was that all medical facilities were moving to larger multi-operational facilities like Eastern Maine Healthcare. They are now starting to move back out into the community again in a number of varying locations. We are also seeing a lot of alternative medicine, probably through the first four months of this year we have probably located eight to ten medical operations of one type or another outside of the GNISD zone. Last week we permitted out a 2,200 square foot medical facility in the industry and service district. Councilor Gratwick states they will probably impacting a significant number of people. John Hamer states that it is not impossible there be a way to modify the conditional use standards to allow some conditional use people to reduce have reduced submittal requirements if there is an existing site plan and there is no change to building. It may be possible to not require them to submit a site plan to the board and save some money. It will still subject them to the review. That would be something that would require further investigation to see if that would be possible or advisable. There may be ways to mitigate some of the cost. John Cashwell is in agreement with John Hamer to look into these things. And expressed traffic related to the kinds of clinics now imbedded in the definition of clinic. Doing a site plan for a building that’s not being changed would be ludicrous. And is not convinced that making some conditional needs on certain districts is a bad thing. And requested clarification of the colors on the map referencing the zones. Dan Wellington points out chemical dependency treatment facility would be allowed in the urban industrial districts shaded purple, that is conditional use. Also allowed in the government and institutional district shaded blue which is mostly hospital, government, schools, cemeteries and colleges. And in the general commercial and service district in half of the red colored area, which mostly in the Walmart, Longview area, and some on Union Street. G&ISD exists where it is because that’s where those uses are, the hospital has always been there so we zoned it, the cemetery has always been there so they’re zoned government and institutional district. BMHI was there before zoning. It would expand to urban service, which is in the red, which would be the downtown, lower Main St. up into Hammond Street and State Street, Downtown Development. The other red is in the Shopping and personal service in the growth area, and industry and service area, which is also purple. Councilor Gratwick stated he suspects the major impact will be the downtown area. Councilor Hawes states that as far as the conditional uses, if you’re going to open a business, there is a certain cost of doing business. That’s going to be to do planning, 6 site planning, licensing and she states she doesn’t have a problem with asking for conditional uses on at least four of these districts. And could almost be swayed to ask for conditional uses on all of them. Because it is important and the Committee recognizes that we wanted the second chance to say is this really appropriate for this area. We can not restrict them from going there, but we wanted that opportunity to look at it again. Councilor Gratwick asks if the City legitimately say because someone wants to put a methadone clinic in a location, it will impact on the traffic more than any other clinic? John Hamer comments that this suggestion is with the definition of clinic being modified to encompass clinics of all sorts. This would be all medical clinics, then you’re putting conditions on all medical uses. And in that case you would not be singling anybody out. As long as there are places available for business to open it’s not going to be a problem with actually prohibiting them. Councilor Gratwick asks if someone wants to start a new methadone clinic downtown and because one of the four reasons they couldn’t do it. Ed Barrett states that there are the general conditions that were in the Ordinance, there are also places in our code we have put specific conditions. For example, veterinary clinics are conditional use in certain zones, one of the conditions is that they cannot be within a 100’ feet of a residential property. Gasoline pumps are conditional use in a number of zones there specific conditions that have to meet to have gasoline pumps. There are certain conditions you have to meet to have a drive- thru, adequate queuing space for instance. One of the alternatives are there some other specific conditions that are more specific than the general conditions that you want to consider placing on medical clinics. Every time you do that, it does increase the burden on the applicant, being a dentist or a large operator. Councilor Tremble questions what can and can’t be done in relation to violation of the laws. Can we still have a chemical dependency definition if we’re going to have medical. Can we say conditional use, because chemical dependency if they dispense medications is different than a dentist office, and doesn’t think it’s unreasonable to have limitations. John Hamer states that’s the way the code is set up now, and it’s the Committee’s recommendation to do away with that. They felt strongly that from a zoning perspective that a chemical dependency treatment facility is a medical facility, no different from a doctor’s office or a different type of medical facility. So if you wanted to do that, it would be better to leave the system the way it is now, because it is separated out. Councilor Tremble states that his goal is to get them out of the red section keep them blue and purple sections. Also comments there are other much more restrictive zoning than this is being adult entertainment. And keep the current definitions and let people challenge if they want to. And states his goal is to keep them out of the retail areas. 7 Councilor Farrington summarizes why the rational of the clinics would be the same as for chemical dependency as dental and medical. If we tried to keep them out separate a chemical dependency operation from the same thing that we allow dental and medical, it wouldn’t stand. John Hamer states that from a zoning point of view the uses are really the same. A large part of the problem is that zoning is very broad and it’s not designed to deal with issues that everyone would like to regulate. It’s the improper tool for regulating methadone clinics. That was basically the Committee’s conclusion after taking a look at the zoning, it’s purposes, the different characteristics of the uses, that is why they suggest wrapping all uses back up into medical clinic. Ed Barrett states that there are a couple of other complicated factors, new situation where some of the chemical dependency treatment is being provided in different settings than it has historically been with individual doctors being able to provide Buprenorphine treatment to up thirty individuals in their own private practice so that creates a problem. Also run into a problem in that there are non-medicine based treatment for chemical dependency that are often provided by physiologist, psychiatrist, and other treatment providers rather than a chemically based treatment you might get at a methadone clinic. That creates some of this integration that we are seeing between services. So if you say you can’t have