Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-09-19 Planning Board Minutes (As Amended – October 17, 2006) PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman Hal Wheeler David Clark Nathaniel Rosenblatt Laura Mitchell Allie Brown Jeff Barnes City Staff Present: David Gould Jim Ring Peter Witham Bud Knickerbocker News Media Present: Bangor Daily News Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. In the absence of Member Theeman, Associate Members Mitchell, Brown and Barnes were asked to alternate voting on the evening’s items. CONSENT AGENDA As no one wished to remove the item from the Consent Agenda, Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Wheeler moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Rosenblatt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The item approved is as follows: Item No. 1: Site Development Plan approval to construct an 11,000 sq. ft. office building located at 1387V Broadway in a Shopping and Personal Service District. Tom Ellis/Broadway Holding, LLC, applicant. 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 2: Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approval to construct two, six-unit attached residential buildings in a Low Density Residential District at 21V Bomarc Road. Woods of Maine, Inc., applicant. Chairman Guerette indicated that the applicant requested that the Public Hearing be continued to the Board’s next meeting. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for a motion to continue this item. Mr. Wheeler moved that Item No. 2, the application by Woods of Maine for Conditional Use and Site Development Plan be continued until the Board’s next scheduled meeting. Mr. Clark seconded the motion. The Board voted 5 to 0 in favor. Item No. 3: Conditional Use, Site Development Plan and Site Location of Development Modification approvals to construct a rotating airport beacon light on a high mast pole off Cleveland Street adjacent to Maine Business Enterprise Park at Bangor International Airport in the Government & Institutional Service District. City of Bangor, applicant. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked the City’s designee to make a presentation. The Airport’s consulting engineer, Mr. James Homiak with Edwards & Kelcey, indicated that currently the Airport’s beacon is located on the water tower on Cleveland Street. The existing tower does not meet OSHA standards. Access to the beacon is by a ladder that goes up the side of the tower. The platform that the beacon is currently on is 50% plywood and is not stable or safe. The proposal before the Board is to put a self-standing tower which can be lowered down to ground level on Roosevelt Street which is the gated entrance road going into the FAA facility. The new tower will be approximately 110 feet tall, which is an FAA requirement, and will be just above the current height of the water tower. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if this is a rotating beacon light with green and white lights. Mr. Homeck indicated that it was and beacons are usually located on the tallest point in the area in order to help pilots navigate and locate the Airport. Mr. Wheeler asked if it is a strobe light and how many colors the lights have. Mr. Homeck indicated that it not a strobe and there are actually four lights. Only two lights are on at one time and one side is white the other is green. If there is one light that burns out they automatically switch over. Chairman Guerette asked if the need for this beacon stemmed from an infraction of OSHA regulations or FAA rules or if this is a voluntary gesture on the City of Bangor’s part. Mr. Homeck indicated that it came about because of safety concerns as it has been determined by the Airport and the electrician that this is not safe anymore. Also, regulations require a beacon that is slightly larger than the existing one. Chairman Guerette asked for comments from proponents. There being none, he asked for comments from opponents. There being none, he closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Officer for the Department report. Planning Officer Dave Gould indicated that the 3 application is for conditional use, site development plan approval and a modification to the Site Location of Development Act Permit for Bangor International Airport to construct a stand alone rotating beacon for the Airport. Mr. Gould noted that the existing beacon is on the water tower which is immediately behind the Maine Business Enterprise Park. This item was continued from the Board’s last meeting because at that time the City did not have delegated authority from the State to review this SLODA Modification application. Since that time the City has been granted delegated authority to review this application. Mr. Gould indicated that if the beacon had been located in the Airport Development District there would be no issue at all because this district does not have a height limit. Because this property behind Maine Business Enterprise Park is in a Government and Institutional Service District there is a height limit of 80 feet. The Ordinance provides that within any district one can gain an additional 15 feet from that 80 foot