Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-03-20 Planning Board Minutes Transcript Planning Board Meeting Minutes March 20, 2001 Planning Board Members Attending: Richard Fournier, Chairman, George Burgoyne, Frederick Costlow, Robert Guerette, Robert Lingley, Robert Kreitzer City Staff Present: Katherine Weber, James Ring, John Hamer, Norman Heitmann, Rodney McKay, Peter Witham, David Gould, Lynn Johnson Meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. Chair Fournier: We do have a quorum here tonight and I would ask that Mr. Kreitzer be our voting alternative member tonight, and with that we have a single item agenda here tonight, actually two items, but the same applicant. I’d like to set a couple of ground rules to start tonight and first I will hand over the mike to John Hamer, Assistant City Solicitor. John Hamer, Assistant City Solicitor: I’d just like to make a couple of brief administrative notes before we begin. Just a reminder for everybody, the purpose of tonight’s hearing is to review the application that’s pending before the Planning Board. This is not a forum for discussing land use policy. The Board is constrained. Their jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the application on Bangor’s land development permit, land development code. So, whether Wal-Mart is or is not a good tenant for the City of Bangor to have to come within its borders really isn’t relevant and if there’s any irrelevant testimony then the chair is going to ask you to please conclude your arguments or your comments so we can move on to let more people speak. Really, at issue is whether the site development plan and the conditional use approval conditions have been met by the applicant. When making your name…when making a comment, please make sure you state your name so we’ll have it on the record and make sure you find one of the microphones to speak in to. This is being recorded and it does go into our record. Please also note that, in addition to the City approval, the applicant has to meet other criteria set forth in state law. They have to obtain a site location of development act permit from DEP and a traffic permit from MDOT. This is not the end-all; this is review under the City’s code only. Then, I guess, my last comment is, if there is any Board member that has any conflicts or disclosures they need to make, now would be a good time to make it and if there are none, we can continue. Thank you. Chair Fournier: Thank you, John. I just want to start out tonight with a couple of ground rules. John laid out a couple of them and I’ll just go a little bit further. I’m asking that the applicant, in the interest of time for everyone, that the applicant speak for a half an hour. Asking that after that any proponents and I would like to kind of get this in an order, that the proponents first, the abutting property owners and business proprietors then speak. I would then ask for any Bangor residents to speak and lastly, any other interested parties to speak as far as proponents. Then, I would ask for the opponents, again starting out with the abutting property owners and business proprietors. Second, Bangor residents. Third, and last, any other interested parties to then speak. Again, I’m just going to reiterate it a little bit from what John said. Speakers please state your name and address clearly, because this will be on the record. I ask that any comments and questions be addressed to the Board, not to the applicant. We will, at the end of the meeting, have the applicant come back up and they’ll have the opportunity to respond to any statements and/or any questions. I would then ask, aside from the applicant, that any other speakers keep their comments to no more than 5 minutes and to provide any…I’d ask only provide new information. I don’t want things to be repeated over and over again. I would like, at approximately, no later than 9:15 to close the public hearing so we can discuss this within the Board and lastly, I’ll just reiterate John’s statements. We’re not here to talk about zoning. We’re not here to talk about the resource protection area. We’re not here to talk about wildlife habitat. We’re not here to talk about big box. We’re not here to talk about Wal-Mart. We’re not here to talk about any decisions that DEP or the Maine Department of Transportation is going to make. We’re here to talk about conditional use and site development plan. I hope I’ve made myself clear and will go forward. You had a question? Unknown Speaker: Will you specify abutters? Chair Fournier: Abutters. People right next to the property in question. Any other questions? Okay. At this point, the first thing on our agenda is public hearing, conditional use development plan, 638V Stillwater Avenue, Widewaters Stillwater Company, LLC. I’d like to open the public hearing and if I could have the applicant. Kevin Kane, Architect and Development Manager with the Widewaters Group in DeWit, New York: We are the owners of the land that is before you tonight and we are here to request three things. One is a site plan approval. The second is a pair of conditional use permits and the third is a minor modification to a subdivision that this Board approved last May. With me here tonight is Steve Murray and Jeff Allen, Engineers with the James W. Sewall Company and they 2 will address the site plan, the civil engineering and anything related to the specifics on the property. Mike Waugh from Surry Engineering Associates is here to talk about traffic and Linda Johns, a surveyor with Plisga & Day is here to discuss the subdivision. On a procedural matter, we are in receipt of a letter that was written by a member of this Board to the City Council. Mr. Costlow’s letter, we are concerned that it would infer that he had predetermined his position on this application prior to this presentation tonight and respectfully we would request that Mr. Costlow recuse himself because of the prejudicial nature of the letter, at least in our opinion. Having stated that, I would like to say that the project before you tonight is very similar… John Hamer: I would like to interrupt you for one moment. Now that you’ve made a statement, would you like a chance to respond before we move on so we can get this out of the way. Frederick Costlow: Well, I’m not going to recuse myself. That letter had dealt with a 75’ setback. As I understand, this is a 250’ setback. Kevin Kane: That is correct. Frederick Costlow: It didn’t have anything to do with your project. In fact, when I wrote that letter, I wasn’t even aware that you had another application before the Board, so I’ll make by decision based upon the record tonight and based upon the record that was submitted and nothing else. I haven’t predisposed what I’ve done. I did make a comment on the 75’ setback which I understand you’re in excess of. With that being said, they are apples and oranges in my view. Chair Fournier: It would be of my opinion and I’d like to hear from any Board members regarding this. My opinion is I think Mr. Costlow is free to vote. If anyone finds any objection, I’d like to hear that. Unknown: No, I haven’t seen the letter, but if it addresses a different issue than what we are talking about, then I see no reason for him to recuse himself. Chair Fournier: Mr. Burgoyne? George Burgoyne: The issue’s on the record. Chair Fournier: Okay. Mr. Lingley? 3 Robert Lingley: I guess I don’t understand why the applicant feels that it should ask for the recusal of Mr. Costlow. They’re welcome to explain that in further detail if they want, but based on what I’ve heard, I don’t see any reason to make a motion to have them recused. Kevin Kane: We just wanted it on the record. Chair Fournier: Thank you. Kevin Kane: The project before you tonight is really nothing you haven’t seen before. It’s just less. I think before we go into the presentation of tonight’s application, we think we owe this Board, and actually the public, a bit of an explanation as to why we felt compelled to withdraw our previous application and what has gone on in the intervening 7 or 8 months since we first filed. Our previous application was based on the zoning that is currently in place. As you know, the Penjajawoc Stream is currently zoned as stream protection and the Bangor Bog is currently zoned resource protection. They have dramatically different setback requirements. What we learned in that application process; however, is that the rules had changed in mid-stream. What we learned was that the state had re-determined that the setback had been changed without going through the legal process of re-zoning at this normal under land use law. As a result of that, we had a very serious dilemma on our hands because even though we are in compliance with the current zoning for the City of Bangor and are still in compliance with the City of Bangor, the issue