HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-07-05 Planning Board Minutes
Revised August 27, 2005
PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR
MEETING OF JULY 5, 2005
MINUTES
Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman
Hal Wheeler
David Clark
Nathaniel Rosenblatt
Laura Mitchell
City Staff Present: David Gould
James Ring
Peter Witham
Lynn Johnson
News Media Present: Bangor Daily News
Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he had a conflict of interest as his office represents the
applicant under Item No. 3 – The Acadia Hospital. He asked to be excused from voting on the
Consent Agenda. Mr. Wheeler moved to honor Mr. Rosenblatt’s request. Mr. Clark seconded
the motion, which passed unanimously. Ms. Mitchell was asked to vote in the absence of
Member King.
As no one wished to remove any of the items from the Consent Agenda for discussion,
Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Wheeler moved to approve the Consent Agenda.
Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of four in favor and none
opposed. The items approved are as follows:
Item No. 1: Site Development Plan approval to construct a 19-space parking
lot adjacent to the existing Sunbury Village retirement facility
located at 922 Ohio Street in a High Density Residential District.
2
Item No. 2: Site Development Plan and Site Location of Development
Modification approval for a new entrance drive and additional
parking spaces located at One College Circle in a Government and
Institutional Service District. Husson College, applicant.
Item No. 3: Site Development Plan approval to construct a 1,300-sq. ft. single-
story addition and add a fence and landscaping at 268 Stillwater
Avenue in a Government and Institutional Service District. Acadia
Hospital, applicant.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Item No. 4: Conditional Use/Land Development Permit approval to construct a
28-lot single-family residential cluster subdivision located at
Finson Road and Ohio Street in a Low Density Residential District.
Bangor Housing Development Corp., applicant.
Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for comments from the
applicant. Mr. Jim Kiser, of Kiser & Kiser, Elsie Coffey, Executive Director of the Bangor Housing
Authority, and Mr. Stan Plisga of Plisga & Day were present representing the applicant. Mr.
Kiser explained that this is a proposal for a 28-lot subdivision under the cluster development
provisions. In order to do so, the applicant needs to obtain conditional use approval under the
Low Density Residential District and Land Development Permit approval under the Land
Development Code. Mr. Kiser discussed the proposed subdivision where the applicant is
proposing two roads off of Finson Road. All of the lots will be restricted to access only onto the
internal roadways and not on Finson Road. The Development Corporation will be the
developers of each individual lot and each lot and house will be sold as a package. The
Development Corporation is proposing to utilize the land as much as possible to bring lot and
total development costs down as the first 14 lots (Phase I) will be offered to first-time
homebuyers. Mr. Kiser explained that there will be three typical home styles offered a split
level, ranch and a two-story cape.
Mr. Kiser indicated that the property drains towards a broad drainage swale located
down and around the site. The applicant is looking to extend the sewer thru an abutter’s
property and tie it into the sewer that parallels the Kenduskeag Stream. The applicant has a
letter of intent from the abutting landowner. Water will come in off of Ohio Street and the
applicant is proposing a berm to provide for storm water drainage to maintain the existing
conditions of the site and control the post development of the entire build-out of the
subdivision. Mr. Kiser indicated that they will need to obtain a stormwater permit from the
Department of Environmental Protection and the proposal will have minimal impacts on the site.
Chairman Guerette said that he was interested in hearing how this proposal meets the
conditional use standards. Mr. Kiser discussed the conditional use standards giving an overview
of the project. Mr. Kiser said that this proposal is different from projects that have been before
the Board in the past because of the two approval processes involved.
3
Mr. Rosenblatt had questions regarding condition No. 4 of the conditional use standards
in this District regarding open space. Mr. Kiser indicated that the open space would be owned
th
in common by the owners of the lots and deed out to a 1/28 ownership to the individual lot
owners. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if there would be a problem stating that it remain in perpetuity.
Mr. Kiser indicated that it would not. Chairman Guerette asked if there would be a
Homeowners Association in this development to plan the use of and maintenance of the open
space. Mr. Kiser indicated that there were no plans at this time for a Homeowners Association
as the applicant would like to keep the open space within the 28 lots rather than proposing to
turn it over to the City.
No one spoke in opposition. Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked for
Staff comments. Acting Planning Officer Gould noted that this is the first of a two-step review
and approval. The Conditional Use approval will enable the applicant to do a cluster
subdivision. In a cluster subdivision, an applicant can trade off lot area and width for an
additional amount of open space. In the Low Density Residential District, it specifies that in
order to do so, there needs to be a minimum of 5 acres. 15.8 acres are proposed with a density
of 3.0 units per acre which is under 3.2 units per acre requirement in the District. In addition to
conditional use approval, the subdivision also needs Land Development Permit approval under
Article 15 of the Land Development Code. Each individual lot will comply with the standards of
the Land Development Code and not just the building standards. Staff feels that this proposal
is consistent with architecture in the area.
Mr. Gould pointed out that the Conditional Use Standards require the applicant to come
back before the Board to obtain Land Development Permit approval within 60 days. Mr. Gould
indicated that because this is a unique situation, this may not occur within 60-days. Staff would
suggest a time line of 6 months from the time of conditional use approval should the Board see
fit to grant this.
Mr. Rosenblatt suggested that as a condition of conditional use approval that the
development be required to be consistent with the designs the applicant has submitted. Mr.
Gould indicated that the applicant submitted these designs as part of their application.
Ms. Mitchell noted that Lots 12, 13, and 14 appear to be over half wetlands. Mr. Kiser
indicated that they had looked at each lot so as not to encroach upon the wetlands. The size of
the homes with an adequate back yard can be placed upon these lots before encroaching upon
the wetlands. Mr. Kiser indicated that the applicant is trying to keep impacts to an absolute
minimum. The applicant also does not want to see a permit approval for each individual lot and
urged the Board consider this flexibility in the approval process.
Chairman Guerette asked if the applicant was asking for approval with or without a
garage. Mr. Kiser indicated that the applicants’ intention is to limit the style of the homes and
show each home with a garage to demonstrate that development standards can be met and are
in compliance with approvals. Chairman Guerette asked if a 6-month time frame is reasonable
for the applicant. Mr. Kiser indicated that it is acceptable.
4
Mr. Rosenblatt moved to grant Conditional Use Approval for Bangor Housing
Development Corporation, applicant, located on the corner of Finson Road and Ohio Street with
the following conditions: 1) that the applicant obtain Final Subdivision Plan approval within six
months of July 5,2005; 2) that the Final Subdivision Plan approval be consistent with the cluster
subdivision standards; 3) that the Final Subdivision Plan specify that the open space depicted
on the plan will be maintained as open space in perpetuity; and 4) that the residential
structures built within the development be built consistent with the applicant’s submissions and
that garages that are consistent with the house styles in those submissions also be permitted.
Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion. Mr. Wheeler asked if the applicant was amendable to
condition No. 4. Mr. Kiser indicated that it is the applicant’s intent to follow the building type
submissions. If the homes are not built with a garage and the owner wants to build one, they
will be able to do so, as it will have met all of the requirements. Mr. Guerette asked for a vote.
The Board voted 5 in favor and 0 opposed.
Item No. 5: Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval to construct a 28-lot single-
family residential cluster subdivision located at Finson Road and
Ohio Street in a Low Density Residential District. Bangor Housing
Development Corp., applicant.
Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for comments from the
applicant. Mr. Jim Kiser, of Kiser & Kiser, indicated that this is the same cluster subdivision as
in the previous item. As Mr. Kiser had already explained the subdivision, he indicated that he
would be happy to answer questions of the Board.
Mr. Rosenblatt noted that the Final Subdivision Plan should indicate property pins and
bearings, and that the subdivision should be renamed as there is another subdivision with a
similar name. Mr. Kiser indicated that the applicant was aware of these items and was
amenable to changing them.
Mr. Clark had questions regarding whether there were guidelines for these lots for first
time homebuyers and what the houses are going to cost. Mr. Kiser indicated that it is the
applicant’s intent to have guidelines. The applicant is proposing to place modular homes on the
first 14 lots (Phase I) and these will meet all of the criteria for a certain price range. The
second 14 lots (Phase II) will carry a little higher price but will not be inconsistent with the
lower priced homes going in on Phase I. Mr. Clark asked if the houses would be in the
$250,000 to $300,000 range. Mr. Kiser indicated that it is the applicant’s intent for housing to
be at $150,000/per house and below. Mr. Clark felt that this will fill a needed niche.
No one spoke in opposition. Chairman Guerette asked for Staff comments. Acting
Planning Officer Gould indicated the request before the Board is for a 28-lot cluster subdivision.
In the previous item, the Planning Board granted conditional use approval to do a cluster
subdivision. The 15.8-acre parcel is located at the intersection of Ohio Street and Finson Road.
Mr. Gould indicated that the applicant proposes to construct two streets, Starling Drive a 1000-
foot long road ending in a 100-foot diameter cul-de-sac, and Cardinal Way a 600 foot long
roadway also ending in a cul-de-sac. The applicant will restrict direct access to Ohio Street and
5
Finson Road to avoid conflicts with those busier streets. The typical roadway section is a 26-foot
wide paved section with 2-foot gravel shoulders in a fifty-foot right-of-way.
Mr. Gould explained that the applicant proposes to extend the sanitary sewer line to the
proposed lots from the interceptor sewer that runs along the Kenduskeag Stream. The applicant
has provided a letter of intent from an abutting property owner to provide a sewer easement for
the construction of the line across private property. The applicant proposes to extend the eight-
inch water service from Finson Road along the new streets and electrical service will be
extended via overhead lines and poles. Mr. Gould noted that there are wetlands that will
impact the backs of eight lots, and all have reasonable upland building sites that do not require
wetland crossings. About one-third of the open space is identified as wetland.
Mr. Gould indicated that the Preliminary Plan meets the requirements for Preliminary Plat
submission. The Planning Staff noted that the Final Plan should indicate the proposed property
pins and bearings for all the lots, and, given that there is already a Meadow brook Subdivision,
the Applicant should consider a new name for the project. The City Engineer’s Office has
reviewed the plans, and finds them consistent with standard engineering practices for
stormwater management. Staff recommended that the Planning Board approve the Preliminary
Subdivision Plan.
Mr. Wheeler moved to grant Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval for Bangor Housing
Development Corporation at the corner of Finson Road and Ohio Street with the condition that
the applicant find a new name. Mr. Rosenblatt seconded the motion. Mr. Rosenblatt added
that he felt that given the ownership that the applicant is contemplating, it would be of benefit
if the plan pinned down what is and what is not going to be permitted in the open space area
as it could become very difficult with 28 people trying to make decisions. Chairman Guerette
asked for a vote. The Board voted 5 to 0 in favor of the motion to approve with condition.
Item No. 6: Conditional Use/Site Development Plan approval to construct a
10,500 sq. ft. strip mall building with two drive-thru options
located at 962 Stillwater Avenue in a Shopping and Personal
Service District. Fred Gallant and Mike McLaughlin, applicants.
Chairman Guerette explained that there are issues regarding reconfiguration of the
access delaying this project. Chairman Guerette indicated that the applicant is requesting that
this item be continued to allow for additional time to demonstrate that this project meets
Ordinance requirements. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and noted that if
continued to a later meeting, it would alleviate the need for the applicant to re-advertise for a
new public hearing.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked if there would be people who might be present who might have
comments on the final configuration. It was noted that anyone present who wished to speak
would be put on notice, if the item were continued.
Mr. Wheeler moved to continue the Public Hearing to a later date. Mr. Clark seconded
the motion. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion to continue.
6
Item No. 7: Amending the Land Development Code – Chapter 165, Section 96,
97, 102 and 103 - Chemical Dependency Treatment Facilities.
City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 05-204.
The Public Hearing was opened by the Chairman, who asked for a presentation by the
applicant. Mr. Jim Ring, City Engineer, explained that in 2002 there were a series of
amendments proposed to the Land Development Code to define chemical treatment facilities
and medical and dental facilities. Those amendments provided for several locations where
these uses could be located as permitted and conditional uses. Recently there was an
application for a second chemical facility located off of Hogan Road that was a permitted use
and met Ordinance requirements. Given the concern of the neighboring businesses at that
location, the City Council established a Medical Facilities Committee who conducted a study to
review the broader context for the treatment of such facilities. The Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee of the City Council reviewed the Medical Facilities Committee’s Study
on three different occasions. This review resulted in changes to the initial recommendation that
were brought forth and incorporated into the proposed amendment.
Mr. Ring explained that the amendments propose: 1) to add medical and dental clinics to
the Urban Industry District and chemical dependency treatment facilities will be added to the
Urban Industry District with the condition they be 300 feet from any residential district; 2) to
add chemical dependency treatment facilities which will be changed from a conditional use to a
permitted use in Government and Institutional Service Districts; 3) that chemical dependency
treatment facilities will be changed from a permitted use to a conditional use in the General
Commercial and Service District with the following conditions: (a) Adequate interior waiting
area is provided and maintained to ensure that there will be no exterior queuing; (b) Parking is
provided at the rate of one (1) space per 150 square feet of gross floor area; (c) The main
entrance is located at least 100 feet from the main entrance of any other business in the same
or an adjacent structure, measured by ordinary course of travel; (d) that the facility is located
at least 300 feet from any public or private school or school dormitory, church, chapel, parish
house or other place of worship, public library, juvenile shelter or orphanage, playground or
public park, or residential zoning district boundary, measured by straight line from property line
to property line or zoning boundary; and 4) that chemical dependency treatment facilities are
added to the Industry and Service District as a permitted use with the condition that they are
300 feet from any residential district, residential zoning district boundary, and measured by
straight line from property line to property line or zoning boundary.
