Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-02-21 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2006 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman Hal Wheeler David Clark Nathaniel Rosenblatt Laura Mitchell Miles Theeman Alice Brown City Staff Present: David Gould James Ring Peter Witham Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 2: Site Development Plan – 284 Perry Road – Rowan & Emerson Realty, Corp., applicant. Chairman Guerette asked the applicant or their representative to provide the Board with an overview of the project. Mr. Fred Marshall, of Plymouth Engineering indicated that he represented Rowan & Emerson Realty, Corp., the owners of the property, who wished to expand the outdoor storage area for a new wholesale pipe supplier. Mr. Marshall reviewed the history of the site dating back to 1973. Mr. Marshall noted that through the City’s review process, the proposed stormwater management system altered from a level spreader system to a small detention pond that better handled on-site conditions. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if there were any site developments on the adjacent parcels. Mr. Marshall noted that they were presently vacant. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if any new exterior lighting was proposed to which Mr. Marshall responded there was none proposed. Associate Member Brown asked how the area of wetlands was determined. Mr. Marshall indicated that it was done through field determination. He noted that the small area of 2 wetlands identified on the plan will be filled during the regrading of the new outdoor storage area. Chairman Guerette asked for the Planning Staff’s comments. Planning Officer Gould indicated that the plan was fairly simple and straight forward. The applicant, Rowan & Emerson Realty, Corp., was requesting Site Development Plan approval to add 29, 830 square feet of outdoor storage area at 284 Perry Road in an Industry and Service (I&S) District. The building is existing and the storage area will be added to accommodate the new paved area and will be used to store large sections of pipe. Mr. Gould noted the revised plan gives the City the opportunity to “update” the site conditions and evaluate stormwater impacts which were not reviewed in the original construction. The outdoor storage area will need to comply with the existing buffer yard standards which were not in effect at the time of the original site development. Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Ring to explain the changes in the stormwater management details and further clarify his recommendation on the revised plan before the Board. Mr. Jim Ring, City Engineer, indicated that the original plan submitted indicated a level lip spreader that was proposed to disburse stormwater flows from the paved portion of the site. Unfortunately, the topography of the site was poorly suited to that application and it is likely that the stormwater would become channelized shortly after exiting the level spreader, thus defeating its effectiveness. The applicant’s designer revised the plan replacing the level spreader with a small detention pond. The revised stormwater control device should function adequately to maintain post development peak flows to pre-development peak flows. Chairman Guerette noted that in the absence of Member King, Associate Member Mitchell would be asked to vote. Mr. Wheeler moved to grant Site Development Plan Approval to Rowan & Emerson Realty, Corp., to construct a 29,380 square foot outdoor storage area at 284 Perry Road in an Industry and Service District. Mr. Rosenblatt seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously to approve the Site Development Plan for Rowan & Emerson Realty Corp. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 1: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. Chairman Guerette noted that the Minutes of the January 3rd Meeting were in order for approval. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to approve the Minutes of January 3, 2006 Planning Board meeting. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3 Item No. 3: Planning Board Discussion of the Penjajawoc Mall Marsh Commission’s Land Development Code Draft Amendments. Chairman Guerette recessed the Meeting until 7:30 p.m. to begin the discussion of the proposed Land Development Code amendments. Chairman Guerette asked the Members of the Mall Marsh Commission to introduce themselves to the Board. Those Commission Members present were: George Elliott, representing the environmental groups, Ms. Cindy DeBeck, a landowner, Lucy Quimby, of Bangor Land Trust, and Jim Hinds of the Bangor Land Trust. Chairman Guerette asked Planning Officer Gould to go over the list of proposed amendments. Planning Officer Gould explained that the basic concept of the ordinance amendments is to implement the goals and objectives of the Bangor Mall Penjajawoc Marsh Task Force. The Task Force wrote a report, it was reviewed by the Planning Board and adopted by the City Council as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The difficult part is to try to write