Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-03-06 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2007 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman David Clark Nathaniel Rosenblatt Laura Mitchell Allie Brown Roch Le Blanc City Staff Present: David Gould James Ring Bud Knickerbocker News Media Present: Bangor Daily News Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Item No. 1: Election of Officers for 2007. Chairman Guerette congratulated Members Rosenblatt and Theeman for their reappointment and congratulated Ms. Mitchell for her appointment as a full Board Member. He welcomed new Associate Member Roch Le Blanc. Chairman Guerette indicated that the first order of business was to conduct an election of Officers for 2007 and asked Planning Officer David Gould to conduct the election. Planning Officer Gould indicated that the Board needed to elect a Chairman and Vice Chairman from the regular Members of the Board and opened the floor to any nominations. Mr. Rosenblatt nominated Mr. Guerette to serve as Chairman for 2007 saying that the Board has greatly benefited from his leadership and guidance. As there were no other nominations, the nominations ceased. The motion was seconded and it passed unanimously. Planning Officer Gould then asked for a motion for Vice Chairman. Ms. Brown nominated Mr. Rosenblatt as Vice Chairman. Chairman Guerette seconded the motion. As there were no further nominations, the nominations 2 ceased. The Board voted unanimously in favor the motion. Chairman Guerette expressed his appreciation for the Board’s vote of confidence. Chairman Guerette gave a brief overview of the various components of the Agenda. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 2: City Council Referral of C.O. # 07-102 – Directing the Planning Board to Review the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Land Use and Zoning Policy on Gilman Road. Chairman Guerette asked the applicant or their designee to make a presentation. Mr. Ed Bearor, Esq. represented Celia and Bob Brown who are the owners of a parcel of land on Gilman Road seeking a change from its present residential status to a commercial status. Mr. Bearor discussed the history of this area which leads to the perceived need for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan as a pre-requisite to requesting an actual zone change. Mr. Bearor indicated that Mr. and Mrs. Brown went before the Marsh Mall Commission with their proposal to rezone their property from residential to commercial back in January or February. The Marsh Mall Commission recommended that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to include the Brown’s lot for commercial use. In the Commission’s final report, they recommended that the Widewaters site on Gilman Road be zoned as commercial and a small area on Gilman Road also be rezoned as commercial provided that there be a 250 foot buffer between these properties and the Stream. The Brown’s parcel was originally part of a larger parcel on Gilman Road. It was pointed out at that meeting that had this fact been known at the time the Commission prepared its final report, the recommended area proposed for commercial use would have included the Brown’s lot. Mr. Bearor indicated that the Comprehensive Plan should be amended first in order to allow the Brown’s to come before the Board and request a zone change for commercial use. Mr. Bearor discussed Planning Officer Gould’s concerns in the Staff Memorandum regarding the fact that utilities do not run by this property. He indicated that this property is approximately 1500 feet from Stillwater Avenue. The property across the street which is an office complex is served by sewer and comes overland from the neighboring residential project. He said that it is possible to engineer utilities to the Brown’s property and it shouldn’t be a requirement, at this point, that it be in place as they are only asking for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. He said they are before the Board asking only to correct an error that was made at the time the Comprehensive Plan was amended in 2005 to include the Marsh Mall Commission Report. 3 Chairman Guerette asked what the applicant was asking of the Board. Mr. Bearor explained that the applicant had originally filed an application for a zone change for this parcel. The Planning Office suggested that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to acknowledge that this area is one that the Comprehensive Plan perceives for commercial development. If this amendment passes then the applicant would come back to the Board to request a zone change. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that at the time the Board considered the Comprehensive Plan for this area it was important to him that the Board’s decision on land use in this area be consistent with the Marsh Mall Commission Report. Mr. Rosenblatt expressed his concerns regarding traffic on Gilman Road and the future of Stillwater Avenue. He also indicated that he is concerned about opening Gilman Road up to further commercial development in light of the fact that there won’t be a signal at Gilman Road and Stillwater Avenue. Mr. Bearor indicated that the City has a road coming in from the Parkade plaza and any development proposed on Gilman Road would have to come before the Board for its approval. Mr. Rosenblatt noted that the Board cannot consider traffic under a Site Development Plan review. Chairman Guerette indicated that it was his understanding that the Marsh Commission’s primary role is to steer and guide developers in presenting a plan for development in the Penjajawoc Marsh area to the Planning Board that will be without contention. He questioned why this was sent to the Commission in advance of any development being proposed. Mr. Bearor explained that the Browns have entertained an offer for commercial development on this property. They came to realize that it was not a straight shot from the purchase and sale agreement to a development plan that could be presented because the Comprehensive Plan took this parcel out of an area that might potentially be considered for Shopping and Personal Service District or commercial zoning. They went to the Marsh Mall Commission to discuss the merits of the existing Comprehensive Plan, whether or not it was truly what was intended by the Commission, and if they might consider going on record with a recommendation for change acknowledging that perhaps this was an oversight with respect to this parcel. This was the only reason why they went to the Marsh Mall Commission. He indicated that he did not feel that their recommendation carried with it any obligations on the Planning Board’s part to follow it. Clearly, if they had not recommended a change in the Comprehensive Plan the Browns would have to reassess the situation to see what other options they might have. 4 Chairman Guerette felt that if the Board set the stage for the Browns to request a zone change for their lot the Board will be creating a small island of commercial zoning surrounded by Rural Residence and Agriculture zoning. He did not see how the Board could do this until they evaluated what the commercial development is proposed to be. Chairman Guerette opened the meeting to comments. Planning Officer Gould explained that the Growth Management Act is very specific about amending the Comprehensive Plan. The City Council was interested in getting this item referred to the Planning Board quickly, in fact, quicker than Staff would have had time to advertise for any change. This would need to have notice 30 days in advance of a Public Hearing for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gould explained that this is a referral from City Council to take a look at this and then decide what course of action the Planning Board wishes to take. Mrs. Celia Brown explained that her aunt and uncle originally owned the seven acre parcel and the division took place approximately 51 years ago. Her two cousins got two acres each and her uncle and aunt kept the rest. Over the years her aunt and uncle sold it to her parents and in turn, they sold it to her husband and her. Mrs. Brown indicated that she and her husband came to every meeting that they were informed of and the last one they went to the City Manager said that the City does not want to hurt any of the property owners by saying that they are not going to let them sell their land. They are retired now and they are hoping to change this land to commercial like the other two pieces of the 7 acres got changed so that they could supplement their income. She indicated that the abutting property owners have not said that they are against their changing their land to commercial. A couple of people on the Marsh Mall Committee were concerned that if the land was changed to commercial it would encroach onto the Marsh. Mrs. Brown said that their land is a long ways from the Marsh. Chairman Guerette noted that the two, two acre parcels were still zoned Rural Residence and Agricultural and were sold without ever requesting a zone change to commercial. Mr. Bearor noted that the other two acre parcels are shown on Comprehensive Plan as an area that could be zoned commercial and the Browns are requesting an opportunity to also have their property placed on the Comprehensive Plan for commercial use. Chairman Guerette asked for the Planning Officer’s Report. Mr. Gould discussed the history of the Land Use Plan and Comprehensive Plan relative to this area and said that where we are today is the evolution of the area since 1979. After Bangor Mall was built it became apparent to Planning Staff and the City that there was going to be increased market demand for commercial area 5 around the mall. In 1979 only a small portion of Stillwater Avenue by Gilman Road was proposed for commercial use. Gilman Road was still rural and this area was proposed for High Density Residential Use. There was a time when the City thought that the best buffer between commercial use and low density residential use was high density or medium density residential. In 1984 some additional commercial land area was added to the frontage of Stillwater Avenue by Gilman Road. The theory being that the market desire for commercial development is