HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-08-02 Planning Board Minutes
Revised August 15, 2005
PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR
MEETING OF AUGUST 2, 2005
MINUTES
Board Members Present: Robert Guerette
Hal Wheeler
David Clark
Nathaniel Rosenblatt
Ryan King
Laura Mitchell
City Staff Present: David Gould
Jim Ring
Peter Witham
Lynn Johnson
News Media Present: Bangor Daily News
Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Rosenblatt
asked to be excused from voting on the Consent Agenda, as the applicant under Item
No. 2 is a client of his office. Mr. Wheeler moved to honor Mr. Rosenblatt’s request.
Mr. Clark seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Associate Member Mitchell
was asked to vote on the Consent Agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA
As no one wished to remove either item from the Consent Agenda, Chairman
Guerette called for a motion. Mr. King moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Ms.
Mitchell seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5 to 0. The items
approved are as follows:
Item No. 1: Site Development Plan approval of a fill and grade at
1110V Stillwater Avenue in a General Commercial and
Service District. Epstein Rhode Island, LLC, applicant.
2
Item No. 2: Final Subdivision Plan Revision to amend Lot 24 in Phase II
of the Hillbrook Subdivision located on Fox Hollow.
Frederick Oldenburg, Jr., and Cynthia Kubetz, applicants.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Item No. 3: Conditional Use/Site Development Plan approval for an
outdoor recreation use located at 1017V Union Street
(behind Wendy’s) in a Shopping and Personal Service
District. The Fore C’s Corporation, applicant.
Chairman Guerette noted that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting
that this Public Hearing be continued to the next meeting. Acting Planning Officer
Gould indicated that in order to eliminate the need to re-advertise this item, the Board
would need to open the Public Hearing and then continue it.
Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Wheeler moved to continue
the Public Hearing to the Board’s next meeting on August 16, 2005. Mr. Rosenblatt
seconded the motion. The Board voted five in favor and none opposed to the motion to
continue the Public Hearing.
Item No. 4: Amending the Land Development Code- Chapter 165-113 –
Starting and Completion Date Revisions – City of Bangor,
applicant. C.O. # 05-250.
The Public Hearing was opened by the Chairman, who asked for a presentation
by the applicant. Acting Planning Officer Gould explained that this is an amendment to
the Starting and Completion Date regulations under Chapter 165-113 of the Land
Development Code. The purpose of the amendment is to streamline the process
relative to applicants providing starting and completion dates and extensions.
Presently, the Land Development Code allows for an applicant or the Planning Board to
state specific dates to commence and complete construction. Applicants are required to
specify starting and completion dates on the Land Development Permit Form. These
dates become a part of the record as to the legal obligations the applicant has to
complete a project. Staff continually finds themselves in the situation of advising
applicants to give themselves enough time to complete their projects. Many times the
applicants are very optimistic and do not give themselves enough time. In these
situations, it becomes necessary to come back to the Code Enforcement Office for a 60-
day extension and for further extensions to come back before the Planning Board.
These requests go on the routine Planning Board Agenda.
The intent of this amendment is to eliminate the process of having an applicant
provide a date certain (by automatically giving the applicant 1 year to start and 2 years
3
to complete as provided for in the Land Development Code). It also would defer further
extension requests to Staff to be handled as a Minor Revision.
After the Board’s previous discussion of this proposed amendment in July, Board
Members felt that extensions should not go on indefinitely without being brought back
before the Board for consideration. Staff added language that after two extension
requests, an applicant would then need to reapply to the Planning Board for any further
extensions. Staff feels that this amendment will streamline the process, eliminate the
Board’s unnecessary role in a purely administrative function, and save some Staff time
processing starting and completion dates. Staff would hope that the Board would
support this amendment and make a positive recommendation to the City Council.
Mr. Rosenblatt discussed the amendment noting that an applicant could get two
years (default) plus six months (Code Enforcement Officer extension) plus 12 months
(Minor Site Plan Revision # 1) plus 12 months (Minor Site Plan # 1). That would equal
54 months for a total of 30 months of extensions to complete a project. Mr. Gould
indicated that was correct and this language is the result of the Board’s discussion at
the July meeting.
Mr. Wheeler had a concern with the grammar within the amendment especially
regarding the wording of substantially complete. Mr. Gould said that in this instance,
substantially is modifying the word commencement and this particular requirement is a
judgement.
