HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-01-18 Planning Board Minutes
PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR
MEETING OF JANUARY 18, 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
Jen Boothroyd
Peter Witham
Chairman Brown called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mr. Theeman asked if the applicant had addressed staff concerns as noted in the Staff
Memo regarding erosion control measures. Mr. Gould indicated that the Engineering
Department indicated that the applicant had addressed those concerns. Mr. Theeman moved
to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Damon seconded the motion which was approved by a
vote of 7 to 0. The item approved is as follows:
Item No. 1: Site Development Plan and Site Location of Development
Modification approvals to install six new electrical vaults, seven
new pull boxes and a gravel access roadway to an existing radio
tower located at 1 College Circle in a Government and
Institutional Service District. Husson University, applicant.
2
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Item No. 2: 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 opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant to make a
presentation. Mr. Joe Kacer, the applicant, discussed the history of his property noting that
in 1987 the Planning Board approved a site plan for two, four-unit buildings. He built one of
the buildings, installed the the water and sewer for both, built a retaining wall for both and
created a parking lot for this site but never paved it. At that time, he went before the Zoning
Board of Appeals and was granted a 5 foot setback so that he could build the buildings closer
to the street. Mr. Kacer indicated that he would now like to build a three unit building with 2
units on the first floor and one above them. If room permits, he would also like to build a
garage as he felt that it would make the area neater. Mr. Kacer indicated that at the
present time there are several multi-family buildings from Third Street down to Main Street.
He said that the future for the area is professionals who want to live in this area because of
its proximity to the waterfront and because it is within walking distance to events on the
waterfront. Mr. Kacer said that new construction is the future for the area which is now
stagnant. He noted that no single-family homes have been built there.
Mr. Damon asked about the steep slopes in the area and if there is a retaining wall to
prevent erosion and prevent people from rolling down. Mr. Kacer explained that this area is
formerly the old Bangor dump site and debris from the Bangor Fire was dumped there. The
steeper area is up above his property. He said that he felt that someone needs to look at
this area as it is rundown and needs to be cleaned up.
Chairman Brown then opened the meeting up to those in favor of the project. Mr.
Mike Gleason who has resided at 114 Walter Street for 40 years, indicated that he is in favor
of the proposed zone change request. His property is behind the parcel in question. Mr.
Gleason said that when he moved there he was totally surrounded by trees and it was like
living in the country. Mr. Gleason indicated that just about every other rental property in
that area is an old converted house which has tenants who do not stay longer than about
three months. Mr. Kacer's property has been one of the stabilizing factors of the
neighborhood because his tenants are long-term, don’t have wild parties, and they do not
have police visits at night. He fully supports Mr. Kacer’s request for the zone change.
Mr. Richard Higgins who resides at 106 Walter Street agreed with Mr. Gleason and
indicated that he also supports Mr. Kacer’s request.
No one spoke in opposition. Chairman Brown closed the Public Hearing and asked for
Staff comments. Planning Officer Gould explained that this is a request for a zone change
from Urban Residence 1 District to Urban Residence 2 District for a 10,530 sq. ft. parcel of
3
land located at 109 Sidney Street. In 1987, Mr. Kacer received site plan approval to
construct two, four-unit buildings. Subsequently, the City’s zoning policy for this area
changed relative to land use. There was concern about all of the multi-family conversions in
single-family homes. Mr. Kacer built one of the buildings. Mr. Kacer then applied for a one
year extension to build the second building and his approval lapsed as he did not start
construction. The City’s land use policy was amended after his project was approved, and
the zoning was changed from Residential 4 District to URD 1. Under the URD 1 District, his
proposed townhouse is not a permitted use.
Planning Officer Gould noted that at the Board’s previous meeting there was a request
to rezone a nonconforming garage on the adjacent street. In an effort to eliminate that
blighted building, Staff recommended support of the requested change from Urban
Residence 1 District to Urban Residence 2 District to allow the for the garage building to be
rehabbed into 4 units. However, this case is different in that this is a vacant lot not a
nonconforming building. Mr. Gould indicated that the location is inconsistent with the City’s
present policy for URD 1 and single-family zoning.
Chairman Brown asked when the City’s policy was changed. Planning Officer Gould
indicated that it was changed in 1991 with the adoption of the Land Development Code. Ms.
Williams asked if the policy was changed to prevent existing buildings from being turned into
multi-units or if it was for both existing buildings and new construction. Mr. Gould explained
that the City’s land use policy text indicated that the majority of the problems were the
conversion from single- family to multi-family. It didn’t talk about vacant lots as most of the
lots were already built on.
Chairman Brown asked Mr. Gould to discuss spot zoning. Mr. Gould explained that he
did not see the zone change request on Walter Street the same as this zone change request
because the Walter Street site is a vacant commercial building that is not likely to ever be
used as a single-family use. In that case, Staff supported only enough land on that parcel
for the proposed use. In this case, the rezoning is not trying to eliminate blight on the
neighborhood as this is a vacant property.
Mr. Damon felt that they needed to look at this as to what is best for the City. In his
work on the Comprehensive Plan Revision he noted that the Committee talked about the
conversion of multi-family back to single family uses. He said that he felt that it is the intent
of everyone to improve the quality of the neighborhood. It is good to avoid spot zoning
unless it is to the benefit of the City. Mr. Damon said that he felt that there is no clearer
benefit to the City than to build a new building especially in this location so close to the
downtown. Mr. Bolin said that the intent of the applicant and his track record makes this a
more difficult decision. Mr. Bolin indicated that the applicant needed to be taken out of the
equation and felt that this was creating spot zoning.
Mr. Theeman had questions as to the topography from this site down to the next
building. Ms. Williams felt that there is a significant hill which creates a natural buffer.
