Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-03-06 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2012 MINUTES Board Members Present: Andrew Sturgeon, Vice Chairman Paul Bolin Charles Boothby, Alternate Member Doug Damon John Kenney John Miller Julie Williams City Staff Present: David Gould Peter Witham Lynn Johnson Vice Chairman Sturgeon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. In the absence of Chairman Theeman, Alternate Member Boothby was asked to vote. Item No. 1: Election of Officers for 2012. Vice Chairman Sturgeon asked for nominations for Officers for 2012. Mr. Damon nominated Mr. Theeman for Chairman and Mr. Sturgeon for Vice Chairman for 2012. As there were no other nominations, the nominations ceased. The Board voted 7 to 0 in favor of electing Mr. Theeman as Chairman and Mr. Sturgeon as Vice Chairman for 2012. CONSENT AGENDA Vice Chairman Sturgeon asked for a motion. Mr. Kenney moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Bolin seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The item approved is: 2 Item No. 2: Site Development Plan approval to construct a 384 sq. ft. storage building located at 967 Illinois Avenue in a General Commercial and Service District. USDA/NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service), applicant. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 3: Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approval for a quarry and earthmoving activities (Chapter 165-32) in a Rural Residence and Agricultural District located at 1606 Union Street. Harvey Sprague, applicant. Vice Chairman Sturgeon opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation. Mr. Scott Braley with Plymouth Engineering represented the applicant. He indicated that Mr. Sprague had an option to purchase this property and Mr. Randy Gardner would be the operator of the quarry. Both Mr. Sprague and Mr. Gardner were present. Mr. Braley explained that the applicant is requesting approval for a quarry operation at 1606 Union Street in a Rural Residence and Agricultural District. The quarry is being reviewed by the Department of Environmental Protection who has indicated that they do not have concerns. However, a permit has not been issued. The quarry operation is located in the corner of this 58 acre parcel to minimize impacts from it. There will be no significant traffic generation as 14 vehicles per day are expected. Both the National Guard and the City’s Airport were contacted and they received no comments. Mr. Damon indicated that during the approval process for the existing quarry the issue of blasting and notification of the neighboring properties was an issue. He asked what the applicant was proposing to do with this project. Mr. Randy Gardner indicated that they propose to treat this quarry the same as the existing quarry. Prior to any blasting they will need to obtain a blasting permit from the City, a pre-blast survey will be conducted on those properties within 2500 feet; and the City has a call list for those who wish to have their names put on it. Vice Chairman Sturgeon asked if there were comments from proponents. There being none, he asked for opponents. Mr. Jim Stevens, 128 Downing Road indicated that this quarry is 300 feet behind his back door. He expressed his concerns about his well, noise, the blasting, hours of operation and whether or not this will devalue his property. The elevation of this operation is higher than his house and sound will travel down. He asked if there were any more meetings other than this to consider this proposal. He said that he did not feel that this would benefit the City. 3 Ms. Sharon Cassidy, 1576 Union Street, indicated that she shared Mr. Stevens’ concerns. She said that she can hear trucks from the existing quarry. She felt that this was an intrusion and it would ruin this area. Ms. Maria Mason, 1528 Union Street, said that she didn’t feel that she had enough information about this project to know if she was for it or against it. She was concerned about her property values as they have dropped 20% since she purchased it. She was afraid that a quarry could lower her property value even more. She said that she has no problem with the existing quarry. She was very surprised to get a notice about this quarry as she did not know anything about it before getting the notice. Mrs. Florence Conley, 1570 Union Street, indicated that she has had flooding issues in her cellar for many years, back to when the road was reconstructed (Union Street). Every time something is done on the street it creates more water. She has spent a considerable amount of money to dry out her cellar and she was concerned that this project would create more water in her basement. Mrs. Conley asked about wetlands and if this is within a wetland. Mr. Sturgeon indicated that under the State regulations he didn’t see any identified wetlands affected by the gravel pit. Col. Doug Farnham, with the Air National Guard indicated that their fuel tanks are located in this general area and they would like for someone to work with their fuels people before this is approved. He indicated that he would like to have some more time to review this. Vice Chairman Sturgeon indicated that if these tanks are within 2500 feet they are to be notified. Mr. David Iverson with the Guard said that he thought that the tanks were 150 feet from the fence line and that blasting would be 600 feet away from the fence line. Mr. Gardner explained that he had tried to contact Capt. Terry Smith with the Construction Engineering Department at the Guard to let them know what he proposed to do and to give them an opportunity to review his plans. Mr. Gardner indicated that he did not receive a response. Mr. Gardner indicated that he would be happy to meet with them. He indicated that they would be required to notify those people within 2500 feet under the pre-blast survey. Mr. Carl Gurschick, 1358 Union Street, expressed concern that the quarry could be expanded beyond the five acres. He also indicated that they are concerned about their property values and the taxes. Mr. Bolin asked if Mr. Gardner had written a letter to the National Guard and if he had a copy of it for the Board to review. Mr. Gardner indicated that he made a telephone call to Capt. Terry Smith. He attempted to gain access to the facility to speak with the Wing Commander and he was denied access. However, he did obtain a telephone number but was unable to find someone who had an interest when he made the call on February 21, 2012. However, he would be happy to work with them to mitigate any issues with their fuel farm. He said that the blasting operations for the last several facilities put in around the Airport were much closer than their quarry will come to their operations. 