Loading...
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.