Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-07-11 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF JULY 11, 2017 MINUTES Board Members Present: John Kenney, Chairman Charles Boothby Nelson Durgin Phyllis Guerette Steve Hicks Chuck LeBlanc, Alternate Member City Staff Present: David G. Gould John Theriault Paul Nicklas Sean Gambrel PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CONDITIONAL USE – SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 410 Stillwater Avenue – 410 Stillwater, LLC & LTI, Inc., applicant Proposes to fill and grade the area of 410 Stillwater Avenue, Map-Lot R55-012D, and R55-012, (total area of 51,000 sq. ft.) in a Low Density Residential and Resource Protection District. Chairman Kenney Opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant or their representative to make a brief presentation of the project. Tim Brocheau from CES presented the application. Mr. Brocheau stated that the application was to fill the site using soils from an adjacent site that had been previously approved and is currently beginning construction. The site was previously cleared of shrubs and brush several weeks ago but no fill has been placed. After filling is complete, site will be graded and seeded and then left alone to revert to its natural state. 2 Planning Officer David Gould advised the Board that the property was in both Resource Protection (RP) and a Low Density Residential (LDR) zones. Mr Gould confirmed that the adjacent project had been approved previously and that the developer there was looking for a nearby place to put excavated soils which were not suitable for construction. The applicant began clearing vegetation on the parcel before a permit was obtained and City staff instructed them to stop work on the site until a permit was obtained. Mr. Gould then presented the Board with correspondence that he had received from Sally Jones, Lucy Quimby, and Catherine Schmitt, as well as meeting notes from the most recent Marsh-Mall Commission meeting where this project was discussed at length, composed by Lucy Quimby. Chairman Kenney opened the floor for public comments in favor of the application. No member of the public spoke in favor. Chairman Kenney opened the floor for public comments in opposition to the application. Hope Brugonier spoke against the project. Ms. Brugonier served on the Marsh-Mall Commission for a number of years and during that time, proposals for this site were discouraged from developing this area. She expressed concern that the Commission’s role had been diminished in recent years, leading to this situation. She would like the Council to require that applications in the overlay zone come before the Marsh Mall Commission. She stated that this particular area was significant for bird habitat and that local birders find more bird species in the adjacent marsh than anywhere else in the City. This site is important for nesting habitat. She hopes that this application will at least be delayed. Libby Norton also spoke against the proposal. She asked if this work was legal prior to getting a permit and if so, if there would be penalties for doing so. If there is not, then what is the point of permitting? She feels that this action has caused damage on the site. Trish Hayes also spoke in opposition to the project. She stated that she uses the area regularly and that proximity to this open space was one of the reasons she moved to the adjacent neighborhood. The trail is used often by many people. Generally she has been frustrated by recent problems being able to access and use the trail and hopes that the City can improve the situation. Christina Diebold spoke in opposition to the project. She stated that she was upset that this work was done without a permit and was upset that the applicant chose not to consult with the Marsh-Mall Commission as part of this process. She feels that this is a highly-prized area of town and is disappointed to 3 see negative impacts here. Chair Kenney asked the Board if they had questions for the applicant. Member Boothby asked for clarification of whether the applicant “cleared brush” or “clearcut” the lot. Mr. Brocheau stated that the applicant only cleared brush and there were very few plants cut that could be considered trees. Member Boothby asked if the applicant thought there would be any problem cutting vegetation in this area without a permit. Mr. Brocheau responded that he believed that the City code supported doing this action without a permit. This is regularly done on other sites in preparation for construction. Member Boothby asked who did the wetlands delineation on the site and when, and if the clearing was done 75 feet back from the wetland edge. Mr. Brocheau responded that CES did the delineation and that it had been verified in the past few days, and that clearing was done outside of the 75 foot wetlands buffer. Member Durgin asked it all of the clearing was done on private land. Mr. Brocheau responded that yes, this was all done on private land. He also indicated that there was no road constructed for the cutting or for the proposed filling, just a small ramp to give machinery access to the site from the adjacent trail. Otherwise there was no soil disturbance. Mr. Brocheau also stated that the trail is on private land and that the only easement granted to the city here is for sewer maintenance; that public recreational access is not part of that easement. Owner is providing this access currently but it is not legally required. Chair Kenney stated that clearing is only allowed without a permit in certain zones, and that clearing in a Resource Protection zone would require a permit, so the applicant’s actions were not allowed. Mr. Brocheau responded that he had not interpreted the code that way, and that the City Code Enforcement office had indicated to him that clearing in this area was allowed. Member Durgin asked if Code Enforcement staff had been to the site. Mr. Brocheau responded that they had. Member Hicks asked is this work had any impact to the trail. Mr. Brocheau responded that there was no impact to the trail. He reminded Mr. Hicks that the trail was located on private property of the applicant. Mr. Hicks asked how much fil laws proposed for the site. Mr. Brocheau responded that roughly 5,000 - 6,000 yards were proposed. 