Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-07-03 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF JULY 3, 2007 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman Nathaniel Rosenblatt David Clark Laura Mitchell Jeff Barnes City Staff Present: David Gould James Ring Bud Knickerbocker Lynn Johnson News Media Present: Bangor Daily News Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. In the absence of Board Member Theeman, Associate Member Barnes was asked to vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 1: Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approvals to construct four 276-foot radio towers, four 64 square-foot buildings, one 500 square-foot building, a service driveway, and two parking spaces in a Rural Residence and Agricultural District. Charles A. Hecht and Alfredo Alonso, applicants. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation by the applicant or their designee. Mr. Paul Brody from WBRC Architects Engineers, Attorney Andrew Hamilton, and Mr. Charles Hecht were present in support of this application. Mr. Hecht began the presentation by explaining that he is requesting approval for local permits for Guyed Radio Antennas to support a new AM radio station to serve the Bangor area. He explained that a guyed radio tower or antenna is a small structure as opposed to a lattice tower which is a massive structure of greater length or a monopole which are typically used for wireless communications. He indicated that they have applied for and received FCC and FAA permits. Based upon the FCC and FAA requirements, they selected this 52-acre property that is zoned Rural Residence and Agricultural District which allows radio stations, radio and television towers as conditional uses. 2 Mr. Paul Brody discussed the site development plan and indicated that this site is located on Outer Broadway and bounded on the south by Kenduskeag Stream and to the north by Broadway. There are residential homes to the east and west of the project as well as on the other side of the Kenduskeag Stream (on the Finson Road). Removals on the existing site will consist of a cedar post fence, a wire fence and some trees and stumps on the southwest of the site. The trees that will be removed in the wetland areas will be dropped and left on the ground for wildlife habitat because they are trying to minimize the impact to those wetlands. The proposed wetland clearing will be limited for the guys and the grounding system for the tower. They feel that they have located the towers to best situate them with regards to zoning and the conditional use setbacks. They have managed to keep the wetland impact down to 4,300 sq. ft. which is a very small area of this large parcel. They propose a gravel entrance with a wooden bridge over the first piece of wetland and will be followed by a ten foot wide gravel access driveway to the main shed at the center of the site. The shed will be a 20 x 15’ single-story building with a two-car gravel parking area next to it. There will be one incandescent 100 watt light above the door with a motion sensor to activate it. In addition, the applicant is proposing four, 276 foot tall, two feet wide, AM antennas with guy support systems. Each antenna will have a non-flashing, FAA beacon at the top of the structure. The lights are designed to direct upward because they are for planes to see. There will be additional lights (non flashing) down the sides of the towers that are much smaller in size than the main light at the top. The antennas will be painted with the typical FAA banding (orange/white, orange pattern). At the base of each antenna there will be an 8 foot wide by 8 foot tall by 2 feet deep tuning panel that is proposed to be mounted on pressure treated posts. Surrounding that antenna and the tuning panel will be a six foot tall galvanized chain link fence. Mr. Rosenblatt asked how far horizontally do the guy wires go out from the antenna. Mr. Brody indicated that the guy wires go out about 185 feet. Mr. Brody then discussed grading and erosion control explaining that the grading activity is going to be very minimal. They are going to provide a 2 foot elevation for the building to get positive drainage away from it. Any areas that are disturbed as part of the project will be fine graded and reseeded to a meadow state or left in the wetland areas. They are proposing to install a wood chip erosion control berm along the main entry drive and around the main shed to avoid siltation and erosion of those areas. The driveway will have a finished grade of approximately 6 to 8 inches above the existing grade. They have submitted an application to DEP for a Permit by Rule for a Stormwater Permit. They propose to install a new utility pole along Broadway with underground access to the proposed shed. To reduce the visual impact, they propose new underground power from the shed to each antenna so that there will be no wetland impact associated with the underground system. After a short period of time there will be no evidence that it is actually there. Mr. Brody indicated that they are proposing an aerial grounding system. Those wires will be approximately 20 feet tall and will be attached to the antenna. There are six of those on each antenna and they are varying length in order to avoid the wetland impacts. Mr. Brody indicated that they do not propose any activity in the Resource Protection District and will be going a short distance 80 to 100 feet into the Shoreland Zone. Mr. Brody discussed photos of existing radio antennas (the ones at WZON located on Broadway) and of this site from different distances away to give people 3 an idea of what this antenna pole structure would look like. He indicated that this proposal will have a very small ground impact and will leave a substantial portion of the site essentially into conservation as part of the DEP permit by rule process. Attorney Andy Hamilton discussed the conditional use criteria. In talking with Staff, it was suggested that because this is a conditional use that they should prove that this use meets the test that although not appropriate for every location within the zoning district that it is appropriate for this location. He indicated that the use met the standards of the district without a variance for any dimension standard which is the first test. They also were able to site this use with less than a tenth of an acre of wetland impact on this entire 53 acre parcel. He said that this proposal will not create unreasonable traffic congestion or hazardous conditions on contiguous or adjacent streets as the full extent of activities will be repair or maintenance of the facility. It will have adequate utilities, fire protection, drainage and parking. In regard to the standard that the proposed use although not appropriate for every site in the zone is appropriate for the location for which it is sought, Mr. Hamilton indicated that he thought that this criteria addressed residential or commercial buildings that house goods as opposed to transparent utility structures that are proposed as part of this application. The use will not be an intense use of the site. Mr. Hamilton said that this use met standards 1 through 4 under Section 165-9. Mr. Hamilton discussed the criteria contained in Section 165- 60. He did not feel that this use would deprive the adjacent property of light, air or view or drastically alter the appearance of such adjacent property improvements. The towers will exceed the 40 foot height limit by more than 15 feet but the standard is met by the design and configuration of the antennas through the use of a set of thin antennas that will not deprive any neighboring adjacent property of light, air or view and will not drastically alter the appearance or the setting of an adjacent property improvements. Mr. Hamilton explained that most people would not look up at these but view them at eye level. The structures will not be located within 100 feet of any existing residential building nor be a threat to health. He indicated that the applicant took the time to select a large enough parcel so that the building and the antennas could be placed to allow enough open space between it and the neighboring residential properties to create a buffer. Mr. Rosenblatt asked Mr. Hamilton to discuss further the criterion that the use conforms to the general character of development in the immediate area as to architectural style, building bulk and extent and intensity of site use, and if the setbacks from the residential uses included the bases and the guy wires. Mr. Hamilton explained that the drafters of the Ordinance clearly provided for radio towers and other structures in the Rural Residence and Agricultural District. He did not think that this could apply to architectural style because he did not think that a radio antenna or a radio or television tower is supposed to have architectural style. He said that the view that they were taking is that laying this project on the ground in the RR & A District there was a special obligation on their part to find a location that they could meet the dimensional requirements and meet what appear to be essentially separation or buffering requirements that are found in the conditional use provisions and the RR & A District in addition to the height requirements under 165-50. He argued that the extent and intensity of use has been mitigated by the fact that they are taking a 52-acre parcel with structures that occupy a very small footprint. He felt that radio antennas have to be one of the most passive uses of land that you will see in a city and there isn’t a lot of activity 4 associated with them. Mr. Hamilton indicated that this proposal meets the setbacks. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if there was any noise associated with this use. Mr. Hamilton indicated that there would not be any noise associated with this use. Mr. Clark asked how much power the proposed radio station would put out, at what range, how much area they would encompass, if there was any chance of the signal bleeding over into other signals, and what the call letters would be. Mr. Hecht indicated that interaction or interference is an issue that is reviewed by the FCC in granting the permit. The Station will have 50,000 watts during the day on the frequency of 750 and will have 10,000 watts during the night. Day and night ranges are different because they are at different power. The direction of the signal is in accordance with FCC rules. The FCC has recognized the station call letters as WRME. Mr. Clark asked if people living in the immediate area would be able to pick up the signal on things other than their radio. Mr. Hecht said that it is a possibility and problems do occur but the FCC rules require them to remedy this. Chairman Guerette then asked for comments from proponents. Mr. Hal Wheeler, 315 Silver Road, indicated that he was neither in favor of nor in opposition to the request. Mr. Wheeler wished to clarify Mr. Brody’s reference to two freestanding lattice towers at the WZON site. Mr. Wheeler indicated that his first broadcasting job was with a station that occupied those facilities. The reason that they have the smaller 220 foot tower is that when the owner wanted to install another 402 foot tower it was at the beginning of World War II and there was a steel shortage that prevented them from doing so. Chairman Guerette asked for comments from opponents: Mr. Scott Westhrin of 160 Finson Road spoke in opposition. He indicated that he did not feel that this proposal met the conditional use standards. He said that he believed that four, 276 foot antennas fall within the definition of a structure. He said he felt that it is not consistent with the criteria that the proposed use, although not appropriate for every site in the zone, is appropriate for the location for which it is sought because the proposed use will conform to the general character of the development in the immediate area as to architectural style, building bulk and extent and intensity of the site use and that the structure conforms to the exterior façade, roof lines, shape, and materials used on buildings in the immediate area and within 500 feet of the site of the proposed use. Mr. Westhrin indicated that there are twenty to twenty-five other residential structures surrounding this site, his property being one of them where most of the properties are located on Finson Road. All of the properties are basically stick-built properties. He asked the Planning Board to deny the applicant’s conditional use request. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he is sympathetic to Mr. Westhrin’s interpretation of the Land Development Code but indicated that it is clear that the way the ordinance is written that someone concluded that as long as radio and television towers were 150 feet away from residences that it would be okay. Mr. Westhrin explained that it was his position that the Code talks about it being 500 feet from the boundaries of the site and there are probably twenty to twenty-five residential structures within 500 feet of it and he did not feel that this proposal met the test of criteria number four. 5 Mr. Vaughn Smith, 54 Pine Ledge Road who owns a home at 2186 Broadway, indicated that he was greatly concerned that the highest point of land in Bangor is 338 feet above sea level and where they are proposing towers is roughly 100 feet. He felt that these towers should be placed on a higher piece of land. He argued that the TV towers in the area are not located in Bangor but in the surrounding areas at the 800 foot above sea level height. Another point that should be taken into consideration is the amount of stream frontage. Mr. Smith said that there has been diligent work done to clean up Kenduskeag Stream and this would take a lot of the stream frontage out of the equation. Where his home is on Pine Ledge Road, which is at a 330 foot elevation, he would not have to look up to see the towers. He felt that they did not fit in that area and he was against this proposal. Ms. Barbara Wais, a Finson Road neighbor also spoke in opposition. She discussed with the Board the existing wildlife that would be affected by this proposal consisting of many different birds, ducks, and otters that she sees from her property. She felt that the towers did not fit into the residential character of the neighborhood and there might be a better place for them. The environmental impact of the towers might not be worth the jobs that it would bring. Mr. Gregg Swett, 250 Finson Road and a neighbor of Ms. Wais indicated that there were many neighbors present and that she reflected many of the concerns they have about the project. He said that it is almost insulting to him as a taxpayer who has made many improvements to his property to think that they are going to sit on their back decks and look at a bright red light. He expressed his concern that this proposal would affect the value of his home. He felt that there are many other places where these towers could be built. He said that the Kenduskeag Stream is a gem and that they need to keep that in mind at all times. He added that he did not feel that this proposal met the provisions of Section 165-9-4. Ms. Connie Lewis, the abutting property owner, indicated that she would be able to see the towers out the window of her home. She asked the Board before they made a decision that they visit the site to view the beauty that exists. She did not feel that the proposed towers fit in the general character of the location. She did not see the towers as being neighborhood friendly. She questioned whether the four towers would be a health risk to the neighborhood, if they would affect their radio or telephone, and whether or not the Board had reviewed the FCC requirements. She didn’t know when the ordinance was changed to allow towers in the RR & A and questioned if these types of towers were even in existence at the time the Ordinance was adopted. Ms. Lewis was concerned that this would have a negative affect on the property values in the area. She said that the towers would not match the buildings in the area, and it would not be appropriate for the location nor the general character of this area of Broadway. Mr. Jim Davitt, 59 Hudson Road, indicated that he and his wife run the only bed & breakfast in Bangor at that location. The Six Miles Falls area where this is proposed is a unique area. He indicated that 100 years ago there was some industry there but the rest was rural farmland. While they are around the corner on Hudson Road they will be able to see the towers. He felt that a 276 foot tall structure that is painted orange and white is going to stick out like a sore thumb. They have guests coming to their establishment from all over the 6 world, most of who comment on how pleasant this area is. There is nothing to detract from the beauty of the area. Presently there are nice looking new homes in this area and towers are going to distract from the view. He did not feel that they would comply with the standard that they conform to the architectural style as you cannot design a radio antenna to look like a house. He said that the question is not whether it is an accepted conditional use but is it appropriate for this particular area. He asked that this not be allowed to be built. Mr. Jason Lewis, an abutting property owner, indicated that he agreed with the other comments from those in opposition and said that the towers would be visible on the landscape. He asked what the purposes of the red lights would be, and if other dishes would be allowed to hang from the antennas. He said that he saw two of the towers in the field and two down in the wooded area and he asked if this was a grounding issue. He agreed that the applicant had not met the requirements of 165-9-4. Ms. Catherine Merithew, 272 Finson Road, indicated that the view from her home would be straight across at the towers. She said that this would be a real eyesore for such a beautiful area of Bangor that is rural and residential. Ms. Tess Rosco, 252 Finson Road, explained that while she appreciated all of the work and effort that went into preparing the plans because she is a civil engineering student, she felt that more research should be done to find a better area to place the towers. Mr. Steve Daniels, 208 Finson Road, indicated that he is within 500 feet of the proposed towers. He said that he felt that it was wrong to put these towers in this beautiful area. He felt that the proposal did not meet the requirements of 165-60, A. He added that the residents of this area bought their homes because of the character of the area as it is a wildlife habitat. Ms. Beverly Shumaker, 208 Finson Road, wished to be on record so that it would be noted how many people were present in opposition. She indicated that the wildlife resources are very important to them and to the City. She indicated that she spoke to her realtor and he was very clear in saying to her that her property value would be impacted by this project. The Kenduskeag Stream is a very special part of Bangor and it should not be tampered with. She felt that the proposal does not meet the requirements of 165-9. There being no other opponents, Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing. Chairman Guerette asked what the date was of the aerial photo, how close the towers and guy wires were to the trees, what were the grounding mechanisms, and whether or not the towers require FAA approval. Attorney Andy Hamilton explained that they have applied for and received approval from FAA. The grounding wires are for the efficiency of the transmission of the signal and not for the grounding of the structure, they had a photo that was taken from the State GIS program which they believe was taken within the last five to seven years and Mr. Brody took photos within the last few months. Mr. Hamilton in response to comments made by those in opposition indicated that they feel that this proposal will actually help to preserve long term open spaces associated with this 7 property. This parcel was available for a housing development which would have a much more extensive impact to wildlife than this project. Mr. Hamilton indicated that the question is did the applicant canvas the Bangor area to identify a property that provides for the large size for a large footprint that would be appropriate for siting these towers to provide for the buffer that is called for by the objective standards in the ordinance. Regarding impact on property values, Mr. Hamilton argued that there was no evidence submitted into the record that someone found that there would be impact on property values. He could get a dozen opinions and they would go the other way on the issue. The issue is whether or not this application measures up under the conditional use standards. Mr. Hamilton indicated that radio and television towers are permitted in the district provided that facilities are located not less than 100 feet from any property line and not less than 150 feet from any existing residential building. He did not feel that a radio or television tower could ever be made to have the same architectural style including exterior façade, roof line, shape and materials. Mr. Rosenblatt asked Mr. Hamilton to discuss the criterion regarding drastically altering the appearance of the setting of adjacent property improvements. Mr. Hamilton explained that they did not feel that they would be depriving neighboring uses of their view. They are taking this 52 acre parcel and preserving all but the footprint for 4 radio antennas. As they previously showed with photographs of some similar structures with similar guy wires they feel that guy wires will not be seen. Mr. Hamilton felt that the drafter of the ordinance intended that radio antennas are permitted as long as you are sensitive to the overall property setting and meet the setback requirements. Mr. Hecht indicated that the property has a shoreland zone and a resource protection zone which border the stream and this development is not touching those zones. There will be hundreds of feet of buffer along the Stream and they are not going to change it at all. He explained that the proposed light bulb at the top will face upward for planes and will have a shield under it. It will not create any shadow of any kind on the ground, wildlife will not know that there is a light up there and there will be no light coming into a home or a residence. He noted that they applied to FAA for a special exception to only light and point the north and south antennas. If this request is granted it will mean that the antenna closest to the Lewis’s residence would not have to be painted or lit. The FAA should act on that by the end of the month. Mr. Hecht indicated that they have and we will do anything they can to be responsive to the area and the neighbors. Chairman Guerette indicated his concern that this application met the conditional use standard of conforming to the general character of the area. This is a rural residential area with some private one-family homes and a few small miscellaneous establishments such as a church and a little store. He indicated that he did not believe that this proposal would have an adverse impact on wildlife nor would it degrade the character or the integrity of the Kenduskeag Stream. Chairman Guerette asked for the Planning Officer’s report. Mr. David Gould indicated that this is a conditional use/site development plan application to construct four 276 foot tall radio antennas. This is a 52 acre parcel off of Broadway that abuts the Kenduskeag Stream which means that there is a 250 foot Shoreland zone, as well as, a Resource Protection District 8 that immediately abuts the stream. A lot of work was put into this application by the applicant and much of that work had to do with the grounding wires. The ground wire system of the antenna is the element that goes high up into the sky but there is another part of the antenna that goes in the ground and it goes 360 degrees around. Originally the plans put the wire into the Resource Protection District. The Code Office came to the conclusion that that part of the antenna needed to meet requirements and it could not go in the Resource Protection District. Another aspect that needed to be amended is that portions of that wire were originally within 150 feet of property lines and the applicant needed to adjust this. Mr. Gould explained that there is one set of conditional use standards that all conditional uses must meet which deal with the basic standards of the district, appropriate utilities, traffic conditions and architectural guidelines. Any structure in the City that exceeds the height limit of the standard has to meet a test relative to that height. Mr. Gould indicated that what the Board needed to focus on is that the ordinance does provide for this use in the district and the Board needed to look at the standards and evaluate this site. Mr. Gould pointed out, however, that the Board cannot look at elements that aren’t in the criteria. Property values isn’t a standard nor is impact to the Stream. There are some standards relative to height and impact and some conditional use standards. In looking at this particular site, how it is designed, and the size of the site Staff felt that this particular use on this particular site met the test of the Ordinance for conditional use approval. Mr. Gould indicated that people will see these towers and there will be lighting on it so that airplanes can see them. The test is not are they invisible. The Board needs to deal with the application that is in front of them and the Code that exists now. Chairman Guerette asked Planning Officer Gould to discuss the meaning of the fourth general conditional use criterion. Mr. Gould indicated that as with all the standards there is room for interpretation. This standard was written to cover a range of conditional uses. The same standard would apply to a gravel pit where there are no structures. There is also a traffic standard for a use where in this case it will generates little or no traffic. Mr. Gould said that it would seem to be a stretch for someone to argue that a radio or television antenna would have the same siding as a residential structure. Mr. Barnes indicated that he was sympathetic to the neighbors concerns but that the Board has very narrow criteria on which to make a decision. The FAA has approved this. He used to fly an airplane so he is very glad the towers are colored and have lights on them. The proposed lights aren’t strobe lights or blinking lights. He said that with the right to own property comes the desire for one to do what they want to do with the property. Mr. Barnes noted that there is a commerce clause in the Constitution which gives a person a right to have commerce and that is what gives us our economy in this area. He said that he felt that a radio station is part of commerce. He said that he felt that the criteria have been met and he would have to vote in favor of the project. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant conditional use approval to the proposed development at 2110 Broadway, Charles Hecht and Alfred Alonso, applicants. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion. Chairman Guerette said that he found that the comments by Planning Officer Gould and Associate Member Barns to be extremely well and objectively stated. Personally, he was struggling with the provisions of the conditional use approval under 9 Chapter 165-9 4 - meeting the general conformity of the immediate area and because of that he indicated that thought that he would be voting in opposition. Ms. Mitchell said that she too was struggling with those same criteria. She felt that this would be a drastic alteration of the appearance for adjacent properties and she intended to vote against this. Mr. Clark felt that the requirements for conditional use had been addressed that he would be voting in favor. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he did not know of many rural and residential areas that have existing antennas on them. If you interpret that standard to mean that you can only build another antenna where there are antennas in the immediate vicinity so they are architecturally conforming to other development in the immediate vicinity, it does not seem to him that that is a logical interpretation of what the standard means with respect to radio and television towers. Ms. Mitchell said that she thought there are towers on Kittredge Road. Mr. Gould noted that there is a cell tower out there. Ms. Mitchell indicated that there are others located where it does apply. She indicated that it is her thinking that it is not so much that you are going to find another radio tower right next to each other and that’s the only way you are going to meet the architectural standards but that it is considering the closeness of the other things around it and the neighborhood collectively around it. There are other more rural areas of the City that don’t have such close and consistent types of uses around it such as this site does. Chairman Guerette asked for a vote. The motion carried by a vote of three in favor and two opposed. Mr. Rosenblatt then moved that the Board grant Site Development Plan approval to the proposed development at 2110 Broadway, Charles Hecht and Alfred Alonso, applicants. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Chairman Guerette called for a 5 minute recess. The meeting resumed at 9:30 p.m. Item No. 2: Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval to extend Commercial and LaSalle Drives, add two lots in a Shopping and Personal Service District and fourteen lots in a Low Density Residential District. Judson M. Grant, Jr., applicant. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for comments from the applicant. Ms. Shelly Lizotte, of Ames A/E, represented the applicant. She explained that this is an extension of the existing Judson Heights Subdivision and the Commercial Drive Subdivision that was approved last year. The applicant is proposing to create an extension of Commercial Drive to join to an extension of LaSalle Drive. In doing so, 14 house lots will be created and two additional commercial lots are being created along Commercial Drive. The residential lots are in the Low Density Residential (LDR) District and the commercial lots are in the Shopping & Personal Service (S & PS) District. All of the lots meet or exceed frontage and lot requirements. Ms. Lizotte explained that the road extension will be similar to the existing road with a 30 foot total paved surface, two twelve foot lanes and three foot shoulders on either side. Those two roads will meet at an extension with future expansion of LaSalle Drive. Ms. Lizotte indicated that the applicant has a permit for wetland impact for the crossing of Commercial Drive over the low wet area. This permit was received at the 10 beginning of this project in 2003 when the first 57 lots were approved. The impact for this portion of the project is still less than what was approved under the NRPA Permit. Mr. Rosenblatt noted the proposed open space areas and asked Ms. Lizotte to indicate those on the map. Ms. Lizotte indicated on a map their location and said that that these areas are essentially connected. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the applicant would be applying for an MDOT permit. Mr. John Theriault, Traffic Engineer for Ames A/E explained that the residential portion of this project already has an MDOT Traffic Movement Permit that was issued back in 2003. That project was done in phases, the first phase having 54 house lots and 15 mobile home lots. Phase II is for 50 additional house lots. The 14 lots presently under consideration are a part of those 50 additional approved under the MDOT Traffic Movement Permit. As far as traffic, the 7 approved lots along Broadway plus the 2 proposed now are what will be considered. Two sites have been developed. With the proposed square footage of development on the total number of lots they are projecting 97 trips for the a.m. and p.m. peak hour which is below the 100 trips which triggers the need for a Traffic Movement Permit. At this stage of development, they are not planning to go forward with a Movement Permit. Mr. Rosenblatt noted that under the Land Development Code there is a provision under the subdivision criteria regarding traffic. The Board has to find that the proposed subdivision won’t cause unreasonable highway or public road congestion or unsafe conditions with respect with the use of highways or public roads. There should be a submission that addresses this. Mr. Theriault indicated that they could prepare that. There are conditions in their Traffic Movement Permit that will require that some improvements be made to the Broadway corridor when Phase II of this project is complete. Ms. Mitchell asked about the type of land that is being reserved for open space, the type of uses that it could be used for, and what improvements would be made on Broadway. Ms. Lizotte indicated that currently there is a low marshy area along the zone border where the Low Density Residential comes up against the Shopping and Personal Service District. The entire hillside essentially drains down to that lower area and it sits there. There is a lot of low growth. It is open there are many birds in there. The backside of this could be a trail in the future. Mr. Theriault noted that there would be a left turn lane to Broadway just west of the new driveway and then there will be some minor widening along Broadway in this area so that they can provide 3 lanes, a single lane in each direction and a two-way center turn lane and that will continue from the new intersection (Commercial Drive) all the way down to the intersection of Burleigh Road and Broadway. Ms. Mitchell indicated that she did not feel that this would adequately address traffic for this development. Mr. Theriault explained that when they did the permit with MDOT they modeled this section and found that a single-lane in each direction was adequate for the amount of volume that was out there. A good portion of Broadway is 3 lanes now. The two existing outbound lanes promote weaving and speeding in that section. A single lane in each direction with a left turn lane will benefit motorists better. Ms. Mitchell felt that eliminating one of the two outbound lanes that presently exist would be narrowing the amount of traffic that can be handled heading outbound. Mr. Theriault explained the existing laneage in this area and said that the critical point for traffic volumes and level of service is at the intersections. If 11 one lane is adequate to handle it at the intersection then it would be adequate to handle it past the intersection. Ms Mitchell asked how the traffic is going to flow at this new intersection that not only is responsible for two commercial lots and 14 residential lots but an extended amount of residential development beyond that. She indicated that she wanted to bring this issue up now and would continue to be very concerned about this as this moves forward. Mr. Theriault indicated that he would be submitting additional information regarding this issue before final subdivision plan approval. Chairman Guerette noting that the Board has had many discussions about open space in their workshop meetings, indicated that there seems to be an increasing awareness about the quality of open space that gets set aside in residential subdivisions. The Board would like to see every major or larger subdivision have open space that is useable for the residents that live in that development or the surrounding area. The older developed areas have access to parks but the same amenities aren’t always available in the nicer, newer subdivisions. He indicated that there was a suggestion noted in the Staff Memorandum that the Board may want to go see this site before granting approval. He asked if any thought had been given to pedestrian access for the families and the children that live in this new development. Ms. Lizotte indicated that they have had discussions on the quality of the open space. In this case because of the characteristics of the land is the reason why they chose this area. Another benefit for this particular open space it that is provides a buffer between the commercial and residential uses. Also, this area gives a lot of opportunities for nature watchers to go down there and find all kinds of birds and wildlife. Regarding the street and the sidewalks issue, they don’t propose to have any sidewalks but the roadway is quite wide and is paved. A large majority of the houses in this development are built on the two dead end streets so there is not going to be a lot of traffic. Ms. Lizotte noted that there are opportunities for pathways between streets and they are open to ideas. No one spoke either in favor of or in opposition to this request. Chairman Guerette then closed the Public Hearing and asked for comments from Staff. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this is an application for preliminary subdivision plan approval of a 23.15 acre expansion of Judson Heights for 14 new residential lots and two new commercial lots. The commercial roadway will now go and connect with the residential portion of the subdivision which opens up discussions about the direction of traffic from this. One of the residents in the built portion of this subdivision indicated to Staff that they were very concerned about how the phasing of the road would be built regarding how much construction traffic would they have to endure in the existing built portion of the subdivision. They also noted that they found that the existing land proposed for open space as suitable for their needs in terms of walking. Staff suggested in the Memorandum that the Board go out and visit the site. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff felt they would like additional information as to whether the specific traffic from this site will go. Staff asked for and was provided information relative the construction of the roadway segment through the wetland as well as some stormwater information that arrived the day of the meeting which Staff did not have an opportunity to review. Mr. Gould indicated that this project has been designed with a new stormwater quality filter bed system with no detention ponds. It is also designed not to be put in the open space area. Staff recommended that the Board either go out and see the site or attach any special conditions about the details that they would like to see at Final review. 12 Ms. Mitchell felt that it would be valuable for the Board to go and view the site, the land across the street, and the extended area of LaSalle Drive to think about pedestrian access, traffic and open space. Mr. Rosenblatt agreed that it would be very useful to see this property. Procedurally, he felt that it would make sense to postpone the Board’s consideration of the Preliminary Subdivision Plan until the site visit and until they have reviewed the additional traffic submission. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board postpone its consideration of preliminary subdivision approval for this project until the Board has had an opportunity to visit the site and until the Board has reviewed the traffic submission and any other information received. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion. The Board voted five to zero in favor of the motion. Chairman Guerette noted that a site visit is treated like any other Planning Board Meeting and it would be posted and members from the public and the applicant would be invited to attend. Item No. 3: To amend Chapter 165, Section 37, with specific setback standards for recreation trails in Shoreland Areas. City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 07-231. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this zoning amendment was written to provide some flexibility to the Shoreland Zoning standard which says that any structure has to meet a 75 foot setback from a protected water body be it a stream, river or a wetland. In a project to do some improvements on the Kenduskeag Stream (called the Gateway Project) there were elements of the plan that had structures as determined by the Code Enforcement Office to be less than 75 feet from the Kenduskeag Stream. City Staff talked to the DEP Shoreland Zoning Unit and asked if there was any way that the City could get permission or if there were provisions to have a lesser setback. The theory being that a lot of nature trails, snowmobile trails, etc. are likely going to want to go near these water bodies and the present standard says that they have to be 75 feet away. They also discussed a distinction between a path in the woods and a constructed sidewalk which we define as a man made structure that needs to meet a setback. If there is a path or trail in the woods we don’t consider that a structure. A City sidewalk that has a gravel base is determined to be a structure and has to meet that setback. The DEP said that they would be comfortable with a standard that still maintained the setback provided it was a trail or a pathway structure that served the public either owned by the City or the City had specific public rights to use. Staff has drafted this amendment. Planning Officer Gould noted that this will also have to go to the DEP for its approval, if adopted by the City Council, because they have a standard that any changes to Shoreland zoning have to go back to them. Chairman Guerette asked if the intent of this amendment was to clean up the language to make the existing structures or trails that are within the Shoreland area conforming or are there some future plans for things that may come about that this would be an important consideration for. Planning Officer Gould noted that this was intended for the Gateway Project along the Kenduskeag Stream. 13 Mr. Rosenblatt moved to recommend that the City Council approve the zoning ordinance amendment contained in C.O. # 07-231. The motion was seconded by Mr. Clark, and it passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 4: Site Development Plan and Site Location of Development Modification approval to construct a 2,800 sq. ft. addition to the existing building and a 100 sq.ft. guard house on Hayes Street in an Airport Development and a Government & Institutional Service District. Maine Army National Guard, applicant. Mr. Mark LaRocelle, of OEST Associates, represented the applicant, Maine Army National Guard. Mr. LaRocelle indicated that this project has two components. One for a new 100 sq. ft. guard house (security checkpoint) at the intersection of Hayes Street and Florida Avenue; and the second is for a 2,800 sq. ft. addition to the existing field maintenance shop. This addition will serve as administrative space while the existing administrative space will be utilized for locker rooms to meet current needs. There will be no additional personnel that will be assigned to this facility. Mr. LaRocelle indicated that this project is within an Urban Impaired Watershed (Birch Stream). There will be no increase in the impervious area of the site. They have accommodated the water quality for the storm water by creating an underdrain filter system. Chairman Guerette asked for the Planning Staff report. Planning Officer Gould indicated that because this project is located at BIA is must be a SLODA modification. This project has been before the Board previously for modifications. Staff indicated that all of the plans are in order and are ready for approval. Ms. Mitchell moved to grant Site Development Plan approval for Maine Army National Guard at the intersection of Hayes Street and Florida Avenue. Mr. Rosenblatt seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Ms. Mitchell moved that the Board grant Site Location of Development Act Modification approval to the Maine Army National Guard at Hayes Street and Florida Avenue. Mr. Rosenblatt seconded the motion which also carried unanimously. Item No. 5: Site Development Plan approval for proposed parking lot and on- site circulation improvements at 871 Hammond Street in an Urban Service District. Bangor Savings Bank, applicant. Mr. John Kenny, WBRC Architects-Engineers, representing Bangor Savings Bank, explained that this site plan is to modify the existing parking lot at 871 Hammond Street. The applicant is proposing to increase the radius of the existing island, and add some site lights, and add improvements to the approach to the drive-up window. They are also proposing to install additional landscaping. Mr. Kenny noted that the proposed site lights conform to the new lighting standards. The poles will be 20 feet which is 5 feet lower than the standard. 14 There will be a reduction in parking (from 57 spaces to 50 spaces) which will still meet the parking standards. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that over time that items previously approved were no longer on the site and he asked if those issues had been addressed. Mr. Kenney indicated that originally there was a landscaped island and the revised plans addresses this. Ms. Mitchell asked if the applicant had replaced the removed area with any other open space on the lot. Mr. Kenny indicated that there was adequate open space provided. Chairman Guerette asked the Planning Officer for his report. Mr. Gould indicated that this is a revision to the Bangor Savings Bank site development plan for the drive-up bank located at 871 Hammond Street. He noted that there were elements of the previously approved site plan that disappeared over time such as an internal island, some other islands, and some landscaping. Sometimes applicants provide more than what is required by the Code and this is the case at this site but there were some other items that were determined to be an impediment and were eliminated. When the applicant came in with a proposal for a new plan, Staff asked them about all of the other elements that were in the original plan that disappeared. Some of it came back but not to the extent that it was there originally. The problem with making them do them now is that the present ordinance does not require them to do it. When this bank was built the neighboring Maine Business Enterprise Park did not exist. The main roadway off of Hammond Street was just the bank’s driveway and is now Northeast Drive. This is the reason for the one-way entrance right next to the two way entrance into the Maine Business Enterprise Park. Mr. Gould indicated that the plan meets the requirements of the Code and Staff recommended approval. Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to grant Site Development Plan approval to the revised site development plan for Bangor Savings Bank at 871 Hammond Street. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 6: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. Chairman Guerette noted that the Minutes of April 4, 2007 were in order for approval. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to approve the Minutes of the April 4, 2007 Planning Board Meeting. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Other Business The Board scheduled a workshop meeting for Tuesday, July 31st. Mr. Gould asked what the Board’s preferences were for holding a site visit at the Judson Heights Subdivision. The Board indicated that a 4:00 p.m. meeting would be preferable. As there were no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Planning Board of the City of Bangor July 3, 2007 Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman National Rosenblatt David Clark Laura Mitchell Jeff Barnes City Staff Present: David Gould James Ring Bud Knickerbocker Lynn Johnson News Media Present: Bangor Daily News Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. In the absence of Board Member Theeman, Associate Member Barnes was asked to vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use and Site Plan Development – 2110 Broadway – Charles A. Hecht and Alfredo Alonso Chairman Guerette: Item number one on our memorandum and that is to entertain a request for a conditional use and a site development plan at 2110 Broadway. Charles A Hecht and Alfredo Alonso are the applicants. So I will open the public hearing and ask the applicant or their designee to ah make a presentation and then there will be chance for public comments. Hi good evening, ah, Paul Brody from WBRC Architects and Engineers. I have Andy Hamilton here with me ah as the attorney for the project and the applicant Charles Hecht is here to introduce the project a little bit and then I am going to take some time to go over ah the plans that we have submitted as part of the application and then Andy will wrap up with ah the portions of the ordinance ah related to conditional use review and we can then at that point open it up I guess to your, to your discretion to public comment. Charles Hecht: Good evening. We are here for local permits for ah Guide, Guide Radio antennas to support a new AM radio station to serve the Bangor area. And I want to tell you about Guide antennas versus lattice towers so that you understand what we are speaking about. A guide radio tower or antenna is a small structure which basically would fit inside of what my arms is encompassing as opposed to a lattice tower which is a massive structure ah of greater length or a monopole which you see typically used for wireless communications. And ah triangular and they are open. FCC and FAA permits have been applied for and received. And based on the FCC requirements and FAA requirements we selected a 52-acre property that allows for this use. Specifically, we know that this property is zoned Rural Residence and Agricultural and that allows for radio stations, radio, television towers, excuse me, as conditional uses. Paul Brody and Andy Hamilton will demonstrate how this project complies with the conditional use standard in the Zoning Ordinance. Thank you. Mr. Brody: OK, Over to the left me I have um, basically all of the plans that were submitted with the application package and I’ll just go through kind of a line-by-line item of of ah some description on those if I could. The first sheet is of course a cellular USGS plan that shows our project site in the center portion of the plan labeled site um at a scale of 1” to your 500 feet ah. To the north of the site is Broadway, Outer Broadway, Rt. 15, and the site is bounded to the south ah by the Kenduskeag Stream. Is this all ?? yet? So we’ve got some residential homes to the east and also to the west of the project site as well as on the other side of the Kenduskeag Stream ah on the Finson Road. We also included as part of the application ah an air photo plan ah which also, also shows an overview of the surrounding area at a scale of 1” equals 100. This plan also has on it a lot of the information found on the site survey prepared by Shyka, Sheppard and Garster. It includes the wetlands mapping that we’ve done as well as the zone and the applicable zoning setbacks. Ah the zone, The site is zoned Rural Residential and Agriculture. Um The south and west portions of the site along the Kenduskeag Stream have a resource protection zone and a shoreland overlay ah and the site is approximately 52 acres in size um considerably larger than most of the properties adjacent it, ah abutting it, ah on both sides, east and west and as well as across the Kenduskeag Stream. We’ve included the tax map from the City of Bangor, Just blown up to scale, 1” equals 100 um. We have another site overview plan in the package that basically just the the survey scale of 1 to 100. And then the site survey itself. Um These next couple of sheets we need for reference. Ah, there’s a, general notes and abbreviation sheets which go through all of our typical ah specifications for construction as well as the abbreviations used in the plan set. And then we start to get into the actual construction and permitting documents. Ah The first sheet is the site removals plan. Ah The removals on the site will consist of ah the removal of an existing cedar post fence, wire fence, which is highlighted in dark across the center and running to the south and to the west of the project site. Um We will also be removing a portion of the trees and stumps ah on the areas identified to the southwest of the site with that crosshatch. Um In areas of wetlands where we are going to be removing trees that will also be done by hand, ah there be will no mechanized equipment in those areas and we will be leaving the stumps as well as those areas. They are going to drop the trees and leave them on the ground for wildlife habitat um and try to minimize the impact to those wetlands as much as possible. That wetland clearing is really ah gonna be limited for the guys and the grounding system for the tower. So we’ve managed to through multiple renditions of of locating the towers to best situate them um with regards to the local zoning and the conditional use setbacks, ah the state ah review criteria and those sort of things um we’ve managed to keep the wetland impact down to a 4,300 sq. ft. ah area which is fairly, fairly insignificant or fairly small. The next set is the site layout plan. This plan shows ah basically all of the surface items, their locations and sizes, dimensions, quantities, that sort of thing, um starting at the northeast corner of the site along Broadway will have a gravel entrance um followed by a wooden bridge over the first little piece of wetland there ah and then following that there will be a ten foot wide gravel access driveway which leads to the ah the main shed at the center the the site there. Um That will be a single story building, 20 ft by 25 ft in size. And there will be one incandescent 100 watt light above the door with a, with a motion sensor to activate it. There is also going to be a gravel parking area next to that building ah with space for two cars to park. There will be four 276 ft. tall AM antennas with guys support systems. The antennas, as Charlie outlined, are about 2 ft. wide, 18” to 2 ft. wide, and ah as I just stated will be supported by a series of guys. Each antenna will have a non- flashing, FAA beacon at the top of the structure, so it will be red light, non–flashing. Um Those lights are designed to direct upward because they are for planes and not downward for people. Um There will also be ah at least one and perhaps two sets of lights, ah you know halfway and a third of the way up the tower or somewhere in in in that vicinity much smaller in size than the main light at the top. And those will not flash either. Ah The antennas ah will be painted with the typical antenna banning the FAA banning, it’s an orange/white, orange banning pattern. And located at the base ah of each antenna will be an 8 ft. wide by 8 ft. tall by 2 ft. deep tuning panel that’s going to be mounted on pressure treated posts and then surrounding that antenna and the tuning panel ah will be a 6 ft. tall galvanized chain link fence. So...To recap that a bit, here’s your typical antenna structure, these are your guy wires coming down, this square is the fence and the small square inside is the tuning shed ah and this is the main central building here. Mr. Rosenblatt: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a factual question while he’s right here. Chairman Guerette: Sure Mr. Rosenblatt: Um, Mr. Brody, how far horizontally do the guy wires go out from the antenna? Mr. Brody: The guy wires go out ah about 185 ft. Mr. Rosenblatt: Thanks. Mr. Brody: The next sheet in the set is the grading and erosion control plan. Um The grading activity is going to be very minimal. We are going to ah provide a little bit of elevation for the building in the center about 2 ft to get positive drainage away and then we’ve ah identified a finished grade elevation for each antenna base about a foot above existing grade. Um Any areas that are disturbed as part of the project will be, will be, you know, fine graded and and reseeded to a meadow state ah or left in the wetland areas to go back to a natural state um with some trimming. Ah We’ve installed, or or proposed to install, a wood chip erosion control berm along the main entry drive and around the main shed ah as part of the construction process to avoid siltation and erosion of those areas. The driveway itself will be installed ah with a finished grade of approximately 6-8” above the existing grade ah and we have in fact ah submitted a permit by rule application for the stormwater permit with the State of th Maine DEP ah that was done on the 11 of last month, 6-11-07. um The way that law works now if the DEP doesn’t respond to you with comments within 15 days of the submission you consider it approved. Ah We have not heard from the DEP and it’s been over that 15-day period so we we ah we assume we are approved from DEP standpoint. One other item of interest on this grading plan, you can see these black areas here, those represent the areas of clearing that’s going to occur within wetlands ah and that’s the limit of the wetland impact for the project. Then we get to the site utility plan. Um I’m actually going to up to the sheet on this one as there is a fair amount of information I want to be able to point out. We are proposing to install a ah a new utility pole along Broadway here, come across from a hydro pole and down than pole and then go underground from that pole to the main shed ah with a primary and there will be new underground ah power from the shed to each antenna as well. The easterly antenna on this sheet which is antenna #1 as listed on the CP101 but is this one here is going to utilize an in-ground grounding/tuning system. And the limits of that system are represented by this heavy-dash line so there will be no wetland impact associated with that um that underground system, what that is is it basically consists of a #12, 12 gauge copper wire that is zipped into the ground with a machine that is specifically for that. It basically just pushes the wire down 4-6” within the ground so within a short period of time there will be no evidence that it is actually there. Um That specifically has been done to ah help with ah, perceived visual impact of that antenna. The antenna, the remaining antennas, this one and this one, and this one will have an aerial guy system ah and we’ve offered to use that ah after going through the wetland permitting process. Um In order to minimize our wetland impact, we are going to be ah proposing, or are proposing an aerial grounding system. Ah Those wires will be approximately 20 ft. tall, they will be attached to the antenna on one side and attached to a a small utility pole on the other side that’s guys. There’s six of those on each tower or, excuse me, each antenna and they are varying lengths in order to avoid the wetland impacts and also to stay out of the conditional use zone because they have been deemed to be part of the actual structure of the conditional use. Ah We are not going into the resource protection ah at all with any of those and there’s one here that’s going a small ah distance, I guess approximately 80 to 100 ft, into the shoreland zone ah in that location there. Again, on the utility sheet, I do want to emphasize the fact that um these are antenna structures, not the lattice towers, and there is a significant difference and we’ll get to that a bit more when we get into visual assessment portion of the ah presentation. This next sheet, C501, um these are some of the typical construction details for the project – the bridge and the antenna itself and the guy poles um and the fencing and that sort of thing. I’ve got some additional boards um and we’ll start off with existing ah visual assessment of some towers and antennas in the area and then I’ve got another set of ah material to show photos of this site and ah context stuff. So, Andy has just put up um another USGS plan and this plan is centered ah around the WZON site. Ah There’s a bit black spot to the north piece which is the Bangor High School. Um Those rings represent differing distances, the first one I believe is 500 ft and then 1,000 ft and then a half a mile and a mile. What we did, there there are two structures, at least two structures at the ZON site and one of them is a 200 