going to be on Stillwater Avenue. In the 2000 Comprehensive Plan the back section of Gilman Road was not indicated for commercial use because of its inability to be served by public utilities. Mr. Gould explained that the Planning Office has always looked at the land use maps as not absolute boundaries. There is a lot of detail that goes into the boundary. In some cases, they are very flexible and in other areas it is very defined based on issues. It may be a neighborhood protection issue, a utility service issue and in some areas there is a lot of wiggle room as to where the boundary is. The Mall Marsh Committee did not like that uncertainty. They had a concern that the commercial area by the Marsh had to be very specific. They took our Land Use Plan and drew absolute boundaries because they felt it was important to them to contain commercial development. The Browns brought to their attention that the Commission has taken a life long family property and split it in two. Clearly, it was never the intent of the Marsh Mall Commission to disenfranchise people from whatever commercial value they might have. The majority of them said we don’t have a problem bringing the line back the other way. The Marsh Mall report was adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan and the City Council adopted it. The Land Use Plan was amended in 2005 to attempt to reflect that land use policy boundary. Mr. Gould indicated, however, what wasn’t reflected in the land use boundary is this issue of utility service to outer Gilman Road. Mr. Gould indicated that he did not have a real concern about changing the commercial line but did have a real concern in changing the line without considering how to deal with the fact that there are no utilities in this area. The City does not want to encourage people to build commercial development with private disposal systems and private wells. He did not feel that the end of Gilman Road would remain a rural area forever, but felt that there should be a comprehensive strategy as to how that gets developed. Planning Officer Gould indicated that he wanted to leave open to the Board was the ability to craft an amendment, either narrowly or broadly, that may include more than this parcel, or whether the Board wants to do anything at all. There is potential for the Board to strengthen the language of the Comprehensive Plan so there is more to it than just lines on the map. 6 Mr. Rosenblatt asked if Planning Officer Gould was present at the Commission meeting when this idea was discussed. Mr. Gould indicated that there were ten people plus staff present and there was a diverse range of opinions relative to this issue. There were those who strongly felt that if had they known about this family ownership issue the line never would have been put where it was. There were those who said it was never the intention of the Marsh Mall Commission to disenfranchise anybody of what commercial value they might have. There were others that were concerned that if a property owner could just come and ask them to amend the land use policy to change their property to commercial would this happen again and again before there would be nothing left out there but commercial. Nobody expressed a specific concern to any direct impact on the Marsh. There was discussion as to the size of the property and whether some of it could remain undeveloped as a buffer. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he did not find it persuasive that the three existing parcels were one parcel 52 years ago. He felt that the issue is to look at the merits of this particular parcel and whether it makes sense to amend the Comprehensive Plan to provide for commercial development of this parcel. Mr. Rosenblatt expressed his concern about the lack of utilities and the traffic in this area and asked about the status of the Parallel Service Road. Jim Ring, City Engineer, indicated that the parallel service road was amended to include a segment that goes from Stillwater Avenue through the Parkade project over to the Gilman Road and a short segment about 500 to 600 feet that goes to Hogan Road. Also the Marsh Mall Report calls for connectivity to the extent it can have it through two development parcels on either side of the stream. Mr. Le Blanc asked if there were other properties available on Stillwater Avenue without having to go up Gilman Road. Chairman Guerette explained that it is not up to the Board to decide whether a piece of land is desirable for development. All the Board can do is to entertain a request of an applicant. Mr. Clark indicated that he did not have a problem with amending the Comprehensive Plan to move the lot line. He felt it would be discussed in depth at the time of any zone change request. Planning Officer Gould noted that should any of the owners along Gilman Road come to the City and request a zone change the first question would be how they are going to service their property. If they can resolve that to the Board’s and the City Council’s satisfaction he would presume that commercial zoning would be in order. Ms. Mitchell indicated that that she would like a better