Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-11-07 Planning Board Minutes Amended and Approved 2/6/07 PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7, 2006 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman David Clark Nat Rosenblatt Hal Wheeler Jeff Barnes Allie Brown Laura Mitchell City Staff Present: David Gould James Ring Peter Witham Bud Knickerbocker News Media Present: Bangor Daily News Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA As no one wished to remove the item for discussion, Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Wheeler moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Rosenblatt seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 4 in favor and 0 opposed. The item approved is as follows: Item No. 1: Final Subdivision Plan approval of a two-lot cluster subdivision located at 390V Kittredge Road in a Rural Residence and Agricultural District. Louis W. Moleon, applicant. PUBLIC HEARINGS In the absence of Board Member Theeman, Associate Members were asked to alternate voting beginning with Mr. Barnes, followed by Ms. Mitchell and Ms. Brown. Item No. 2: Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval for an eight- lot cluster residential subdivision located at 2045 Ohio Street in a Rural Residence and Agricultural District. John Harris, applicant. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation by the applicant or his representative. Mr. Don Becker with CES, Inc., representing the applicant, indicated that this is a small subdivision located off of Ohio Street. He discussed the comments in the Planning Staff Memorandum which covered a number of items which the applicant is in agreement with. Mr. 2 Becker noted Staff’s concern about the land that the applicant proposes to retain in the back (Lot 8) needing an NRPA Permit. He explained that there is an access option to that building site that would not require an NRPA Permit. Mr. Becker said that he did not feel it was likely that the applicant would be successful in obtaining an NRPA Permit. He did not feel that there was an issue because the applicant does have a way to access that land without a Permit. Mr. Becker also discussed the City Engineer’s concern about the road being two feet wider and that the applicant would be willing to construct the road consistent with the City Engineer’s recommendation. Mr. Becker indicated that they plan to submit additional information to Staff before Final Subdivision approval. He indicated that the applicant wants to develop these lots into single-family homes. Mr. Rosenblatt asked Mr. Becker to clarify where the proposed open space is. Mr. Becker indicated that the applicant chose to put the open space along Newcomb Road because this is a somewhat rural setting and they felt that the people who lived on Lots 1 thru 6 might want access to the rear of their lots for things like putting their boat up for the winter as this a driveable road. They also chose to shape it this way so that there would be a mixture of the forested area with flatter areas toward the end of the site. Mr. Becker said that there is significant wetland but it is also the kind of wetland that you could walk now and it is quite nice and is generally intended for passive enjoyment such as people walking in the woods. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if Newcomb Road was a discontinued road, paved, and who would continue to own and maintain the open space. Mr. Becker indicated that the road was formally discontinued by the City of Bangor in the late 1980’s, it is not paved, and the homeowner’s association would own and maintain the open space. Chairman Guerette felt that there was a considerable distance from the end of the cul-de-sac to the buildable portion of the lots and asked how Mr. Becker proposed to approach the buildable area and eliminate the need for a permit. Mr. Becker indicated that their recommendation for the non-permit method would go along the lot line of Lot 6 to the Newcomb Road roadbed which is not wetland and the upland can be reached. There is opportunity on the site at the end for a crossing over a small type of wetland where one could cross with obtaining an NRPA Permit as it would be considered a driveway and not a road. Ms. Mitchell asked if they were going to put restrictions on that lot to force the driveway to run along Newcomb Road. Mr. Becker said that they were not making that restriction. He indicated that it can be difficult to get a NRPA Permit if it can be shown that there is a route that wouldn’t require one. Unless there was a compelling reason, it would be difficult to permit another crossing. He indicated that he did not like to restrict people from pursuing that right because not knowing what may occur there in the future it is difficult to know an appropriate place for a driveway. The applicant is choosing to take no position on the matter. Ms. Brown asked if there are people who have rights in the discontinued road. Mr. Becker said that according to the boundary survey there are people who have fee rights in the discontinued Newcomb Road. Ms. Brown said that she was concerned because they are showing open space that includes portions of the discontinued road and that may impede people’s right to use that road. Mr. Becker indicated it is their intent for that portion of the open space to be allowed to continue to be used by vehicles and people (pedestrians) and they would have that right as would anyone else who has that right at the moment. Mr. Becker indicated that if some of the people who may have rights on that road wished to pave it they could not do that without the permission of the homeowners association because they have the fee rights in the road according to their surveyor. He said that the applicant was willing to offer different open space if the City wanted different open space but he thought it was a nice idea to allow it to be used in the manner that it is currently being used. He 3 said that vehicular and pedestrian access along a corridor provided nice access so everyone could walk out their back door to the open space. He said it was not intended to be controversial. Ms. Mitchell asked who would be responsible for maintaining the private driveway at Lot 8. Mr. Becker said that the person who built the driveway would maintain the driveway but the open space right would continue and people would have the right to walk on that driveway. Chairman Guerette asked if this would all be laid out in the homeowner’s association by- laws. Mr. Becker indicated that it would. Chairman Guerette then asked for comments from proponents. Mr. Lawrence Glosson indicated that he is an abutting landowner off of the Finson Road. Mr. Glosson said that he felt that Newcomb Road is pretty much a “goat path” and one can walk through and with a four wheel drive possibly you could get through there. He explained that it is very wet. He indicated that he is neither against nor in favor of it but, added that he understood that the Newcomb Road had been reverted to the property owners on either side of it. Chairman Guerette indicated that this is a preliminary subdivision plan approval so all of the issues that get raised this evening concerning property rights, abutters rights, how the open space will be controlled, how the homeowners association will work, and all of other items will have to be clarified and identified and resolved before Final Subdivision Plan approval. He noted that it is entirely appropriate to have these questions, but they did not necessarily need to be resolved at this meeting. There being no other proponents Chairman Guerette asked for comments from opponents. Mr. Richard Thomas on behalf of his mother, Hazel Thomas who owns property adjacent to this development, indicated that he is not opposing the development but he is not a proponent either. Their concern is Newcomb Road as his mother’s property borders it. Since the property was bought by his family in 1957 they have used Newcomb Road as access to that property and they have a deeded right-of-way on the Newcomb Road. When the current property owner off the Newcomb Road who has a mobilehome purchased that property, his father gave him a right-of-way so that he could have access to where his mobilehome is