No one spoke in opposition. Chairman Guerette then closed the Public Hearing and
asked for comments from Staff. Acting Planning Officer Gould explained that the proposed
amendments maintain the 2002 approach to provide for limited locations for chemical
dependency treatment facilities within traditional medical office locations. The move from a
conditional use to a permitted use in the G&ISD is likely a good one as it may be hard in some
settings (medical complexes) to draw such a fine line in numerous treatment types and
methodologies. Mr. Gould indicated that the inclusion of the industrial districts as an option for
such uses will provide additional siting options and likely maintain a separation of these uses
and residential properties and other commercial establishments. The proposed guidelines in the
7
GC&S District are all fairly straight forward in their approach to ensure ample parking for such
clinics and adequate interior space so that clients will not linger outside the clinic while awaiting
treatment. The other standards may limit clinic locations, but that is likely the intent. While the
parking standard for the GC&S is double that of other retail and service uses and only applies to
the GC&S District, its application to clinics with limited floor area should not result in parking
requirements that will not already be met by existing site developments. Ordinarily it is best to
keep the parking standards together in Section 165-72 but where this standard only applies to
one use, in one district, it is best to keep it where it is within the GC&S District. Determining the
size of an adequate waiting room is a detail the Board and prospective applicants will deal with
in future applications.
Mr. Gould went on to say that Ordinance Amendments should be viewed on two levels,
does the basic mechanics of the language provide clear standards for the applicants, Staff, and
Planning Board to follow, and secondly, does the proposed change fit the City’s development
policy by its application. In this instance the basic construction of the language is fairly
straightforward. The City’s policy for the siting of chemical dependency treatment facilities has
largely been developed by the City Council and the Medical Facilities Committee such that the
proposed ordinance language should support their policy. The Planning Staff would recommend
that the Planning Board make a positive recommendation to the City Council on the proposed
Ordinance amendments contained in C.O. 05-204.
Mr. Rosenblatt felt that after reviewing the Medical Facilities Committee Study that this
Ordinance amendment is quite different from the recommendation of the Committee. He asked
why the Planning Staff was characterizing this as a refinement. Acting Planning Officer Gould
indicated that it is Staff’s position that the proposed amendment is a refinement of the 2002
amendment and not a refinement of the Medical Facilities Committee recommendation. Mr.
Ring added that this was discussed at three Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
meetings. Members of the Medical Facilities Committee were invited to attend these meetings
and discuss this. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is supportive and not in
objection to this.
Mr. Rosenblatt said that he felt that it makes sense to make chemical dependency facility
a permitted use as it is hard to distinguish that from a general medical clinic use. However, he
said that he would be more comfortable with this amendment if it was a conditional use in all
four of the zones and not just in the General Commercial and Service District.
Mr. Gould speculated that there is concern about this use being in close proximity to
other uses in a commercial district.
Mr. Wheeler said that he felt that Mr. Rosenblatt raised some pertinent questions in
regard to the difference between the Council Ordinance and the Report of the Medical Facilities
Committee. Mr. Wheeler stated if the Planning Board did not support this zoning amendment
the City Council could adopt it. Mr. Gould indicated that the City Council, by a 2/3 majority
vote, could adopt this if the Planning Board recommends against this Zoning Amendment.
8
Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Gould what restrictions or particular zoning standards apply to
such facilities as group homes as compared to the terms of this amendment. Mr. Gould
indicated that the Land Development Code defines a community living arrangement as a group
home. Mr. Gould noted that these uses are regulated by the State of Maine and that a
community cannot adopt zoning to prohibit these uses nor can it discriminate against 8 or fewer
persons living together as a family. Mr. Wheeler then asked how this proposed amendment
intends to define adequate area in regard to the interior waiting area. Mr. Gould indicated that
he did not have an answer to that.
Chairman Guerette indicated that it concerns him, as a citizen, to see so how chemical
dependency has grown so profusely large in the last few years. He noted that he had attended
a recent meeting where a speaker talked about the opiate addiction problem in Bangor. He said
that he felt this was distasteful that this amendment is before the Board. He said that while he
understood that there is a certain stigma where people don’t want these people around but the
City needs to find a more effective way of educating young people how to avoid it. He said that
he hoped his comments go on the record that there was one dissenting vote. Mr. Wheeler
applauded the Chairman’s remarks. He said that if this is the direction that is intended, there
needs to be a serious look taken at the location of establishments that serve liquor and stores
that sell liquor. This is just as much a chemical as any other.
Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to recommend to the City
Council that the Zoning Amendment contained in C.O. # 05-104 be approved. Mr. Wheeler
seconded the motion. The Board voted none in favor and five opposed.
NEW BUSINESS
Item No. 9: Site Location of Development Act Modification approval to
construct a 3,400 sq. ft. building consisting of 2,800 sq. ft. for auto
service use and 600 sq. ft. for ice cream and coffee shop use
located at 541 Maine Avenue in a Shopping and Personal Service
District. Bangor Radiator and Service Center, LLC, applicant.
Chairman Guerette asked for comments from the applicant. P. Andrew Hamilton, Esq.
representing the applicant spoke in favor of this application. Mr. Hamilton noted that Michael
and Tammy Cormier were present to answer questions. He explained that this is an application
for Site Location of Development Act Modification approval. Because this lot is part of the
Airport SLODA Permit, the Engineering Office Staff prepared this application. Mr. Hamilton
noted that the Planning Board granted Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approval for
this project at its last meeting. The project consists of a 2,800 sq. ft. building for auto service
use and 600 sq. ft. for use as an ice cream and coffee shop in a Shopping and Personal Service
District. Mr. Hamilton indicated that the application meets all Site Location of Development Act
requirements.
Acting Planning Officer Gould indicated that this request is for modification approval of
the City’s Airport SLODA Permit to construct a building for auto service use and for an ice cream
9
and Coffee shop use at 541 Maine Avenue in a Shopping and Personal Service District. The
plans meet all of the requirements for Site Location of Modification approval and Staff
recommended that the Planning Board approve this amendment.
Mr. Clark moved to approve the Site Location of Development Act Modification at 541
Maine Avenue. The motion was seconded and it passed by a vote of 5 to 0.
