HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-02-05 Planning Board Minutes
PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 5, 2008
MINUTES
Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman
Jeff Barnes
Allie Brown
Laura Mitchell
Nathaniel Rosenblatt
Miles Theeman
City Staff Present: David Gould
Bud Knickerbocker
Jim Ring
Peter Witham
Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. In the absence of
Member Clark, Associate Members Brown and Barnes were asked to alternate voting. Mr.
Rosenblatt asked that Item No. 1 be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
CONSENT AGENDA
Item No. 1: Site Development Plan approval to fill and grade property
located at 913 Broadway in a Contract Government and
Institutional Service District (G&ISD Contract). Atlantic
Investments, Inc., applicant.
Mr. Scott Braley of Plymouth Engineering spoke on behalf of Atlantic Investments.
Mr. Rosenblatt said that he understood from the Staff Memorandum that stockpiling of
material had already taken place and he asked how much and where on the site that is. Mr.
Braley indicated that he could not answer that question because he had not visited the site
since he found out about the stockpiling. He noted that the applicant had hoped to be
before the Board two weeks earlier but paper work and other issues prevented this from
happening. The owners had spoken with Code Enforcement asking to begin stockpiling
materials from the Merrill Bank branch site as they needed to remove it from their site. Mr.
Rosenblatt noted that the plan depicts an area of wetland and asked if the stockpiling had
affected that area. Mr. Braley indicated that he did not know if that area was affected but
that the contractor had a copy of the plan, there are DEP Stormwater and Wetland alteration
permits in the application, and the contractor would have to follow them.
2
Chairman Guerette indicated that he had concerns regarding what impact this would
have on the neighborhood. He understood there had been numerous telephone calls to the
Planning Office from the abutting neighbors and it was pointed out to Staff that the activity
was occurring in advance of any permits being issued. He thought when citizens point that
out it makes the City look bad. Chairman Guerette noted that the application was listed as
being on Broadway and any access to the site has to be from Hobart Street. Mr. Braley
explained that the DEP listed the application as being on Broadway but the plan clearly
depicts access off of Hobart Street.
Chairman Guerette asked Planning Officer David Gould for the Staff report. Mr. Gould
explained the particulars of the site plan application, the controlling contract zone, and the
requirement that applicants apply for Site Development Plan approval from the Planning
Board for filling and grading activities over 10,000 square feet. He noted that because this
site is adjacent to the Orchard Hills Condominium Development the City’s notice standards
required the Planning Office to send notices to 154 abutters. With that many neighbors
watchful of their surroundings on a daily basis and put on notice of this particular site, the
Planning Office would expect to receive a large number of inquiries especially if the activity
were already occurring. He indicated that the details of the plan were fairly standard for this
type of application. While the existing piles are quite high the end result of the grading would
not be significantly different. The Engineering Office reviewed the plans for assurance of the
minimal effect of stormwater on surrounding properties and the plan depicts a new culvert
under the site entrance on Hobart Street. Brief observation of the site shows that silt fences
are being used and details of the plan are consistent with fill and grading operations. The
process is expected to be short-term and the Planning Office was not concerned that it would
be an ongoing operation. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff did not have concerns regarding the
plan and it was placed on the Consent Agenda. Mr. Gould noted that the Board does not
have enforcement authority.
Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he realized that the Board does not have enforcement
authority, but asked what the mechanism was by which the City could be sure that the plan
is followed if the Board were to approve the plan and the City issue the permit. Mr. Gould
responded that it was through periodic inspections of the site during construction. Mr.
Rosenblatt asked what the actual standards for the fill and grade were. Mr. Gould indicated
that they are the same standards in 165-114 as for any Site Development Plan, although
some might not apply to the particular operation.
Chairman Guerette asked Associate Member Brown to vote. Ms. Brown was concerned
about the hours of operation and felt that a 6:00 p.m. ending time may not be appropriate in
this residential area.