language to try to implement this concept. The cornerstone piece of the Mall Marsh Plan is the concept of cluster development. Mr. Gould explained that, for example, if there is a 100 acre development parcel without cluster development, there are a theoretical number of lots that could be built on this parcel. Under cluster development, instead of developing the parcel the conventional way, 30% of the development parcel will be subtracted and the remainder of the parcel to be used for development. There is only one example of this in Bangor and that is the Bangor Housing Authority’s cluster development which gave the developer the ability to create lots as small as they wanted to. Only one of those 28 lots in that subdivision was less than 12,000 square feet while one was over an acre in size. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that the logic in one district should work in the other districts. Ms. Mitchell asked if they were talking only about single-family dwellings. Mr. Gould indicated that this provision is for single-family detached dwellings. Ms. Mitchell asked who decided that this would only be single-family and not multi-family. Mr. Gould explained that if you look at the Low Density Residential District as a whole, it does provide provision for typical non clustered development with a 12,000 square foot minimum lot size and a density of 3.5 dwelling units per acre. Another option in that district would be attached residential where you could attach multi-buildings together. The cluster was designed for single-family detached dwellings. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if in the overlay district an owner would have the option of doing attached residential. Mr. Gould said that the overlay standard says that the cluster provisions have to be used and they only apply to single-family detached dwellings. Ms. Mitchell asked if this was part of the Mall Marsh Task Force discussion that there would be no attached residential. Ms. Lucy Quimby, Kenduskeag Avenue, indicated that the Task Force looked at specific lots around the Marsh trying to leave as much open space as possible. She added that as long as you limit the density then you are not going to have people crowding more dwellings on to a lot than you want in your zone. If you allow for people to put 4 more dwellings in a smaller space, then potentially you could have people who are living very close together with a perfectly gorgeous shared backyard that would be a wonderful space. She indicated that she would not like to see that limited by having a limited lot size. Mr. Theeman asked if adopted, if landowners who have contiguous property would be told that they have to set aside 35% to protect the Marsh. He indicated that he would be in favor of developing property to one standard and that one standard should be that there should not be more than 3 dwelling units per gross acre. He indicated that this is basic, easy to understand and user friendly. He indicated that he would advocate no mention of the minimum lot size. Ms. Brown indicated that the whole intent of cluster development is to have as minimum of an impact on the surrounding area. Depending on the topography and whatever the land is like, by just saying that you are going to have no more than 3 dwellings per acre the topography might be such that you might want those dwelling units stacked right on top of each other and you have ¾ of an acre left as open space for the habitat. She agreed with Mr. Theeman that by saying the size, we are defeating the very purpose of what we want for cluster development. The intent is to try and preserve as much open space as possible. Ms. Mitchell asked why attached residential had not been considered. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that attached residential is not a permitted or conditional use in the RR & A. He agreed that it did not make sense to prohibit attached residential. Mr. Rosenblatt asked what the comparable number would be for RR & A. Mr. Gould indicated that the density would be one unit per acre. He said that he did not have a problem with making the minimum lot area go away. By making the lot smaller it isn’t going to provide more open space. Since 1991 there has been no minimum lot size in LDR for cluster subdivisions. Chairman Guerette noted that Mr. Gould had said in his overview that LDR lots can be reduced from 12,000 sq. ft. to 7,500 sq. ft. and asked if this is in the Ordinance. Mr. Gould indicated that this is the proposal. In the existing ordinance there is no minimum. Chairman Guerette said that he would agree to leave it the way it is. Mr. Theeman asked if in theory, if you had a six acre lot if you could put two three acre cluster developments on that site. He then asked what would happen to the second 35% open space boundary or if you would have to have 70% of the entire lot abutting the Marsh. Mr. Gould indicated that where it goes is a separate question. Each one needs to do its 35%. Mr. Theeman noted the provision under D 5 to avoid habitation fragmentation in the open space on any subdivision in the watershed and that it be