4 In response to questions regarding notification of this project, Vice Chairman Sturgeon indicated that the notices to the abutting property owners were mailed out on February 14, 2012. Mr. Boothby asked what types of existing trees were around these five acres. Mr. Gardner explained that it is fairly wooded and has been selectively cut over in the last 5 or 6 years. Mr. Damon asked Col. Farnham how much time it would take to get an assessment of the sustainability of the tanks. Col. Farnham indicated that by noontime (the next day) they could gather information as to whether or not someone has looked at it. Mr. Kenney noted that what the Board is approving at this meeting is the quarry use and that any blasting permits are not within the Board’s realm of review. They are to be obtained from the City’s Engineering Department. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this application is identical to that of the existing quarry which is located on the other side of Union Street. The applicant is seeking conditional use and site development plan approvals for a quarry operation off of Union Street. Regarding blasting, the City of Bangor has adopted an ordinance covering the requirements for blasting. Anyone wishing to blast must first obtain a permit from the City’s Engineering Department. It is a separate process. A quarry is only allowed in the Rural Residence and Agricultural District as a Conditional Use under the Land Development Code Chapter 165, Section 165-9. The applicant also must meet the requirements of Site Development Plan under Chapter 165, Section 165-114. The concerns brought up, unfortunately, are not details that are covered in the Land Development Code. Conditional uses don’t ask the Board to determine if this will adversely impact property values. There is no specific noise standard, either. There may be some standards within the Blasting Code but relative to noise that might be generated by an activity on the site there is no standard to meet certain decibels. The tools that the Board has to review this are the Conditional Use standards (165-9) and the Site Development Plan standards (Section 165-114). Staff indicated that in its review, it felt that this application meets Ordinance requirements. Ms. Carolyn Cassidy, 1560 Union Street indicated that she didn’t feel that the property owners had a say as to what is going to be right behind their houses. She said that she understood that all the permits and the plans have been filed according to standards but felt that there has to be standards for property owners to have a say about what is going to go on. She said that she was very disappointed to be there and not be able to make a difference because she felt that it had already been decided and they were there to fill the chairs. Vice Chairman Sturgeon explained that while sympathetic to the neighboring property owners, the Board does not take consideration of applications lightly. However, the Board needs to consider the standards of the Land Development Code and issues such as property values and blasting were not within the realm of the Planning Board. 5 Mr. Miller asked about the 100 foot undisturbed buffer and expressed his concern that thinning of trees creates a thinner buffer line between the homes. He wished to make sure that those properties are protected as best as they can be so that it doesn’t happen like it did across the street. Planning Officer Gould indicated that the Board has to go on the view that the applicant is going to construct the project according to the plan that is before them. The design of the plan appears to be the intent of the applicant to keep this operation as far away as possible from more houses. However, it has pushed it up against the back yard of a house on Downing Road. There isn’t a perfect spot away from everyone. Mr. Stevens told the Board that there are no trees between the buffer and his house as they were cut off a year ago last summer. Hardly any trees are left between this property and the back of his house. With the entire parcel being 50 plus acres he questioned why they chose to place this right up next to his property. He indicated that he did come into the Planning Office and talked with Staff. He said that Staff did not tell him that all of his concerns were of no use. Vice Chairman Sturgeon asked about the 100 foot buffer. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff was operating under the impression based on the plan that there are trees there. Certainly the applicant and their designers could explain if there aren’t trees there then maybe the Board would want a buffer planted. Vice Chairman Sturgeon asked if the 100 foot undisturbed area was what was required. Planning Officer Gould indicated that a 20 foot buffer is required and this is in excess of that requirement. Mr. Gardner indicated that regarding wetlands, there is an urban impaired stream down near the church and they will not be infringing upon or approaching it. As part of the blasting, homeowners within 2500 feet will be offered a pre-blast survey, and wells will be looked at, too. If there is damage done this will be handled through his blasting contractor. In accordance with DEP requirements they need to install three monitoring wells around their quarry in order to meet requirements that they stay 5 feet above the water table. Mr. Edwin Colburn, indicated that he lived at 1528 Union Street for many years. He said Cianchette dug the pit across the street from his property while the runway for the Airport was being built. It shook his house everyday and it did not affect his family. He gave a history of development in the area for the Board’s benefit. Mr. Kenney indicated that the DEP standards will have to be met by the applicant and will address many of the issues expressed by the neighbors. Mr. Braley indicated that with excavations there is a threshold under which DEP takes certain actions. Mr. Braley outlined those standards. He said that if the applicant decided to expand they would need to come back before both the DEP and the Planning Board. Mr. Bolin indicated that he would be more comfortable if the Board tabled this until the next scheduled session to hear some feedback from the Air National Guard regarding safety of the fuel storage. 