HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-09-07 Planning Board Minutes
(AMENDED) Approved on September 21, 2004
PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR
MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 7, 2004
MINUTES
Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman
Patricia Cummings
Ryan King
David Clark
Hal Wheeler
Bill Masters
Nathaniel Rosenblatt
Jonathan Siegel
City Staff Present: David Gould
James Ring
Katherine Weber
Peter Witham
City Councilors Present: Councilor D’Errico
Councilor Gratwick
News Media Present: Bangor Daily News
Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA
Item No. 1: Site Development Plan approval to construct a new gravel
driveway, and a hexagonal gazebo located at 1 College
Circle in a Low Density Residential District. Husson
College, applicant.
Chairman Guerette requested a motion on the Consent Agenda. Mr. Rosenblatt
indicated that he had a few questions for the applicant, and requested that the item be
removed from the Consent Agenda. Chairman Guerette indicated that typically items
removed from the Consent Agenda are placed under New Business but given that there
are no other applications before the Board they would take it up next.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked how access to the new gravel drive would be controlled.
Mr. Dan Hamm, Director of the Physical Plant, indicated that it would be patrolled by
security personnel. Mr. Ham indicated that if inappropriate use did occur, it could be
gated or other steps taken.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked if a condition limiting the road not for general use would be
acceptable. President William Beardsley indicated that the plan was to patrol the
roadway. They would gate it if the need arose due to inappropriate use. Mr.
Rosenblatt proposed the condition that the roadway remain unpaved and not be a
general thoroughfare for the campus.
Ms. Pat Cummings asked about the history of the President’s house. President
Beardsley gave a brief overview of the history of the property.
Mr. King asked about the Board’s ability to attach conditions. Ms. Katherine
Weber indicated that the Board would vote on any motion containing specific
conditions. Should the motion fail to gain support through a second to that motion,
there would have to be a second motion without conditions. Chairman Guerette and
Mr. Wheeler indicated that they did not see the need for any additional conditions.
The Chairman moved to approve the application. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion,
and it passed unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Item No. 2: Planning Board Approval of Minutes.
Chairman Guerette indicated that there were Minutes of the Planning Board Site
Visit to the proposed Libby View Subdivision on August 31, 2004. Mr. Wheeler noted
that he was not present at the site visit, and would abstain from voting. Mr. King noted
that he was not present. Chairman Guerette noted that the alternates, Ms. Cummings
and Mr. Masters would vote on these Minutes.
Mr. Masters moved to approve the Planning Board Minutes of the Board Site Visit
on August 31, 2004. Mr. Rosenblatt seconded the motion. The Board voted five in
favor, and none opposed to approve the Minutes of the Board Site Visit on August 31,
2004.
NEW BUSINESS
Item No. 3: Planning Board Discussion of Application time lines and
extension requests.
Chairman Guerette asked Planning Officer Katherine Weber to give the Board an
update on the new language proposed for a Land Development Code text amendment
2
on extensions (165-113). Ms. Weber indicated that the draft amendment was intended
to streamline the starting and completion extension process. Presently, the Code
Enforcement Office can grant a 60-day extension. The amendment proposes to extend
that to six months. Furthermore, extensions would be handled as a minor revision,
based on the criteria listed in the Land Development Code. An appeal of the Staff
decision would be to the Planning Board.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked about the alternative versions in the Board’s packet. Ms.
Weber indicated there were two earlier drafts. Mr. Wheeler indicated that the changes
seemed reasonable. He did question whether resubmission could be used as a scheme
to get more time. Ms. Weber indicated that a new application would in effect start the
clock again.
Mr. Masters asked about the time frames. Ms. Weber indicated that 60 days is
too short of time for many extensions, especially in the winter months. Mr. Masters
noted that recent requests for longer extensions would indicate that the amendment
could cause problems for some projects.
Ms. Weber noted that the proposed amendment would allow an applicant two
and one-half years to start their project (including a six-month extension by the CEO
and a one-year extension by the staff). In addition an applicant would have three and
one-half years to complete their project (including a six-month extension by the CEO
and a one-year extension by the staff after the initial two-year time frame).
Mr. King asked if the Code Office had be included on this revision, if a narrative
meant a written request, and if a summery of extensions could be provided to the
Board. Ms Weber indicated that the Code Office participated in the discussions on the
proposed revision draft, a written narrative would be requested and records of
extension requests are available and would be provided to the Board. Mr. Masters
questioned the proposed appeal process. A request to overturn a Staff decision may be
burdensome and an applicant may not get a fair hearing. Mr. Masters asked if the
appeal should be to the Zoning Board. Ms. Weber indicated that it was consistent with
the current language, but they would inquire with the legal Staff if it should appealed to
another Board.
Mr. Siegel asked if the language about 12 months per application is intended to
be open ended. Ms Weber indicated that the intent was to allow only one extension
request per application.
Mr. Rosenblatt noted that the change from 60 days to 6 months was probably a
good one. He noted that perhaps the subsequent requests should be limited to two, 1-
year extensions by the Board with criteria in the amendment.
3
Mr. Wheeler indicated that the Board did request a finite limit on extensions. He
suggested that the extension time frames be adjusted to allow the granting of a final
extension by the Board. Mr. Clark indicated that the applicants should be about ready
when they get before the Board, and should not require lots of additional time to start
or complete their projects.
Chairman Guerette noted that this was a discussion item that did not need to
reach a conclusion this evening. Planning Officer Weber indicated that Staff will
incorporate the concerns of the Board into another version of the proposed text
amendment.
Mr. Guerette adjourned the business meeting to a Comprehensive Plan Update
Workshop session at 7:48 p.m.
4