standard (up to 95 feet) then any increases in height above that require conditional use approval. Mr. Gould discussed the basic standards for conditional use that requires that the proposed use is clearly a required use, and it cannot be located within 100 feet from any residential building. In this instance it is a required use and there is significant distance to any residential property. Mr. Gould indicated that the Board needed to determine that the four basic conditional use standards are met in that the standards of the district are met, that the proposed use will not create unreasonable traffic congestion, the operation of a conditional use is insured by providing appropriate utilities, fire protection, drainage, parking and other utility support, and that the conditional use is consistent relative to architectural style, building bulk, and the extent of site intensity. This proposal is a pole structure that is similar to the lighting poles found on Interstate 395. These fixtures can be raised and lowered from the ground without someone having to go up on top of the pole for maintenance and repairs. It will not create traffic congestion, there will be very limited utility support required for this use and it is not a feature that will standout in that location. If this was located in the Airport Development District it would not be something that the Board would be discussing as it would a permitted use. However, because it is located in the Government and Institutional Service District and is a conditional use the Board needs to make a determination that this is a suitable location and that it fits in. Mr. Gould indicated that the applicant’s Site Location of Development Modification application met all of the required submittal requirements. Mr. Rosenblatt had concerns that Section 165-60 lists the specific items for which the Board has authority to grant the height in excess of 15 feet above the applicable height limits. He did not feel that this structure was a television tower, a radio tower, church spire, belfry, monument, tank, water tower, fire tower or an oil derrick. He said that he felt that the appropriate thing to do in this situation is to amend the Ordinance to include this kind of tower in the category of items for which the Board is authorized to grant this sort of permission to include this kind of tower rather than try to interpret the Board’s way through this for the purpose of reaching the conclusion that they want to reach. He said that he did not feel that that provision gives the Board the authority to grant this permission for this structure. Planning Officer Gould indicated that while he did not disagree with Mr. Rosenblatt but the problem that he has is that the Land Development Code does not give the Planning Staff 4 nor the Board the ability to make that interpretation. This determination is vested in the Code Enforcement Office. Mr. Gould indicated that this determination is made by the Code Enforcement Office and it is not an option that is given to the Board or the Planning Office. He noted that he had discussed this with both the Code Enforcement Office and the Legal Office. The issue is worthy of discussion but it is not something that he would encourage the Board to get into in the middle of this application. Mr. Clark asked how far away the water tower from the new site and if the new location was determined by the site line or the flight path. Mr. Homiak indicated that the new location is approximately 200 feet to the south of the water tower along Roosevelt Avenue on land acquired by the City of Bangor from the University of Maine. This project has been in the works for about a year. This site was chosen in an attempt to locate it on the highest land in the local area and to keep it as close to the existing location in order to be familiar to the pilots looking for it on their approaches. Mr. Wheeler asked if the existing tower presently functions as a water supply or retention tower and where it serves. Mr. Gould indicated that the last time there was a cellular provider who added an antenna onto the building there was some work that the Water District was doing at the same time to provide some additional chlorination. Mr. Jim Ring, City Engineer, indicated that it has continued to function as a reservoir and to maintain the water pressure for the Water District to service the university area. The closest similar reservoir is located on the opposite side of the Airport off of Outer Hammond Street. Chairman Guerette asked if there was any more discussion on Mr. Rosenblatt’s concern regarding the beacon not being specifically addressed in Section 165-60. Mr. Wheeler asked how long it would take to amend the Ordinance. Mr. Gould indicated that it takes approximately a month to go through the process. Mr. Homiak added that although this is not a radio tower it will be controlled by radio signal. Chairman Guerette then asked for a motion. Ms. Mitchell felt that it should be adjusted to fit because otherwise it is going to be nonconforming and she felt that the Board was trying to avoid this. Chairman Guerette indicated that he did not feel it was nonconforming according to the Code Officer but that it might please the Planning Board to have a specific description of this specific structure included in the Land Development Code. Mr. Wheeler moved that the Board grant approval of the conditional use for the construction of the airport beacon light on a high mast pole at 120 Cleveland Street. Mr. Clark seconded the motion. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he planned to vote against the motion. While he felt that this was a fine project, he was opposed to the process. He felt that it undermines the integrity of the Land Development Code when the Board is confronted with these sorts of creative interpretations of the Code that are sent to the Board. Mr. Rosenblatt said that he would be interested in what the Code Enforcement Office’s interpretation of this provision might be and wondered if it would include wind turbines, smoke stacks or other things not listed that are being included. He said he felt that what the Board has before them is an amendment to this provision that Code Enforcement is not authorized to do and the Board is not authorized to grant. 5 Mr. Wheeler asked if Staff had consulted with the Legal Office on this matter. Mr. Gould explained that with some elements of the Code the Board has clear authority and quasi judicial roles. In certain elements of interpretation of the Code the decision lies solely with the Code Enforcement Office. Relative to what uses are allowed or not allowed in the district is the determination of the Code Enforcement Office. Relative to whether or not it meets the conditional use standards, it is the Board’s determination. The Board discussed amending the Ordinance. Ms. Brown asked if the Legal Department was also consulted. Mr. Gould indicated that it is the Legal Department’s opinion that under the Land Development Code the Code Enforcement Office has the authority to make those determinations. Ms. Mitchell said that the Code lives longer than the Code Enforcement Officer and hypothetically if this Code Enforcement Officer disappears then there is a nonconforming structure. She felt that it would make sense to adjust the language. Mr. Gould indicated that that only presumes that if someone else does come in and has a different interpretation. Ms. Brown asked what the procedure would be for an amendment to the Land Development Code and if so, would the applicant have to resubmit an application for approval if the Code were amended. Mr. Gould indicated that he wasn’t sure if the applicant would need to reapply and the timing would be determined on how much time it would take to draft an amendment, and get adopted and in place. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to postpone consideration of this item. Mr. Wheeler indicated that there was already a motion and a second on the table. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to postpone consideration of the pending motion to allow an opportunity to amend the ordinance. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he was not comfortable with postponing this indefinitely and asked if it could be postponed to a date certain. Mr. Rosenblatt amended his motion to postpone consideration of the pending motion and the pending applications until the Board’s next meeting. Mr. Jim Ring explained that an Ordinance Amendment would need to be drafted, submitted to the City Council for first reading and referral to the Planning Board for public hearing and recommendation and forwarded back to the City Council for adoption. He also noted that it takes 10 days after City Council approval for a Zoning Amendment to become effective. Therefore, it would very likely be November before the Board could consider this application. Mr. Wheeler asked how long it would take to erect the new tower and install the light. Mr. Clark asked when they planned to start construction. Mr. Homiak indicated that it is currently under design. They are looking for manufacturers for the poles now and probably put it out to bid in November. However, in order to proceed they need to know one way or another if they are going to receive approvals. He estimated that construction would probably be about a month. Mr. Clark asked if it would be reprehensible for the Board to go ahead and give them the approval with the provision that they don’t start the project until the Board gives them the okay. Mr. Gould indicated that once the Board gives approval, they have given approval. 6 Chairman Guerette indicated that there was a motion on the floor to postpone approval of this matter which has not been seconded. Mr. Rosenblatt asked that before it is seconded that it be amended to postpone consideration of these applications until the Board’s first meeting in November. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion. Chairman Guerette indicated that he was uncomfortable with trying to second guess the authority and knowledge of the Code Enforcement Officer who has ruled that this use falls with in the class of structures in the Code and that the Board is legitimate in acting upon the recommendation before the Board this evening. Chairman Guerette indicated that if it is the wish of the Planning Board to amend the language of the Land Development Code he would have no objection to that but he did not feel that it should delay this approval. He felt that this process of the Code Enforcement Officers interpretation of what is suitable in a certain zone has served the City well and he would not support the second motion. Mr. Wheeler indicated that after this discussion, he felt that it would be inconsistent with most of his other votes on these matters if he were to support the postponement and indicated that he would not vote in favor of it. Chairman Guerette asked for a vote on the motion to postpone. The Board voted two in favor and three opposed. Therefore, the motion was defeated. He noted that there was still a motion on the floor for conditional use approval. The Board voted three in favor and two opposed. Chairman Guerette indicated that the Board still needed motions on the Site Development Plan and the Site Location of Development Act Modification. Mr. Wheeler moved to approve the application for Site Location of Development Act Modification for this project at 120 Cleveland Street. Mr. Clark seconded the motion. The Board voted 5 to 0 in favor. Mr. Wheeler then moved to approve the Site Development Plan for the construction of the rotating airport beacon light on a high mast pole on the parcel of land at 120 Cleveland Street in a Government and Institutional District, City of Bangor, applicant. Mr. Clark seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Item No. 4: To amend the Land Development Code by changing parts of parcels of land located at 10, 11, and 15 Buck Street, 45 Emerson Street, 16 and 18 Lincoln Street; 480, 500, 510, 522 and 532 Main Street from Urban Service District and Waterfront Development District to Contract Waterfront Development District. Said parts of parcels containing approximately 9 acres. Bangor Historic Track, applicant. C.0. # 06-317. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation from the applicant or his/her designee. Mr. Rosenblatt disclosed that his office formerly represented the applicant, Bangor Historic Track. As they are not currently a client of his office he did not feel that he was required to recuse himself but wished to bring this to the attention of the Board. He indicated that if the Board wished for him to sit out he would be happy to do so. 7 Chairman Guerette indicated that he did not have any concerns and asked the Board Members if they did. It was the consensus of the Board that there was no conflict. Ms. Helen Edmonds, Esq. of Peirce Atwood, represented the applicant who is requesting a contract zone change on several parcels from Urban Service District and a small strip of Waterfront Development District to Contract Waterfront Development District. The purpose of the zone change is to allow for the development of the permanent gaming facility by Bangor Historic Track. This development will also include associated accessory uses such as a 7-story hotel, a parking garage, and internal accessory uses such as a restaurant. The Contract Zone change conditions include a requirement for tying the number of parking spaces to the uses that will be proposed including one space for each three slot machines in the permanent gaming facility plus the required number of parking spaces for the other accessory uses on the site. Ms. Edmonds indicated that the applicant felt that they would have no difficulty meeting that standard. She stated that they expect to be back before the Board in November for site plan review, as well as, conditional use review of the proposed hotel structure. Ms. Edmonds said that the applicant believes that this proposal is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the Plans for the Waterfront area. Ms. Edmonds noted that there were several members of the applicant’s project team present to answer questions from the Board Chairman Guerette asked for comments from proponents. There were no proponents or opponents Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked for comments from the Planning Staff. Planning Officer David Gould explained that this application is for a Contract Zone Change from Urban Service District and Waterfront Development District to Contract Waterfront Development District for approximately 9 acres of land located off of Main Street between Lincoln Street and Dutton Street. Historically this property has been commercially zoned for heavy commercial uses. Before the 1991 Ordinance was adopted and it was zoned C-3 which was a highway oriented commercial zone. Presently there is an existing hotel and a vacant lot where another hotel has been removed. The waterfront area historically was an industrial area with a rail yard and an area for industrial uses. In the 1980’s the City adopted a waterfront plan and created a Waterfront Development District. In the 1990’s the City acquired the rail yard and expanded the Waterfront Development District in that location. When the gaming potential came to Bangor through referendum and State language there was provided a standard that said that the facility had to be within 2000 feet from the interior of the Bass Park oval. This eliminated any potential that the racino facility could be within