Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-07-06 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF TUESDAY, JULY 6, 2004 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman David Clark Ryan King Pat Cummings Hal Wheeler Nathaniel Rosenblatt City Staff Present: David Gould Peter Witham Jim Ring Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA Chairman Guerette asked for a motion on the Consent Agenda. Mr. King moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Rosenblatt seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously to approve the Consent Agenda. Those items approved are as follows: Item No. 1: Site Location of Development Act Modification approval to amend the BIA Commercial-Industrial Park Subdivision. City of Bangor, applicant. Item No. 2: Final Subdivision Plan revision and Site Location of Development Modification approval to revise Lot 4 of the Bangor Mall Business Park. JBN Properties, applicant. Item No. 3: To consider a request to extend the Completion Date for construction of a 14,262-square foot expansion to Katahdin Hall located at 354 Hogan Road. Eastern Maine Community College, applicant. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 4: To amend the Land Development Code by changing a parcel of land located at 44 Broadway from Urban Residence-2 District to Downtown Development District. Said parcel containing approximately 22,000 square feet. Bangor Redevelopment Corp./Gary Friedmann, applicant. C.O. # 04-209. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing, and asked the applicant to make a brief presentation. Mr. Gary Friedmann indicated that he is interested in rezoning the building at 44 Broadway, and indicated that he was guided by City Staff to seek a rezoning to Downtown Development District. Mr. Friedmann indicated that the building was a grandfathered office use that had been formerly used by and, now vacated by, Mid-Maine Communications. Ten years prior to that, Bangor Hydro Electric Company had a model energy house at this location. Mid-Maine Communications had 30 plus employees working in the main building and two apartments in the carriage house. Mr. Friedmann explained that his business provided non-profit assistance. One of his clients is the Bangor Children’s Museum. He indicated that he presently has a staff of six people that work statewide, and his hope is to have professional office use with residential dwelling units. Unfortunately, the introduction of more dwelling units would not meet the parking requirements in the URD-2 District. Mr. Friedmann went on to say that, based on Staff input, the Downtown Development District was suggested as abutting properties are currently zoned Downtown Development District. Mr. Friedmann noted that renovation plans had been submitted to the Code Enforcement Office. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if he had considered a contract zone change. Mr. Friedmann indicated that several options were discussed, but that he was guided by Staff to apply for a straight zone change based on adjacent zoning designations. Chairman Guerette asked if the building was previously used as mixed office use and residential use. Mr. Friedman’s plan is for less office use and more residential use. Mr. King asked if the building is on the National Register. Mr. Friedmann indicated that it was. Chairman Guerette asked for other proponents. Mr. Bob Kelley, of House Revivers, spoke in favor of the proposed zone change, and noted that old single- family houses are often used as a mix of office and residential uses. Mr. Wheeler asked if the historic regulations control the exterior changes. Mr. Bob Kelley indicated that the fire escape would be reviewed. Mr. David Hughes indicated that he assisted in the purchase of the building, and added that large multi-level buildings are better served by dwelling units than office space. 2 There being no other proponents, Chairman Guerette asked for comments from opponents. Dr. Moshe Myerowitz, of 48 - 58 Broadway, handed out a map of the area and said that he wanted to discuss the appropriateness of the Downtown Development District zoning, on-street parking, and other available alternatives. Dr. Myerowitz told the Board that the prior owners failed to maintain adequate screening, that this zone change would allow the present nonconforming use to be expanded, and that adequate parking is not provided. Dr. Myerowitz indicated that in a Downtown Development District additional parking does not need to be provided, and suggested that off-site parking could be acquired within 500 feet. Dr. Myerowitz said that he felt that extending Downtown Development District zoning into a neighborhood was spot zoning that would be creeping into the Broadway neighborhood. Dr. Myerowitz said that he felt that this area is not downtown, and that the request was based on the applicant’s desire to increase their profit margin. Dr. Myerowitz said that this