Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-02-01 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1, 2011 MINUTES Board Members Present: Allie Brown, Chairman Paul Bolin Doug Damon John Kenney John Miller Andy Sturgeon Miles Theeman Julie Williams, Alternate Member City Staff Present: David Gould Jim Ring Art Morgan Jen Boothroyd Lynn Johnson Chairman Brown called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 1: To amend the Land Development Code by changing a parcel of land located at 109 Sidney Street from Urban Residence One District to Urban Residence Two District. Said parcel of land containing approximately 10,530 sq. ft. Joseph Kacer, applicant. C.O. # 11-055. Chairman Brown reopened the Public Hearing which was continued from the Board’s January 18, 2011 Meeting. It was noted that after discussion of the proposed use by the applicant, the existing uses in the area, and the unique topography of this portion of Sidney and Walter Streets, the Planning Board voted to conduct a site visit on January 22, 2011 to review existing conditions in the area. 2 Mr. Joseph Kacer, spoke in favor of the proposed zone change request. He indicated that he was seeking the change in zoning in order to construct a three-unit building on this lot. Mr. Kacer noted there were other multi unit buildings in the immediate area and he would like to construct a three-unit building as would conform to URD-2 standards. Mr. Mike Gleason, who spoke at the previous meeting, indicated that he is in favor of the proposed zone change request. Mr. Gleason indicated that the two most positive additions to this area were the Shaw’s development and the Shell Gas Station development along Main Street. He said that he felt that the applicant’s request would be another positive for the neighborhood. No one spoke in opposition. Planning Officer David Gould indicated that the City had a substantial policy change in the land use of this area, and most of the core of the City. Formerly, single-family homes were being converted to multi-family units and putting a strain on older neighborhoods. A large number of parcels in the City’s core were down zoned to single-family use. Mr. Kacer’s permits had expired decades ago and to rezone the property to URD-2 is inconsistent with the City’s land use and zoning policy. Mr. Gould indicated while he did support the Walter Street request as it eliminated a blight in the neighborhood, the present application does not. Mr. Gould noted further he would be at a loss to relate to the next applicant what the Board would support since it’s deviating from the land use policy without a clear indication of reasoning behind it. Mr. Sturgeon moved that the Planning Board recommend to the City Council approval of the zone change request at 109 Sidney Street from Urban Residence One District to Urban Residence Two District for a 10,530 sq. ft. parcel. Joseph Kacer, applicant. C.O. # 11-055. Mr. Bolin seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 5 to 2. Item No. 2: 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. TJS Realty, LLC, applicant. Mr. Bolin disclosed for the record that he formerly resided on Greenfield Avenue and asked if the Board felt that he had a conflict. It was the consensus of the Board that Mr. Bolin did not have a conflict of interest as he does not have a monetary interest in this project. 3 Chairman Brown opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation by the applicant. Attorney, P. Andrew Hamilton along with Joe Simpson, the applicant, Mr. Don Becker, Mr. Toby Michaud, and Mr. Travis Noyes with CES, Inc., Mr. Victor Smith, a Traffic Engineer, Mr. Roger St. Armand an Environmental Specialist, and Attorney Jonathan Pottle with Eaton Peabody, were present in support of this application. Mr. Hamilton explained that the principals of TJS Realty, LLC are Tracy and Joe Simpson. Mr. Joe Simpson with TJS Realty, LLC, indicated that he is a real estate agent and they wish to develop an entry level housing complex on this site which they envision for first time homeowners. Mr. Simpson said that there is a market in Bangor for this type of housing. Mr. Hamilton indicated that this is an 11 acre parcel. Most of the development proposed will be built off of a reserved right-of-way located off of Greenfield Avenue and a duplex unit will be constructed off of Grandview Avenue near the existing electric power lines. He indicated that the land area next to Arctic Brook will remain as open space. Mr. Hamilton discussed the lot and its proximity to schools, Prentiss Woods, Arctic Brook and the abutting housing development. Mr. Hamilton explained in detail the steps that have been taken to protect the wildlife in this area by eliminating asphalt curbs which would impede travel by the animals, to avoid development near vernal pools and mitigate effects upon the Arctic Brook watershed, to provide to the extent possible wooded buffers, and to use open bottomed arch culverts to maintain the natural condition of the stream bed. Mr. Hamilton went through the Conditional Use Standards indicating that the proposed development met every standard in the Low Density Residential as it does not create unreasonable traffic congestion, it has access to public services including water, sewer, and fire protection, and the proposed