the City’s existing waterfront development zone. This privately held site zoned USD is now under contract by Bangor Historic Track and has the potential to become part of the Waterfront Development District. Planning Officer Gould indicated that Staff feels that this contract zone change is consistent with what the City has been trying to do with the Waterfront and is the kind of development the City would anticipate in the Waterfront Development District. The one concern that the Planning Office raised from the beginning was that of parking. As the Board is aware, the Waterfront Development District, as well as, the Downtown Development District, does not have any requirement for the provisions of off-site parking. Through cooperative 8 development and the fact that the City owns property in the waterfront area the City has had the ability to manage parking. When this request was proposed, Staff felt it was very important to include standards that off-street parking be provided. Mr. Gould noted that it was a challenge for Staff to come up with an actual parking standard for the gaming facility. Staff worked with the applicant to come up with some numbers based on their actual experience at the interim facility on Main Street (former Millers Restaurant site) which is based on their available parking and customer load to develop a parking standard. The Planning Office also contacted the Planning Advisory Service which is a national organization that provides assistance to Planning Departments to obtain some guidance as to what would be an appropriate parking standard. Their response was that this is a unique facility and there aren’t a lot of models out there to go by to come up with standards. Staff feels that the requirement of 3 spaces for every five slot machines within the facility such that if the new facility has 1500 machines 900 parking spaces would be required. Mr. Gould pointed out that the Contract also says that any other uses within this district will need to provide spaces at the rate specified within the Land Development Code for that use. Staff feels that the major drawback of parking has been addressed. Staff also feels this development is the very type of development proposed for the Waterfront Development District in that it is a very compact, intense development, with not a lot of surface parking but structured parking such that the waterfront property will be utilized to the maximum extent and the land area between the railroad track to the Penobscot River can be left as open space within the District. Relative to the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use Policy Map Mr. Gould indicated that this is an area that would allow these uses in either the Urban Service District or the Waterfront Development District. Presently the Zoning Policy Map does identify it as Urban Service District but that is largely due to the present ownership of that property. Had the City been able to acquire this, there is little doubt that it would also be zoned Waterfront Development District. Staff recommended that the Board make a positive recommendation to the City Council. Chairman Guerette asked why Urban Service District zoning made this project incompatible. Mr. Gould indicated that he was not sure it was an issue of incompatibility but indicated that the Waterfront Development District will allow them to get more development on the site than if were zoned as Urban Service District. Mr. Clark moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the amendment to the Land Development Code by changing parts of parcels of land located at 10, 11, and 15 Buck Street, 45 Emerson Street, 16 and 18 Lincoln Street; 480, 500, 510, 522 and 532 Main Street from Urban Service District and Waterfront Development District to Contract Waterfront Development District. Said parts of parcels containing approximately 9 acres. Bangor Historic Track, applicant. C.0. # 06-317. Mr. Rosenblatt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 9 NEW BUSINESS Item No. 6: Site Development Plan approval to construct a 1,920 sq. ft. building for use as a bus wash facility located at 796 Odlin Road in an Urban Industry District. Concord Coachlines (d/b/a/ Concord Trailways), applicant. Chairman Guerette asked the applicant to make a presentation. Mr. Steve Sawyer, an engineer with Sebago Technics, represented the applicant along with Mr. Dana Knapp the Manager for Concord Coachlines in Maine and the existing Bangor terminal. Mr. Sawyer indicated that this application involves the construction of a new garage facility on an existing lot on Odlin Road. Currently the applicant uses this site for their drivers to stay over night. The new garage will allow them to move their bus wash activity from the main terminal on Union Street to this site. Mr. Sawyer indicated that this is a permitted use in the district and they propose to pave the existing gravel parking lot and construct a buffer along Odlin Road. The house currently is on a private septic but there is sewer service that runs in Odlin Road and the applicant proposes to connect to that sewer and eliminating the septic system. There is public water at this site as well. Mr. Sawyer explained that they have talked with the City’s Sewer Department to make sure that the bus washing activity respects their environmental concerns. Mr. Clark asked if there would be any mechanical work done on site. Mr. Sawyer indicated that they propose to only wash the buses on this site. Mr. Rosenblatt asked what was located on the property adjacent to the proposed garage. Mr. Sawyer indicated that it is a residence that is presently for sale. Mr. Rosenblatt expressed his concern for any impact from this use upon this residential property and asked if there was any lighting on the garage. Mr. Sawyer indicated that there would be lighting with 175 watt bulbs that would be directed downward and have no spill beyond the edges of the property. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if they proposed any public address system or any other noise source. Mr. Sawyer indicated that they did not propose any address system or noise source. Chairman Guerette asked if having this washing activity would increase the bus traffic, if the water will be recycled, if it would create runoff in the neighborhood, or if it would flow into a detention pond. Mr. Sawyer indicated that it would not add more bus traffic and it is merely a relocation of an activity that occurs at the terminal to the site of which they already use to over night their buses. The water used to wash the buses will be collected in a drain, pass through an oil/water separator and then will be directed to the public sewer. Therefore, there will be no discharge to the adjoining properties. Ms. Brown had questions regarding the proposed drainage going from a gravel surface to a paved asphalt surface and why the pre and post construction figures are changing so little. Mr. Sawyer responded that in terms of gravel versus pavement they are both considered impervious, and a lot of the lot actually drains to a low spot on the site between this and the house and will continue to do this afterwards. The water collects there and overtime infiltrates 10 into the ground. The area around the perimeter of the site drains off to the interstate. Ms. Brown asked if the proposed oil separator would be privately owned and if there would be a maintenance agreement for cleaning out of the system. Mr. Sawyer indicated that they have contacted the Wastewater Treatment Plant and there is a permit they need to obtain from them that requires monitoring, testing and cleaning and is a part of the local permitting process. Mr. Guerette asked if they had had any discussions with the neighbor and if the facility would create any sort of disruption in the neighborhood. Mr. Dana Knapp, Concord Trailways, indicated that when the property went up for sale the neighbor asked if they were interested in purchasing the property. They did not wish to purchase it. The neighbor has resided there for 2 or 3 years and has not had any problem with the four buses that stay there every night and he said that this will not change. Mr. Clark asked what the hours of operation will be and if the bus washing activity would cause any icing problems on Odlin Road or around the area from drainage. Mr. Knapp indicated that it will be the same time they arrive now. There are two buses that usually arrive there around 7:00 p.m. and two around 11:00 p.m. The buses go from the wash bay to the parking area at the facility and they will not be going off the site until the next morning. Mr. Wheeler asked if the buses would be washed by hand or by machinery. Mr. Knapp indicated that they would be washed by a mobile machine that is on a roller that rolls around the bus. Chairman Guerette asked for the Planning Officer’s report. Planning Officer Gould indicated that the application is from Concord Coachlines requesting Site Development Plan approval to construct a 1,920 sq. ft. building for use as a bus wash facility at 796 Odlin Road in an Urban Industry District. Presently this site operates as an overnight facility for the bus drivers where they stay over night. Approximately a year ago the applicant approached the City about building the bus wash facility. It was zoned Industry and Service District and there was some uncertainty as to whether that use fit into that zone. Looking at the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Policy the Urban Industry District looked like a good fit and with its broad list of permitted uses there was no question that this facility would fit within that district. The proposal before the Board is to build that actual bus wash facility. The existing bus parking area will be entirely paved based on some guidelines within the Code relative to specific paving required. The existing facility that is serviced by an on-site waste disposal system will be connected to the public sewer and that will be an improvement for that structure and that property. All of the bus building will be served by public water and public sewer services as well as the oil and-water separator which is a standard operating procedure for any type of garage facility. Erosion control measures, pre and post storm water analysis have been submitted. Staff finds that the application is in order for approval. He noted that the