Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-11-15 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 15, 2005 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman Hal Wheeler David Clark Ryan King Nathaniel Rosenblatt Laura Mitchell City Staff Present: David Gould James Ring Peter Witham News Media Present: None Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA Chairman Guerette asked if anyone wished to remove any of the items for discussion. Member Clark asked to be excused from voting on the Consent Agenda as his brother owns the company that is the applicant for Item No. 3. Mr. Rosenblatt made a motion that the Board finds that Member Clark has a conflict with the Consent Agenda and that he be excused from voting. Mr. King seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Associate Member Mitchell voted. As no one wished to remove any of the items for discussion, Chairman Guerette then indicated that he would entertain a motion on the Consent Agenda. Mr. King moved to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rosenblatt, and it passed unanimously. The items approved are: 2 Item No. 1: Site Development Plan/Site Location of Development Act Modification approval to construct 5,966 square feet of additional impervious area to the existing distribution facility located at 91 Dowd Road in an Industry and Service District. Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Northern New England, applicant. Item No. 2: Site Development Plan approval to modify the approved site development plan for four, self-storage buildings and to move the entrance to the site and add electric service at 235 Bomarc Road in an Urban Industry District. Bomarc Inc., applicant. Item No. 3: Site Development Plan approval to expand the existing parking area approximately 9,000 square feet at 101 BanAir Road in an Urban Industry District. Commercial Delivery Systems, Inc., applicant. Item No. 4: Developmental Subdivision Plan approval for two, four-unit buildings located at 63 Fieldstone Drive in a High Density Residential District. Ralph McPherson and Brian Shaboski, applicants. Item No. 5: Site Development Plan approval to expand the existing parking lot at 1365 Broadway by adding 3 parking spaces in a Contract Shopping and Personal Service District. Dunmurry, LLC, d/b/a Northeast Pain Management, applicant. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 6: To amend the Land Development Code by changing a parcel of land located at 796 Odlin Road from Industry and Service District to Urban Industry District. Said parcel containing approximately 1.26-acres. Concord Coachlines, d/b/a Concord Trailways, applicant. C.O. # 06-10. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation from the applicant. Mr. Dana Knapp, Maine Division Manager of Concord Trailways, spoke in favor of the proposed zone change request. Mr. Knapp explained that they wished to rezone this property from Industry and Service District (I & S) to Urban Industry District (UID) in order to construct a one-bay bus garage. In discussions with City Staff, it was determined that this proposed use is not a permitted use in the I & S District but is allowed in the Urban Industry District. No one spoke either in favor of or in opposition to the request. Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked for Staff comments. Planning Officer Gould explained 3 that the application is to rezone a 1.25-acre parcel located at 796 Odlin Road from an Industry and Service District to an Urban Industry District. The applicant wishes to have a bus wash facility where their large commercial buses could be serviced at this location. In reviewing the I & S District which talks about some trucking and distribution facilities, it was not clear that the type of facility was allowed as an Industrial use. In discussions with the applicant it became clear that the type of facility that they propose is allowed in an Urban Industry District. Staff also discussed with the applicant contract zoning option, but after further review of the Land Use Policy Map and the Zoning Policy Map this parcel is clearly indicated for Urban Industry Use on the Zoning Policy Map. Therefore, it was felt that it did not warrant the extra effort needed to apply for and develop specific contract zoning conditions for a zone that the applicant had a right to request. Staff felt that the request is consistent with the existing zoning and with the Comprehensive Plan and recommended that the Board make a positive recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Rosenblatt asked what the current uses are on either side of the parcel in question. Mr. Gould indicated that on one side there is an existing residence and the other side is an asphalt paving company. At one time this area was residential but over time has developed into industrial uses. Mr. Knapp added that the adjacent use is Harvey Paving, across the street is a gravel pit (Lane Construction) and Thibodeau Construction is on the other side of the residence. Chairman Guerette asked what the current use of this site is and how would it be different after the zone change. Mr. Knapp indicated that this site is where they park their buses overnight and the drivers stay overnight in the existing house. After the zone change, the site will serve the same purpose with the addition of a one-bay garage where they can wash the buses. Mr. Clark asked if in addition to washing buses if there would be any mechanical work done. Mr. Knapp indicated that at times they might need to change a tire or windshield wipers might need to be installed, but there are no plans to set up a maintenance shop with a mechanic at the facility. Mr. King asked if the applicant is proposing to change the entire property. Mr. Knapp indicated that they are requesting a change for the entire 1.26 acres. Chairman Guerette had concerns that the Urban Industry District does not have the same types of building setbacks and bufferyards as the I & S District has. Because there is mixed use along that road and a residential property next door, he was wondering what the applicant’s development plans are and how they propose to buffer this from the neighboring property. Mr. Knapp indicated that presently there is tree line between this lot and the neighboring house. The applicant does not plan to remove this tree line. The applicant is looking at constructing a garage on the side of the lot that is further away from the existing house. 