with the state environmental agencies was clear that we were at an impasse. From August until about 30 days ago, we had been in active discussions in Augusta, to try and find if there was any common ground we could find with the state that would allow us to salvage that previous application. Regrettably, we came to the conclusion that there was none. So that based upon that, we had to reduce the size of the project. The previous application that you saw included a 224,000 square foot Wal-Mart, 3 out lots that fronted on the Gilman Road and one out lot that fronted on Stillwater Avenue. What we used as a basis for redesigning our plan, and is included in tonight’s application, was the letter written from IF&W’s Slade Moore to the City of Bangor stating that the Penjajawoc Stream was now a resource protection and that we needed to maintain a 250’ buffer. The second was a letter from Maine Audubon’s Judy Kellog-Markowsky stating the Maine Audubon position, that we needed to maintain a minimum of 250’ buffer from the edge of our development. We came to the conclusion, “no mas”. We were not going to be able to win that fight and so we asked our engineers to go back and reexamine what we needed to do. The result is we have a smaller project. We don’t have less tax assessment, but what we did do is we took two of the out lots off from Gilman Road, we slid our anchor tenant to the South, so that our pavement edge is no closer than 250’ from the wetland buffer. Because of the irregular shape of the wetland buffer, the average distance from our pavement 4 to the wetland buffer is 305 feet, more than 20% greater than had been requested by IF&W or Maine Audubon. The building mass itself, averages 380 feet from the edge of the wetland buffer. We believe that if the bar has been set at 250 feet, we have cleared the bar. It would not surprise me if we hear tonight that the bar needs to be raised again. But, I would hope that this Board would be willing to work with a sense of fairness to help us determine what is the most appropriate distance that we should use. By exceeding it by more than 20% of what has been requested in the record, we are confident that this application will meet the criteria. I appreciate your opportunity to give me this time and at this point, I would like to ask Steve Murray from James W. Sewall Company to talk about the specifics of the plan, followed by Mike Waugh and then Linda Johns. Unknown Speaker: Before you leave, could I have one question. You referred to the document of Mr. Moore that was presented in the last application. Would you like that document included in the record in this proceeding. Kevin Kane: Yes, we would. Unknown Speaker: Okay. I just wanted to be clear. Chair Fournier: Do I have to mark that or number that somehow or something. I don’t know the legal process. John Hamer: We’re going to record that as Exhibit #2, if you can make sure we get a copy of that. Chair Fournier: We had reviewed it in the prior application. Slade Moore from …. Unknown Speaker: Since he referred to it, I thought it would be good to have it included in the record of this. Chair Fournier: I don’t disagree, I just didn’t know how. Unknown Speaker: The recommendation was as he stated, a 250 minimum setback. Steve Murray, Vice President of Engineering for James W. Sewall Company of Old Town: I’m a Bangor area resident, have been all my life except for a few years with the military. I’d like to explain how we believe the project will fit into the site and we will be available to answer questions after Mr. Waugh finishes his presentation on traffic. The project will comply with the development standards for shopping and personal service zoning with conditional use permits for outdoor displays in excess of 1% of the building area. 12.4% here for garden 5 shop and for auto service, tires and oil changes. From schedule B of the land development codes, we need: a minimum lot area size of 30,000 square feet. Lot C is 27.2 acres or about 1.2 million square feet. Minimum lot width 150 feet, we’re 400 feet plus at a minimum. Minimum front yard along Gilman Road is 400 feet. We require 50 feet. Minimum side yard meets minimums. The rear yard meets minimums. Maximum height under the present zoning is 40 feet. We have a maximum height of about 32. Minimum lot coverage. Maximum lot coverage, I’m sorry, 25%. Our lot coverage is about 19%. Maximum impervious area, 70%. As presently constituted, we’re about 63% down from 66% in our previous application. The minimum buffer yard type is D. The maximum distance from the parking lot to the wetland behind the store with this new configuration of the site is over 250 feet. This easily meets the newly proposed Bangor stream setback of 75 feet. The average distance from the parking area to the edge of the wetland is over 300 feet, as Kevin indicated. No variances required for any of these requirements. Concerning utilities, water service will be provided by a 12-inch diameter ductile iron with 3 fire hydrants on the site. The sanitary sewer will connect to the existing City sewer. Parking. We have, as presently constituted, 985 parking spaces, including 22 handicap and four van accessible which exceeds the City requirements on number of spaces and space width. City ordinances call for four spaces per 1,000 square feet of store and we have about 4.5 per thousand. The stormwater drainage system is gravity drain of all impervious on-site and some off-site areas going into a 5 foot deep wet pond to control both stormwater quantity and improve stormwater quality up to and including the 25 year storm. The pond is located to the rear of the store. There will be no increase in the rate of run-off from the site. The pond will also be configured to capture sediment to floating debris, before it can be discharged to the stream. The plan for the pond is on sheet C-2 and I’m not even sure that..right there, a typical cross section has been provided to the City and I don’t see it in front of me here, but the pond is constituted long and narrow to fit into the topography and again, to bring it as closely tight against the anticipated development as we can possibly make it. The buffer yards, as I indicated, are shown on the landscaping plan which again, has been provided to you and the plan meets the requirement for the buffer yard type D. The building conforms to the general character and architectural style of development in the immediate area. Over the last few weeks, we’ve been in close contact with the City Engineer and Planners and have tried to answer their questions as they have raised them. I think we’ve been able to work together well and have wound up with a better project as a result. We appreciate the past response and timely review of our submissions. Mike Waugh has information on traffic. I apologize in advance for the brief summary here, but…10 minutes is pretty short time or a half hour is pretty short time and I was allotted 10 minutes, so I will quit and turn it over to Mike. 6 Unknown Speaker: Question please, sir, before you…Mr. Sewall. Steve Murray: Mr. Murray, I’m sorry. Mr. Murray, not Mr. Sewall. Unknown Speaker: Okay. Mr. Murray, I do have a question. You talked about stormwater; you said quantity and quality. Could you just reiterate for me, what specifically, you meant when you said a water quality from the storm run off. What are we talking about. Steve Murray: Okay. Basically, in any stormwater run-off, particularly from a parking area, one can expect floating materials, primarily whatever washes off a parking area in a rainstorm. This material will be captured, will not be allowed to be discharged. Also, the design of the pond is such that its silt other sediments will settle out in the pond, particularly in the head end of the pond. It will be a baffled configuration with the head end being a settling area that is cleanable. Also, the catch basins in the development will be trapped such that floatables should not, theoretically, be able to make it out of the catch basins and those will be cleaned periodically. The idea is to discharge water and only water to the drainage…existing drainage area which runs roughly parallel to Stillwater Avenue and ultimately winds up into the local stream. Unknown Speaker: The floatables. Does that include gas and oil? Is that what you are referring to as floatables. The… Steve Murray: Yes, it would include gas and oil, plastics, papers, anything that won’t drink. Unknown Speaker: Okay. I think the Chair, since I asked a question, I don’t think you should be penalized in your 30 minutes for your response so we’ll add a little time. But, I did want to thank you sir. Steve Murray: Thank you. Mike Waugh, Surry Engineering Associates, Surry, Maine – Transportation Engineers: We are subconsultants to Sewall Company on this project. I spoke to you before. You know