was not a good practice for the Board to undertake. Dr. Myerowitz added that on-street parking provided to assist Mid-Maine Communication’s short fall, now causes traffic to back up on Broadway due to the shortening of the right-hand turn lane. At certain times, cars wait 20 minutes to clear this location and exiting their property is difficult due to parked cars on the street. Dr. Myerowitz urged the Board to leave the zoning as it is and require the applicant to provide parking off-site. Finally, Dr. Myerowitz requested that the applicant restore the buffer as previously required. Chairman Guerette asked Mr. Friedmann if he wanted to respond to Dr. Myerowitz’s comments. Mr. Friedmann indicated that he had spoken with Dr. Myerowitz previously. He said that his parking demand would be less than that of Mid-Maine Communications because the proposed use would be significantly less. With the mixed uses, the parking demand should be less than if it were all office use. Mr. Friedmann indicated that he would be happy to see the on-street parking removed, and he would take action to restore the fence between the properties. Mr. Friedman said that he felt that Dr. Myerowitz has his own spot zone. He added that his proposal encouraged investment in a historic building, but said that it needs to be economically viable as well. Chair asked for Staff comments. Planner Gould indicated that he was present to represent the Staff since Planning Officer Weber was unavailable this evening. He indicated that Ms. Weber did meet with the applicant. Planner Gould explained that the request before the Board was from Bangor Redevelopment Associates and Gary Friedmann to rezone a 22,000-square foot parcel at 44 Broadway from Urban Residence-2 District to Downtown Development District. Mr. Gould explained that in the 1980’s, this area of Broadway was zoned as a Residential 5 District, comparable to today’s Multi- family and Service District. Residential 5 zoning was the City’s highest density residential district, and allowed office uses on certain arterial streets and even greater office use area within historic districts or structures. In 1991, the urban 3 core was downzoned to a lesser density, and the Residential-5 District was changed to Urban Residential-2 District making the property nonconforming in 1991. The present request is to return to what was previously there which was Bangor Hydro-Electric’s use as an energy house and Mid-Maine Communications office use. Also, there were a number of dwelling units and on-site parking outside and inside the garage. Mr. Gould said that, based on the adjacent uses and zoning districts, Staff does not see this zone change from Urban Residence-2 District to Downtown Development District as inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The expansion of Downtown Development District zoning to this location is not a spot zone. It is not a leap from the existing Downtown Development District, rather it abuts other Downtown Development District-zoned parcels. Downtown Development District does extend along Broadway, and recently the church fronting on Broadway (All Souls Church) was added to the District. It is anticipated that over time, the downtown will grow and expand. Mr. Gould said that the issue before the Board is: Does the City want to encourage the use of historic structures. He noted that the City has for many decades allowed reuse options for historic structures to make them economically viable. Because this parcel is adjacent to other Downtown Development Districts, it is a reasonable request. Staff recommended that the Board make a positive recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Rosenblatt asked for a clarification of the ramifications of no parking, and a lack of dimensional standards. Mr. Gould indicated that the Downtown Development District is a very special district that intends intense development in that buildings can cover 90% to 100% of their lot, and no on-site parking is required. The district has no set backs and provides for a Floor Area Ratio of 4. This means that structures can cover the entire lot and be a height of up to four stories. There is no height limit in the district. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about the list of permitted uses in the Downtown Development District. Mr. Gould responded that the Downtown Development District has a wide list of uses and is very flexible. Mr. King asked if the State is notified of changes to the property because it is on the National Register and in the Local Historic District. Mr. King indicated that he was concerned about the sprawl impact of Downtown Development District on adjacent historic properties. Mr. Gould indicated that the historic nature of the building has two impacts. First, the Land Development Code recognizes historic structures and allows for use options not available to non-historic buildings. Multi-Family and Service District is such an