Item No. 10: Site Development Plan approval to construct a 1.41 acre parking
lot at 690 Maine Avenue in an Industry and Service District. City
of Bangor, applicant.
Chairman Guerette asked for a presentation by the applicant. Mr. James Ring, City
Engineer indicated that the City of Bangor is the applicant for both the Site Development Plan
as well as the Final Subdivision Plan and Site Location of Development Modification in Item No.
11. Mr. Ring explained that the proposal is to create a parking lot expansion at the Airport at
690 Maine Avenue. This site was originally constructed as a spec building and was occupied by
Bass Shoe Company and later Irving Oil Company. The proposed tenant is LL Bean who wishes
to use the building as a call center. In order for LL Bean to reuse this building, they wish to
increase the parking lot by adding 1.41 acres of new pavement to the lot.
Mr. Ring noted that the project will be using bio retention cells like those to be used on
the Widewaters Project on Stillwater Avenue. This is a relatively new concept that makes
double use of the islands in the parking lot. Rather than being a raised island they are
depressed islands planted with a number of trees, shrubs, evergreens and perennial beds.
These cells are designed to cool the water, and do some uptake of any contaminants in the run
off from parking lot, As water works down through it, it reaches an underdrain and is collected
and routed to a 42-inch storm drain that flows to the detention pond on Godfrey Boulevard and
Union Street. This detention pond can handle 12 additional acres of impervious area and now
handles only 5 acres. The total impervious surface for the project will be 62.2% of the lot,
which is below the 70% allowed. The applicant is proposing a “B” buffer. The site is served by
all utilities and there are no external building renovations planned.
Mr. Rosenblatt, noted that this area of the City has water quality issues especially along
Birch Stream, and asked if this project would have any adverse affects upon the water quality in
this area. Mr. Ring indicated that it would not, as the bio retention cells in conjunction with the
existing detention pond would handle the run-off from this site.
Chairman Guerette asked what the City’s interest is in this parcel. Mr. Ring indicated that
the City owns the property and is making improvements for the new tenant.
Mr. Wheeler noted the 11 handicap parking spaces proposed at the rear of the building
which is more than 10% of minimum required number of spaces. Mr. Ring indicated that Staff
had a number of discussions about LL Bean’s requirements for parking and access points
10
Chairman Guerette asked for Staff comments. Acting Planning Officer Gould indicated
that Staff finds that all of the details are in order to grant the applicant Site Development Plan
approval for this parking lot expansion.
Ms. Mitchell moved to grant Site Development Plan approval at 690 Maine Avenue, City
of Bangor, applicant. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion. The Board voted five in favor and one
opposed.
Item No. 11: Final Subdivision Plan and Site Location of Development Act
Modification Approval to increase the size of one lot in the BIA
Commercial/Industrial Subdivision located off of Maine Avenue in
an Industry and Service District. City of Bangor, applicant.
Chairman Guerette asked for a presentation on this item. Acting Planning Officer David
Gould explained that this is a request to add back some land area to an existing lot located in
the BIA Commercial/Industrial Subdivision off of Maine Avenue. Because this subdivision has a
Site Location of Development Permit, any time there is an amendment to the subdivision, the
Site Location of Development Permit needs to be modified. Mr. Gould indicated that the change
to the subdivision is to increase the size of the lot at 690 Maine Avenue to accommodate the
expansion of the parking lot under Item No. 10 for the LL Bean project. Mr. Gould indicated
that the Final Subdivision Plan and the Site Location of Development details are in order and
Staff recommends that the Planning Board grant approval of both requests in two separate
motions.
Mr. Wheeler moved to grant Final Subdivision Plan for BIA Commercial/Industrial Park,
City of Bangor, applicant. Mr. Rosenblatt seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously
in favor of the motion. Mr. Wheeler moved to grant Site Location of Development Act
Modification approval. Mr. Rosenblatt seconded the motion, which also passed unanimously.
Item No. 12: Planning Board Discussion of Proposed Starting and Completion
Date Amendment.
Acting Planning Officer Gould explained that this is a follow-up to discussions relative to
cleaning up the language of starting and completion dates. Staff has worked out an
amendment but wanted to discuss this with the Planning Board before putting this into the
formal process. The existing language in the Land Development Code asks every applicant to
put down a target Starting Date and Completion Date. Time and time again, applicants provide
dates that are unrealistic for their projects when in fact, the Land Development Code allows an
applicant up to two years to complete their projects. It is Staff’s goal to give applicants a
starting date of one year and a completion date of two years as stipulated in the Land
Development Code, and, to take requests for extensions and make then administrative
functions that would be handled as a Minor Site Plan Revision. Under the provisions for a Minor
Site Plan Revision, an applicant, within guidelines, makes an application for minor changes that
needs to be signed off by the Code Enforcement Officer, the Planning Officer and the City
11
Engineer. Should any one not want to sign off, then the request automatically goes to Planning
Board.
Mr. Gould explained the concept of why the City requires starting and completion dates.
Mr. Gould indicated that from time to time the Land Development Code changes and conditions
in a neighborhood change thereby making the approved plans incompatible with the
neighborhood and with the Land Development Code standards.
Mr. Rosenblatt noted that bringing this item before the Board before the formal process
was a good way for the Board to deal with this. He did have a concern with this proposal and
said that he would lean toward retaining a role for the Board in consideration of extensions.
Mr. Wheeler said that this may be a very appropriate housekeeping measure. However,
his first concern would be that the role of the Planning Board might be diminished. Chairman
Guerette felt that applicants need to show good faith towards finishing their projects. He
indicated that he would like to see the Planning Staff handle extension requests up to a point
and then bring it back before the Board if further extensions are requested. Chairman Guerette
felt that after three subsequent one-year extensions that an item should come back before
Planning Board for re-approval. Mr. Wheeler agreed.
Mr. Gould indicated that with the exception of a few applicants, it is likely that there
would not be a problem, procedurally. He explained that prior to 1992, Minor Revisions were
signed off by Staff and by the Planning Board Chairman. The Chairman was a party to this,
giving the Planing Board an oversight role in this process. In 1992 with the adoption of the
Land Development Code, the requirement of having the Chairman sign Minor Site Plan Revisions
was eliminated.
Mr. Wheeler said that he would have to agree that a specific timeframe should be built
into this to know at what point an application will come back before the Board.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked if Staff needed a vote on this item. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff
would be willing to craft language to include the Board’s concerns, and then send it through the
formal review process for a Public Hearing for review and recommendation.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Item No. 8: Planning Board Approval of Minutes.
th
Chairman Guerette noted that the Minutes of the June 7 Meeting were in order for
approval. Ms. Mitchell moved to approve the Minutes of June 7, 2005 Planning Board meeting.