ft tall guy antenna, very similar to the type of antenna we are proposing. And they have at least one and I think two, they used to have more, ah of the lattice type structures that, you know, are 400 plus ft, big, big structures. So what we thought would be helpful to to represent the um type of development that we’re proposing is to take photos of that site from different distances away to give people an idea of okay at a mile this is what that antenna pole structure is going to look like and so on and so forth. So we’ve got that series of photos. Um I believe all of you received a half-sized set of these, is that right, Dave? OK, The first photo is taken a mile away on Broadway Um and you can see on that photo if you were up closer, or in your packet, that the tower is quiet visible and that the antenna is not so significantly visible at all. Um The next photo is taken at a half-mile distance and now you can start to see the antenna and obviously the tower is more visible. Um The bottom photo ah I believe is a 1,000 ft photo, is that right, Andy, there is a note on there on the bottom, a quarter mile, I’m sorry. So again you start to see the antenna a little bit more. You still can’t see the guys and obviously the tower structure is significantly larger. These next, last two shots um are taken from over at the high school parking lot actually and then closer into the building. The first one is from 1,000 ft away and the last one on the bottom there from about 500 ft. away. And if you get up closer to those photos and I actually took those photos myself, um on the 1,000 ft you can just barely start to see the guys wires and the 500 there’s not a whole heck of a lot of difference between the silhouette, of either the tower, the antenna or the guy wires. Um In that bottom photo, also shows a ah typical shed and and um surrounding fence condition although that’s a wooden fence and I believe we are going to have a chain link fence. The next series um is the same type of a graphic on a USGS but centered around our project parcel. The gray area is the parcel and then we’ve got 500 1,000 half mile, one mile rings and you can go ahead and put these other ones up here and get that, there’s another image on the back of that sheet and it’s the same USGS plan out at another scale. So these pictures were taken from um somewhere about the middle of the field on the project site by myself. Ah the top is looking pretty much due north at Broadway and then I just rotated around 360 degrees to get a feel for what else is in the area. In fact on that second photo you can see in the distance ah I believe they are about a mile away on the lefthand side actually is the cell tower and a water tower facility up there as well. On the righthand ah side is the Lewis property residence and beyond that you can see ah there is a high-tension wire corridor that passes by them and ah in the distance you can see the WZON tower and antenna. Um The tower is very readily visible. The antenna is very difficult on that day anyway to see with the naked eye. Um Those were taken on a fairly clear day. The conditions are obviously going to change with humidity and an clouds and site distance that sort of thing. Those photos just continue down and there’s another photo below that on the bottom – hold on a second, Andy – that shows the same type of a thing. Um I turned, I think I’m looking almost due south now or southwest. But if you want to go ahead and put that next board up. Now we’ve wrapped around the site um and we are looking west at the Hurd property ah and then another one of Broadway. If you want to flip that over, I think there is one more exhibit there. these are photos that Charlie has provided to us of ah antenna structures that he has installed. Those are his projects. Charlie has done a wealth of ah these type of projects, very knowledgeable about the layout and new and innovative ideas on how to make these more neighborly friendly ah which we have tried to employ as part of this project. Um So you can see there is a typical tower, antenna, I’m sorry, and the paint banning um and some typical sheds. That bottom shed, there are two types of shed construction. There is one shown on the bottom, it’s an 8 x 8 shed, ah and that’s the tuning structure of each antenna. That is not what we are proposing. We are proposing a smaller unit ah that about, 8 x 8, but it’s only 2 ft deep and it’s up off the ground. It’s actually on pressure treated posts so it will have a little bit less visual impact ah and of course it will have the fence around it. So. It also shows the mounting. Um They basically mount it on top of a sonotube. I find it kind of interesting. They actually just sit there on a pivot point and the guys do all the work to hold them up. The GUYSS are ah anchored with a similar structure as well, concrete and sonotubes. So, very very small ground impact um and it will obviously put a a substantial portion of this site into essentially conservation as part of the DEP permit by rule process um and I think I’ll give it over to Andy now to kind of go through some of the conditional use, ah local permitting review items. Andy Hamilton: Thanks, Paul. Good evening members of the Board. Um My name is Andrew Hamilton and I’m here on behalf of a Charles Hecht, the applicant, for this radio antenna project. And um, I’d just like to continue the distinction that Charles and and Paul have drawn between free standing towers, including the lattice towers as you typically see for cell phone ah companies, Um the free standing tower that you see at the WZON site and as Paul contrasted um the GUYS radio antennas which tends to be a structure which as Charles has showed you with his arms triangulating 2 ft by 2 ft by 2 ft um is the dimension of that radio antenna. And There are four proposed radio antennas with dimensions that Paul has noted. Um The first set of conditional use standards that we have to satisfy for this application are set forth in Section 165-9 and those are noted in staff memo. Um What Jeremy Martin and David Gould both suggested as part of the review of this project um because it does involve conditional use standards is to satisfy the Board as to how we meet the test that, although not appropriate for every location within the zoning district it would be appropriate for this location and that’s the whole nature of your conditional use review. So going to the first standard, A-1 under Section 165-9, we first have to satisfy you that the development standard and use conditions of the district in which the property in question is located have been complied with. Conditional uses which also require variance of development or other standards shall not be granted. This is the acid test for any conditional use application. You cannot require a variance, you have to meet every dimensional standard. And I can’t tell you how many weeks if not months it took to meet this standard. Why is that? Because if you look at any site in Maine you are likely to find wetland conditions, dare I say vernal pool conditions, um and when you lay those across the landscape of a 53 acre parcel I’m um sure some of you who are familiar with how the Army Corps and Federal agencies now treat vernal pools but in some instances they virtually are require 7,850 ft radius around the vernal pool, ah if ah you are proposing a development within a wetland. The practical advice that Jay Clement at the Army Corps of Engineers gave us was therefore avoid wetland impact altogether if you can and in all instances stay within the exemption amount and ah as Paul has indicated through a lot of hard design work at WBRC they ah were able to site these four radio antennas with less than a tenth of an acre of wetland impact on this entire 53 acre parcel. We could only do that ah by dialing in a whole series of configurations and I think we pretty much wore Mr. Hecht out with the combination of FCC requirements, ah State Army, ah State DEP, Federal Army Corps permit requirements and then laying on top of that the dimensional requirements. Um and I must say that um through the discussion both Mr. Gould and Mr. Martin were patient but persistent. Um If you want a conditional use application before this Planning Board, you must meet every dimensional standard and so we did it. Um So that first test is satisfied. The second test was that the proposed use will not create unreasonable traffic congestion or hazardous conditions on contiguous or adjacent streets. Route 15 Outer Broadway, ah proposed driveway, repair of maintenance activities is the full extent of the facility after construction is complete ah will not generate any appreciable traffic on the roadway so we’ve noted in the narrative that the activity ah will not give rise to unreasonable traffic congestion. The third standard is that the proper operation of the conditional use will be insured by providing and maintaining adequate and appropriate utilities, fire protection, drainage, parking, loading and other necessary site improvements. I think Mr. Brody in some detail with some very detailed plans has shared with you how this standard is met by showing you the utility plan, um how ah fire protection will be provided for, how drainage ah and parking requirements. Frankly there are only two parking spaces required for the maintenance shed so that standard is met. The next standard is typically ah used for more developed portions of the City um and less the Rural and Agricultural zoning district but nonetheless the standard is that the proposed use although not appropriate for every site in the zone is appropriate for the location for which it is sought because the proposed use will conform to the general character of the development in the immediate area as to architectural style. Ah Again, I think that is addressing residential or commercial buildings ah that house goods or structures as opposed to these ah rather transparent um utility structures that are are proposed as part of this radio antenna application. Um And then it talks about extent and intensity of site use. Um I won’t belabor the points about architectural style or building bulk but we would be happy to answer any questions as to ah those issues but ah I think for purposes of this project we can agree that um the issue is found principally in the standard in 165-60 which gets to structures that involve height. Um So with respect to the verticality of the structure we need to ah ah address your questions under 165-60 and again happy to address any questions you have under 1 through 4 under 165-9. Under 165-60, the first standard is that these structures cannot negatively impact uses in adjacent districts in which they are not permitted in a clearly demonstrable manner such as casting shadows, depriving the adjacent property of light, air or view or drastically altering the appearance of the setting on such adjacent property improvements. That’s a mouthful. Um and the way it is constructed, the way it is drafted, ah you really have to break it down before ah I was able to understand it. I read it five times before parts it and could understand it. The way I read the language is that um you have to show that these structures, if you are not going to allow them, structures that are part of any um community that is going to provide services, um that you’re going to have some structures that have height to them. If those structures um negatively impact uses in adjacent districts (tape turned over) because for instance casting shadows, depriving adjacent property of light, air or view or drastically altering the appearance of the setting on such adjacent property improvements, you are really taking a look at, all right we’ve got conditional use structures within the Rural Residence and Agriculture District where these uses are allowed as a conditional use. You then have to go to a neighboring or adjacent zoning district where they are not permitted ah either by right or by conditional use and then you further have to show in a clearly demonstrable manner that these are going to cast shadows, deprive the adjacent property of light, air or view or will, and again the standard is one that I’ve never seen before except in this provision of the Bangor Code, it says drastically alter the appearance of the setting of such adjacent property improvements. It’s as though the drafters of that ordinance provision, I understand that this is a fairly old provision in the Bangor Land Development Code, it’s as though the drafters of that provision recognized that someone could make the argument that height is something that could bother people adjacent to a radio antenna. That’s not the standard that is has to drastically alter the appearance of the setting of such adjacent property improvements. Let me go to the objective case that Paul Brody um put before you. First, if you look to the um photos um to my left, ah to your right, um they show structures that are 500 ft and 1000 ft ah from the WZON towers and remember there are two two types of towers there. There is the guys antenna which is the less visible ah structure to the left and then there is the freestanding tower to the right. It’s pretty clear that the freestanding tower is visible either at 500 ft or a 1000 ft. but if you try to pick out the guy wires associated with the guys antenna structure to the left I dare say in either photo I find it difficult to delineate or differentiate the guys from um the background, um the clouds and the setting in those photos. It is true, however, that the antennas will be visible. I think the concept that Paul and I are happy to explore with the Board of the public if there are questions about this is is the concept of the cone of vision. When a human being, or dare I say an animal, a deer, and when you are hunting one of the reasons they use tree stands is because a deer doesn’t look up into a tree stand, it looks across a field. Human beings are similar in nature. What we’ll do is we’ll tend to focus on the same linear plain. You are not looking all the way up in the skys unless what you are doing is ah stargazing. If you are stargazing, you are going to be looking up and there’s no way in the night sky in the city that you’re not going to see light but again during the daytime what you’re going to see if you are looking at a structure that has 55 ft in height which is where this provision starts, is 55 ft because it is 15 above the height allowed in the Rural Residence and Agricultural Zone, what you are going to see is a lot of structure that occupy that linear plain at 55 ft. As Paul said, ah using the photos to my far right and your, excuse me, your far right and my far left, um you’ll see the transmission line in that area, you’ll see a cell tower and you’ll see a water tower on the horizon. Those will be visible structures on the landscape so that visible, ah um those visible structures exist on the present landscape. I dare say that a guys antenna is not going to be any more visible in fact it should be less visible on the landscape than those structures. So we feel that um although the radio antenna towers will exceed the 40 ft height limit by more than 15 feet, the standard is met by the design and configuration of the antennas by using an antenna design that is um that employs a set of thin antennas that will not cast any appreciable shadow, will not deprive any neighboring or adjacent property of light, air or view, and will not drastically alter the appearance of the setting of an adjacent property improvements. You will hear a series of of of questions, comments, arguments that these towers will be visible and therefore they somehow violate the ordinance. You as guardians of the ordinance text know that text is the standard and not the question of whether it is visible. And I would specifically ask you to review the text of 165-60 as you consider the considerations of both the applicant as well as members of the public in this matter. The next standard is regardless of the zoning districts involved such structures will not be located within 100 ft of any existing residential building, that being any structure containing dwelling units, nor will the proposed structure violate the provisions of subsection A above in regard to any such residential building. Um The point that needs to be made here is that there is no existing residential dwelling or building within 100 ft of any of the four proposed radio antenna. As Mr. Brody detailed, you’ve got a separation of at least ah 450 ft from the Hurd residence. The Hurds would be the sellers of the real estate in April of 2005 to Mr. Hecht. Ah You have 700 ft from the nearest ah residence on on on Rt. 15 or Outer Broadway and you have at least 700 to 900 ft. across the Kenduskeag Stream for any closest residence. There are some residential structures in this area. Um I dare say it’s hard to site any structure in Bangor without being in some proximity of some residential structures. But I think um Mr. Hecht pretty responsibly looked at property over a fair period of time and tried to select a large enough parcel so that by just open space these antennas would be buffered from the neighboring residences and so the last standard under 165-105 that relates to conditional uses is the very provision that allows for radio ah and television towers as they are called under the Land Development Code. And that’s 165-105, D-4 and it says radio and television towers are permitted as conditional uses provided that such facilities are located not less than 100 feet from any property line and not less than 150 feet from an existing residential building. None of the four radio antennas proposed the application ah is located with 100 feet or I dare say um within less than 400 feet of any property line or any existing residential building. We would certainly entertain questions from the the public ah and from Board Members as directed by the ah Chairman of the Board. And Um Mr. Brody, Mr. Hecht and I are happy to take your questions um on this project. Chairman Guerette: We will begin with a question from Member Rosenblatt and then Member Clark. Member Rosenblatt: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Um a couple of questions, um Mr. Hamilton. Um On the language of the ordinance ah front, I’m having a little trouble, this Land Development Code of ours is not perfect you may have noticed. Um The ah the fourth conditional use criterion I I must say I’m struggling with a little bit in that it talks about um ah the proposed development conforming as you pointed out to the general character of development in the immediate area as to architectural style, building bulk, and extent and intensity of site use. It’s, I’m just having a bit of difficulty reconciling an antenna with what does exist in the immediate areas. And I guess, can you help me with that? Mr. Hamilton: Sure. Um let me endeavor to look into um the window of what’s permitted in the Rural Residence and Agricultural District um and suggest to you um that there’s quite a range of activities that are both permitted uses and conditional uses. Um The fact that the drafters of the ordinance ah provide clearly for radio towers and other structures that have that verticality ah to be sited in a Rural Residence and Agricultural District I think is reflective of the fact that such uses do have to exist in a community and um so what um makes sense to me is that um they didn’t intend that such structures even though you might say that the extent and intensity of use is just a physical measurement into the sky then that would um argue for not even including those conditional uses in the Rural Residence and Agricultural District. Um I don’t think it can apply to architectural style cause I don’t think a radio antenna or radio tower or television tower is supposed to have architectural style. So I can put that one aside. Building bulk, um I can pretty readily put that one aside because I don’t think what you are trying to do is make a radio or television tower match the building bulk of a stick built residential structure or particularly a farm building. We’ve got some really large farm buildings in the City and other communities in Maine. You wouldn’t want to try and match the building bulk um with, with with a radio tower so that’s why I said those two I’m pretty, pretty um comfortable with a view that the ordinance drafters must not have intended to you have to match up the architectural style and building bulk. Extent and intensity of site use I think the the um view that we’re taking is that as a factual matter laying this project on the ground in the Rural Residence and Agricultural District there was perhaps a special obligation on our part to find a location that notwithstanding the fact that you can’t find many sites in Bangor now that don’t have some residential activity associated with them. Um You should find a large enough site so that you can meet the dimensional requirements um so that you can meet what appear to be essentially separation or buffering requirements that are found both in the conditional use provision in the Rural Residence and Agricultural District as well as in the height requirements under 165-60 for conditional uses that do have height associated with them. I would argue that the extent and intensity of use has been mitigated by the fact that we’re taking a 53-acre parcel, we’re taking structures that occupy a very small footprint on the on the land surface, and as as Mr. Brody said, we have a variable conservation easement on the balance of the property. Um You’re not going to see a site development that would encroach within the FCC requirements of those radio antennas and so what you are doing is sure there is verticality and I understand that question but um I think that question is to be answered under 165-60. Compare this to a a manufacturing use, a large-scale agricultural use, a large-scale silvacultural use , and I think you will agree with me that radio antennas have to be one of the most passive uses of land that you will see in the City close to a cemetery in many respects because the structures just sit there. There isn’t a lot of activity associated with with that. If the concern is with respect to the transmission of signal, Mr. Hecht can readily answer that. The FCC has answered that. The fact of the matter is the location of Bangor High School approximate to the WZON towers for a long time in the history of both the Bangor High School and the WZON towers would suggest that the health risk is not there. So by any standard, any objective standard that I can use that would address extent and intensity of site use, I think we need that. Then you get to the verticality test under 165-60 and I think that’s where the ordinance crafters meant to say we recognize that this community of Bangor has to allow for tall structures and they said it pretty clearly in terms of the standards that were set forth. Member Rosenblatt: Just two quick ah factual questions. Um The ah setbacks that are mentioned in 165-105 before the 100 feet from any property line and 150 feet from any existing residential building, ah, as I understand it we’re considering the structure to include the guy wires as well as the um, the, I don’t know what you call it, the, the base for the guy wires, is that right? Mr. Hamilton: Right. Member Rosenblatt: And so those, the bases for those guy wires also meet those dimensional setback requirements? Mr. Hamilton: Right. I’ll I’ll talk about um my pragmatic view aside from the technical view you present. I think we’ve we’ve got a new interpretation from Code that extends the footprint of a radio tower out a lateral distance but even using that interpretation we’ll meet the 100 to 150 foot setback and I’m going to just check in with Mr. Brody and, yes, the answer is yes. Member Rosenblatt: Finally and then I’ll shut up, um, ah ah is there any noise associated with this use? Mr. Hamilton: Mr. Hecht advises zero and you can ask him any detailed questions you would like on that. Member Rosenblatt: Thank you. Mr. Hamilton: Yup. Member Clark: o.k. um, As a amateur radio nut who listens to about 10 hours of radio every day … Mr. Hamilton: wow Member Clark: and a novice historian for radio in the City, I know we have four AM th stations right now in the Bangor area so I suppose a 5 wouldn’t be too bad, but my question is ah Mr. Hecht um how much power are we talking in this station and based what is the range that you are shooting for, your signal range, how much area will you encompass with your signal and the chance of bleeding over, there was a long time when we moved to our house that I could pick up my telephone and listen to WZON. I didn’t mind when the Sox games were on but it was okay but is there any chance because they are at 620 and you’re going to be at 750 from what I understand is there a chance that you will bleed over into their signal or vice versa? I know that’s that’s like three questions wrapped into one. Mr. Hecht: I’ll be happy to answer them. Member Clark: Go for it. Make my day. Mr. Hecht: Let me answer these in no particular order and if I forget one please remind me that I have. Ah, 620 and 750, is there any possibility for interaction or interference between the two. No, that’s that’s reviewed by the FCC in granting the permit. Ah, so you know that’s been done already and that it shouldn’t happen anyway but it’s not an issue. Ah, hit me with the next one again. Member Clark: Power and range. Mr. Hecht: Okay, the station will have 50,000 watts during the day on the frequency of 750 and will have 10,000 during the night. The day and night ranges are different because they are different power. The day signal is omni-directional meaning that ah we are just using one antenna so it’s a circular signal and in the evening, the nights, we are using a directional antenna because we have to limit ah our signal in certain directions for certain radio stations to comply with FCC rules. Not just in the United States but in Canada as well. It gets complicated. If you want to know more about it I will but I don’t want to like get too technical so um the directional antenna at night is not by choice it’s by necessity to meet FCC regulations um so that that signal if you want to know where that goes at night that signal basically goes um predominantly um east southeast and south. It’s not that there isn’t any signal in other directions but what we call the main lobe or the gain area of the antenna that’s where it is present. So basically it encompasses the greater Bangor area. Clarke: I was going to ask questions like format, call letters and things like that but we’ll worry about that later. Mr. Hecht: Let me answer one that I can. It’s a matter of public record, don’t want to hide, want to give you information. The call letters that the FCC recognizes the station WRME. Clarke: So you are going to play REM, okay. That’s good. Mr. Hecht: No, (laugh). Clarke: Um, well, for the people who live right in the general area when the signal is going out, any chance of them picking up the station on anything that is not a radio like Aunt Effie’s dentures or something? Mr. Hecht: Yes, that is a possibility. Ah, the FCC has rules requiring us to remedy any incident for lack of a better word. I mean I would be lying if I said it was impossible or couldn’t happen but clearly um there are over 5,000 AM radio stations in the United States many of them located in highly residential areas where there are houses literally around the antennas and any problems if they do occur can be resolved. Member Clark: Thank you. Chairman Guerette: Ah This is a public hearing so anyone who would like to speak as a ah proponent, anyone in favor of this ah development before us this evening this would be the opportunity to come to the podium and speak and I would ask that you ah state your name and address the Board. If you have any questions that can only be answered by the applicant, we’ll try to get those questions answered for you later in the evening. Are there any proponents? If there are no proponents, any opponents? Well, I came in the middle of your differentiation, Mr. Chairman, I’m not here as either a proponent or opponent and Chairman Guerette: We all know who you are but for the record … My name is Hal Wheeler, ah yes, well sometimes I forget. Um My name is Hal Wheeler. I live at 315 Silver Road in Bangor which puts me about as far away from being an abutting property owner as you possibly could ah find. First of all, Mr. Brody, I need to correct your ah statement that at one time WZON had two freestanding lattice towers. That station never had two towers of that type ah because my first broadcasting job was with the station that occupied those facilities and the reason they have the smaller 220 foot tower is that when the owner wanted to install another 402 foot tower we were very close to the beginning of World War II and a steel shortage prevented that from being available so there never were two towers. I, I think, I think it’s a landmark frankly. Mr. Clarke has already asked a couple of the questions ah I would like to have a little better knowledge of ah how far the daytime, non-directional signal will reach at 50 kilowatts ah I’m when I heard this was to be a four tower array I assumed before I got any information that it was either going to be very high power or and/or a very, very directional signal. Ah That question has been partially answered already. Ah I note that the ah application provides for not only the construction of the towers and the ah what we used to call the dog houses for them but also the 500 square foot building which I presume is the transmitter shack. Mr. Hecht: Yes. Wheeler. Yes. Ah, ah, there are obviously no plans to construct studios on this site and now I want you to understand that you are not legally bound to answer these questions because they are not part and parcel of the technical application before the Board but as a broadcaster who will be celebrating 50 years in or connected with the business this month ah I am curious as to whether you plan to originate programming locally or to depend upon the satellite programming and if the latter is the case where will the dishes be located and I’m also somewhat concerned that ah information has come to be from one who I consider a very reliable source that even before approval by this Board ah efforts have been made by your organization to ah sell this construction permit to any interested party. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Guerette: Thank you. Ah, we’re still in a public hearing so um any other ah opponents and I guess I’d just like to remind folks that we’re not really here to discuss what the antennas will do. We’re really here to discuss whether they should be placed there. That’s the mission of the Planning Board so any information that you might have that would help us guide us in making that decision would be extremely helpful. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Scott Westhrin. I own property at 160 Finson Road. My wife and I have a single-family residence there basically across the stream from the proposed site. I’m here to speak against the proposed development as I believe it is not appropriate for the, ah, proposed location. Ah, it’s already been mentioned here that the Planning Board as a conditional use, ah, may grant the conditional use but you must determine that the request meets the four standard conditions. And I believe Member Rosenblatt already spoke to condition number four stating that and I read the actual ordinance ah the proposed use although not appropriate for every site in the zone is appropriate for the location for which it is sought because the proposed use will conform to the general character of the development in the immediate area as to architectural style, building bulk and extent and intensity of the site use. The paragraph continues and it says as to architectural style the applicant must show that the proposed structure and that’s important, structure, conforms to the exterior façade, roof lines, shape, and materials used on buildings in the immediate area and further in that paragraph it defines immediate area as within the same block and within 500 feet of the site of the proposed use. The reason I talk about structure in the Code ah it does define structure as anything constructed or erected with a fixed location on the ground or attached to something having a fixed location on the ground including but not limited to mobile homes, buildings, walls, billboards, signs, piers and floats. I believe the 276 foot, four 276 foot tall antennas fall within the definition of structure. The applicant has already indicated that there are some resident, residential properties that fall within the 500 foot of the actual location of the four antennas. I would also say that there are probably twenty to twenty-five other residential and other structures surrounding the proposed site, the boundaries of the site, my property being one of them where most of the properties are located on Finson Road but there are some other properties on, ah, Broadway as well as a couple of churches. All of these properties are basically stick-built, ah, properties, one and two story buildings, the churches are basically stick-built as well. Ah All of the properties ah do not exceed 40 feet in height. Ah, there is one church that has a small spire on it that may be 50 feet in height and again, I don’t believe that the proposed 276 foot tall structures conform to the exterior façade. I don’t believe that the 276 foot tall radio structures are appropriate for the proposed location because they don’t conform to the general character of the development in the immediate area as to architectural style and building height. And I ask the Planning Board to deny the applicant’s conditional use request. Thank you. Mr. Rosenblatt: Mr. Chairman, could I just ask a question of Mr. Westhrin? Chairman Guerette: Sure. Member Rosenblatt: Um, I’m, I’m sympathetic to to that ah interpretation of the Land Development Code. The problem I’m having though is that there’s no question that, um, in this District radio and television towers are conditional use and the dimensional requirements 100 feet from any property line not less than 150 feet from any existing residential building, I mean to me that implies that whoever drafted that provision concluded that if the radio or television tower was a greater distance than the 100 feet or the 150 feet that that would be okay and, um, ah, and I’m having trouble squaring that with the conditional use standard which talks about 500 feet. I mean here, here it’s pretty clear that someone concluded that as long as radio and television towers were that distance away from residences that it would be okay. Westhrin: Alright, I’d agree with you that the, ah, in this zone Rural Residential and Agricultural does give a conditional use for a radio antenna. But it does state that it may be appropriate for some areas and not all areas within the site and I’m basically saying that within 500 feet of the boundaries not just where the actual four towers are going to be located but the actual boundaries of the site because the Code I don’t believe specifies the actual location of the towers on the ground, it just talks about the site. So within 500 feet of this, the boundaries of that site are probably twenty to twenty-five residential structures, one and two story, um, that I don’t believe that you can find, ah, that test number four has been met. Chairman Guerette: Thank you. Westhrin: Thank you. Chairman Guerette: Ah, Let me just share with you my own calculations on that height and distance ratio. If a, ah, if a forty foot tower has a 150 foot required distance from the nearest property line and if that is in proportion, the, that means that a 276 foot tower should be 1,035 feet from the nearest property line to keep the same ratio height versus distance. Vaughn Smith: Good evening my name is Vaughn Smith. I live at, (cleared throat) excuse me, 54 Pine Ledge Road but I also own a home at ah 2186 Broadway. It bothers me greatly that the highest point of land in Bangor is 338 feet above sea level. The area that they’re proposing these towers is roughly 100 feet. I see by their one of them is 108, I think and 118 and one’s 109. Simple, if height is so important then I think you ought to start with a higher piece of land. Ah, if you look at our TV towers in the area, they’re none of them are in Bangor. There are no, they’re all out in the surrounding areas at the 800’ above sea level. Ah, one of them, I, I looked tonight on the internet to get the, ah, to get the elevations. I think that another thing that should be taken into consideration is the amount of stream frontage. We worked very diligently to clean up Kenduskeag Stream. I think we’re taking a lot of the stream frontage out of the ah, the equation. I just don’t think that they fit at all, ah, in that area. Ah, Mr. Hamilton said that nobody has to look up. I happen to live within a mile of that site, personally at ah my Pine Ledge house where I live. I’m at the 330’ elevation and I don’t have to look up. I wouldn’t have to look up to see the towers. I wouldn’t have to look to see the top of them. So I think you ought to get the idea that I’m against it, I guess. Barb Weiss: I’m Barb Weiss. I teach at Bangor High and I bought Tom and Nancy Small’s . . . . (end of Tape 1, Side 2) (beginning of Tape 2, Side 1 . . . . ah a photo that Tom very kindly left in the garage. If you see (walks away from the microphone) (in audible) I’ll give it to you and you can pass it around. I think it’s easier. I apologize, it was in the garage. And that’s the view from my deck looking straight across the stream. And um, I just want you to know that my daughter has often called me up in the winter, said Mom, Mom, quick go out on the deck and look you can see the Northern Lights. I mean that’s how beautiful the view is out on the Finson Road. Um, I do have a lot of information that I hope the Board will consider in addition to the to the economic and developmental aspects of this sort of project. Um, my friend Sue Godding from Lincoln likes to tell the story when she was a nanny, ah, to the head of NBC Sports and he and Bryant Gumbell came up to Maine to fish and when they got back down to Connecticut they said to Sue “Man Bangor’s unbelievable. You no sooner get your rental car and get out of the airport turn left on the main road and God you’re out in the wilderness.” You know, we know that Six Mile Falls and north Bangor station isn’t the wilderness but to people from away, that, that is a beautiful corner of Bangor and I happen to think that Route 15 is actually the nicest road in and out of Bangor. It’s a very pretty area. I, I just can’t understand why we would want to build those structures there. They’re heavy metal, industrial structures and they just don’t match anything else that’s in that little corner of Bangor. When you drive down Route 15 it’s churches, it’s little farms, it’s little small buildings but nothing’s over two stories. I, I, I apologize to Mr. Smith that why not build a mile and a half up the road in Glenburn where they want to develop a light industrial zone at the bottom of the McCarty Road. I mean there’s never going to be any houses up there and that would be a much better site for something like this. Six Mile Falls lets people see how beautiful Bangor is. I have friends who live out in New Mexico and they had seen television coverage of the stream race last year and they called up and said my God I can’t believe how green and lush Bangor is like even in April before the, the leaves come out and I just wonder what the stream is going to look like in the coverage of next year’s race with a big old ugly tower sticking up in the back of the TV shot of the canoes going over Six Mile Falls. Im, I’m not sure it’s going to present quite the same picture. I also wondered how long these towers are going to last. I mean we know that technology in communications changes very quickly. I, what’s going to happen when they are defunct. Are they just going to be left to rust and, and look ugly. And if they are just left behind in a few more years who’s gonna, who’s gonna to have to tear them down. Is that something that the City of Bangor has to take of? Um, I do know that we often have micro bursts in our area and I just didn’t know, ah, how um susceptible these types of towers are to that type of weather formation. (cleared throat) Now I realize that the towers are going to set back a little bit from the stream but I don’t know unless you’ve been down on the Finson Road if people realize it’s not just people who live there but it’s also lot and lots of animals and birds. And I’m, I’m only a casual bird watcher. I wish I’d brought my bird book with me now. But, I mean, I see every Spring all kinds of song birds who’ve flown all the way up from the Gulf of Mexico to get back to Bangor. I mean I see thrashers and hummingbirds and worblers and this, um this spring I saw two gray jays and they’re just like woodpeckers they’re often out in the deep forest. But for some reason the deep forests are no longer suitable for them and they’re starting to come into town which is just like the piles headed woodpecker that stays in out neighborhood all year. (cleared throat) The piles headed woodpecker stays with his downy friends and his (inaudible) friends and we have, um, we have a nesting pair of, of hairy woodpeckers and they live right in the pine trees right at the edge of the stream and they have their babies every spring and they’ve trained their babies to come by our bird feeder and then they peep whenever they see us come out of the house. They peep just as if to say hurry up, you know, feed that, feed that baby and they want us to pour birdseed into our bird feeder. (cleared throat) In the spring we have lots of flycatchers. We’ve got pheobes and king birds and then when the stream get low we’ve got little herons, great blue herons and, um, lots of, um, they’re not really sandpipers but they’re, they’re an odd kind of stork and I only ever see them every couple of years that they, they rely on that little pool that’s right at the bend come fishing late in the summer before they head south. I’m really most worried about the impact of these towers. I was quite shocked to see how close they’re going to be those, those big Pine trees that you can see, um, on the other side of the stream. There’s about eight tall, old pine trees. They, I bet they’re 90 feet high and every April I have wood ducks, I have morganzers and I have um, ah buffleheads and golden eyes. Now these are tree nesting ducks. They actually go into these cavities in the trees and they hatch their eggs up in the tree. And then the poor little ducklings have to drop down about 40 feet and make it to the shore. Well I know that the towers are behind the trees but I’m awfully worried about having those trees lit up. Because the minks and weasels get after the, the ducklings pretty well now. I’don’t know how, how much easier it is going to make it with light on at night for the minks and weasels to get into these nests. Besides minks and weasels, we’ve got beavers, raccoons, flying squirrels, and for the past four years we’ve had this, this pair of eagles. They’re an older couple and they, I know that they come up off the bridge in Bangor and they fly up the stream and they, they visit almost routinely in the morning around ten o’clock and for the past three years they’ve had a young eagle with them. I’m , I’m assuming it’s theirs and he, he’s only just turned white this spring and he’s, he’s a bit of a nuisance because he lives right in my yard during the day. I think he thinks my bird feeder is is an amusement park just set up for him. He comes and, and just waits for all the little birds to come to the bird feeders. He’s also keeping an eye on our cats but I think he’d struggle to get them up off the ground. The thing about, that I ‘m worried about this poor young eagle I do have video tape of him by the way it’s when he takes off he takes off directly across the east and he would fly right through those towers cause he’s trying to get back to Pushaw Lake and I, I just can’t imagine what impact, um, these towers are going to have on the wildlife in my little area. I don’t know if um, if an environmental impact study is required on this type of project? But I’d be interested to know. Maine is a is a great big state but the habitat is shrinking and in addition to the eagles what I’m really worried about are the otters. Um, there’s a , there’s stones or big rocks right in the middle of that bend and the otters nest in the mud banks on the opposite side. And in the winter there’re out during the day and you can see them on the ice and they’re fishing and their frolicking. But during the summer you don’t see them. They come out and they fish at night between eight o’clock and midnight you can hear them calling to each other and they sound just like sneakers on a basketball court. Squeak, Squeak, squeak, squeak squeak, squeak, squeak, (sounds) and they fish at night and I would hate to think of the poor little otters having to learn to fish at night with big bright lights on them. I just, you know, as the other speakers have have mentioned, I just don’t think that these towers fit the residential nature or the character of our neighborhood. And um I certainly don’t think they’ll help make the wildlife and the birds feel at home. I think there must kind of be a better place for these towers and I, I don’t know how you evaluate this but I, I think just maybe the, the ugliness and the um, environmental impact of these towers might not be worth the jobs and the sort of, um, development that this sort of project would bring to Bangor. I want to thank you very much for sending me a card and notifying me of this hearing. Otherwise, I probably wouldn’t have known it even through I do read the Bangor Daily pretty religiously. I probably would have missed any notices. But, thank you for, ah, considering my remarks. Chairman Guerette: Thank you. Greg Swett: Good evening. My name is Greg Swett and I live on 260 Finson Road and Barbara’s neighbor and we have many neighbors here with us tonight and she certainly reflected many of the concerns we have about this construction. It’s almost insulting to me as a taxpayer to a person who actually purchased land and , and like my neighbors have tried to make many improvements to the area that we’re living to think that we’re going to sit on our back decks now and look at ah, ah, ah, a bright red light or whatever color that light happens to be. It doesn’t really matter. And I, and I think that Barbara made a lot of those points in a wonderful way. Another point I’d like to make, however, is home value. Ah, most of us who have purchased ah land and built homes on the river on the Kenduskeag River did that thinking that we were in a nice quite area where other people would build but we’d also have great home improvements and I think this could be very discouraging based what I see tonight having looked at the, the diagrams and also getting a letter from you. Like Barbara I appreciate getting that letter. But I think our home value is going to really, ah, take a beating if these towers are put up there. And I know that we can see them cause I’ve checked, checked where our house is with regards to the drawings. Ah, I think that Bangor has always recognized that they couldn’t provide us with sewerage. I just spent $13,000 a couple of years ago putting in our own new septic system. They couldn’t provide us with water so we drill our own wells and that is understandable because of our location. And I think most of us here from the Finson Road, at least, experience that. But this, this is really, ah, just totally unacceptable to think that we might have to contend with the towers and so forth. And I’m sorry that the gentleman has spent this amount of money thinking that he could, ah, build the towers there but I agree with what Barbara said. There are many other places in the area where these towers could be built. And if towers were built earlier in town, so be it. This is a different time. We have a , we have a gem on our hands here in the Kenduskeag River and I think we have to keep that in mind at all times. I didn’t know a lot about 165-94 until I came tonight but I think clearly that’s the provision 165-94 that would, ah, make it so that the Board or the Committee should not approve the, ah, building of these towers. Thank you. Chairman Guerette: Thank you. Ah, there are still others. Thank you. Connie Lewis: Hi, my name is Connie Lewis and, um, you saw the picture of my home on ah, one of the, I’m the house directly beside where the towers are going to go. Um, there were a lot of good points made tonight. Ah, one point, I, I would not have to look up to see the towers. They’ll be directly out my, the window of my home. Ah, I’d like to ask the, before you make a decision tonight, um, if any of you have been out to the site to view actually more than just pictures of where this is gonna go but the home center there and our yard and the beauty of what exists. I don’t know if you’ve visited the site but I think it’s important before you make a decision. Um, there were some points made where there were interpretations of certain, um, ordinances the 165- 60. I did hear that they interpreted it how they would like to see that interpreted. Um, shadows aren’t my concern if it’s going to shadow my house that’s not my main concern. Um, one thing in 165-9, A, 4, um, there’s more than just the height limit there’s character, general character of the style. Is it appropriate for the location um, this is residential homes directly across the street, directly beside and on the other side. Um, I don’t think you can get a real good idea of a visual from a picture like that. Ah, I’ve lived in Bangor all my life. I drive by WZON. I don’t think that those show exactly what you see with the tower. The wires. Um, also I, my question would be neighborly friendly. I don’t see the towers as being neighborly friendly as, as, as I heard tonight. Um, health risks. As far as Bangor High being, um, close to WZON and the health, health risks he that I heard would not be a problem. We’re talking one tower as opposed to four towers directly by residential homes and I don’t know if the, um, footage from Bangor High to WZON I don’t know if its as close as my home is to this, ah, project. Um, also, the zoning, I don’t know when that was put into effect. I don’t know if anybody here knows when they approved radio towers for, um, our zone for residential, ah, rural zoning. I don’t know if these types of towers were even developed at that time. I don’t know if any of you know if that were the case. Um, also, um, they don’t know for sure if it’s going to affect our radio, telephone. Um, our tv’s. That was something that they couldn’t answer tonight. Um, they also stated, ah, I’ don’t know if any of you have seen copies of FCC requirements and what they have. Ah, he said that in the FCC requirements it stated that, um, there would be no interference but he couldn’t tell for sure. The DEP was an assumption that that was approved. Um, I didn’t hear that there was an approval. Ah, I would think that that would have to be something to consider before approving something like this. Um, what else. Also, value of our homes. I did talk to some real estate agents in the area that, ah, told me point blank that that definitely would, ah, diminish the value of the homes in the area. Um, local real estate agents I can give their names Um, she, we’ve just built our house a couple of years ago for a substantial amount of money. We do pay taxes and this for the thought of that to decrease the value of my home when we built in that development there are, there are three beautiful homes built right there fairly new. Um, you know, we, we weren’t under the we didn’t build it thinking that something like this was gonna in our back yard and diminish the value of our home. And I, I would like you to consider ah, coming out to the location and, and seeing the beauty out there and, if there is anything I left out. Um, yeah, so definitely on number four, ah, it I see it as more than just the height the appropriate for the location the, the general character of the of the area there is nothing we’re not in the residential area of Broadway. Um, materials used the roof lines, the, the, that building (inaudible) at the end the bottom of the towers would not match the buildings in the area, the character of the buildings in the area I don’t see. Um, so I just wanted to oppose and give you my reasons why. Thank you. Chairman Guerette: Thank you. Are there still public comments? Jim Davitt: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, I’m Jim Davitt. Ah, my wife and I live at 59 Hudson Road just around the corner off Broadway. We ah, were before this Board a few years ago. We now run the only bed & breakfast in Bangor. The Six Mile falls area where this is proposed is a unique part of Bangor and it’s a very overlooked part of Bangor. More than 100 years ago, the area was known as the Six Mile Falls sometimes also known as East Bangor. It had its own Post Office, it’s own school, had it’s own store. The store is still there. It’s now the AG Store at Six Mile Falls. A 100 years ago there was some industry there. There was a blacksmith shop. The blacksmith shop is still there only now it’s Harvey’s Trailers and that was it. The rest was rural, the rest was farmland. Within less than half a mile of this proposed site of these proposed buildings are five structures that are listed in that 1976 Book of the Historic Structures of Bangor. Our house is one of them. We are around the corner on the Hudson Road. But from our house we could see these towers. And with all due respect to Mr. Hamilton who says well people don’t look up, ah, they’re not going to see these things. I would submit that any structure that is 276 feet tall that is painted orange and white is going to stick out like a sore thumb against the sky. And it doesn’t make any difference which direction you’re going to be going on Broadway. We have guests coming to us literally from all over the world. Most of them comment on how pleasant it is to come out from the airport and all of a sudden they’re in farmland. It’s quiet, it’s peaceful. There are new homes, yes but they’re nice looking homes. There’s nothing to distract from the beauty of the area. If you are heading out Broadway, heading toward Glenburn as you come up a slight hill just past Pushaw Road, the whole vista of that was now field opens in front of you. Behind it off in a distance is a hill. Towers are going to distract from that view entirely. If you’re coming in Broadway from Glenburn you cross the Kenduskeag go up a hill and the first thing you’re going to see are those orange and white towers. There’s been much said tonight about architectural style. Well we know you cannot design a radio antenna to look like a house. But the question that is before the Board tonight, ah, has to do with whether or not this is an appropriate conditional use for the area. I will accept that under the zoning code that a tower or radio antenna could be an excepted conditional use. The question is not whether it is an excepted conditional use but is it appropriate for this particular area. What future impact is it going to have on the development of that area? The Hurd property a 102 acres is now for sale. It’s zoned Rural Residential. I see eventually, a fair number of houses being built there. I’m fine with that. The houses that have been built on Broadway on part of the old Hurd property, there are three of them, they are nice houses. They do not detract from the area and in the middle of this we’re going to have a project like this. It may be appropriate, it may be a conditional use that’s acceptable, but is it appropriate for the area? I would speak on behalf of Six Mile Falls area, ah, please do not allow this to be built. Thank you. Jason Lewis: Hello, ah my name is Jason Lewis. You just heard my wife Connie a few minutes ago. Ah, I’ll try not to repeat what I’ve heard tonight. I’ve heard a lot of things that I agree with, ah, the gentleman that just spoke, ah, brought to light the future impact. Ah, these gentlemen here keep comparing these four towers to the two that have been standing in at ZON for how many years? Since world now? So when these four towers get put in and the gentlemen from, ah, New Jersey come up again they’re gonna want to compare six towers to the four that are over here. Um, you know, I see that as future impact. I see that as developing and developing further out Broadway. Um, I’m having a hard time with the, um, the, the verbiage that, ah, I’m not sure of the lawyer’s name but um, as far as the transparent towers, um, the visibility on the landscape. I guess, um, as far as being, ah, transparent and, and not visible on the landscape my question is what’s the purpose of the red lights? Ah, unless I’m missing something it’s to make them visible. Um, what else. I had a few questions, um, there are other dishes over, I’m mean other towers in Bangor over by the Water Tower, actually, and there is a bunch of dishes hanging off it and it looks, ah, pretty ugly. I was wondering, um, is that, will these towers have the ability to hang dishes on em or other antennas? Ah, the ah, the other question on this topographical photo that was taken I was wondering what date that was taken? Barbara Weiss: Oh, ah, the photo taken from my house? Jason Lewis: No this one over here. Because I didn’t see ah, house in it. Chairman Guerette: Sir, why don’t you address those questions to the Board and we’ll try to get them answered later on. Jason Lewis: Oh, yeah, my question is when that topographical, ah, photo was taken. Chairman Guerette: Thank you. Jason Lewis: Since our house wasn’t in the photo that I could see. Um, I have a question, is a since looking at the map those two towers that are near the river are going to be right in the center of the trees. Um, in the wooded area. Ah, my question is how close can trees be to these towers? (cell phone ringing in background) Um, not to mention that tall trees that were mentioned earlier. Cause I, I see that two of those towers are in the field and two are down in the wooded area. Um, the, the other question um, um, my concern is this grounding issue. Ah, they mentioned that, ah, they showed a picture of the tower, ah, the potential tower, um, without, ah, chain linked fence around the shack and then mentioned that the grounding, ah, six inches below the earth. They spent a lot of detail explaining that, um, but I didn’t hear a lot of detail that the, the six poles that were needed for the aerial, ah, grounding, uh 8 foot poles. I’m picturing surround the, the antenna. Ah, I don’t see any pictures over here of that. I’m concerned with that and I think that’s about all I had. Um, and I agree with what I’ve heard tonight, ah, the 165-9 -4 is definitely without, you know, definitely is the reason why these shouldn’t be put, ah, these towers shouldn’t be built. So, thank you. Chairman Guerette: Thank you. Catherine Merithew: Hello, Chairman Guerette: Yes, Ma’am. Catherine Merithew: My name is Catherine Merithew and I live at 272 Finson Road. And as if you’ve been out on Finson Road you probably know that when you come in from Broadway about a half mile in the road ascends and then your up probably another 100, 200 feet. So our view of the towers would be straight across head on not like that you look up or anything like that. And I don’t want to repeat what the others have said because time’s going by but I feel like this would when you reduce it down this would just be a real eyesore for such a beautiful area of Bangor that’s rural and residential and thank you. Chairman Guerette: Thank you. Tessa Rosco: It looks like we’re all fighting for time here. I’m Tessa Rosco and I live with my mother at 252 Finson Road. I think we’ve been there for over 10 years now and I remember when my parents bought the house. They just fell in love with it instantly after