Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-03-04 Penjajawoc Marsh / Bangor Mall Management Commission Minutes Penjajawoc/Stillwater Stakeholders Task Force March 4, 2005 Meeting Meeting Summary Attendance: All stakeholders attended except Mark Conley (Jim Parker took his place), Lucy Quimby (Dick Ardren took his place) and Sandi Duchesne (Bob Duchesne took her place) Review of January February 18 Meeting Summary: The attendance section should read Mark (not Mike) Conley can be reached at (617) 232-8900. Update on Widewaters/BACORD/Audubon discussions: The minutes of the February 24 meeting between Kevin Kane and BACORD/PVCME were distributed. Widewaters may use conveyance of an easement as opposed to outright gift for the 250 buffer zone. On March 3, Widewaters officially requested that DEP schedule a pre-application meeting which may be held within 10-14 days. BACORD has agreed to attend and speak about the agreements they and Widewaters have reached. Judy is still researching wildlife habitat questions. BACORD is still inquiring of Maine IF & W about its position, to be sure BACORD and the state are in agreement on the issues. W/S's Meeting with environmental groups: As a result of the meeting Mark Conley and Jim Parker held with environmental stakeholders, W/S has begun conversations with landowners about mitigation possibilities. Jim suggested again there might be a need to alter the traditional 8:1 ratio depending on the costs of purchasing land or easements to address the environmental stakeholders' priorities. There are some preliminary modeling results from the traffic study commissioned by W/S. Jim Ring will be meeting with the traffic engineers to begin to analyze that data and should have something to report to the Task Force one or two meetings from now. Potential Elements of a Set of Task Force recommendations: Jim Ring and City staff prepared a set of three "visuals" (sketches) to depict the three options the Task Force identified for further study at the February 25 meeting: a. The current development standard of 1 residence per 1.5 acres.(Sketch #1) 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 (Sketch #2). c. Requiring cluster development on properties that include areas located within 1,000 feet of the marsh (Sketch #3). Sketch #1: Jim began by reviewing the current requirements in the Rural Residential/Agricultural Zone. On a 1.5 acre lot, the minimum width is 200feet. The maximum allowable building lot coverage is 15% of the lot and the maximum allowable impervious surface is 20% of the lot. Under the current regulations, this sketch showed that a subdivision could include twenty-one 1.5 acre lots, which could begin as close as 250 feet from the edge of the wetland. Sketch #2: Under this option (which had been introduced by Ed Barrett last week), the minimum house lot sizes in the 250-1,000 foot zone would be increased from 1.5 to 3 acres. Outside the 1,000 foot line, allowable density would be increased by reducing the minimum lot size from1.5 to 1 acre. On a parcel the same size as sketch #1, a subdivision could contain 22 lots. Sketch #3: This concept would require cluster development by reducing the lot sizes to 1 acre, but limiting the total number of lots to the number allowable under the current RRA zone (in this example, 21 lots). Discussion: There were a number of comments about the current market conditions: would 1 acre lots sell, or do people want larger lots? The answer seemed to be that both smaller lot sizes and larger were being built in Bangor subdivisions. A suggestion was made that if this is an effective way to protect the wetland resource, it should be made mandatory throughout the City, wherever there is a significant wetland. Ed said he would look at that proposal but could not agree to it without studying the effect of such a proposal on land uses throughout the City. The advantage for a developer choosing Option #3 is that her infrastructure development costs are lower (in this example a 150 foot road vs. the 250 foot road called for in Sketch #1). Lots may sell for more under Option #1(1.5 acres) than in Option #3 (1 acre), but the also cost more to develop. On the question of market conditions and land values, Shep noted his experience has been that many newer developments have a common area (such as that which is possible under Option #3). These amenities have created more value, not less, for the landowner. Jim Parker concluded there are so many variables (e.g. topography), that it is virtually impossible to predict what the impact of any of these three Options would be on the value of any particular piece of land. Under Option #3, the landowner would be allowed to continue his historical uses of the land closest to the marsh (e.g. timber harvesting). Under this Option, the landowner has more optional land uses and greater flexibility closer to the marsh. For instance, if a landowner wanted to build a retirement home in the section closest to the marsh (outside the 250 zone), he could do so by eliminating one of the smaller lots in the cluster development, so the total number of lots would not exceed that allowed under current zoning. This allows the landowner to retain ownership of that parcel of land (whereas under the City's current Planned Unit Development ordinance, the landowner would have to give up ownership of the lots closest to the marsh, which would be held in common and undivided ownership by all landowners in the development). Under Option #3, if a landowner wanted to build a nursing home, such a facility could be accommodated by reducing the number of lots in the cluster development. Tentative Agreements: 1) The 75 foot setback currently required in the Resource Protection Zone will be continued, and activities would be restricted by Shoreland Zoning requirements. 2) In the new "overlay" zone from 75 to 250 feet, no structures would be permitted. The "Sproul" properties adjacent to the Marsh would be exempted from this prohibition. Otherwise, this overlay zone would apply to any parcel within the study area. Carol questioned whether the "edge" of the wetland was being fixed as of a certain date, since there has been so much variation over the years. There appeared to be agreement that the wetland edge required a "meets and bounds"line which could be ascertained on the earth. 3) The new cluster requirements represented by Sketch/Option #3 will be adopted. 4) No changes will be recommended for any of the existing properties along Stillwater Avenue, so as to avoid making them non-conforming. 5) It will be recommended that the remainder of Cindy's property (outside the W/S development where a 600 foot setback has been agreed to) and the four "Sproul" properties will be left "as is," and not be subject to the new overlay zone. Tom Davis's land: Toward the end of the meeting, the Task Force discussed which building setback standard should be applied. The essential question is to define the point at which commercial development would be permitted in areas of his land close to the Marsh. We will discuss this issue at the next meeting. Also at the next meeting, the Task Force will consider how to deal with the remainder of the "Rudnicki parcel" adjacent to the 250 foot setback buffer zone proposed by Widewaters. Meeting Dates: The next meeting will be held on March 15, 2005 from noon to 3 p.m. in City Council Chambers, to further discussion of these and other elements.