Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-10-03 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 2006 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman Hal Wheeler David Clark Nat Rosenblatt Miles Theeman Laura Mitchell Allie Brown Jeff Barnes City Staff Present: David Gould Peter Witham News Media Present: Bangor Daily News Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., and deferred consideration of the Minutes to the end of the meeting. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 2: Site Development Plan approval to construct a 784 sq. ft. addition to the existing building (for a total of 1,988 sq. ft.) located at 631 Hammond Street in a Neighborhood Service District and a Contract Neighborhood Service District. KENC LLC, applicant. Chairman Guerette asked the applicant to make a brief presentation. Ms. Sally Hartford representing Mark Bolduc the owner of KENC, LLC, explained that the applicant is proposing to add 365 sq. ft. to the end of the existing building at 631 Hammond Street for office space use. They do not propose any changes to the existing parking areas. Mr. Rosenblatt asked the applicant to discuss maintaining the buffer. Ms. Hartford indicated that she had a statement signed by Mr. Foss, the owner of the abutting property and the existing fence, indicating that for any reason he chooses to remove that fence that he will give the applicant adequate notice and allow them to purchase the fence and relocate it to their property. This will allow the applicant to maintain that buffer at all times. 2 Ms. Brown asked if the applicant could address lighting. Ms. Hartford indicated that they are proposing two 175 watt lights on the exterior front of the building to light the parking area and they would be on a timer to come on in the evening and stay on all evening. They also propose two small decorative lights on the outside of the door that will come on as needed in the evening to light the walkway. Ms. Hartford noted that they are designed with an encasement around the front to direct the light directly down into the parking lot to avoid light shining out onto neighboring properties. Chairman Guerette asked for Staff comments. Planning Officer Gould indicated that the application is for KENC, LLC who is seeking approval for an expansion of an existing building for office use on Hammond Street. Earlier this year the applicant requested a contract rezoning of a small piece of the abutting property to Contract Neighborhood Service District which specified the size the building expansion, the amount of impervious area that could added, and a buffer or transition yard between the commercial district and the adjoining residential district (a nonconforming auto impound yard). The proposal before the Board is really a small addition to the existing building, which formerly was a gasoline service station, that has been renovated into office space. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff pointed out in the Memorandum that they would like to see the applicant take a look at the existing parking at some point in the future to see if there could be some landscaping or buffering added between Hammond Street and this lot. Because this is an existing situation Staff did not feel that they were in a position where there was a lot of leverage to require them to do it. The other issue that Staff pointed out was that of the fence. Mr. Gould explained that the applicant needs this fence in order to meet their specific buffer yard requirement. Staff made it clear to the applicant that if they don’t own the fence and if the fence goes away they will be in violation. Mr. Gould noted that all of the other details are in order and Staff felt that with the new buffer on the side yard, it is definitely an improvement between the commercial and residential boundary. The office use is a good use relative to this location on Hammond Street as it not a high traffic operation. Staff felt it is a positive direction for this part of Hammond Street, and recommended that the Board grant the applicant Site Development Plan approval. Mr. Theeman asked if the applicant had given any consideration to the buffer request that the City has made. Ms. Hartford indicated that they have but they don’t have any concrete plans because they are trying to get the building done in order to relocate their business there. At this point they have 7 employees and there won’t be a lot of car traffic. Ms. Hartford indicated that the applicant would like to see a buffer there as it would add to the aesthetics of this corner lot. Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to grant Site Development Plan approval for the proposed addition to the existing building located at 631 Hammond Street KENC, LLC, applicant. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 3 Item No. 3: Site Development Plan approval to construct a 2,839 sq. ft. crematorium and related site improvements located at 1379 Hammond Street in a Government and Institutional and Urban Industry Districts, Pine Grove Crematorium, applicant. Michael Clisham, Esq., and Andrew Hamilton, Esq. of Eaton Peabody; Dave Merritt the Project Architect; and Jim Fernald and Gary Smith of Brookings Smith Funeral Home and Pine Gove Crematorium were present at the meeting seeking site development plan approval for the construction of a crematorium on a 1.7 acre property located on Hammond Street adjacent to the Pine Grove Cemetery. The proposed 2,832 sq. ft. building will serve as a reception area and crematorium. It will be accessed off of Hammond Street that will flow into the proposed parking area. They also propose an off-premise sign. Mr. Clisham indicated that the applicant is proposing a total of 16 parking spaces 6 spaces for the assembly use and the remaining spaces for use by the employees. They propose to light the parking area with four lights one at each corner of the lot that will shine down with no outward glare but