4 Mr. Wheeler indicated that he fully supports this zone change request because he does not feel that it creates any undue corruption of the uses of the land in that area, and because that he believes that the applicant provides a very valuable and necessary service to the City of Bangor and the surrounding communities. Mr. Wheeler asked the applicant how many buses are in the Concord Trailways Fleet that services Bangor and how many runs there are from Bangor. Mr. Knapp indicated that there are four buses that run from Bangor thru Portland into Boston. There are two coastal routes that run from Bangor to Portland to Boston and three express routes for a total of five round trips. Mr. King asked who determined that this proposed use would not be allowed in the Industry and Service District. Planning Officer Gould indicated that the determination of uses as to what is a permitted use, a conditional use, or not allowed at all, is made by the Code Enforcement Office. In this instance, Staff looked at whether or not the proposed use would fall within the I & S definition of truck terminal and truck washing facility. Under the UID the proposed use is a permitted use within this District and the Comprehensive Plan indicates UID zoning for this parcel. By requesting a change to UID, it appears to be the best way for the applicant to go so as not to run into problems in the future and not have the applicant invest a great deal of money and time only to find out that the use is not allowed. Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Wheeler made a motion that the Board recommend to the City Council that the Land Development Code be amended by changing the zone at 796 Odlin Road from Industry and Service District to Urban Industry District for Concord Coachlines d/b/a Concord Trailways, applicant, as per C.O. # 06-10. Mr. Clark seconded the motion. The Board voted five in favor and none opposed to the motion recommended approval of C.O. # 06-10. Item No. 7: To amend the Official Map by adding Waterworks Road. City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 06-06. Chairman Guerette opened the public hearing and asked for comments from the applicant. Mr. James Ring, City Engineer, represented the applicant and spoke in favor of the amendment to the City’s Official Map. Mr. Ring indicated that this a straight-forward request to add a short piece of new street to the Official Map called Waterworks Road. Waterworks Road crosses from State Street into the former Waterworks development site where Shaw House is proposing to redevelop the site into 35 apartments. This new street is necessary in order to establish a public rail crossing to access this site, which is presently separated from State Street by the railroad tracks. The State of Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT) has jurisdiction over the appropriateness of establishing a new road across railroad right-of-ways. MDOT ruled on this, the ruling was appealed by the railroad, the ruling was upheld by the Court, and now the City is requesting that Waterworks Road be added to the Official City Map. 5 Mr. Rosenblatt asked if there is a signal planned for this location. Mr. Ring indicated that a signal is part of the overall development project. MDOT’s approval includes a requirement for improvements to the street (signalization and turning lanes) and warning devises for the railroad tracks (flashing lights and gates), as well. Mr. Clark asked where this proposed road is in relation to Cascade Park and the Water District property. Mr. Ring indicated that it lines up with one of the driveways to the Water District property. No one spoke in opposition. Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked for Staff comments. Planning Officer Gould explained that the process of layout of a street even as short as this is, is for the Planning Board to hold a hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council who will then take action. Staff recommended a positive recommendation to the City Council for adoption. Mr. Gould noted that this is a key link in the Waterworks Redevelopment. As there was no further discussion, Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to recommend to the City Council adoption of C.O. # 06-06 adding Waterworks Road to the Official City Map. Mr. King seconded the motion. The Board voted five in favor and none opposed to the motion recommendation adoption of C.O. # 06-06. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 9: Final Subdivision Plan Revision approval for minor modifications to the existing approved 13-lot Pine Ledge Subdivision Phase II located off of Pine Ledge Road in a Rural Residence and Agricultural District. Vaughn E. Smith, applicant. Chairman Guerette asked for a presentation from the applicant. Mr. Andrew Hedrich, of Engineering Dynamics, represented the applicant. Mr. Hedrich explained that this a previously approved Subdivision and the applicant is proposing a minor amendment to move a septic system approximately 4 to 5 feet back from a property line to meet a 200- foot setback and to add some additional notes to the Legend. The septic system is still on the same test pit and no additional test pit information is required. Mr. Rosenblatt noted that Staff had indicated that there were two required drainage easements and had requested that the Plan be reprinting at the correct scale. Mr. Hedrich indicated that he has submitted the required drainage easement language to the City’s Legal Staff for its review, and the scale on the plans is now accurate. Chairman Guerette then asked for comments from the Planning Officer. Mr. Gould indicated that this is a revision to the Pine Ledge Subdivision Phase II – 13 Lots, which was approved a little over a year ago. The reason that this is back in front of the Planning 6 Board is that in addition to Bangor’s approval they also needed to get approval from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The DEP has specific regulations that required them to make amendments to the plan to make an adjustment to one of the on- site waste disposal systems. All of the rest of the plan is essentially the same. Also, at the time of Final Plan approval the applicant needed to submit improvement guarantees and drainage easements as part of that approval. Mr. Gould noted that the improvement guarantees were submitted but no record of the stormwater drainage easements was found. Copies of the easements have subsequently been submitted and are being reviewed by the Legal Department. Staff recommended that the Board grant the applicant Final Plan approval with the condition that the drainage easements be deemed satisfactory by the City Solicitor’s Office. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if there was a suggested timeframe for this. Mr. Gould noted that the standard turnaround is 120 days. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to grant Final Subdivision Plan approval of the revised Subdivision Plan for Pine Ledge Subdivision Phase II, Vaughn E. Smith, applicant, on the condition that the applicant provide to the City acceptable stormwater drainage easements within 120 days. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler, and it passed unanimously. Item No. 10: Site Development Plan/Site Location of Development Act approvals to re-grade and improve the existing gravel storage area and modify the existing parking area on the east side of the building located at 1105 Hammond Street in a General Commercial and Service District. Frederick W. Leadbetter, applicant. Chairman Guerette asked the applicant for a presentation. Mr. John Frawley, P.E., represented the applicant. Mr. Frawley gave a history of the development of the property indicating that the site was first developed by International Harvester in 1959. The existing site is essential the same size as that developed in 1959 in regard to paving and the rear yard. The only change that has been made since then is the reduction in the size of the building. The applicant acquired the property from International Harvester and later converted it into a convenience store with gasoline sales. At that time, approximately half of the building was demolished to accommodate the gasoline pumps. The rear of the parcel is basically an undeveloped area. In the early 1970’s it was filled and graded and a certain amount of gravel was placed in there. Over the years it has been used for the temporary storage of different vehicles and materials. In 1999 when Bangor Gas was installing the gas mains around the City they rented this back lot to use it as a storage area for materials and construction equipment. Mr. Leadbetter later received approvals from the City for this storage area. As this storage area makes the total site over 3 acres of impervious area, it now requires DEP Site Location of Development Act approval as well Site Development Plan approval. 7 Mr. Frawley indicated that the applicant had an extensive drainage study done of this area. In the meantime, Hammond Lumber (the abutting property owner) was expanding its property and purchased some property from the applicant. As part of that arrangement, Hammond Lumber agreed to design and to construct a common stormwater retention pond, which has subsequently been built. The only other improvement being made as part of this project is to move some existing parking along the easterly side of the building 15 feet further to the east to give a wider corridor for the passage of vehicles. There is a designated unloading area there and it does provide the principle access to that back storage area. Mr. Frawley indicated that at the present time there are a number of RV’s stored there owned by Webb’s RV. There are other materials such as some pipes that are occasionally stored there by Bangor Pipe and the applicant indicated that it will continued to be used as outside storage. No additional parking is being provided as there is ample parking provided elsewhere on the site. As no one spoke in opposition, Chairman Guerette asked for Staff comments. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this is an application for Site Development Plan approval for the storage area and Site Location of Development of Act Approval of the entire Leadbetter site. When you add this acreage to the existing site it is over 3 acres of impervious surface and that requires SLODA approval. Staff had requested that the applicant’s designer update the plan to accurately depict existing site lighting, building entrances, and the entrance driveway configurations. Mr. Gould indicated that revised plans were submitted addressing Staff’s concerns, and that the application meets the submittal requirements under the Land Development Code for Site Development Plan approval and meets the requirements for Site Location of Development Act approval. Staff recommended both Site Development Plan approval, as well as, Site Location of Development Act approval. Chairman Guerette moved to approve the Site Development Plan at 1105 Hammond Street for Frederick W. Leadbetter. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion. The Board voted 5 to 0 in favor. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to approve the Site Location of Development Act Permit for Frederick W. Leadbetter at 1105 Hammond Street. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion, which also passed unanimously. Item No. 11: Planning Board Review of Planning Board By-Laws Amendment. The Board discussed whether or not it is ex parte communication for a Board Member to discuss items with the Planning Officer prior to a meeting. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he did not feel that this is ex parte communication. Mr. Rosenblatt said that it appears that they are in agreement that a discussion between a Board Member and City Staff is not an ex parte contact. He suggested that at a minimum keeping the first part of the new sentence that just says that Board Members may discuss pending applications with City Staff. Chairman Guerette indicated that he would support this. He said that recently there was an application to rezone property that St. Joseph Hospital wanted to acquire and 8 the applicant was the seller. He discussed with the Planning Officer, prior to the meeting, why it was that the seller was put in the position of applying for a zone change and not the purchaser who had the developmental plans, ideas and concepts for this piece of land. None of this thinking was included in the Memorandum but he thought it was important enough to bring up at a meeting just to sensitize everyone to the fact. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that it may make sense to clarify that discussing a matter with City Staff is not an ex parte contact. Chairman Guerette indicated that he would support this. Planning Officer Gould suggested that language be added that Board Members may discuss pending applications with City Staff. The Board was in agreement. . The next section discussed was the Time of Meeting. Mr. Wheeler felt that regarding Section 6, that there is an oversight which says that the Board’s regularly scheduled meetings should be either scheduled meetings or regular meetings. Also, that “government holiday” should be expanded to include the words “generally acknowledged holiday.” Planning Officer Gould went on to Page 4 indicating that he proposed to add a caveat to the televising issue as in some instances it is not possible to televise meetings. Mr. Gould noted that while every effort is made to do so, he would not like to see a meeting canceled because it is not possible to televise it. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he would like to add to this that it should also be the policy of the City of Bangor to record electronically all meetings of the Planning Board and make such recordings available for listening or review by any resident of the City of Bangor. This would allow for review of verbiage of a Board Member or an applicant when more than a summary is needed. Mr. Gould agreed that this should be in the By-laws but the question is where should it be located. There are other discussions about written findings and recording of decisions that do not mean tape recording. Mr. Wheeler said that he felt that it was appropriate to add this to the meetings televised section, and he suggested that the title of the section “Meetings Televised and Recorded” be amended with appropriate additional language to cover this. Mr. Wheeler added that he did not feel that the taped voice recording should be an alternative to televising and that both should be done, if possible. The next discussion was the Conduct of Meetings on Page 8. Mr. Gould explained that the first change is the term of Planning Director as there isn’t such a position. Because the Planning Division likes to operate as a team, the language was left as City Planning Office. The word Chairman was made gender correct by just leaving it as Chair, and clarification as to Full Member versus just Member or Associate Member was made. Another issue is that of the timing of the Staff Memorandum as to whether this is an issue that the Board wants to set in the By-Laws. Now there is a specific timeframe. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he felt that there ought to be a deadline for the Planning Board Agenda out of fairness to the Members of the Board and fairness to the members of the public. He did not want to get into a situation where the Agenda changes over the course of a weekend or on the Monday before the meeting. When he first came on the Board he thought five days was ridiculously short and that the Board should be getting the Agenda at 9 least a week before the meeting. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that five days equates to the Thursday before the meeting and suggested staying with the current language. The Board discussed whether the five day deadline was five calendar days or five business days, and the issue of legal posting and notices. Chairman Guerette indicated that he was sensitive to giving everyone a chance to know what is going on and also with the time constraints, and the whole customer service aspect of the services that the Staff provides to applicants, as well. He asked Mr. Gould how this works and what problems would Staff have if it had a cutoff five days before a meeting. Mr. Could indicated that it could be done in less time. However, Staff feels that the more important issue isn’t so much when Staff prepares the agenda and memo but when the public notices are sent out. A deadline for mailing the agenda to the Board is a separate issue from the notice in advance to the general public of an application. This By-Law issue deals with when the Board receives their packets. Chairman Guerette asked if and when the Agenda and Memo are available to the public. Mr. Gould indicated that they are available but that it is not likely to be available to the public until the Thursday or Friday before the meeting. The standing practice has always been that the Planning Board receive the materials before the public does. Staff feels that the By-Laws should not dictate when Staff can send the Board information. Staff would like to have the flexibility to take until Friday to get all of the information together for the Board. If the Board wants five days, then that is what Staff will do. Mr. Clark indicated that he would like to have a minimum amount of lead time to review the materials and not wind up getting the Agenda on Monday or Tuesday. Mr. King indicated that he would support no deadline because on occasions he has gone to the Planning Office asking about items on the Agenda and Staff has always shown what’s on the preliminary agenda and answered any questions he had. Mr. Ring indicated that certain items such as Public Hearings have separate notice requirements. Some require 10 days while others require 14 days advance notice. What this paragraph is talking about is the notice that the Board receives. Another important thing is that Staff wants to be sure that the Planning Board gets the Agenda before the public does. Staff does not want the Board to be in a position where someone is asking about an agenda item that it has not seen. This avoids having a Planning Board Member being placed in a situation of being approached by a member of the public asking questions about an item that they have not seen. Also, all the City meetings such as City Council, City Council Sub-committee, Planning Board, and any other meetings that are of public interest are made available to the media. There is a weekly agenda schedule for all City-related meetings that generally goes out on Friday and is distributed to all the media. Mr. Wheeler asked if there would be a significant number of applicants whose applications would have to be delayed because of a strict adherence to the 5 day advance 10 notice or one extended to 7 days. Would this backlog create a serious inconvenience to applicants. Mr. Ring indicated that strict adherence to a 5 day deadline probably would not be a huge difference. For a 7 day deadline, this would mean that Staff would need to complete their reviews entirely the week before. This would have the potential of having an effect on the process. Ms. Mitchell indicated that the issue of five days is important when engaging the public. Two of those days are over the weekend when they do not have access to review plans because City Hall is closed. The same is true for the Planning Board. This really only allows for 3 days for review which is not an extensive amount of time. Mr. Wheeler noted that the Agenda is posted on the Government Access Channel over the weekend so the public would have access to it on Saturday and Sunday by that means. Mr. Ring indicated that someone would be made aware of the items on the agenda through the Government Channel or the media. If they were interested in a particular item, they could come in and review the plans but would not have the weekend to actually review the plans. Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Gould how many times in the course of a year do members of the public come in to review the materials. Mr. Gould indicated that it is very infrequent and that only a tiny percentage of people get involved in advance. Occasionally they come in to complain about a plan but don’t avail themselves to come in and look at the plans, call, or ask questions in advance. He indicated that this is a struggle. In terms of the notification, abutters are notified, signs are posted, legal notices are posted and Staff tries to do everything they can to engage public involvement. Chairman Guerette indicated that he felt that this section was about getting information to the Planning Board. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that this is how it works now and he was not arguing against the status quo, as what is being done is okay. The Memo for this meeting had several items that were incomplete at the time the Staff memo was prepared. Those issues were taken care of between the date of the memo and the meeting. Mr. Rosenblatt felt that the Agenda should exist by the end of Thursday in advance of the meeting so that the Board knows what is on the Agenda and the public can know what is on the agenda for a meeting that takes place on Tuesday. Mr. Rosenblatt said that he did not want to see a situation where something was added to an agenda on Monday for review by the Board on Tuesday. Mr. Ring indicated that he could not image trying to get an agenda out on Monday even if allowed to. When the Staff Memorandum goes out and we say we requested some small details we want those to be small details. In the past we’ve had some pressure to have things go on an Agenda with other than small details which we are not comfortable with and neither was the Board. 