development is either similar to or less dense than that in the surrounding area. All of the procedural and submittal requirements have been met. The traffic study that was submitted in support of this application was reviewed by both the City Engineer and the Planning Office and demonstrates that the project will not create unreasonable traffic congestion or hazardous conditions on neighboring streets. Mr. Don Becker, P.E., with CES, Inc. addressed the Site Development Plan aspects of the project indicating that it met the standards for submittals and for a low impact development. The concept for a low impact development per dwelling unit is significantly less than a traditional single-family attached subdivision. The buildings are proposed to be 28 feet high which is the same height as the two-story homes in the abutting neighborhood. The average building is proposed to be 2750 sq. ft. which is the same footprint but this project only disturbs about 8 one hundredths of an acre per dwelling unit whereas the Darbro Subdivision impacted over 6/10 of an acre per dwelling unit. The project is impacting th land at 1/8 the pace of the traditional single-family detached subdivision. Bangor only has so much land and the demand for dwelling units is fixed. Therefore, if they want to prevent sprawl and save more land you have to try to impact less land per dwelling unit. Combine this with the fact that there is a demand for this type of housing this project is considered a low impact development. Mr. Becker explained that they are using LID (Low Impact Development) standards in that they provided wooded buffers where possible, provided a bio 4 retention system with numerous grassed underdrain soil filters, and provided a tree box filter. This will allow the runoff from the site to mimic natural conditions and deliver stormwater runoff to the stream. When the Darbro subdivision was developed, it used the entire acreage for lots and none of it was left as open space. 36% of this site will remain in a natural state. He noted that they have been working with the Department of Environmental Protection who has indicated support for the project. This type of development sometimes promotes a good sense of community among the people who live there. Mr. Victor Smith, a Traffic Engineer, discussed proposed traffic as a result of this project. They gathered data in November, 2010 during a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic times. They did turning movements at Greenfield Avenue and at Grandview Avenue where they intersect with Essex Street. The intersections of Greenfield and Essex Street and Grandview and Essex Street are presently operating at a Level of Service C. After the development they will continue to operate at a Level of Service C. There is no change. The delay increases due to the development are less than .7 seconds per vehicle with the average being around 1 second per vehicle (average delay increase due to the development). The traffic on Greenfield presently is at 2% of the capacity of the roadway. After this development, it will operate at 5% of the actual capacity of the roadway. This represents a minimal increase for that roadway. The developments road intersection of Greenfield Avenue at the intersection of LaBarca Lane (which is a dead-end road meaning that there is not a lot of thru traffic) is residential traffic thru the neighborhood, therefore, minimizing the amount of traffic. The location has sufficient sight distance for the 25 MPH speed limit and Greenfield Avenue intersects Essex Street at a 90% angle which is the preferred angle for entering onto any roadway. They looked at the High Crash Locations based on MDOT data and there are no high crash locations in the area. It is their opinion that this development will not be increasing any hazardous or unreasonable traffic congestion. A two-lane 25 MPH highway (Greenfield Avenue) is capable of handling 1,000 vehicles per hour. After the development, they feel it will carry 45 vehicles during the peak hour which is not close to the actual capacity. Mr. Bolin questioned with 17 single-family homes presently being served by Greenfield Avenue plus 54 attached residential units how would there be only 25 peak hour trips. Mr. Smith explained that the peak hour trips running through Greenfield Avenue are going to go from 17 trips to 45 trips. As a percentage of the capacity of this roadway it is going from approximately 2% to 5% of the actual capacity. Mr. Roger St. Armand indicated that the project was designed to avoid and minimize environmental aspects. The applicant obtained a State Stormwater Permit in September 2010 from the Department of Environmental Protection and they submitted a Stormwater Management Plan. The Department of Environmental Protection has reviewed this project and found that the Stormwater Management Plan, as designed, satisfies the State Stormwater Rules and a Permit has been issued. In addition, they have received approval of an NRPA Permit from the State, and the Army Corps of Engineers has issued a letter indicating that the project complies with the requirements for issuance of a Federal Section 5 404 Permit. As soon as the Federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Dept. has completed its review of the project, they are expecting to issue a