Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-02-15 Planning Board Minutes (2) Bangor Planning Board Findings & Conclusions RE: Application of TJS Realty LLC DATE: Hearing – February 1, 2011 Findings Issued – February 15, 2011 The application of TJS Realty, LLC for Conditional Use, Site Development Plan and Developmental Subdivision Plan approvals to construct one duplex building, 4 four-unit buildings, and 6 six-unit buildings for a total of 54, two-story single-family attached residential units (Chapter 165, Section 165-99 D (1)) located off of Greenfield Avenue and Grandview Avenue in a Low Density Residential District came before the Bangor Planning Board on February 1, 2011. The planning board hereby issues these Findings & Conclusions, for the reasons contained herein, the applications for Conditional Use, Site Development Plan and Developmental Subdivision Plan approvals are denied. Planning Board Members present at the February 1, 2011 hearing were Chairman Alice Brown, Member Paul Bolin, Member Douglas Damon, Member John Kenney, Member John Miller, Member Andrew Sturgeon, Member Miles Theeman and Alternate Member Julie Williams. Present for the February 1, 2011 hearing in support of the applicant were Attorneys P. Andrew Hamilton and Jonathan Pottle with Eaton Peabody, the applicant Joseph Simpson, TJS Realty, Inc., Traffic Engineer Victor Smith, Environmental Specialist Roger St. Armand, and Engineers Don Becker, Toby Michaud and Travis Noyes with CES, Inc. Members of the public participating in the Public Hearing in favor of the proposed project included Mike Woods, Woods of Maine. Members of the public participation in the Public Hearing in opposition to the proposed project included Daryl Lyons, 25 Greenfield Avenue, Thomas Higgins, 1040 Essex Street, Alan Hunter, 20 Greenfield Avenue, Ellen Hunter, 20 Greenfield Avenue, Kenneth Carr, 994 Essex Street, and Matei Ilina, 5 Greenfield Avenue. A letter submitted by Raymond and Carol Michaud was read into the record. List of items submitted by applicant in support of application? Application for Site Development Plan, Conditional Use and Developmental Subdivision Plan. Findings? Conclusions Specific conditions use standards of the Low Density Residential District: a. Article XVI, Land Development Permit, describes the process of an application for a Site Development Plan and a Conditional Use. The Board may grant approval of a Conditional Use if it meets four Standard Conditions in § 165-9 that are: (1) The development standards and use conditions of the district in which the property in question is located have been complied with. Conditional uses, which also require a variance of development or other standards, shall not be granted. It was the conclusion of the Board Members that this standard has been met. (2) The proposed use will not create unreasonable traffic congestion or hazardous conditions on contiguous or adjacent streets. (3) The proper operation of the conditional use will be ensured by providing and maintaining adequate and appropriate utilities, fire protection, drainage, parking and loading, and other necessary site improvements. (4) The proposed use, although not appropriate for every site in the zone, is appropriate for the location for which it is sought because the proposed use will conform to the general character of the development in the immediate area as to architectural style, building bulk and extent and intensity of site use. As to architectural style, the applicant must show that the proposed structure conforms to the exterior façade, rooflines, shape and materials used on buildings in the immediate area. As to building bulk, the applicant shall cause his/her proposed building to conform to the height and existing ratio of land area to building area for other properties in the immediate area. For purposes of this chapter, the term “immediate area” shall include all properties located within the same block and within 500 feet of the site of the proposed use. Reasons Stated for Board Denial of TJS Realty application Brown: The Board is going to need to go down, they need to go down and each state the reasons why. I’ll start with. . and say that under the intensity of site use and the traffic study that those are the two areas that I feel that this has not met the criteria. Damon While I feel as I said before that it is well engineered, I still think that the measure of the culture of the neighborhood is so, will be so radically changed that it does not fit the use of the neighborhood and therefore, does not belong in this situation as it is laid out now. Miller Although that I do feel that it was well engineered, and a lot of detail has gone into this plan, I still have issues with access, traffic issues that really have not been addressed in this plan as far as bus pick up, school children, general pedestrian traffic flow. I think those issues could have been explained a little bit better and gone into better detail. Bolin I expressed my reservations earlier with 165-9, Section 4, regarding extent and intensity. Those are my primary concerns. I feel it’s not consistent with the abutting neighborhood. Brown Thank you.