Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-09-02 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 MINUTES Board Members Present: Richard Fournier, Chairman Bob Guerette Dave Clark Fred Costlow Hal Wheeler Ryan King Bill Masters City Staff Present: David Gould James Ring Peter Witham Katherine Weber News Media Present: Bangor Daily News WVII Chairman Fournier opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA Chairman Fournier asked if any member wished to remove this item from the Consent Agenda. Mr. Clark moved to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion was seconded by Mr. Costlow, and it passed by a vote of 5 to 0. The Item approved is as follows: Item No. 1: Site Development Plan approval to fill and grade property located at 208 Kittredge Road in a Rural Residence and Agriculture District. Sargent & Sargent, applicant. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 2: Conditional Use/Site Development Plan approval to construct a 6,000-square foot addition for retail auto service use located at 1240 Hammond Street in a General Commercial and Service District. John Coughlin/Glidden Auto Body, applicant. Chairman Fournier opened the Public Hearing, and asked if a representative of the applicant would make a brief presentation. Mr. Fred Marshall of Plymouth Engineering indicated that he represented Glidden Auto Body. He explained that they were seeking Conditional Use and Site Development Plan Review. Mr. Marshall indicated that the business had been before the Board a few years earlier for a similar expansion. The 6,000- square foot expansion will be added at the rear of the existing building. The proposed expansion will be a one-story, pre-engineered, metal building consistent with other buildings in this area. The Chairman asked for any other proponents. There being no other proponents, he called for opponents. There being none, Chairman Fournier closed the Public Hearing and asked for Staff comments. Planning Officer Weber indicated that the proposed use is a Conditional Use that needs to meet specific standards in the General Commercial and Service District. In addition, all Conditional Uses need to meet the Standards in Section 165-9. The specific standards of the GC&S District require that all repairs be conducted indoors and any outdoor storage areas be completely screened from view. As indicated on the Site Development Plan, there are no outdoor storage areas. The Staff recommended that the Board take two votes: one on the Conditional Use and one on the Site Development Plan. Staff determined that the proposed application meets the standards of Section 165-9, Conditional Use Standards. Mr. King asked where the closest residential properties were. Ms. Weber indicated there are no residential properties in the immediate area. Mr. King asked if there was exhaust being emitted from the building. Mr. Marshall indicated that there is limited use of automobile engines inside the building, and no new paint areas are proposed in the expansion. There being no further discussion, Mr. Guerette moved to approve the Conditional Use for Glidden Autobody, 1240 Hammond Street to expand the auto repair facility. Mr. Costlow seconded the motion, and the Board voted 5 to 0 to approve the proposed Conditional Use. Mr. Guerette moved to approve the Site Development Plan for Glidden Autobody, 1240 Hammond Street. Mr. Costlow seconded the motion, and the Board voted 5 to 0 to grant Site Development Plan approval. Item No. 3: To amend the Land Development Code by changing two parcels of land located at 7 and 16 Union Place from Multi-Family and Service District to Urban Residence 2 District. Said parcels containing approximately .42 acres. City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 03-276. Chairman Fournier opened the Public Hearing, and asked if a representative of the applicant would make a brief presentation. Planning Officer Katherine Weber, representing the City of Bangor, indicated it was the City’s desire to unify the zoning on these six lots prior to seeking redevelopment proposals for medium density housing. The 2 lots make up the Union Place Neighborhood Conservation Area that was established by the City Council after the City acquired the properties and removed the blighted buildings. The total area is just less than an acre, but only two parcels are proposed to be changed from Multifamily and Service District (M&SD) to Urban Residence District-2 (URD-2). Ms. Weber indicated that the proposed zone change is consistent with Comprehensive Plan 2000 and Community Development Policies for the project area. Mr. Guerette asked why it should be zoned URD-2, not M&SD. Planning Officer Weber indicated that only two of the six parcels are M&SD, and the City does not want to extend the M&SD District further into the existing neighborhood. To have one, unified district, it was simpler to rezone two parcels to URD-2. Mr. King indicated that reading the definition of M&SD one would think that M&SD fits this area. Ms. Weber indicated that the lower development density and development standards of the URD-2 District would reduce the congestion in the neighborhood. Mr. Wheeler asked if the subsequent units would be for high-income, moderate- income, or low-income tenants. Ms. Weber indicated that given that