I have trouble keeping things to 10 minutes, too. We’ll give it a quick look. What I’d like to do is update just from the last time. If we could take some of the basic statements that we made at the last presentation and just go on. With the reduced scope of the project, right now, we’re looking at a peak hour Saturday generation of 1,288 trips. That compares with our previous of 1,344. To that, is the 224,000 square foot super center, a 16,000 square foot garden center attached to it, the auto parts at the corner of Gilman and Stillwater and 10,000 square feet of specialty retail on the east side of the 7 Circuit City. We have run through all the capacity analysis with these new numbers. We have distributed the traffic along the network using 30% primary, 35% diverted link and 35% pass-by trips. These percentages have been approved by DOT and they have been, as stated in the review letter, the Peer review letter, on the previous traffic study that we did. We have gone through the capacities like you said, and everything we can make, all the intersections where we have traceable traffic operate at a level of service of D or better. D is the standard use by DOT as an acceptable level of service on a roadway. One of the things that we’re doing and I don’t think anybody has really seen put together before, is the overall improvements that are going to be on Stillwater Avenue as a result of this project and as a result of the MDOT project. What we have up on the screen here is an aerial. This was taken in 98 so there’s some things that are missing but not many in there. The area in blue around here is the present Maine DOT project for the Stillwater Avenue interchange. The new interchange is right here. Right here is the intersection of the South Mall Drive which goes into Penney’s. Up here is our intersection. Everything in yellow is what we will be building in there. Jeff, zoom up on this area, can’t we? As you see in here, from DOT, there are going to be two thru lanes coming in northbound, one thru lane coming in southbound and then there’s going to be a double left-hand turn coming in this area. There’ll be two right turn lanes coming off the new interchange and then there will be naturally two lanes going on the new interchange. There will be a traffic signal installation installed here and there’ll be a gray concrete island all the way down. This intersection, right in this area, is the intersection of the cinema. You also know I have to pace too. This is for the back entrance to the cinema, comes in. Let’s pan down to the right, Jeff. Here we have…can we blow up on this one some more? I want to show you here just how much additional pavement is going to be added in here. This is the existing edge of pavement as it exists presently in the field. This is going to be the new edge of pavement. All widening of the road is pushed to the north side of Stillwater Avenue, in there. I say again, this is the intersection south entrance to the mall. There’s two lanes coming through northbound, one lane heading right and then we have opposing left turn lanes in here. There’s two through lanes heading south. The DOT project, that goes on down to this line right here and stops. We will pick up from this point, to get rid of their tapers in here and make a full stretch; we will continue this five-lane section all the way down through our project. Let’s pan down, Jeff. Here’s the intersection now with Gilman. You can see we’re starting our left turn lane for the project. Going down. Okay. This is our new intersection, T-intersection. We have a long left turn lane coming in. We have two through lanes southbound, two through lanes northbound, new traffic signal, pedestrian signal. This signal will be inter- connected to the one down at the previous South Penney’s Drive. It will also be inter-connected to the one; the North Mall Drive and we will install a master controller here. The traffic signal down at the Penney’s Drive is also going to be inter-connected to the new signal at the interstate ramp so we will have a 8 progressive signal system in here with modern equipment. This will also be capable of inter-connecting to anything else that the City wants to install up on Stillwater Avenue. Coming out of the site, we have one left turn, one right turn and then two through lanes going in. This needs some widening to do this and we’re taking it over on this side. This little gray area that you see over here is the Circuit City parking lot. There will be a raised channelization island, concrete channelization island in this area to help separate, delineate and merge…move traffic over. There won’t be quite that many lane arrows on the pavement either. I just put them in there for information sake. What’s all this going to do for us now? Let’s go to the other one, Jeff. Good. Unknown Speaker: Is this the …Oh. Mike Waugh: What we’re seeing here. Can everybody hear me? This is a traffic simulation model developed by the Federal Highway Administration. We use it quite a bit in the State of Maine to determine actually what traffic is going to do. This is the model that we’ve made of the entire improved quarter. The vehicles in here that you see in green are all going to be left-turners. The vehicles in yellow are going to be right-turners. The vehicles in white are going to be thru- vehicles. This lane right here is the new interchange ramp. Okay. Right here is the Penney’s Drive and going into The Avenue. This is Gilman Road. This is our road. Let her go Jeff. We can see how traffic moves through the system. You can see the little round circles in here are the traffic signal, indications of how the traffic signal is going to be working, what’s yellow, what’s green. If the Board wants, I do have an existing condition model, too that we can show that just shows everything jammed up. This is with the improvements that we’re anticipating, from what DOT is building right now and that we plan to build as a part of our traffic mitigation. I think you can see that everything, you know, while it may stop at a signal, it all clears, everything goes. This is peak Saturday conditions. Any questions? Chair Fournier: Do you want questions at this time or do you want to wait until you’re done with your presentation? If you have questions from Mr. Waugh, please go right ahead. Robert Lingley: You’re moving thing here… Mike Waugh: That’s a microscopic vehicle simulation analysis model. Robert Lingley: Whatever. This model shows that a lot of traffic coming from Stillwater…from the area west of the new 95 interchange. Is that intended to simulate real life or is that based upon your statistical analysis? 9 Mike Waugh: That’s based on the assignments that were made by both MDOT and in the VMI Mirror Study for Stillwater Avenue with that interchange being completed. So, that interchange is going to be a direct draw for traffic and the substantial amount of traffic is going to go off there. That’s why we’ve got the two left turn lanes. You’ve got two left turn lanes going through there and only one thru lane. Robert Lingley: So, you’re saying that the traffic that’s coming towards the mall area from Broadway is going to be diverted off the new 95, I mean, a substantial amount of that traffic is going to be diverted to the 95, the new 95 interchange? Mike Waugh: Yes. We feel that it is. And, there has been various studies to back that up. That, right now, and I know I do it and I would imagine several other people here do it also, is that we’ll take Stillwater Avenue a lot of times, you know, to avoid some problems on Hogan Road. You know, especially if you’re coming to the backside of the mall over here. You’ll take that now. You know, I would jump on the interstate and come off this ramp and go right in. Robert Lingley: Got ya. Mike Waugh: One thing else I would like to show you. This is a question that arose at the last meeting is the traffic impact we would have down at Broadway and Stillwater. Unknown Speaker: Um Um… that was my concern. Mike Waugh: These were counts…they were taken last Saturday. We’d tried to get them earlier but it kept snowing on us on the weekends. What you’re seeing there is the numbers without the parenthesis are the actual traffic counts. The numbers behind them in parenthesis are the trips that are being generated by the site that are traceable down to that intersection and they really turn out to be insignificant in compared to what the total traffic is down there. I don’t see that it’s going to have a…any effective change in level of service due to our trips at the intersection. Robert Lingley: This was a count made in the space of one hour on a peak hour on Saturday? Mike Waugh: This was a count done…the actual count was done from 12 – 2 and from 4 – 6 and out of that time period, the peak hour of those four hours, the peak hour turned out to