Mr. Jim Ring, City Engineer explained that with many construction projects in the City
contractors may have a need or desire to begin activities earlier or later. Unless there was a
strong objection to a particular residential neighborhood he thought the hours were fairly
reasonable. He also noted the concern expressed about an illegal fill and grade having
3
occurred. He explained that in his view and interpretation there is a distinction between the
temporary deposition of earth materials known as “stockpiling” and a permanent “fill and
grade” operation of depositing earth materials and then moving them around into a final
resting state.
Mr. Theeman asked what the proposed use of the site is. Mr. Braley responded that
the current intent is the transfer of excess earth materials from an existing construction site
to this site with the added preparation of the site for some future construction and use. The
applicant had a conceptual layout for the site but has no definite proposal.
Chairman Guerette invited comments from the audience. Ms. Sally Reed, a resident of
Cortland Circle indicated that she felt that this activity exceeded the limit of what was
acceptable for a stockpile. She indicated that she was relieved to know that there will be no
access on Broadway because there probably would be 150 irate residents calling as it is
difficult to get out onto Broadway now especially between 7:15 and 8:15 in the morning.
Mr. Guerette indicated that his concerns were with the neighborhood in the area from
Rite-Aid to the bottom of the hill near Burleigh Road. He thought that it was still a viable
residential area and it is mixed use. He thought there had been commercial encroachment
into the area and in order to keep it a viable residential area it needs to have a critical mass
of residential properties. He indicated that he would feel more comfortable making a
decision on this application after visiting the site to see what was going on as he sees it as a
sensitive multi-use residential site. Other Board Members agreed.
Mr. Rosenblatt moved to postpone consideration of the application until the Board
could visit the site. Member Theeman seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0 approving
the motion.
Member Mitchell asked Mr. Gould if he had any documentation of the neighbor's
comments. Mr. Gould responded that he did not, but it seemed to him that because a lot of
people received notice and then saw activity it generated a lot of calls and visits to inquire
what was going on. Some seemed to think that the activity was occurring before the
approval. Ms. Brown said a site visit is warranted because if the stockpiles are as high as
reported, then the plan doesn’t show them. Mr. Gould said that any plan will not show the
state of the site during construction but only the final result. The whole point is to review the
final site grading.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Item No. 2: Amending Chapter 165, Sections 165-6(D); 165-9(B)(5); 165-
113 (C)(1); 165-126; and 165-128 – to amend the majority of
affirmative votes needed for Planning Board approvals. City of
Bangor, applicant - C. O. #08-070.
4
Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Officer for
comments. Mr. Barnes asked if both Associate Members could vote on this item as it was not
a project. Staff indicated that Section 165-6 D does not address how many Board Members
have to vote. Chairman Guerette said that because it affects the Board’s By-laws on
amendments he would allow all members to vote unless there was opposition.
Planning Officer Gould indicated the proposed language was developed to compliment
the expanded membership of the Planning Board to seven full members. The amendment
includes both Land Development Code changes as well as, changes to other City Codes. Mr.
Gould noted that he was in support of increasing participation of the public in development
review via expanding the Board’s membership. Mr. Gould noted he only had a slight
uneasiness about having no back-up members to maintain a quorum.
Lastly, Mr. Gould noted he thought it might be difficult for applicants to understand if
five members were voting, a vote of three in favor to two opposed would in fact be a denial.
There were no proponents or opponents to the proposed Land Development Code
amendments.
Associate Member Barnes indicated he was strongly in favor of the proposal as
written, he did not feel associate members should invest a large amount of time month after
month and not be able to participate and vote on important development issues.
Member Rosenblatt noted while he was in support of an expanded membership he
was not comfortable with the proposed changes in quorum or voting. Requiring four votes
for an approval from a five member quorum would likely deny some projects that otherwise
would obtain approval. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated he did not want to see the approval process
become more difficult for applicants as a trade off to a larger Board.
Member Theeman indicated he also supported the expansion of the membership to
seven full members but did not support the changes in quorum or voting standards.
Member Mitchell indicated she had been an associate member for some time but was
in favor of expanding the Board to seven full members. She did have concerns about
requiring four affirmative votes from five members present.