11 Mr. Gould indicated that he came from a community that met once a month where an application had to be submitted 45 days in advance of the meeting. If you missed it by 4 or 5 days, then a whole month went by before you could get on the next agenda. Bangor’s present system is a much more user friendly system. He said that he felt that the issue is does the five day deadline work for the Board. If not, then this timeframe should be extended Mr. Wheeler noted that when there is a holiday occurring on Friday the mail is not delivered until Saturday. Mr. Guerette asked Mr. Wheeler if the Agenda were delivered on Thursday would he read it on Thursday. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he looks at these things on the weekend or the day before and scans it again prior to the meeting. He suggested that a compromise to this would be to include in the By-Laws that the Agenda and supporting materials and memorandum should be delivered to the members of the Board no later than the Friday before the scheduled meeting. He asked for the Planning Officer’s comments. Mr. Gould indicated at present, Staff not only mails but e-mails the Agenda and Memorandum. He noted that generally, Staff tries to mail out the Agenda on Thursday. If for some reason this is not possible, Staff has hand delivered the materials so that the Board would have the information by Friday. Mr. King noted that his company is going paperless and indicated that he would be in favor of receiving his Agenda & Memo by e-mail and not sending him a packet, as long as he received by Friday. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if there would be a situation where the Agenda would not be set in time to get posted on the City’s website on Friday. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff has a deadline to get the Agenda to the City Manager’s Office for the weekly meeting schedule for posting on the City’s website. Mr. Rosenblatt noted that this is a deadline that already exists, and indicated that that addressed his concern for the Agenda changing later in the day on Friday or on Monday. Mr. Gould indicated that he like the concept of mailing the Agenda on Thursday or delivering it on Friday as this gives Staff some wiggle room if there is some kind of a problem getting the materials in the mail on Thursday. Mr. Rosenblatt was in agreement. Ms. Mitchell said that she felt that this is what is currently being done and indicated that she would like to keep the same wording. The next item for discussion was the order of items on the Agenda. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that currently the By-Laws limit what can be placed on the Consent Agenda, namely site development plans that Staff feels meet all Ordinance requirements. Because the current By-Laws do not reflect what the current practice is (i.e. placing Site Location of Development applications and Subdivision applications) for placement on the Consent Agenda he feels that this portion of the By-Laws need to be amended. Mr. Rosenblatt 12 indicated that there is a question that remains regarding the distinction between when someone has questions and where to place the item for discussion. Mr. Gould indicated that the only reason to remove an item is if there is some doubt of the outcome as to whether or not it would be approved. An item should not have to be removed from the Consent Agenda because one person has a question that needs to be clarified. This would keep the Consent Agenda intact and save an incredible amount of meeting time. Mr. Wheeler indicated that if an item is removed from Consent Agenda he would like to see it in writing in the By-Laws that the item would be considered first under New Business rather than be placed at the bottom of the Agenda. Mr. Gould suggested that in this case, that the By-Laws be amended to move the New Business category after the Consent Agenda and before Public Hearings. Mr. Rosenblatt suggested that as an alternative, a new category could be created for “Items Removed from Consent Agenda” as other items that would be placed under the New Business category may not suitable for consideration prior to Public Hearings. Chairman Guerette agreed that if an item was removed from the Consent Agenda that it would be an injustice to hold those people captive until after the Public Hearings are done. He felt that they should be reviewed immediately and not under the New Business category. The next item discussed was the placement of Approval of Minutes on the Agenda. Mr. Gould indicated that presently the Minutes are taken up immediately after Public Hearings and it has been the Board’s practice to defer the minutes to the end of the meeting. This would rearrange the Agenda so that the Minutes would come at the end of the meeting. Mr. Rosenblatt supported this change. Chairman Guerette went onto to Page 5 indicating that the language authorizing the Board to call a public hearing is struck out. He noted that he did not recall this ever happening but asked Planning Officer Gould to explain why this is being deleted. Mr. Gould said that Staff felt that it was odd that an item would be considered and then the Board would decide, on its own, that the item needed to have a public hearing. Mr. Gould indicated that this would mean a delay as an ad would need to be placed, and abutters re- notified before going back before the Board. This idea of the Planning Board deciding to hold a public hearing on an agenda item seemed to be an idea that was foreign to the way the process operates. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that the Land Development Code permits this. Section 165- 113, Page 165:113, the last sentence talks about Planning Board review. If a majority of the Board shall so order it shall hold a public hearing on any permit application for a LDP which is not otherwise required a public hearing. The By-Law language was meant to dovetail into that possibility which does exist under the ordinance and that would be reason to leave the language alone. 13 Mr. Gould noted that another interesting thing about this language is that in order to hold a public hearing there has to be a majority of Members voting in favor of holding it. He cited a situation where there may be a public hearing that is required but if the majority does not vote to have one, you have to have it anyway. Mr. Wheeler noted the neighborhood meetings in the quadrants that were done by the consent of the Board even through they were not mandated. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he felt that this is one of those rare instances where the Board should have the liberty to take that initiative. Mr. Ring indicated that he has always thought that a public hearing had a different connotation than a public meeting, public workshop or a public presentation as a public hearing is for gathering evidence and is a part of a legal process. Clearly, those meetings, while not a public hearing, can still be held. Mr. Wheeler agreed. Chairman Guerette suggested that there be another item added to the By-Laws that says that at its discretion, the Board may hold public forums for special purposes such as gathering information or disseminating information. He felt that the ability to hold neighborhood meetings is something that is an important discretion and power of the Planning Board. Mr. Ring felt that this is exactly what is being contemplated as the conclusion of the Comprehensive Plan process approaches. A public presentation or public informational meeting/forum on the draft of the Comprehensive Plan is proposed and then at some point as part of the legal process for the Comprehensive Plan Update an official Public Hearing will need to be held. Chairman indicated that there is nothing in the By-Laws that gives the Board the authority to do this. Ms. Mitchell felt that it seemed like an odd thing to remove because it is obviously not something that is used very often but it also doesn’t hurt to have in there. If a public hearing is broad enough to include a public meeting she felt that the language should be left open for the Board to call a hearing under the legal terms or just a public meeting. Chairman Guerette said that there seems to be enough evidence to make a distinction between a public hearing and an open forum/public forum because a public hearing is required by law and the conduct of that particular hearing is described in the By- Laws. Chairman Guerette said that a public meeting or forum, like a neighborhood meeting, doesn’t necessarily have to follow this particular schedule in terms of how it is conducted and it could be done for a number of different purposes. Planning Officer Gould indicated that he was trying to make clear that public hearings are held when they are required by law and the Ordinance and not at the whim of the Planning Board to vote to say let’s have a public hearing. Clearly we would advertise them before the meeting in advance. Technically, if the Board wants to leave the language in 14 because it gives them some opportunity to have a hearing that you otherwise may not be able have, is fine. Chairman Guerette indicated that he could not think of a single case, as long as he has been on the Board, that he would have wanted to call a public hearing for. He indicated that he felt that it is appropriate to strike that out. It is also appropriate to include a section that says that the Planning Board can hold public meetings, public forums or public workshops, if deemed necessary. Ms. Mitchell asked if there would be a notice requirement for the public meetings. Chairman Guerette indicated that there would be and Mr. Rosenblatt added that all of the Planning Board meetings are open to the public as the Board does not have executive sessions. For example, the Comprehensive Plan workshops have all been open to the public. Staff issues an agenda to comply with the public notice requirement that give the public notice of every meeting. Planning Officer Gould added that the Board cannot gather without having posted the meeting. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that this would permit someone who was opposed to a project being reviewed, as a site development, to say that this is a big enough project so the Board ought to go the extra step and actually hold a public hearing on this even thought they are not legally required to do it. The next item discussed was that of when Planning Board Minutes are to be distributed to the Board. The amendment would allow for the Minutes to be distributed for approval as soon as they are available. Mr. Wheeler noted that Staff some times hands them out at the meeting which precludes the Board’s acting on them, as they have not had a change to read them. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he would prefer that the Minutes, whenever ready, be mailed out to the Board in their meeting packets. Chairman Guerette agreed. Chairman Guerette indicated that he felt that having all of the proposed changes together in one document rather than doing them piece meal was very helpful. As there were no other items for discussion, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.