Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-11-20 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2007 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman Nathaniel Rosenblatt Laura Mitchell Miles Theeman Allie Brown Jeff Barnes City Staff Present: David Gould James Ring John Hamer Peter Witham News Media Present: Bangor Daily News Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. In the absence of Member Clark, Associate Members Barnes and Brown were asked to alternate voting beginning with Mr. Barnes. CONSENT AGENDA Mr. Theeman requested that Item No. 4 be removed from the Consent Agenda. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board approve the remaining three items on the Consent Agenda (Items Nos. 1, 2, & 3). Mr. Theeman seconded the motion which carried unanimously. The items approved are as follows: Item No. 1: Site Development Plan approval to modify the approved site plan by adding a 207 sq. ft. enclosed staircase, a partial basement and a handicap parking ramp at 120 Griffin Road in a Neighborhood Service District. Xu Rong Chan d/b/a Asian Palace, applicant. Item No. 2: Final Subdivision Plan Revision approval to eliminate Lots 4 and 5 and create Lots 4A and 5A within the approved five lot subdivision at the former Seminary property on Hammond and Union Streets in Urban Residence 2 and Government and 2 Institutional Service Districts. Seminary Redevelopment, LLC, applicant. Item No. 3: Developmental Subdivision Plan and Planned Group Development Revision of an approved Site Development Plan for 24 condominium units within 4 sixplexes located at 21V Bomarc Road in a Low Density Residential District. Woods of Maine, applicant. Item No. 4: Final Subdivision Plan re-approval of a Developmental Subdivision Plan for 36 condominium units located at 606V Essex Street in a Low Density Residential District. Green Diamond, LLC and David McDonald DLM Corp., applicants. Chairman Guerette noted that there was an interested party who wished to make comments. Mr. Buddy Murray indicated that he had a couple of concerns. One is that a year that has passed since the previous approval and there has not been any visible activity since that time. He noted that the plan still makes reference to this being subdivision is for those 55 years and older individuals. He indicated that the marketing materials for this subdivision have never included this fact. Mr. Murray was concerned that there continues to be a request that there be two entrances and two access points with one being located off of Lancaster Avenue which abuts his property. He said that he still vehemently opposes the need for the two accesses and would argue that the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that that second access from Lancaster Avenue is needed. He said that he did not feel that they would meet that burden. Because of the elimination of the Essex Street bridge overpass there has been a significant increase in the traffic flow along Lancaster Avenue. Mr. Murray suggested that if this plan goes forward that it be conditioned that no construction occur off Lancaster Avenue until the Essex Street bridge is reopened which he understood to be the latter part of June 2008. He indicated that he did not know the new applicant nor had he had an opportunity to have any communication with them. Mr. David McDonald with DLM Corp. explained that the reason why this project has not started is because the economy has been soft the past year and they wanted to see how things would weather through six months. They are confident that in the springtime they will start this project. If the 55 age and above has not been addressed in the marketing of this subdivision he indicated that he would take care of this because this is a 55 year old and above age group development. Regarding the second exit on Lancaster Avenue, he felt that this was a life safety issue and that this access was more visible and a cleaner approach. He indicated from a sales standpoint it would be very important for them to start on the Lancaster Street side. Mr. Rosenblatt discussed a proposed condition that this project not be opened until such time as the Essex Street bridge was reopened. Mr. McDonald indicated that if they could obtain a building permit to start the model home in March, 2008 they most likely would not have the model home built until mid June or July which is around the time that the 3 bridge is anticipated to be reopened. He indicated that they would not have a problem with such a condition. Ms. Brown indicated that from a safety issue there needs to be two access points especially for the size of the development. She appreciated the fact that the applicant moved the access on Lancaster Street to the right so as not to be as close to Mr. Murray’s property. Chairman Guerette asked the Planning Officer to clarify when a project such as this one which has not started and has changed ownership what the requirements are of the new owner to adhere to the plan that has already been approved by the Planning Board. Planning Officer Gould indicated that the approval that the Board grants is about the project and the land and has almost nothing to do with the applicant. In this instance there is a different applicant than when the Board approved this but the project as the Board approved it is unchanged. Should they propose to change it, they would need to come back to the City and get approval. Because this subdivision proposes public improvements one of the conditions of approval is that the applicant post an improvement guarantee within 120 days. When an applicant goes beyond the 120 days, that