accounting of what the Marsh Mall Commission discussed and to hear from neighbors. She felt that it is clear that the line on the map is the same as that drawn previously and 7 down the road when the Comprehensive Plan is reviewed again, this will come up again. She said that she would prefer to have a more in-depth look rather than set a precedent that parcels can be changed individually. She also had concerns about the lack of public utilities. Chairman Guerette indicated that he would rather entertain a motion to zone this commercial, even though it is not supported by the Comprehensive Plan, by a developer who has development plans on the entire parcel and can show what will be on the ground there and how utilities, traffic, and the road issue will be dealt with. He felt that a change to the Comprehensive Plan would be setting a precedent and he would not support such a request. Mr. Bearor said that they wished that they could come before Board with a developer but they were prevented from doing so because they were told by Staff that the Comprehensive Plan would need to be changed first. He was disappointed that the Marsh Mall Commission’s recommendation had not been forwarded to the Board. He asked the Board to correct an oversight. Mo Fer, the Browns’ Real Estate agent indicated that they thought the property was indicated for commercial use in the Comprehensive Plan which would have allowed the Browns to obtain a much higher value for it. If they sold it today, as is, it would obtain a lower price on it. They got a potential buyer, got and accepted a contract. The buyer’s attorney discovered that it was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the developer asked for his deposit back. If the Comprehensive Plan and zoning are left the way it is, the Brown’s will suffer a loss. If the Comprehensive Plan is amended this would give them the same opportunity as the other two parcels have to come before the Board and request a zone change. Chairman Guerette asked if someone owned all of that land including the Brown parcel and came to Staff requesting a zone change for a subsequent development if Staff would indicated that a portion of the land is not recommended for commercial. Planning Officer Gould indicated that Staff does not have the power to refuse an application. Any applicant is free to file a rezoning. It is Staff’s job is to advise them what the City’s policy is and to tell them what Staff would recommend. If someone comes in and applies for an inconsistent zone change Staff needs to make it very clear to them that Staff finds it inconsistent and will not recommend for its passage. The Board discussed the various options. Mr. Gould indicated that should the Board feel that an amendment is in order, the Board would vote and direct the Staff to prepare such an amendment which Staff would publish and make it available 30 days prior to the public hearing. The Board would then hold the hearing and vote to recommend or not to recommend that amendment to the 8 City Council. The Board does not need to send it back to the City Council to get the go ahead to advertise it. Chairman Guerette asked if the City Council could overrule the Planning Board’s decision. Mr. Gould indicated that regarding matters of the Comprehensive Plan, it is the Planning Board’s document. Planning Officer Gould also discussed the Growth Management Act and the requirements for amending Comprehensive Plans. Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board direct Staff to draft an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that the effect of which would be to include this parcel within the area depicted for Shopping and Personal Service in the Comprehensive Plan, and to proceed with the process of setting that up for a public hearing in accordance with the requirements for amending the Comprehensive Plan. The motion was seconded and the Board voted three in favor and four against. Therefore, the motion did not carry. Mr. Barnes said that he felt that the fact that the property was under one ownership years ago is a moot point because it was divided many years ago. He felt that there were not adequate public services to the site and was concerned with traffic. There was adequate time for input at the time of the Comprehensive Plan Update, and as much as he would like to accommodate the Browns, he felt he needed to vote against this. Other Business The next item for discussion was a proposed amendment to Schedule B. The Board discussed places of worship and nursing homes in Low Density Residential Districts, setbacks for accessory buildings, and the differences between standards of the Low Density Residential and High Density Residential Districts. Another item discussed was that of deleting the provision for living quarters for security in industrial zones. Chairman Guerette suggested that the Board take some time to review this and if they had questions to either e-mail or call the Planning Office. He thanked everyone for their thoughtfulness in deliberating this issue. There being no further items for discussion the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.