Community Development funds are involved, a portion of the units would be for low- and moderate- income individuals. There would likely be a mix of units including a percentage of those for low and moderate income. Mr. Wheeler indicated that a strategy of mixed income housing projects has been successful in many downtown areas. He also indicated that he would like to see the RFP when it was completed. Chairman Fournier asked if all of the properties in the area were vacant. Ms. Weber indicated that one property on the corner of Union Place and Union Street, not currently owned by the City, has a building on it with tenants. The Chairman asked for any other proponents. There being no other proponents, the Chairman asked for any opponents. Mr. David Lawler stated that he has been at this location for 25 years. He has found that, over the years, existing residents are not treated as well as developers from outside the City. Mr. Lawler indicated that he was opposed to the rezoning since it seemed premature to rezone the property before specific development proposals have been received. He has developed adjacent properties and upgraded them. Mr. Lawler distributed photographs of the buildings that he has restored. Mr. Costlow inquired as to what the photographs had to do with the rezoning application before the Board. Mr. Lawler indicated that he desired to redevelop the adjacent properties, and the proposed rezoning was inconsistent with what he wanted to do. Mr. Lawler indicated that the existing and proposed zoning does not allow the type of development that he would like to do. Mr. Lawler indicated that he would like to construct 8,000 square feet of retail and 10 townhouse units. In addition, he would correct the existing traffic deficiencies on the site. Mr. Fournier indicated that the Board was not considering Mr. Lawler’s proposal, but rather hearing testimony on the merits of the rezoning. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he did favor Mr. Lawler’s redevelopment work. Mr. Guerette asked if Mr. Lawler has 3 contacted the City. Mr. Lawler indicated he had contacted the City and was advised to wait for a request for proposals. The Chairman called for any other opponents. Lynn Pratt, an employee of Dave’s Video Store, indicated that this area is the center of Bangor. Chairman Fournier closed the Public Hearing and asked for Staff comments. Planning Officer Weber indicated that the Staff recommended that the Board recommend passage of C.O. # 03-276. Mr. Wheeler moved to table the item until the City and Mr. Lawler could discuss his redevelopment plans. Assistant City Solicitor John Hamer indicated that issuing a Request For Proposals will seek developers, and the City should not seek development proposals from individuals until an open RFP process occurs in fairness to all parties. Planning Officer Weber indicated there is interest in this redevelopment project by other developers as well as Mr. Lawler. Mr. Wheeler asked what the timing of the City’s Request For Proposals process would be. Planning Officer Weber indicated that the Conservation Plan envisioned that the zoning would be uniform and consistent with plan. Prior to the pending redevelopment, the rezoning would need to be in place. Mr. Jim Ring, City Engineer, indicated that the City’s main intent is to unify the zoning on all of the parcels. The rezoning is consistent with the City’s intent for redevelopment. This development concept may change, but this is consistent with the current intent of the City Council. The motion failed for lack of a second. Mr. Costlow indicated that the proposal was consistent with the City’s plan and would provide a unified development parcel. Mr. Clark recalled the recent history of the properties and their poor condition prior to acquisition and demolition by the City. Mr. Masters asked the Planning Officer if alternative development proposals would be entertained that may be inconsistent with the residential RFP. Planning Officer Weber indicated that the proposals judged to be consistent with the RFP would be most likely to be considered further by the City Council, but it would not preclude the Council from considering alternative proposals. Mr. Lawler noted that his plan would provide an opportunity to improve the existing access problems at his existing development. He said that if someone else developed the adjacent property, the existing access problems would remain. There being no further discussion, Mr. Costlow moved to recommend that Council Order # 03-276 be adopted by the City Council. Mr. Clark seconded the motion, and the Board voted 4 to 1 in favor of recommending approval of C.O.# 03-276 Zone Change for 7 and 16 Union Place from Multi Family & Service District to Urban Residence District 2, City of Bangor, applicant. 