approval becomes void. They will need to provide to the City specific improvement guarantees for work on East Broadway. If they do not do that within 120 days this approval will be void and then it will be beyond the one year in which they can file a final plan again because it was originally approved on December th. 19 The Land Development Code indicates that applicants have a year from preliminary plan approval to obtain final approval. Relative to this being a development for those 55 and older, this was part of the Board’s approval and Staff tried to make sure that it is shown on the face of the plan so that people buying units will see and understand that that is the Board’s understanding of what the project is. Relative to two points of access, this was originally proposed as a single-family subdivision and it only proposed one access out to East Broadway. It is this applicant’s desire to have two access points. This issue was discussed and the Board did not see any overwhelming reason not to allow them to have the second access. Mr. Gould indicated that he did not think that the Board can hold the applicant to readjusting their project because of the Essex Street bridge being closed. Traffic patterns are anticipated to return to the way they were modeled in the traffic study for this project. A 55 plus attached residential project as proposed is not a large traffic generator. Staff sees this as giving the opportunity for the applicant to provide their guarantee in another 120 day timeframe. All of the other details of the project are identical to what the Board approved in December 2006. Mr. Theeman asked Mr. McDonald if the roadway between Lancaster and East Broadway would remain a private roadway. Mr. McDonald indicated that it is proposed to be part of the Association and would be private. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board approve the proposed Final Subdivision Plan with the condition that nothing beyond the model home be constructed prior to the reopening of the Essex Street bridge and with the condition that the applicant submit the necessary improvement guarantees within 120 days of approval. He felt that the temporary disruption of traffic in that area is not a reason to start the traffic analysis over again. Mr. 4 st McDonald suggested that a date of July 1 or July 10, 2008 rather than when the bridge reopens. City Engineer Jim Ring indicated that the scheduled completion date for the bridge project is June, 13, 2008. Chairman Guerette was concerned that if the estimated completion was not met for some unforeseen contingency that the Board would in fact hamper the start of the project and he did not think that that was very favorable treatment of the applicant. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant re-approval of the December 19, 2006 developmental subdivision plan for the proposed project at 606V Essex Street for Green Diamond LLC and David McDonald DLM, Corp, applicants on the following two conditions: first that nothing beyond a model home be constructed prior to July 10, 2008 and, the second condition being that the standard condition as to submission of an improvement guarantee for work undertaken on East Broadway be submitted within 120 days. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. Ms. Mitchell expressed her concern about conditioning this approval upon the completion of the bridge project. The Board voted 2 in favor and 3 opposed and therefore the motion failed. Ms. Mitchell moved that the Board grant Developmental Subdivision Plan approval for Green Diamond LLC and David McDonald DLM, Corp., for 36 attached residential condominium units in 18 buildings at 606V Essex Street. Ms. Brown seconded the motion. Ms. Mitchell amended the motion to include the condition that the applicant submit the necessary improvement guarantees with 120 days. Ms. Brown seconded the amendment to the motion. The Board voted 3 in favor and 2 opposed and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 5: Conditional Use/Site Development Plan and Site Location of Development Act approval of a two-story, 91-unit assisted living facility (group housing) located on Ohio Street and Griffin Road in a High Density Residential District. Bangor Retirement Residence II, LLC, applicant. Chairman Guerette disclosed that his father resides at the Sunbury Village Independent Living facility which is the same applicant as this one. The Board determined that the Chairman did not have a conflict of interest. Chairman Guerette then opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation by the applicant. Mr. Nathan Taylor, PE of Sebago Technics, represented the applicant. Melissa LeClair of Curry Architecture and Walter Stinson of Sebago Technics were also present. Mr. Taylor gave a brief history as to the zoning and the subdivision lotting within this area. Their current proposal is to develop a 14.1 acre parcel which has approximately 1170 feet of frontage on Ohio Street and approximately 600 feet of frontage on Griffin Road. The wetlands on the site are mainly wet meadow or scrub shrub vegetation. There are flood plain wetlands associated with Birch Stream, as well as, a wet meadow to the east. The applicant is proposing to construct a 91- unit assisted living facility which will be different in operation from the existing Sunbury Village which is just senior living. They are proposing a total of 46 parking spaces which meet the ½ space per unit requirement, the site has municipal services available, and a 5 gravity sewer will connect to an existing service that runs behind the Sunbury Village Development. The existing facility