with sufficient lighting to provide for the safety of the guests coming to the facility. Mr. Clisham also indicated that there is an existing stand of small trees and vegetation along the border between this lot and Pine Grove Cemetery along with an existing fence that will be maintained. There is a hedge along the access road that will be maintained pursuant to an easement from the owner. In the event that the hedge should deteriorate the easement requires that it be revegetated. On-site planting is proposed along the parking area and the propane tanks as well. Mr. Clisham discussed stormwater management indicating that the applicant proposes to manage this by filtration beds consisting of plantings and sub soils that will filter the water. Mr. Clisham indicated that because this lot is located within the Shaw Brook watershed it requires more stringent treatment. They have submitted a stormwater plan to the DEP. Mr. Rosenblatt asked Mr. Clisham to discuss the proposed emissions from the crematorium. Mr. Clisham explained that the applicant has received an Air Emissions License from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection to operate a crematorium. The emissions will be vented to two separate 30 foot stacks that will appear as one stack. The crematorium is a two chamber mechanism with the second chamber heated at a substantially higher temperature to ensure complete combustion and incineration of any materials so that there are no particulate emissions from this facility. In addition, there are certain safety controls and monitors that should emissions exceed the threshold set by the State the system will shut down and not allow it to exceed that limit. Mercury emissions are proposed at levels well below the State Standards. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if they planned to dispose of any other materials on site resulting from this process and asked what the practice is for those remains that are not claimed. Mr. Jim Fernald indicated that funeral homes are the holders of the unclaimed remains. They have no plans for a scattering garden at this facility and any unclaimed remains would go back 4 to the funeral home. He noted that there is a statutory requirement that if remains are unclaimed after three years, the funeral home can bury them. Chairman Guerette asked how much traffic a service at the facility would generate, how many people or family members might attend a typical cremation, and what would this mean for the homes that in the surrounding area. Mr. Clisham indicated that it is difficult to predict the level of attendance at cremation services. Now, they are arranged by funeral homes but the actual cremation occurs at a cremation facility. In consultation with the Code Enforcement Office parking was determined based on it being a place of assembly and for the needs of employees. Services will vary based on the desires of the families while some will treat this like an interment, others may prefer to have a service at the crematorium with a reception elsewhere. However based on their experience, 16 parking spaces is adequate. Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Fernald if a cremation occurs within a very short time after the death of the deceased and if it is normal for the family to attend the actual cremation. Mr. Fernald indicated that by Statute cremations cannot take place until 48 hours after the time of passing. They have had requests from families to be present at the time the body is placed into the crematorium. Part of the design of this facility is to have a viewing room for families to view their loved ones prior to the cremation. Chairman Guerette asked for comments from Staff. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this property was previously zoned Urban Industry District (which is a very lightly regulated, high intensity industrial area) and was changed to Government and Institutional Service District such that this property could become part of the Pine Grove Cemetery through an agreement with the City. This is in effect an expansion of the cemetery and State law provides that a crematorium be located in such a location. The applicant has created a nonprofit entity to run this facility and is trying to provide a unique and different service that is not currently available. Mr. Gould indicated that this lot is in a remote location within the City surrounded by industrial district zoning and a cemetery. There are a few remaining single-family residences along Hammond Street but like Odlin Road, it is an area that is intended for industry and commercial uses, with fewer and fewer single-family residential developments. One of the drawbacks to this location is that it is not served by public sewer and water so this facility will need to have a well and a septic system. The applicant has provided back up relative to that on-site system to deal with the flow volumes that they anticipate from this use and Staff does not see a concern with that. Parking was based on the Land Development Code requirements for assembly space for that part of the facility which would be a gathering location. Mr. Gould indicated that he did not know of an industry that deals with parking better than funeral directors. He said that they do a good job of managing, directing and maintaining traffic and parking. Mr. Gould noted that this parcel is located within one of the City’s impaired watersheds which means that the applicant needs to get special permits from the DEP under the Stormwater Management Law. They are proposing to use an underdrained filter system to deal with water quality. The water coming out of this once industrial area is likely going to be 5 much cleaner. Mr. Gould indicated that the plans meet all submittal requirements and Staff recommended that the Board grant Site Development Plan approval. As there was no further discussion, Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to grant Site Development Plan approval for the proposed crematorium located at 1379 Hammond Street for Pine Grove Crematorium, applicant. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Item No. 4: Site Development Plan approval to reuse the existing building at 215 Union Street and add 8 additional dwelling units in a Contract Multi-family and Service District, John T. Karnes applicant. Chairman Guerette asked the applicant or his designee to make a presentation. Mr. Fred Marshall of Plymouth Engineering, represented the applicant who was also present at the meeting. Mr. Marshall indicated that this parcel has been through many iterations and proposals. Over the years, the City has purchased and demolished, through Community Development Block Grant Funds, several buildings in the Union Place area. There is one remaining building on this parcel which contains four dwelling units. The applicant’s proposal is in response to the City’s desire to see this section of the City redeveloped into housing. The Contract Zoning Agreement for this parcel limits the number of units that can be built there. The applicant is proposing to add two units to the existing four-unit building and to construct a new building containing six units for a total of 12 dwelling units. The applicant proposes 24 parking spaces and Union Place will be redone as a private way. Chairman Guerette asked if this was a land lease from the City or if the applicant proposes to purchase it, and if there were drawings of what the buildings will look like. Mr. Marshall indicated that Mr. Karnes would be purchasing the land. Mr. Marshall handed out copies of the building drawings and indicated that they were reviewed and accepted last week by the Business and Economic Development Committee. Mr. Rosenblatt asked what the applicant proposed for open space. Mr. Marshall indicated that the open space is calculated by taking the area of the setback out of the lot minus the impervious area, minus the building footprint and what is left is the open space. The applicant has included planting beds in front of the buildings and the remaining open space exceeds the minimum requirement. The area on the ends of the property will remain undeveloped and turned into lawn and landscaping. Mr. Clark indicated that back in the 1970’s while in college he lived in one of the apartments in the existing building. At that time there was a sense of community along Union Place and it was a convenient location being close to the downtown. He said that he felt that this area has the possibility of being that kind of a neighborhood again and asked if that is what they intend to do here. Mr. Marshall indicated that it is the City’s intention and the intention of the applicant to promote that. By creating attached housing you create a community because it is compact. 6 Ms. Mitchell asked if the exterior of the existing building would be renovated to match the proposed building and be in keeping with the development. Mr. Karnes indicated that it is his intention to make the development appear as one development. Chairman Guerette noted that while this is not a public hearing, he would entertain comments from interested parties. Mr. David Lawler, an abutting property owner, indicated that he started his business at this location 30 years ago and the neighborhood was in very poor condition at that time. As time progressed, conditions worsened to the point that some of the buildings were condemned or barely habitable. As his business became profitable he began buying the surrounding property, cleaned it up and improved the neighborhood. Mr. Lawler said that he spent several hundred thousand dollars salvaging the historical Atrium House as well as the three story brick building beside it. He was also able to acquire and restore the former New Franklin Laundry building across the street. These “beautifully restored” buildings are now offices for doctors, lawyers, accountants and counselors. It was during this period of time that the City began formulating its own plan to improve this neighborhood and it purchased the properties on the other side of his. Many of the buildings were condemned and demolished with the exception of the four-unit Newman property that was in need of extensive rehabilitation. Mr. Lawler indicated that when the City came forward with an RFP for the property he came forward as it was his desire to continue his work on improving the neighborhood. However, there was a question about the purchase price and they did not come to an agreeable solution and he backed out as tentative developer. Mr. Lawler indicated that he is in opposition to the current proposal. He asked the Board to consider the following questions: 1) Who would like to have a twelve unit apartment complex with 20 parking spaces abutting their business or residence, and 2) Why would one consider putting 12 housing units on .8 of an acre of land on one of the busiest intersections in Bangor. Mr. Lawler said that the proposed development will have a greater traffic impact than what he had proposed, there are issues with snow removal and access for emergency vehicles. Chairman Guerette then asked for the Planning Officer’s report. Mr. Gould indicated that the application in front of the Board is to construct a six unit apartment building and add two more units to an existing four-unit building at 251 Union Street. This parcel is zoned as contract Multi-Family and Service District. Mr. Gould gave a brief history of the area noting that the City had solicited requests for proposals to redevelop the property and based on the amount of frontage it came to the conclusion that only two structures could be built on this property. The Contract Multi-Family and Service District gives then ability to do to a certain density which is specifically controlled by the contract provisions which limit the density and suggests that no building of greater than six units within a single building be allowed on the property. This is why