located so as to create the largest possible contiguous and unbroken upland buffer for the Marsh. He asked what happens to the second buffer noting that one could make the argument that if it is developed all at once then in fact all of the land has to be contiguous to the Marsh. Mr. Theeman added that if someone applied for another cluster request for the remaining 3 acres there is no way, especially if the other lots are built, that that buffer could be contiguous to the Marsh. Ms. Quimby indicated that she and Mr. Gould had had this same discussion and this issue has not been resolved in the Ordinance that was written. This may require off-site open space, 5 potentially, and this is more complicated. Ms. Quimby explained that another problem is that there are some proposals for development and there needs to be some language that they can work with on the books. She indicated that she thought that as soon as this is approved, the Commission will continue discussions and come back with some proposals for amendments, because there are several things that need improvement. Ms. Quimby also indicated that there may be some objections to requiring someone to develop property all at once. Mr. Gould indicated that the problem is that you don’t always have control of all the property; it comes how the developer brings it to you. For example, there is a large piece of property that goes down to the Marsh. Instead of them bringing in a proposal to develop the entire parcel, only a portion of it, which does not directly abut the Marsh, is being considered and open space can’t be directly abutting the Marsh as the developer does not own it nor has the ability to own it. There are certain standards that need to be dealt with at the time of development. The ability for us to create a standard to deal with the open space for a subdivision now is premature as one doesn’t know where the best space for the open space is going to be until you see the development. The Mall Marsh Task Force is very concerned about that buffer around the edge of the Marsh. The problem is in the whole area is that you need to deal with some of it against the marsh and some is not. By saying where it has to be can create some real difficulties in trying to achieve that. One of the discussions was whether to leave some open space guidance to be decided at the time of development review or whether to nail down in the ordinance language to insure that the outcome is exactly what is anticipated. Chairman Guerette suggested avoiding having it in the Ordinance all together or fixing it so that it pertains only to habitat or open space that abuts the Marsh. Mr. Gould indicated that the problem is going to be in development proposals that do not meet the criteria or have the available land. Ms. Quimby explained that the Land Trust commissioned the Audubon Society to produce a report for recommendations for conservation around the Marsh and there were very strong and consistent statements that the most valuable area for conservation is next to the Marsh. The Commission wanted to have the language in there that it was the area next to the Marsh that would get conserved. If someone had a piece of land that for some reason they wanted to have as open space that was away from the Marsh, it would need to be the area next to the Marsh. This is because it is that unbroken habitat to allow animals to come up out of the Marsh and use the upland without having to cross a road or someone’s driveway. They wished to construct an ordinance that will allow for off-site open space so that the person developing that “J” shaped green space would potentially buy some land from the landowner nearer the Marsh and have that be as open space. Mr. Gould indicated that it would be complicated to write at this point. The proposed language is the best that we would come up with in the time we had to do it. There are applications that have come before them that they need the language in place in order to address them. Ms. Brown, regarding the “J” shaped piece of property, indicated that the way that this is written now, a person could not develop it because they could not get their open space abutting the Marsh. Mr. Gould indicated that they have this as close to the Marsh as they can as this is 6 all that they own. Ms. Brown asked why language couldn’t be put in there that says if your parcel abuts the Marsh and because this one doesn’t abut the Marsh it would not be affected. Mr. Gould indicated that the question is how would you meet standard No. 5. Ms. Brown felt that this is very restrictive. Chairman Guerette felt that the concept that Ms. Brown brought up would also address the situation that Mr. Theeman discussed with the six acre parcel that is developed into 2, three-acre increments. To say that this only applies to land that abuts the Marsh then you automatically exclude those parcels of land that don’t meet that standard. Ms. Mitchell indicated that her interpretation of this was not that it didn’t have to abut the Marsh but that it be the closest possible land within what you are developing. The “J” shaped piece can be