example. Secondly, the Historic Preservation Ordinance is a separate Ordinance and operates without regard to what zoning district a property is located in. In the Historic Preservation Ordinance, exterior facade changes are reviewed. The Land Development Code tries to enhance and 4 support historic preservation. Mr. Gould indicated that he was unaware of any notification to the State Historic Preservation Commission regarding City rezoning applications. Chairman Guerette asked if the prior office/residential mix would continue in the URD-2 District as a nonconforming use. Mr. Gould indicated that land use approvals and uses run with the land, regardless of who owns the property. The problem arises when an owner wants to make changes, and those changes must conform to the current requirements. Mr. Wheeler moved to recommend that the Planning Board send the rezoning back to the City Council with a positive recommendation on Council Ordinance #04-209. Mr. King seconded the motion. Mr. Rosenblatt said that he would like to see a contract zone change that could be resolved satisfactory to all parties but provides protections as under Multi-family and Service District zoning or a contract Downtown Development District zone. Mr. Rosenblatt said that a contract zone change would not open the door to a wide variety of options, with no parking and dimensional requirements. Mr. King indicated that he would like the applicant to explore off-site parking because the use seems appropriate, but it could change to some other use, if rezoned. Mr. King said that contract conditions may better serve the property long term. Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Rosenblatt what type of contract he would propose. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he would propose one that would include uses, dimensional standards, and parking. He asked Mr. Gould to elaborate on contract zoning. Mr. Gould indicated that contract zoning rezones properties with specific limitations attached, such as Downtown Development District zoning with parking standards, buffers, and dimensional standards. Contract conditions are offered by the applicant, and are not based on the desires of the Planning Board. Mr. Guerette indicated that he understood the protections offered by a contract zone, but felt that many of the possible uses were not likely to happen in this location, and the historic review would limit any building expansions. Mr. Guerette then called for a vote. The Board voted three in favor and two opposed to recommending approval to the City Council of the zone change request for 44 Broadway from Urban Residence-2 District to Downtown Development District as contained in C.O. #04-209. Item No. 5: Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval of a 70-lot subdivision located at 780 Mount Hope Avenue in a Low Density Residential District. Hampden Home Builders, Inc., applicant. 5 Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant or their representative to make a brief presentation. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he needed to disclose that he is a member of Congregation Beth Israel and his law office has done work for some of the members of Hampden Home Builders Inc. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he did not find them to be issues, but that he wanted to provide full disclosure to the Board. Mr. Wheeler noted that his wife was a member of the Congregation Beth Israel, but that he did not feel that that membership should cause a conflict on this item. Mr. Wheeler moved that no conflict existed, and that Mr. Rosenblatt should be free to vote on this item. Mr. King seconded the motion. The Board voted 4 to 0 in favor of the motion that no conflict existed regarding Mr. Rosenblatt. Mr. Fred Marshall, representing Hampden Home Builders Inc., indicated that Ms. Tricia Quirk and Mr. Stan MacMillan of Hampden Homebuilders, Inc. were present to answer questions from the Board. Mr. Marshall indicated that this property was previously approved as a 63-lot subdivision. The applicant is now returning for reapproval to expand the subdivision by seven lots to now include the abutting Gallant property. Mr. Marshall said that this allows for a few more lots, and for a second roadway onto Mount Hope Avenue. Mr. Marshall indicated that one cross street in the previously approved subdivision was eliminated and some new stormwater features were added. Mr. King asked what the proposed lot sizes and acreage are because he did not see them in the plan drawings. Mr. Marshall indicated that the area is not included in the engineering drawing set, but is included on the survey plan set. Mr. Rosenblatt asked Mr. Marshall to describe the stormwater treatment system and the proposed open space. Mr. Marshall indicated that the Vortechs treatment devices were eliminated, and that sediment would be eliminated via wet ponds and buffers. The stormwater would be held in wet ponds while