Permit. Mr. Bolin had further questions regarding the trip generation figures. Mr. Gould explained that you need to look at the land use and the trip generation for that land use. The primary peak hour generator is a single-family house. It is estimated that a single-family home generates 10 trips a day, one in the peak hour. Multi-family and attached residential uses don’t have the same level of activity as a single-family home so the trip generation isn’t the same. That is why there is a difference. The ITE (Institute for Traffic Engineers) Manual says multi-family and attached residential uses don’t have the same trip generation as a single-family home. Mr. Victor Smith discussed the ITE Manual which is updated every 2 or 3 years and gives the trip generation for multiple land uses. The townhouses that are intended to be built do not generate, based upon the 100s of studies that have been done across the country, the same amount of traffic that a single-family home does. It is approximately .5 in the peak hour vs. 1 for a single-family home. He said that he believed that the reason is that it is smaller per unit, the single-family dwelling typically has 2 or 3 kids and 3 or 4 cars where the townhouse doesn’t. Mr. Sturgeon asked if the vernal pool was classified significant. Mr. Hamilton explained that under the Federal 404 Permitting Program it isn’t whether it is significant or not significant it’s whether there is critical wildlife habitat. Mr. St Armand indicated that they have the necessary State permits. The state required a 250’ buffer around the vernal pool. Because there is only 9% impact, it was permitted under the Permit by Rule process. There is no mitigation required. Mr. Damon asked if there are any prohibitions from the State Permits regarding the use of salt and chlorine for road maintenance and snow removal and where does the snow go. Mr. Becker indicated that they are not restricted from the use of sand or salt and all of the runoff goes into their treatment system. Chairman Brown asked what protections are insured when there are homeowners living there who decide they don’t want these animals in their back yard. You’re going to great lengths to protect them and the homeowners may not want it. Mr. St. Armand indicated that the wildlife habitat that they are focused on in this area is the amphibian wildlife – frogs and salamanders. There is certainly going to be activity with the larger animals. Mr. Bolin asked how much of a buffer there is to the neighboring houses. Mr. Hamilton indicated approximately 300 feet to 400 feet. Chairman Brown then opened up the Public Hearing to comments from proponents. Mr. Mike Wood, 96 Briarwood Drive, spoke in favor of this development. He indicated that 6 he developed lots on an adjacent parcel. Where he lives, he has a condominium project within 75’ of his backyard and has not experienced any problems. As no one else spoke in favor, Chairman Brown asked for opponents. Mr. Darryl Lyon, 25 Greenfield Avenue, asked the Board to delay any decision at this meeting to allow the neighbors to comprehend this project. He indicated that he was concerned that the project would create unreasonable traffic congestion, that the traffic study was an abbreviated traffic sample, and he disputed the numbers in the study. He said he was concerned about traffic hazards for the school children as there are no sidewalks proposed, and the project does not conform to the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Tom Higgins, 1040 Essex Street, said that he felt that a 54-unit development will change their neighborhood. There are no sidewalks on Essex Street and the school bus picks up the kids on Essex Street so any children will have to walk down this development onto Greenfield Avenue to Essex Street. A starter home development will have an impact on the neighborhood. If this were a single-family dwelling project he would not be so concerned. He indicated that he felt that this project was a high density residential use and not a low density residential use and asked how this could be considered a low density residential use. Mr. Higgins indicated that there are a lot of large deer and bear that he has seen there. He said that he hoped that the Board would consider something different than this type of project in this neighborhood. Mr. Alan Hunter, 20 Greenfield Avenue, indicated that he felt that this was not a good development. He was concerned about development being this close to the Arctic Brook Watershed and said that he could not understand why such an enormous development would be allowed to be constructed in this watershed. He said that he was not convinced that the access location was the best, it would increase traffic in the area and in front of his house, and it would take away the tranquility in the neighborhood. He also expressed his concern that if the project is allowed that it will affect his property values. Mr. Kenneth Carr, 994 Essex Street, indicated that his property backs up to the project development. He said that deer are in this area every night. He questioned where the runoff from Arctic Brook will go as it fills into his back lawn. He questioned where it will go if this development is approved. Mr. Matei Ilina, 5 Greenfield Avenue, indicated that he, too, was against this project. He showed