developed but the problem is that there could be development in closer to the Marsh that would not make it contiguous. Ms. Mitchell noted that in the Comprehensive Plan Update discussions there was talk of creating off-site open space provisions and asked if the Marsh is going to be identified as important, why the developer wouldn’t be allowed to buy some of that. Mr. Gould indicated that Ms. Mitchell had touched on multiple concepts. One would be off-site open space and to do the development there open space would need to be provided on a different parcel somewhere else. The second concept is open space banking where you would set aside acres today for future developments. Potentially you would give more now and use them later for development. The third concept is the issue of cash in lieu of open space. This is different than buying off-site open space because you actually acquire land with off-site open space. Cash in lieu is where the City would get money and could buy open space at a later point in time. This is part of the existing open space language now where the Board and the developer can agree that instead of open space in the subdivision the City would get a sum of money instead of land. The concept of cluster is that you have smaller, denser development off-set by open space. Mr. Gould explained that the Mall Marsh Commission asked why it would make any sense to do the smaller, tighter density development and not have the open space. What they really want is the open space so they did not think that cash in lieu ought to be a standard that we use in cluster development. Another problem associated with this would be trying to figure out what is the proper amount of cash in lieu. Mr. Theeman asked about the space behind the “J” shaped parcel in that if the lot size that remains is less than 3 acres between the Marsh, then nothing could be built on it because the only thing that is allowed to be built is a cluster development having a minimum of 3 acres. In other words, if you don’t have a minimum of 3 acres nothing gets built on it and if you have a minimum of 3 acres then the barrier requirement applies. In effect there would be a larger barrier than you would have otherwise. Mr. Gould indicated that it could not be subdivided because of the minimum threshold but it could still be developed. Mr. Theeman asked what could be developed on it. Mr. Gould indicated that an individual could build a single-family house. It’s only subdivision development that is by cluster. Mr. Gould added that there was no intent on the part of the Mall Marsh 7 Commission to exclude Agricultural and other activities that are allowed in the District. It was to regulate subdivision development. The next item for discussion was that of the Overlay Zone Statement of Purpose issue. City Engineer, Jim Ring explained that this was included in an attempt to recognize some of the goals and objectives that the Council established in C.O. # 05-203. The real question is whether it should be in the Statement of Purpose. He indicated that he wanted to make the Board aware that there are numerous mentions in the Ordinance that created this Commission. The Management Fund was created by Ordinance to support water quality improvement projects associated with the Penjajawoc Stream. It may not be part of the Land Development Code Ordinances but there is clearly a tie to this Ordinance. Under Section 23-29, it clearly states that one of the charges of the Commission is to develop recommendations on expenditure of funds to be used for the purchase of property for conservation easements and water quality improvement efforts. Section 23-34 of this Ordinance which established the Management Fund states that the Fund shall be used for the purpose of acquiring property, conservation easements, public access easements, water quality improvement projects, and such other public improvement projects as may benefit the ecological, recreational, and water quality values of the Penjajawoc Stream and Marsh. Mr. Ring explained that he wished to offer this to make sure that everyone understood that these concepts were clearly in mind with the Council when they created the Commission and the other provisions including the Management Fund. Ms. Mitchell felt that to not consider that is would be to leave out one essential part of the habitat of the Marsh. She said that it was her understanding that the issue around the Marsh had to do with the water quality and that directly ties into developments that occur surrounding that Resource Protection Zone and how it relates to stormwater runoff from residential or commercial development and any other uses of the land. Ms. Mitchell said that she felt that the land and the surrounding area of the Marsh depend on one another and it is important to consider it in this Statement and in the overall thinking about why the Marsh is important. Mr. Wheeler said that careful consideration should be given as to how to prioritize objectives in a Statement of Purpose. It was his understanding, like that of the Chairman, that it is not reflected in the first sentence but in the second one – that the Overlay Zone recognizes the rights of property owners to develop and utilize their properties while preserving the ecological values of the natural resources associated with the Marsh and adjacent uplands, a significant wildlife habitat. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he could recall that in most of the testimony opposing development in the Marsh area it was stated that this was a pristine habitat for all manor of species of wildlife, marine life, and plant life. Mr. Wheeler indicated that while we have come to an agreement on a certain protection zone for the Marsh, we haven’t come to an agreement but we have language that nobody has objected to, but now we hear that the language is not representative of what is considered adequate. 250 feet today, 1000 feet tomorrow, 2000 feet later on. When water quality improvement is placed at the very beginning of the Statement of Purpose he could draw no other conclusion than that is the number one priority. He indicated that he was offended that suddenly they find themselves in this quagmire when what they started out to do was to establish an accommodation between 8 the rights of property owners, developers and environmentalists. Mr. Wheeler said that as far as he could see we haven’t gone past go. Mr. Clark said that if the Stream is pristine that is one thing, if it isn’t and it needs to be improved the only way you are going to do that is by bringing in some man made structures, heavy equipment, some pumps, some filters, etc. and that causes habitat destruction. He indicated that they need to work on the Statement of Purpose. Mr. Rosenblatt said that the Task Force was tasked with some very difficult challenges. What is before the Board is the result of a lot of hard work. He did not feel that the Board should pick it to pieces, there has been a lot of time and effort spent in pulling together language to try to balance the competing considerations, and in terms of the Statement of Purpose dealing with water quality issues, the Board deals with water quality issues all the time in most of the applications that are before them. Water quality is a criterion in almost everything we do so the idea that it would be irrelevant with respect to the Marsh strikes him as bizarre. The specific standards before the Board in the overlay zone seem to be standards that the Task Force has settled on. He did not feel that the Board should interfere with that unless there are specific objections to the specific requirements, or development standards that are contained in the proposal before the Board. Ms. Brown, under No. D 5 - the Overlay Zone, asked that instead of the language “shall be” if it could be amended to say “should be” whenever possible. In that way, it would address the issue if they abut the Marsh directly then they have got to be there. Or, could some language be put in to make it clearer. Ms. Quimby said that this is why it says if it is possible and contiguous because if it is not possible, it is not possible. She noted that there could very well be better ways of achieving this. Mr. Theeman suggested that language might be added after in the watershed of the Penjajawoc Marsh that abuts the Marsh. Ms. Quimby said that they would still like to see the open space where it is, as opposed to, up near the road. Ms. Brown indicated that there may be a situation where you would want that open space up at the front road as a buffer. Ms. Mitchell suggested that in thinking about where the open space is in each specific lot it might make sense to have zones that go around the circumference of the Resource Protection Zone to say within this area we want the open space to be towards the Marsh. As you get closer to a road it could go, the open space could along the road. For example with the “J” lot it might close enough to the Marsh that it is worth it to have the open space closer because development might not occur closer to the Marsh than that. The open space on that would be contiguous to the Marsh for the next 30 years and it would be valuable to have it that way. It would depend on where in the overlay zone it is located. Mr. Theeman asked if anything could be built within 250 feet of the Marsh. Mr. Gould indicated that no structure within 250 feet could be built and there are other impervious areas. Mr. Theeman asked in the case where the lot was a perfect acre at the Marsh boundary so the 9 35% buffer zone would be 250 feet and then the developer couldn’t build within an additional 50 feet of that buffer zone. Mr. Gould noted that in this case you would have a parcel that is almost totally in the zone. Chairman Guerette asked if the upland edge of the Marsh has been determined. Mr. Gould indicated that it has not been predetermined but it can be determined. Wetland mapping tends to be as the development occurs. Chairman Guerette said that he did not feel that anyone has offered any insight as to how this is going to happen as the Board is not the author and to change it is not within the Board’s purview. Ms. Mitchell asked if the cluster development would be a permitted use or a conditional