4 Item No. 4: To amend the Land Development Code by changing a parcel of land located at 390 Broadway from Urban Residence-1 District to Government and Institutional Service District. Said parcel containing approximately .25 acres. John and Marie Johnson, applicants. C.O. # 03-277. Chairman Fournier opened the Public Hearing, and asked the applicant to make a brief presentation. Mrs. Marie Johnson, 390 Broadway, indicated that she and her husband were selling their home to St. Joseph Hospital, and the Hospital had asked them to rezone the property in advance of the sale. The Chairman called for any other proponents. Hearing none, he asked for any opponents. Again, hearing none, he closed the Public Hearing and asked for Staff comments. Planning Officer Weber indicated that the application was for 390 Broadway to rezone the property from Urban Residence One District (URD-1) to Government and Institutional Service District (G&ISD). Ms. Weber indicated the location of the parcel in the Staff Exhibit. Ms. Weber highlighted the existing zoning in the area. The Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Policy Map indicate these areas for future Government and Institutional Uses. Therefore, the Staff recommended that the Planning Board recommend to the City Council adoption of the proposed rezoning request. As there was no further discussion, Mr. Costlow moved to recommend that Council Order # 03-277 be adopted by the City Council. Mr. Guerette seconded the motion, and the Board voted 5 to 0 in favor of recommending approval of C.O.# 03-277, Zone Change for 390 Broadway from Urban Residence-1 District to Government and Institutional Service District, John and Marie Johnson, applicants. Item No. 5: To amend the Land Development Code by changing a parcel of land located at 99 Farm Road from Industry and Service District to Urban Service District. Said parcel containing approximately 5.7 acres. Beal College Inc., applicant. C.O. # 03-278 Chairman Fournier opened the Public Hearing, and asked the applicant to make a brief presentation. Attorney John Logan representing Beal College indicated that they had discussed with City Staff the potential of moving Beal College to this location, the former Saucony Shoe factory, and the various options to address the land use issues. The Urban Service District designation appeared to be the best alternative. Mr. Clark asked if expansion at the existing site was possible. Attorney Logan indicated that the existing school site was just too small. The chairman called for any other proponents. There being none, he called for opponents. Again there being none, he closed the Public Hearing and asked for Staff comments. Planning Officer Katherine Weber indicated that the applicant, Beal College, Inc., is requesting a zone change for a 5.7-acre parcel located at 99 Farm Road (formerly, Saucony Shoe Company) from Industry and Service District to Urban Service District. The Planning Officer indicated the location of the properties on the Staff Exhibits. Ms. Weber 5 explained that the College’s property on the Farm Road that is proposed for rezoning is separated from Beal College’s current Urban Service District site by two small parcels that are zoned Industry and Service District. There are also Government and Institutional Service and Urban Residence-1 Districts in close proximity to the Saucony property on and near the Farm Road. Ms. Weber explained that the rezoning request to Urban Service District is not wholly consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policy, but it is consistent with the existing zoning designation for Beal College. The Saucony Shoe Company I&S property has been vacant for some time. It is unlikely that another shoe manufacturing company will purchase the property. No other industrial businesses have purchased the parcel. Beal College’s proposal to redevelop the property as its new campus is a reasonable alternative to having the property remain a vacant industrial site. The zoning policy for this transition area will be revisited in the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update to determine if the current policy is consistent with uses in the area. Ms. Weber indicated that the Staff felt there was adequate flexibility in the Comprehensive Plan given the location of the properties, and the existing and proposed uses. The Planning staff recommended that the Planning Board recommend that the Council adopt CO # 03 -278 to rezone 99 Farm Road from Industry and Service District to Urban Service District. Mr. Masters indicated that he was happy to hear there was flexibility in the Comprehensive Plan. He always believed it to be a fluid document but, at times, it had been represented as inflexible. Chairman Fournier indicated that he felt that the Comprehensive Plan was a fluid document and flexible. Mr. Costlow indicated that he would continue to rely heavily on the intent of the Comprehensive Plan as a guiding policy document, but was less concerned with a proposed rezoning that would be of a lesser impact. To rezone residential property to commercial or industrial would be problematic, but to allow a less intensive use, is not troublesome to him. Mr. Guerette moved to recommend that the City Council adopt C.O. # 03-278. Mr. Clark seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of C.O. # 03-278 to amend the Land Development Code by changing a parcel of land located at 99 Farm Road from Industry and Service District to Urban Service District. Said parcel containing approximately 5.7 acres, Beal College Inc., applicant. Item No. 6: Amending Chapter 165-101 – Shopping and Personal Service District to include Outdoor Entertainment/Recreational Uses as a Conditional Use. City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 03- 264. Chairman Fournier opened the Public