Mr. Rosenblatt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m.
Revised August 27, 2005
PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR
MEETING OF JULY 5, 2005
MINUTES
Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman
Hal Wheeler
David Clark
Nathaniel Rosenblatt
Laura Mitchell
City Staff Present: David Gould
James Ring
Peter Witham
Lynn Johnson
News Media Present: Bangor Daily News
Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he had a conflict of interest as his office represents the
applicant under Item No. 3 – The Acadia Hospital. He asked to be excused from voting on the
Consent Agenda. Mr. Wheeler moved to honor Mr. Rosenblatt’s request. Mr. Clark seconded
the motion, which passed unanimously. Ms. Mitchell was asked to vote in the absence of
Member King.
As no one wished to remove any of the items from the Consent Agenda for discussion,
Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Wheeler moved to approve the Consent Agenda.
Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of four in favor and none
opposed. The items approved are as follows:
Item No. 1: Site Development Plan approval to construct a 19-space parking
lot adjacent to the existing Sunbury Village retirement facility
located at 922 Ohio Street in a High Density Residential District.
2
Item No. 2: Site Development Plan and Site Location of Development
Modification approval for a new entrance drive and additional
parking spaces located at One College Circle in a Government and
Institutional Service District. Husson College, applicant.
Item No. 3: Site Development Plan approval to construct a 1,300-sq. ft. single-
story addition and add a fence and landscaping at 268 Stillwater
Avenue in a Government and Institutional Service District. Acadia
Hospital, applicant.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Item No. 4: Conditional Use/Land Development Permit approval to construct a
28-lot single-family residential cluster subdivision located at
Finson Road and Ohio Street in a Low Density Residential District.
Bangor Housing Development Corp., applicant.
Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for comments from the
applicant. Mr. Jim Kiser, of Kiser & Kiser, Elsie Coffey, Executive Director of the Bangor Housing
Authority, and Mr. Stan Plisga of Plisga & Day were present representing the applicant. Mr.
Kiser explained that this is a proposal for a 28-lot subdivision under the cluster development
provisions. In order to do so, the applicant needs to obtain conditional use approval under the
Low Density Residential District and Land Development Permit approval under the Land
Development Code. Mr. Kiser discussed the proposed subdivision where the applicant is
proposing two roads off of Finson Road. All of the lots will be restricted to access only onto the
internal roadways and not on Finson Road. The Development Corporation will be the
developers of each individual lot and each lot and house will be sold as a package. The
Development Corporation is proposing to utilize the land as much as possible to bring lot and
total development costs down as the first 14 lots (Phase I) will be offered to first-time
homebuyers. Mr. Kiser explained that there will be three typical home styles offered a split
level, ranch and a two-story cape.
Mr. Kiser indicated that the property drains towards a broad drainage swale located
down and around the site. The applicant is looking to extend the sewer thru an abutter’s
property and tie it into the sewer that parallels the Kenduskeag Stream. The applicant has a
letter of intent from the abutting landowner. Water will come in off of Ohio Street and the
applicant is proposing a berm to provide for storm water drainage to maintain the existing
conditions of the site and control the post development of the entire build-out of the
subdivision. Mr. Kiser indicated that they will need to obtain a stormwater permit from the
Department of Environmental Protection and the proposal will have minimal impacts on the site.
Chairman Guerette said that he was interested in hearing how this proposal meets the
conditional use standards. Mr. Kiser discussed the conditional use standards giving an overview
of the project. Mr. Kiser said that this proposal is different from projects that have been before
the Board in the past because of the two approval processes involved.
3
Mr. Rosenblatt had questions regarding condition No. 4 of the conditional use standards
in this District regarding open space. Mr. Kiser indicated that the open space would be owned
th
in common by the owners of the lots and deed out to a 1/28 ownership to the individual lot
owners. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if there would be a problem stating that it remain in perpetuity.
Mr. Kiser indicated that it would not. Chairman Guerette asked if there would be a
Homeowners Association in this development to plan the use of and maintenance of the open
space. Mr. Kiser indicated that there were no plans at this time for a Homeowners Association
as the applicant would like to keep the open space within the 28 lots rather than proposing to
turn it over to the City.
No one spoke in opposition. Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked for
Staff comments. Acting Planning Officer Gould noted that this is the first of a two-step review
and approval. The Conditional Use approval will enable the applicant to do a cluster
subdivision. In a cluster subdivision, an applicant can trade off lot area and width for an
additional amount of open space. In the Low Density Residential District, it specifies that in
order to do so, there needs to be a minimum of 5 acres. 15.8 acres are proposed with a density
of 3.0 units per acre which is under 3.2 units per acre requirement in the District. In addition to
conditional use approval, the subdivision also needs Land Development Permit approval under
Article 15 of the Land Development Code. Each individual lot will comply with the standards of
the Land Development Code and not just the building standards. Staff feels that this proposal
is consistent with architecture in the area.
Mr. Gould pointed out that the Conditional Use Standards require the applicant to come
back before the Board to obtain Land Development Permit approval within 60 days. Mr. Gould
indicated that because this is a unique situation, this may not occur within 60-days. Staff would
suggest a time line of 6 months from the time of conditional use approval should the Board see
fit to grant this.
Mr. Rosenblatt suggested that as a condition of conditional use approval that the
development be required to be consistent with the designs the applicant has submitted. Mr.
Gould indicated that the applicant submitted these designs as part of their application.
Ms. Mitchell noted that Lots 12, 13, and 14 appear to be over half wetlands. Mr. Kiser
indicated that they had looked at each lot so as not to encroach upon the wetlands. The size of
the homes with an adequate back yard can be placed upon these lots before encroaching upon
the wetlands. Mr. Kiser indicated that the applicant is trying to keep impacts to an absolute
minimum. The applicant also does not want to see a permit approval for each individual lot and
urged the Board consider this flexibility in the approval process.
Chairman Guerette asked if the applicant was asking for approval with or without a
garage. Mr. Kiser indicated that the applicants’ intention is to limit the style of the homes and
show each home with a garage to demonstrate that development standards can be met and are
in compliance with approvals. Chairman Guerette asked if a 6-month time frame is reasonable
for the applicant. Mr. Kiser indicated that it is acceptable.
4
Mr. Rosenblatt moved to grant Conditional Use Approval for Bangor Housing
Development Corporation, applicant, located on the corner of Finson Road and Ohio Street with
the following conditions: 1) that the applicant obtain Final Subdivision Plan approval within six
months of July 5,2005; 2) that the Final Subdivision Plan approval be consistent with the cluster
subdivision standards; 3) that the Final Subdivision Plan specify that the open space depicted
on the plan will be maintained as open space in perpetuity; and 4) that the residential
structures built within the development be built consistent with the applicant’s submissions and
that garages that are consistent with the house styles in those submissions also be permitted.
Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion. Mr. Wheeler asked if the applicant was amendable to
condition No. 4. Mr. Kiser indicated that it is the applicant’s intent to follow the building type
submissions. If the homes are not built with a garage and the owner wants to build one, they
will be able to do so, as it will have met all of the requirements. Mr. Guerette asked for a vote.
The Board voted 5 in favor and 0 opposed.
Item No. 5: Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval to construct a 28-lot single-
family residential cluster subdivision located at Finson Road and
Ohio Street in a Low Density Residential District. Bangor Housing
Development Corp., applicant.
Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for comments from the
applicant. Mr. Jim Kiser, of Kiser & Kiser, indicated that this is the same cluster subdivision as
in the previous item. As Mr. Kiser had already explained the subdivision, he indicated that he
would be happy to answer questions of the Board.
Mr. Rosenblatt noted that the Final Subdivision Plan should indicate property pins and
bearings, and that the subdivision should be renamed as there is another subdivision with a
similar name. Mr. Kiser indicated that the applicant was aware of these items and was
amenable to changing them.
Mr. Clark had questions regarding whether there were guidelines for these lots for first
time homebuyers and what the houses are going to cost. Mr. Kiser indicated that it is the
applicant’s intent to have guidelines. The applicant is proposing to place modular homes on the
first 14 lots (Phase I) and these will meet all of the criteria for a certain price range. The
second 14 lots (Phase II) will carry a little higher price but will not be inconsistent with the
lower priced homes going in on Phase I. Mr. Clark asked if the houses would be in the
$250,000 to $300,000 range. Mr. Kiser indicated that it is the applicant’s intent for housing to
be at $150,000/per house and below. Mr. Clark felt that this will fill a needed niche.
No one spoke in opposition. Chairman Guerette asked for Staff comments. Acting
Planning Officer Gould indicated the request before the Board is for a 28-lot cluster subdivision.
In the previous item, the Planning Board granted conditional use approval to do a cluster
subdivision. The 15.8-acre parcel is located at the intersection of Ohio Street and Finson Road.
Mr. Gould indicated that the applicant proposes to construct two streets, Starling Drive a 1000-
foot long road ending in a 100-foot diameter cul-de-sac, and Cardinal Way a 600 foot long
roadway also ending in a cul-de-sac. The applicant will restrict direct access to Ohio Street and
5
Finson Road to avoid conflicts with those busier streets. The typical roadway section is a 26-foot
wide paved section with 2-foot gravel shoulders in a fifty-foot right-of-way.
Mr. Gould explained that the applicant proposes to extend the sanitary sewer line to the
proposed lots from the interceptor sewer that runs along the Kenduskeag Stream. The applicant
has provided a letter of intent from an abutting property owner to provide a sewer easement for
the construction of the line across private property. The applicant proposes to extend the eight-
inch water service from Finson Road along the new streets and electrical service will be
extended via overhead lines and poles. Mr. Gould noted that there are wetlands that will
impact the backs of eight lots, and all have reasonable upland building sites that do not require
wetland crossings. About one-third of the open space is identified as wetland.
Mr. Gould indicated that the Preliminary Plan meets the requirements for Preliminary Plat
submission. The Planning Staff noted that the Final Plan should indicate the proposed property
pins and bearings for all the lots, and, given that there is already a Meadow brook Subdivision,
the Applicant should consider a new name for the project. The City Engineer’s Office has
reviewed the plans, and finds them consistent with standard engineering practices for
stormwater management. Staff recommended that the Planning Board approve the Preliminary
Subdivision Plan.
Mr. Wheeler moved to grant Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval for Bangor Housing
Development Corporation at the corner of Finson Road and Ohio Street with the condition that
the applicant find a new name. Mr. Rosenblatt seconded the motion. Mr. Rosenblatt added
that he felt that given the ownership that the applicant is contemplating, it would be of benefit
if the plan pinned down what is and what is not going to be permitted in the open space area
as it could become very difficult with 28 people trying to make decisions. Chairman Guerette
asked for a vote. The Board voted 5 to 0 in favor of the motion to approve with condition.
Item No. 6: Conditional Use/Site Development Plan approval to construct a
10,500 sq. ft. strip mall building with two drive-thru options
located at 962 Stillwater Avenue in a Shopping and Personal
Service District. Fred Gallant and Mike McLaughlin, applicants.
Chairman Guerette explained that there are issues regarding reconfiguration of the
access delaying this project. Chairman Guerette indicated that the applicant is requesting that
this item be continued to allow for additional time to demonstrate that this project meets
Ordinance requirements. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and noted that if
continued to a later meeting, it would alleviate the need for the applicant to re-advertise for a
new public hearing.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked if there would be people who might be present who might have
comments on the final configuration. It was noted that anyone present who wished to speak
would be put on notice, if the item were continued.
Mr. Wheeler moved to continue the Public Hearing to a later date. Mr. Clark seconded
the motion. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion to continue.
6
Item No. 7: Amending the Land Development Code – Chapter 165, Section 96,
97, 102 and 103 - Chemical Dependency Treatment Facilities.
City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 05-204.
The Public Hearing was opened by the Chairman, who asked for a presentation by the
applicant. Mr. Jim Ring, City Engineer, explained that in 2002 there were a series of
amendments proposed to the Land Development Code to define chemical treatment facilities
and medical and dental facilities. Those amendments provided for several locations where
these uses could be located as permitted and conditional uses. Recently there was an
application for a second chemical facility located off of Hogan Road that was a permitted use
and met Ordinance requirements. Given the concern of the neighboring businesses at that
location, the City Council established a Medical Facilities Committee who conducted a study to
review the broader context for the treatment of such facilities. The Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee of the City Council reviewed the Medical Facilities Committee’s Study
on three different occasions. This review resulted in changes to the initial recommendation that
were brought forth and incorporated into the proposed amendment.
Mr. Ring explained that the amendments propose: 1) to add medical and dental clinics to
the Urban Industry District and chemical dependency treatment facilities will be added to the
Urban Industry District with the condition they be 300 feet from any residential district; 2) to
add chemical dependency treatment facilities which will be changed from a conditional use to a
permitted use in Government and Institutional Service Districts; 3) that chemical dependency
treatment facilities will be changed from a permitted use to a conditional use in the General
Commercial and Service District with the following conditions: (a) Adequate interior waiting
area is provided and maintained to ensure that there will be no exterior queuing; (b) Parking is
provided at the rate of one (1) space per 150 square feet of gross floor area; (c) The main
entrance is located at least 100 feet from the main entrance of any other business in the same
or an adjacent structure, measured by ordinary course of travel; (d) that the facility is located
at least 300 feet from any public or private school or school dormitory, church, chapel, parish
house or other place of worship, public library, juvenile shelter or orphanage, playground or
public park, or residential zoning district boundary, measured by straight line from property line
to property line or zoning boundary; and 4) that chemical dependency treatment facilities are
added to the Industry and Service District as a permitted use with the condition that they are
300 feet from any residential district, residential zoning district boundary, and measured by
straight line from property line to property line or zoning boundary.
