HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-02-15 Planning Board Minutes
PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 15, 2011
MINUTES
Board Members Present: Miles Theeman, Vice Chairman
Paul Bolin
Charles Boothby, Alternate Member
Doug Damon
John Kenney
John Miller
Andy Sturgeon
Julie Williams
City Staff Present: David Gould
Paul Nicklas
Lynn Johnson
Vice Chairman Theeman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. It was the
consensus of the Board Members to defer the Election of Officers for 2011 until their
next meeting.
Vice Chairman Theeman indicated that the Board would consider the Approval of
Minutes item out of order.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Item No. 2: Planning Board Approval of Minutes.
Vice Chairman Theeman indicated that the Minutes of the February 1, 2011
Meeting were ready for Board consideration. Mr. Sturgeon moved to approve the
Minutes of the February 1, 2011 Planning Board Meeting. Mr. Damon seconded the
motion, which passed by a vote of 7 to 0.
2
NEW BUSINESS
Item No. 1: Planning Board Review of Findings and Conclusions -
TJS Realty, LLC.
Ms. Williams indicated that there might be the appearance of a conflict of
interest given that she is a manager at ERA Dawson Bradford and that is where Mr. Joe
Simpson, who is an applicant, is an independent contractor.
Mr. Sturgeon moved that Ms. Williams does have a conflict of interest. Mr. Bolin
seconded the motion. The Board voted 6 to 0 in favor.
Vice Chairman Theeman asked if there were any Members of the Board who
previously voted to deny this application who would move to reconsider the application.
Mr. Miller made a motion to reconsider the application. Mr. Damon seconded the
motion.
Mr. Theeman asked for discussion. Mr. Damon indicated that he would like to
have more discussion regarding the areas that concerned him which included traffic
dumping into the existing housing development, the queuing up of cars for bus traffic,
and where the children of the community get to the bus without potentially going
through 60, 75 or 100 car traffic movements coming and going to the bus.
Vice Chairman Theeman asked for comments from the Planning Officer.
Planning Officer Gould indicated that Assistant City Solicitor Nicklas was present if the
Board had procedural questions. Mr. Gould indicated that relative to reconsideration,
the Board could reconsider without any additional input discussion and clarification of
details; or the Board could entertain additional information relative to the application.
For that process to occur in due fairness, the information would have to submitted to
the City and would need to be advertised for a meeting at some point when all the
parties could be available to consider any new information that would be submitted.
Mr. Bolin said that it is his understanding that the Board has 30 days in which to
make a decision. He asked if this would require a special meeting. Vice Chairman
Theeman indicated that he, Mr. Nicklas and Mr. Gould discussed this potential. He said
that he would like to vote on the motion and then have a separate discussion about
whether or not the Board will provide the opportunity for new evidence or simply take
the application based on the original information.
Vice Chairman Theeman indicated that he would entertain a motion to reconsider
the Board’s previous action regarding conditional use, site development plan, and
developmental subdivision plan to construct one duplex building, four, four-unit
buildings, and six, six-unit buildings for a total of 54 two-story, single-family attached
3
residential units located off Greenfield Avenue and Grandview Avenue in a low density
residential district. TJS Realty, LLC, applicant. Mr. Sturgeon seconded the motion. The
Board voted 6 to 0 in favor of the motion.
Vice Chairman Theeman indicated that the second item for consideration is
whether or not the Board wishes to allow the opportunity for new evidence to be
submitted or if they wish to reconsider the application based on the original submission.
Mr. Sturgeon asked for Staff’s opinion on the Board’s time frame. Planning
Officer Gould indicated that he did not perceive a time threat. What Staff is most
concerned about is adequate notice and when Staff receives information so that it can
be advertised and notice to all the parties can be provided.
Mr. Sturgeon asked if the Board decides that they want new evidence, would
there be time enough for it to be on the agenda for the next Planning Board Meeting.
Planning Officer Gould explained that when the items are submitted will determine
when it goes on an agenda. Mr. Sturgeon indicated that he felt that the Board should
let the applicant know what information they are looking for.
Mr. Bolin indicated that his original objection remains under Section 165-9 (4)
specifically relating to extent and intensity information
Mr. Miller indicated that while it is not presented as a condition, he would like to
see the pedestrian access issue clarified to give pedestrians easier access and safe
access from the development to wherever the bus pick up may be. Mr. Kenney agreed.
Vice Chairman Theeman, based on the Board’s comments, indicated that he
would entertain a motion to treat this resubmission as a new application with any
additional evidence that the applicant wishes to provide.
Attorney Charles Gilbert asked to raise a point of order. Assistant City Solicitor
Nicklas indicated that a point of order is not appropriate. Attorney Gilbert, who is
representing Darryl Lyon an abutting property owner, indicated that he wished to point
out that reconsideration implies that you are going to have a new hearing on the
existing application. If it is a new application then the first one is denied and the
second one goes forward. That’s the point of order.
Mr. Sturgeon indicated that he did not think that this is new as the Board has
voted to reopen this and ask for additional information. Mr. Sturgeon made a motion
that the Board should entertain this with the new information that was discussed. He
asked if the Board should list all of the information that it would like to see clarified.
Planning Officer Gould indicated that the Board has attempted to give guidance to the
applicant of things that they think would be beneficial to the project.
4
Mr. Sturgeon said that he was not going to finish his motion because he did not
think it is clear to the applicant what the Board is asking for and he felt that they
needed some clarification.
Mr. Gould indicated that Staff will review the things that the applicant submits
and the engineering office will review it to see if it meets ordinance requirements. To
prejudge that to meet a certain test now would not be appropriate. This is additional
information to review and consider. There is no predetermination as to whether or not
what is submitted the Board will find meets the standards. This is additional
information that gave the Board concern.
Vice Chairman Theeman indicated that he heard Board Member concerns about
the intensity of the site use and the validity of the traffic study, he heard concerns
about the impact of the proposal on the culture of the neighborhood and whether or
not this proposal fits into the existing culture of the neighborhood. He heard concerns
again about the traffic issues relative to bus pick up, general pedestrian traffic flow, and
the availability of pedestrian walkways along the long road into the proposal. He also
indicated that there were general concerns about the consistency of the new project
with the existing neighborhood.
Mr. Damon said that he didn’t know if the word “culture” could necessarily be
defined or corrected to a standard. He said that his concern is that there is a 17-unit
subdivision there and this project would add to that a lot of traffic that it is not used to
and is not designed for nor prepared for. That culture of walking back and forth to the
bus may disappear in this environment. He would like to see more study on this and
how it can be repaired and accommodated.
Mr. Sturgeon made a motion that the Board reconsider the approval of TJS
Realty, LLC, for a 54-unit, two-story, single-family attached development for approval at
the next Planning Board meeting and would hope that the applicant would submit
sufficient additional information to address the concerns of the Board. Mr. Miller
seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Vice Chairman Theeman noted that given the fact that the Board is reconsidering
this application there is no need for the Board to review the draft Findings and
Conclusions from the previous meeting.
There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 7:20
p.m.