be the 12 – 1 and that’s what that shows. Robert Lingley: Has your inquiry determined to the extent that you can, or estimated the number of cars exiting Stillwater going west onto the 95 10 interchange? Are you anticipating that fewer cars…well, what percentage of fewer cars will continue on Stillwater towards Broadway? My first question dealt with cars coming east towards the mall, now I’m asking the opposite question, cars going away from the mall down Stillwater towards Broadway. Is it your anticipation or your analysis that… Mike Waugh: Again, yes. We feel that there is going to be with that double left turn up there, there’s substantial capacity in that intersection. You know, to get the cars off. Robert Lingely: Can you quantify that? Have you been able to quantify it in percentage or? Mike Waugh: Yes. I’ve got to go back through the counts. They’re in the count book here; I can give you percentage in about a minute and a half. Robert Lingley: That’s fine. I would like to hear that. Maybe you could add it at the end. There’s no reason to delay this. Mike Waugh: Right. At the end, I’ll be glad to. Anything else? Unknown Speaker: Mr. ??? Frederick Costlow: The Board looks at this project, of course as a new application since the other application was withdrawn so anything that you want to be considered from the prior application, in other words, I remember, don’t have it in front of me, I remember you prepared a fairly lengthy report? Mike Waugh: Yes. Frederick Costlow: Yeah. My only thing is, if you want it included in this record, that now, because these are separate applications and, in fairness to you, want to make sure that anything you want submitted for the Board to consider should be redone now. Chair Fournier: Mr. Costlow, within our package, we did receive that. Mike Waugh: We have resubmitted a new traffic study for this and we have done a small supplemental study that goes along with it. One thing I did want to do, though, is the drawings of the new pavement that’s going on Stillwater Avenue as a result of both projects, I do have a copy of those that I would like to give to Kate before…there’s a couple in there Kate and… The accidents were covered in the last session and they’re covered in the report. I don’t… 11 Frederick Costlow: Okay. Just a point for you to give you an opportunity if there was something you hadn’t submitted in this report that they did, as a reminder that it was separate proceedings. If you’ve got in everything that you intend to offer, then that’s fine. Robert Lingley: One last question, Mike and it really doesn’t deal with traffic, but my memory is fading so, where does the pedestrian sidewalk end on Stillwater going east? Does it end at that…your interchange…and the light there or does it continue on? Mike Waugh: Well, you’ve got the difference between presently and what’s going to be happening. As a part of the DOT project, they’re constructing sidewalk all the way up to the Penney’s Drive. Robert Lingley: The Penney’s Drive, which is before you, right? Mike Waugh: Yes, as you’re heading east it is, yes. You’ve got the Penney’s Drive, Gilman and then us. Robert Lingley: Okay. So, there’s no sidewalk on the southerly side of Stillwater at your interchange? Mike Waugh: No. Robert Lingley: Why are you having a pedestrian crossing there? Mike Waugh: We were asked to put one in by the City at that location and the City does have plans to construct sidewalks in that area. Am I correct in that Jim? So, we’re putting it in. There’s going to be a wheelchair ramp goes in there and the pedestrian crossing. Robert Lingley: Right. Thank you. Mike Waugh: Thank you. Chair Fournier: Any other questions of the applicant? Mr. Waugh, Mr. Murray, or Mr. Kane? All set. Mr. Lingley? Robert Lingley: Yeah, I had a question of Mr. Murray and I didn’t realize that I perhaps should have asked it when he was up before the microphone. Because I cannot see the drawing of the wetpond, how does that wetpond drain, in what direction? 12 Steve Murray: The pond drains…the pond drains approximately…is this thing working? Approximately due east, this being north. There would be an outflow structure… Unknown Speaker: Can you turn it? We can’t see what you’re pointing to sir. Thank you. Steve Murray: Basically, this is the pond, as I said, with a baffle part way down it. This is the outlet structure which would outlet into an existing easement. This is the existing detention pond presently serving the Circuit City development. It would outlet in exactly the same spot into the drainage ditch that takes part of the drainage from the Bangor Mall and ultimately discharges into the stream which goes in this direction. This is Joanne Fabrics here, just to orient you a bit. Unknown Speaker: What’s the total distance from the outlet to the pond until it reaches the stream? Do you know? Can you approximate? Steve Murray: Do you know Jeff, right off the top of your head? Jeff Allen: About 150 roughly. Steve Murray: Yeah, roughly 150 feet, I guess. The scale on this drawing is an inch to 100 feet so…yeah; it’s probably more than 150 feet. That’s 100 feet, so it’s probably over 200 feet. Chair Fournier: Any other questions? Robert Kreitzer: I have a question I think it may be directed to Mr. Murray concerning the lighting on the site. Would you be the person? (FIRST SIDE OF TAPE ENDED) Steve Murray: It will vary depending on the location. The interior lights for the most part will be four to a pole. The exterior will be one or two to a pole. Basically, the intent is to confine the lighting to the site. Particularly, the parking area toward Gilman. The area behind the store, again, we will work, we plan to work very hard to confine the lighting to the immediate rear of the store and not pollute the area outside of the paved area. Robert Kreitzer: Do you have a guess as to the number of pole mounted lights? Steve Murray: I’d have to count them. Again, in the set of plans that the was included with the application, there was a lighting plan and I don’t recall the exact number of lights. 13 Robert Kreitzer: I got a rough count earlier. Would 35-40 be a…sound like a fair number to you? Steve Murray: Yeah, I would think so. Something along that order. Robert Kreitzer: 1000 watts each, is that right? Steve Murray: Yep. Robert Kreitzer: Okay. Thank you. Chair Fournier: Any other questions? Robert Lingley: Yeah, I have one question on present drainage. Is it your understanding that the snow and water that presently lands on that site drains into the stream, naturally or does it drain…where does it go? What’s the grade variant here and…? Steve Murray: The basic land slope…the basic slope of the land is downhill this way, so, yes, it does make its way to the stream. Robert Lingley: Okay. Thank you. Chair Fournier: Any other questions? I just, for the record, I just want to be sure, as far as the exhibits go, the first exhibit we have is the Planning Board memo, the second was the letter that Mr. Costlow wrote. Mr. Kane, you submitted a letter as our second exhibit, could you just clarify which letter that was? Kevin Kane: It was a letter that was written from Slade Moore of Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Chair Fournier: Okay. Kevin Kane: And I believe it was submitted to the City so it should be part of the current record… Chair Fournier: Yes it is. Unknown Speaker: I happen to have that in my material if you want to take a th look at this. It’s Monday, July 10 and basically was Slade Moore’s eight page… Kevin Kane: That’s the letter to Robin and Clukey… 14 Unknown Speaker: Okay. We happen to have a copy with this. Chair Fournier: Okay. The third would be the traffic flow diagram and the fourth would be the pavement drawing. Pavement plan. Okay. Just to set things straight. I would ask for proponents and if we could…if I could first have the abutters to the property to speak or any business proprietors speak. If you could please state your name and where you live. Don Becker, CES, Inc., 465 South Main Street, PO Box 639, Brewer, Maine 04412: We are speaking and representing Three Rivers Development Corporation, an abutter, a proponent, the owner of Lot B on the subdivision plan. We border Circuit City and the proposed Super Wal-Mart. We have some comments that we need to read into the record. Some things that we look forward to the Widewaters group working with us on that we want the Board to be aware of. Rather than reading all of them, I’d ask that after I make a very brief presentation, that I submit for the record, a written copy of what it is that we wish to say this evening. Would that be acceptable to the Board? Chair Fournier: That’d be great. Don Becker: Our concerns mainly relate to the fact that the development has changed since the previous submission. We have a number of deeded rights, both drainage and utilities and access. We are participants in the detention pond which has moved. We have certain access rights from Stillwater Avenue. We have rights to the circumvential road. All of these are deeded and all of these are somewhat affected by the new plan. So, my client is concerned that both the Board and City staff and Widewaters need to…we need some comfort that the new changes will be reflected in a somewhat of a conversion from our right to the old pond to our right to the new pond type thing. And a right from the old road to the new road that the new filled curves, for instance on the intersection to Stillwater, require certain deed changes. We provided a copy to Widewaters before this meeting began. We’re going to put a copy into the record and we have significant confidence that the Planning Board, the City staff, the Developer will treat us with…and take care of us… Chair Fournier: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Becker. Any other proponents? David Rudnicki: My family owns adjacent land. We’ve been in contact with the City and I think it’s a workable plan. I think it will be good for the community to have Wal-Mart in the area. Chair Fournier: Thank you. Any other abutters? Proponents? Seeing none, I would ask then, for Bangor residents, proponents. 