looking out on our porch. I mean you saw our view, its georgeous. I’m now a junior at the University in Maine and I major in civil engineer. So I really understand the work that these men have put into this project. You know the hours in going through the effort to get the approvals and the excitement they even have for building this project, you know, I don’t think that should be taken away from them. But I think that we can find a better spot to do it. You know then (inaudible0 in such a beautiful area. I was Bangor High School’s Captain of Envirothon for three years’ running so I could go on and on about the wildlife and the soils and the aquatics and forestry and all the impact it could have but I think you’ve heard enough of that. Um, I’m also minoring in Mandarin Chinese and I actually get on a plane 6 a.m. tomorrow to go to China for my second time and I’m sure a lot of you I mean especially if you jumped across the road to Norumbega Art Hall they had that beautiful exhibit on and Yangsee River Project and all the development that’s going on in China and you know the compromises they’re making and the sacrifices they’re making within their environment to stop with their economic growth. And I don’t think this is the way that Bangor should start getting on that path. I mean I’m not comparing Bangor to China cause of course, you know, we’re not quite on the same ratio. But at the same time I just don’t want to see us end up making those same sacrifices. It’s just not worth it. And I think with a little bit more research into a better area we could find a compromise that would make both our sides happy. Thank you. Chairman Guerette: Thank you. Steve Daniels: Good evening, my name is Steve Daniels. I live at 208 Finson Road and, ah, I would not be seeing these towers from a mile away or half a mile away. I’m within the 500 foot zone of those towers. Ah, if you look at the picture, the bend of the river where the tower is closest I’m directly across from that. Ah, and I want to point out, again, the emotional side of me says this is just wrong to put this right in this beautiful area but you need a logical reason as well. And I, I look at 165-60, A and although, ah, these good gentlemen have said that they don’t believe this will drastically alter the appearance, ah, from my home it would be drastic. Ah, if it were your home at that same point it would be a drastic altering of your view. Ah, it would be a drastic appearance change for the entire area. So, please take into account that no only is this ah, a rural residential area but the people live there, live there for a reason. They live there because of all the places they could live and, and we searched for a long time before we bought this house a year ago. Ah, we bought it because of the character of that area and we would really hate to see that destroyed. It is a wildlife habitat like you wouldn’t believe. You cannot believe you’re in this. . . (End of Tape 2, Side 1) (Beginning of Tape 2, Side 2) . . . . . to that habitat. It’s just wrong and I’m not even sure it’s legal. So please take into your ah, account, ah, ah the logical side as well as the emotional side of why this project should not go forward. Thank you. Chairman Guerette: Thank you. Committee Members, I’m Beverly Shumaker. I live at 208 Finson Road and I just want to underscore very quickly a couple of points that were made and I also want to be on record so it is clearly noted how many people are in the opposition. The wildlife. wildlife resources are very important to us. I think they are important to the City. I think it’s important for history and we cannot, ah, tamper with that and I would want to make sure that, ah, very specific kind of testing is done to make sure that we’re not going to. I have to tell you also that I spoke to my realtor at Town and Country today and he was very clear in saying to me that my property value would certainly be impacted so underscoring what someone else said about that. Ah, the Kenduskeag Stream is a very special part of Bangor and I wouldn’t want it tampered with and then the bottom line is that I agree, ah, with Member Rosenblatt who started the discussion about 165-94 and that’s the exact reason why it should be denied. As a businesswoman in Bangor, I can completely appreciate the business people who are involved in this project but sometimes you have to look at the full picture and I hope the Committee members do. Thank you. Chairman Guerette: Thank you. Are there any other comments from the, ah, members of the public? Ah, any new members? (laughter) ______: Hi, I just had a little question. I, I can’t remember, ah, if these folks had looked at the, had gotten a permit from the FAA for the …. Chairman Guerette: We’ll try to get that answer in a moment. Thank you. If there are no other comments, I will close the public hearing at this time and, ah, what will happen now is that I will ask, ah, the Planning Officer for his report and then the, ah, there may be some more questions and answers from the members of the Planning Board. The applicant will have a chance, ah, to make some closing comments and to answer some of the questions that have been raised. You may do that now if you prefer, ah, prior to the Planning Officer’s report. And, ah, and then we’ll, ah, come to a motion, I’m sure. Mr. Hamilton: I’m completely at the pleasure of the ah, ah the members of the Board and the Chairman but, ah, just accustomed to, ah, having this opportunity as part of the public hearing but I will defer and take (inaudible). Chairman Guerette: I think your rebuttal comes after the closure of the public hearing. You. you are free to do that now. Mr. Hamilton: I’d take, I’d take the direction of the, of the, of the Board so I don’t, I, I want to be, ah, deferential but I want make sure I do it, ah, at the right time and the right circumstance itself. Do, do you want me to go ahead? Chairman Guerette: Yes, please. Mr. Hamilton: Ah, how would you like to do this? Would you like to go back through each of the comments and questions, ah, and if it’s, ah, respectfully to the Board. I think the Board has heard a lot of testimony that is outside the ambit of the ordinance. I know I’m not popular as a lawyer standing up here and suggesting that we come back to the ordinance and use the standard in the ordinance but those are the rules of the game. Property owners in Maine, ah, if a person owns a piece of property they are entitled to have their project and their use of property, ah, judged by the standards in the ordinance and, ah, I’ve heard, I’ve heard a fair number of suggestions, questions, comments that would be well outside the standards of the ordinance. I need to know from the Board from the Chair what your pleasure is in terms of how you would like to go down through this. Chairman Guerette: Well, I saw you making some notes, ah, but I noted four questions that, ah, need to be answered or, ah, that are still on the table. The date of the aerial photo, the closeness to the trees of the towers and the guy wires, the grounding mechanisms and whether or not the towers require some sort of a FAA approval. Mr. Hamilton: Ah, Chairman Guerette: Those are the questions I noted. Mr. Hamilton: To deal with the last question first, Mr. Chairman, FAA, ah, approvals are required. Those have been applied for and received is my understanding. Is that correct? Mr. Hecht: Yes indeed. Mr. Hamilton: They’ve been submitted and received by the agency and approved? Mr. Hecht: Yes and (inaudible). Mr. Hamilton: Ah, my memory isn’t going to be great so let’s back up on your list, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Guerette: Number three was grounding of, ah, the towers and what mechanisms are used to do that. Mr. Hamilton: Ah, I had, I had perceived preliminarily with respect to the grounding wires, ah, something that you may have perceived by the use of terminology and that is the purpose of those wires is for actually, ah, grounding from an electrical perspective. If lightening hits the, the radio antennas, the purpose is to ground the structure. That’s actually not the purpose of these grounding wires. The grounding wires are used for purposes of efficiency of the transmission of the signal and, ah, as Mr. Brody commented those, ah, grounding wires will be placed, ah, on beneath the surface for the most part. In some instances, from the perspective of environmental protection, we do have to elevate, ah, those grounding wires above areas where they would be approximate to the wetlands and we’re essentially going to from an aerial perspective extend the grounding wires above the surface of the ground to a utility pole and, and, and anchor them in that fashion. Ah, so we’re avoiding wetland impact by by doing that. Ah, I must say that a far amount has been said tonight and, ah, appreciate and understand the, the comments but I think it’s going to be helpful to come back to the requirements of the ordinance, ah, and as I do that let me make sure I’ve got your other questions, Mr. Chairman. The date of the photo being taken, Mr. Brody? Mr. Brody: If I might, I don’t have, I don’t have the exact the date of that photo. Where that photo was from, ah, those are from the State GIS program. They’re actively flying the entire state and as they’re done we can get portions of them. Ah, that’s I believe within the last five to seven years because it does not show the Lewis house there but it does show the two next to it that are fairly new homes. So, Mr. Hamilton: These photos that you’ve taken? Mr. Brody: Those photos that I took, ah, I believe are within the last few months. Yeah I just yeah I just went out and took those but the air photo that Mr. Lewis was referring to, ah, that’s within five to seven years. It’s a pretty recent photo. Chairman Guerette: Right. I think the only unanswered question is, ah, you indicated some, ah, cutting of trees in, ah, in, ah, wetland areas to, ah, in places where guy wires were going to be placed and so what is your distance in terms of clearance you know between the tower and any, ah, trees or the guy wires and any trees? Mr. Brody: (inaudible) (not near a microphone) …… I just want to measure the …. (then stepped up to the mic). There will be an eight-foot clearing for the guys and the grounding wires that are located within the wetland areas. Ah, the towers themselves, the fence that goes around, I mean the antennas, the fence that goes around the antenna I believe is about a fifteen-foot square and in most instances there’s probably more like twenty-five clear from the antenna base itself. Chairman Guerette: Thank you very much. Mr. Hamilton: Would it be appropriate, Mr. Chairman, to go down through the notes and just address those, ah, comments that address the standards in the ordinance? Chairman Guerette: Certainly. Mr. Hamilton: Ah, because I would observe something that I’m sure the Board is, ah, able to discern but I think it bears repeating from the applicant’s perspective. Ah, we appreciate concerns about, ah, wildlife, ah, considerations. That’s why in fact I think this proposal actually helps to preserve long term if not in perpetuity, ah, open spaces associated with this property. Ah, this property as was pointed out to me by a neighboring property owner was actually available for a housing development by Mr. Hurd. Mr. Hurd for a variety of reasons didn’t go forward with that project but in terms of impact to wildlife much more extensive impact to wildlife could have occurred on this property had an original plan for housing development occurred. Ah, the notion that we should pick a high spot in the City of Bangor and site the radio tower only there is something I, I’ve worked for a number of years with, with Mr. Vaughn Smith, I, I respect the gentleman’s perseverance and his own pursuit of development projects within the City and, and his visionary approach with the Bangor Water District and so he knows both sides both the development side and the conservation side. And I’ve got to say that it is a complex analysis to determine whether you’re going to find fit between a specific elevation and zoning that will authorize the use. Ah, the, the exercise is not to engage in a question as to whether there might be some alternative in Bangor unless you can bring it forward and say that’s the location where you should have put the radio tower. The question is if this applicant did a canvas of the Bangor area, identified a property that provided for the large size, the large footprint that would be appropriate for siting these towers to provide for the buffer that’s called for by the objective standards in the ordinance, ah, that property owner is entitled to have the application reviewed. Ah,I submit that comments about impact on property values you, you commonly hear in proceedings of this type, ah, I didn’t hear any evidence submitted into the record other than hearsay that somebody talked to a real estate broker and found that there would be impact on property value. I could get a dozen opinions that would go the other way on that issue. Ah, the point is how do we measure up under the conditional use standards and consistently, ah, those speakers who addressed the standards in the ordinance which is what we have before us to judge this application pointed to two standards, 165-9 (4) and 165-60 and there was some creative interpretations of the plain language of 165-9 , ah, 4) to meet the particular, ah, concerns that individuals have. Again, I understand the concerns, ah, and I, I appreciate, ah, all that Bangor has to offer, ah, but again coming back to the standard, ah, as I think both Mr. Westhrin and, ah, Mr. Davitt, ah, addressed this issue, ah, they looked to the text and Mr. Westhrin was actually, ah, fairly pointed in saying that, ah, as to architectural style the applicant must show the proposed structure conforms to the exterior façade, roof lines, shape and materials used on building in the immediate area. Ah, again I challenge anyone to find, ah, industrial, ah, use such as what Mr. Davitt noted has existed out at Six Mile Falls. Ah, I remember historically that metal recycling has been located at Six Mile Falls, ah, would someone argue that that is compatible, ah, from an architectural style perspective with a, with a historic residential structures in that area. I don’t think so. And I think that 165-105, ah, gives you the guidance that radio and television towers ah, ah are to be approved, they are permitted in the District provided that facilities are located not less than 100 feet from any property line and not less than 150 feet from any existing residential building and provided further the conditional use standards are met. So again I don’t think a radio tower or a television tower could ever be made to have the same architectural style including exterior façade, roof line, shape and materials. Mr. Davitt then comes forward with the argument that we should look to the future impacts under 165-9(4). Again, I think if you, ah, bring up proportionality setback test, as the Chairman suggested, if you bring an approach, ah, relating to future impacts to this standard 165-9(4) you have to find it in the plain language and I can’t get there based on the plain language of the ordinance. So I don’t think I’m asking the Board for a special favor when I say that this applicant would like the same treatment as other applicants that come before the Bangor Planning Board and that is we would like to be tested based upon the plain language of the ordinance. And we have labored for several months. This applicant acquired this property more than a year ago. We’ve been working on this project. It’s been well known. We’ve talked to the Planning Office and it’s been known to the neighbors that this project has been moving forward. Why were there no efforts to have discussions to purchase the property, ah, I submit that, ah, it’s because folks believed that housing development would occur out there. Ah, but housing development is going to have some of the same impacts that were addressed tonight. In fact, I think they would be more significant. The bottom line is that I did not hear in any of the comments, ah, by the folks who had objections or concerns objective evidence that we do not meet the standards of the ordinance so I would like to engage with the Planning Board in a discussion as to whether the Board has concerns, whether there is objective evidence on the record that we do not meet the objective right line standards for conditional use review under the Bangor Land Development Code. Chairman Guerette: Member Rosenblatt will go first on that. Member Rosenblatt: Mr. Hamilton, I would like to focus, ah, on 165-60 and just, ah, try to look at that language again in the context of some of the, ah, comments we’ve heard during the public hearing. Sounds like, ah, casting a shadow is not, ah, an issue, a significant issue ah, ah it sounds like depriving an adjacent property of light or air is not an issue. It sounds though like some of the comments do pertain to view or to that language regarding drastically altering the appearance of the setting of adjacent property improvements. Could you talk about those two criteria given what we’re heard? Mr. Hamilton: Certainly. I think with respect to the first issue of view. Ah, the context for that standard is depriving the adjacent property of light, air or view. Ah, I think the word depriving is a pretty clear and strong term. Ah, we’re not depriving neighboring uses of their view. We’re not blocking out the view, ah, of scenic resources. For instance, as Mr. Brody has said, ah, if you look to how this, ah, project is being sited we are preserving the shoreland area associated with the Kenduskeag Stream. The comment that Mr. Smith made from a subjective perspective that, ah, we’re somehow disspoiling the Kenduskeag Stream couldn’t be any further from the truth from an objective perspective. Ah, this is about the question as to whether you will see a tower, excuse me see an antenna, not a tower, ah, in the sky. I don’t think that’s the question that this standard wants us to look at. It says depriving the adjacent property of light, air or view and then it goes on to say not just drastically altering the appearance of the setting but it says of such adjacent property improvements. And, so I’m left with the question, ah, if what you’re doing is you’re taking this large open space, 53 acres, you’re preserving all but the footprint for 4 radio antennas. Ah, as we’ve shown through photos, ah, taken of very similar structures with very similar guy wires from 500 feet you’re really not going to see those guy wires. Ah, how are we drastically altering, again it’s not just altering, it’s drastically altering and it would be perhaps appropriate at some point during the proceeding to look to a definition of the term drastically. I didn’t bring the definition dictionary definition with me but I’ll bet you it’s a pretty strong term. I’ve not seen that standard in any statute, ah, regulation or ordinance I’ve ever had to interpret. That tells me that the drafter of this ordinance intended to give the very signal, ah, to Mr. Hecht that was given and that is, ah, you’re entitled to put a radio antenna out, ah, as long as you’re sensitive to the overall, ah, property setting and, and specific objectively meeting setback requirements. The challenge here is and I recognize the challenge because if I were a Board Member and I had folks approaching me I’d say gee there are a lot of people opposed to this project. But that isn’t the test. The test isn’t there are a lot of people that are concerned about future impacts, ah, to this particular area of Bangor. That’s not the test. The test is found in the ordinance and I think just as we’re going through this language we’ve got to keep coming back to the language because that’s fairly and how applicants before you are treated and need to be treated is objectively under these ordinance criteria. Other questions? Chairman Guerette: Thank you. Mr. Hamilton: No other Members have questions? Chairman Guerette: Apparently not. Mr. Hamilton: The applicant would like the opportunity to engage the Board if it does have questions, ah, because we would like the opportunity to, to address and satisfy concerns that you may have and I think from a due process perspective we’re entitled to have that opportunity to engage you on these issues and, and have a discussion so if you do have concerns or questions, ah, we would like that opportunity. Ah, Mr. Hecht did you have anything, ah, with respect to any of the issues that were, ah, addressed or Mr. Brody? Mr. Hecht: Yes, I would like to clarify. Mr. Hamilton: Please. Mr. Hecht: I just wanted to facts things, you know, there are things that are objective and there are things that are subjective. I want to deal with the things that are factual. Ah, there’s been talk about destroying the Stream. I, I, I don’t see how that is a factor at all. We are not touching, the property has a shoreland zone and an RP zone which borders the Stream. We are not touching that at all. There’s hundreds of feet of buffer along the Stream which are not going to change at all. So I can’t see in my mind and I don’t know disrespect to the people who have spoken I can’t see how that our project could alter anything with regard to the Stream. Another thing I just want to explain about lighting, lighting because I don’t think that it’s fully understood. It’s a light bulb that faces upward for planes. Conceive, just try to conceive of a light bulb 276 feet above the ground with a shield under it. How much light I mean there is no you will not any shadow of any kind on the ground, the wildlife will not know that there’s a light on up there. So again I just want to put that into perspective. It’s the air will not be illuminated. You will not see light coming into a home or a residence and last but not least last week I applied to the FAA for a special exception to only light and paint the north and south antennas. Ah, that would mean the east and west antennas including the one adjacent to the Lewis residence would not have to be painted or lit. Ah, the FAA should act on that by the end of the month. I would say our chances for success are about 50/50 on that. The bottom line is we have and we will do anything we can to be responsive to the area to the neighbors, ah, and if there is anything else that we can do we’ll do it. Thank you. Chairman Guerette: Thank you. Well with the regard for ah, ah your request Mr. Hamilton, ah, it’s I don’t have so much of a question but I think it’s only fair that I, ah, that we all kind of ah, ah vocalize what our, ah, positions are on the matter before we take a vote and I, ah, am thankful for all of the testimony that occurred tonight and I think the presentation was ah, ah extremely well done as usual. Ah, however I don’t think that this application in my eyes meets the conditional use standard of conforming to the general character of the area. Ah, you have a rural residential area with some private one-family homes and a few small, ah, miscellaneous establishments like a church and not too far away a little store, ah, I just don’t see a two, not only one 275 foot antenna, but four of them. I don’t see them conforming to the general character of the area and it’s a conditional use standard that I’m taking quite objectively, I believe, when I compare the presence of these towers next to residential structures. Ah, I don’t at all believe that your proposal or your project would have an adverse impact on wildlife or would degrade the character or the integrity of the Kenduskeag Stream or the resource protection surrounding it. And, ah, I think that we’ll probably see proposals before us in the future, ah, that that could potentially have much greater impact on an area like that. But ah, ah I am just struggling to believe that four 276 foot towers, ah, are, ah, at home in a rural residential area and I, and I just can’t and on that basis I cannot support the conditional use approval. Mr. Hamilton: To address your concern, Mr. Chairman, I think, ah, those who talked about, ah, the aesthetic nature of this area, ah, omitted to mention something that Mr. Brody has provided photographs of this evening and that is a Bangor Hydro transmission line, a cell tower and a water tower that’s visible within this stretch of Route 15 or Outer Broadway. And I submit to you what is the difference between a fairly substantial transmission line, ah, cell tower and water tower to the, ah, guy supported antennas that we’re addressing here. Chairman Guerette: I think if you ask the people that live there they would say that the difference is that those, ah, structures you just mentioned are not in their immediate area. An immediate area means next to your house. The next lot over or across the river in the very next parcel of land. Ah, I don’t want to speak for anyone but that’s how I would interpret it and that’s what I am basing my, ah, evaluation of this on. Mr. Hamilton: I think the question then is to look to what, is what is 165-94 addressing when it says the general character of the neighborhood. Which neighborhood? We go back to the objective right line standards of both 165-60 and 165-105A and look to the separation distances and, ah, there has been testimony that’s inconsistent with the measurements that we scaled from GIS map information and tax map information that shows there’s only one property within 500 feet, that’s the Hurd property. Then there are three other properties that are within 700 feet. The rest are more than 700 feet away from, ah, the nearest, ah, proposed, ah, antenna. Ah, so I think again we have to come back to the objective standards because the conditional use review gets vague and it, it, it engages in a question of whether the applicant, ah, has been given fair notice of the standards that it has to meet under the standards of the ordinance. Ah, ah, I, I respect that you can have a difference of opinion but I need to find that difference of opinion rooted to a standard in the ordinance and, ah, I would say that objectively the evidence shows that there are structures that are similar to radio antennas that exist in the immediate vicinity. And certainly those who commented that there would be visible across the landscape these structures are also visible across the landscape. Thank you. Chairman Guerette: Member Mitchell. Member Mitchell: Ah, I guess as far as process goes I was hoping to get David’s kind of, ah, overview of ah, ah the City’s perspective and kind of review of the full application before we went through this, ah, divulging process (laughing), yeah, I think it response to the immediate discussion that just occurred as far as, ah, figuring out whether appropriate types or similar types of uses are in the neighborhood. From what I’m understanding, ah, the photos that have been taken and, and the cell towers and the radio towers they are several miles away when we’re talking about much closer items and we think about the distance of several miles within a relatively small community that Bangor is you definitely are taken into a different neighborhood, ah, as far as considering the appropriate location of a site. Mr. Hamilton: I think the, the only, ah, perspective we provide is to immediacy of aerial structures is that the power line is, ah, immediately adjacent to the Lewis property and this property is immediately adjacent to Lewis. Member Mitchell: And how high is the power line? Mr. Hamilton: Ah ,it I believe it exceeds the height limit in the rural residence and agricultural zone. And I, I just wanted to make sure that my view on the cone of view was clearly understood. I’m not saying that you’re not going to see these, ah, guy supported radio antennas. I’m just saying that because the human view is tends to be directly on a linear plain you will see if you see this, ah, particular transmission line you’re, you’re also going to see a segment of, of the radio tower but if your field of, of vision is below the transmission line you’re not going to see the full extent of the radio antenna. And again if you come back to the language of 165-60 I can believe that you may find that that standard takes you to a different conclusion than what you would to reach in this case but that means you have to change the standard and the Board doesn’t have authority to change the standard. And I, I know Member Mitchell my argument’s not going to be popular with you because the human heart and mind wants to reach a different conclusion when you face conflict in a situation like this but that’s the reason why we have to have standards that are, ah, applicable and that we can work through and I just think the question is will we drastic drastically alter the appearance of site improvements in the area. I don’t think so. I don’t buy the general view because there hasn’t been any real evidence to support this that there’s going to be that impact on properties. I think there’s imagined impact, ah, I know that’s hard to hear. But that’s, that’s what’s happening in this proceeding is that we’re going from standards that are objective to standards that we’d like to see and I, I just have to keep coming back to 165-60 ah because that’s what the ordinance provides us for ground rules. (end of tape 2, side B) Hamilton (cont’d on tape 3, side A) …. those neighboring residences, ah, and bottom line is we live in a, a community where the ordinance provides for these, ah, structures. If it didn’t provide for them, then it we’d be fairly ah, ah shouted out of this proceeding and said go someplace else. But it’s, it’s provided for under the ordinance and this applicant purchased property and invested in this process in, in reliance on the standards in the ordinance. Thank you. Chairman Guerette: Member Clark and, ah, as soon as our immediate questions are done I think I would like to get the Planning Officer’s report so … Member Clark: Good evening, Andy. How ya’ll doing? Well, one thing we have seen tonight is that why were people up here are a little bit different than every place else. Because