Hearing, and asked the applicant to make a brief presentation. Planning Officer Weber explained that the Shopping and Personal Service District currently allows as a permitted use “enclosed recreational centers for profit.” This proposed text amendment came about as a result of a request to develop a 6 paintball park in a Shopping and Personal Service District in the vicinity of the Broadway Shopping Center. The four specific conditions, in addition to the four general conditions for granting conditional use approval under 165-9, will provide an appropriate level of review for the proposed conditional use. The Planning Officer explained that those conditions are that (1) The applicant demonstrates that noise levels will not adversely affect any adjacent property; (2) The boundary of the use area is not less than 200 feet from any residential district boundary and is not less than 300 feet from any existing residential building; (3) Outside lighting will not shine on the exterior wall of any residential building; (4) Such use is attractively landscaped over the whole site as demonstrated by a detailed landscaping plan submitted by the applicant. Planning staff recommended that the Planning Board recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed text amendment to the Land Development Code that would add entertainment or recreational use not wholly contained within a building as a conditional use as indicated in CO # 03-264. Mr. King was concerned that the use category was too broad, and could include rock concerts and other outdoor entertainment. Chairman Fournier called for any other proponents. There being none, he called for opponents. Again, there being none, he closed the Public Hearing and asked for any additional staff comments. Planning Officer Weber indicated that the Staff recommended that the Planning Board recommend CO # 03-264. Mr. Guerette asked where else was this use allowed. Planning Officer Weber indicated that it would be allowed in the General Commercial and Service District. Assistant City Solicitor Hamer indicated that the conditional use language was taken verbatim from the General Commercial and Service District section. Mr. Costlow moved to recommend to the City Council that the zoning amendment request contained in C.O. 03-264 be approved. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council adopt C.O. # 03-264. Item No. 7: Amending Chapter 165-97 – Government and Institutional Service District, to include Sports Arenas and Stadiums as a Permitted Use. City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 03-265. Chairman Fournier opened the Public Hearing, and asked the applicant to make a brief presentation. Planning Officer Weber explained to the Board that the proposed amendment was to clarify that sports arenas and stadiums are a permitted use in the Government and Institutional Service District. Presently, the Code Enforcement Office views sports facilities as accessory uses. This amendment will establish them as permitted uses in the District. Staff recommended that the proposed amendment in C.O. #03-265 be recommended for adoption by the City Council. Chairman Fournier called for proponents. There being none, he called for opponents. Mr. Nathaniel Rosenblatt, 504 Valley Avenue, indicated that this was a political 7 popular project creating poor land use policy. Just as the previous amendment in Shopping and Personal Service sought to add outside recreational facilities to that district, it was treated as a Conditional Use with specific development standards. The impacts of a professional sporting facility may be greater, yet there are no conditions or protections for adjacent properties. Mr. Rosenblatt explained that professional sports are not the same as high school sports. Sound levels are much greater, hours are longer and later into the evening, attendance is higher, and traffic is greater with professional sports activities. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that the amendment will impact all G&IS Districts throughout the City, not just Husson College. In a district intended for institutional uses, sports stadium are not similar. At the least, this use ought to be a Conditional Use with protection standards, buffers, etc. He noted that the Husson field is immediately adjacent to residential housing, and if not covered by State noise standards, will adversely impact many residents. Mr. Costlow asked why there is a need for this amendment if the City has already made a determination that this use is allowed. He asked if the intent to scuttle an appeal of the Zoning Board’s decision on the accessory use issue. Mr. Costlow indicated that he considered school sports teams at these facilities to be perfectly acceptable, but their use for commercial entertainment is inconsistent. Mr. Clark asked how many neighbors have raised a concern and, is there more concern. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he was not on a public relations campaign. He has not gone knocking on doors seeking opposition. Chairman Fournier asked for other opponents. Ms. Leslie Rosenblatt, 504 Valley Avenue, indicated that she and her husband did not want to indicate that they represented the neighborhood. She indicated that many people that she had talked with had determined that the City had already made up its mind, and that it would be fruitless to speak in opposition to the project. Ms. Sarah Suyama, 121 Husson Avenue, indicated that she was in opposition to the proposed amendment. She noted that many people who would be impacted may not be able to come to public hearings. Chairman Fournier closed the public hearing and asked for staff comment. Planning Officer Weber indicated that the amendment was for clarification, and recommended that the Board make a positive recommendation to the City Council on C.O. #03-265. Ms. Weber indicated that this project is bigger than just Husson College given that there are other sports facilities in other G&IS Districts. Mr. Guerette asked how a sports stadium fits within the District that allows churches, day care, nursing homes and hospitals. He said that it is unfortunate that the amendment comes in the middle of an appeal on this very issue. Mr. Costlow asked why the City would propose such an amendment if it has already determined that the use is a permitted accessory use. He asked if it is to undermine an appeal. Assistant City Solicitor John Hamer indicated that the Zoning Board of Appeals had made a decision but had not made its written findings. 8 Mr. Costlow asked if the City wants commercial sports complexes in Government and Institutional Service Districts. Planning Officer Weber indicated that they already exist at Hayford Park, Sawyer Arena, and Mansfield Stadium. Mr. Costlow clarified that they were not professional, for-profit sports complexes. Ms. Weber indicated that the Ordinance does not make a distinction and that intensity issues would be reviewed during site plan review. Mr. Wheeler said that he felt that the proposed amendment appeared to be special treatment for a particular project. He added that it is unfortunate that some projects get an unfair advantage and heavy support from numerous Departments, while other projects must comply with every single aspect of the Code. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he could not support the proposed amendment. Assistant City Solicitor Hamer said that the City Attorney’s Office would like to remind the Board that the purpose of all memorandum given to this Board by the City Attorney’s Office has been to remind the Board of its authority under the Land Development Code, the Site Location of Development Act, and State Law. He said that this information has not been provided to the Board into a box, nor has not been provided to reign in any discretion that the Board rightfully has. Rather, it was to direct the Board’s attention to the appropriate inquiry, and that is all. Mr. Wheeler agreed, but noted that the input and guidance provided by the Staff varies greatly depending on the project. Mr. Masters indicated that he was recently at a Lumberjacks game, and he recalled how loud it was. Mr. Masters said that he thought that the Rosenblatts were absolutely correct in assuming that this is going to be a problem. Mr. Masters said that he would love to find a way to make this project work. Mr. Costlow noted that the City has ruled that it is a permitted use, and that is in currently in litigation and the appeal process has not been completed yet. He said that he felt that this amendment essentially was clarifying it in mid stream and that it took away the applicant’s ability to have the regulation as it was constructed, and appeals interpreted as it was at that time. He said that he did not feel that this was equitable. Mr. Costlow added that if in fact the City believes that it is a permitted use already, then the City does not need the amendment. Chairman Fournier asked if there were any additional questions or comments from the Board. There being none, he noted that when the Site Development Plan and Site Location of Development Act Modification come back before the Board, that’s the time to address the noise level, the lighting, and all the negatives that Mr. Rosenblatt has brought up. He said that he felt that it is at the site plan review level that this Board has more control on how things are done there. Mr. Guerette said that this is a zone that protects places of worship, nursery schools and daycare centers, cemeteries, hospitals and nursing homes. He said that once the application for a site development plan is on the table, that we have narrowed the opportunity to control its final destiny. He said that by passing this amendment, it would 9 not protect this zone from infringement of something that just clearly does not belong. He said that he did feel that a sports complex, arena and stadium next to cemeteries, nursing homes and places of worship is just as incongruous as you can possibly get, and that he would vote to keep the integrity of the G&IS District intact. Mr. Clark moved to recommend to the City Council adoption of the amendment to Chapter 165-97 – City of Bangor per C.O. # 03-265. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion. The Board voted two in favor and three opposed to the motion. Chairman Fournier asked that the Board Members articulate their reasons for opposition for the record. Mr. Costlow indicated that he felt that if, in fact, the City truly believes that the Ordinance currently allows that use, there is no need to change it. Secondly, he felt that if there is a pending appeal, it should be allowed to run its course. Mr. Wheeler noted that he agreed with Mr. Guerette and Mr. Costlow. Mr. Wheeler added that if this is a permitted use, why is it necessary to amend the zoning ordinance, and that this is not a desirable or appropriate facility in this district. Mr. Costlow indicated that he agreed as well. Mr. Guerette indicated that he did not feel that sports arenas and stadiums are synonymous within a district that should be promoting places of worship, hospitals, nursing homes and child care facilities. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 8: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. Chairman Fournier indicated the minutes would be continued to the next regular meeting. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 9: Request for a Waiver of Park and Site Development Plan Approval to expand the existing deck and increase the number of seats through interior renovations at 26 Front Street in a Waterfront Development District. Sea Dog Brewing, Inc., applicant. Mr. Jim Lacadie of Civil Engineering Services, representing Sea Dog Brewing, Inc., explained the proposed Site Development Plan to the Board. Mr. Lacadie explained that the applicant is proposing to change the way in which they use their space. Because of a decrease in brewing space, the applicant is seeking to expand the restaurant’s seating capacity. Mr. Lacadie also noted that the applicant was requesting a waiver for 167 parking spaces. Mr. Gurette asked where the expansion would be located. Mr. Lacadie indicated that it would be an expansion of the deck along the riverside of the building. Mr. Costlow asked in order to demonstrate an undue economic hardship, what financial documentation did the applicant provide. Mr. Lacadie indicated that no financial data was submitted, and 10 that the request for a waiver was based solely on the physical limitations of the site. Mr. Costlow wondered how the Board could reach a conclusion as to the economic burden of adding 100 seats versus 200 seats without some financial data. Chairman Fournier asked for Staff comments. Planning Officer Weber indicated that the request was for a waiver and Site Development Plan approval to expand the Sea Dog Restaurant and add additional seating. The Staff recommended two motions with the parking waiver first. Ms. Weber added that the Waterfront Development District provides for the Planning Board to grant a waiver of parking. Based on the physical limitations of the site, Staff recommended that the Board grant the waiver. Ms. Weber noted that parking is very limited on-site and public parking is being developed to serve the waterfront uses. Ms. Weber indicated that Staff also recommended approval of the Site Development Plan if the Board granted the parking waiver. Mr. Costlow asked the Planning Officer what was the economic justification, should there be a financial analysis. Ms. Weber indicated that Staff had not received a financial analysis but made its recommendation based upon the physical limitations of the site. Mr. Costlow noted that if you remove a economic justification, there seems to be a lack of a definitive standard, and asked what the measure was for the Board to decide. Mr. Costlow asked if a representative of the Sea Dog could address this issue given the lack of written documentation. Mr. Larry Killam of the Sea Dog Restaurant, indicated that the building is poorly suited to restaurant use. Mr. Killam explained that there is a trade off between maintaining the atmosphere versus cutting utility costs. The business has changed from a 40-barrel brewing operation to a 7-barrel brewing operation. In order to make this restaurant viable, they must use all the available space. Mr. Killam indicated that they arrived at the number of 560 seats based on the total possible seating. They were requesting the greatest possible build out instead of incremental approvals as the individual expansions occurred. Mr. Guerette asked if more seats where required to be a viable restaurant. Mr. Killam indicated that that was correct. Mr. Wheeler inquired as to what was the seating capacity of the other restaurants located in Camden and Topsham. Mr. Killam indicated that Topsham restaurant has 171 seats, and the Camden restaurant had 214 when it was operating. Mr. King reviewed the parking waiver standards and criteria. He said that he felt that it was important that the applicant carry the burden of proof in meeting the standards of the Ordinance. Mr. Guerette indicated that it was clear to him that in order to be financially viable, the building must be allowed to be fully utilized. Mr. Costlow moved to approve the Parking Waiver for 167 spaces for the Sea Dog Restaurant. He noted, however, that he felt that future applicants should have better financial documentation to support of their economic hardship. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion, and the Board voted 5 in favor to 0 opposed to approving the parking waiver. 11 Mr. Costlow then moved to approve the Site Development Plan for the Sea Dog Restaurant. Mr. Clark seconded the motion and the Board voted 5 in favor to 0 opposed to approving the Site Development Plan as presented. ADJOURNMENT There being no other items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 9:34 p.m. 12