15 Bonnie Hitchborn, 235 Finson Road: I’d like to say that we’ve been seeing an awful lot of things written in the paper against this and I think that the plan that we saw presented tonight was a very good one. It takes care of the traffic problems. It takes care of the water and wetland problems and it also takes care of, I think it’s great, because I saw that they have their own road that’s going to go not from Gilman Road, which is great because the Rudnicki Farm then will not be as encroached upon as some people thought it might be. So, I’m for it. Thank you. Chair Fournier: Thank you. Any other residents? If you could please come up and speak in the microphone, that’d be great. Sir, you can speak from where you are, I think we’d all be able to hear you, if not, we’ll tell you. Charlie Curran, Pine Street: The first thing I’d like to say…the last time I was at a Planning Board Meeting, I was kind of hostile. I’d like to apologize for my attitude. You’re talking about traffic from Stillwater Avenue down towards Broadway. Right now, there’s room for me to go if I want to go up to the mall, take Garland Street up to Howard Street. It’s hard to get from Pine Street onto Stillwater Avenue. It’s awful hard coming from the mall and getting as far as Essex Street and having a traffic light there, it’s awful hard for people to take a left there because of all the traffic from Broadway. I understood them to say there wouldn’t be any changes once they got down to that area. He was being asked about traffic flow from Stillwater to Broadway. To me, it seems that there’d be an awful lot of change to traffic flow. I don’t think that it’s addressed properly…residents on these side streets off Stillwater Avenue, what they’re going to do once the traffic starts flowing? I may not be around by the time it’s finished, but I do think there’s a problem already there especially when you’re coming from Broadway and you’re going to take a right on Stillwater Avenue, you don’t have to wait for a green light, right turn on a red…(inaudible) then the light changes green…it’s a long time…(inaudible – microphone problems). I’m sorry about that. I’m all in favor of the project, but I would like to see something done about the traffic flow. If were having a bad road that we’ve got now on Stillwater Avenue up as far as Howard Street, is terrible now, what’s it going to be and who’s going to be responsible for it when you build a new project up there? The City’s going to end up paying these bills keeping that road up with wall to wall traffic. Now, we’re having trouble getting it done. Chair Fournier: Thank you Mr. Curran. Just, I’ll address that a little bit. I think the intention of having the new intersection coming off of 95 was to alleviate some of the traffic going down Stillwater towards Broadway so that they could hop on the highway and utilize the highway in a more efficient manner and to get to their final destination. There’s not going to be an answer for people cutting across Howard Street or Pine Street, or any of the other streets in that 16 neighborhood. People will always do that. It’s not going to stop. I hope that answers some of your question. I’m sure it doesn’t answer all of it. Thank you. Chair Fournier: Any other Bangor residents, proponents. Greg Jones, 68 Bowdoin Street: My only concern this evening is that the Board looks at this application based on the merits of the current zoning laws and that those are the laws that are applied. I’d hate to think that we’d be setting any precedents where future developers would feel that their applications wouldn’t be looked at based on their merits. That’s all I’m concerned with. Thank you. Chair Fournier: Thank you, Mr. Jones. Any other Bangor residents? Proponents? I’ll ask for any other interested parties, proponents? I would now ask for opponents. I’ll first ask for the abutting property owner or business proprietors and again, I’ll reiterate, if we could keep our comments down to five minutes a piece, that’d be great. Abutting? Unknown Speaker: (inaudible)…property…or folks who are neither for or against (inaudible)… Chair Fournier: It wasn’t on my splate, but I can put it on my splate. I‘ll reserve some time at the end. Thank you. Non interested parties, okay. I’m sorry, I was just kidding. Let me just keep on going. I’m sorry. Jody Jones, Maine Audubon: We do not oppose the development but we have information relative to what Kevin Kane did speak of and would like to share it with the Board. Chair Fournier: Do you think it’s pro or con, you’re welcome to speak at any time as far as…if you want to speak now, as far as a proponent or other interested parties, that’s your call..I think I’ll just have it at the end, that’s fine. Jody Jones, Maine Audubon: Personally I’d like to speak now, but I don’t really care, but that’s okay. Chair Fournier: I’d kind of like to keep to the agenda. Okay, thank you. I was at opponents, abutting property owners or business proprietors. I don’t think I saw anyone stand up. I will then ask for Bangor residents. At this point, I would ask Ed Gould to come up. I know there’s a group of people who want to speak and they want to speak right next to each other. Mr. Gould. Ed Gould, Esquire of Gross, Minsky, Mogul & Singal, Bangor resident – 19 Norway Road: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you’ll bear with me, croaking through my laryngitis, I’ll try and present the view of my clients who are 17 BACORD. Bangor Area Citizens Organized for Responsible Development. We thank you this evening for the opportunity to present the views of our membership to you. BACORD is a group of Bangor residents, property owners, and business people who have mobilized to protect the Penjajawoc marsh. One of, I believe, only three areas that have been identified by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife as a very special resource in the State of Maine and it’s a rare asset for the residents of this City. The pending application represents a grave threat to the marsh, the stream and the uplands area which are a habitat for several species which are endangered in our state. There are several members of BACORD, numerous members of BACORD who are here tonight who are opposed to this project who will not be speaking because of the time constraints that the Board is under in reviewing and approving this application. But, they are here tonight because they want the Board to know that they feel strongly about this project and they feel strongly that the marsh should be protected. Unknown Speaker: I thought this was on the merits of the site plan? (inaudible) Chair Fournier: I’m going to let Mr. Gould speak. Unknown Speaker: Excuse me. Chair Fournier: Thank you. Ed Gould: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While there are numerous reasons why this project is bad for the City of Bangor and should not go forward, tonight our objections will focus on three critical areas, specifically within this Planning Board’s jurisdiction. Those three areas are traffic, stormwater control, and the adverse impact that this project will have on the adjoining areas of the Penjajawoc marsh and the wildlife that relies upon the marsh and the areas surrounding it for their very existence. We’ll be providing both lay and expert evidence, both testimonial and documentary to establish not merely that the applicant has failed to carry the burden that it brings with it in each of these specific areas, but further that the project itself will have a negative impact in each of these three important areas. The first area is