the Board pictures of his property after a rainstorm in 2010 and was very concerned that this development would add more water to his property. He said that he was concerned about increased traffic and he disagreed with the traffic study. Ms. Ellen Hunter, 20 Greenfield Avenue, noted all of the various types of wildlife in this area. She pointed out that the plan is proposing a mailbox area off of Greenfield Avenue for 52 mailboxes. The turnaround area is small and she asked why this would be allowed. She noted that the Holiday Park mobile home park has a separate building and more area. She 7 said that she felt that this project would have an impact on their neighborhood, it is not compatible with the neighborhood, and it would put stress on Arctic Brook. Planning Officer Gould read into the record a letter from Raymond and Carol Michaud, 1026 Essex Street, in opposition to this project. (A copy is attached and made a part of the Minutes.) As no one else spoke, Chairman Brown closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Theeman asked if only one traffic count was done. Mr. Hamilton indicated that there were two done. A second count was repeated on a Tuesday when school was in session and included both an a.m. and a p.m. count. Mr. Theeman asked about the proposed 20’ private road. City Engineer Ring indicated that 20’ was adequate for access on a private road. Mr. Theeman asked about sidewalks and the mailbox kiosk. Mr. Becker indicated that the proposed mail box location is designated by the Post Office. Board Members discussed the location of the mail boxes, the proposed sewer easement, and the stormwater drainage system. Mr. Damon asked if the innovative stormwater runoff filtration devices wear out. Mr. Ring indicated that he felt that the best stormwater management devices (BMP’s) are those that are the most passive and require the least amount of direct maintenance. These devices need to be inspected and any stormwater permit that is obtained now has very specific requirements for periodic inspection and reporting. That reporting comes to the City. Mr. Ring indicated that he felt that the natural stormwater treatment features like marshes and buffers are low maintenance and are better systems. Mr. Damon indicated that he had received a briefing from Wendy Warren on the Arctic Brook watershed being at 29% impaired and he asked Mr. Ring if he could give some reassurance that this project is not going to compound the impairment. Mr. Ring indicated that the impairment numbers were actually lower more around the 10 or 12% range. If there is a very large development, there are required offsets which are monetary offsets. The size of this project would not warrant a monetary offset. The Chapter 500 Rules require a more comprehensive view of what really needs to be achieved to minimize risk. Mr. Bolin asked for guidance in reviewing the conditional use standard under Section 165-9 (4). Mr. Gould indicated that the standard is to evaluate the architecture that is proposed as to its consistency with other buildings within 500 feet of the project. The intensity of use in terms of the amount of lot coverage and the amount of impervious surface is to determine if it is radically different than what you would find in other developments. Mr. Theeman asked if it would be possible to pave one side of the access road where the shoulder is to get a 2-foot walkway. He said that because of the way that Mr. Hamilton described the project as being in proximity to schools, being a first time homeowner opportunity and being moderately priced homes for young people made him believe that 8 there will be children, bicycles and things that get in the ways of cars. He asked if the applicant would agree to adding a paved 2 foot walkway as a condition of approval. Chairman Brown informed the Board that it has 20 days from the Public Hearing to make a decision. She then asked for Staff comments. Planning Officer Gould indicated that attached residential use is a conditional use in a Low Density Residential District (LDR). He noted other attached residential projects within the City that have been before the Board including: Orchard Hills on Broadway, Fox Run off of Ohio Street which is 48 units of attached residential; the Streamside development off of Finson Road which has 32 units of attached residential, and the most recent one – Meadowbrook Ridge on Mt. Hope Avenue which consists of 46 units. The neighboring Darbro Subdivision is also zoned Low Density Residential. The mobile home park across the street with hundreds of units is the entity that drove the construction of sewer through this site to serve the mobile home park. Because the sewer was constructed in this area it allowed for the single-family Darbro subdivision in the late 1980’s. Those lots are primarily ½ acre in size and the density, as built, is approximately 2 units per acre. The LDR at that time allowed a house on a 9,000 sq. ft. lot. The District standards today allow for a 12,000 sq. ft. lot and the cluster developments to about 3.5 units per acre, and attached residential at 5 units per acre. What would be allowed under High Density zoning would be 10 plus units per acre so the 5 unit per acre is on the low end. Neighboring properties above on Essex Street do not have access to public sewer. While