Chairman Guerette asked if this amendment would in fact, really give an
applicant 3 extensions when including the 6 month extension by the Code Enforcement
Officer. Chairman Guerette indicated that he is not opposed to this but wanted to make
sure that it is clear. Mr. Rosenblatt noted that a 6-month extension by the Code
Enforcement Officer would not come under the Minor Revision process. Mr. Gould
added that a 6-month extension would be solely at the discretion of the Code
Enforcement Office. This amendment would extend the Code Enforcement Office’s 60-
day extension to a 6-month extension. A reason for doing this, for example, is that if
an applicant applied in January, a 60-day extension would lapse in March. This would
not give an applicant time enough to complete projects requiring warm weather.
Mr. King asked if an applicant has to inform the Code Enforcement Office in
writing about why he needs an extension. Mr. Gould indicated that he presumed that
the Code Enforcement requires this as the Land Development Permit process requires
this.
Chairman Guerette indicated that he felt that applicants should be required to
specify why they are requesting an extension and not be allowed to submit one line
letters without any explanations like some of the requests that he has seen in the past.
4
No one spoke in opposition. Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and
asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to recommend to the City Council adoption
of the Zoning Amendment to Section 165-113 as contained in C.O. # 05-250. Mr.
Wheeler seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of five in favor and none
opposed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Chairman Guerette confirmed that the next Comprehensive Plan Update
th
Workshop session would be on Tuesday, August 9.
In other business, Chairman Guerette asked the Board Members if there was
interest on their part in sending an amendment through the process to change back the
Zoning Amendment regarding chemical treatment facilities. The City Council recently
passed this amendment after the Planning Board unanimously recommended that it be
denied. After some discussion, it was the consensus of the Board Members that
ultimately these amendments are approved by the City Council, that this issue has been
decided, and at this time, they did not wish to pursue this further.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Item No. 5: Planning Board Approval of Minutes.
Mr. Wheeler moved to approve the Minutes of the June 20, 2005 Meeting. Mr.
King seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked when the meetings to discuss improvements to West
Market Square were to be held. Mr. Ring noted that there were two meetings
rd
scheduled for August 3. One from 10:30 a.m. to noon, and the other from 5:00 p.m.
to 6:30 p.m. Both meetings will be held in the City Council Chambers. Mr. Gould said
that there has been interest for more than 10 years to spruce up this space and make
improvements. Mr. Steve Ribble of Ames A/E has gone out and looked at Westmarket
Square and has come up with a plan for a facelift. The meetings are an opportunity for
people to come and see the plan. The City is very interested in obtaining comments
from the public.
Mr. Gould also noted that at the next Planning Board Meeting there will be a
public hearing regarding consideration of the adoption of the Penjajawoc Mall Task
Force Study as part of the Comprehensive Plan.
There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 7:40
p.m.
PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR
MEETING OF AUGUST 2, 2005
MINUTES
Board Members Present: Robert Guerette
Hal Wheeler
David Clark
Nathaniel Rosenblatt
Ryan King
Laura Mitchell
City Staff Present: David Gould
Jim Ring
Peter Witham
Lynn Johnson
News Media Present: Bangor Daily News
Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr.
Rosenblatt asked to be excused from voting on the Consent Agenda, as the
applicant under Item No. 2 is a client of his office. Mr. Wheeler moved to honor
Mr. Rosenblatt’s request. Mr. Clark seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously. Associate Member Mitchell was asked to vote on the Consent
Agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA
As no one wished to remove either item from the Consent Agenda,
Chairman Guerette called for a motion. Mr. King moved to approve the Consent
Agenda. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5 to
0. The items approved are as follows:
Item No. 1: Site Development Plan approval of a fill and grade at
1110V Stillwater Avenue in a General Commercial
and Service District. Epstein Rhode Island, LLC,
applicant.
2
Item No. 2: Final Subdivision Plan Revision to amend Lot 24 in
Phase II of the Hillbrook Subdivision located on Fox
Hollow. Frederick Oldenburg, Jr., and Cynthia
Kubetz, applicants.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Item No. 3: Conditional Use/Site Development Plan approval for
an outdoor recreation use located at 1017V Union
Street (behind Wendy’s) in a Shopping and Personal
Service District. The Fore C’s Corporation, applicant.
Chairman Guerette noted that the applicant had submitted a letter
requesting that this Public Hearing be continued to the next meeting. Acting
Planning Officer Gould indicated that in order to eliminate the need to re-
advertise this item, the Board would need to open the Public Hearing and then
continue it.
Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Wheeler moved to
continue the Public Hearing to the Board’s next meeting on August 16, 2005.
Mr. Rosenblatt seconded the motion. The Board voted five in favor and none
opposed to the motion to continue the Public Hearing.
Item No. 4: Amending the Land Development Code- Chapter 165-
113 – Starting and Completion Date Revisions – City
of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 05-250.
