HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-03-01 Planning Board Minutes
PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR
MEETING OF March 1, 2016
MINUTES
Board Members Present: John Kenney, Chair
Charles Boothby, Vice-Chair
Steve Hicks
Wayne Mallar
Julie Williams
City Staff Present: David Gould
John Theriault
Peter Witham
Chair John Kenney called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Mallar made a motion to remove Item No. 1 from the Consent agenda to New
Business. Member Williams seconded the request and the Board approved it 4-0.
NEW BUSINESS
Item No. 1: TRANSFER OF SITE LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
199 Bomarc Road –Transfer of Village Woods condominium
portion of Woodridge Subdivision Site Location of
Development Permit – Village Woods Association,
applicant.
Mr. Mallar expressed concern about moving responsibilities to the new group and if that
group fails in future the City might be stuck with the responsibilities. He asked if the
process of dissolution was discussed in the covenants of the Village Woods
Homeowners’ Association and how that process would work.
Mr. Chip Haskell, an engineer from CES Engineers representing the applicant,
approached the podium and attempted to answer the question. He said the Association
has been around since the development was begun and asked how to word it
satisfactorily.
Mr. Mallar said that he didn’t know how it was worded now, but expressed his concern
again.
2
Mr. Haskell called on Gary Briggs, a homeowner, who was present, to respond to the
question.
Mr. Briggs, an owner of one unit, and thus a Village Woods Homeowners’ Association
member. He explained the history of the original Association that there are four
developments within it. Working on the parking expansion project in Agenda Item 3
they discovered that the developer’s name is still in the documents even though he is
no longer involved in the project. He understood that this was a formal request per DEP
to remove the developer’s name and for the Homeowners’ Association to take on the
responsibility of its condominium portion of the development. He asked Mr. Gould if that
was a correct interpretation.
Mr. Gould explained that this is a common issue with many other homeowners
associations in the City. He said they work well when they do, but when they don’t it’s
not clear. In the past, there have been some that have failed and left the City picking
up the responsibility, but he did not know if there was an answer to the problem. There
is another association to take care of a pump station for all of the development. He said
Mr. Mallar has a valid question, and did not know if there was a way to build into them,
a way out, so the City does not have to pick them up when they fail.
Mr. Briggs affirmed that there is a separate association for the sewer pump station that
all homeowners in all the Woodridge developments belong to and explained how that
works with everyone paying into it to maintain the pump station.
Mr. Mallar said that still doesn’t answer his question if the association is dissolved what
happens then.
Mr. Briggs and Mr. Haskell both said that they could not speak to the legal question.
Mr. Kenney said that he appreciated the concern, but what was before the Board was
the transfer of the DEP Site Location of Development Permit from one entity to another
and it did not involve the covenants.
Mr. Mallar said that the application has opened it up for review and if the association
dissolves within a year then it doesn’t matter whose name it is. He recommended
obtaining a legal opinion, so tabling the item since there was no legal representative
present.
Mr. Kenney said that it is a good question and asked Mr. Gould’s opinion.
Mr. Gould concurred with Mr. Kenney that this was just was transfer of the permit from
one name to another and does not change the covenants. Even if there were counsel
here he did not know if there would be a clear cut answer to the question.
3
Mr. Mallar said that he understood that, but if there were a restriction in covenants that
they would still be responsible if they dissolved.
Mr. Gould said that if all the units go into foreclosure there’s no way to get the money.
Mr. Boothby said that they need a determination from the applicant’s attorney not the
City’s. He thought the issue is larger than that before the Board.
Ms. Williams moved approval of the transfer of the Site Location of Development Permit
from Village Woods Condominium Portion of the Woodridge Subdivision Permit to
Village Woods Homeowners’ Association. Mr. Boothby seconded the motion and it was
approved 4-1.
Item No. 2: SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
1 College Circle – Site Development Plan approval to add
cellular telecommunication equipment on the existing radio
tower in a Government and Institutional Service District –
Husson University, applicant.
Tom Johnston, Dean of the New England School of Communications, introduced himself
and Jodi O’Neal, project engineer from James Sewall Company. He said that since they
installed their 140-foot radio tower they have been approached by several cellular
companies to install antennas on it. The cell companies need auxiliary concrete pads for
propane tanks, generators, and shelters for equipment. He said that it is Husson
University before the Board, and not a cellular company, though some have expressed
interest. He added that Ms. O’Neal would be happy to address further questions.
Mr. Kenney asked for questions from the Board, but there were none.