abutting property owner was present if the Board had questions to ask. Ms. Tammy Littlefield had a question regarding the removal of existing trees between her property and this property. She indicated that her property line runs right thru the center of these trees and if they took the trees down, were they planning to plant something else for privacy and sound absorption. The existing trees have afforded privacy. Mr. Sawyer indicated 11 that the building is setback the 10 feet required by Ordinance. The existing edge of the gravel parking lot is identical to what they are paving so there is no change to limits of the gravel parking lot. The building will be set into a little of the area where the trees are and some of the trees on the interstate side will be removed. The existing vegetation will be protected around the edge. Ms. Brown asked if they were planning to replant the vegetation that will be removed to provide some screening for the neighboring property and suggested that the applicant talk to the neighboring property owner. Chairman Guerette indicated that it would be nice if the applicant could accommodate the need for privacy from the residence even if it went to the point of collaborating with them to plant a few extra trees on the neighbor’s side of the line. Mr. Knapp indicated that they would speak with the neighbor. Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to grant Site Development Plan approval for the proposed bus wash facility to be located at 796 Odlin Road – Concord Coachlines d/b/a Concord Trailways, applicant. Ms. Brown seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 5: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. Chairman Guerette noted that the Minutes of the August 15, 2006 Meeting were ready for approval. Mr. Wheeler moved approval of the Minutes of the August 15, 2006 Meeting. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Other Business Chairman Guerette encouraged the Board Members to submit any recommendations they had regarding By-Law changes or amendments as this will be an upcoming discussion item. Planning Officer Gould indicated that there were three items to distribute to the Board. First a brief memorandum that he prepared relative to a small glitch that has occurred in the Ordinance regarding single-family attached housing. He explained that in one section of the Code it indicates a 5 acre minimum and in a different part it provides for a 3 acre minimum and this needs to be consistent. Mr. Gould indicated that the Ordinances will need to be amended. Also, there were a number of items discussed at the last meeting regarding subdivisions which Staff has asked the Legal Department to look into and provide written correspondence to the Board. The Legal Department also offered guidance relative to conditional approvals and how that the process works. Also, Mr. Gould distributed amendment pages to the Land Development Code culminating from several amendments over the last few months. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that there were two issues that he wished to raise. One is that it is the time of year for the Board’s annual tour and the other issue is that he would like to visit the proposed Wal-Mart development site before it is covered with snow He asked when the pending application might be filed. 12 Chairman Guerette indicated that he was interested in a tour and asked the tour should include areas where the Board has taken action on approvals or were there specific areas the Board would like to see. Last year the Board was discussing transition areas and had some targets to see. Mr. Rosenblatt felt that Staff did an excellent job putting together a list of things for the Board to look at. He indicated that he would find it beneficial to look at places that the Board has approved to see how they have turned out. Chairman Guerette noted that last year’s tour was on a Saturday and asked the Board if there were any objections to asking Mr. Gould to schedule the tour in early to mid October. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he was in favor of this. Ms. Mitchell indicated that she would also like to combine the Wal-Mart site in this tour. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this is a good idea but that there are specific legal requirements in doing both. If the Board is going to go and walk on a potential development site the applicant and the representatives need to be there, also. The Board can tour the City but it needs to be posted as a meeting and anyone who wishes to can join in. To arrange a site visit is something that needs to be publicly noticed and the applicant has to be apprised that they would also be in attendance. Ms. Mitchell indicated that she would like to avoid having two Saturdays to tour the city with the Board and either combine them or have one on a weekday. Chairman Guerette felt it would be difficult to do a visit to the Wal-Mart site on a weekend. He asked if there is no objection, that he would discuss this with the Planning Officer to try and come up with some ideas and dates to be discussed with the Board at the next meeting. There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.