this proposal adds two units to an existing four-unit building to make it a six-unit building and proposes another six-unit building on the property. Mr. Gould indicated that the only issue that Staff had in the development of a site plan was that of making the building envelope work. The City has a standard that says that even though you may be allowed to build to a 10 or 20 foot setback, if you have a multi-story 7 building you have to make sure that the pitch and the angle of the roof does not exceed the building envelope standard. Adjustments had to be made on the front and the back of the buildings in terms of the overall length to ensure that it would meet the standards. The reason behind that is to make sure that there is adequate light and air space in between buildings. The proposal has one access and it is in the general location where Union Place has been. It will provide one parking lot that is down the middle of the development such that the buildings on each side of it are going to buffer the parking lot. The applicant will have to provide the required C Buffer where the parking lot abuts an adjoining residential property. The stormwater from this parking lot will be collected through catch basins on the property that are connected to the storm sewer system. Planning Officer Gould indicated that Staff did not feel that this project would cause run off or stormwater problems on adjacent properties. The addition of 12 units at this location would not warrant a high level of traffic and would be less than that from a commercial enterprise. All of the details on the plans submitted meet the lot coverage, setback standards, open space requirements within the M & SD District (which is based on the number of bedrooms within the unit) and the parking meets the setbacks and design standards. Staff recommended that the Board grant approval. Mr. Theeman asked what the buffer requirement was between the back of the property and Mr. Lawler’s property. Mr. Gould indicated that there is no specific buffer requirement between a residential apartment building and a commercial development. Mr. Wheeler indicating that Union Place is a very narrow street asked if it was going to be widened, would it provide for adequate area for access by emergency vehicles and for adequate placement of snow. Mr. Gould indicated that Union Place is going to be done away with and the applicant is proposing a 42-foot wide area of pavement, which is wider than most streets within the City, and it will allow more area for emergency vehicles to enter onto the property. Mr. John Karnes, the applicant, indicated that the open space directly behind the parking area is proposed for a play area. He said that they were planning to fence it in to make it private for the residents. During the winter, snow will be deposited there and it will make a good place for children to play. While not required on the property line between this lot and Mr. Lawler’s, Mr. Karnes indicated that they are planning to install a six foot decorative fence to give some separation to give the residents a sense of privacy. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if Mr. Karnes had any thoughts on how to deal with the traffic at this busy intersection. Mr. Karnes indicated that he felt that the tenants are going to realize that they cannot make a left-hand turn out of the site and the existing traffic light should work to their benefit in entering and exiting the site. Mr. Theeman asked if the proposed fence would abut the Ross property. Mr. Karnes indicated that there is a fence on a portion of that area already and they plan to talk to owners of the Ross property to get permission to upgrade it as it needs some repairs. The fence will travel along 85 to 90% of the entire property line. 8 Ms. Brown wanted to go on record that she was uncomfortable with the direction that this particular part of the meeting has gone. She said that this is not a public hearing and it wasn’t advertised as a public hearing. While she appreciated Mr. Lawler’s concern, she was uncomfortable that the Board was starting to run this like a Public Hearing and that other people have not had a chance to attend and respond. She said that she felt that the developer was being blind sided. As there were no other questions, Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to grant Site Development Plan approval for the proposed development at 251 Union Street John T. Karnes, applicant. Mr. Clark seconded the motion. The Board voted five in favor and none opposed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 1: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. Chairman Guerette indicated that the Minutes of the September 5, 2006 Planning Board Meeting were in order for approval. Mr. Theeman moved to approve the Minutes of the September 5, 2006 Meeting. Mr. Rosenblatt seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Other Business Chairman Guerette indicated that the Board received copies of some draft language for a Land Development Code Amendment to Section 165-59 dealing with tall structures. He asked the Planning Officer to comment on this. Mr. Gould indicated that there was some discussion at the Board’s last meeting regarding whether or not the Airport’s beacon fit within the details of Section 165-60 and it was the Board’s suggestion that this language be clarified. Mr. Gould noted that as he went through Section 165-59 and 165-60 he noticed in the prior Land Development Code (adopted in the 1970’s) there was some language dealing with the issue of accessory roof structures that was lost when it changed to the 1991 Code. Mr. Gould discussed structures that would be located on the top of a roof (copulas, church spires & belfries), towers (such as cellular, television, radio, etc.) and light poles, smoke stacks, silos, navigational lights, beacons, windmills, electrical transmissions towers. Mr. Gould discussed the recent amendment that was initiated