consists of 3 buildings connected by enclosed walkways. Mr. Taylor indicated that in addition to the proposed 91-unit addition, the applicant is seeking Site Location of Development Act approval and has applied to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection for a Wetlands Alterations Permit. The Site Law Permit is what governs their stormwater management design for the project which includes a wet pond which consists of reconstructing an existing detention pond to add underdrains to treat the drainage. The previous development utilized a quantity based rather than a quality based detention pond and since they are located within an urban impaired stream (Birch Stream watershed) they need to provide mitigation for that. To accomplish this they propose to reconstruct the wet pond to not only treat runoff from this site (Phase II) but to treat runoff from the Phase I development. They have also submitted a Wetlands Alternation Permit to the Department of Environmental Protection. Phase II contains approximately 4,000 sq. ft. of impact but combined with 14,000 sq. ft. from Phase I it put them over the 15,000 sq. ft. threshold which requires that they do wetland mitigation. The Department of Environmental Protection has approved their mitigation plan and a draft of the order has been submitted to the Commissioner to be signed. Mr. Taylor discussed a detailed traffic study done by Sebago Technics that shows that the retirement facility will produce a relatively low amount of traffic volume (a majority of the tenants do not drive nor do they have vehicles). The peak hour trip generation peaked in the week day p.m. hour which was 75 trips with a Sunday peak hour of 94 trips. This includes Phase I and Phase II and it does not warrant a Maine Department of Transportation Traffic Movement Permit. Mr. Rosenblatt asked what the access routes are for emergency vehicles. Mr. Taylor indicated that there is only one entrance to the site with several entrances to the buildings. Mr. Theeman asked if there was a way to build this without creating a wetpond. Mr. Taylor indicated that they have to treat stormwater using some form of DEP approved method such as buffers, filtration, infiltration or a wetpond. Filtration, infiltration or a wetpond all involve creating a basin that will store water and buffering isn’t really an option because of the site topography. Since there is already an existing pond, they are reconfiguring it and not changing the aesthetics or functions of the stormwater network. Mr. Taylor indicated that he did not feel that they could do this without creating a pond as there was not enough land area to accomplish this and the existing slopes are too steep. Ms. Melissa LeClair, Curry Architecture, indicated that her firm designed the first phase of this project. The proposed building will be an assisted living facility where Phase I is a retirement facility. The difference being that the assisted living facility will offer skilled care whereas the retirement facility does not. This will be a two story building with a central area and with common areas. There will be sidewalks linking the two facilities but they will be owned and operated by separate entities. Chairman Guerette asked for comments from proponents and opponents. There being none, he closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Officer for his report. Planning 6 Officer Gould indicated that this application is for Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approvals to construct a 37,743 sq. ft. building for use as 91-units of elderly assisted living located on Ohio Street in a High Density Residential District. This Phase II project puts them over the threshold requiring that they obtain Site Location of Development Act approval for both phases even though Phase I has been approved under the Land Development Code. This site requires a minimum of 5 acres with a density of 25-units per acre. This project provided a full traffic study even though it is not warranted by MDOT. This is not a high traffic generator and it does not look like there are any off-site improvements that will be warranted by the specifics of the project. Parking meets ordinance requirements and they are proposing a pedestrian sidewalk that goes around the entire facility such that is someone wants to walk from one part to another. The lighting meets the new lighting standards in regard to the height of the fixtures and cutoffs. Relative to the SLODA standard the applicant needed to model Phase I and Phase II when looking at stormwater quality. They went back and reconfigured the original pond such that it could handle stormwater quality as well as quantity thru the use of underdrain filter beds and some buffers areas. This project is below the number of units that could be allowed on this size acreage. They still have a large undeveloped area left on the property (which is beyond Birch Stream). Mr. Gould noted that the Board needed to deal with Conditional Use approval, site development plan approval, planned group development approval and the Site Location of Development Act approval for Phase I and Phase II. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if there was an ordinance that deals with emergency vehicle access to the buildings. Mr. Gould indicated that there were no provision in the Land Development Code but the applicant is going to need to obtain Fire Marshall Office Permits for this facility because of the type of occupants that are going to be in the building. Mr. Rosenblatt noted the two conditions within the Staff Memorandum and asked if the plans had been revised to address those. Mr. Gould indicated that he had not looked to see if the plans addressed the issue of traps, City Engineer suggested that as a condition of approval require them to use Casco traps on all of the catch basins. The other condition is to make sure that when the architectural plans come through that it does meet the specific standards relative to the connection of the buildings. Mr. Taylor indicated that they would not have a problem adding those conditions. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant Conditional Use approval with respect to the proposed development at Ohio Street and Griffin Road, Bangor Retirement Residence II, LLC, applicant pertaining to the proposed development of a 91-unit elderly congregate housing facility on the following two conditions: 1) that the building’s design incorporate the specifics of Section 165-100 D (4)(b) 1 thru 6; and 2) that the catch basins include stormwater traps. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. Mr. Barnes was asked to vote. The motion carried by a vote of 5 to 0. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant Site Development Plan approval for the same project on the same two conditions. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion which also carried unanimously. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant Planned Group Development approval to the combined project consisting of Phases I and II. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion. The Board voted 5 to 0 in favor of the motion. Mr. Rosenblatt then moved that the Board grant Site Location of Development Act approval to both Phase II and Phase I. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 5 7 to 0. Mr. Taylor indicated that there is a discrepancy in the square footage noted on the plans that that revised plans would be submitted correcting those numbers. Item No. 6: Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval for a 9-lot residential cluster subdivision located off of Kenduskeag Avenue in a Contract Low Density Residential District. Forrest H. Grant Family LP, applicant. Chairman Guerette asked for a motion to re-open the Public Hearing. Mr. Theeman moved to re-open the public hearing. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Jim Kiser, representing the applicant, indicated that upon tabling this item from the Board’s last meeting they were waiting for some information from the City’s Legal Staff which has been distributed. As far as the issue of consideration of remaining lands this issue has been clarified. Mr. Theeman asked Mr. Kiser to discuss the conditions of the Purchase and Sales Agreement which indicated that the applicant obtain subdivision plan approval for the lots being purchased, as well as, the remaining lands. Mr. Kiser explained that at the time that they submitted the application, the P & S agreement was put together for the potential to acquire multiple parcels. They have submitted a modified P & S agreement for this 6.6 acre lot only and it does not reflect a requirement for further subdivision associated with this project. John Hamer indicated that further activity on this parcel or further divisions of the remaining land would have to come back before the Board at that point in time. Mr. Hamer recommended that this provision be included on the plat. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that the fourth contract zone change condition requires a minimum of 40 percent open space which shall be located and maintained within the zone to amass natural habitat areas and/or wildlife corridors such that upon completion of development the open space is contiguous within the zone and/or with adjacent established open space and/or wetlands. He asked Mr. Kiser to discuss where the proposed open space has some logical connection with the larger open space plan that is required as a condition of the contract zoning for the area. Mr. Kiser indicated that they have tried to keep development clustered into the center of the property which leaves the perimeter available as open space. This leaves the maximum opportunity to connect into any open space that is left not only from the remaining land but from adjacent parcels. Chairman Guerette asked for comments from proponents or opponents. Ms. Linda Hunter, 1025 Kenduskeag Avenue, said she appreciated the efforts of everyone concerned with this project. There were many meetings regarding this project and a contract was drawn up that everybody agreed to. She indicated that Mr. Kiser met with her and some of the neighbors that afternoon. Prior to that meeting there were many items in this proposal that they felt contradicted the spirit and intent of that contract. After that meeting, she felt that many of those items have been resolved. One main concern was that of the buffering around the pond. The contract zoning condition requires that a 100 foot vegetated buffer of open space be maintained in a natural condition around the pond. The purpose of specifying this was to preserve habitat for the many species of birds and animals that presently reside 8 there. When they read the deed restrictions and proposals (12c through 12F) which allowed everything from tree limbing, removal of dead trees and a motorized trail etc. they felt that these would not be amenable with quality wildlife habitat. She said that Mr. Kiser graciously agreed to modify many of those to be more in keeping with the spirit of a natural condition. A second area of concern was the wetlands and she was not sure that they could come up with a solution to this. In the contract it was recognized that the wetlands within the larger parcel are