No one spoke in opposition. Chairman Guerette then closed the Public Hearing and
asked for comments from Staff. Acting Planning Officer Gould explained that the proposed
amendments maintain the 2002 approach to provide for limited locations for chemical
dependency treatment facilities within traditional medical office locations. The move from a
conditional use to a permitted use in the G&ISD is likely a good one as it may be hard in some
settings (medical complexes) to draw such a fine line in numerous treatment types and
methodologies. Mr. Gould indicated that the inclusion of the industrial districts as an option for
such uses will provide additional siting options and likely maintain a separation of these uses
and residential properties and other commercial establishments. The proposed guidelines in the
7
GC&S District are all fairly straight forward in their approach to ensure ample parking for such
clinics and adequate interior space so that clients will not linger outside the clinic while awaiting
treatment. The other standards may limit clinic locations, but that is likely the intent. While the
parking standard for the GC&S is double that of other retail and service uses and only applies to
the GC&S District, its application to clinics with limited floor area should not result in parking
requirements that will not already be met by existing site developments. Ordinarily it is best to
keep the parking standards together in Section 165-72 but where this standard only applies to
one use, in one district, it is best to keep it where it is within the GC&S District. Determining the
size of an adequate waiting room is a detail the Board and prospective applicants will deal with
in future applications.
Mr. Gould went on to say that Ordinance Amendments should be viewed on two levels,
does the basic mechanics of the language provide clear standards for the applicants, Staff, and
Planning Board to follow, and secondly, does the proposed change fit the City’s development
policy by its application. In this instance the basic construction of the language is fairly
straightforward. The City’s policy for the siting of chemical dependency treatment facilities has
largely been developed by the City Council and the Medical Facilities Committee such that the
proposed ordinance language should support their policy. The Planning Staff would recommend
that the Planning Board make a positive recommendation to the City Council on the proposed
Ordinance amendments contained in C.O. 05-204.
Mr. Rosenblatt felt that after reviewing the Medical Facilities Committee Study that this
Ordinance amendment is quite different from the recommendation of the Committee. He asked
why the Planning Staff was characterizing this as a refinement. Acting Planning Officer Gould
indicated that it is Staff’s position that the proposed amendment is a refinement of the 2002
amendment and not a refinement of the Medical Facilities Committee recommendation. Mr.
Ring added that this was discussed at three Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
meetings. Members of the Medical Facilities Committee were invited to attend these meetings
and discuss this. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is supportive and not in
objection to this.
Mr. Rosenblatt said that he felt that it makes sense to make chemical dependency facility
a permitted use as it is hard to distinguish that from a general medical clinic use. However, he
said that he would be more comfortable with this amendment if it was a conditional use in all
four of the zones and not just in the General Commercial and Service District.
Mr. Gould speculated that there is concern about this use being in close proximity to
other uses in a commercial district.
Mr. Wheeler said that he felt that Mr. Rosenblatt raised some pertinent questions in
regard to the difference between the Council Ordinance and the Report of the Medical Facilities
Committee. Mr. Wheeler stated if the Planning Board did not support this zoning amendment
the City Council could adopt it. Mr. Gould indicated that the City Council, by a 2/3 majority
vote, could adopt this if the Planning Board recommends against this Zoning Amendment.
8
Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Gould what restrictions or particular zoning standards apply to
such facilities as group homes as compared to the terms of this amendment. Mr. Gould
indicated that the Land Development Code defines a community living arrangement as a group
home. Mr. Gould noted that these uses are regulated by the State of Maine and that a
community cannot adopt zoning to prohibit these uses nor can it discriminate against 8 or fewer
persons living together as a family. Mr. Wheeler then asked how this proposed amendment
intends to define adequate area in regard to the interior waiting area. Mr. Gould indicated that
he did not have an answer to that.
Chairman Guerette indicated that it concerns him, as a citizen, to see so how chemical
dependency has grown so profusely large in the last few years. He noted that he had attended
a recent meeting where a speaker talked about the opiate addiction problem in Bangor. He said
that he felt this was distasteful that this amendment is before the Board. He said that while he
understood that there is a certain stigma where people don’t want these people around but the
City needs to find a more effective way of educating young people how to avoid it. He said that
he hoped his comments go on the record that there was one dissenting vote. Mr. Wheeler
applauded the Chairman’s remarks. He said that if this is the direction that is intended, there
needs to be a serious look taken at the location of establishments that serve liquor and stores
that sell liquor. This is just as much a chemical as any other.
Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to recommend to the City
Council that the Zoning Amendment contained in C.O. # 05-104 be approved. Mr. Wheeler
seconded the motion. The Board voted none in favor and five opposed.
NEW BUSINESS
Item No. 9: Site Location of Development Act Modification approval to
construct a 3,400 sq. ft. building consisting of 2,800 sq. ft. for auto
service use and 600 sq. ft. for ice cream and coffee shop use
located at 541 Maine Avenue in a Shopping and Personal Service
District. Bangor Radiator and Service Center, LLC, applicant.
Chairman Guerette asked for comments from the applicant. P. Andrew Hamilton, Esq.
representing the applicant spoke in favor of this application. Mr. Hamilton noted that Michael
and Tammy Cormier were present to answer questions. He explained that this is an application
for Site Location of Development Act Modification approval. Because this lot is part of the
Airport SLODA Permit, the Engineering Office Staff prepared this application. Mr. Hamilton
noted that the Planning Board granted Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approval for
this project at its last meeting. The project consists of a 2,800 sq. ft. building for auto service
use and 600 sq. ft. for use as an ice cream and coffee shop in a Shopping and Personal Service
District. Mr. Hamilton indicated that the application meets all Site Location of Development Act
requirements.
Acting Planning Officer Gould indicated that this request is for modification approval of
the City’s Airport SLODA Permit to construct a building for auto service use and for an ice cream
9
and Coffee shop use at 541 Maine Avenue in a Shopping and Personal Service District. The
plans meet all of the requirements for Site Location of Modification approval and Staff
recommended that the Planning Board approve this amendment.
Mr. Clark moved to approve the Site Location of Development Act Modification at 541
Maine Avenue. The motion was seconded and it passed by a vote of 5 to 0.