when Penobscot County was before the Board looking for a taller antenna on the County Courthouse. While at that time the amendment that was proposed was for unlimited height there was discussion about making this an absolute number and language has been included to add a standard of 150 feet in this amendment. Mr. Theeman commented that Section 165-60 sets the 15 foot excess but does not set a maximum. Mr. Gould said that that is correct and never has. Mr. Theeman also commented that church spires are taller than 15 feet. Mr. Gould indicated that there is a basic height limit in the district where they are located. For example, in a Government and Institutional Service District church spires can be up to 80 feet. With the additional 15 feet they could be as high as 95 feet. 9 Mr. Gould discussed derricks and conveyors indicating that they would fit better under industrial operations and did not need to be a roof structure. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the amendment would exclude anything and if there was consideration given to the overall height limit? Mr. Gould indicated that he didn’t know of any but had considered a setback based on the height of a structure. A question would be what would be the appropriate way to deal with a 500 foot structure in the Rural Residence and Agricultural District. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that Section 165-60A is vague and he is not sure what real criteria there is there and asked whether there might be some more meaningful standards that might affect the concerns that one would have on adjacent properties. Mr. Gould indicated that this could be fine tuned to take care of some of the problems. If the Board wished, Staff could do more research as to how to treat taller than usual structures. Staff’s initial idea with the proposed amendment was to try and clean this up and fix some of the apparent problems that exist. Chairman Guerette felt that even after amending the height standards the Board could still have an application before them for a structure that is not named specifically that would still be subject to the same interpretive role of the Code Enforcement Officer which lead the Board to have this discussion in the first place. He indicated that he was looking for some inclusive but not limited to kind of language that would help the Board out in those kinds of situations. Mr. Gould indicated that the Board has the opportunity to either include language to suggest “including but not limit to” which leaves it open ended, or suggest language that says specifically it is “limited to” these things listed. In this case the Code Enforcement Officer could not interpret it to be broader. Mr. Theeman asked what the practical result of this and what the remedy would be. Mr. Gould indicated that this would be a situation similar to when the County came before the City for their tower. An applicant would have to petition to the City to do an amendment to the Ordinance to add their particular use to the list. Mr. Theeman said that if this is the case that he felt that language should be included that states “including but not limit to.” Mr. Wheeler agreed. Mr. Rosenblatt felt that if there is a purpose of a benchmark beyond which they are supposed to apply some special standard, he would feel more comfortable working on the standard in tandem with opening this up to everything that is tall. Mr. Gould indicated that a radio tower and a beacon are benign but a light pole, a smoke stack, and a windmill have different impacts and he did not feel that the Ordinance, at the moment, gives the Board the ability to distinguish those impacts and decide which are ones that the Board would support and which are ones that Board would not support. As they expand this the Board has to do that in tandem with some sort of standard that helps the Board make judgments when these come before the Board. Ms. Brown asked if it is the Board’s intent to try to limit the Code Enforcement Officer’s power and if the Board wanted to have more control. Chairman Guerette said that he thought it would help both the Board and Code Enforcement Officer to have a more common platform of understanding. Chairman Guerette encouraged the Board to provide comments directly to Mr. Gould. Mr. Gould also noted that there were several other draft amendments that have been 10 distributed to the Board that are largely unresolved and that the Board needed to look at these at some point. They include work on the Technology and Service District regarding definitions of industrial uses, and definitions on housing details, etc. Mr. Theeman asked Mr. Gould to look at height standard for items that are placed on top of buildings as he felt there was a lot of ambiguity that should be cleared up especially when the amendment was made specifically for Penobscot County. Mr. Gould explained that at the time the question was raised as to why we were carving out an exception for one entity. Government often creates special exemptions for itself and the intent was that Penobscot County needed the amendment to deal with their radio situation. If it is change for everyone it may have an impact that the Board may not want. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the Board was ready to move to the next step on the By-Laws. Chairman Guerette indicated that he would like to put a timeline on this and asked if the Board could forward any comments they have by the next Planning Board Meeting. Mr. Rosenblatt also asked what the Board’s feeling was toward the proposed amendments for towers. Mr. Gould indicated that it would be Staff’s intention to include language that will say including but not limit to but also provide some additional standards that the Board could discuss as to what they feel are acceptable or not acceptable. The Board discussed the proposed amendment to correct the Code to reflect acreage requirements for attached residential. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff did some quick analysis of what the resulting development would be and felt that the size of the parcel did not dictate whether it would be good development or bad development. Also, There were many other factors that impact this, Staff did not feel that it would create any problems by reducing it from 5 acres to 3 acres. Mr. Rosenblatt asked what other factors might impact the quality of the development more and if they are included in the Ordinance. Mr. Gould indicated that wetlands are going to have more of an impact on someone’s property than the size of it. A good example of this is the Sable Ridge project on Ohio Street. This is a 9-acre parcel, moderately wide, that goes way back and there is a huge wetland in the middle of the parcel. This development can’t go any further back than the wetland. So they are essentially using one third of the parcel to the maximum density that they can. Mr. Gould noted that most all of the approved attached residential projects have been well in excess of the minimum 5 acres. The reason Staff went to 3 acres is that when they did the Marsh Mall Overlay there is a requirement that any development there has to be clustered. When they looked at rural clusters the area was reduced to three acres so that someone doing an attached residential development could meet the minimum. This needs to be consistent in both areas of the Ordinance. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff would prepare an amendment to correct this oversight that will come back before the Board as a public hearing item. Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Theeman moved that the Board direct the Planning Officer to correct the discrepancy that occurs in the Marsh Mall Amendments such that low density residential district requires a 3 acre minimum. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Gould discussed progress on scheduling a Board tour indicating that he had spoken with Staff at the Airport who indicated that this adequate notice they could provide a van for 11 the tour. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he would like to view the Wal-Mart site prior to snowfall. Mr. Gould explained that at the present time here is no application on file and the Board cannot do a site visit until it is filed. Mr. Rosenblatt asked the Planning Officer to notice the Board as soon as one is filed. Mr. Wheeler indicated that in the past he was told that a Board Member could not go out and inspect a site. Mr. Gould indicated that this is correct and if the Board wanted to go out and see a site they need to do it as a meeting of the Board and send notices out so that the applicant can also attend. Mr. Gould explained that no one on the Board should go and look at sites on their own and formulate opinions and ideas of the site independently of a public forum. All parties should be subject to the exact same information relative to making a decision. When an application is filed the Board can make a request of the applicant, Staff will notice it as a meeting of the Board such that everybody who is a party can attend. Mr. Wheeler asked if the Board holds such a meeting and provides adequate public notice how is the public able to hear and/or participate. Mr. Gould said it will need to be noticed and should other people request to come along provision will need to be made to take them along. Ms. Brown indicated that in Massachusetts a developer comes and presents at the Planning Board who does not make a decision until after they have gone out and done a site visit. These meetings were typically done on a Saturday so that every Board member has a chance, as well as people from the public, to go and view the site while not needing to take time off from work. She indicated that she would prefer to go out to the site after the presentation. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he did not like the principle of targeting a specific project for this kind of inspection when it is not done as a matter of common procedure. Ms. Brown agreed adding that she felt that it should be done for every application. Mr. Clark indicated that he was uncomfortable with a pre application or a post application visit to a property because it was not done when discussing other projects such as Parkade, or Widewaters. He said that this would be singling this one out because it is Wal- Mart. Chairman Guerette indicated that he thought that at any time there is an application before the Board, they have the purview, responsibility and the authority to request a delay on their decision in order to accomplish this site visit. However, he felt that there should be some caution about trying to single out people. Chairman Guerette said that while reviewing a site could be construed as a paper decision he has the utmost confidence that every single application that comes before the Board has been seen from the ground by someone from the City. Because the Board Members are not engineers they have to mandate good information and be confident that Staff gives it in such a way to allow the Board to be able to make these sorts of decisions. Chairman Guerette indicated that he did not want to visit every site that comes before this Board. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he feels that it is perfectly appropriate for the Board to distinguish among applications and decide that an application is particularly complex or significant to the community such that the Board should visit the location. He noted that the 12 Board did an on-site visit with the Libbyview property off of Essex Street and he found that a very useful visit, as it was very informative to see it on the ground as opposed to on paper. He indicated that when this application is filed he has every intention of reviewing it and he would very likely ask to have a visit to the property There being no other items discussed, the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.