interconnected and in order to minimize disturbance it would remain contiguous and form a circulation divide. She and her neighbor to the north both gave permission for an environmental scientist to traverse their properties in order to map the wetlands. Part of this mapping highlighting particularly sensitive areas such as vernal pools and this information has not been shared with the Board. The applicant has verified that his 6.6 acres does not contain any vernal pools; however, there is no way to verify the proximity of sensitive areas outside of the 6.6 acres. She felt that the connection to the entire wetland may be affected not only by this development but by future developments. As an abutting landowner with knowledge of vernal pools in some proximity to her home and also this development she said that she would appreciate assurance that all due protection is being afforded. If the Board decides to approve this application she asked that the following conditions be attached: 1) that the buffer zone around the pond be preserved in its natural state as specified in the contract and that the modifications agreed to that afternoon be made to the deed restrictions and covenants; and, 2) that a third party such as the Army Corps of Engineers confirm that all wetland regulations have been met. Mrs. Hunter read into the record a letter from Marvin and Carolyn Nutter at 986 Kenduskeag Avenue. In that letter they indicated that their main concern was the added 86 trips caused by the proposed street which is almost directly opposite from their house which would cause a great increase of risk to accidents which could end up in the living room of their house. They indicated that they were not in opposition to the project but they were very concerned about the speed limit and feel it should be reduced to 25 MPH. While they realized that the Planning Board could not fix the problem they felt that it had to start somewhere. Mrs. Hunter said that what is done with this little piece of land sets a precedent for the larger parcel and the City needs to set a high standard and adhere to it so that they can be proud of the development that is coming to the neighborhood. Ms. Lucy Quimby, 1230 Kenduskeag Avenue, indicated that she also met with Mrs. Hunter and Mr. Kiser. She appreciated the effort the applicant had made to maximize the amount of open space. She had two concerns in addition to those expressed by Mrs. Hunter. Judy Markowsky a biologist, looked at the environment there. Regarding the list of restrictions and covenants she indicated that there was a typo where it mentions that open space would be “underdeveloped” and it should read “undeveloped.” She noted that on Page 138 of the Comprehensive Plan there is a policy requiring developers to provide documentation of state approvals prior to finalizing local approvals. Because of the quality of wetland she indicated that the Army Corps of Engineers should be involved to insure that they are satisfied that the habitat has been appropriately protected. Unlike the Department of Environmental Protection which cannot look at vernal pools that are over a property line 9 the Army Corps can. She said that a smaller path rather than a path for vehicular passage would be more appropriate. She didn’t feel that the trees should be limbed or removed other than taking out diseased trees and invasive species. She felt that there are conditions that could be reasonably imposed here but she recognized that the neighborhood consented to the rezoning so that this area could be developed. Mr. Theeman asked if the applicant would be willing to include the deed restrictions and covenants as part of the final subdivision plan. Mr. Kiser indicated that they are on the plan now as it concerns the open space. Ms. Brown indicated that she would be reluctant to approve something with conditions because she has gone through all of the open space notes and the general notes and found many conflicts. She said that it is more housekeeping and the applicant needs to make sure that there aren’t conflicts between the open space regulations and the general notes. Mr. Kiser indicated that he would be glad to address these conflicts. No one else spoke, Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Officer for his report. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this application is for preliminary subdivision plan approval of a nine-lot cluster residential subdivision off of Kenduskeag Avenue in a Contract Low Density Residential District. At the previous meeting, the Board continued this item so that questions could be answered as to what is within the subdivision. Mr. Gould discussed the cluster subdivision standards relative to the Low Density Residential District. He noted that there is a requirement that all of the lots must have frontage on the street. In order to gain frontage two of the lots share a driveway and utilities as well. Mr. Gould indicated that the Final Subdivision Plan needs to make it clear how those shared utilities and features are handled such that the buyers are aware when they buy one of those lots whose responsibility it is. The overall concept at the time of the rezoning was the concept of circulation divide which also represents itself as a natural drainage divide where there is a common thread of wetlands that runs in the back of this property. Part of that rezoning was that the circulation divide would be the area that would be part of the common open space and would connect this with other parts of the site. Their proposal to leave that wetland on the back side as open space would fit into the overall plan. They are also