up here a bird and tree has more value than a radio tower sometimes. Now if you could make those radio towers look like trees you might have a deal. Yeah, a little green on them or something, you know, with Christmas lights. Ah, this is a difficult thing for us to do because if we say yup go ahead build your radio station and then it, it seems like we’ve brought a deaf ear to the concerns of the neighborhood but our job is to look at the conditions and the situation and the letter of the law and if these people do everything that says step a, step b, step c then we’re pretty much honor-bound to say well they did they’ve done their homework and they’ve made it. However, ah, I’m going to, this is kind of round about because it’s, it’s late and I’m tired but, ah, you know I have the Hal Wheeler gavel here so I’m going to take it. Ah, in most in other communities a radio station or a tv station or any business coming in and say pip come on we’ll take you and you know maybe ten years from now the neighborhood will look up and go oh that’s just a radio station don’t worry about them we don’t even see them anymore you know it’s like the trains on blues brothers that come by so often you hardly ever hear them. But, ah, I am not certain that, Andy, I can, I can totally I’m not going to show my total hand and I’m not going to flip the river or flop or what the (swear) they do in poker. But I, I have the same concerns that Mr. Guerette has with the, ah, towers not being totally in, in sync with the neighborhood and I, ah, am not going to make an opinion right now I’m just saying I’m, I’m still, I’m a little reclampse (spelling????). Thank you. Chairman Guerette: All right, , ah, I will ask the Planning Officer for his report then. Planning Officer David Gould: Given all the, ah, dialogue and the hour and we still have a lot of agenda ahead of us and all my comments are in writing, ah, available to the Board and to the public. I’ll kind of go through an abbreviated, ah, review of this. This is a conditional use site development plan application in front of the Board to construct four 276 foot tall radio antennas. Ah, as has been pointed out it’s roughly a 52-acre parcel off of Broadway which is a major arterial within the City of Bangor. The parcel does abut the Kenduskeag Stream which means that there’s a 250 foot shoreland zone along the zone as well as a resource protection district, ah, that immediately abuts the Stream. A lot of the work that they, ah, discussed working with the Code Office and the Planning Office really had to do with the grounding wires. The grounds wire system of the antenna which is the, the element that goes high up into the sky but there’s another part of the antenna that goes in the ground and it goes 360 degrees around. The original plans put the wire into the resource protection district and after quite a bit of review and discussion the Code Office came to the conclusion that, that, that part of the antenna was as much, ah, the part that sticks up and needed to meet the requirements could not go in the resource protection district. Ah, those plans were modified to come to the system that we see now and, and some of the towers with an aerial grounding wire that was done once again we found the portions of that wire within 100 feet of property lines those had to be adjusted again, ah, because as he pointed out, ah, the antenna all of it has to be 100 feet from any property line or 150 feet, ah, from any residential structure. We’re confident that the application meets that or I wouldn’t, we wouldn’t be having the hearing tonight. Ah, as any conditional use and as I’ve explained to some of the neighbors that I’ve talked to we have one set up conditional use standards. One through four or a, b, c, d that we apply to every conditional use whether it’s a, a small, small business, a drive thru for a WalMart, or an antenna in the rural district. It’s the same set of standards that we apply. It deals with you have to meet the basic standards of the district, you have to provide appropriate utilities for your use, you can’t create undue, ah, adverse traffic conditions, and then you have to meet those architectural guidelines. Ah, also any structure in the City that exceeds the height limit of the standard has to meet a test under the code relative to that height. And again curiously it almost mimics the same standard in the rural district in terms of separation for taller structures as if someone when they crafted the code had the concept that a 100 foot separation, ah, was an adequate separation distance. Ah, there has been a lot of discussion about the character of rural Bangor which is very nice to hear. Ah, what I think the Board has to look at relative to this application is while we will need to focus on this site you need to look at the ordinance does provide for this use in the district. And you look at the district that spans from the Hermon line all the way over to you know Stillwater Avenue, the Town of Veazie that there’s quite a bit of rural and that clearly the ordinance anticipated that in certain locations radio and television antennas would be located. I think what is the job of the, the Board to look at the standards and evaluate this site as opposed to other potential sites. Would it be a single acre and a half lot within a subdivision, does it have to be a site that has nothing within 500 feet of it. Ah, I think you have to evaluate the site based on the limited criteria that the ordinance gives you. You, you, you really can’t look at elements that aren’t in the criteria. Property values isn’t a standard that we have to measure by. Ah. you know impact to the Stream isn’t a particular standard that you have to go by. You have some standards relative to height and impact and we have some standards relative to the conditional use standards which you can weigh. Our view looking at all the ranges of opportunities or potential where a, where a tower could be built relative to how this is designed the size of the site we think it meets the test of the ordinance and, and we would find that that the Board could grant the applicant conditional use approval, ah, but as I say that is. that is a decision that the Board has to weigh and come to a conclusion as to how you find it meets the specific standards. Ah, relative to impact on, ah, the Kenduskeag Stream, the the project the ordinance won’t let it get near the Stream. It’s, it’s going to stay 250 feet away by development. Yes, people will see these. Nobody’s saying that they will be invisible. You will see them. The lighting on it is, is made so that airplanes will see them and not fly into them. The test isn’t is it invisible. Ah, but you’ve got to look can this in this situation fit into, ah, what the code asked for and not look beyond that in terms of other guidance that gee we wish we didn’t have this use in a rural district. Well you do. And, and that’s not your choice. You’ve got to deal with what’s in front of you and the code that you have now. Chairman Guerette: David, could you weigh on the meaning of the fourth general conditional use criterion and, and how we wrestle with that in this context. Gould: Well and again I, I think as all the standards there’s room for interpretation. The, the standard as I said was, was written to cover a range of conditional uses. Maybe it’s a gravel pit in rural where there is no structure. We still have the standard. We have a traffic standard in this for a use that generates little or no traffic. It would seem to me it would be a stretch for someone to argue that a radio or television antenna would have the same sighting as a residential structure. Maybe somebody wants to make that argument as a way to say no you can’t approve this, ah, but it would seem to stand the conditional use on its head if you said this has to have a roof like a house does and siting like a house does because that’s what the other architectural structures in the area are. But you are free to make that interpretation if you wish. Chairman Guerette: Thank you, David. Ah, any other questions or comments? I mean I think has been a long debate. It’s, we’ve had tremendous ah, ah presentation, good information but ah Member Barnes. Member Barnes: I’ll, I’ll make my, ah, comments and then, ah, I come from a rural town in Washington County where they want to put an L&G facility. My family has run a business there for almost one hundred years, a tourist business, and I don’t think tourists want to look at L&G tankers going up and down so I can understand your feelings here. And, ah, we have a very narrow criteria here on which to make a decision but in this country because we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights we have this process and regardless if we agree with you as taxpayers and citizens and my family is the largest taxpayer in that town by the way we give you, we give you an adequate hearing. You know the FAA has approved this. I used to fly an airplane so I’m very glad the towers are colored and have lights on them but they aren’t strobe lights, they aren’t blinking lights. I think they have made some, ah, considerations there. Also we have, ah, the right to own property and generally in Maine we like to do what we want to do with the property but we have this process you have to go through. But we also have a commerce clause in the Constitution which gives a person a right to have commerce. That’s what gives us our economy in this area. Basically a house Downeast is worth almost nothing because there is no economy there unless it is on the water so here we have a good economy. I think a radio station is part of commerce not that I know anything about radio. I don’t know anything about the industry but so we do try to give you a fair hearing here and we take, we give everybody a chance to exercise their Constitutional right of speech and, ah, generally I feel that the criteria here is met and therefore I’d have to vote for the project and, ah, know that doesn’t make a lot of you happy but we sit here and whether it be the WalMart or the gambling casino or whatever it may be Hollywood Slots we, we have to make the decision not what on our personal values are or how we feel about it but the criteria itself. The Planning staff here is a very capable, professional staff has recommended that you know that this meets the criteria. So I would have to vote for it. Thank you. Chairman Guerette: Thank you very much. Someone care to make a motion if there are no more comments? Member Rosenblatt: I’d be happy to make a motion and perhaps then we can discuss, ah, our views on the, ah, motion. I would first move that, ah, we grant conditional use approval to the proposed development at 2110 Broadway, Charles Hecht and Alfredo Alonso, applicants. Member Mitchell: Second. Member Rosenblatt: Thank you. We’ll I found the comments presented by Planning Member, Planning Officer Gould and Associate Member Barnes to be, ah, extremely well stated and very objectively stated at that. Ah, I personally am still, ah, very much struggling with the provisions of the conditional use approval standards under 165-9 Chapter 4 in meeting the general conformity of the immediate area and ah, ah I take that quite literally and because of that particular standard, ah, I’m going to vote in opposition on the conditional use. Member Mitchell: I continue to struggle with that, that same item 165-9 and the fourth item with regard to the immediate location and I, I try to step back at not just from, ah, thinking about this location but thinking about our whole rural zone that David brought up. And this you know is a conditional use that we do allow in that zone and are there areas that I would think it’s appropriate and I found yes I think that there would be. So I felt like was taking a very objective perspective in saying that this particular site, ah, did not fulfill that last criteria. Ah, and I still, ah, even after you know serious discussion and contributions from attendees do think that there are, ah, what I would consider some drastic alterations of the appearance, ah, for adjacent properties and that certainly is a word that’s, that’s up for interpretation but that’s my interpretation of it. Ah, so I would be voting against this. Chairman Guerette: Go ahead ….. Member Barnes: This is a challenging applicant and, ah, I find every so often as a member of this Board I think we all do we, we struggle with applicants that we’re not enthusiastic about that we would not be promoting if we were the land use czar of the City of Bangor. But we’re not the land use czar as we get to interpret the ordinance that ah, ah has been passed by our City Council and that is really our task not to and it’s not our task to decide whether we like or a project or not. Ah, and so while I’m very sympathetic to the views that have been expressed by the people who live in the area, when I come back to the code provisions, ah, I think I, I land the way David is landing. Ah, the, the starting point for me is that radio and television towers are allowed in this, ah, rural and residential. If they weren’t, we wouldn’t here but given that they are allowed and with these particular setbacks, ah, I am hesitant to interpret , ah, the fourth conditional use criterion to effectively, ah, prohibit radio and television towers in most if not of all rural and residential. And I think that’s where that argument, I think that’s where that argument would go. I then come back to the specific conditional use criteria for height and, ah, at this point, ah, again I would agree with David that ah, ah that based on what we’ve heard, ah, that the applicant has satisfied those criterion so I think I will be voting in favor of the motion. Member Clark: Mr. Barnes, I’m going to be putting you in a tough position. (laughter). I suppose that were I living in that neighborhood and (laughter) about a year ago I almost was, ah, I would be very concerned. Ah, I’ve read through this to the point where I think you know where he compared the radio towers to a cemetery. I’m about ready to go a cemetery and see what the score is in the game. Ah, I think that since the conditional use is for radio towers and since the Stream and everything else has been addressed, I am hoping that I don’t live to regret this, but I think I’ll probably being voting yes. Chairman Guerette: Any other comments? Member Mitchell: I just want to get a point of clarification in the, the thought process that Rosen, Mr. Rosenblatt referred to with, ah, it not being allowed in any area of the rural residence, RR & A Zone. Member Rosenblatt: Well, I, I think, I think if we I guess what I’m trying express is that I don’t know how many areas in rural and residential have existing antennas on them. I don’t know if there are any. I just don’t know. Ah, but if we interpret that standard to mean that you can only build another antenna where there are antennas in the immediate vicinity and so therefore they are architecturally conforming to other development in the immediate vicinity. I don’t, it doesn’t seem to me that that’s a logical interpretation of what that standard means with respect to, ah, with respect to radio and television towers. Member Mitchell: I believe there’s towers in some of the rural areas on the outer Kittredge Road segment of the City? Planning Officer Gould: There’s a cell tower out there, absolutely. Member Mitchell: Yeah, so there are there are other locations where it does apply and I guess in my thinking about that is that it’s not so much that you’re going to find another radio tower right next to each other and that’s the only way you’re going to meet the architectural standards. It’s that considering the closeness of the other things around it and the neighborhood kind of collectively around it and, ah, there are other more rural areas of the city that don’t have such kind of close and consistent types of uses around it such as this site does. Chairman Guerette: Other comments? All in favor of the motion? Any opposed? So the conditional use motion carries three to two. Member Rosenblatt: Mr. Chairman, I move that we grant, ah, site development approval to the proposed development at 2110 Broadway, Charles Hecht and Alfredo Alonso, applicants. Member Barnes: Second. Chairman Guerette: Thank you. Further discussion. All in favor? Any opposed? So the, ah, site development plan the carries unanimously. Even though it is fairly late and into our meeting I’m going to ask your indulgence for a five minute recess if you don’t mind and we will meet here at 9:30 to resume with item number two. Planning Board of the City of Bangor July 3, 2007 Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman National Rosenblatt David Clark Laura Mitchell Jeff Barnes City Staff Present: David Gould James Ring Bud Knickerbocker Lynn Johnson News Media Present: Bangor Daily News Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. In the absence of Board Member Theeman, Associate Member Barnes was asked to vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use and Site Plan Development – 2110 Broadway – Charles A. Hecht and Alfredo Alonso Guerette: Item number one is to entertain a request for a conditional use and a site development plan at 2110 Broadway. Charles A Hecht and Alfredo Alonso are the applicants. So I will open the public hearing and ask the applicant or their designee to make a presentation and then there will be chance for public comments. I am Paul Brody from WBRC Architects and Engineers. I have Andy Hamilton here with me as the attorney for the project and the applicant Charles Hecht is here to introduce the project a little bit and then I am going to take some time to go over the plans that we have submitted as part of the application and then Andy will wrap up with the portions of the ordinance related to conditional use review and we can then at that point open it up I guess to your discretion to public comment. Charles Hecht: Good evening. We are here for local permits for GUY radio antennas to support a new AM radio station to serve the Bangor area. And I want to tell you about GUY antennas versus lattice towers so that you understand what we are speaking about. A guide radio tower or antenna is a small structure which basically would fit inside of what my arms is encompassing as opposed to a lattice tower which is a massive structure of greater length or a monopole which you see typically used for wireless communications. They are triangular and they are open. FCC and FAA permits have been applied for and received. And based on the FCC requirements and FAA requirements we selected a 52-acre property that allows for this use. Specifically, we know that this property is zoned Rural Residence and Agricultural and that allows for radio and television towers as conditional uses. Paul Brody and Andy Hamilton will demonstrate how this project complies with the conditional use standard in the Zoning Ordinance. Thank you. Brody (I think): Over to the left me I have all of the plans that were submitted with the application package and I’ll just go through kind of a line-by-line item of some description on those if I could. The first sheet is of course a cellular USGS (?) plan that shows our project site in the center portion of the plan labeled site at a scale of 1” to your 500 feet. To the north of the site is Outer Broadway, Rt. 15, and the site is bounded to the south by the Kenduskeag Stream. So we’ve got some residential homes to the east and also to the west of the project site as well as on the other side of the Kenduskeag Stream on the Finson Road. We also included as part of the application an air photo plan which also shows an overview of the surrounding area at a scale of 1” equals 100. This plan also has on it a lot of the information found on the site survey prepared by Syhka, Shepard and Gaster (spelling). It includes the wetlands mapping that we’ve done as well as the zone and the application zoning setbacks. The site is zoned Rural Residential and Agriculture. The south and west portions of the site along the Kenduskeag Stream have a resource protection zone and a shoreland overlay and the site is approximately 52 acres in size considerably larger than most of the properties adjacent, abutting it, on both sides, east and west and as well as across the Stream. We’ve included a tax map from the City of Bangor, blown up to scale, 1” equals 100. We have another site overview plan in the package that basically just the survey scale of 1 to 100. And then the site survey itself. These next couple of sheets (he moved away from the mic) … general ?? and abbreviation sheets which go through all of our typical specifications for construction as well as the abbreviations used and the plan set. And then we start to get into the actual construction and permitting documents. The first sheet is the site removals plan. The removal from the site will consist of the removal of an existing sear (?) post fence, wire fence, which is highlighted in dark across the center and running to the south and to the west of the project site. We will also be removing a portion of the trees and stumps on the areas identified to the southwest of the site with that crosshatch. In areas of wetlands where we are going to be removing trees that will also be done by hand, there be will no mechanized equipment in those areas and we will be leaving the stumps as well as those areas. They are going to drop the trees and leave them on the ground for wildlife habitat and try to minimize the impact to those wetlands as much as possible. That wetland clearing is really going to be limited for the GUYS and the grounding system for the tower. So we’ve managed to through multiple renditions of locating the towers to best situate them with regards to the local zoning and the conditional use setbacks, the state review criteria and those sort of things we’ve managed to keep the wetland impact down to a 4,300 sq. ft. area which is fairly insignificant or fairly small. The next set is the site layout plan. The plan shows basically all of the surface items, their locations and sizes, dimensions, quantities, that sort of thing, starting at the northeast corner of the site along Broadway will have a gravel entrance followed by a wooden bridge over the first little piece of wetland there and then following that there will be a ten foot wide gravel access driveway which leads to the main shed at the center of the site there. That will be a single story building, 20 ft by 25 ft in size. There will be one incandescent 100 watt light above the door with a motion sensor to activate it. There is also going to be a gravel parking area next to that building with space for two cars to park. There will be four 276 ft. tall AM antennas with GUY support system. The antennas, as Charlie outlined, are about 2 ft. wide, 18” to 2 ft. wide, and as I just stated will be supported by a series of GUYS. Each antenna will have a non-flashing, FAA beacon at the top of the structure, so it will be red light, non–flashing. Those lights are designed to direct upward because they are for planes and not downward for people. There will also be at least one and perhaps two sets of lights, halfway and a third of the way, up the tower or somewhere in that vicinity much smaller in size than the main light at the top. And those will not flash either. The antennas will be painted with the typical antenna FAA banning, it’s an orange/white, orange banning pattern. And located at the base of each antenna will be an 8 ft. wide by 8 ft. tall by 2 ft. deep tuning panel that’s going to be mounted on pressure treated posts and then surrounding that antenna and the tuning panel will be a 6 ft. galvanized chain link fence. To recap that, here’s your typical antenna structure, these are your GUY wires coming down, this square is the fence and the small square inside is the tuning shed and this is the main central building here. _______: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a factual question. Mr. Brody, how far horizontally do the GUY wires go out from the antenna. Brody: The GUY wires go out about 185 ft. The next sheet in the set is the grading and erosion control plan. The grading activity is going to be very minimal. We are going to provide a little bit of elevation for the building in the center about 2 ft to get positive drainage away and then we’ve identified a finished grade elevation for each antenna base about a foot above existing grade. Any areas that are disturbed as part of the project will be fine graded and reseeded to a meadow state or left in the wetland areas to go back to a natural state with some trimming. We’ve installed, or proposed to install, a wood chip erosion control berm along the main entry drive and around the main shed as part of the construction process to avoid siltation and erosion of those areas. The driveway itself will be installed with a finished grade of approximately 6-8” above the existing grade and we have in fact submitted a permit by rule application for th the stormwater permit with the State of Maine DEP that was done on the 11 of last month, 6-11-07. The way that law works now if the DEP doesn’t respond to you with comments within 15 days of the submission you consider it approved. We have not heard from the DEP and it’s been over that 15-day period so we assume we are approved from DEP standpoint. One other item of interest on this grading plan, you can see these black areas here, those represent the areas of clearing that’s going to occur within wetlands and that’s the limit of the wetland impact for the project. Then we get to the site utility plan. I’m actually going to up to the sheet on this one as there is a fair amount of information I want to be able to point out. We are proposing to install a new utility pole along Broadway, come across from a hydro pole and down than pole and then go underground from that pole to the main shed with a primary and there will be new underground power from the shed to each antenna as well. The easterly antenna on this sheet which is antenna #1 as listed on the CP101 but is this one here is going to utilize an in-ground grounding/tuning system. And the limits of that system are represented by this heavy-dash line so there will be no wetland impact associated with that underground system, what that is is it basically consists of a #12, 12 gauge copper wire that is zipped into the ground that is specifically for that. It basically just pushes the wire down 4-6” within the ground so within a short period of time there will be no evidence that it is actually there. That specifically has been done to help with, perceived visual impact of antenna. The remaining antennas, this one and this one, and this one will have an aerial GUY system and we’ve offered to use that after going through the wetland permitting process. In order to minimize our wetland impact, we are going to be proposing, or are proposing an aerial grounding system. Those wires will be approximately 20 ft. tall, they will be attached to the antenna on one side and attached to a small utility pole on the other side that’s GUY. There’s six of those on each tower or, excuse me, each antenna. They are varying lengths in order to avoid the wetland impacts and also to stay out of the conditional use zone because they have been deemed to be part of the actual structure of the conditional use. We are not going into the resource protection at all with any of those and there’s one here that’s going a small distance, approximately 80 to 100 ft, into the shoreland zone in that location there. Again, on the utility sheet, I do want to emphasize the fact that these are antenna structures, not the lattice towers, and there is a significant difference and we’ll get to that a bit more when we get into visual assessment portion of the presentation. This next sheet, C501, these are some of the typical construction details for the project – the bridge and the antenna itself and the GUY poles and the fencing and that sort of thing. I’ve got some additional boards and we’ll start off with existing visual assessment of some towers and antennas in the area and then I’ve got another set of material to show photos of this site and context stuff. So, Andy has just put up another USGS plan and this plan is centered around the WZON site. There’s a bit black spot to the north piece which is the Bangor High School. Those rings represent differing distances, the first one I believe is 500 ft and then 1,000 ft and then a half a mile and a mile. What we did, there are at least two structures at the ZON site and one of them is a 200 ft tall GUY antenna, very similar to the type of antenna we are proposing. They have at least one and I think two, they used to have more, of the lattice type structures that are 400 plus ft, big, big structures. So what we thought would be helpful to represent the type of development that we’re proposing is to take photos of that site from different distances away to give people an idea of okay at a mile this is what that antenna pole structure is going to look like and etc. So we’ve got that series of photos. I believe all of you received a half-sized set of these, is that right, Dave? The first photo is taken a mile away on Broadway and you can see on that photo if you were up closer, or in your packet, that the tower is quiet visible and that the antenna is not so significantly visible at all. The next photo is taken at a half-mile distance and now you can start to see the antenna and obviously the tower is more visible. The bottom photo I believe is a 1,000 ft photo, is that right, Andy, I’m sorry, it a quarter of a mile. So again you start to see the antenna a little bit more. You still can’t see the GUYS and obviously the tower structure is significantly larger. These last two shots are taken from over at the high school parking lot actually and then closer into the building. The first one is from 1,000 ft away and the last one from about 500 ft. away. And if you get up closer to those photos and I actually took those photos myself, on the 1,000 ft you can just barely start to see the GUY