located. Mr. Thomas said that they are concerned that if they wanted to develop that property, that they wanted to be able to have access and exercise the right-of-way that they have on the Newcomb Road. Mr. Thomas said that as long as the Newcomb Road is open and available for developing their property and possible paving they would have no objection to the development. He stressed that they would like to see the rights that they have in the Newcomb road kept so that if they wanted to develop their property they would be able to take advantage of that right-of-way. Chairman Guerette indicated that Mr. Thomas might want to speak to a representative of the developer to make sure that those rights are in sync with the plans. Mr. Thomas indicated that he was concerned that a right-of-way that they have would be someone’s private driveway. Mr. Rosenblatt asked Mr. Thomas what the use of Newcomb road was now. Mr. Thomas indicated that right now it is someone’s driveway (the owner of the mobilehome Mr. Harris.) Mr. Thomas indicated that they used to navigate it with a truck or a tractor but haven’t done so since their cows were sold. Mr. Thomas indicated that there is a family member who wants to build a house in there and they are concerned about preserving the rights of passage on the Newcomb Road to access that part of the farm. Chairman Guerette indicated that this is an important point but did not think it will be the Planning Board that would be able to resolve it. 4 Mr. Byron Ogden, who resides at 2150 Ohio Street which is located on the other side of the railroad tracks, said that not only is this a significant wetland but there is an alder swamp in front of the property. He said that it is shocking that somebody who intends to do a development and has gotten a right-of-way to the existing property now wants to subrogate somebody else’s rights on Newcomb Road. He did not see how anybody could ask for a right-of-way or to use that as open space when they have already had to get a right-of-way to even access their own property. Mr. Ogden said that this is a very rural area; because of the topography he has difficultly exiting his driveway. Another concern to him would be if this development would increase the City’s assessments in the neighborhood which he feels need to be under control. In his opinion there needs to be a moratorium on unlimited sprawl in Bangor. He said that there needs to be a serious look taken at not only at the wetland issues but there needs to be a minimum of two soil tests done by a certified licensed soil scientists. Mr. Ogden said that he felt that this is a bad idea; he does not want City water and sewer out there. Mr. Barnes asked what the traffic safety situation is there. Jim Ring, City Engineer, said that there are specific sight standards that need to be looked at. In looking at this plan, while there is a hill it looks like there are several hundred feet of sight distance, and from the information that has been submitted it does not look like it is a problem. Mr. Ring indicated that Newcomb Road was a paper street, not a built street, for many decades if ever. The City had a request in the late 1980’s to discontinue any interest the City might have in this road as a public road. That process is prescribed by State Statutes and we do them fairly regularly. In terms of the ownership and the rights that remain he can only speak to the public rights. When a proposed paper street is discontinued, any rights that the City or the municipality has is passed to the fee interest. This means that the actual ownership interest to the land clearly passes or remains with the abutting properties. The only exception to that is if a particular road was originally created out of just one ownership as opposed to abutters. That is very seldom. As far as rights that folks have by virtue of the former status as a proposed street, there aren’t any. However, if there are separate agreements, deeds, easements, rights-of-way, etc., this is something that needs to be checked out. This does not relate to the discontinuance and the street does not officially exist. Ms. Mitchell asked Mr. Becker if the developer had considered building a new road utilizing the Newcomb Road or if they had talked to any abutting property owners. Mr. Becker indicated that they chose not to use Newcomb Road because there are rights on that road other than theirs. The people who spoke first have rights in that corridor and it is close to the railroad tracks. He said that it looked to them that the upland location of their road was a better location because it wouldn’t require any permitting and they felt that it was a better layout. Mr. Clark asked if there are other subdivisions in this vicinity or just a few scattered houses. Mr. Becker indicated that this is a rural area. Mr. Brent McSawin, 2100 Ohio Street, said that there isn’t any development like this out there. While he felt that it is probably within the property owner’s right to develop this as he has planned, he would hope that he wouldn’t because now its just single family homes. He moved out there because of the way it looks and he felt that this would be a dramatic change in the area. Mr. Jeff Perry told the Board that he purchased the McCrum property which parallels this proposed subdivision almost its entire length in July. He was concerned about the size of the proposed lots, and noted the Pine Ledge Road development with lots ranging from 2 to 3 acres in size that the houses being built there are in the neighborhood of $350,000 to $400,000. Most of these lots are around an acre or less. Mr. Perry was concerned about the lots that were abutting his 5 home and what effect they would have upon his property. He moved out to this neighborhood because he was able to find a house with 15 acres in a rural setting. Carolyn LaRochelle, a resident at 2101 Ohio Street, expressed the same concerns of Mr. Perry and added that this area is extremely wet. No one else spoke in opposition and Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked the applicant for any final comments. Mr. Becker noted that one gentlemen was concerned that this might raise property values and another was concerned that it might lower them. Mr. Becker said that he suspected that they could do either as that is hard to predict the affect. 8 lots on 32 acres is not particularly dense, but it is different than what is out there. There is no question that along Ohio Street there is a swampy area that has been mapped on the plan, they have proposed to cross it at the narrowest point which is a point that does not require a permit. The person who owns that lot will have the pleasure or displeasure of living with that alder swamp as they would not get a permit to fill it. Mr. Becker explained that the applicant would be willing to reconsider the proposed roadway. They are aware that Mrs. Thomas has rights there and they do not wish to interfere with those at all. They graciously granted a right-of-way to the existing mobilehome which precedes his client and they are also aware of that. They have no intention of interfering with their ability to use that as access to their property. Mr. Becker noted that the applicant, should this be approved was planning to retain Lot 8 as the site of his future home. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if they took the area of the discontinued road out of the open space acreage that is listed as 7.79 acres what would be left. Mr. Becker indicated that he didn’t know the exact acreage but it would not be sufficient. Chairman Guerette then asked for comments from Staff. Planning Officer Gould indicated that the application is a request for preliminary subdivision plan approval for an 8-lot cluster residential subdivision on Ohio Street in the Rural Residence and Agricultural District. Any subdivision that proposes public improvements such as a roadway or has five or more lots is classified as a major subdivision. This application also utilizes the recently adopted provisions for cluster development which means that the minimum lot size in the RR & A District is allowed to be reduced approximately 1/3 whereby the developer then sets aside 30 percent of the area of the subdivision as permanent open space. In this instance, there is a large area at the back of the property which is predominantly wetland plus a portion of the former Newcomb Road to be set aside as open space. Mr. Gould indicated it appears from the discussion there might be various parties that have rights and interest relative to that old roadway. While it is not the Board’s charge to resolve property disputes, the Planning Board is directed by the Land Development Code as the sole determiner as to what is acceptable open space. Planning Officer Gould indicated that Staff did raise a question relative to Lot 8 which seems to be encumbered by a significant amount of wetland. The concept of traveling over Newcomb Road to get to the upland of Lot 8 was not one that occurred to Staff. Staff would be reluctant to encourage the Board to mix development driveways with open space. While one is not precluded from doing that, it is something that the Board should consider. Staff noted that the proposed roadway is narrower than what the City typically expects to see for a new roadway of this type as the Land Development Code calls for 66 feet as a standard rural right-of-way road. However, in this instance it is a fairly short road and it is not going to handle a lot of traffic and depending on grading and stormwater drainage that needs to occur, a fifty foot right-of-way may be acceptable. This is something that the City Engineer is going to want to look at the time of a final design. 6 Mr. Gould indicated that today development in Bangor extends to the borders of Bangor citing the Pine Ledge Subdivision on the Glenburn townline and the Walden Parke Subdivision which abuts the Orono town line. The concept of a rural undeveloped Bangor is one that is disappearing and what the City asks for is that those who want to develop follow the City’s standards in terms of the creation of roadways and lots that meet the minimum standards and setting aside of open space that the Board determines is of value and suitable to that development. Mr. Gould indicated that in this case there are some details that the Board needs to discuss, work through and give direction to the applicant as to what the Board would like to see on the final plan. The Engineering Department will want to review the basic details regarding street design, stormwater, etc. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff did not have a concern with the Board granting the applicant preliminary plan approval with some guidance as to what details needed to be adjusted prior to the review of the Final Plan. Mr. Rosenblatt asked Mr. Gould to clarify what the Board should be looking for in terms of the street design and stormwater. Mr. Gould indicated that the Land Development Code talks about several different types of roadways – residential, residential access, collector roads, rural roads, which provide specific right-of-way widths with the idea that those are geared to the kinds of activity or widths needed to handle the public improvements within them. Relative to rural roadways, often times there is quite a bit of grading and side slopes that need to be accommodated within the right-of-way. Longer rural roadways like Walden Parke may require a greater pavement width because of the amount of traffic. Mr. Gould explained that this is a fairly short roadway and even if the pavement is widened to 26 or 28 feet it may well be able to fit within 50 feet. This won’t be known until they actually design the roadway. If there are huge cuts and fills they may need a wider width. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if Staff was still waiting for additional information. Mr. Gould indicated that he did not think that Staff was waiting for any detailed information at this time. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he was not comfortable including within the required open space an area that is used as access either as a private driveway or otherwise. He did not feel that that is the intent of open space. He understood the logic of maintaining this corridor so that it can be used both by the third parties who have the rights to use the corridor and by people in the subdivision. He said that he felt that it seemed inconsistent, particularly with respect to the apparent proposed drive way into Lot 8. He asked if there was an alternative proposal that would meet the open space requirements without utilizing that corridor as open space. Ms. Mitchell agreed and added that she felt that it sounded like the applicant had not spoken with the abutting landowners about their interest in the Newcomb Road and that they all are looking to use it as a road or a driveway. Combining the development of roads into one in such a close vicinity to one another would make better sense than at some later date the Newcomb Road being developed as a more heavily used driveway or roadway to access the property back there and Lot 8 as compared to building this other road in addition to that. Chairman Guerette asked Mr. Becker, considering the concerns about the inclusion of Newcomb Road in the open space, if would it be possible to reduce the size of Lot 8 giving up a little bit of that wetland to make the open space meet the requirements without including Newcomb Road. Mr. Becker indicated that they could reconfigure the open space. However, based on the concerns he was hearing, it would appear that they would need to rename that area as some sort of common area and have the 30% open space located elsewhere with some other access. He indicated that the better option for open space would be to move it significantly to the lower area towards Lot 2 with access from the cul-de-sac. There is an area where a mixture of upland and 7 wetland is available. He said that they do not intent to interfere with the rights to Newcomb Road. He asked if the open space were of such total area that the 30 percent was met without using Newcomb Road would be acceptable Mr. Rosenblatt said that given that state of uncertainty, it seemed to him that it would be logical to see if there was a way to try to meet the open space requirement without utilizing the Newcomb road corridor. Mr. Becker asked if he would object to meeting the percentage without that but allowing it to be continue to be administered by the homeowners association so it would be available as a common area behind Lots 1 thru 7. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he did not see anything objectionable about that. Mr. Becker asked what the Board’s feeling was about the open space being located in the rear area of the lot with access from the cul-de-sac. Ms. Brown said that she did not think that the issue was where the open space was located but an issue of including it in the section of land that includes Newcomb Road Mr. Becker said that the applicant does have the fee rights to that strip so he either need to make it part of the lot or make it common area and he would prefer to make it common area. Member Rosenblatt indicated that this would be okay with him as long as the open space met the 30% rule without that being counted. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he wished to make a brief statement as to his impression of the applicant’s presentation and the concerns that have been raised by the abutting property owners, as well as, those by Members of the Board. He commended Mr. Becker for coming in here with a specific plan that he has obviously worked out over a considerable period of time and, particularly, with regard to addressing the intrinsic rights of the abutting property owners. He is more willing to accommodate the further concerns expressed by the Board and the abutting land owners than the Board generally hears from applicants. Mr. Wheeler said that he felt that there was an uncommon amount of flexibility on the part of the applicant. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he also appreciated the significance of the Planning Officer’s comment with regard to the present state of development in Bangor and the many hours the Board spent discussing the concept of cluster development in areas such as this. He could not see how the developer is in any way at variance with the principle of the zoning classification. In as much as this is a preliminary subdivision plan and in view of the applicant’s stated willingness to revise his plan to accommodate most, if not all, of these concerns, he did not think that the Board had any reason to put an undue amount of restrictions or requirements for revisions other than those that have already been agreed. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he would support approval of the preliminary subdivision plan. Mr. Wheeler then moved that the Planning Board grant approval for the preliminary subdivision plan for the Harris Subdivision at 2045 Ohio Street, John Harris, applicant. with the condition that he address those issues and concerns that have been raised by the Members of the Board with regard to the open space. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion. The Board voted 5 to 0 in favor of the motion. 8 Item No. 3: Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approvals to construct a 2,925 sq. ft. building and site improvements for convenience store use and gasoline sales at 387 and 395 Main Street in an Urban Service District. Dead River Petroleum Company, applicant. Chairman Guerette asked Associate Member Mitchell to vote on this item. He then opened the Public Hearing and asked for presentation by the applicant. Mr. Travis Noyes, of Woodard & Curran on behalf of the applicant, indicated that a representative of Dead River Petroleum Company as well as their traffic engineer, Peter Hedrick of Gorrill Palmer, was present. Mr. Noyes explained that the applicant is requesting approval for a convenience store and gasoline sales at 387 and 395 Main Street. This property is located between Shaw’s and Walter Street on the Shaw’s side of Main Street. The historical use of this property has been as a gasoline service station and the existing site contains an 1800 sq. ft .building that has been used as a convenience store. The adjacent apartment building at 387 Main Street was recently acquired by the applicant. The applicant proposes to demolish both buildings and construct a 2,925 sq. ft. convenience store. The applicant also proposes to construct a new gasoline service island that will provide 8 fueling positions covered by a canopy that was previously approved by the Board in July, 2006. Mr. Noyes discussed the site grading, a proposed retaining wall and 13 proposed parking spaces, one of which will be a handicap space. Mr. Noyes indicated that another major component of this project is traffic. Mr. Peter Hedrick of Gorrill Palmer Associates and traffic engineer indicated that his firm has done a traffic study for the site. He explained that there are currently three driveways to this site and the applicant proposes to close two of the three. The one that will be retained on Main Street will be a right-in, right-out only access. The majority of the access to the site will be from Walter Street where there will be two driveways and Walter Street, as it approaches Main Street, is proposed to be striped with two approach lanes; one for left turning and one for right turning traffic. The sight distances and driveways both on Main Street and Walter Street were looked at and found to be within acceptable ranges. Mr. Rosenblatt asked Mr. Hedrick to explain how he anticipated traffic to flow thru this site. Mr. Hedrick explained that traffic heading south on Main Street would be expected to turn right in and would exit through the driveway (on Walter Street). Traffic heading north on Main Street would turn left onto Walter Street and then enter the site through the driveway. Exiting the site they would either turn right onto Main Street or loop back around and exit through the driveway on Walter Street. There will be a back driveway that will be used for service access to the site. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if there was a signal at Water and Main Street, what will keep traffic heading north on Main Street from turning left into the store, and if a traffic movement permit would be required. Mr. Hedrick indicated that there was no signal and signs would be erected for guidance through the site. A Traffic Movement Permit is required and they have made an application to MDOT and expect a scoping meeting within the next couple of weeks. Chairman Guerette asked Mr. Hedrick to explain the plans to add a turning lane. Mr. Hedrick indicated that the turning lane would be located on Walter Street. The street presently is not striped for lane use and they are proposing to put a center line stripe down Walter Street, as far back as the first driveway, and add another lane line to separate left and right turn traffic. Ms. Mitchell asked if there was enough room for a car to pass between the pump nearest the store and the store. She expressed concern about the proposed on-site traffic movements and possible collisions on-site. Mr. Hedrick explained that this is not an unusual situation and not 9 considered unsafe. He said that it would be similar to driving down a shopping center parking lot that is 26 feet wide with cars on both sides going in and out of parking spaces. Mr. Wheeler asked how many convenience stores that have gas, have the same number of pumps, and the same configuration are in the area. He said he knew of one on outer Broadway that has a much larger footprint than this one but that one does not pose the problem that has been raised by Member Mitchell. If there were to be a collision on that site it would between the operators of the automobiles rather than a public safety issue. But this is private property at that point. Mr. Noyes indicated that he could not think of an example and indicated that yes it is an awkward movement but it may not necessarily be considered unsafe. Ms. Brown asked about the proposed sewer connections and drainage and whether or not the storm drainage is connecting into the sewer. Mr. Noyes indicated that it is and the reason for this is that there is an existing catch basin tied into the sewer which is a combined sewer that dates back to the 1800’s. They consulted with the Engineering Department, the Public Works Department as well as MDOT to determine what the best solution for stormwater runoff would be. MDOT and the City were very adamant that we not increase any runoff to the MDOT system. Their proposed design will maintain the same amount of flow going into the proposed catch basin as it does today going into the combined system. Ms. Brown asked that in the event that they had a spill from a tanker truck where it would go. Mr. Noyes indicated that the flow would be split in two directions. Chairman Guerette indicated that this section of Main Street seems to have regular pedestrian traffic and asked if they proposed to mark the pedestrian crossings in those driveways. Mr. Noyes indicated that they would. Ms. Brown asked Mr. Ring to alleviate her concerns about where a gasoline spill would go. Mr. Ring indicated that a spill, depending on where it occurred on the site, could go either direction and, either way it could find its way to a catch basin. He indicated that it was preferable that it go into the sewer system. Ms. Mitchell asked Mr. Ring to address traffic movement within the site and the potential for cars backing up to the light located at Shaw’s. Mr. Ring indicated that it would depend on the amount of traffic or the amount of turning movement that would be potentially held up on Main Street or at Shaw’s but certainly there is a potential for this situation Chairman Guerette asked Mr. Ring to clarify the stormwater and sewer connection and noted that he was surprised to hear that stormwater would be entering a catch basin that feeds into the sewer system. He noted that the City has been undergoing a fairly major storm and sewer separation project over many years. Mr. Ring explained that there are only certain segments of the City that are currently separated. Much of the sewer system is a combined system meaning that it was originally designed and it’s function was to take both storm flows and the sanitary flows. These combined systems are concentrated in the older developed parts of the City of which the Main Street area is one. Most recent separation efforts have been made to target areas that would gain the largest benefit in terms of reduction in flows to the treatment plant. This area of the City is not one of those areas that exceeds the capacity of the system and it has not been separated. No one spoke either in favor of or in opposition to the project. Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked for Staff comments. Planning Officer Gould explained that the applicant is requesting Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approval to reconstruct the existing 10 convenience store with gasoline service at 395 Main Street in an Urban Service District. The applicant needs to meet the four basic conditional use standards of the Ordinance, for provision of appropriate utilities, not create undue traffic congestion on adjacent streets, and to demonstrate to the Board that the proposed architectural design is compatible with other architectural styles within 500 feet of the property. This gas station/convenience has existed for quite some time with some different approvals before the Board over time. Most recently the Board approved an expansion of the existing canopy in July. At that time, there was no increase in the number of gasoline pumps. Now the applicant is applying for a larger convenience store and two additional pumps. Mr. Gould noted that the applicant has tried to reduce traffic at this location by closing off a curb cut. In its close proximity to Shaws and the existing signal, it puts them in a position where they really can’t get access to another signal at Walter Street. There is a grade separation between this site and the driveway into Shaws such that their ability to access to that driveway is prohibited. They came up with the concept of right-in, right-out and looked at what improvements could be made in Walter Street so that someone leaving the site has the opportunity to make a left-hand turn off the site. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff is very pleased with the proposed architecture for the new building. Being a new site, the applicant is required to provide B buffers along Main Street and Walter Street which is a welcome change to the Jersey barriers that have been there on the site. Staff doesn’t disagree that things on the site are tight and is something that the Board needs to look at to make sure that it is comfortable with on-site circulation, as well as, access into and out of the site. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff feels that the applicant has met the standards for conditional use approval and recommend that the Board grant conditional use and site development plan approvals. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he had concerns regarding the site plan standard for parking, loading, layout and drive turnaround, etc. and asked if there is enough room between the pump islands so that cars can go and make that u-turn and get back to Walter Street. Mr. Gould noted that there was a sketch that shows cars at the pump island and there is a lane between the pumps and Main Street that cars would be able to pass by but there is not a lane between the pumps and the convenience store. He noted that the Irving Station down the street has a very similar arrangement although they have more space on the lot. Mr. Hedrick indicated that what they have found in various traffic studies is that if it is not convenient for people to stop at the site, customers won’t use the site and will continue down the street. He envisioned that the predominant use of this site will be southbound traffic that can use the right in, right out access. Some people will make a left in and do a u-turn and there is room to do that. Mr. Clark indicated that he felt that the important corridors in the City are those that someone who has never been here before and lead them into the City and that would include Main Street. He noted that this vacant lot has been an eyesore for some time and this development is definitely a step in the right direction. He asked if this would be a 24 hour operation and if the proposed lighting will interfere with the people who live on Walter Street or folks moving into the waterfront. Mr. Noyes indicated that the proposed lighting shouldn’t impact the neighbors at all. They are proposing to have a light near the Main Street entrance and another light near the Walter street exit with two proposed on the back of the lot. The more intense lighting will be under the canopy itself which will be downward lighting that will not pass light onto the neighboring properties. Chairman Guerette said that it would be helpful to the Board to know what the hours of operation are. Mr. Tim Flock, Dead River Petroleum Company, indicated that they do not operate any of their stores 24 hours a day. Mr. Wheeler asked what hours they would be operating and 11 how late they would be open. Mr. Flock indicated that their other stores are open from 5 a.m. to 10 p.m. Mr. Wheeler agreed with Mr. Clarks comments about the improvement to this area. As no one else spoke, Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to grant Conditional Use approval to the proposed development at 387 and 395 Main Street – Dead River Petroleum Company, applicant. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4 to 1. Ms. Mitchell voted. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to grant Site Development Plan approval to the proposed development at 387 and 395 Main Street Dead River Petroleum Company, applicant. Chairman Guerette asked if any Member was voting in opposition to give a brief explanation of the reasons why. Ms. Mitchell indicated that she was opposed to the project because of the traffic movement, pedestrian and vehicular safety access issues on the site and the sewer flow. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he concluded that the project meets the conditional use criteria but he did not feel that the project met the site development plan criteria in that he was not convinced that the layout met Standard B. Chairman Guerette asked for a vote. The Board voted 3 in favor and 2 in opposition to the motion. Item No. 4: Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approvals to construct a 3,608 sq. ft. convenience store and install an additional gasoline pump and vacuum island at 301 Odlin Road in General Commercial and Service District. Irving Oil Corporation, applicant. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation by the applicant. Associate Member Brown was asked to vote on this item. Mr. Jim Manzer of Ames A/E, civil and site engineer for the project, as well as, Jamie Mahoney also of Ames A/E, structural engineer and project engineer for Irving Oil Projects were present. Mr. Manzer explained that presently there is a 2100 sq. ft. car wash, a 900 sq. ft. convenience store, and a canopy across the front of the site with 8 fueling positions. This project originally started out as a renovation project. When Irving bought this site it discovered that there were some items approved by the Planning Board that were never constructed by the previous owner and when they went to make renovations they discovered that they needed bring the site into conformance with its last permitted plan. This has been done with this proposal. The applicant is requesting approval to construct a 3,608 sq. ft. convenience store (discontinuing the car wash) with a 12-seat sandwich counter (Subway) that will allow the patrons to consume their sandwich on the premises. The driving range will be left alone and the applicant proposes to add an island with two more fueling stations. The building coverage will be approximate 6% of the lot. Mr. Manzer discussed the on-site circulation indicating that there is adequate space for the use for circulation and for deliveries. The applicant is also adding some parking spaces He discussed the buffers noting that the applicant is going to plant the trees that were originally approved for this site. Mr. Manzer indicated that the applicant will provide for all necessary utilities and they will all be underground. It was discovered that over time the driveway has “widened” out to a length that is wider than that allowed and the applicant proposes to reduce this to the 35 feet that is allowed and this will provide for better channelization and the impervious surface are on the site will be slightly decreased. Mr. Manzer indicated that John Theriault, Traffic Engineer at Ames A/E did a calculation of the existing site and the proposed site and anticipated an increase of 8 vehicle trips in the am peak hour and 26 trips in the pm peak hour which is well below the MDOT permitting threshold. There will be no alteration to the roadways and there are no high accident incidents at this location. Chairman Guerette thanked the applicant for addressing the inherited problems at this site and for including the items not done on the previously approved site plan. 12 Chairman Guerette then asked for comments from proponents. There being none he asked for comments from opponents. As no one spoke, Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and he asked for the Planning Staff comments. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this application from Irving Oil Corporation is for Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approval. The applicant is looking to replace a car wash which was approved in 1988 with a convenience store building. Mr. Gould indicated that there is ample room at this site for circulation as in contrast to the previous item. When the applicant came in to modify their site plan, Staff pointed out the inconsistencies with what is on the site and what was approved. Staff brought to the applicant’s attention that unless this modification included those previously approved site improvements to bring this site into compliance that Staff would not recommend approval. Mr. Gould indicted that this plan needs to meet the conditional use requirements of the Zone and those within the General Commercial and Service District. This application provides adequate utilities, no traffic hazards or unreasonable traffic congestion on adjacent streets, and that their architectural style, bulk and intensity is compatible with the other architecture in the area. Staff felt that this site has been designed for smooth traffic circulation. The adjacent part of this property continues to be operated as a driving range and the required parking for this use, has been added to this site. For these reasons, Staff recommended that the Board grant conditional use approval as well as site development plan approval. Chairman Guerette asked for a motion noting that the Board would need to make separate motions on the items. Mr. Wheeler moved that the Board approve the Conditional Use for the project at 301 Odlin Road, Irving Oil Corporation. The motion was seconded by Member Rosenblatt. The Board voted 5 to 0 in favor. Mr. Wheeler moved that the Planning Board grant approval of the Site Development Plan for removal of the small car wash and convenience store and the construction of a 3,608 sq. ft. convenience store and to install an additional gasoline pump and vacuum island at 301 Odlin Road in a General Commercial and Service District. Irving Oil Corporation, applicant. Mr. Clark seconded the motion. The Board voted 5 to 0 in favor. Item No. 5: To amend the Land Development Code by changing a parcel of land located at 315 Harlow Street from Urban Service District and Urban Residence 2 District to Multi-Family and Service District. Said parcel containing approximately 2.43-acres. Volunteers of America Northern New England, applicant. C.O. # 06-359. Chairman Guerette asked Associate Member Barnes to vote on this item and then opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant to make a presentation. Ms. Julia Wilcock with Volunteers of America, told the Board that they are requesting this zone change in order to develop 58 units of affordable senior housing on this site. Mr. Jeff Aceto, the applicant’s engineer from Sight Lines, explained that this parcel was originally the C.E. Noyes Tire building, was constructed in 1962, and subsequently used for several other purposes. Presently the building is derelict and has very little value. The parcel is comprised of two different parcels with 1.5 acres in the front zoned Urban Service District (USD) and the rear half acre is zoned Urban Residence Two (URD-2). The proposal is to rezone the entire parcel to Multi-family and Service District (M & SD). There are no abutting residences along the frontage of the lot but there are abutting residences along the rear of the property (Curve Street, Market Street). Mr. Aceto noted the Planning Staff’s concerns regarding the applicant’s zone change being reduced to only the size needed for the 58-unit development. Neither of the present zones allow multi-family housing over 4 units. Staff offered a suggestion to rezone the only the USD portion of the site as M & SD. Mr. Aceto indicated that the applicant proposes to replace the existing building with a new multi-story apartment building approximately in 13 the same location. They feel that they can fit that new building in the portion of the lot that is now zoned USD. In regard to the URD-2 area it is less likely that they will be putting a structure there but they feel that there will be a need for parking especially with the grade across the site and the constraints of the narrowness of the site. He said that that parking would need to be in the same zone as the building and they would be open to any suggestions the Board could entertain that would have a conditional M & SD use for parking. Mr. Rosenblatt asked how far back from Harlow Street did the USD zoning go? Mr. Aescteo indicated that he would estimate it at 600 feet. Chairman Guerette asked for comments from proponents. As there were none, he asked for comments from opponents. There being none, Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Officer for his report. Planning Officer Gould indicated that the applicant is requesting a rezoning of USD and URD-2 to M & SD for approximately 2.43 acres located on Harlow and Curve Streets. The property is presently developed on Harlow Street as a commercial property last as Bangor Photo and a former ambulance service and there is parking at the front. At the time of the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update this was one of two known redevelopment sites that were specifically addressed. The Community Development Staff and the Planning Office have been looking at the redevelopment of this site for some years. The City actually acquired a number of buildings in the area many of which were removed in 2000 and made into a parking lot that is now used by Penquis CAP. The Volunteers of America identified this site as one that potentially met their needs to develop senior housing. There is a great interest on the part of many in the City to see this site redeveloped. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the Harlow Street portion of the site as commercial but as you go up the hill up into the URD-2 portion of the lot, the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as URD-2 which is about half the development density of M & SD. Staff wants to be certain that while everyone intends that the building would be built on the lower portion (Harlow Street side) and some activity may occur on the upper portion, if this specific project went away and another one came along, the Staff would not want to see a 32-unit apartment building built in a URD-2 area. Mr. Gould indicated that the Board has the opportunity, if it chooses to, to deal with the application that is in front of them and then deal with any portion of their application, should the Board want to make some amended or alternative recommendation to the City Council. As their plan develops, the applicant could come back to the Board with something that might provide more protection for the neighborhood. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff wants to do all it can to support the project but feels that they need to be wary so that what winds up there is what the City has envisioned. The zoning runs with the land and not with the applicant. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he agreed with Staff’s position on this zone change. He asked that in the event that the URD-2 area is used for parking if it needed to be rezoned? Planning Officer Gould indicated that the Land Development Code directs that the accessory support use (parking) needs to be in the same district or a less restrictive district than the use served. He indicated that there was no reason why the City couldn’t look at some contractual arrangement to deal with buffers and parking. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if they were to move in that direction what would be the logical thing for the Planning Board to do. Mr. Gould indicated that the Board needs to deal with the application in front of them. The alternate is to make a recommendation to the Council to look at an amended application that only deals with the USD portion of the request. Subsequently, the applicant would need to come back with a different application for that remaining area, should they need it. 14 Ms. Brown asked if they would need to pay fees all over again if they came back before the Board. Mr. Gould indicated that they would have to. Mr. Gould explained that the Board can rezone some portion or part of what is proposed but cannot add to it or propose to change it in a way that defeats the public process (notifications). Ms. Brown asked if the applicant was made aware that there was a possibility of only rezoning the one lot. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff discussed with the applicant the implications of going beyond the USD District. Ms. Mitchell asked if the Staff’s concern with this was the neighbors or was the City concern about complying with the Comprehensive Plan and not allowing high density development. Planning Office Gould explained that the Comprehensive Plan is based on existing conditions in the neighborhood and not just an arbitrary designation. If the neighborhood was predominantly 5 to 12 unit buildings the Land Use Policy might say M & SD fits. But there are a number of single-family homes, and 2 and 4 unit buildings and that seems to be what is appropriate in that area. It is based in part on what is there in the neighborhood and that’s what formulates the City’s Plan. The Market street area probably would not lend itself to higher density uses due to the nature of the roadway systems where down on Harlow Street it is a very different situation. Chairman Guerette noted that the Board cannot enter into a contract zone configuration for the remaining parcel as this would need to be done as a separate application. Ms. Mitchell said that she felt that this is positive development and one that is appropriately placed for the intensity of development and the location of elderly in our community. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board recommend that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to the Land Development Code by changing a parcel of land located at 315 Harlow Street from USD and URD-2 to M & SD - Volunteers of America Northern New England, applicant as set forth in C.O. # 06-359. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he agreed with Staff’s analysis and he intended to vote against the motion and said that it makes sense to proceed with the rezoning of the area that is currently USD zoned. As this specific project moves forward it sounds like it would be possible to develop a set of contract zone change conditions that would both address the needs of the proposed development and address the Staff concerns. Chairman Guerette indicated that he would be supportive of a very similar thing. He felt that this an extremely worthwhile project. The City will benefit from the improvement of this site and the proposed development will be much needed. Having spent many months updating the Comprehensive Plan and listening to comments from abutters and neighbors in other areas of the City where there have had proposals that infringe on the integrity of a residential neighborhood he would be concerned about turning the URD-2 area into a potentially higher density use. On that basis, Chairman Guerette indicated that he would vote against the motion before the Board but would support a subsequent recommendation. Chairman Guerette asked for a vote. The Board voted one in favor and four opposed. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board recommend that the City Council proceed with the rezoning of the area currently designated as USD to M & SD. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 15 NEW BUSINESS Item No. 7: Site Development Plan approval to construct two, 2-story, four-unit buildings and associated improvements located at 325V Husson Avenue in a High Density Residential District. Libby Brothers, Inc., applicant. Chairman Guerette asked the applicant to make a presentation. Mr. Ray Bolduc of WBRC Architects/Engineers, represented the applicant and indicated that Mr. Steve Libby was also present to answer questions of the Board. Mr. Bolduc indicated that the applicant is requesting Site Development Plan approval to construct two, four-unit apartment buildings with basements on a parcel located within the High Density Residential District which permits four family dwellings. The buildings will be wood-frames, vinyl sided structures with full unfinished basements. The buildings will be approximately 2400 sq. ft. and each unit will have two bedrooms. The site will be serviced by electric utilities, water and sewer. The sewer service is currently being proposed to be run to the abutting landowner and the applicant is in the process of obtaining a sewer easement from the neighboring property owners (Mallard Pond Homeowners Association). As part of the negotiations, the Homeowners Association has requested that the applicant provide a screened wood fence along the easterly property line which abuts their property and the site plan shows that fence. During the review, the Engineering Department had concerns with the stormwater capacity of Husson Avenue. Mr. Bolduc indicated that they have addressed those concerns and explained that the original plan showed a portion of the storm drain system connecting into the existing Husson Avenue storm drain system. They have since revised the plans and all stormwater will now drain to the drainage ditch along the westerly portion of the property. The project will also require that the applicant obtain a Permit by Rule from MDEP because of the close proximity of the drainage ditch that is running along the westerly portion of the property. Mr. Bolduc indicated that DEP has received this application, reviewed it and has approved it. Mr. Rosenblatt noted correspondence from the President of the Homeowners Association indicating that there is no easement agreement in place to give the applicant access to their private sewer. Mr. Bolduc indicated that they are in negotiations for that easement and his client would request as a condition of approval, obtaining this easement. Associate Member Mitchell was asked to vote. Chairman Guerette asked for Staff comments. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this is an application for Site Development Plan approval to construct two, four-unit buildings in a High Density Residential District. This is a triangular shaped parcel on Husson Avenue that only until recently became available. The Planning Office has received correspondence from the Mallard Pond Home Owners Association President regarding the private sewer and another was from a Mr. Robert LaGasse who expressed concern about the capacity of the stormwater system on Husson Avenue. That detail was related to the Board in the Staff Memorandum from Jim Ring that there are some capacity concerns with the Husson Avenue stormwater system. To deal with that, Mr. Bolduc has reconfigured the stormwater system on the site such that none of the stormwater from this project is going to go into the public stormwater system but will all be discharged to the stream that bisects the property. The Board could approve this subject to the applicant providing a suitable agreement for access to the neighboring sewer. But short of that they don’t have access to the sewer. No sewer no project. Chairman Guerette explained that while this is not a Public Hearing he would entertain comments from anyone present who wished to speak. He indicated that they would not be able to ask questions nor engage the Board in a discussion. 