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.