Ms. Williams moved to approve the application. Mr. Boothby seconded the application
which was unanimously approved 5-0.
Item No. 3: SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
199 Bomarc Road – Site Development Plan approval to add
17 parking spaces, an enlarged dumpster pad, paved
walkways, and 30 square foot entryway additions to each
of 24 units in a Low Density Residential District – Village
Woods Association, applicant.
Chip Haskell, engineer from CES Inc., presented the site project for Village Woods
Condominiums to add 17 parking spaces that over the years they decided they needed.
When they looked at the project they made note of all unapproved changes that had
been made as early as its original construction by the developer. The other changes
are, relocation of the dumpster pad to the other side, replace grass islands with paved
4
areas between parking spaces, and add paved walks between the sidewalk and parking
spaces. The applicant also requests approval of 24 rear entryways of 30 square-feet
each added when originally constructed. By doing so they recalculated the impervious
surface to what is existing in order to add the new pavement. He said the existing
stormwater filtration will take the added stormwater.
Mr. Boothbay asked where Bomarc Road is on the plan as it was not labeled.
Mr. Hicks asked about the stormwater comments that the Engineering office asked for
in the memorandum. Mr. Haskell said that a letter signed by the Homeowners’
Association would be drawn up to address them before obtaining a Building Permit. Mr.
Hicks also noted that the application was for after the fact for some of the items on the
plan. Mr. Haskell did not know the history, but the Homeowners’ Association was happy
to include those features in this application. Also they were aware that the sign is too
close to the right of way and would move it back to the 20-foot setback.
Mr. Mallar asked about the missing shrubs around the project and if they would be
brought up to what was approved on the plan.
Ms. Williams asked if the approval would be conditional and with the conditions being a
stormwater maintenance certification letter, annual stormwater maintenance reports
filed with the City, and that the sign would be moved to meet setbacks.
Mr. Kenney asked Mr. Gould for his comments.
Mr. Gould explained that the application is picking up from the last approval what has
been added without approval and remind the designers again what is on the approved
plan is expected to be built on the ground as approved. Since 2005 stormwater
monitoring has advanced and is more particular as to maintenance. With older projects
returning for review there is now added the requirement for someone to inspect the
previously approved stormwater improvements and certify they are working. Also that
the owner will have an annual maintenance plan going forward. The applicant has put
everything on the plan as requested and were fortunate that the site is large enough
for more pavement. Much of this application is a housekeeping activity and Staff is
satisfied with all the conditions as cited in the memorandum.
Ms. Williams moved approval of the Site Development Plan to add 17 parking spaces,
an enlarged dumpster pad, paved walkways, and 30 square-foot entryways to each of
the 24 units with the condition that 1) a certification letter from a qualified professional
stating that the pond has been maintained and is in good working order before a
building permit is issued, 2) annual inspections and reports will be provided to the City
in accordance with the original permitting, 3) the applicant verify the sign has the
appropriate permits and meets applicable sign Ordinance standards.
5
Mr. Boothby seconded the motion which passed unanimously 5-0.
Item No. 4: SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN and SITE LOCATION OF
DEVELOPMENT MODIFICATION
22 Cleveland Street – Site Development Plan and Site
Location of Development Modification approvals to add a
9,200 sq. ft., 14-space parking lot in a Shopping and
Personal Service District – R&K Construction, applicant.
John Karnes of R&K Construction presented his project to add a 14-space parking lot
and under-drained stormwater area and also an awning on the plan that was not put on
the application form.
Mr. Kenney had questions about the stormwater treatment location that was not on one
plan but on the other.
Mr. Hicks asked about the fuel vault shown on the plan. Mr. Karnes said that it is still in
use and receives annual inspections.
Mr. Karnes indicated the underdrain soil filters on the plan.
Mr. Mallar asked if there would be a walkway from the new parking area and if there is
one along the existing parking spaces. Mr. Karnes said there would be and are.
Mr. Boothby expressed appreciation that the applicant was taking on an older property
for its reuse.
Mr. Gould concurred with Mr. Boothby about changing the old military building into
reuse and that the applicant may not have realized all he was getting into, but he
stayed with it. He accommodated all of the requested details that Staff asked for.
Mr. Hicks asked if there any site lights in the area. Mr. Karnes pointed out that the
electric company would add a street light.
Mr. Hicks moved approval of the application. Ms. Williams seconded the motion and it
was approved unanimously 5-0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Item No. 5: PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were no minutes prepared.
Mr. Kenney announced the meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.