4 Member Boothby verified that the soils proposed for filling on the site were not suitable for building. Mr. Brocheau responded that was true. Member Boothby asked why the applicant hadn’t gone before the Mall- Marsh Commission. Mr. Brocheau responded that they had. Planning Staff Gould clarified that the applicant hadn’t consulted the commission following the usual methods, but had attended a recent meeting of the Marsh – Mall Commission where the project was discussed at length. Mr. Gould has provided the board with notes from that meeting. Chair Kenney asked Mr. Brocheau why he thought the work was permitted if the City had told them to stop work on the site. Mr. Brocheau responded that the City hadn’t actually stopped work, because the clearing had already been completed and that was all they had wished to do at the time. Chair Kenney asked why the applicant hadn’t gone to the Marsh-Mall Commission prior to clearing the site, and as part of this application. Mr. Brocheau responded that he had thought this was a minor proposal and it wasn’t necessary. Chair Kenney asked why the area of the site that is zoned Resource Protection was being used for fill when areas zoned Low Density Residential could be used instead. Mr. Brocheau responded that the topography of the site made the proposed area most sensible to him for the fill. Member Durgin asked if the applicant had done “work” on the site. Mr. Brocheau responded that they had only done clearing, no construction or filling. City Engineer John Theriault stated that he had recently met with the applicant and Code Enforcement staff on the site. The wetland was re-delineated and had not changed greatly from the previous delineation. He stated that he believed that the applicant thought that clearing was allowed without a permit, and that he and Code Enforcement staff agreed. Chair Kenney reminded the Board that the previously approved storage building was a separate matter and it should have no bearing on this application and vice-versa. Chair Kenney stated that the approval conditions for grading & filling were generally not applicable to the project – but that there were special conditions for grading and filling activities in the Resource Protection zone, described in section 165-54. Specifically point (D) which specifies that there shall be no impacts to wildlife habitat. 5 Chair Kenney went on to say he would like more information on the restoration of the site and had particular concerns about invasives establishing themselves on the site. He also was curious about what the penalty would be for doing this action without a permit. Planning Staff Gould reminded that Board that enforcement and penalties were not in their purview and that Code Enforcement staff was charged with this duty and was aware of the situation. Assistant Solicitor Paul Nicklas clarified that yes there are penalties and that the city does utilize them when needed, however it was not the duty of this Board to determine if penalties are appropriate. Member Guerette verified that the site had already been cleared and asked the applicant what they might do if the fill permit was denied. Mr. Brocheau indicated that they might clear additional areas of the site and attempt to fill those areas instead. Chair Kenney asked the applicant to describe in more detail the restoration plan for the site after grading. Member Boothby asked if the intent was just to move inadequate soils from the neighboring site, and to then revegetate it and leave it be. Mr. Brocheau responded that was the plan. They intend to revegetate it with a grass, legumes & wildflower seed mix. This area was similarly cleared several years ago and revegetated in a similar way. The current conditions are a result of those actions. Chair Kenney expressed his disappointment that the areas of the property zoned Low Density Residential were not proposed for the fill and was not satisfied with the restoration plan described by the applicant. Member Guerette stated that the applicant could return with a plan for filling in the Low Density Residential area and a more thorough restoration plan. Member LeBlanc inquired if the wetland boundaries had changed since the original delineation. Mr. Theriault responded that the wetland had increased in size by roughly five feet since the earlier delineation, and that the fill area should be adjusted accordingly. Chair Kenney asked Mr. Gould if the Planning Office approved of this as a conditional use. Mr. Gould responded that the Planning Office approved. Chair Kenney read the conditional approval standards for grading & filling in a Resource Protection Zone and reiterated that he has concerns about impact to wildlife habitat. Mr. Brocheau responded that he thought the revegetation of the 6 area might diversify the vegetation of the area. Chair Kenney responded that the applicant should provide support for that claim from a Wildlife Biologist. Member LeBlanc expressed his disappointment that the Marsh-Mall Commission was not consulted in advance of this application to the Planning Board, but did not believe that this was done in a nefarious manner. He would like to see an updated plan showing the new wetland boundary and the new 75- foot buffer before he could approve the application. Mr. Brocheau said he was willing to update the plan if that was a condition of the approval. Member Hicks moved to approve the item. Member LeBlanc seconded the motion. The Board voted 3 in favor, 3 against the application. Members Durgin, Hicks and LeBlanc voted in favor, while members Boothby, Guerette and Kenney voted against. Four votes in favor are required for an application to be approved; therefore this application for Site Development was denied. Members Boothby, Guerette & Kenney each cited the conditional approval standards for filling & grading in a Resource Protection District, Section 165-54(D), as grounds for their votes in opposition. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2. Review of Previous Minutes Staff Provided meeting minutes for the May 2, May 16, June 6 and June 20, 2017 meetings. Member Boothby moved the approval of all the presented minutes with a few minor grammar and spelling corrections. Member Hicks seconded the motion. Minutes with the specified amendments were approved unanimously. There being no further items before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:10pm.