the sediment settled out, then be discharged to level spreaders into vegetated buffers. The open space areas are the same ones proposed on the previously approved plan. The open spaces are made up of the stormwater treatment areas and a few other parcels. Mr. Guerette asked how the open space would meet the needs of families with children, and if the developers had considered sidewalks. Mr. Marshall indicated that there are no active recreation areas proposed. He noted that some of the open space set aside, while containing wetlands, would be dry at certain times of the year. Mr. Marshall indicated that the applicant did not propose to build sidewalks at this time. Mr. King asked Mr. Marshall to explain the buffers. Mr. Marshall pointed out the various buffers around the subdivision. Mr. Marshall said that the side 6 abutting the Congregation Beth Israel Cemetery is planted with a double row of trees to maintain the separation between the two uses. Chairman Guerette asked for any other proponents. There being none, he asked for any opponents. Again, there being none, he asked for Staff comments. Planner Gould indicated that the applicants, Hampden Home Builders, Inc., are seeking Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval for a 70-lot subdivision located off of Mount Hope Avenue in a Low Density Residential District. The subdivision will have public sewer and water. The Low Density Residential District requires a minimum of 12,000-square foot lots, and those proposed in the subdivision are much larger than the minimum lot size. Mr. Gould indicated that the plan exceeds landscaping requirements typically seen in residential subdivisions, and that this is largely due to its location between a cemetery on the east and commercial zones on the west. The development is only slightly different from that which was approved in 2003. Mr. Gould noted that the applicants purchased the Gallant property that now provides adequate land area for two streets connecting to Mount Hope Avenue. Planner Gould indicated that minor adjustments have been made in the stormwater system that allows the elimination of one of the prior detention ponds. He also indicated that the Department of Environmental Protection has given the City Delegated Review Authority for this project, and that review process will occur at the final plan stage. Mr. Gould indicated that all of the details have been reviewed by the Engineering Office, and that Staff would recommend Preliminary Plan approval with no conditions attached. Mr. Wheeler asked if the Engineering Staff had any additional comments. Mr. Jim Ring, City Engineer, indicated that the Engineering Staff found everything acceptable. Mr. King commended the applicant on the proposed buffers and noted that the larger lot sizes may help offset any lack of formal recreation areas. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to approve the Preliminary Subdivision Plan of Hampden Home Builders Inc. Mr. King seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously to approve the Preliminary Subdivision Plan of Hampden Home Builders, Inc. Item No. 6: Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval of a 28-lot subdivision located off of Essex Street, East Broadway, and Lancaster Avenue in a Low Density Residential District. Land Investments, Inc., applicant. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing, and asked the applicant or their representative to make a brief presentation. Mr. James Manzer, of Ames 7 A/E, indicated that he represented the applicant, Land Investment, Inc. Mr. Manzer described the proposed 28-lot subdivision off of Essex Street, Lancaster Avenue and East Broadway. Mr. Manzer reviewed the existing vegetation and drainage on the existing fields. The property is surrounded by developed properties that currently use portions of the property. The site is a good “in-fill” location for additional housing. Mr. Manzer explained that the applicant had acquired the Rooks property so they could extend East Broadway to access the property. He also noted that the development includes an access street and two short drives, all ending in cul- de-sacs, and that the stormwater system was designed to intercept surface water flows and direct them to the proposed detention pond. Mr. Manzer stated that the Preliminary Subdivision Plan proposes 50-foot right-of-ways with two, 12-foot travel lanes and 2-foot paved shoulders. Mr. Manzer described the proposed utilities. The Lots are proposed to be 12,000 square feet to 24,000 square feet in size which are larger than most abutting properties. The sewer on East Broadway is limited, and some houses utilize on- site systems. All of the new lots will have gravity public sewer service from an extension of the line in the old Alden Street right-of-way. Mr. Manzer pointed out that two parcels must be crossed, one belonging to the City of Bangor and the other one belonging to the State of Maine (MDOT). Mr. Manzer explained that the Plan tries to address how the lots will be developed and filled so that drainage impacts will not adversely effect adjacent properties. The open space will be the pond area, left over land from the Rooks parcel and land along Alden Street could be a walking trail to Broadway Park and Mary Snow School. Mr. Manzer indicated that he believed that the development was in order for preliminary plan approval. Mr. Clark asked what the price range would be for the houses, where the traffic would outlet from, and if the open space proposed would be suitable for kids to play in. Mr. Manzer indicated that he did not know what price range the houses would be, but said that they would likely be moderately priced. He noted that the infrastructure costs are about $10,000 per house lot. He noted that traffic would outlet onto Broadway and Essex Street. Mr. Manzer indicated that he did not evaluate the Broadway signal. Mr. Manzer said that he thought that the areas proposed would be adequate open spaces, but not playgrounds. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he had concerns with the project as proposed. He asked if the open space could be improved. He also noted that State subdivision criteria required the Board to review that the proposal will not create unreasonable traffic congestion or unsafe conditions. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if a traffic impact study has been submitted. Mr. Manzer indicated that the cost implications of losing a lot for open space may be hard to overcome, 8 economically, and that no specific traffic study seemed warranted, based upon the size of the project. Mr. King asked how Mr. Manzer would address the issues raised in the Staff Memorandum regarding the issues of a flag lot, right, title and interest, and other issues. Mr. Manzer indicated that he sent a response letter. Chairman Guerette indicated that they did not have it at this time. Mr. Manzer indicated that all the issues are being addressed. He explained the changes to the roadway grading and drainage easements to be done to address the concerns of the City Engineer’s Office. Chairman Guerette asked for any other proponents. There being none, Chairman Guerette asked for any opponents. Mr. Gerald Ellis, 101 East Broadway asked if there were plans for a highway sound wall, and if the project included sidewalks and open space. He said that presently, at the rear of his property, there are existing trees that act as a natural tree buffer, and he asked if those trees would be retained. Mr. Ellis also asked if a house could be built close to the property lines. Chairman Guerette indicated that landscaping on individual lots is up to the homeowners. Mr. Richard Bartelme, 598 Essex Street, indicated that a strip of land next to his property that is less than 50-feet wide could end up a driveway. Mr. Bartelme indicated that he presently mows the land and indicated that he would be interested in purchasing it. Mrs. Laurie Dunn, 634 Essex Street, was concerned that no open space would remain and said that she would like the opportunity to acquire the adjacent property. She was also concerned that construction of new houses will increase traffic in the neighborhood. Mrs. Ronel Ellis, 101 Broadway, said that she felt that 28 lots on 13.6 acres seems like high density. She was concerned that the existing trees will be cut down, and that there will be a lot of noise from the traffic on I-95. She also noted that there were no stop signs, no sidewalks, and that there was ledge in this area. Mr. David Dunn, 634 Essex Street, was concerned about the development in his back yard. Mr. Lance Lavoie, 127 Lancaster Avenue, told the Board that traffic is bad at the Broadway intersection. He indicated that it was nice to have the open space adjacent to his house. Chairman Guerette asked the applicant’s representative to respond to some of the comments raised. Mr. Manzer explained that the project would not be disturbing trees along the Interstate because they are in the State’s right-of- way. Mr. Manzer said that the property must be developed consistent with the Land Development Code so that front, side and rear yard setbacks will apply. 9 New homes will not be allowed to be as close to property lines like many of the existing homes are. Mr. Manzer also indicated that other public facilities are in the vicinity. Prior to developing the subdivision plan, 11 test pits were excavated to detect the presence of ledge. Mr. Manzer indicated that no grading is proposed on adjacent properties and that the stormwater plan should ameliorate existing stormwater issues. Mr. Manzer said that the project will have limited traffic generation, 1 trip per household in the peak hour. He noted that the applicant should not be required to use their property as the neighborhood open space. There being no further comments, Chairman Guerette asked for Staff comments. Planner Gould indicated that