Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-01-19 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF JANUARY 19, 2016 MINUTES Board Members Present: John Kenney, Chairman Charles Boothby Steve Hicks Wayne Mallar Pete Parizo Julie Williams City Staff Present: David Gould John Theriault Item No. 1: Election of Officers for 2016. Planning Officer David Gould opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. noting that the first order of business for this evening’s meeting was to elect Officers for 2016. Mr. Gould asked if there were any nominations for Chairman. Member Boothby nominated John Kenney. Member Mallar seconded the motion. Member Boothby moved to close nominations. The Board voted six in favor and none opposed to elect John Kenney Chairman of the Planning Board. Mr. Gould indicated Chairman Kenney could take the floor. Chairman Kenney asked if there were any votes for Vice-Chairman. Member Mallar nominated Charles Boothby. Member Parizo seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously to elect Member Boothby as Vice-Chairman of the Planning Board. Item No. 2: Site Development Plan approval to construct a 4,832 square-foot two-story building for automobile reconditioning with general office and storage use in a General Commercial & Service District at 729 Hogan Road & 101 Frost Drive, Van Syckle, applicant Planning Officer Gould noted the Board should move to Item No. 3 in case the applicant is late. 2 Item No. 3: Planning Board Discussion – Nonconformities Section of the Land Development Code. Assistant City Solicitor Paul Nicklaus noted the change in the nonconformities section is intended to allow for more opportunities to use existing grandfathered structures such as vacant buildings and foreclosed properties which take longer than 12 months to be reoccupied. Presently the Land Development Code sets 12 months as the time frame by which a nonconforming use will expire. Without some flexibility in the economic viability of the rental units, the buildings may lose their vitality. After many means and time frames were reviewed, the language which was brought forward was a time line of ten years until a grandfathered nonconformity would expire. In addition a few other changes have been made to clarify some of the existing language dealing with damaged nonconforming structures or site plan requirements for nonconforming uses. Member Williams thought the proposed changes fit into the larger development plan of the City of increasing densities and improving current market trends, which will assist in selling multifamily structures. Member Hicks noted that the language is not limited to foreclosures; it’s any vacant grandfathered structure. Ten years is a long time line to allow nonconformities to continue. Member Boothby noted that after three years of a problem property near him three years has been too long. Adding more time may not solve the problem. Attorney Nicklas noted that redevelopment does drag on and a two or three year period appears to be less than a reliable fix. After much discussion ten years was selected to catch most all circumstances even the severe scenarios. Member Mallar asked if a certificate of Occupancy would remedy most all the Code compliance issues. It was noted that basic maintenance issues would need to be complied with but legally grandfathered nonconformities would be allowed to continue. Attorney Nicklas noted there was some variety of Ordinances in various communities and in other states but a year or two is quite typical. Member Williams noted even without considering foreclosures, multifamily structures stay on the market longer and have the potential to lose their grandfathered status. 3 Paul noted this concept came about because again and again we would see buildings caught in a legal conundrum where their grandfathered status would expire and result in a less viable property. It was noted that the concept was to discuss this with the Board and see if there were any elements which should be reviewed further. Several members thought the time frame was too long. Member Hicks stated it was not the City’s job to make all buildings economically viable, especially when they are acquired at a discounted rate to begin with. Several buildings have had successful conversions back to single family homes. Often ill-kept multifamily structures devalue adjacent ones. Planner Gould suggested that the Board can hold its hearing and see what testimony is presented and make its recommendation from that point. The Board voted in general support of the proposed amendment with a recommendation to shorten the 10 year time frame. Item No. 2: Site Development Plan approval to construct a 4,832 square-foot two-story building for automobile reconditioning with general office and storage use in a General Commercial & Service District at 729 Hogan Road & 101 Frost Drive, Van Syckle, applicant Chairman Kenney returned to Item No. 2 Mr. Gould noted the Board may proceed however they wish. If the item is tabled he will contact the representative to indicate the Board’s desire for them to be present. Member Boothby moved to table the item. Member Hicks seconded and the Board voted unanimously to table Item No. 2. Member Mallar noted no specific date was established. Assistant City Solicitor Nicklas noted the item was tabled so it remains on the table until acted on by the Board. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 4: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. Member Boothby moved to approve the Minutes of the January 5, 2016 meeting. Member Mallar seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 4 Planning Officer Gould noted with existing workloads some elements are not seen as high priorities. The Staff and the Board have a good opportunity to revisit those issues when a project returns to the Board for a change or new approval. The recent Stillwater project is a good example of many deficient elements being addressed through the new owners and Planning Board input. There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m.