Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-05-19 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF MAY 19, 2015 MINUTES Board Members Present: Paul Bolin, Chairman Charles Boothby Wayne Mallar Dora McCarthy Pete Parizo, Alternate Member Julie Williams City Staff Present: David Gould Chairman Bolin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. In the absence of Board Members Kenney and Miller, Alternate Member Parizo was asked to vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 1: To amend the Land Development Code by changing a parcel of land located at 720 Essex Street from Low Density Residential District to Urban Residence One District. Said parcel of land containing approximately 9,500 sq. ft. James and Elizabeth Rogers, applicants. C.O. # 15-152. Chairman Bolin opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant or their representative to make a brief presentation of their application. Mr. John Hamer, of Rudman and Winchell, indicated he represented James and Elizabeth Rogers in their request to amend the zoning of their parcel on Essex Street. 2 Mr. Hamer indicated the house was built in 1962. The lot is 9,500 square feet in size below the Low Density Residential minimum of 12,000 square feet. When the Rogers inquired about adding a generator the Code Enforcement office indicated they may exceed the Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR) for their parcel. Mr. Hamer indicated the Urban Residence 1 District would be more appropriate for the Rogers’ lot as it is just under the URD1 minimum lot standard which limits some options for further development on the property. Planning Officer Gould advised the Board that the applicants, James and Elizabeth Rogers, home was built in 1962 with a lot created in the mid 1950's when the City’s minimum lot size was 7,500 square feet. As the decades passed, the minimum lot size in the City changed (1974 and 1991), both times increasing the minimum lot size. While Dewitt and Clark Avenues have smaller, older lots, they were zoned to Low Density Residential in 1991. This rezoning request would make the Rogers’ property closer to conformance with the current City standard (URD-1) and would potentially allow for some additional structures. Mr. Gould noted the change does not allow the Rogers to add additional units or add some new accessory use, it simply allows them to improve their lot consistent with other older URD-1 lots. Mr. Mallar asked if the request would be considered spot zoning. Mr. Gould indicated that his view of spot zoning is somewhat broader, noting that treating one lot different than its abutting neighbors is spot zoning. However, if you allowed all the adjacent lots with the same lot sizes to also be rezoned then it is not singling out this lot for special treatment. The specifics of the application are that the Rogers have filed an application, paid the requisite fees, and are entitled to the City's consideration. Ms. Williams asked if the Board should consider other adjacent lots in the same situation. Mr. Gould noted that the Board could take a look at that, but should deal with the application in front of it. Mr. Mallar asked if the building meets all the applicable setbacks and if they would change when rezoned. Mr. Gould noted there are some differences in the two districts. Mr. Mallar asked if the setbacks listed on the Building Permit application were correct. Mr. Hamer, in consultation with Mr. Rogers, noted that the Rogers’ lot is a corner lot which is unique in how specific yards are determined, noting that the Code Office had no issues with the building. No one from the audience spoke either in favor of or in opposition. Chairman Bolin closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Mr. Boothby made a motion to recommend that the City Council adopt the Rogers’ request for 720 Essex Street – Low Density Residential District (LDR) to Urban 3 Residence 1 District (URD-1) – Council Ordinance 15-152. Ms. Williams seconded the motion and the Board voted 5 in favor 1 opposed. Item No 2: Amending the Land Development Code – Chapter 165-32 – Quarries, mining and Excavations. City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 15-162. Chairman Bolin opened the Public Hearing and asked for comments from Staff. Assistant City Solicitor Paul Nicklas reviewed the history of the City's amendment to discontinue quarries in the Rural Residence and Agricultural District (RR&A). Last year the date that was set would allow quarries to operate until June 30, 2015. The amendment simply would change the date to add additional time to November 30, 2015. Randy Gardner, operator of the existing quarry on Union Street, noted that the amount of snow that fell this past winter made the continued operation of the quarry very difficult. In addition, the weak economy proved to have less demand for rock materials. As no one spoke in opposition, Chairman Bolin closed the Public Hearing and asked for Staff comments. Planning Officer Gould indicated that the typical zoning guidelines would allow a permitted quarry to operate until the end of its five-year permit life. Given the concerns raised by adjacent neighbors the City has altered the districts in which quarries can operate and have worked with Mr. Gardner to relocate his quarry operation to a new location in an industrial district. The amendment extends the deadline in which quarries must stop operation in the RR&A District. Mr. Boothby asked whether blasting would continue to occur at the site. Mr. Gardner noted that he anticipated at least four more blasting events. The Board noted that Mr. Gardner had been good in dealing with the neighbors openly. Ms. Williams made a motion to recommend Council Order # 15- 162 be adopted. Mr. Boothby seconded the motion and with no abutters in opposition, the Board voted unanimously to recommend the proposed text amendment to the City Council - Land Development Code Chapter 165-32, as contained in Council Ordinance #15-162. Item No. 3: Amending the Land Development Code – Chapter 165-9 C. Conditional Uses – to set standards for amendments to Conditional Uses. City of Bangor, applicant. 