Item No. 10: Site Development Plan approval to construct a 1.41 acre parking
lot at 690 Maine Avenue in an Industry and Service District. City
of Bangor, applicant.
Chairman Guerette asked for a presentation by the applicant. Mr. James Ring, City
Engineer indicated that the City of Bangor is the applicant for both the Site Development Plan
as well as the Final Subdivision Plan and Site Location of Development Modification in Item No.
11. Mr. Ring explained that the proposal is to create a parking lot expansion at the Airport at
690 Maine Avenue. This site was originally constructed as a spec building and was occupied by
Bass Shoe Company and later Irving Oil Company. The proposed tenant is LL Bean who wishes
to use the building as a call center. In order for LL Bean to reuse this building, they wish to
increase the parking lot by adding 1.41 acres of new pavement to the lot.
Mr. Ring noted that the project will be using bio retention cells like those to be used on
the Widewaters Project on Stillwater Avenue. This is a relatively new concept that makes
double use of the islands in the parking lot. Rather than being a raised island they are
depressed islands planted with a number of trees, shrubs, evergreens and perennial beds.
These cells are designed to cool the water, and do some uptake of any contaminants in the run
off from parking lot, As water works down through it, it reaches an underdrain and is collected
and routed to a 42-inch storm drain that flows to the detention pond on Godfrey Boulevard and
Union Street. This detention pond can handle 12 additional acres of impervious area and now
handles only 5 acres. The total impervious surface for the project will be 62.2% of the lot,
which is below the 70% allowed. The applicant is proposing a “B” buffer. The site is served by
all utilities and there are no external building renovations planned.
Mr. Rosenblatt, noted that this area of the City has water quality issues especially along
Birch Stream, and asked if this project would have any adverse affects upon the water quality in
this area. Mr. Ring indicated that it would not, as the bio retention cells in conjunction with the
existing detention pond would handle the run-off from this site.
Chairman Guerette asked what the City’s interest is in this parcel. Mr. Ring indicated that
the City owns the property and is making improvements for the new tenant.
Mr. Wheeler noted the 11 handicap parking spaces proposed at the rear of the building
which is more than 10% of minimum required number of spaces. Mr. Ring indicated that Staff
had a number of discussions about LL Bean’s requirements for parking and access points
10
Chairman Guerette asked for Staff comments. Acting Planning Officer Gould indicated
that Staff finds that all of the details are in order to grant the applicant Site Development Plan
approval for this parking lot expansion.
Ms. Mitchell moved to grant Site Development Plan approval at 690 Maine Avenue, City
of Bangor, applicant. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion. The Board voted five in favor and one
opposed.
Item No. 11: Final Subdivision Plan and Site Location of Development Act
Modification Approval to increase the size of one lot in the BIA
Commercial/Industrial Subdivision located off of Maine Avenue in
an Industry and Service District. City of Bangor, applicant.
Chairman Guerette asked for a presentation on this item. Acting Planning Officer David
Gould explained that this is a request to add back some land area to an existing lot located in
the BIA Commercial/Industrial Subdivision off of Maine Avenue. Because this subdivision has a
Site Location of Development Permit, any time there is an amendment to the subdivision, the
Site Location of Development Permit needs to be modified. Mr. Gould indicated that the change
to the subdivision is to increase the size of the lot at 690 Maine Avenue to accommodate the
expansion of the parking lot under Item No. 10 for the LL Bean project. Mr. Gould indicated
that the Final Subdivision Plan and the Site Location of Development details are in order and
Staff recommends that the Planning Board grant approval of both requests in two separate
motions.
Mr. Wheeler moved to grant Final Subdivision Plan for BIA Commercial/Industrial Park,
City of Bangor, applicant. Mr. Rosenblatt seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously
in favor of the motion. Mr. Wheeler moved to grant Site Location of Development Act
Modification approval. Mr. Rosenblatt seconded the motion, which also passed unanimously.
Item No. 12: Planning Board Discussion of Proposed Starting and Completion
Date Amendment.
Acting Planning Officer Gould explained that this is a follow-up to discussions relative to
cleaning up the language of starting and completion dates. Staff has worked out an
amendment but wanted to discuss this with the Planning Board before putting this into the
formal process. The existing language in the Land Development Code asks every applicant to
put down a target Starting Date and Completion Date. Time and time again, applicants provide
dates that are unrealistic for their projects when in fact, the Land Development Code allows an
applicant up to two years to complete their projects. It is Staff’s goal to give applicants a
starting date of one year and a completion date of two years as stipulated in the Land
Development Code, and, to take requests for extensions and make then administrative
functions that would be handled as a Minor Site Plan Revision. Under the provisions for a Minor
Site Plan Revision, an applicant, within guidelines, makes an application for minor changes that
needs to be signed off by the Code Enforcement Officer, the Planning Officer and the City
11
Engineer. Should any one not want to sign off, then the request automatically goes to Planning
Board.
Mr. Gould explained the concept of why the City requires starting and completion dates.
Mr. Gould indicated that from time to time the Land Development Code changes and conditions
in a neighborhood change thereby making the approved plans incompatible with the
neighborhood and with the Land Development Code standards.
Mr. Rosenblatt noted that bringing this item before the Board before the formal process
was a good way for the Board to deal with this. He did have a concern with this proposal and
said that he would lean toward retaining a role for the Board in consideration of extensions.
Mr. Wheeler said that this may be a very appropriate housekeeping measure. However,
his first concern would be that the role of the Planning Board might be diminished. Chairman
Guerette felt that applicants need to show good faith towards finishing their projects. He
indicated that he would like to see the Planning Staff handle extension requests up to a point
and then bring it back before the Board if further extensions are requested. Chairman Guerette
felt that after three subsequent one-year extensions that an item should come back before
Planning Board for re-approval. Mr. Wheeler agreed.
Mr. Gould indicated that with the exception of a few applicants, it is likely that there
would not be a problem, procedurally. He explained that prior to 1992, Minor Revisions were
signed off by Staff and by the Planning Board Chairman. The Chairman was a party to this,
giving the Planing Board an oversight role in this process. In 1992 with the adoption of the
Land Development Code, the requirement of having the Chairman sign Minor Site Plan Revisions
was eliminated.
Mr. Wheeler said that he would have to agree that a specific timeframe should be built
into this to know at what point an application will come back before the Board.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked if Staff needed a vote on this item. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff
would be willing to craft language to include the Board’s concerns, and then send it through the
formal review process for a Public Hearing for review and recommendation.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Item No. 8: Planning Board Approval of Minutes.
th
Chairman Guerette noted that the Minutes of the June 7 Meeting were in order for
approval. Ms. Mitchell moved to approve the Minutes of June 7, 2005 Planning Board meeting.
Mr. Rosenblatt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m.