6 Ms. Williams discussed approving this with two conditions: 1) that the applicants obtain a blasting permit and 2) that the blasting meet Air National Guard standards. There being no further comments, the Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Damon indicated that while he felt that this was a high quality operation he was empathetic to the concerns of the homeowners. Mr. Kenney moved that the Board grant Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approvals for a quarry and earthmoving activities in a Rural Residence and Agricultural District located at 1606 Union Street for Harvey Sprague, applicant. Mr. Boothby seconded the motion. Mr. Miller asked if there should be a condition pending DEP approval. Mr. Sturgeon asked if there should be a condition regarding a blasting permit. Planning Officer Gould indicated that both would be redundant as both are already requirements. The Board voted 7 to 0 in favor of the motion. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 4: Site Development Plan approval to construct a 180’ communication tower and a 12’ x 24’ equipment building located off Bomarc Road in an Urban Industry District. State of Maine Office of Information Technology, applicant. Vice Chairman Sturgeon indicated that he had a conflict of interest as he is a shareholder of the business that owns the property. The Board voted 6 to 0 in favor of a motion to excuse Vice Chairman Sturgeon from voting on this item. Mr. Damon, being the senior member on the Board was asked to fill in as Chairman. Chairman Pro-Tem Damon asked for comments from the applicant. Mr. Craig Hitchings, Radio Program Manager and Phil Boness, designer of the project were present to answer questions. Mr. Hitchings explained that this is one of 42 sites chosen for State Public Safety Communications radio towers. They are proposing a 180 foot self-supported tower, and a 12’ x 24’ building on a 200’ x 200’ leased parcel. The purpose of the project is to upgrade state public safety radio communications for the State Police, Game Wardens, and Warden Service. They have found a way to partner with the Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border Protection who are building a similar system across the State of Maine and they have found 26 sites to co-locate. However, this is not one of the sites that they are going to co-locate on but it is a critical location which will connect with four other locations within a 30-mile radius. Board Members had questions regarding the proximity of the tower to existing houses, the band frequency, lighting on the tower, and whether or not the tower would be painted. Mr. Boness indicated that the tower is a low band frequency (150 megahertz), they added some setbacks and buffers to mitigate affects upon residential properties, no commercial entities will be able to co-locate on this structure, no lighting is required by FAA, and they do not plan to paint it. 7 Planning Officer Gould explained that approximately 6 years ago after a controversial application for radio towers in the Rural Residence and Agricultural District, the City looked at standards for radio and communications towers and cellular towers, which are not to be over 200 feet tall. Also, because the County had an issue relative to their antenna which is actually on top of the Court House an exemption was approved specially for public safety broadcasting. When the applicant initially came it was through that the proposal was for a broadcast tower, which generally is thought of as a radio and television tower, which has certain standards in terms of height and setbacks. The Urban Industry District (UID) is a district that has always allowed for broadcast towers. The applicant is proposing a 180-foot non-illuminated tower. Planning Officer Gould gave a brief history of Bomarc Industrial Park noting that back in the 1960’s Bomarc was developed as a missile site. The Federal Government built a number of these concrete silos. When the Federal Government gave up that facility, it was a pseudo-industrial area and the City decided to allow some flexibility to use it and it was zoned to allow the most unrestricted industrial use that was available. The residential community continues to grow around this. At some point in time there will be more and more conflicts between this industrial area and the growing residential area. There are at least three towers up there now. This is a permitted use in the UID. It meets all of the standards relative to tower construction and Staff recommended approval. There being no further discussion, Mr. Miller moved to grant Site Development Plan approval to construct a 180’ communication tower, and a 12’ x 24’ equipment building located off Bomarc Road in an Urban Industry District for the State of Maine Office of Information Technology, applicant. Mr. Boothby seconded the motion. The Board voted 7 to 0 in favor. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 5: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. Vice Chairman Sturgeon indicated that the Minutes of the February 7, 2012 meeting were in order for approval. Mr. Bolin moved to approve the Minutes of the February 7, 2012 meeting as written. Mr. Miller seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 8 to 0. Other Business Planning Officer Gould noted that a second Third-Main Neighborhood Meeting would be held on Thursday, March 8, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. and he welcomed Planning Board Members to attend. There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m.