chemical dependency treatment facility, how do you define and apply that given that they’re probably Northeast Occupational, they have non-drug based treatment for people who are addicted to various substances. And suspects there are other providers in the downtown area who do similar kinds of treatment so that can create some issues as well. Councilor Allen asks John Hamer if these conditions carry weight over the actions of the State. John Hamer responded that the City has the right to regulate on a broad base. But more specific the conditions get the more preempted by the State. Ed Barrett states the current zoning policy and proposed zone changes could be enforced, and some modifications off from that could be enforced. John Hamer states that these facilities are permitted in the Government Institutional Service Urban Industry and the General Commercial. If you make them conditional in all three zones there could be a risk of a challenge. Because that would be regulating to the point where it may be a problem. As long as one zone is kept as a permitted use with no conditions on it, it may not be a problem. At this time the condition is on the hospital zone and not the other two. 8 Ed Barrett states that some of the G&ISD areas developed historically, may not be in locations we would want to have a clinic of any kind. Current conditions are that they have to be on a major arterial or street. Councilor Cashwell would prefer to put condition permits on the three zones under the definition we now have and see where it goes. Ed Barrett suggests that one of the suggestions that came forward was to allow clinics, which would encompass chemical dependency clinics in I&SD. Councilor Tremble asks if one wanted to open a methadone clinic in home, could they. John Hamer response was no. Regulations would not allow that, also the State wouldn’t allow it. Tim Woodcock states he is serving on the committee that is working with Colonial Management and the State. At their first meeting a couple weeks ago, at which a representative from the State Health and Human Services confirmed that the regulatory framework for this area is in a state of flux. At the Federal level it has moved from a system that was largely administered from the Food and Drug Administration until 2001. At which point, authority was handed over to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. They took a different approach, in that Food and Drug focused on the drug itself and regulated the drug, whereas, Health and Human Services emphasized patient outcome and best practices. Entities like Colonial Management now not only have to get a government license, but also go through an accreditation process with a private entity like Jayco. The State has been given a great deal of authority by the Federal government, which id did not previously possess and that has created a regulatory opportunity for the State, it has largely, at this point, not exercised. At the committee level we suggested to them that the committee process might prove to be a valuable source of information to them as they begin to consider what their regulatory construct should look like. He’s hopeful that would lead to a constructive role being played by the City in helping inform the State as to where they might go with some of their regulations. There may be a way of differentiating between the methadone field and others in the characteristics of use. Methadone is different than any other medical procedure in that the persons receiving methadone do require it on a daily basis. For those enrolled in the program making life changes it’s important, particularly if they have a job, that they get their dose in the morning. It is fairly likely to have a considerable amount of traffic in the early morning hours up to ten or eleven and considerably less thereafter. What may be a possibility within the conditional use is to place a threshold on the kind of traffic that would be 9 generated. Also what would be reasonable is to place some restriction on proximity to schools or residential areas. Walter Cupples with Bangor Savings, also serves on the committee, commented on the traffic that would be produced in the Maine Square Mall. Having been informed by Acadia Hospital to expect a line of a 100 people, which would be a tremendous strain on the parking area. To use the conditional use would be a great opportunity. Councilor Gratwick states he doesn’t believe they will be making a final decision today and will need to have more data. Ed Barrett requests guidance on whether to eliminate the separate definition of chemical dependency treatment facility or retain it. The difficulty in trying to apply conditional use to a clinic that encompassing all medical practices, which pretty much says you can’t have a clinic in most of those areas because the conditions we put on it would probably eliminate it. For example, parking requirements, distance between clinics and any residential zones. If keeping the definition, the general consensus is that the two industry districts aren’t a problem, that the G&ISD is not a problem. The general feeling is to keep it out of high traffic, out of S&PS. And certainly out of USD and maybe out of GC&S. That’s what the Maine Square Mall is zoned as. Councilor Cashwell comments that less is better at the moment until the State and other regulatory systems decide how they’re going to deal with these things, also be willing to put conditional use on the three districts. Recommendation to a permit and it be reviewed in two years, giving time for the State to figure things out. Keep this report as a live instrument until we’re sure what the State’s going to do as the industry changes and grows. So that we can prevent a clinic from showing up in any zone without discussion of traffic, time, recommending to table. Councilor Gratwick states that what they are really talking about is keeping the definition of the chemical dependency unit, plus have the Staff work on the redefinition of the conditional use in those three different zones. To probably bring this back to the Committee with a time, and suggested John will do that tomorrow. Councilor Hawes supports the conditional use, to see the report stay active so it can be looked at in this current Committee. To maybe come up with some further fine-tuning with a representative of the State and bring everything back for further review. 10 Ed Barrett has come up with some starting points for potential conditional, based on what was recommended on the report:  Having sufficient interior reception and waiting areas to serve all patients seeking treatment during peak periods.  Having the facility located within X feet from a residential district.  Parking requirements over and above the standard, in the Ordinance, that ensures that at least one parking space is available per patient during peak demand periods. Councilor Hawes recommends motion to table for two weeks, to allow Staff and Council to verbiage. Councilor Cashwelll seconds the motion. Councilor Hawes announced that the Medical Facilities Committee will be meeting at Colonial Management on May 19, 2005 @ 5:00 p.m. and invites Council members to attend. Walter Cupples states that he believes the Bangor Council could impact the State to make some changes, being that they are very receptive. Adjourned 6:08 11