16 Ms. Parise Desjardins, who resides in Unit B at Mallard Pond, indicated that she was present on behalf of Ken Deal their President who could not attend this meeting. Ms. Desjardin said that they are concerned that once a sewer engineer checks to see what it would be like to add 8 units onto their system, who would maintain this in the event that they have future problems. She said that they would like it in writing that their association (the applicant’s) would be willing to repair any such problems in the future. Ms. Desjardin said that for their protection they need to have an engineer that specializes in such matters to determine if it is feasible or not before the Mallard Pond Home Owners Association can take a vote on this. Their second concern is the proposed fence and who will be responsible for its maintenance. She said that they would need a written agreement that this fence would be maintained in the future. Mr. Bolduc indicated that there is a second option which would be to go across Husson Avenue about 350 feet west to a manhole. However, the applicant felt that the one proposed would be the easier of the two to get to the manhole that is on the abutting property. Mr. Gould noted that if the applicant wished to amend his plan to show sewer service another way that he is at liberty to do that should he not be able to negotiate something to their satisfaction with the other arrangement. Ms. Brown asked Mr. Ring if this property could go forward with a different connection. Mr. Ring explained that it could but he believed that it would be down gradient. Depending on the elevation of their site they may have to pump it up. In this case, the City would require an extension of the public sewer on Husson Avenue which would be entirely at their expense. Mr. Rosenblatt asked Mr. Ring if he was comfortable with the revision that Mr. Bolduc described regarding the stormwater. Mr. Ring indicated that he was not aware that the Board had received a letter from Mr. Lagasse but he understood his concerns. This one segment of the public storm drain system on Husson Avenue is overtaxed and the City would be looking to upgrade that at some time in the future. However his concern was adding or potentially aggravating that condition through this or any other projects and that’s why he voiced the concern and requested that the no stormwater be made to the present system as it exists now. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the small stream would absorb the stormwater runoff. Mr. Ring indicated that that is a fairly sizeable channel and it would hold the capacity as this is not a large project. Chairman Guerette discussed with the Board the options for motions for approval. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to grant Site Development Plan approval for the proposed development at 325V Husson Avenue Libby Brother’s Inc., applicant on the condition that the applicant secure an easement to connect to the private sewer line that is depicted on the site plan. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion. Associate Member Mitchell was asked to vote. The Board voted 5 in favor and none opposed. Item No. 8: Site Development Plan approval to construct a 1,800 sq. ft. storage building located at 1172 Hammond Street in a General Commercial and Service District. John C. Cousins, III, applicant. Chairman Guerette asked for a presentation by the applicant. Mr. John Cousins indicated that he was requesting Site Development Plan approval to construct an 1800 sq. ft. building for storage and warehouse use at 1172 Hammond Street in a General Commercial and Service District. He discussed the zoning on the abutting properties. He noted that the originally approved plan proposed to add a landscaping buffer yard which has either died or was never planted. The revised plan addresses deficiencies in the site where improvements were never installed. The only utility 17 to service the proposed building will be electricity service and the proposed building is to provide additional storage space for Atlantic Designs. Chairman Guerette noted that there were some portions of previous plans that were not done according to what was approved and the Board doesn’t like to see this because what they approve on paper and during the meetings they expect to happen on the ground. Mr. Cousins indicated that he bought the building in 1988 and the buffers were approved in 1979. At that time he was not aware of these improvements but he is glad to bring this into compliance at this time. The extra parking that was there when he acquired building and he said that he is pleased to bring it in front of the Board for its approval. Chairman Guerette thanked Mr. Cousins for the additional remediation that he was saddled with in bringing this site up to compliance. Mr. Clark asked what business the storage building would service. Mr. Cousins indicated that it was for Atlantic Designs. Mr. Clark asked how far away from Atlantic Designs the building would be. Mr. Cousins indicated that it would be placed on the back lot but it is a lot closer than the storage facility that he using and renting now. He indicated that he placed the proposed building in a place that would leave room for the bakery trucks to have enough room to maneuver on the site. Chairman Guerette asked for the Planning Staff report. Planning Officer Gould explained that back in 1979 when this was approved the concept of bufferyards was significantly different than it is today. There was no such standard as impervious surface area but there was site plan review. When it recently came to Staff’s attention that a new owner was looking at expanding, the designers looked at the site and saw a huge amount of impervious area. The initial thought was that it must be grandfathered. In reviewing the 1979 approved site plan, Staff noticed that what was approved was in excess of the current standard. In order for Staff to recommend approval of the new plan they would need to bring it into compliance with the GC & S District. Staff recommended that the Board grant the applicant site development plan approval. Chairman Guerette asked Associate Member Brown to vote. Mr. Clark moved that the Board approve the Site Development Plan for 1172 Hammond Street – John C. Cousins, III, for an 1,800 sq. ft. storage building located at 1172 Hammond Street in a General Commercial and Service District. Ms. Brown seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 6: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. Chairman Guerette noted that the Minutes of the October 3, 2006 were in order for approval. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to approve the Minutes of the October 3, 2006 Meeting. That motion was seconded and it passed unanimously. Other Business Chairman Guerette noted a letter from the State Planning Office indicating that they have reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Update and have found it consistent with the Act and Rule. Chairman Guerette indicated that the next item was the By-Laws and asked if there was an interest amongst the Board Members in discussing them or if they felt comfortable with the way that they have been presented, and willing to direct the Planning Officer to place them on the Agenda for the next meeting. 18 Mr. Wheeler indicated that he had submitted his recommendations to the Planning Officer, has read the final product, and was willing and ready to approve them. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he did not see any need to have a meeting to discuss the changes. Chairman Guerette indicated that this item would be placed on the Agenda of the Board’s next meeting for approval as they are before the Board the evening. Chairman Guerette noted that another item is that of a Public Hearing for the Wal-Mart application for November 21, 2006 and indicated that Wal-Mart had extended an open invitation to have the Board convene with one of their representatives to view the site. As previously discussed, that site visit would be a published meeting of the Planning Board and he was told by their representative, Ed Bearor, that the Board can do that on any day of the week at any hour. All the Board needed to do is to come to an agreement and let them know. The Board discussed various dates for holding this public site visit. It was the consensus of the Board that the meeting be schedule for Monday, November 20, 2006 at 3:00 p.m. There being no further items for business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.