Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-02-25 Penjajawoc Marsh / Bangor Mall Management Commission Minutes Penjajawoc/Stillwater Stakeholders Task Force February 25, 2005 Meeting Meeting Summary Attendance: All stakeholders attended except Carol Epstein and Shep Harris, who were on vacation. Mike Conley (taking John Corbett’s place) can be reached at (617) 738- 8900. Review of January February 18 Meeting Summary: The last sentence in the Update on Widewaters section will be changed to “This eliminates that as an option allowing Widewaters to move or reconfigure its proposed development” Update on Widewaters/BACORD/Audubon discussions: Hope summarized the recommendations that BACORD and Audubon had made to Widewaters and issues which were discussed: 1) An issue was raised about how best to protect frogs from the toxicity of detention ponds; 2) Landscapers who work with native plants will be consulted about plantings behind the buildings; 3) Kevin inquired about whether BACORD’s recommendations were the same as those likely to be made by the Maine Department of IF&W. BACORD is contacting IF&W to reconcile their recommendations. Meanwhile BACORD has agreed to attend the pre-application meeting on the Widewaters proposal; 4) Compensation for landowners was discussed; 5) Kevin said he would “endeavor” to reduce the parking requirements below 5 for every 1,000sf of retail space, but stressed this was not entirely within his control; 6) A possibility exists that Widewaters would gift the “buffer zone” of 250 feet to the Land Trust or other environmental group. He must consult with City officials to insure that such a gift would not put him out of compliance with the permissible amount of impervious surface allowed on the remaining lot size. BACORD agreed that its recommendations of February 11 would be shared with the Task Force. W/S’s Meeting with environmental groups: Mark Conley and Jim Parker met with environmental stakeholders. As a result of that meeting, environmental stakeholders identified their priorities for mitigation in the “southern” part of the Marsh (from Tom Davis’s land south). In priority order they are: 1) Grassland within 1,000 feet of the Marsh; 2) Forest land within 1,000 feet of the Marsh, and 3) Grassland and forest land within 2,000 feet of the Marsh. Lucy Quimby noted that if conservation easements are a part of any mitigation or Task Force recommendations, they can be written with more or less specificity; leaving choices of what to grow to the landowner. Mark Conley said that he will use the priorities identified as the basis to begin conversations with landowners. He did say there might be a need to alter the traditional 8:1 ratio. There was agreement that whoever was the holder of the easement would have to participate in designing the easement conditions. . 1) Potential Elements of a Set of Task Force recommendations: Jim Ring and Ed Barrett had further conversations since the last meeting about potential zoning changes and had discussed some of those possibilities with some of the affected landowners. Increased setbacks and potential creation of a Penjajawoc Watershed Protection Zone: Ed Barrett suggested that in the land adjacent to the Marsh currently zoned Resource Protection setbacks could be increased from the current 75 feet to 250 feet from the wetland edge. This would make it consistent with Shoreland Zoning requirements. There has been some sentiment that the State is likely to declare the Marsh a “significant wildlife habitat,” which would create the 250 foot zone regardless of an action taken by Bangor. There was considerable discussion about the kinds of activities which would be permitted within this zone. The group reviewed requirements of the Shoreland Zoning law, which, among other restrictions, includes a prohibition on harvesting any more than 40% of trees four inches and more in diameter within any 10 year period. A number of stakeholders representing differing interests expressed concern about requirements which would restrict landowners from continuing their traditional land use activities, especially since the current owners have been outstanding “stewards” for the land. There was discussion of how a “working landscape” concept could and should include timber harvesting. There was broad agreement within the Task Force that the most important and perhaps only critical restriction in this zone would be a prohibition on impervious surfaces. From 250 feet to 1000 feet, currently zoned Rural Residential/Agricultural, Jim and Ed proposed for discussion purposes only an increase in restrictions. For instance the current 1 ½ acre minimum lot size would be changed to 3 acres and could be combined with a limited and fixed “disturbance area.” This reduction would be seen as a companion to the relaxation of density restrictions outside this area (see paragraph below). Some landowners expressed concern about the depth of this zone, suggesting a 600 foot setback would be adequate. Others suggested that the 1,000 foot zone already represented a compromise of a smaller buffer zone than they would have preferred. This zone would permit the “clustering” of housing units in a concentrated area, which would permit construction of a nursing home such as one contemplated by one landowner. From 1,000 to 2,000 feet, the current 1 ½ acre minimum lot size could be changed to 1 acre. This reduction (permitting greater housing density) would be in recognition of the fact that the restrictions in the 250-1,000 foot zone would affect the value of landowners’ property. Jim Ring has created a “crochet line” in string on the aerial maps to represent some possible boundaries for these zones. The consensus from further discussion was that the initial City proposal to expand the shoreland zone restrictions to 250 feet from the edge of the wetland was overly restrictive and would place too many constraints on current property owners. The group did support a restriction on any structures within 250 feet. This would allow traditional uses such as timber harvesting and agriculture to continue in the 75-250 zone without the detailed regulations required in the shoreland zone. The initial 75 feet would remain in the shoreland zone. The next 175 feet would not allow structures. There was considerable discussion of the area between 250 feet and 1,000 feet from the wetland. The initial City proposal to increase potential residential lot sizes in this zone from 1.5 to 3 acres, with an offsetting decrease in lot size to 1 acre from the current 1.5 acres in areas outside the 1,000 foot limit was also seen as potentially too restrictive on the affected property owners, particularly if it included a standard restricting the amount of a property within the 1,000 foot limit that could be disturbed. At the same time, there was some concern that 1.5 acre lots up to the 250 foot limit could be problematic if the entire lot was cleared and replanted in lawn. During the discussion, the option of cluster development within the 1,000 foot boundary was proposed and discussed, and the group expressed an interest in further information on this option. Under a cluster approach, the limit of 1.5 acres per residence would be maintained, but the houses could be built closer together with a shared open area that could be maintained in areas closer to the marsh. In order to further explore options in 250 to 1,000 foot zone, City staff was asked to develop some examples of how this area could be developed based on three options: a. The current development standard of 1 residence per 1.5 acres. b. The density trade off proposal with 1 residence per 3 acres within 1,000 feet and 1 residence per acre outside of 1,000 feet, coupled with a performance standard limiting the % of the lot that can be disturbed within the 1,000 foot limit. c. Requiring cluster development on properties that include areas located within 1,000 feet of the marsh. City staff will attempt to have visual examples of these alternatives for the next meeting. The discussion also raised the issue of whether City taxes on the Widewaters and W/S developments could be used to maintain and improve water quality, and/or to purchase conservation easements around the Marsh. Hope has been in touch with the Farmland Trust and suggested their representative is available to meet with landowners on March 10. This date is not convenient for the landowners, so scheduling will need to be addressed in the future. A request was made to receive more information about this program if available 2) Changes in Parallel Service/Access Road (PSR) designation: This will be addressed at future meetings. 3) Existing Development along Stillwater Avenue: This will be addressed at future meetings. . Meeting Dates: The next meeting will be held as scheduled on th Friday, March 4 from noon to 3 p.m. in City Council Chambers, to further discussion of these and other elements.