Associate Member Brown inquired if there was some governing statute or case law
that may provide guidance. Planning Officer Gould noted that Site Plan Review is a choice
the City makes under its home rule authority. The review and approval is not required at all
and as such, the City’s Code could set the voting standard at any number it saw fit so long
as the decisions were not arbitrary or inconsistent with the Ordinance provisions.
Chairman Guerette indicated he thought it would be less than business friendly to
deny applications that receive three affirmative votes from five members present and voting.
5
The Board did discuss the proposed alternative drafted by the City Solicitor’s Office
and procedurally how the Board should deal with the two choices.
Planning Officer Gould indicated that there is technically only one amendment before
the Board that contained in C.O. # 08-070. It has been advertised and sent to the Planning
Board for recommendation. The Land Development Code provides (165-6 E) a proposed
amendment that has been disapproved by the Planning Board may be enacted only by a
two-thirds vote of the City Council. Member Mitchell asked if the Board did not support the
original version did it imply that they supported the alternative. Mr. Gould indicated it did
not. The Board should act on what is in front of them and if they desire to provide guidance
on some other alternative they may do so.
The Board voted one in favor and five opposed to the proposed Ordinance
Amendment (C.O. # 08-070).
The Board then voted in support of an alternative option that would set the quorum at
four members and set required votes to the majority of those present and voting. The
Board voted four in favor and two opposed to the alternative language drafted by the City
Solicitor’s Office.
NEW BUSINESS
Item No. 3: Site Development Plan approval to construct a loading dock for
existing retail space at 1003-1169 Union Street (Airport Mall) in
a Shopping and Personal Service District. Airport Mall
Associates, LLC, applicant.
Mr. Guerette asked for the applicant or representative to present the application. Mr.
Al Hodsdon of AE Hodsdon Engineers represented the applicant. Mr. Nick Largay, a staff
member of WP Realty who manages some of their properties was also present. Mr. Hodsdon
explained that this project is for the construction of a 15’ x 30’ loading dock on the back side
of the Airport Mall building. The actual structure other than size has not been determined,
but will be submitted before the Building Permit is issued. The prospective tenant is a retail
tenant who he could not name.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the loading area would affect cars that drive around the back
side of the building. Mr. Hodsdon responded that there would be little impediment to traffic
as the loading dock will be arranged so that trucks will be parallel to the building. He added
there is one electric transformer that will be relocated away from the side of the building to a
pole on the outer edge of the parking area.
Mr. Theeman asked for confirmation that the trucks would be parallel and not
perpendicular to the face of the building. Mr. Hodsdon indicated that this was correct and
would be just as the existing loading dock is.
6
Chairman Guerette asked for the Planning Officer’s report. Mr. Gould explained that
this is straightforward application for a small addition to a small area of the Airport Mall. Mr.
Gould indicated that the Board should limit the approval just to that area of the plan and not
the entire Airport Mall site. As the plans were in order, Staff recommended Site
Development Plan approval with the condition that the approval be limited to the details
related to the proposed lading dock.
Mr. Rosenblatt moved approval of the Site Development Plan with the note that the
Board’s approval is limited to the details related to the proposed loading dock. Ms. Mitchell
seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0 for approval.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Item No. 4: Planning Board Approval of Minutes
Chairman Guerette noted that the Minutes of the September 4, September 18, and
October 2 of 2007 were ready for Board approval. Mr. Rosenblatt moved approval of all
three sets of minutes. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion. Mr. Guerette said it was a vote
unless doubted for approval and asked if there was any other business.
th
The Board agreed to schedule a site visit at 913 Broadway on Monday, February 11
at 4:15 p.m.
Chairman Guerette asked if anyone had looked at the tower amendments. Mr.
Theeman said he was comfortable with the current condition. Mr. Barnes concurred.
Chairman Guerette indicated that he would confer with the Planning Officer. Mr. Rosenblatt
asked about when it would appear on an agenda. Mr. Gould indicated that the amendment
would go to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee meeting before the Board’s
next meeting.
There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:06 p.m.