this development is low density, it is denser that it was before, but certainly within the guidelines. Mr. Gould explained that analysis of traffic studies peak traffic hours. If the traffic works in those peak traffic hours it will work at any hour. The State (MDOT) would say if you have a Level of Service D, it’s acceptable. Some of the movements in the area are operating and Levels of Service B and A. On a traffic scale there are no real traffic issues and the development would not make a measurable impact. However, this is going to be a big change from what is there, but it will not create unreasonable traffic congestion or hazardous conditions on adjacent streets. Mr. Gould discussed the conditional use standards and indicate that Staff found that the project met the criteria. He noted that the loop at the end of the small drive off of Grandview Avenue came about because the Fire Prevention people wanted to make sure that they were able to get emergency vehicles turned around on the site. Mr. Gould indicated that this is an Urban Impaired Stream. The City has five of them and the standards don’t prohibit more development in these streams but one needs to meet stricter standards in terms of controlling stormwater quality. Staff also recommended that the applicant submit an executed copy of a “homeowners” document noting the details of private sewer, access and homeowners details, acceptable to the City Solicitor’s Office. Mr. Sturgeon moved that the Planning Board approve the Conditional Use, Site Development Plan and Development Subdivision Plan to construct one duplex building, 4, four-unit buildings and 6, six-unit buildings for a total of 54, two-story single-family attached 9 residential units, Chapter 165-99D (1) located off of Greenfield Avenue and Grandview Avenue in a Low Density Residential District. – TJS Realty, Inc., applicant, with two conditions: one that an executed condominium document as satisfactory to the City Solicitor’s Office be submitted; and two that a walkway of sufficient width as agreed to by the City Engineer be installed on either side of the access road from the intersection of LaBarca Lane and Greenfield Avenue along the access road to the intersection of the individual driveways of the condominium development. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. Mr. Sturgeon said that the testimony presented at the meeting indicated that the development meets or exceeds the minimum standards of the City of Bangor. The development has been reviewed and approved by the Corps of Army Engineers, and the Department of Environmental Protection. The Planning Board is a volunteer Board that relies on the expertise and professionalism of these agencies. He said that he understood the neighborhood concerns and realized that the development standards that the Board has to abide by actually drive these types of developments. These developments are also driven by the Comprehensive Plan which is something that the Board has to use as a guideline. Mr. Sturgeon said that whether or not they like this type of development isn’t their choice and they have to abide by the standards before them. This is why he made the motion. Chairman Brown indicated that she was struggling with this in regard to the intensity of the site and the traffic issue. However, in reviewing the regulations and the expertise in obtaining the various permits, she is struggling because these are saying that it meets all of the criteria. It is difficult because they cannot change those rules while they might not personally agree. Mr. Bolin indicated that he had concerns regarding extent and intensity of use. Mr. Damon felt that the involvement of the neighborhood and those who are representing their community cannot be overlooked. However, he felt that they have done a tremendous job of engineering this project. The Board voted three in favor and four against the motion. Chairman Brown indicated that she wanted each member voting against the motion to state their reasons why. Chairman Brown indicated that her reasons were that she did not feel that the project met the criteria under intensity of the site use and the traffic study did not meet the criteria. Mr. Damon said that while he felt the project was well engineered, he felt that the measure of the culture of the neighborhood will be so radically changed that it does not fit the use of the neighborhood and does not belong in this situation as it is laid out now. Mr. Miller indicated that while he, too, felt that it was well engineered, he had issues with access, and traffic issues were not really addressed, as far as, bus pick up, school 10 children and general pedestrian traffic flow. He said that those issues could have been explained a little bit better and gone into better detail. Mr. Bolin indicated that he did not feel that the project met the criteria of 165-9, Section 4 regarding extent and intensity. He added that he did not feel it is consistent with the abutting neighborhood. Item No. 3: Public Hearing on proposed revisions to the Comprehensive Plan 2005 Update. Chairman Brown opened the Public Hearing. Planning Officer David Gould outlined the process of review, public input and adoption of the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update. At the conclusion of that process, the Planning