traffic and while I appreciate Mr. Waugh’s presentation and his animation, we have asked for a study to be prepared by Diane Morabita. She has provided a preliminary study which I would like to provide to the Board. While Ms. Morabitas’ report is a summary report, it’s limited in its scope because she’s not had the opportunity to do a full study, as the applicant has. It’s important in one very important respect. She indicates in her study, the Widewaters Wal-Mart study substantially understates the number of primary trips to the store and this is an important understatement because it’s the primary trips that have the most important impacts on the number of additional cars that are going to be coming to the 18 area. We’re not talking about people who are coming to the mall anyway to do other business, these are people who are coming particularly to this store for that reason only and therefore placing an added burden on the streets and roads in this particular area. As this Board well knows, this is already an overburdened area by traffic and this information from Ms. Morabita certainly calls the applicant’s study into question. And, it’s their burden to show that there is no unreasonable congestion or hazard in this area. Her study certainly calls that into question and indicates they failed to carry their burden of proof to you that this substantial new development will not have an unreasonable affect on traffic in the adjoining areas. We’ll also be presenting some brief lay testimony from Crystal Jackins and Gerry Kearns, who are residents of the area who will testify about the traffic problems that already exist there. We’re also going to be addressing stormwater control and the impact that it has on adjacent properties such as the marsh and the stream. We’ll be providing testimony from Dick Andren who will testify to you regarding the effect of impervious surfaces on groundwater and run-off and urban streams. Fay Wren is also here. She is a downstream property owner. She’s downstream on the borders of the Penjajawoc and she, herself, has observed the effects and the worsening of the run-off on her property in recent years and how the additional development proposed by this application may impact on her property. Finally, we’ll be providing some testimony on the rare and irreplaceable natural area, the Penjajawoc, and the effect that this application will have on it. This effect is unquestionably negative. This proposal will pave over acres of upland nesting areas used by species who are rare and endangered in the State of Maine. I have a study prepared by Judy Markowski which I will pass out to the Board in a moment, describing her own personal observations of the marsh and her conclusions regarding the effect of paving this area over. We also have…I’m almost done. We also have Chandler Morse who will be testifying on that particular subject and I also have a study by Dr. Chris Cronin from the University of Maine which I’ll also hand out to the Board which again, because of time constraints, I don’t have the time to summarize, but ask that you’d review and consider before making your decision. Finally, and I’m going to wrap this up right now before I hand it over to the witnesses, I understand that the Planning staff has recommended approval of this particular project. However, if you look at their recommendation in the key areas of the traffic impact and the environmental issues, they are essentially deferring to later approvals by Maine DOT and the Department of Environmental Protection. While I understand that any approval would have to be subject but to the State agencies, I just want to remind all of you that our ordinance specifically requires you to take a look at traffic impact and impact on adjoining areas and rare and endangered areas such as the Penjajawoc marsh. I’m going to urge you not to abdicate the responsibility that that ordinance places on the Board to review those particular subject matters, and to simply pass that off to Augusta. We, as local residents, don’t want to lose control over this critical asset to the residents of our City and 19 I’d ask you to remember that during your deliberations when you consider this application. Thanks for the opportunity to summarize that and we do have some witnesses who will be testifying. Chair Fournier: Question for you Mr. Gould. The Maine Audubon, Judy Markowsky, I believe we were provided that before. This is a document to the Planning Board? Is this a separate document? Ed Gould: Yes, it is. This is a different study. I have copies of which I’ll pass out to the Board. Chair Fournier: Okay. Because I knew we had this but I haven’t seen that. Thank you. Ed Gould: I’m sorry. Bob Milardo will also be testifying about the wildlife in the area. Chair Fournier: Mr. Malardo will be the last one… Ed Gould: One of the last…Last ones, yes. Chair Fournier: Okay. Thanks. Ed Gould: Before I introduce the lay witnesses, I just want to get those documents in to the record. John Hamer: Ed, I’m not sure if you’ve made this available to Mr. Kane, but you need those documents. (TAPE STOPPED FOR A FEW SECONDS) Unknown Speaker:…statements to the board. Chair Fournier: Thank you. Gerry Kearns, 163 Grove Street: Thank you Board for giving me the opportunity to speak to you tonight. My name is Gerry Kearns and I’m a taxpayer and a resident of Bangor and I live at 163 Grove Street and since I purchased my home in July of 1990, I have witnessed a major increase in traffic. This includes Grove Street as well as Stillwater Avenue. People are using the side streets off Stillwater as a short cut. Residents are finding alternative routes to get to their destinations. I used to be able to go down Grove Street and make a left hand turn onto Stillwater Avenue. I can no longer do this. I have to go to Garland Street and either make a right on to Essex or Broadway. It’s also becoming more and more difficult to make a right hand turn from Grove Street to Stillwater 20 Avenue and when I go down Grove Street to go onto Stillwater Avenue, there could be a car waiting there to make a left-handed turn which makes it very difficult to get out because I can not see past that car if I’m safe to proceed. To make a left-hand turn, my vision would be blocked. Now with the potential of further development in the area of Stillwater Avenue, I see a much larger traffic problem. I have, at least, the names of 50 residents who also share my concerns and I’m sure there are many, many others. Thank you. Chair Fournier: Thank you. Crystal Jackins, Elm Street resident: I’ve lived in Bangor for nine years. I have many concerns about this precious area but have come to talk mainly about traffic. I sat at the September 2000 Planning Board Meeting in which Widewaters lawyers and their experts were presenting their proposal to build this location. I bring to your attention, once again, that the Widewaters Traffic Study expert, Mr. Waugh, gave this area a D in level of service. This is the minimum level for MDOT, the lowest acceptable level of service. He also stated that there would be approximately 1,300 vehicles added to the traffic here on a peak hour on Saturday. Today, by the way, his figures went down about 100 vehicles per hour. I am a teacher and in my records a D is not a very pleasant grade to take home. I am the one who became so bothered by the traffic in this area, that I did my own study. I counted the average cars on the corner of Elm and Stillwater and got 2,000 cars per hour and that was last September. How would you like to cross the street with 33 cars per minute in your way? Try adding the- - Wal-Mart’s estimation of 22 more vehicles per minute and you have a car crossing every second of the day. These figures are low estimates. Many special events occur in Bangor. Large store sales attract more traffic. Basketball tournaments, etc. The cinemas right near the Bangor Mall just getting out… quite literally, you get a real horror show when the movie is over. What used to be Stillwater Avenue is now Stillwater Highway and that is not quite what we bargained for in buying houses in this area. I did some interesting research at the University of Maine Orono and you’re receiving the salt water study from the Department of Transportation at the Penjajawoc Stream. What I found interesting in this report is the reference to traffic. This report considers the salt from the run-off in commercial areas, such as the parking lots of the Bangor Mall area and salt from roadways. Substantial run-off such as snows melting, would of course, increase the salt content in the stream. What I found remarkable was the number of vehicles at the time this study was done. On the last two pages of this study, one can see that there were only 2,000, approximately 2,000 cars per day on Stillwater Avenue in 1977. Remember that I told you that