wires and the 500 there’s not a whole heck of a lot of difference between the silhouette, the antenna or the GUY wires. In that bottom photo, also shows a typical shed and surrounding fence condition although that’s a wooden fence and I believe we are going to have a chain link fence. The next series is the same type of a graphic on a USGS but centered around our project parcel. The gray area is the parcel and then we’ve got 500 1,000 half mile, one mile rings and you can go ahead and put these other ones up. There’s another image on the back of that sheet and it’s the same USGS plan out at another scale. So these pictures were taken from somewhere about the middle of the field on the project site by myself. The top is looking pretty much due north at Broadway and then I rotated around 360 degrees to get a feel for what else is in the area. In fact on that second photo you can see in the distance I believe they are about a mile away on the lefthand side is the cell tower and a water tower facility. On the righthand side is the Lewis property residence and beyond that you can see there is a high-tension wire corridor that passes by them and in the distance you can see the WZON tower and antenna. The tower is very readily visible. The antenna is very difficult on that day anyway to see with the naked eye. Those were taken on a fairly clear day. The conditions are obviously going to change with humidity and clouds and site distance. Those photos just continue down and there’s another photo below that on the bottom – hold on a second, Andy – that shows the same type of a thing. I’m looking almost due south or southwest. Put up the next board. Now we’ve wrapped around the site and we are looking west at the Hurd property and then another one of Broadway. If you want to flip that over, I think there is one more exhibit. These are photos that Charlie has provided to us of antenna structures that he has installed. Those are his projects. Charlie has done a wealth of these type of projects, very knowledgeable about the layout and new and innovative ideas on how to make these more neighborly friendly which we have tried to employ as part of this project. So you can see there is a typical tower, antenna, I’m sorry, and the paint banning and typical sheds. That bottom shed, there are two types of shed construction. The one shown on the bottom, it’s an 8 x 8 shed, and that’s the tuning structure of each antenna. That is not what we are proposing. We are proposing a smaller unit that about, 8 x 8, but it’s only 2 ft deep and it’s up off the ground. It’s actually on pressure treated posts so it will have a little bit less visual impact and of course it will have the fence around it. It also shows the mounting. They basically mount it on top of a sonotube??. They are kind of interesting. They actually just sit there on a pivot point and the GUYS do all the work to hold them up. The GUYS are anchored with a similar structure as well, concrete and sonotubes. So, very very small ground impact and it will obviously put a substantial portion of this site into essentially conservation as part of the DEP permit by rule process and I think I’ll give it over to Andy now to kind of go through some of the conditional use, local permitting review items. Andy Hamilton: Thanks, Paul. Good evening members of the Board. My name is Andrew Hamilton and I’m here on behalf of Charles Hecht, the applicant, for this radio antenna project. I’d just like to continue the distinction that Charles and Paul have drawn between free standing towers, including the lattice towers as you typically see for cell phone companies, the free standing tower that you see at the WZON site and as Paul contrasted the GUY radio antennas which tends to be a structure which as Charles has showed you with his arms triangulating 2 ft by 2 ft by 2 ft is the dimension of that radio antenna. There are four proposed radio antennas with dimensions that Paul as noted. The first set of conditional use standards that we have to satisfy for this application are set forth in Section 165-9 and those are noted in staff memo. What Jeremy Martin and David Gould both suggested as part of the review of this project because it does involve conditional use standards is to satisfy the Board as to how we meet the test (?) although not appropriate for every location within the zoning district it would be appropriate for this location and that’s the whole nature of your conditional use review. So going to the first standard, A-1 under Section 165-9, we first have to satisfy you that the development standard and use conditions of the district in which the property in question is located have been complied with. Conditional uses which also require variance of development or other standards shall not be granted. This is the acid test for any conditional use application. You cannot require a variance, you have to meet every dimensional standard. I can’t tell you how many weeks if not months it took to meet this standard. Why is that? Because if you look at any site in Maine you are likely to find wetland conditions, dare I saw vernal pool conditions, and when you lay those across the landscape of a 53 acre parcel I’m sure some of you who are familiar with how the Army Corps and Federal agencies now treat vernal pools but in some instances they virtually are require 7,850 ft radius around the vernal pool, if you are proposing a development within a wetland. The practical advice that Jay Clement at the Army Corps of Engineers gave us was therefore avoid wetland impact altogether if you can and in all instances stay within the exemption amount and as Paul has indicated through a lot of hard design work at WBRC they were able to site these four radio antennas with less than a tenth of an acre of wetland impact on this entire 53 acre parcel. We could only do that by dialing in a whole series of configurations and I think we pretty much wore Mr. Hecht out with the combination of FCC requirements, State DEP, Federal Army Corps permit requirements and then laying on top of that the dimensional requirements. I must say that through the discussion both Mr. Gould and Mr. Martin were patient but persistent. If you want a conditional use application before this Planning Board, you must meet every dimensional standard and so we did it. So that first test is satisfied. The second test was that the proposed use will not create unreasonable traffic congestion or hazardous conditions on contiguous or adjacent streets. Route 15 Outer Broadway, proposed driveway, repair of maintenance activities is the full extent of the facility after construction is complete will not generate any appreciable traffic on the roadway so we’ve noted in the narrative that the activity will not give rise to unreasonable traffic congestion. The third standard is that the proper operation of the conditional use will be insured by providing and maintaining adequate and appropriate utilities, fire protection, drainage, parking, loading and other necessary site improvements. I think Mr. Brody in some detail with some very detailed plans has shared with you how this standard is met by showing you the utility plan, how fire protection will be provided for, how drainage and parking requirements. Frankly there are only two parking spaces required for the maintenance shed so that standard is met. The next standard is typically used for more developed portions of the City and less the Rural and Agricultural zoning district but nonetheless the standard is that the proposed use although not appropriate for every site in the zone is appropriate for the location for which it is sought because the proposed use will conform to the general character of the development in the immediate area as to architectural style. Again, I think that is addressing residential or commercial buildings that house goods or structures as opposed to these rather transparent utility structures that are proposed as part of this radio antenna application. And then it talks about extent and intensity of site use. I won’t belabor the points about architectural style or building bulk but we would be happy to answer any questions as to those issues but I think for purposes of this project we can agree that the issue is found principally in the standard in 165-60 which gets to structures that involve height. So with respect to the verticality of the structure we need to address your questions under 165-60 and again happy to address any questions you have under 1 through 4 under 165-9. Under 165-60, the first standard is that these structures cannot negatively impact uses in adjacent districts in which they are not permitted in a clearly demonstrable manner such as casting shadows, depriving the adjacent property of light, air or view or drastically altering the appearance of the setting on such adjacent property improvements. That’s a mouthful. The way it is constructed, drafted, you really have to break it down before I was able to understand it. I read it five times before I tried to understand. The way I read the language is that you have to show that these structures, if you are not going to allow them, structures that are part of any community that is going to provide services, that you’re going to have some structures that have height to them. If those structures negatively impact uses in adjacent districts (tape turned over) because for instance casting shadows, depriving adjacent property of light, air or view or drastically altering the appearance of the setting on such adjacent property improvements, you are really taking a look at, all right we’ve got conditional use structures within the Rural Residence and Agriculture District where these uses are allowed as a conditional use. You then have to go to a neighboring or adjacent zoning district where they are not permitted either by right or by conditional use and then you further have to show in a clearly demonstrable manner that these are going to cast shadows, deprive the adjacent property of light, air or view or will, again the standard is one that I’ve never seen before except in this provision of the Bangor Code, it says drastically alter the appearance of the setting of such adjacent property improvements. It’s as though the drafters of that ordinance provision, I understand that this is a fairly old provision in the Bangor Land Development Code, it’s as though the drafters of that provision recognized that someone could make the argument that height is something that could bother people adjacent to a radio antenna. That’s not the standard that is has to drastically alter the appearance of the setting of such adjacent property improvements. Let me go to the objective case that Paul Brody put before you. First, if you look to the photos to my left, to your right, they show structures that are 500 ft and 1000 ft from the WZON towers and remember there are two types of towers there. There is the GUY antenna which is the less visible structure to the left and then there is the freestanding tower to the right. It’s pretty clear that the freestanding tower is visible either at 500 ft or a 1000 ft. but if you try to pick out the GUY wires associated with the GUY antenna structure to the left I dare say in either photo I find it difficult to delineate or differentiate the GUYS from the background, the clouds and the setting in those photos. It is true, however, that the antennas will be visible. I think the concept that Paul and I are happy to explore with the Board of the public if there are questions about this is the concept of the cone of vision. When a human being, or dare I say an animal, a deer, and when you are hunting one of the reasons they use tree stands is because a deer doesn’t look up into a tree stand, it looks across a field. Human beings are similar in nature. What we’ll do is we’ll tend to focus on the same linear plain. You are not looking all the way up in the sky unless you are stargazing. If you are stargazing, you are going to be looking up and there’s no way in the night sky in the city that you’re not going to see light but again during the daytime what you’re going to see if you are looking at a structure that has 55 ft in height which is where this provision starts, is 55 ft because it is 15 above the height allowed in the Rural Residence and Agricultural Zone, what you are going to see is a lot of structure that occupy that linear plain at 55 ft. As Paul said, using the photos to your far right and my far left, you will see the transmission line in that area, you’ll see a cell tower and you’ll see a water tower on the horizon. Those will be visible structures on the landscape so that visible, those visible structures exist on the present landscape. I dare say that a GUY antenna is not going to be any more visible in fact it should be less visible on the landscape than those structures. So we feel that although the radio antenna towers will exceed the 40 ft height limit by more than 15 feet, the standard is met by the design and configuration of the antennas by using an antenna design that employs a set of thin antennas that will not cast any appreciable shadow, will not deprive any neighboring or adjacent property of light, air or view, and will not drastically alter the appearance of the setting of an adjacent property improvements. You will hear a series a questions, comments, arguments that these towers will be visible and therefore they somehow violate the ordinance. You as guardians of the ordinance text know that text is the standard and not the question of whether it is visible. I would specifically ask you to review the text of 165-60 as you consider the considerations of both the applicant as well as members of the public in this matter. The next standard is regardless of the zoning districts involved such structures will not be located within 100 ft of any existing residential building, that being any structure containing dwelling units, nor will the proposed structure violate the provisions of subsection A above in regard to any such residential building. The point that needs to be made here is that there is no existing residential dwelling or building within 100 ft of any of the four proposed radio antenna. As Mr. Brody detailed, you’ve got a separation of at least 450 ft from the Hurd residence. The Hurds would be the sellers of the real estate in April of 2005 to Mr. Hecht. You have 700 ft from the nearest residence on Rt. 15 or Outer Broadway and you have at least 700 to 900 ft. across the Kenduskeag Stream for any closest residence. There are some residential structures in this area. I dare say it’s hard to site any structure in Bangor without being in some proximity of some residential structures. But I think Mr. Hecht pretty responsibly looked at property over a fair period of time and tried to select a large enough parcel so that by just open space these antennas would be buffered from the neighboring residences and so the last standard under 165-105 that relates to conditional uses is the very provision that allows for radio and television towers as they are called under the Land Development Code. And that’s 165-105, D-4 and it says radio and television towers are permitted as conditional uses provided that such facilities are located not less than 100 feet from any property line and not less than 150 feet from an existing residential building. None of the four radio antennas proposed the application is located with 100 feet or I dare say within less than 400 feet of any property line or any existing residential building. We would certainly entertain questions from the public and from Board Members as directed by the Chairman of the Board. And Mr. Brody, Mr. Hecht and I are happy to take your questions on this project. Guerette: We will begin with a question from Member Rosenblatt and then Member Clark. Rosenblatt: Thank you. A couple of questions, Mr. Hamilton. On the language of the ordinance front, I’m having a little trouble, this Land Development Code of ours is not perfect you may have noticed. The fourth conditional use criterion I must say I’m struggling with a little bit in that it talks about the proposed development conforming as you pointed out to the general character of development in the immediate area as to architectural style, building bulk, and extent and intensity of site use. I’m just having a bit of difficulty reconciling an antenna with what does exist in the immediate areas. Can you help me with that? Hamilton: Sure. Let me endeavor to look into the window of what’s permitted in the Rural Residence and Agricultural District and suggest to you that there’s quite a range of activities that are both permitted uses and conditional uses. The fact that the drafters of the ordinance provide clearly for radio towers and other structures that have that verticality to be sited in a Rural Residence and Agricultural District I think is reflective of the fact that such uses do have to exist in a community and so what makes sense to me is that they didn’t intend that such structures even though you might say that the extent and intensity of use is just a physical measurement into the sky then that would argue for not even including those conditional uses in the Rural Residence and Agricultural District. I don’t think it can apply to architectural style because I don’t think a radio antenna or radio tower or television tower is supposed to have architectural style. So I can put that one aside. Building bulk, I can pretty readily put that one aside because I don’t think what you are trying to do is make a radio or television tower match the building bulk of a stick built residential structure or particularly a farm building. We’ve got some really large farm buildings in the City and other communities in Maine. You wouldn’t want to try and match the building bulk with a radio tower so that’s why I’m pretty comfortable with a view that the ordinance drafters must not have intended to you have to match up the architectural style and building bulk. Extent and intensity of site use I think the view that we’re taking is that as a factual matter laying this project on the ground in the Rural Residence and Agricultural District there was perhaps a special obligation on our part to find a local that notwithstanding the fact that you can’t find many sites in Bangor now that don’t have some residential activity associated with them. You should find a large enough site so that you can meet the dimensional requirements so that you can meet what appear to be essentially separation or buffering requirements that are found both in the conditional use provision in the Rural Residence and Agricultural District as well as in the height requirements under 165-60 for conditional uses that do have height associated with them. I would argue that the extent and intensity of use has been mitigated by the fact that we’re taking a 53-acre parcel, we’re taking structures that occupy a very small footprint on the land surface, and as Mr. Brody said, we have a variable conservation easement on the balance of the property. You’re not going to see a site development that would encroach within the FCC requirements of those radio antennas so what you are doing is sure there is verticality and I understand that question but I think that question is to be answered under 165-60. Compare this to a manufacturing use, a large-scale agricultural use, a large-scale silver-cultural use (?), and I think you will agree with me that radio antennas have to be one of the most passive uses of land that you will see in the City close to a cemetery in many respects because the structures just sit there. There isn’t a lot of activity associated with that. If the concern is with respect to the transmission of signal, Mr. Hecht can readily answer that. The FCC has answered that. The fact of the matter is the location of Bangor High School approximate to the WZON towers for a long time in the history of both the Bangor High School and the WZON towers would suggest that the health risk isn’t there. So by any standard, any objective standard that I can use that would address extent and intensity of site use, I think we need that. Then you get to the verticality test under 165-60 and I think that’s where the ordinance crafters meant to say we recognize that this community of Bangor has to allow for tall structures and they said it pretty clearly in terms of the standards that were set forth. Rosenblatt: Just two quick factual questions. The setbacks that are mentioned in 165- 105 before the 100 feet from any property line and 150 feet from any existing residential building, ah, as I understand it we’re considering the structure to include the GUY wires as well as the, the, I don’t know what you call it, the, the base for the GUY wires, is that right? Hamilton: Right. Rosenblatt: And so those, the bases for those GUY wires also meet those dimensional setback requirements? Hamilton: Right. I’ll talk about my pragmatic view aside from the technical view you present. I think we’ve got a new interpretation from Code that extends the footprint of a radio tower out a lateral distance but even using that interpretation we’ll meet the 100 to 150 foot setback and I’m going to just check in with Mr. Brody and, yes, the answer is yes. Rosenblatt: Finally and then I’ll shut up, is there any noise associated with this use? Hamilton: Mr. Hecht advises zero and you can ask him any detailed questions you would like on that. Rosenblatt: Thank you. Hamilton: Yup. Clark: As a amateur radio nut who listens to about 10 hours of radio every day … _______: wow Clark: and a novice historian for radio in the City, I know we have four AM stations th right now in the Bangor area so I suppose a 5 wouldn’t be too bad, but my question is Mr. Hecht ah how much power are we talking in this station and based what is the range that you are shooting for, your signal range, how much area will you encompass with your signal and the chance of bleeding over, there was a long time when we moved to our house that I could pick up my telephone and listen to WZON. I didn’t mind when the Sox games were on but it was okay but is there any chance because they are at 620 and you’re going to be at 750 from what I understand is there a chance you will bleed over into their signal or vice versa? I know that’s that’s like three questions wrapped into one. Hecht: I’ll be happy to answer them. Clark: Go for it. Make my day. Hecht: Let me answer these in no particular order and if I forget one please remind me that I have. Ah, 620 and 750, is there any possibility for interaction or interference between the two. No, that’s that’s reviewed by the FCC in granting the permit. Ah, so that’s been done already and it shouldn’t happen anyway but it’s not an issue. Ah, hit me with the next one again. Clark: Power and range. Hecht: Okay, the station will have 50,000 watts during the day on the frequency of 750 and will have 10,000 during the night. The day and night ranges are different because they are different power. The day signal is omni-directional meaning that we are just using one antenna so it’s a circular signal and in the evening, the nights, we are using a directional antenna because we have to limit our signal in certain directions for certain radio stations to comply with FCC rules. Not just in the United States but in Canada as well. It’s gets complicated. If you want to know more about it I will but I don’t want to like get too technical so ah the directional antenna at night is not by choice but by necessity to meet FCC regulations so that that signal if you want to know where that goes at night that signal basically goes predominantly ah east southeast and south. It’s not that there isn’t any signal in other directions but what we call the main lobe or the gain area of the antenna that’s where it is present. So basically it encompasses the greater Bangor area. Clarke: I was going to ask questions like format, call letters and things like that but we’ll worry about that later. Hecht: Let me answer one that I can. It’s a matter of public record, don’t want to hide, want to give you information. The call letters that the FCC recognizes the station WRME. Clarke: So you are going to play REM, okay. That’s good. Hecht: No, (laugh). Clarke: For the people who live right in the general area when the signal is going out, any chance of them picking up the station on anything that is not a radio like amp??? or something? Hecht: Yes, that is a possibility. Ah, the FCC has rules requiring us to remedy any incident for lack of a better word. I am I would be lying if I said it was impossible or couldn’t happen but clearly there are over 5,000 AM radio stations in the United States many of them located in highly residential areas where there are houses literally around the antennas and any problems if they do occur can be resolved. Clark: Thank you. Guerette: This is a public hearing so anyone who would like to speak as a proponent, anyone in favor of this ah development before us this evening this would be the opportunity to come to the podium and speak and I would ask that you state your name and address the Board. If you have any questions that can only be answered by the applicant, we’ll try to get those questions answered for you later in the evening. Are there any proponents? If there are no proponents, any opponents? Well, I came in the middle of your differentiation, Mr. Chairman, I’m not here as either a proponent or opponent and Guerette: We all know who you are but for the record … My name is Hal Wheeler, ah yes, well sometimes I forget. My name is Hal Wheeler. I live at 315 Silver Road in Bangor which puts me about as far away from being an abutting property owner as you possibly could find. First of all, Mr. Brody, I need to correct your statement that at one time WZON had two freestanding lattice towers. That station never had two towers of that type because my first broadcasting job was with the station that occupied those facilities and the reason they have the smaller 220 foot tower is that when the owner wanted to install another 402 foot tower we were very close to the beginning of World War II and a steel shortage prevented that from being available so there never were two towers. I, I think, I think it’s a landmark frankly. Mr. Clarke has already asked a couple of the questions. I would like to have a little better knowledge of how far the daytime, non-directional signal will reach at 50 kilowatts ah I’m when I heard this was to be a four tower array I assumed before I got any information that it was either going to be very high power or and/or a very, very directional signal. That question has been partially answered already. Ah I note that the application provides for not only the construction of the towers and the what we used to call the dog houses for them but also the 500 square foot building which I presume is the transmitter shack. Hecht: Yes. Wheeler. Yes. Ah, ah, there are obviously no plans construct studios on this site and now I want you to understand that you are not legally bound to answer these questions because they are not part and parcel of the technical application before the Board but as a broadcaster who will be celebrating 50 years in or connected with the business this month ah I am curious as to whether you plan to originate programming locally or to depend upon the satellite programming and if the latter is the case where will the dishes be located and I’m also somewhat concerned that ah information has come to be from one who I consider a very reliable source that even before approval by this Board ah efforts have been made by your organization to ah sell this construction permit to any interested party. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Guerette: Thank you. Ah we are still in a public hearing so any other opponents and I guess I’d just like to remind folks that we’re not really here to discuss what the antennas will do. We are really here to discuss whether they should be placed there. That’s the mission of the Planning Board so any information that you might have that would help us guide us in making that decision would be extremely helpful. