Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-02-16 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF February 16, 2016 MINUTES Board Members Present: John Kenney, Chairman Wayne Mallar Julie Williams Charles Boothby Pete Parizo Steve Hicks City Staff Present: David Gould John Theriault Paul Nicklas Chairman John Kenney called the meeting to order at 7:00pm, he briefly reviewed the Agenda for the evening. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 1: To amend the Land Development Code – Chapter 165, Sections 165-17, 18, 20, & 111 – Nonconformities; Discontinuance, Restoration, Change, & those requiring a Land Development Permit. City Bangor, applicant. C.O. #16-088. Chairman Kenney opened the public hearing and asked the applicant or their representative to provide a brief overview of the proposed amendment. Assistant City Solicitor Paul Nicklas commented that after the discussion with the Board concerning the length of time in which a nonconformity would be grandfathered the proposed amendment was changed from 10 years to seven years. Chairman Kenney asked for any proponents, opponents or people with general questions or comments. Pauline Civiello of Coombs Street stated she had a concern that some of the nonconforming structures have a lack of adequate parking which puts a burden on adjacent properties in the neighborhood. She noted even 2 at seven years the time frame seems too long. More effort should be made to have the buildings be in compliance with the regulations of the Land Development Code. She noted that not all structures can be restored to single family homes, but there is middle ground that could improve conditions in the neighborhood. Being no other proponents or opponents, Chairman Kenney closed the Public hearing. Assistant City Solicitor indicated that what the City has seen since the recession of 2008 is many existing nonconforming multifamily dwellings being foreclosed on and during the process of putting them back on the market the 12 month window of vacancy had lapsed. The properties are now faced with being brought into compliance with the current Land Development Code standards. In some instances that loss of potential revenue leads to the building’s marketability being limited and structures remaining vacant. Member Mallar asked what is intended by the term “otherwise in compliance with this Code of Ordinances” Mr. Nicklas stated the intent is that elements not grandfathered in the Land Development Code should be in compliance. Member Mallar indicated he found the language of the amendment less than clear as to that aspect. Member Hicks asked if there were other communities that this was derived from. In his review of surrounding communities they all had similar language, 1 year. Solicitor Nicklas indicated the initial research showed a wide variety of approaches from many years to involved review processes. Member Hicks noted he was not in support of the change as it did not promote single family neighborhoods. Member Mallar felt the track record of the City to enforce the existing Codes was poor and the proposed amendment would not improve that. Member Williams noted she had recently heard a presentation by the Community Development Office on monies being directed into the Westside Village that has been a great selling point to help revitalize the neighborhood. She indicated the Ordinance change is another step to help spur redevelopment and she was in support of it. Member Hicks was of the opinion that extending the length of time in which a nonconformity could exist would adversely impact adjacent neighbors. 3 Chairman Kenney asked Planning Officer Gould if he had any additional points to make. Mr. Gould noted it comes down to whether the Board thinks it is better to allow the continued use of the nonconforming structures or to have the potential that buildings will sit empty and deteriorate. There is no perfect solution for the length of time, it would be very unfortunate to have a building about to be restored only to find it missed the deadline by a few months. When Staff looked at the options available, the decision was made to make it a fairly simple change in Ordinance language as opposed to an involved additional layer of review where the final conclusion would be uncertain for applicants, one in which an owner can go to the Code Office and get a building permit, no uncertainty, no hearing or lengthy review steps. Member Mallar asked if there were other options such as a variance or rezoning. Mr. Gould noted that State enabling law makes variances very difficult to obtain. Rezoning is an option; it does cost money and takes some time. In the last few years more than half of those considering rezoning found that even changing to a denser zoning district would make many still not comply. In addition while the Planning Office can make a recommendation to the Board and City Council there is no certainty in the outcome of the process. Mr. Hicks noted that it is not a choice between vacant buildings or nonconforming multifamily structures; returning to a conforming use is always an option and what we should strive for. Member Mallar stated the City already appears to be backlogged with property maintenance problems and this will likely add more. Chairman Kenney noted this would likely delay the movement towards conformity, but would allow more multi-unit structures. Member Boothby moved to recommend C.O. #16-088 to the City Council. Member Williams seconded and the Board voted four in favor and two opposed. Item No. 2: Final Subdivision Plan revision and Site Location of Development Modification of Judson Heights to split one lot into two lots on Heather Road in a Low Density Residential District. Richard Stone and Edward and Karolyn Nicholas, applicants. Chairman Kenney asked the applicant or their representative to make a brief presentation of the application before the board. 4 Mr. Richard Day, professional land surveyor indicated he represented Richard Stone and Mr. and Mrs. Nicholas. Mr. Day stated this property was before the Board about a year ago in which the property was divided into three parcels all of which were owned by Jane R. Shubert. After that division an undeveloped lot was acquired by the applicants and they want to split it into two parcels. Chairman Kenney asked Mr. Gould for a summary of the project. Mr. Gould noted that what was before the Board was a request to split a parcel into two portions both of which will meet the City’s minimum lot size for LDR (Low Density Residential). The basic concept is to maintain the property as a wooded parcel, but allow development that would be further buffered by the existing vegetation. Mr. Gould noted that the size of the Judson Heights Subdivision required it to obtain a Site Location of Development Permit. As the Board may be aware whenever you further divide a lot it must come back for review. Given there are no additional impacts due to the division of the lot, it is a fairly routine review. Member Mallar asked about the proposed buffer shown on the plan. Mr. Day noted it was a private deed restriction, a negative easement. It called for no buildings in the specified buffer and no cutting of larger trees. Member Williams moved to approve the division of Lot # 4A into two lots, both under Final Plan Revision and Site Location of Development act approval. Member Boothby seconded and the Board voted to five in favor and one opposed to approve the final plan revision and the modification to the Site Location of Development Act permit. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 3: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. Chairman Kenney called for a motion on the Minutes of February 2nd. Member Boothby moved approval of the Minutes with a correction to the second paragraph on page 2, to read “The second condition has to do with the … Plan.” Member Williams seconded the motion which passed unanimously. There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 7:26.