use and what the process was for review of these proposed amendments. Assistant City Solicitor John Hamer indicated that they did not need to take a vote, they could certainly make whatever recommendation they want to, but because this is very draft legislation it has not been to first reading. The idea is for the Board to give their ideas to Staff who will in turn come back with another revision for everyone to look at and come to some sort of consensus before it goes to the City Council for first reading. Chairman Guerette asked if anyone was willing to say that they would like to move this ahead. Mr. Rosenblatt felt that there was no logic to having cluster development a permitted use in one zone and a conditional use in another. Mr. Gould indicated that he would be happy to rearrange this to be a permitted use and noted that this would potentially solve other problems. Mr. Gould indicated that it took a great deal of time just to write the Statement of Purpose and it carries no weight, whatsoever. It has no regulatory function at all. Mr. Hamer added that while it does not do anything from a regulatory point of view, from a validation point of view it is very important. In order to enact any law, there needs to be some rational basis for it, otherwise you are going to have something arbitrary and capricious and it will get struck down. The purpose section is good to make sure that there is a valid reason for enacting it in the first place. Chairman Guerette asked for a show of hands in support for changing the cluster subdivision from a conditional use to a permitted use in the Low Density Residential District. Mr. Wheeler asked for a delay on the straw vote as he felt that he needed clarification as to whether a cluster development is going to be required and the only option, or should not be eliminated for the potential for small-scale developments which addresses some of Alice’s issues. Mr. Gould indicated that presently it is a conditional use but felt that it was better as a permitted use. The next item discussed was the Overlay Zone. Ms. Quimby indicated that they cannot take a cookie cutter approach and make recommendations that are going to govern every lot. However, this is not possible due to the land forms and all of the different variables that affect each lot and that they do not have any regulatory power. This is an exercise in trying to find solutions that will in the spirit of the task force will continue to allow different groups interests 10 to achieve a maximum resolution with each plan and then pass these views along to the Planning Board. The Planning Board ultimately makes the decision. Mr. Rosenblatt referring to D-2 in the Overlay Zone indicated that there is reference to development on any lot in whole and in part, and he asked what the concept is here. Mr. Gould explained that the lot could be wholly within that area or a part of lot could be in that area. It is a shoreland zoning concept that says that even if part of the lot is outside of that area and the part that is within the district is regulated. Chairman Guerette asked about language to provide for following within 250 feet of the upland edge of the Marsh in whole or in part that any development on any lot shall be exceed certain standards. Chairman Guerette noted his interest in including the language for improving and maintaining the water quality of the Penjajawoc Marsh in the Statement of Purpose. Mr. Wheeler indicated that the reference in the Statement of Purpose to improving and maintaining the water quality of the Penjajawoc Marsh be deleted pending a reconsideration of the language of the Statement of Purpose by the Planning Officer in concert with the Commission. The language that states that the overlay zone is intended to improve and maintain the water quality of the Penjajawoc Marsh be deleted pending a revisitation of the wording of the Statement of Purpose between the Planning Office and the Mall Marsh Task Force. Take it out now and rework it and bring it back to the Board later. Chairman Guerette asked for a show of hands. Mr. Hamer indicated that the purpose of this discussion is to give the Planning Officer some ideas as to what the Board’s concerns are and whether or not there is a poll taken, he has a good idea as to what the Board’s concerns are. Mr. Theeman asked if there was some way to add language to indicate that the setback is 250 feet on both sides. Mr. Gould indicated that this is addressed in the Resource Protection Zone. Ms. Mitchell asked if the impervious surface standards were in feet rather than a percent. Mr. Gould indicated that the impervious standards in the two districts are percentages now. The concern that was raised is if someone has a very large parcel and a percentage is used the amount of impervious area could be a very large. Mr. Gould explained that they took the standard sized lot, figured out what the percentage was and made that an absolute limit regardless of how big the lot is. Ms. Mitchell asked why a larger area of impervious surface should be allowed in the Overlay Zone. Mr. Gould indicated that it is based the size