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Scott Westhrin. I own property at 160 Finson Road. My wife and I have a single-family residence there basically across the stream from the proposed site. I’m here to speak against the proposed development as I believe it is not appropriate for the ah proposed location. It’s already been mentioned here that the Planning Board as a conditional use may grant the conditional use but you must determine that the request meets the four standard conditions. And I believe Member Rosenblatt already spoke to condition number four stating that and I read the actual ordinance the proposed use although not appropriate for every site in the zone is appropriate for the location for which it is sought because the proposed use will conform to the general character of the development in the immediate area as to architectural style, building bulk and extent and intensity of the site use. The paragraph continues and it says as to architectural style the applicant must show that the proposed structure and that’s important, structure, conforms to the exterior façade roof lines shape and materials used on building in the immediate area and further in that paragraph it defines immediate area as within the same block and within 500 feet of the site of the proposed use. The reason I talk about structure in the Code ah it does define structure as anything constructed or erected with a fixed location on the ground or attached to something having a fixed location on the ground including but not limited to mobilehomes, buildings, walls, billboards, signs, piers and floats. I believe the 276 foot, four 276 foot tall antennas fall within the definition of structure. The applicant has already indicated that there are some resident, residential properties that fall within the 500 foot of the actual location of the four antennas. I would also say that there are probably twenty to twenty-five other residential and other structures surrounding the proposed site, the boundaries of the site, my property being one of them where most of the properties are located on Finson Road but there are some other properties on Broadway as well as a couple of churches. All of these properties are basically stick-built properties, one or two story buildings, the churches are basically stick-built as well. All of the properties do not exceed 40 feet in height. There is one church that has a small spire on it that may be 50 feet in height and I again I don’t believe that the proposed 276 tall structures conform to the exterior façade. I don’t believe that the 276 tall radio structures are appropriate for the proposed location because they don’t conform to the general character of the development in the immediate area as to architectural style and building height. And I ask the Planning Board to deny the applicant’s conditional use request. Thank you. ______: Mr. Chairman, could I just ask a question of Mr. Westhrin. Guerette: Sure. Rosenblatt: I’m sympathetic to to that interpretation of the Land Development Code. The problem I’m having though is that there is no question that in this District radio and television towers are conditional use and the dimensional requirements 100 feet from any property line not less than 150 feet from any existing residential building and to me that implies that whoever drafted that provision concluded that if the radio or television tower was a greater distance than the 100 feet or the 150 feet that that would be okay and ah ah and I’m having trouble squaring that with the conditional use standard which talks about 500 feet. I’m here, here it is pretty clear that someone concluded that as long as radio and television towers were that distance away from residences that it would be okay. Westhrin: Alright, I would agree with you that the ah that in this zone Rural Residential and Agricultural does give a conditional use for a radio antenna. But it does state that it may be appropriate for some areas and not all areas within the site and I’m basically saying that within 500 feet of the boundaries not just where the actual four towers are going to be located but the actual boundaries of the site because the Code I don’t believe specifies the actual location of the towers on the ground, it just talks about the site. So within 500 feet of the boundaries of that site are probably twenty to twenty- five residential structures, one and two story, that I don’t believe you can find that test number four has been met. Guerette: Thank you. Westhrin: Thank you. Guerette: Ah, Let me just share with you my own calculations on that height and distance ratio. If a, if a forty foot tower has a 150 foot required distance from the nearest property line and if that is in proportion, the, that means that a 276 foot tower should be 1,035 from the nearest property line to keep the same ratio height versus distance. Vaughn Smith: Good evening my name is Vaughn Smith. I live at, excuse me, 54 Pine Ledge Road but I also own a home at 2186 Broadway. It bothers me greatly that the highest point of land in Bangor is 338 feet above sea level. The area that they are proposing these towers is roughly 100 feet. I see by their one of them is 108, I think and 118 and one’s 109. Simple, if height is so important then I think you ought to start with a higher piece of land. Ah, if you look at our TV towers in the area, they’re none of them are in Bangor. There are no, they’re all out in the surrounding areas at the 800’ above sea level. Ah, one of them, I, I looked tonight on the internet to get ah, to get the elevations. I think that another thing that should be taken into consideration is the amount of stream frontage. We worked very diligently to clean up Kenduskeag Stream. I think we’re talking a lot of the stream frontage out of the ah, the equation. I just don’t think that they fit at all, ah, in that area. Ah, Mr. Hamilton said that nobody has to look up. I happen to live within a mile of that site, personally at ah my Pine Ledge house where I live. I’m at the 330’ elevation and I don’t have to look up. I wouldn’t have to look up to see the towers. I wouldn’t have to look to see the top of them. So I think you ought to get the idea that I’m against it, I guess. Barb Weiss: I’m Barb Weiss. I teach at Bangor High and I both Tom and Nancy Small’s . . . . (end of Tape 1, Side 2) (beginning of Tape 2, Side 1 . . . . ah a photo that Tom very kindly left in the garage. If you see (walks away from the microphone) (in audible) I’ll give it to you and you can pass it around. I think it’s easier. I apologize it was in the garage. And that’s the view from my deck looking straight across the stream. And um, I just want you to know that my daughter has often called me up in the winter, said Mom, Mom, quick go out on the deck and look you can see the Northern Lights. I mean that’s how beautiful the view is out on the Finson Road. I do have a lot of information that I hope the Board will consider in addition to the to the economic and developmental aspects of this sort of project. Um, my friend Sue Godding from Lincoln likes to tell the story when she was a nanny, ah, to the head of NBC Sports and he and Bryant Gumbell came up to Maine to fish and when they got back down to Connecticut they said to Sue “Man Bangor’s unbelievable. You no sooner get your rental car and get out of the airport turn left on the main road and God you’re out in the wilderness. You know, we know that six miles and north Bangor station isn’t the wilderness but people from away, that, that is a beautiful corner of Bangor and I happen to think that Route 15 is actually the nicest road in and out of Bangor. It’s a very pretty area. I, I just can’t understand why we would want to build those structures there. They’re heavy metal, industrial structures and they just don’t match anything else that’s in that little corner of Bangor. When you drive down Route 15 it’s churches, it’s little farms, it’s little small buildings but nothing’s over two stories. I, I, I apologize to Mr. Smith that why not build a mile and a half up the road in Glenburn where they want to develop a light industrial zone at the bottom of the McCarty Road. I mean there’s never going to be any houses up there and that would be a much better site for something like this. Six Mile Falls lets people see how beautiful Bangor is. I have friends who live out in New Mexico and they had seen television coverage of the stream race last year and they called up and said my God I can’t believe how green and lush Bangor is like even in April before the leaves come out and I just wonder what the stream is going to look like in the coverage of next year’s race with a big old ugly tower sticking up in the back of the TV shot of the canoes going over Six Mile Falls. I’m not sure it’s going to present quite the same picture. I also wondered how long these towers are going to last. I mean we know that technology in communications changes very quickly. I, what’s going to happen when they are defunct. Are they just going to be left to rust and, and look ugly. And if they are just left behind in a few more years who’s gonna, who’s gonna to have to tear them down. Is that something that the City of Bangor has to take of? Um, I do know that we often have micro bursts in our area and I just didn’t know, ah, how um susceptible these types of towers are to that type of weather formation. (cleared throat) Now I realize that the towers are going to set back a little bit from the stream but I don’t know unless you’ve been down on the Finson Road if people realize it’s not just people who live there but it’s also lot and lots of animals and birds. And I’m, I’m only a casual bird watcher. I wish I’d brought my bird book with me now. But, I mean, I see every Spring all kinds of song birds who’ve flown all the way up from the Gulf of Mexico to get back to Bangor. I mean I see thrashers and hummingbirds and worblers and this, um this spring I saw two gray jays and they’re just like woodpeckers they’re often out in the deep forest. But for some reason the deep forests are no longer suitable for them and they’re starting to come into town which is just like the pily headed woodpecker that stays in neighborhood all year. (cleared throat) The pily headed woodpecker stays with his downy friends and his (splicker) friends and we have, um, we have a nesting pair of hairy woodpeckers and they live right in the Pine trees right at the edge of the stream and they have their babies every spring and they’ve trained their babies to come by our bird feeder and then they peep whenever they see up come out of the house. They peep just as if to say hurry up, you know, feed that, feed that baby and they want us to pour birdseed into our bird feeder. (cleared throat) In the spring we have lots of flycatchers. We’ve got pheobes and king birds and then when the stream get low we’ve got little herons, great blue herons and um lots of um they’re not really sandpipers but they’re, they’re an odd kind of stork and I only ever see them every couple of years that they, they rely on that little pool that’s right at the bend come fishing late in the summer before they head south. I’m really most worried about the impact of these towers. I was quite shocked to see how close they’re going to be those, those big Pine trees that you can see, um, on the other side of the stream. There’s about eight tall old pine trees. They, I bet they’re 90 feet high and every April I have wood ducks, I have morganzers and I have um, ah buffleheads and golden eyes. Now these are tree nesting ducks. They actually go into these cavities in the trees and they hatch their eggs up in the tree. And then the poor little ducklings have to drop down about 40 feet and make it to the shore. Well I know that the towers are behind the trees but I’m awfully worried about having those trees lit up. Because the minks and weasels get after the the ducklings pretty well now. I’don’t know how, how much easier it is going to make it with light on at night for the minks and weasels to get into these nests. Besides minks and weasels, we’ve got beavers, raccoons, flying squirrels, and for the past four years we’ve had this, this pair of eagles. They’re an older couple and they, I know that they come up off the bridge in Bangor and they fly up the stream and they, they visit almost routinely in the morning around ten o’clock and for the past three years they’ve had a young eagle with them. I’m , I’m assuming it’s theirs and he, he’s only just turned white this spring and he’s, he’s a bit of a nuisance because he lives right in my yard during the day. I think he thinks my bird feeder is is an amusement park just set up for him. He comes and, and just waits for all the little birds to come to the bird feeders. He’s also keeping an eye on our cats but I think he’d struggle to get them up off the ground. The thing about that I ‘m worried about this poor young eagle I do have video tape of him by the way it’s when he takes off he takes off directly across the east and he he would fly right through those towers cause he’s trying to get back to Pushaw Lake and I, I just can’t imagine what impact um these towers are going to have on the wildlife in my little area. I don’t know if um, if an environmental impact study is required on this type of project? But I’d be interested to know. Maine is a is a great big state but the habitat is shrinking and in addition to the eagles what I’m really worried about are the otters. Um, there’s a , there’s stones or big rocks right in the middle of that bend and the otters nest in the mud banks on the opposite side. And in the winter there’re out during the day and you can see them on the ice and they’re fishing and their frolicking. But during the summer you don’t see them. They come out and they fish at night between eight o’clock and midnight you can hear them calling to each other and they sound jut like sneakers on a basketball court. Squeak, Squeak, squeak, squeak squeak, squeak, squeak, and they fish at night and I would hate to think of the poor little otters having to learn to fish at night with big bright lights on them. I just you know as the other speakers have have mentioned, I just don’t think that these towers fit the residential nature or the character of our neighborhood. And um I certainly don’t think they’ll help make the wildlife and the birds feel at home. I think there must kind of be a better place for these towers and I, I don’t know how you evaluate this but I, I think just maybe the, the ugliness and the um, environmental impact of these towers might not be worth the jobs and the sort of development that this sort of project would bring to Bangor. I want to thank you very much for sending me a card and notifying me of this hearing. Otherwise, I probably wouldn’t have known it even through I do read the Bangor Daily pretty religiously. I probably would have missed any notices. But, thank you for ah considering my remarks. Guerette: Thank you. Greg Swett: Good evening. My name is Greg Swett and I live on 260 Finson Road and Barbara’s neighbor and we have many neighbors here with us tonight and she certainly reflected many of the concerns we have about this construction. It’s almost insulting to me as a taxpayer to a person who actually purchased land and , and like my neighbors have tried to make many improvements to the area that we are living to think that we’re going to sit on our back decks now and look at ah, ah, ah, a bright red light or whatever color that light happens to be. It doesn’t really matter. And I, and I think that Barbara made a lot of those points in a wonderful way. Another point I’d like to make, however, is home value. Ah, most of us who have purchased ah land and built homes on the river on the Kenduskeag River did that thinking that we were in a nice quite area where other people would build but we’d also have great home improvements and I think this could be very discouraging based what I see tonight having look at the the diagrams and also getting a letter from you. Like Barbara I appreciate getting that letter. But I think our home value is going to really ah take a beating if these towers are put up there. And I know that we can see them cause I’ve checked, checked where our house is with regards to the drawings. Ah, I think that Bangor has always recognized that they couldn’t provide us with sewerage. I just spent $13,000 a couple of years ago putting in our own new septic system. They couldn’t provide us with water so we drill our own wells and that is understandable because of our location. And I think most of us here from the Finson Road, at least, experience that. But this, this is really ah, just totally unacceptable to think that we might have to content with the towers and so forth. And I’m sorry that the gentleman has spent this amount of money thinking that he could ah build the towers there but I agree with what Barbara said. There are many other places in the area where these towers could be built. And if towers were built earlier in town so be it. This is a different time. We have a , we have a gem on our hands here in the Kenduskeag River and I think we have to keep that in mind at all times. I didn’t know a lot about 165-94 until I came tonight but I think clearly that’s the provision 165-94 that would ah, make it so that the Board or the Committee should not approve the building of these towers. Thank you. Guerette: Thank you. Ah, there are still others. Thank you. Connie Lewis: Hi, my name is Connie Lewis and, um, you saw the picture of my home on ah, one of the, I’m the house directly beside where the towers are going to go. Um, there were a lot of good points made tonight. Ah, one point, I, I would not have to look up to see the towers. They’ll be directly out my, the window of my home. Ah, I’d like to ask the, before you make a decision tonight, um, if any of you have been out to the site to view actually more than just pictures of where this is gonna go but the home center there and our yard and the beauty of what exists. I don’t know if you’ve visited the site but I think it’s important before you make a decision. Um, there were some points made where there were interpretations of certain um, ordinances the 165- 60. I did hear that they interpreted it how they would like to see that interpreted. Um, shadows aren’t my concern if it’s going to shadow my house that’s not my main concern. Um, one thing in 165-9 A 4, um, there’s more than just the height limit there’s character, general character of the style. Is it appropriate for the location um, this is residential homes directly across the street, directly beside and on the other side. Um, I don’t think you can get a real good idea of a visual from a picture like that. Ah, I’ve lived in Bangor all my life. I drive by WZON. I don’t think that those show exactly what you see with the tower. The wires. Um, also I my question would be neighborly friendly. I don’t see the towers as being neighborly friendly as have, as I heard tonight. Um, health risks. As far as Bangor High being, um, close to WZON and the health, health risks he that I heard would not be a problem. We’re talking one tower as opposed to four towers directly by residential homes and I don’t know if the, um, footage from Bangor High to WZON I don’t know if its as close as my home is to this ah project. Um, also, the zoning, I don’t know when that was put into effect. I don’t know if anybody here knows when they approved radio towers for, um, our zone for residential, ah, rural zoning. I don’t know if these types of towers were even developed at that time. I don’t know if any of you know if that were the case. Um, also, um, they don’t know for sure if it’s going to affect our radio, telephone. Um, our tv’s. That was something that they couldn’t answer tonight. Um, they also stated, ah, I’ don’t know if any of you have seen copies of FCC requirements and what they have. Ah, he said that in the FCC requirements it stated that um, there would be no interference but he couldn’t tell for sure. The DEP was an assumption that that was approved. Um, I didn’t hear that there was an approval. Ah, I would think that that would have to be something to consider before approving something like this. Um, what else. Also, value of our homes. I did talk to some real estate agents in the area that ah, told me point blank that that definitely would ah, diminish the value of the homes in the area. Um, local real estate agents I can give their names Um, she, we’ve just built our house a couple of years ago for a substantial amount of money. We do pay taxes and this for the thought of that to decrease the value of my home when we built in that development there are, there are three beautiful homes built right there fairly new. Um, you know, we, we weren’t under the we didn’t build it thinking that something like this was gonna in our back yard and diminish the value of our home. And I, I would like you to consider ah, coming out to the location and, and seeing the beauty out there and I’ll see if there is anything I left out. Um, yeah so definitely on number four ah, it I see it as more than just the height the appropriate for the location the the general character of the of the area there is nothing we’re not in the residential area of Broadway. Um, materials used the roof lines, the, the, that building (inaudible) at the end the bottom of the towers would not match the buildings in the area, the character of the buildings in the area I don’t see. Um, so I just wanted oppose and give you my reasons why. Thank you. Guerette: Thank you. Are there still public comments? Jim Davitt: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, I’m Jim Davitt. Ah, my wife and I live at 59 Hudson Road just around the corner off Broadway. We ah, were before this Board a few years ago. We now run the only bed & breakfast in Bangor. The six mile falls area where this is proposed is a unique part of Bangor and it’s a very overlooked part of Bangor. More than 100 years ago, the area was known as the Six Mile Falls sometimes also known as East Bangor. It had its own Post Office, it’s own school, had it’s own store. The store is still there. It’s now the AG Store at Six Mile Falls. 100 years ago there was some industry there. There was a blacksmith shop. The blacksmith shop is still there only now it’s Harvey’s Trailers and that was it. The rest was rural, the rest was farmland. Within less than half a mile of this proposed site of these proposed buildings are five structures that are listed in that 1976 Book of the Historic Structures of Bangor. Our house is one of them. We are around the corner on the Hudson Road. But from our house we could see these towers. And with all due respect to Mr. Hamilton who says well people don’t look up, ah, they’re not going to see these things. I would submit that any structure that is 276 feet tall that is painted orange and white is going to stick out like a sore thumb against the sky. And it doesn’t make any difference which direction you’re going to be going on Broadway. We have guests coming to us literally from all over the world. Most of them comment on how pleasant it is to come out from the airport and all of a sudden they’re in farmland. It’s quiet, it’s peaceful. There are new homes, yes but they’re nice looking homes. There’s nothing to distract from the beauty of the area. If you are heading out Broadway, heading toward Glenburn as you come up a slight hill which is past Pushaw Road the whole vista of that was now field opens in front of you. Behind it off in a distance is a hill. Towers are going to distract from that view entirely. If you’re coming in from Broadway from Glenburn you cross the Kenduskeag go up a hill and the first thing you are going to see are those orange and white towers. There’s been much said tonight about architectural style. Well we know you cannot design a radio antenna to look like a house. But the question that is before the Board tonight ah, has to do with whether or not this is an appropriate conditional use for the area. I will accept that under the zoning code that a tower or radio antenna could be an excepted conditional use. The question is not whether it is an excepted conditional use but is it appropriate for this particular area. What future impact is it going to have on the development of that area. The Hurd property a 102 acres is now for sale. It’s zoned Rural Residential. I see eventually, a fair number of houses being built there. I’m fine with that. The houses that have been built on Broadway on part of the old Hurd property, there are three of them, they are nice houses. They do not detract from the area and in the middle of this we’re going to have a project like this. It may be appropriate, it may be a conditional use that’s acceptable, but is it appropriate for the area? I would speak on behalf of Six Mile Falls area, please do not allow this to be built. Thank you. Jason Lewis: Hello, ah my name is Jason Lewis. You just heard my wife Connie a few minutes ago. Ah, I’ll try not to repeat what I’ve heard tonight. I’ve heard a lot of things that I agree with ah, the gentleman that just spoke, ah, brought to light the future impact. Ah, these gentlemen here keep comparing these four towers to the two that have been standing in at ZON for how many years? Since world now? So when these four towers get put in and gentlemen ah, from New Jersey come up again they’re gonna want to compare six towers to the four that are over here. Um, you know, I see that as future impact. I see that as developing and developing further out Broadway. Um, I’m having a hard time with the, um, the, the verbiage that ah, I’m not sure of the lawyer’s name but um, as far as the transparent towers, um, the visibility on the landscape I guess, um, as far as being ah transparent and and not visible on the landscape my question is what’s the purpose of the red lights? Ah, unless I’m missing something it’s to make them visible. Um, what else. I had a few questions, um, there are other dishes over, I’m mean other towers in Bangor over by the Water Tower, actually and there is a bunch of dishes hanging off it and it looks ah pretty ugly. I was wondering um, is that, will these towers have the ability to hang dishes on em or other antennas? Ah, the a, the other question on this topographical photo that was taken I was wondering what date that was taken. Barbara Weiss: Oh the photo taken from my house? Jason Lewis: No this one over here. Because I didn’t see ah, house in it. Guerette: Sir, why don’t you address those questions to the Board and we’ll try to them answered later on. Jason Lewis: Oh, yeah, my question is when that topographical ah photo was taken. Guerette: Thank you. Jason Lewis: Since our house wasn’t in the photo that I could see. Ah, I have a question, is a since looking at the map those two towers that are near the river are going to be right in the center of the trees. Um, in the wooded area. Ah, my question is how close can trees be to these towers? (cell phone ringing in background) Um, not to mention that tall trees that were mentioned earlier. Cause I, I see that two of those towers are in the field and two are down in the wooded area. Um, the other question um, my concern is this grounding issue. Ah, they mentioned that ah they showed a picture of the tower ah, the potential tower, um without, ah, chain linked fence around the shack and then mentioned that the grounding ah, six inches below the earth. They spent a lot of detail explaining that um, but I didn’t hear a lot of detail that the six poles that were needed for the aerial grounding, uh 8 foot poles. I’m picturing surround the antenna. Ah, I don’t see any pictures over here of that. I’m concerned with that and I think that’s about all I had. Um, and I agree with what I’ve heard tonight ah the 165-9 - 4 is definitely without, you know, definitely is the reason why these shouldn’t be put these towers shouldn’t be built. So, thank you. Guerette: Thank you. Catherine Merithew: Hello my name is Catherine Merithew and I live at 272 Finson Road. And as if you’ve been out on Finson Road you probably know that when you come in from Broadway about a half mile in the road ascends and then your up probably another 100, 200 feet. So our view of the towers would be straight across head on not like that you look up or anything like that. And I don’t want to repeat what the others have said because time’s going by but I feel like this would when you reduce it down this would just be a real eyesore for such a beautiful area of Bangor that’s rural and residential and thank you. Guerette: Thank you. Tessa Rosco: It looks like we’re all fighting for time there. I’m Tessa Rosco and I live with my mother at 252 Finson Road. I think we’ve been there for over 10 years now and I remember when my parents bought the house. They just fell in love with it instantly after looking out on our porch. I mean you saw our view, its georgeous. I’m now a junior at the University in Maine and I major in civil engineer. So I really understand the work that these men have put into this project. You know the hours in going to the effort to get the approvals and the excitement they even have for building this project, you know, I don’t think that should be taken away from them. But I think that we can find a better spot to do it. You know then to try things in such a beautiful area. I was Bangor High School’s captain of envirothon for three years’ running so I could go on and on about the wildlife and the soils and the aquatics and forestry and all the impact it could have but I think you’ve heard enough of that. Um, I’m also minoring in Mandarin Chinese and I actually get on a plane 6 a.m. tomorrow to go to China for my second time and I’m sure a lot of you I mean especially if you jumped across the road to Norumbega Art Hall they had that beautiful exhibit on and Yangsee River Project and all the development that’s going on in China and you know the compromises they’re making and the sacrifices they’re making within their environment to stop with their economic growth. And I don’t think this is the way that Bangor should start getting on that path. I mean I’m not comparing Bangor to China cause of course, you know, we’re not quite the same ratio. But at the same time I just don’t want to see us end up making those same sacrifices. It’s just not worth it. And I think with a little bit more research into a better area we could find a compromise that would make both our sides happy. Thank you. Guerette: Thank you. Steve Daniels: Good evening, my name is Steve Daniels. I live at 208 Finson Road and ah, I would not be seeing these towers from a mile away or half a mile away. I’m within the 500 foot zone of those towers. Ah, if you look at the picture, the bend of the river where the tower is closest I’m directly across from that. Ah, and I want to point out again, the emotional side of me says this is just wrong to put this right in this beautiful area but you need a logical reason as well. And I look at 165-60 A and although, ah, these good gentlemen have said that they don’t believe this will drastically alter the appearance ah from my home it would be drastic. Ah, if it were your home at that same point it would be a drastic altering of your view. Ah, it would be a drastic appearance change for the entire area. So, please take into account that no only is this a rural residential area but the people live there, live there for a reason. They live there because of all the places they could live and, and we searched for a long time before we bought this house a year ago. Ah, we bought it because of the character of that area and we would really hate to see that destroyed. It is a wildlife habitat like you wouldn’t believe. You cannot believe you’re in this. . . (End of Tape 2, Side 1) (Beginning of Tape 2, Side 2) . . . . . to that habitat. It’s just wrong and I’m not even sure it’s legal. So please take into your ah, account, ah the logical side as well as the emotional side of why this project should not go forward. Thank you. Guerette: Thank you.