Board did a self review and asked how they might do this differently if they were going to do this process again. There was concern that the Comprehensive Plan should have input from a much broader group of people from the City than just the Planning Board. The City Council established the Special Committee on Comprehensive Planning which consists of a diverse group of people throughout the City including citizen members, a member of the Historic Preservation Commission, of the Marsh Mall Commission, City Council Members, and Planning Board Members to sit down and look at the issues in front of them as opposed to the Planning Board carrying the load all by themselves. After two years of work, the Special Committee on Comprehensive Planning authored a Policy Document. This work is the culmination of the work of going through the topic areas, deciding what were priorities, and hearing from a range of people with expertise such as educators, bankers, housing people, etc. Another goal of the Committee was to not create a typical “cookbook” Comprehensive Plan full of statistical data and other information but to condense it down for use as a policy directive for the City. Their task was focused on creating a policy document that would work on the implementation of the Plan. In December 2010, The Planning Board recommended and approved this policy document, recommended that it be incorporated into the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update, authorized holding a public hearing in accordance with the Growth Management Law, and recommended that their recommendation be forwarded to the City Council for adoption. Mr. Nathaniel Rosenblatt, Chair of the Special Committee on Comprehensive Planning, indicated that he appreciated Board Member Damon’s services, as well as, everyone else on the Committee and Staff. Councilor Geoff Gratwick, and Committee Member also thanked the Staff and Committee Members for their work on this project as did Committee Member Steve Ribble. No one spoke in opposition. Chairman Brown closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Theeman thanked the Committee Members and Staff for their work throughout the process. Mr. Theeman moved that the Board approve the Comprehensive Plan policy document prepared by the Special Committee on Comprehensive Planning and incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan 2005 Update and that the Board recommend that it be sent on to the 11 City Council with a recommendation to approve. Mr. Sturgeon seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion (8 to 0). NEW BUSINESS Item No. 4: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. Mr. Theeman moved that the Board approve the Minutes of the January 18, 2011 and the Minutes of the Site Visit of January 22, 2011. Mr. Sturgeon seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Chairman Brown thanked the Special Committee on Comprehensive Planning Committee Members and Member Damon who served on that Committee. She noted that she worked on the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update and was pleased to see how much smaller the document has become. City Engineer Jim Ring informed the Board that this was his last meeting as he is retiring from the City. He indicated that he has enjoyed a very long career with the City. Looking back it has been a lot of work but there has been a lot of satisfaction and enjoyment one of which has been working with the Board. He introduced Art Morgan who has agreed to be the Acting City Engineer for a period of time until his position is filled. Board Members thanked Mr. Ring for his work with the Board and wished Mr. Ring good luck in his retirement. There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Raymond & Carol Michaud 1026 Essex St. Bangor, Maine 04401 We are sending this letter because we would like to respond to the application for a 54 Unit housing development abutting our property. We are not in town to attend the meeting. Our objections to this development are as follows: 1.Safety concerns, a public road will lead to the southern end of our property making it much easier to access from behind. We have already had a problem with someone trying to break into the house from the power line entrance, but they were on foot, making the whole idea much more difÐcult. 2. Noise, currently the only close neighbors we have include deer, a great horned owl who has lived there for 5 years at least, and other wildlife. The noise from 54 families and their vehicles would be substantial. 3. Privacy, the property lines for part of this development are set so that we all could see each other, especially in the winter months. When we purchased our property and built here in 2004/2005 this was zoned low density. This proposal is not low density. 4. Property values, The proposed development will include buildings of a much different style and density then our property. We worry that it will affect our property value. 5. If this development is approved we would ask that the developer plant an arbor of trees and install a fence along the border between our property and the 54 units. We also ask that the developer install shrubbery on his property line. All this would help to allow us to have some privacy, less noise, and feel more safe. Sincerely, Ray and Carol Michaud