leaving the potential that there could be some public trail system in part of this open space. At some point the Board is going to have to make a decision that the deed restrictions and details of the buffer around the pond meet the contract which says that it needs to be in a natural state. Mr. Gould did not feel it was a problem with the Board asking the applicant to provide information from other regulatory agencies as to whether or not they do or do not need a permit. Mr. Gould explained the subdivision laws noting that the applicant does not have control of the first parcel. The applicant owns the first division of the parcel. Mr. Gould noted that in the past in other situations where the remaining land is that of the same owner to make it clear, it has been noted on the face of the plan that no approval is being granted to that remainderment and that no development can occur on that land unless it comes back before the Board. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff feels that this proposal is consistent with the contract zoning standards relative to cluster subdivision, putting the open space in an area 10 where it could be common to other developments and the trip generation from this project is low which also meets the standards of the contract. Mr. Rosenblatt felt that it would make sense to ask that other regulatory agencies sign off on this but not necessarily as a condition. Mr. Gould indicated that it is not unusual for planning boards to ask applicants to obtain a letter from the Department of Environmental Protection indicating that they do not need a permit. Mr. Gould didn’t know if the Army Corps would provide something in writing but the Board could direct the applicant to proceed to try and get it and then evaluate what the response is. Mr. Rosenblatt asked Mr. Hamer if the remaining land is a lot and he asked what needed to be depicted on the plan. Mr. Hamer indicated that he suggested that the applicant show the entire perimeter of the original lot that was divided and since the remaining lands are not part of the subdivision development that there be a note or a condition on the plan indicating that it cannot be used or further divided without further Planning Board review. Mr. Rosenblatt asked what happens when the applicant submits a subdivision application for another parcel within the original parcel and would this further implicate the remaining land and would the Board get more information on the remaining land in terms of open space. Mr. Hamer indicated that this would require that it be subject to further review before it can be used such that if another parcel were carved out of the 176 acre parcel it will have to go before the Board and the Board will be still evaluating the parcel subject to the application under these approval standards. Mr. Rosenblatt asked how to ensure that the contract condition regarding the configuration of the open space connectivity of the entire parcel occurs. Mr. Hamer indicated that as parcels are developed in the future they will have to conform to the prior layout that has been accepted and approved. One of the approval standards is that the application conforms to the laws and ordinances of the City and the contract zone change is a part of the zoning ordinance and any subsequent applications will have to accommodate the ones that have come before it. Mr. Rosenblatt noting the concern about the speed limit in the area on Kenduskeag Avenue asked how someone from the public could get a response to this. Mr. Jim Ring, City Engineer, indicated that the City of Bangor does not establish any speed limits but that the State of Maine does. The procedure for requesting a change is for a determination by the City that it is deemed appropriate and this is usually done by the Police Department or it could be done by the City Engineering Department. If it is deemed necessary then the City makes a formal request to the Maine Department of Transportation who will conduct a review. The most determining factor is the amount of development along the corridor. If driveways are spaced long distances apart the speed limit is going to be set higher. As development occurs and there are more driveways this will bring it down. Mr. Ring asked that they make a formal request either to the Chief of Police or to him. As there were no further comments, Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Planning Board grant Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval to the proposed subdivision located at Deer Pond Lane, Forrest H. Grant Family LP applicant, with the conditions as laid out by Staff specifically that the applicant provide supporting documentation as to open space ownership and uses, shared driveway and utility arrangements for Lots 2 and 3 and that the plan indicate that remaining lands cannot be 11 developed without further Planning Board review. He indicated that he would urge the applicant to follow through on the concerns that have been expressed and to get the conditions on the plan pertaining to the development itself into sufficient shape so that the Planning Board is comfortable at the end of that process that those conditions have preserving the buffer around the pond in its natural state. Second, to the extent possible he felt that it would be very useful to obtain whatever other regulatory agency sign off might be feasible pertaining to the proposed development. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that while those two last things are not conditions, he wished as a member of the Board to urge the applicant to move in that direction. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. He noted that he understood the conditions to mean that all deed restrictions, all the deed covenants, and all the contract conditions will appear on the final subdivision plan. Mr. Kiser indicated that all of the deed restrictions that they are going to impose consist of several pages of documents and he would prefer to reference those in a recording format under separate page recording in the Registry and then note them on the plan. Mr. Theeman asked that those be submitted with the final plans so that it can be reviewed by the Planning Board. Mr. Kiser indicated that they had submitted them and would be happy to submit the adjustments under the final subdivision plan application. Associate Member Brown was asked to vote. Chairman Guerette asked for a vote. The Board voted five in favor and none opposed to the motion. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 7: Site Development Plan approval to construct two 20,000 gallon emulsion storage tanks, a 1.2mm gallon asphalt storage tank, a new 20’ x 30’ boiler building and grade the site for spill containment at 58 Bennett Street in an Urban Industry District. Down East Emulsions, LLC, applicant. Chairman Guerette asked for comments from the applicant or their representative. Mr. Dick Day, Plisga & Day, and Steve Ford, Plant Manager for Down East Emulsions were present. Mr. Day indicated that this property has operated at 58 Bennett Street since 1963. This is an asphalt emulsion plant that sells paving products. There have been minor modifications made to the site which were approved in 1974, 1979, 1980, 1981, and November 2005. The new improvements include adding two, 20,000 gallon storage tanks for asphalt emulsion, and adding one tank that will contain 1.2 million gallons of asphalt. The new larger tank will be served by an existing rail siding along the northeasterly side of the property to bring the product into the site. They are planning to add a boiler room to move the asphalt through the pipelines. One significant feature of this site is that all stormwater is contained on the site. There are federal requirements for containment of any substance like asphalt that equals 110 percent of the volume of the largest structure on the property so a berm was constructed to entirely contain all stormwater. In the event of a rupture of any of the tanks, all of the product would stay within the site. The stormwater is dissipated by evaporation. Mr. Day noted Staff concerns about the contaminated stormwater that may exist on the site in the event of a failure of the tank. Mr. Day indicated that this property is subject to a self-imposed restrictive covenant that is enforceable by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) under the 12 Voluntary Response Action Plan. Under this Plan the applicant has to file a plan with DEP that tells what their plans are for disposal of any contaminated soil that occurs in the transport of the material or in the event of a failure. This plan has been reviewed by DEP for compliance with existing conditions and they have indicated that after a site visit that the plans complies with all existing conditions provided that the VRAP Plan is amended to monitor for contaminated soils during construction and provides a disposal plan for any soils if they are encountered or created. Mr. Day indicated that this application meets all Ordinance requirements. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the asphalt in the tank was liquid or solid. Mr. Steve Ford indicated that the asphalt that is brought into the plant is used to make hot mix or road paving and is a solid. At room temperature they add an emulsifier and run it through a high speed mill which becomes the consistency of latex paint. If they had a spill the material will not go into the ground as it is made to seal things. Chairman Guerette asked for the Planning Officer’s Report. Mr. Gould indicated that this site is in the Urban Industry District and there have been various small improvements and changes to the site. The applicant is proposing to off-load product from railroad cars at this site. Staff would like more information submitted regarding any new lighting to ensure that they meet the City’s standards relative to cut offs and details. All of the other Staff concerns have been addressed with the submission of a revised plan and Staff would recommend approval with the condition that additional lighting information be submitted. Mr. Day indicated that they were aware of the new lighting standards and they are generally addressed on the plan. While the location of all of the fixtures has been identified on the site, the construction drawings are not ready at this point. He asked if the applicant could address this at the time that the Building Permit is applied for. Chairman Guerette asked Mr. Barnes to vote. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant Site Development Plan approval for the proposed development at 58 Bennett Street – Down East Emulsions, LLC, applicant, with the condition that prior to commencing construction the applicant submit details of the lighting plan and fixtures to demonstrate compliance with the City’s Lighting requirements. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 8: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. Chairman Guerette indicated that the Minutes of the July 3, 2007 Meeting were in order for approval. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board approve the Minutes of the July 3, 2007 Meeting. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Other Business There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.