The Public Hearing was opened by the Chairman, who asked for a
presentation by the applicant. Acting Planning Officer Gould explained that this
is an amendment to the Starting and Completion Date regulations under Chapter
165-113 of the Land Development Code. The purpose of the amendment is to
streamline the process relative to applicants providing starting and completion
dates and extensions. Presently, the Land Development Code allows for an
applicant or the Planning Board to state specific dates to commence and
complete construction. Applicants are required to specify starting and
completion dates on the Land Development Permit Form. These dates become a
part of the record as to the legal obligations the applicant has to complete a
project. Staff continually finds themselves in the situation of advising applicants
to give themselves enough time to complete their projects. Many times the
applicants are very optimistic and do not give themselves enough time. In these
situations, it becomes necessary to come back to the Code Enforcement Office
for a 60-day extension and for further extensions to come back before the
Planning Board. These requests go on the routine Planning Board Agenda.
3
The intent of this amendment is to eliminate the process of having an
applicant provide a date certain (by automatically giving the applicant 1 year to
start and 2 years to complete as provided for in the Land Development Code). It
also would defer further extension requests to Staff to be handled as a Minor
Revision.
After the Board’s previous discussion of this proposed amendment in July,
Board Members felt that extensions should not go on indefinitely without being
brought back before the Board for consideration. Staff added language that
after two extension requests, an applicant would then need to reapply to the
Planning Board for any further extensions. Staff feels that this amendment will
streamline the process, eliminate the Board’s unnecessary role in a purely
administrative function, and save some Staff time processing starting and
completion dates. Staff would hope that the Board would support this
amendment and make a positive recommendation to the City Council.
Mr. Rosenblatt discussed the amendment noting that an applicant could
get up to 36 months to complete a project. Mr. Gould indicated that was correct
and this language is the result of the Board’s discussion at the July meeting.
Mr. Wheeler had a concern with the grammar within the amendment
especially regarding the wording of substantially complete. Mr. Gould said that
in this instance, substantially is modifying the word commencement and this
particular requirement is a judgement.
Chairman Guerette asked if this amendment would in fact, really give an
applicant 3 extensions when including the 6 month extension by the Code
Enforcement Officer. Chairman Guerette indicated that he is not opposed to this
but wanted to make sure that it is clear. Mr. Rosenblatt noted that a 6-month
extension by the Code Enforcement Officer would not come under the Minor
Revision process. Mr. Gould added that a 6-month extension would be solely at
the discretion of the Code Enforcement Office. This amendment would extend
the Code Enforcement Office’s 60-day extension to a 6-month extension. A
reason for doing this, for example, is that if an applicant applied in January, a
60-day extension would lapse in March. This would not give an applicant time
enough to complete projects requiring warm weather.
Mr. King asked if an applicant has to inform the Code Enforcement Office
in writing about why he needs an extension. Mr. Gould indicated that he
presumed that the Code Enforcement requires this as the Land Development
Permit process requires this.
4
Chairman Guerette indicated that he felt that applicants should be
required to specify why they are requesting an extension and not be allowed to
submit one line letters without any explanations like some of the requests that
he has seen in the past.
No one spoke in opposition. Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing
and asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to recommend to the City Council
adoption of the Zoning Amendment to Section 165-113 as contained in C.O. #
05-250. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of five
in favor and none opposed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Chairman Guerette confirmed that the next Comprehensive Plan Update
th
Workshop session would be on Tuesday, August 9.
In other business, Chairman Guerette asked the Board Members if there
was interest on their part in sending an amendment through the process to
change back the Zoning Amendment regarding chemical treatment facilities. The
City Council recently passed this amendment after the Planning Board
unanimously recommended that it be denied. After some discussion, it was the
consensus of the Board Members that ultimately these amendments are
approved by the City Council, that this issue has been decided, and at this time,
they did not wish to pursue this further.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Item No. 5: Planning Board Approval of Minutes.
Mr. Wheeler moved to approve the Minutes of the June 20, 2005 Meeting.
Mr. King seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked when the meetings to discuss improvements to West
Market Square were to be held. Mr. Ring noted that there were two meetings
rd
scheduled for August 3. One from 10:30 a.m. to noon, and the other from 5:00
p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Both meetings will be held in the City Council Chambers. Mr.
Gould said that there has been interest for more than 10 years to spruce up this
space and make improvements. Mr. Steve Ribble of Ames A/E has gone out and
looked at Westmarket Square and has come up with a plan for a facelift. The
meetings are an opportunity for people to come and see the plan. The City is
very interested in obtaining comments from the public.
5
Mr. Gould also noted that at the next Planning Board Meeting there will be
a public hearing regarding consideration of the adoption of the Penjajawoc Mall
Task Force Study as part of the Comprehensive Plan.
There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at
7:40 p.m.