4 Chairman Bolin opened the Public Hearing. Planning Officer Gould explained that the Planning Staff had advertised this amendment for hearing on May 19th, but the requisite paperwork failed to get to the City Council such that it would receive first reading and be referred for a public hearing. In order to preserve the initial notice, Staff recommended that the Planning Board continue the hearing to their next regular meeting such that it can be forwarded to the City Council, read and referred. Ms. Williams moved to continue this Public Hearing to the Board’s next meeting. Mr. Boothby seconded the motion which carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 4: Site Development Plan approval to construct one attached one-family dwelling unit to an existing four-family unit dwelling building at 33 Burleigh Road in a High Density Residential District. JRG Properties, applicant. Chairman Bolin asked the applicant or their representative to make a brief presentation. Mr. Fred Marshall of Plymouth Engineering representing JRG Properties was present with owner John Graham. Mr. Marshall provided the Board with a brief history of the project. At this time Mr. Graham is seeking to add one unit to an existing four unit building. Mr. Marshall indicated that last year the City Engineers noted some maintenance work was likely required in the existing detention pond. While Mr. Graham had intended to do the work last season the contractors were not able to get to it and therefore will undertake that work prior to the construction of the new building. In discussions with Planning and Engineering they would be comfortable with a condition of approval that the stormwater maintenance plan and any remediation work be undertaken prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed unit. Mr. Gould noted that this is a very simple project adding one unit to an existing four unit building. The site has adequate parking, adequate open space adequate land area and is within the ISR standard for the site. For some time the City has implemented a process that prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy an “as built” plan is submitted indicating that all elements of the project have be built consistent with the approved plan. More recently there is a new standard for monitoring stormwater systems call the Post Construction Stormwater Maintenance Plan. That plan provides for periodic inspection and any required maintenance to stormwater systems to insure they are operating as they were designed. That process happens after occupancy and it is taking time for developers to get into the routine of including that work as part of their overall management plan. 5 Ms. Williams moved for approval of the Site Development Plan to construct one attached one-family dwelling unit to an existing four-family unit dwelling building at 33 Burleigh Road with the Condition that the Post Construction Stormwater Maintenance Plan be completed, reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Mr. Boothby seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion to approve the Site Development Plan to construct one attached one-family dwelling unit to an existing four-family unit dwelling building at 33 Burleigh Road with the Condition that the Post Construction Stormwater Maintenance Plan be completed, reviewed, and approved by the City Engineer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. :5 Planning Board Approval of Minutes. Mr. Boothby moved approval of the Minutes of the April 21, 2015 meeting. Ms. Williams seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously to approve the Minutes for the April 21, 2015 meeting. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS Item No. 6: Planning Board Review of Correspondence and Other Communications from the Planning Office. Chairman Bolin requested clarification as to Board Members who may bring additional information to the meeting. Assistant City Solicitor Paul Nicklas indicated that the Board's decisions and discussions should be based on information that is available to all parties in the review, the Board Members, the applicant, the abutters. Similar to a Board member driving by a site and concluding that there is inadequate sight distance the information on which the decision is based is not available to all the parties involved. When a Board member finds there is relevant information available or thinks a site visit should be part of the record, that request or information should be provided to everyone. If Board members have other documents, permits, etc., and they provide them to Staff they can be included in the packet to the Board and part of the record. Ms. Williams asked if the Board should undertake some review of the Rural Residence and Agricultural District as it has been a topic of discussion recently. Mr. Gould noted there is ongoing review by City Staffers and a tabled amendment before the City Council. Mr. Gould noted it might not be productive to 6 engage in a parallel path to the City Council. Potentially, they will reach a conclusion or specifically asked the Planning Board to assist them on this topic. Ms. Williams asked if Staff could see if there are more instances\\ like the property on Essex Street where older lots may be in the developing area (Low Density Residential-LDR) but more closely fit to developed area (Urban Residence District 1- URD-1). Mr. Gould noted Staff could look into that and bring some information back to the Board to see where they would like to take it from there. There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 7:54 p.m.