the applicant, Land Investment Inc., requests Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval to create a 28-lot subdivision at 606 Essex Street. The property is located in a Low Density Residential District, has frontage on Lancaster Avenue and East Broadway. Mr. Gould noted that all of the various issues raised are the reason why Subdivisions go through a multi- step process, noting that it tends to take more than one visit for the designers, the applicant and the Planning Board to all come to an agreement on the details. As seen on some other recent projects, these issues can be resolved. Mr. Gould went on to describe the subdivision’s 28-lots on 13 acres, noting that the Low Density Residential District requires a minimum lot area of 12,000 square feet, 50 feet of street frontage, and 100 feet of lot width. Mr. Gould indicated that all of the proposed lots exceed the minimum size, and that applicable lot coverage and setbacks will apply. Mr. Gould said that the City standard for open space is only 5% of the area to be developed. Based on the 13 acres to be developed, only .65 acres needs to be designated as open space. Numerous details still need to be completed. Mr. Gould noted that a response was received from Mr. Manzer, but that details still needed to be completed. Mr. Gould outlined some of the details to be followed up on: (1) The flag lot needs to be reviewed separately; (2) right, title & interest, which is a threshold issue, must be addressed; and (3) road grades and vertical curve details need to be fixed. The stormwater drainage review attempts to predict how the lots will be graded and deal with resulting stormwater on developed lots by providing easements to keep water off of adjacent properties. Conditions or restrictions could be placed on certain lots if access limitations are sought. The City would not want the subdivision designer to sever small remnants from lots. If an agreement is reached with an adjacent landowner, then the sale of the land to an abutting property can be noted on the plan. Mr. Gould went on to explain that traffic for a development of this size will be insignificant. The average single-family residence will generate 10 automobile trips a day; some more, some less. This scenario relates to one trip per household in the peak hour. Mr. Gould elaborated, that adding a small amount of traffic into the existing system will not likely result in anything other than the 10 identification of existing problem areas that will continue whether the project is constructed or not. The Maine Department of Transportation threshold standard for review is 100 trips. The Subdivision regulations do provide for sidewalks, but only in situations where collector roadways are being constructed. The subdivision’s Minor access roads do not require them. Mr. Rosenblatt asked Mr. Gould to clarify the open space location language “determined by the Planning Board”, Mr. Gould responded that it is not for the Planning Board to determine the open space location, but to decide if what is proposed is acceptable. Mr. Wheeler inquired why the Board did not receive Mr. Manzer’s correspondence prior to the meeting. Mr. Gould noted it was not an issue of timing, but standard practice as to what and how much material is sent to the Board in advance. As the Board is aware, these practices are being reviewed and have been discussed in recent sessions. In summary, Mr. Gould recommended that the Board grant Preliminary Plan approval subject to the five issues detailed in the Staff Memorandum and any other issues that the Board feels need to be addressed in the Final Plan submission. Mr. King indicated that more analysis should be done of traffic, that open space needs be revisited, and that the flag lot needs to be approved. Mr. King felt that there were too many issues to proceed to Preliminary Plan approval at this time, and that more dialogue should occur between the landowner and the adjoining properties. Mr. Rosenblatt said that he did not want to proceed with a long list of details to be resolved when more time needs to be spent tying up the loose ends. Mr. Gould indicated that the Board could continue the application to allow for more time to resolve some of the loose ends. Mr. Clark indicated that he was not so concerned about Preliminary Plan approval because the outstanding details will need to be addressed prior to Final Subdivision Plan approval. Chairman Guerette requested that the Board proceed with some type of motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to continue the application until such time as the applicant has submitted a traffic analysis. Mr. King seconded the motion, but noted that he wanted to include other details such as open space. Chairman Guerette noted that the motion would have to be amended. The Board members discussed various items that they would like further information on. Mr. Wheeler suggested that continuance be to a date certain, perhaps 30 days to address the various issues. Mr. Rosenblatt then moved to continue the application to the next regularly scheduled meeting following 30 days, and then directed the applicant to prepare a traffic analysis sufficient to determine whether the application meets the traffic standard of the State Subdivision Law, to look at other open space options, to address the other issues 11 in the Staff Memorandum, and have discussions with abutters. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously to continue the application for a period of 30 days with the noted conditions. Item No. 8: Final Subdivision Plan approval to construct a 28-lot subdivision in a Low Density Residential District located at 208V Bomarc Road. Woods of Maine, Inc. and Rebecca Wood, applicants. Chairman Guerette asked for a representative of the applicant to make a brief presentation. Mr. Don Becker, of Civil Engineering Services, indicated that, following the approval of the Preliminary Subdivision Plan, they reworked the open space as requested by the Board. As proposed, the open space will be owned and maintained by a Homeowners’ Association. The open space can be accessed from the cul-de-sac at the end of Edgewood Court. Mr. Rosenblatt asked what limitations are represented by the pipeline easement. Mr. Becker indicated that no building could be constructed on the easement, but that a driveway is allowed to cross it, provided that no more than a foot of soil is removed. Mr. Becker noted that the unused pipeline represents a utility corridor that has value in of itself. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about the status of the non-gravity sewer and the issues concerning access to the manhole off of Bomarc Road. Mr. Becker indicated that the Homeowners’ Association would take control of the system. While the City has access to the sewer manhole, it is unclear whether or not that right conveys to the applicant and their private sewer. The applicant’s legal staff is working on this issue. Chairman Guerette asked about membership in the Homeowners’ Association. Mr. Becker explained that it would be mandatory with the purchase of a lot. Presently, no lots have been sold, since the development is not yet approved. As no one spoke in opposition, Chairman Guerette asked for Staff comments. Planner Gould indicated that most all the issues identified at the Preliminary Plan approval phase have been satisfactorily addressed. The open space as designated is consistent with what the Board had directed. The proposed non-gravity sewer is to be owned and maintained by a Homeowners’ Association. The lotting has taken into account the pipeline easement that traverses the site and the Final Subdivision Plan indicates access control on certain lots fronting on Bomarc Road. Mr. Gould indicated that, at the request of the Engineering Office, new engineering details were requested, and have been submitted. The new submissions covered all of the requested details but the one regarding access to 12 the public sewer off of Bomarc Road. Staff recommends Final Subdivision Plan approval with such right, title, and interest as a condition. Mr. Gould noted that it is typical practice to provide 120 days for the applicant to provide a public improvement guarantee based on the cost of improvements. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if Mr. Ring was satisfied with the final engineering design. Mr. Jim Ring, City Engineer, indicated that everything was satisfactorily addressed. The road design details are now fine, and the only element remaining is legal right to access the sewer. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if there was a written report from the City Engineer. Mr. Ring indicated that the Engineering Office does not do a formal written report because Planning is part of the Engineering Office. Mr. Clark was happy to see that the designers have overcome the initial problems, and said that he would recommend approval of the Final Subdivision Plan with conditions relating to access to the public sewer and public improvement guarantees. Mr. Wheeler moved to approve the Final Subdivision Plan for Woods of Maine and Rebecca Wood with the conditions that the applicant provide proper right, title, and interest to connect to the sewer off of Bomarc Road and that improvement guarantees be provided to the City within 120 days. Mr. King seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously to approve the final subdivision plan, with the conditions noted by Mr. Wheeler. Item No. 7: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. Mr. King noted that the Board needs to get caught up on the Minutes and requested a status report. The Board continued the Minutes and requested an update on the status of approved and pending Meeting Minutes. There being no other items for discussion, Mr. Wheeler moved to adjourn. Mr. Clark seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 10:22 p.m. 13