4
Mr. Kenney thanked Mr. Kacer for making some great comments about this area.
However, he shared Mr. Bolin’s concerns that this is a spot zone change. He said that he
was reluctant to vote in favor of that. Mr. Kenney said that he felt that it would be valuable
to look at the whole area and at a variety of building types for higher density use.
Mr. Theeman said that he was not convinced that the character of the street would be
changed if this were passed and indicated that he would like to see the lot.
Mr. Kenney asked if there were any guidelines for approving such a zone change request.
Planning Officer Gould indicated that the general standard that the Board is asked to apply is
whether or not it is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Staff doesn’t think it is.
That’s not to say that the Board cannot come up with some other reason why they think it
should be approved. However, the Board would need to provide guidance for future
applicants who were applying for similar zone change requests.
Mr. Damon felt that in this case it would be going from housing to housing not
housing to commercial and this is an improvement. Mr. Theeman indicated that he would
like to have a site visit. Ms. Williams asked if there was a zone change that would allow new
multi-family construction but not as a single-family conversion. Mr. Gould indicated that for
this lot it could be contract zoning. In which case, one would specify the nature and type of
construction. However, it still does not address the issue of consistency.
Mr. Theeman moved that the Board table this zone change request to allow time for a
site visit. Mr. Miller seconded the motion. The Board voted 6 to 1 in favor of the motion.
Mr. Gould indicated that he would schedule the site visit and provide notification.
NEW BUSINESS
Item No. 3: Final Subdivision Plan approval of Phase II of the Walden Parke
Subdivision consisting of 16 lots and located on Partridge Lane
and Tamarack Trail in a Rural Residence and Agricultural
District. Walden Parke, LLC, applicant.
Amiee Young with Plymouth Engineering represented the applicant, Walden Parke,
LLC, Ms. Young explained that the applicant is requesting approval of Phase II of the
Walden Parke Subdivision which consists of 16 lots. The remainder of the Subdivision will be
Phase III. Phase II includes the extension of Tamarack Trail and does not include the end of
Carol Court and Partridge Lane. She noted that the applicant had previously obtained
preliminary subdivision plan approval for the entire development and was requesting final
subdivision plan approval in phases.
Mr. Bolin asked if there were any changes to the plan since the time that Dr.
Oldenburg was before the Board discussing this development. Ms. Young indicated that the
only change is that the elevation of the road has been changed. None of the property lines
or the layout has been changed.
5
Planning Officer Gould indicated that as originally proposed this large subdivision was
approved by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) as the City could not
approve this. At that time, the applicant also received preliminary subdivision plan approval
of the entire development. The applicant applied for and received approval of Phase I which
was built approximately 7 years ago. The economy slowed down and the market for this
type of housing tapered off. The applicant was granted several extensions to keep the
approvals active. The Final Subdivision Plan for Phase II has the same layout and lotting and
there are no wetland impacts. Staff recommended that the Board approve this the same way
as they did at the time that Phase I was approved - that the applicant provide an
improvement guarantee for the construction of the roadway within 120 days of approval and
that the applicant bring to the Board the next Phase within two years or as extended by
Staff.
Mr. Kenney asked if the applicant needed to file for an extension of the DEP Permit
and for stormwater treatments. Ms. Young indicated that they did not and noted that all of
the stormwater treatments are being done through buffers as the development takes place.
Mr. Gould indicated that Staff queried the DEP Staff to let them know that another phase was
coming. The DEP indicated that the entire subdivision had received DEP approval and
nothing else was required. Mr. Gould noted, as an example, a similar project in the 1980’s
off Finson Road where the DEP took the position that it had already received approvals. So
when a new applicant requested approval of a subsequent phase, they did not need to go
before DEP.
Mr. Theeman moved to approve the Final Subdivision Plan for a 16-lot subdivision,
Phase II of the Walden Parke Subdivision off Essex Street in a RR & A District, Walden Parke,
LLC, applicant, on the condition that the applicant provides an acceptable improvement
guarantee to the City that meets the approval of the City Solicitor’s Office within 120 days of
approval; and, that the applicant file for Final Plan approval of Phase III within 2 years or as
extended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bolin and it passed by a vote of 7 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Item No. 4: Planning Board Approval of Minutes.
Chairman Brown indicted that the Minutes of the December 22, 2010 Meeting were in
order for consideration. Mr. Theeman moved to approve the Minutes of the December 21,
2010 Meeting. The motion was seconded and it passed unanimously.
There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR
SITE VISIT OF JANUARY 22, 2011
MINUTES
Board Members Present: Allie Brown, Chairman
John Miller
Paul Bolin
Julie Williams, Alternate Member
Doug Damon
Andy Sturgeon
Miles Theeman
City Staff Present: David Gould, Planning Officer
Applicant Joseph Kacer
Interested Parties Michael Gleason
Todd Lee
Richard Higgins
Chairman Brown called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. Chairman Brown advised
the Board the purpose of the site visit was to allow everyone to see the site and adjoining
properties. She cautioned the Board that they should avoid separate discussions as everyone
should have access to the same information.
Mr. Kacer showed the Board members where a building might be constructed on the
property and the approximate property lines of the parcel.
Planning Officer Gould reviewed the basic criteria for rezoning requests. They should
be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. That being said he noted there are many policies
and objectives within the Plan and the Board needs to sort out the various objectives and
make a finding based on certain elements that the proposal is consistent or is no consistent.
2
Member Theeman asked how a contract zone would be applicable. Mr. Gould noted a
contract zone allows the applicant to propose additional restrictions and limitations in
addition to the basic requirements or limitations of the zone. Both standard zoning and
contract zoning “run with the land”, that is it is not dependant on the applicant but to the
property.
The Board concluded they had seen the site details they needed and adjourned.