there are now 2,000 cars per hour on Stillwater Avenue. So you can see the difference, even by the time the study was over in ‘82, the cars had doubled on Stillwater. I find it astonishing, too, that Hogan Road, north of I-95 only had 7,000 cars per day in 1977. By the time this study was over in ‘82, it more than doubled in this 21 area. Let’s face it, the mall is skyrocketing, the mall area is skyrocketing beyond belief and I assumed that when I bought a house on the tree streets that it was going to be a quiet area and it is not. (Inaudible)…add lanes, it was quite impressive, the thing that they did up here, impressive but we all know that down near, as Mr. Lingley stated I believe, that down near Howard to Broadway, it would still be a bottleneck area. A lot of people still take Stillwater. Anyone living anywhere near Broadway, would still take Stillwater. My footnote, as an educator, who loves to go on long walks through Bangor, the fine parks in Bangor, the beautiful Bangor City Forest, and the Penjajawoc area, is pleased to review your Bangor Land Development Code, in particular, please read Section 2, 165-9, Conditional Uses, Section A #2, which states, “The proposed use will not create unreasonable traffic congestion or hazardous conditions on contiguous or adjacent streets.” This Code is very specific and well put. The City should think very hard about this project and abide by its own Code for the well being of its citizens. Thank you. Chair Fournier: Thank you. I just have one question. Maybe a couple. The traffic study that you did… Crystal Jackins: Actually, this isn’t my study. I photocopied it… Chair Fournier: I thought you were out counting cars? Crystal Jackins: Oh yes. I do have my own study. Chair Fournier: Yes. I was just questioning…what day of the week was it and times? Crystal Jackins: In my report, it was a Saturday for 2,000 vehicles per hour. Chair Fournier: And, what time of the day? Crystal Jackins: It was, I did two counts. Excuse me, one was a Friday, one was a Saturday and it was from about, I’ve got my records with me. Do you want me to pause for one second? Chair Fournier: Yes, I’d just like to know. Crystal Jackins: For 3-4 in the afternoon. Rainy day September. Next day was a Saturday, 1:30, somewhere around 1:30 and then again at 4. I did another study at 4. Chair Fournier: For an hour each or… 22 Crystal Jackins: Yes. Yes sir. Chair Fournier: So, it was done for an hour. It wasn’t just a sampling and multiplying… Crystal Jackins: Yes. Yes. I counted every single car. Chair Fournier: Every car for one hour? Crystal Jackins: Yes. Four separate occasions just to make sure my study was correct. Chair Fournier: Thank you. Crystal Jackins: Thank you. I do have better things to do. Dr. Richard Andren: I’m a Bangor area resident, however I do live in beautiful downtown Dixmont, 258 Moosehead Trail, we just got an address, PO Box 7, Dixmont): I’m a retired biology and environmental studies professor. I’m a member of BACORD, but I’m speaking as an interested resident of this region. One of the issues of concern is the impact of the stormwater that this 20+ acres of impervious surface will shed after a rainfall or from a snow melt. This issue is th addressed in the site plan that was submitted on the 19 of March, which was yesterday and probably in previous submissions also. I’m not sure if anyone on the Board or in the staff has had time to review the document that has just been submitted. Along with this new site plan were several hundred pages of documentation and data. I would suggest that this information be carefully reviewed, both by the staff and by the Board. The Penjajawoc downstream from the marsh is an important habitat for many animal species and remains in a fairly natural state considering the development that abuts it. These buildings are of modest size as are the parking areas. The stream seems to be able to tolerate that level of development; however, when a building that is 10 times the size of Circuit City with nearly 1,000 parking places and with access roads and other parking pads that are adjacent to the stream, large amounts of water are going to be running off in many directions. We heard this evening that all will be going in one direction, which is to the wetpond behind the building \[points to a map\], which is right here so they said that all the water will be going into this wetpond. It will be going in from Circuit City, in from the lot on the corner, as well as from the Widewaters development. When nearly 70% of the surface of the land purchased by Widewaters to be made impervious by building, and by the buildings and the parking lots, the character of the stream from that point on will be altered. The wetponds are designed to release water more slowly, but the end result will be that when it rains, there will be more water in the stream and it will be entering more quickly than ever before. We heard someone this 23 evening say that the pond will remove the floating debris really that is coming off the parking areas. He also made mentioned that it would be removing hydrocarbons that are lighter, some of them that are lighter than water, certainly a retention pond, a wetpond like that will do nothing to keep the floating hydrocarbons in place. They will just go wherever the water is going to go and it also says nothing about the nutrients that will be polluting the stream that are going to be washing off the parking areas. There’s also concern about the storage of fertilizers in the garden area. That when one of those bags ruptures and they will, I guarantee that, when it rains that will wash those nutrients into the pond. They are water soluble so that when the water empties out of the wetpond, that will go directly into the stream. When you have more water entering a stream that more water than the stream was designed to hold, this is going to result in erosion of the banks that are downstream and a destabilization of the soil that’s going to result in the silting of the stream. Silt is one of the most destructive types of pollutants. It’s what we consider a non-point source of pollutants. It literally suffocates the stream’s inhabitants. This, in turn, will affect those organisms that feed on them and so on up the food chain. So, we can expect more erosion downstream from the wetponds and more swiftly moving water for a longer period of time after a rainfall. But, to make matters worse, the impervious surface prevents the water from soaking into the ground and will lower the water table in this area, which supplies the stream and some of the water to the stream when it’s not raining. Thus, there will be less water in the stream between rainstorms. The Penjajawoc will become a true urban stream, eroded banks, less predictable in its course because of the rushing water when it rains and after the rainfall surge, it will have less water than it normally has had. The people downstream will be looking at a feast or famine stream, rushing water or lowered water levels. Not a good scenario for anything or anyone downstream. Apart from this, it appears that the wetpond is within the 250 foot buffer that Widewaters said it was establishing. I urge the Planning Board to look carefully into this matter. The Planning Board should also consider the erosion that will occur downstream and its effect on Bangor residents and businesses. Simply put, paving over nearly 20 acres will have far ranging effects on the Penjajawoc Stream and its abutters. Thank you. Chair Fournier: Thank you. There’s a question for you. Frederick Costlow: I’m sorry, could I have your name again, please. Richard Andren: Yes, Richard Andren, A N D R E N. Frederick Costlow: Sir, isn’t it the purpose of the holding pond to, when it does collect water after a rainstorm, to release that in sort of a timely manner? Richard Andren: Yes. 24 Frederick Costlow: Do you have any expertise in the retention holding pond? Is that really your area? Richard Andren: No, it’s not. Frederick Costlow: Alright. That was my first question. And, secondly, as Mr. – as the representative from Sewall told us that these hydrocarbons or gas and oil, as I call them, what I would consider to be the thing one would expect to come off a parking lot, that is oil and gas from cars, he has told us that they will be caught. Do you have some reason to believe that’s not accurate and what would you base it on if you feel that way? Richard Andren: Well, I base it on experience rather than any formal studies, but if you have gasoline, it floats for a period of time on the surface of the water before it evaporates and so that it will stay on the surface and stay in the pond and as the water drains out of the pond, the gasoline that remains will stay with it. The oil, which may be heavier, that could remain suspended in the water column or in the pond and as that water drains out of the pond, it would enter the stream. There’s really no other place for it to go. The soluble nutrients like the phosphates and the nitrates, the mercury… Frederick Costlow: We’re okay with those, I mean I realize they’re soluble, they’re not going to be separated soluble nitrates… Richard Andren: No, they are going to go right into the stream. Frederick Costlow: Alright. Thanks. Robert Lingley: I didn’t understand your concern about the placement of the wetpond within the 250 foot buffer zone. Richard Andren: I was just measuring roughly, looking at this corner, down to here. I would like you to make sure that it is 250, as they said. I can’t be sure, but it appears to be closer than that, just from eyeballing it. Chair Fournier: Okay. Any other questions? Richard Andren: I’m not sure, you now, how to scale these drawings are. Unknown Speaker: I’m sure they are quite to scale. Richard Andren: Well, where the stream is is not really clear at that corner. 