HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-04-15 Planning Board Minutes
PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR
MEETING OF APRIL 15, 2008
MINUTES
Board Members Present: Allie Brown, Chairman
David Clark
Nathaniel Rosenblatt
Miles Theeman
Laura Mitchell
Doug Damon
City Staff Present: David Gould
James Ring
Bud Knickerbocker
Peter Witham
News Media Present: Bangor Daily news
Chairman Brown called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA
As no one wished to remove either item from the Consent Agenda, Chairman Brown
asked for a motion. Mr. Theeman moved to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion was
seconded by Ms. Mitchell and it passed unanimously. The items approved are as follows:
Item No. 1: Site Development Plan/Site Location of Development Act
Modification approvals to make minor modifications to the
approved Site Development Plan located on Ohio Street and
Griffin Road in a High Density Residential District.
Bangor Retirement Residence II LLC, applicant.
Item No. 2: Site Development Plan and Site Location of Development
Modification approvals for construction of a 2.98-acre paved
storage yard at 200V Target Industrial Circle in an Urban
Industry District. Daniel R. and Linda F. Webb, applicants.
2
NEW BUSINESS
Item No. 3: Final Subdivision Plan approval for a 9-lot residential cluster
subdivision located off of Kenduskeag Avenue in a Contract Low
Density Residential District. Forrest H. Grant Family LP,
applicant.
Mr. Damon noted that he has worked in real estate with the Grant family several years
and has been involved with this parcel the prior times that this has been before the Board.
He asked the Board to determine whether or not he had a conflict of interest. Mr. Theeman
moved that Member Damon has a conflict of interest and that he be recused. Mr. Rosenblatt
seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 5 to 0. Chairman Brown asked for a
presentation by the applicant. Mr. Jim Kiser, of Kiser & Kiser representing the applicant,
explained that this application is for Final Subdivision Plan for the Deer Pond Subdivision. He
indicated that this application addresses the conditions of approval and the questions that
were raised at the time of Preliminary Plan approval. There has been a slight adjustment to
the subdivision plan in the area of Lots 2 and 3 to avoid a driveway conflict. Wetland
impacts have been eliminated on the back of the lots in conformance with the applicant’s
Corps of Engineers Permit (which has been received since preliminary plan approval). The
Department of Environmental Protection has signed off on their need to have permits within
their jurisdiction. Mr. Kiser indicated the ownership and maintenance easement for Lots 2
and 3, a sample deed for the remaining lots and the restricted covenants have also been
addressed. While some information on the preliminary plan has been removed reference to
that information has been made within the notes on the Final Plan. Mr. Kiser also indicated
that they are retaining over 50% of the property in common open space within this 9-lot
subdivision which will be owned by each of the nine lot owners. They have left a 100 foot
buffer around the pond in accordance with the contract zone change with the City and they
have made provisions for a trail.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the applicant was comfortable with Staff’s recommendation for
two conditions of approval that the customary improvement guarantees be submitted and
that a notation that the remaining lands of LN Broadway cannot be developed unless they
return to the Board for approval. Mr. Kiser indicated that the plan has a note regarding
further subdivision of the property and that the applicant did not have a problem with either
of those conditions. Mr. Rosenblatt felt that there should be a third condition that the
covenants as recorded are the same as the ones submitted in connection with the
application. Mr. Kiser said that he would only note that as pertinent to the items associated
to open space and buffers and they would have no problem having that as a condition of
approval. Mr. Rosenblatt then asked if the applicant would be agreeable with the covenants
running in perpetuity with the land and Mr. Kiser indicated that the applicant would be willing
to change this.
Planning Officer Gould indicated that Final Plan does not require a public hearing but
because there are neighbors present there is a provision that the Board could elect to have a
public hearing if they so chose. He also noted that because only five members would be
voting and the applicant will need to receive four affirmative votes for approval, the applicant
could elect to come back at another meeting.
3
Planning Officer Gould noted that the Board considered Preliminary Subdivision Plan
review twice and conducted a site visit. This project has been subject to a lengthy and
debated contract zone change that not only applies to this property but to the entire LN
Broadway lands. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff feels that this subdivision complies with
those contract conditions. This is a cluster subdivision in that the lot sizes are allowed to be
smaller with an increase in off-setting open space. The subdivision has one outlet to
Kenduskeag Avenue and it provides protection around the existing pond. The applicant has
obtained approval or correspondence from the DEP and the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr.
Gould indicated that Staff recommended approval with the conditions that improvement
guarantees be submitted to the City within 120 days of the Board’s approval and that no
development take place on the remaining lands until they come back before the Board for
approval. Staff also asked that any conservation easement or homeowner’s association
agreement be executed and provided to the City.
It was the consensus of the Board to allow comments from those in attendance on
this issue. Mrs. Linda Hunter, 1025 Kenduskeag Avenue, thanked everyone for the time and
attention that they have given to this project. She had questions regarding the restricted
covenants on Page 2, No. 13 and asked that in the second sentence if the word
“undeveloped” should be “underdeveloped.” In this same paragraph she asked that
someone clarify what “accessory structures” are and if they are allowed in open space.
