Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-10-16 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF OCTOBER 16, 2002 MINUTES Board Members Present: Richard Fournier, Chairman David Clark Robert Guerette John Hanson Ryan King Bill Masters Hal Wheeler City Staff Present: Katherine Weber James Ring Peter Witham Lynn Johnson News Media Present: None Chairman Fournier called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. In the absence of Board Member Costlow, the Associate Members were asked to alternate voting beginning with Associate Member Masters, then Associate Member King, followed by Associate Member Hanson. CONSENT AGENDA Staff requested that Item No. 3 be removed from the Consent Agenda due to a minor conflict with the requested completion date. Chairman Fournier removed Item No. 3 to New Business. As no one else wished to remove any of the remaining items on the Agenda, Chairman Fournier asked for a motion. Mr. Wheeler moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Guerette seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 5 to 0. The items approved are: Item No. 1: Site Development Plan approval to fill and grade the abandoned Webster Avenue travel-way between 1-395 and 405 Perry Road adjacent to Industry and Service Districts. Galen Cole Family Foundation, applicant. Item No. 2: Site Location of Development Modification/Site Development Plan approval to construct a 12,400 square foot hanger on Maine Avenue at BIA in an Airport Development District. City of Bangor, applicant. Item No. 4: Request for an extension of the Starting and Completion Dates for a 7,174 square foot building at 824 Stillwater Avenue in a Shopping and Personal Service District and Stream Protection District. Stillwater Realty, LLC, applicant. Item No. 5: Site Development Plan approval for a 2,250 sq. ft. addition to an existing building at 729 Hogan Road in General Commercial and Service District. Van Syckle Lincoln Mercury, applicant. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No 6: Conditional Use/Site Development Plan and Site Location of Development Modification approval for a nineteen-lot expansion of Birch Hill Estates Mobile Home Park located at 1305 Broadway in a High Density Residential District. Judson M. Grant, Jr., applicant. Chairman Fournier opened the Public Hearing and asked for comments from proponents. Andrew Sturgeon of the Ames Corporation, represented the applicant. Mr. Sturgeon discussed with the Board the recent major rezoning of this area in March of 2002. As part of that rezoning effort, a portion of the area was rezoned to High Density Residential District to allow for the expansion of the Birch Hill Estates Mobile Home Park. Mr. Sturgeon also discussed the Site Development Plan submitted in support of the request for a nineteen-lot expansion. Chairman Fournier asked for comments from opponents. There being none, Chairman Fournier closed the Public Hearing, and asked for comments from Staff. Planning Officer Weber indicated that the Planning Board needed to vote on three applications, namely, the Conditional Use, the Site Development Plan, and the Site Location of Development Modification applications. Ms. Weber discussed with the Board the fact that the High Density Residential District treats mobile home parks as a conditional use subject to five specific standards that are: (1) that they meet the requirements of Article XVII (Mobile Home Park); (2) that they have City of Bangor sewer service; (3) that they have Bangor Water District water service; (4) that they contain a minimum of 25 mobile home spaces and a minimum area of five acres; and (5) that they receive site development plan approval. Ms. Weber also explained that in addition to the five specific standards noted above, a mobile home park must also meet the four standard conditional use standards of Section 165-9 in that: (1) the development standards and use conditions of the district must be met; (2) the proposed use will not create unreasonable traffic congestion; (3) the conditional use provides adequate utilities, fire protection, drainage, parking, loading and other necessary site improvements; and (4) the use is appropriate for the location sought and will conform to the general character of the area. The Planning Staff recommended Conditional Use Approval because the proposed mobile home park expansion meets the specific and general conditional use standards of the Ordinance. 2 Planning Officer Weber also discussed the Site Location of Development Modification and Site Development Plan applications, and indicated that both met the standards for Site Development Plan approval, as well as, the Site Location of Development Act Standards for approval. Ms. Weber indicated that the plans have been reviewed by the City Engineer’s Office, and have been found to be consistent with the City’s minimum engineering requirements and also with standard engineering practices. Mr. Masters asked if the applicant had made provision for recreation land as part of this expansion. Mike Longo, Grants Trailer Sales, indicated that an area had been designated for open space on the plan. He also noted that there are several other areas throughout the existing mobile home park that contain swings, a volleyball court, basketball courts, and areas for children to play. After some discussion, Mr. Guerette moved to approve the Conditional Use application. Mr. Clark seconded the motion. The Board voted 5 to 0 in favor of the motion. Mr. King then moved to approve the Site Development Plan application. Mr. Guerette seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5 to 0. Mr. Clark moved to approve the Site Location of Development Modification application. Mr. King seconded the motion. The Board voted five in favor and none opposed to the motion to approve. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 7: Site Development Plan approval for four four-unit buildings at 1160V Ohio Street in a High Density Residential District. B. A. Gardiner, applicant. Mr. James Tower of Engineering Dynamics, represented the applicant. He explained that the applicant was proposing to construct four buildings with four attached residential units in each building. No one spoke in opposition of the project. Chairman Fournier asked for Staff comments. Planning Officer Weber indicated that the proposed use was a permitted use in the High Density Residential District. Ms. Weber told the Board that a revised plan had been submitted addressing concerns regarding engineering details for the connection for the new sanitary sewer force main into the existing gravity sanitary sewer. However, the applicant is proposing to cross over two abutting properties to connect into the proposed utilities. The Planning Staff recommended Site Plan approval with the condition that utility easements be secured from and executed between the two abutting property owners as part of the approval of this project. Mr. Wheeler asked if this condition would place a hardship on the applicant. Mr. Ring, Director of Infrastructure and Development Support, explained that by not securing the necessary easements on the abutting properties, the applicant would need to extend the utilities within the public right-of- way which would be very costly to the applicant. Mr. Tower told the Board that the applicant agreed, and that he had been in discussions with the neighboring property owners. The applicant was waiting for the legal work to be approved by the parties before submitting it to the City. 3 Mr. Hanson moved to approve the Site Development Plan with the condition that utility easements be secured from the two abutting property owners and executed as part of this approval process. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion. The Board voted 5 to 0 in favor. Item No. 3: Request for Extension of the Completion Date for a parking lot at 101 Frost Drive in a General Commercial and Service District. Van Syckle Lincoln- Mercury, applicant. Planning Officer Weber noted that, at the time the Staff Memo was written, the applicant had requested a completion date extension to June 30, 2003. Subsequently, the applicant submitted a letter requesting that the completion date be extended to July 31, 2003. Staff asked that this item be removed from the Consent Agenda to clear up the discrepancy between the two dates. Planning Officer Weber indicated that the request met the criteria for an extension, and that Staff recommended approval of extending the completion date to July 31, 2003 as allowed under the Ordinance. Mr. Guerette moved to approve the request for an extension of the completion date to July 31, 2003. Mr. Clark seconded the motion. The Board voted 5 to 0 in favor. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 8: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. Mr. Clark moved to approve the Minutes of the October 1, 2002 Meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Guerette, and it passed by a vote of 5 to 0. OTHER BUSINESS Planning Officer Weber noted that Staff was still working on the By-Laws Amendment, and was in the process of incorporating changes suggested by Planning Board Members at the last meeting. She indicated that the Board would have the opportunity to review the By-Laws amendment again at an upcoming meeting. Planning Officer Weber also discussed with the Board the pending Ordinance Amendment regarding Site Development Approval Standards (Chapter 165-114). She noted that Staff had been working on another draft of the amendment to address concerns expressed by Planning Board members. This amendment would be discussed at the Infrastructure and Development Support Committee Meeting on October 29, 2002, and would come back to the Planning Board for a Public Hearing prior to consideration by the City Council. Ms. Weber indicated that Planning Board members would be invited to attend this IDS Workshop where the Ordinance amendment would be discussed. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 7:48 p.m. 4 To: Planning Office Staff, City of Bangor From: Bob Guerette Subject: By-Laws for the City of Bangor Planning Board Date: October 16, 2002 ______________________________________________________________________________________ I have only a few comments on the recommended change to the by-laws, they are as follows: § 11 A. Pertaining to roll call votes – don’t roll call votes involve the chairperson calling out the name of each member, one at a time, for a vote? This is not the way we do it now and I would prefer that each member be given an opportunity for comments and then a vote by show of hands. § 11 C. I find the language “It is presumed that any member voting to approve an application has found the applicant has met all applicable standards”, presumptuous! What any member may be thinking cannot be regulated with by-laws, and there may be valid reasons for voting to approve without a member necessarily thinking the applicant has met all applicable standards. § 17 “….included in the agenda of the meeting next previous to the meeting at which it is proposed…” I believe the word “next” can be eliminated from the that sentence and that it would suffice to say “…included in the agenda of the meeting previous to the meeting at which it is proposed...” I would like to recommend that two additional sections be included in the by-laws, the first dealing with the role and responsibilities of Associate Members, and the second establishing a procedure for excusing a member when there is a potential conflict of interest. Respectfully submitted, Bob Guerette 17 October 2002 Mr. Bob Guerette 78 Grant Street Bangor, Maine 04401 Re: Planning Board By-Laws Dear Mr. Guerette: Thank you for your recent comments on the proposed by-laws. The by-laws are in the process of being further refined on the basis of comments received from various members of the Board. I feel that I must personally respond to one of your comments, however. In reference to § 11(C) \[“Any member voting to deny an application shall state on the record the specific reason(s) for his or her denial. It is presumed that any member voting to approve an application has found that the applicant has met all applicable standards.”\], the statement of presumption is included in the by-laws in order to remind the Board that voting to approve an application will result in such an interpretation. As you know, the Board can only act on a matter pending before it upon a seconded motion followed by a vote. An affirmative vote means that all applicable standards have been met, regardless of what a Board member subsequently or secretly thinks. If a Board member believes that all applicable standards have not been met, that Board member should vote to deny the application. There are no legal reasons why a Board member would vote to approve an application that has not met all applicable standards. If you have any questions on this point, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, John Hamer, Assistant City Solicitor