of a 1/5 acre lot times that allowable percentage. Ms. Mitchell asked why a property that is closer to the Marsh would be allowed to have more impervious surface than a lot that is further away from the Marsh. Mr. Gould indicated that the whole concept was in the Task Force’s Report. It did not have numbers at the time but the concept was there that there shall not be any more impervious on those lots than would be for a standard sized lot. Ms. Cindy DeBeck, a landowner in the Marsh area, indicated that this came about because of a larger lot. She indicated that impervious surface can be a gravel road. As an example, to have access to a wood lot on the back part of a property you would need more 11 gravel road to get to that and this is part of the reason that more was allowed for that. Because it is restricted to the traditional uses such as a woodlot, that comes out of forestry management. Ms. DeBeck asked how far the “J” shaped lot is away from the edge of Marsh. Mr. Gould indicated that it is about 1300 feet from the back to the Marsh. Ms. DeBeck said that this is the reason for a one-size fits all. The Commission made the best recommendations that they could to get things started. Right now everything is stagnant and no one wants to come in with a proposed development because they don’t know what they are going to be facing. She indicated that they put together a subcommittee to meet with individual landowners that abut the Marsh to find out more about each individual piece of property, what the landowner hopes to achieve. It was felt that it would be best to meet with them individually rather than have a group meeting and try to address the issues and not get anywhere. Ms. Brown said that while that parcel of land is 1300 feet back from the Marsh and while it is really nice to have contiguous open space, there is scientific evidence that says that within City limits that every bit of open space is valuable and even if it is not contiguous that having a percentage of a parcel remain undeveloped and having many of them throughout the City does provide a habitat for wildlife and for plant life. Chairman Guerette had a question in regard to Section 165-128 where there are new provisions for ownership and maintenance of open space or recreation areas. In each of the options that landowners are allowed to choose it talks about having the responsibility for maintenance of the land and he was wondering if this was imposing some unknown standards on landowners. Mr. Gould indicated that the intent with the language in this section is much broader than just around the Penjajawoc and would include open space throughout the City. It might be more of an active and used recreation area as opposed to an undisturbed, untouched area. Mr. Gould said that this would be open space that would be set aside as part of a subdivision and there may be instances where there is an active, on-going area that would need to be maintained. Mr. Guerette asked if it would still be 5%. Mr. Gould said that it would be unless it is a cluster development. Chairman Guerette had comments about Section 165-128C, 14 (B) – regarding connectivity and construction of trail systems in a subdivision. He asked what distance they have to go so if subdivisions are separated by a vacant piece of land that is say a mile away, is this going to be imposed on them. Mr. Gould indicated that the intent of this amendment is that if there is some type of trail system or plan for a trail system that lies where the subdivision is proposed, then it would be their burden to look at the connection of/to the trail system. It is not intended for them to provide any kind of connection off of their property but such that the subdivision does not interrupt some trail. Chairman Guerette indicated that the same issue is present in paragraph A where it talks about the right-of-way for vehicular traffic between subdivisions. He indicated that it is not clear as to what distance people are expected to go to make this connection. Ms. Mitchell indicated that she liked the intent of this amendment but was not sure when this came into play 12 and asked if it is only when the subdivider applies for approval or is it maintained afterwards. She also asked if this will be on a specific City Map. Mr. Gould indicated that ideally it would be part of a trail system plan and that would be the best argument for telling someone that they need to comply with this standard. The intent is only at the time the subdivision is being developed to provide this and not once it is approved and done. Once the Board has approved the plan it is done. Chairman Guerette recognized that this effort took a great deal of work and the Board appreciated the opportunity to discuss this in a workshop session with the authors. Chairman Guerette indicated that he did not fully support the concept of approving something and making important changes to it later. He said that he felt that they had had enough discussion and direction and he felt that he could support it. As there were no further comments, Mr. Clark moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.