Planning Officer Gould explained that an accessory structure would be a garage or any
structure that is accessory to some primary use. Mrs. Hunter asked if the covenants could be
changed by a vote of the landowners. Planning Officer Gould said that it would be decided
by the property owners. Mrs. Hunter indicated that she would like the covenants to say that
the (wetland? open space?) cannot be altered or filled period whether or not they are
allowed to.
Ms. Mitchell was concerned that if they wanted a garden or a volleyball court there
they couldn’t because it is open space. Mr. Theeman questioned what an applicant would
have to do if they wanted to fill a wetland. Mr. Gould explained that they would need to go to
the regulatory agencies (DEP and Army Corps of Engineers) and seek permitting.
Mrs. Hunter asked if the wording should include that the buffer is to be maintained in
a natural condition as stated in the contract and that the cutting of any trees is prohibited.
She expressed her appreciation for Mr. Kiser’s attention and her hope that when the
remaining land is developed that the Board think about some upland open space that would
be appropriate for a park or a playground.
Ms. Lucy Quimby indicated that she felt that Ms. Hunter did a good job expressing her
concerns as well as the neighborhood’s concerns.
Mr. Kiser, in response to Mrs. Hunter’s questions, explained the word development is
anything that you do to a parcel outside of its natural area so that when you say it remains
undeveloped that means you don’t do anything to it. Underdevelopment in his experience
has meant not building anything substantial.
4
Mr. Theeman felt that the Board needed a definition of what an accessory structure is.
Mr. Gould indicated that in the very broadest sense it is accessory to a primary structure.
Therefore, it is not necessarily limited by size but what it is accessory to. It could be a
gazebo or a garage building. Mr. Theeman indicated that he was sympathetic to Mrs.
Hunter’s comments relative to this section. He felt that under and undeveloped are vague
terms. Mr. Kiser felt that by using the language as it is provides a measure of oversight so
that they can’t just fill anything. Mr. Kiser indicated that he went over the language with
Mrs. Hunter prior to preliminary plan approval and he was concerned that it was now being
brought before the Board without any discussion with the applicant. He felt that it was late
in the process to respond.
Mr. Gould explained that the covenants are what are enforceable by people that buy
property in the development. The City only regulates wetland that is within the Shoreland
Zone. If someone wants to fill property they need to meet the standards of the State of
Maine. In this case there are multiple pages of guidelines that deal with these 9 lots that
likely don’t apply to most of the other lots within the City of Bangor. The added protection
here is way beyond what you would get in a development that didn’t have this set of
restrictions. It is not perfect and will never be perfect. The future problem is going to be
interpretation of what it means down the road.
Chairman Brown indicated that she appreciated the desire to have covenants that are
going to withstand for many years but it is not going to matter how clear it will be as it will
be subject to the interpreter. She felt that underdeveloped is the appropriate word.
Regarding accessory structures, she said that they will be regulated by the people in the
development.
Mr. Theeman felt that definition of underdeveloped needed to be defined. Regarding
the issue of accessory structures he felt that in fairness to everyone that the Board had an
obligation to get this as close to right as possible and unless the language was amended he
would be voting against this. The suggestion was made that the applicant come back to the
next meeting. Mr. Kiser indicated that he would not be opposed to striking out a few words
in the convenants as he did not want to hold up the client over a few confusing words.
Chairman Brown indicated that the Board is going to want to have the convenants in
their format as final as possible. Mr. Rosenblatt feet that it could be concluded successfully
with wordsmithing. The improvement guarantees; condition on the plan that remaining
lands of LN Broadway Holdings, LLC cannot be developed without further Planning Board
review, and fixing the sentence in the convenants regarding the perpetuity issue and getting
some assurance that what is actually recorded is the same as what the Board has been
reviewing. The last few things with a little more effort could be resolved so at the next
meeting the Board would be able to proceed.
The Board discussed concerns regarding accessory structures; making sure that
language did not prohibit a walking path, the difference between the words undeveloped and
underdeveloped; and provision for the open space to remain in perpetuity.
5
Mr. Rosenblatt made a motion that the Board grant Final Subdivision Plan approval for
the proposed nine-lot residential cluster subdivision located off Kenduskeag Avenue for
Forest H. Grant, family, LP, applicant ,on the following conditions: 1) that the applicant
submit the customary improvement guarantees; 2) that the plan be amended to clearly
indicate that the remaining lands of LN Broadway Holdings, LLC, cannot be developed
without further Planning Board review; and 3) that the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants,
as amended at this meeting, regarding open space and buffer areas be the same as recorded
as those submitted to the Planning Board at this meeting (please see attached). The motion
was seconded by Mr. Theeman and it passed by a vote of 5 to 0. Mr. Kiser asked if this
needed to be amended on the plan or if this was a condition of approval. Mr. Gould
indicated that it could be annotated on the plan under the signatures as a condition of the
Board’s approval.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Item No. 4: Planning Board Approval of Minutes.
Chairman Brown indicated that the Minutes of the December 4, 2007 and the January
15, 2007 Meetings were in order for approval. The Board unanimously approved both sets of
Minutes.
Other Business
Chairman Brown asked Board Members to look at their calendars for their availability
nd
for the first meeting in July (July 2). Also, Chairman Brown noted the upcoming Workshop
on Conservation Subdivisions scheduled for April 22 with Randal Arendt.
There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.