25 Chair Fournier: Thank you. I’d ask Fay Wren to come to the podium. Rae Fournier Wren, 15 Young Street, Bangor: Jeff Wren, 15 Young Street, Bangor: Rae: Some of you that were at the City Council meeting, some of this I’m going to reiterate. If you read in the paper today, there was an article, I’m going to read part of it, I won’t read the whole thing, but if you didn’t read it, you have copies in front of you. There’s also a letter attached to a neighboring property of a gentleman who is in Texas who could not be here. His experience with water displacement. For the past decade, we have seen an increase in water flow and stream trash and yes, it’s true, it happens. I wish I had one of those little micro- rain things on the computer, I’d have filmed the stream and you could have watched it. On the Penjajawoc it comes from Hogan and Stillwater, yesterday the water was clear and red, today it looks like coffee with milk in it. It is full of silt and it hasn’t even rained and the water has come up. We are taking measurements every day. Spring and rain run-offs have been abnormal within this same time period. We’ve resided on Young Street since 1983. In our little backyard, we have class 2 and class 3 rapids and they have plumes on them. The stream level can come up from 5 to 6 feet and that comes up a foot an hour and that can be any time of the year. That’s been in the past decade. The noise from the current is just deafening and you can’t even talk to someone right beside you without having to holler. There has been erosion of our banks and there, the undercurrents are knocking our trees down and we had to spend three days with a tree chopper clearing out the brook, Labor Day weekend. A bridge on our property, which was constructed over 40 years ago, it was good and solid, and in the last decade, it has had to be rebuilt and reinforced twice due to run-off that was not spring related, it was due to rain. And, on one of these, it was so strong that it bent the steel I-beam in half and literally carried it downstream 20 feet at least. Our family has owned land in that lower Penjajawoc area for…well, since 1912. Speaking with my 93-year-old grandmother, she’s just been amazed at the change and especially since the mall development, but again, in the past 10 years. Paul Butler was our neighbor. He passed away last year. He was an engineer. He knew his water supply. Our water treatment facility is named in his honor. He moved in in 1955 and he, in the last decade, was very, very concerned about the run-off and I know he expressed concerns both to the City and to us. We have seen the results of paving. Paving is going to make it that much worse. It does happen. Those ponds are not effective totally and we’re losing our land and we don’t even let the kids in the back yard after a rain storm because it’s too dangerous. Come see it. Thank you. Chair Fournier: Did you want to present this as an exhibit? 26 Rae Wren: Um. Um. Chair Fournier: Thank you. INAUDIBLE Chair Fournier: I’m going to wait, okay? Chandler Morse, 19 Fountain Street, Bangor: I’m a graduate student at the University of Maine and I recently completed a 3.5 year study, actually. I have a handout for you that…there’s extra copies. My study was on the influences of increasing urban intensity on first and second order streams in Maine. The way that I conducted that study was that I compared 20 streams with varying levels of urban intensity from very low level or what we would consider reference conditions to very high levels. And this… I compared them on the basis of physical condition, water quality, and then also, the Benton macron vertebrates, the bugs that live in the stream which are unknown indicator of the biological condition, how well the biological component of the stream is doing. This study is pertinent to this hearing, this, for two reasons. One, it has some pretty clear results on (TAPE ENDED)… the indicator of what’s happening in the watershed. And, it’s a very good indicator and it’s very easy to measure accurately. In my study, looking at 20 different streams across the state, the degradation to the major stream components occurred at about 6% total impervious area. And, to give you an idea of what that is, a one acre lot has about 11%, a house on a one acre lot has about 11% total impervious area. So, if the watershed level of imperviousness rises to 6%, we start to see what we consider degradation. If you flip on to page 2, I just picked a couple of the things to highlight. The figure one is an example of a physical measure that I took, a qualitative habitat index. On the bottom axis is a percent total impervious area and from very low or what we would consider reference to very high and on the y axis, the habitat quality by qualitative means. There are 20 dots on this graph because there are 20 different streams. I just labeled Penjajawoc, as that would be pertinent to now. As you can see, there was a significant decrease in habitat quality associated with urban development. That’s that downward sloping in habitat quality. Then, figure two is, you know, a similar result with dissolved oxygen as impervious surface increases, dissolved oxygen decreases. There’s a suite of measurements that I could talk about all night that really confirm that physical condition degrades and water quality degrades. More importantly, when you look at page 3, when you look at the total macroinvertabrate community richness, which is the total number of different kinds of taxa, which is a very acceptable measure of biotic, the biotic community, right about where the impervious surfaces of the Penjajawoc Stream starts, we see a very significant drop and then we see no significant decrease as the impervious surfaces increases. That 6% threshold is a threshold that indicates, or from my research, is the point at which that stream’s 27 biotic community really starts to go downhill and the Penjajawoc watershed is at 5, I’m sorry, 7% total impervious area at this point. So, any further development inside that watershed is going to have significant issues with both the physical water quality and the benthic community. The figure four is just another way to look at that. It’s a particular metric of sensitive taxa, Mayflies, Caddisflies and Stoneflies and there’s a three-fold decrease from reference condition which is on the below 6% side to above 6% on average that if you’re at 5.0%, you’ve got right around 18-20 different sensitive taxa present in the stream. The minute that stream becomes greater than 6%, it drops by 3 times. That was the bulk of what I wanted to talk about. I’d like to submit that for record. I also have a one-page summary of my research that was provided for the previous that I’d like to add now again. And just to talk about detention basins, that’s, please don’t take that as an end-all solution to the impervious surfaces because it’s really not. It’s really not for a lot of reasons and I do have some expertise in this field. There are the groundwater recharge issues. There are the issues that detention basins work as long as the grade stays the same. If you’ve ever driven on any road in Maine, after thaws and after freezing, you know that the grade doesn’t stay the same. It also works on the 25 year recurrence interval. Recurrence intervals don’t tell you conclusively that one storm in 25 years will exceed that. We could have 15, 25-year recurrence intervals next week. It’s just a law of averages and basically when you put a detention pond in, you’re saying, “we’re comfortable with that law of averages”, and from what I know about streams in Maine, I’m not comfortable with that law of averages. In addition, there is increased imperviousness in the support way, outside that detention pond that are going to affect, directly affect the stream and there’s an increase in the traffic load in the watershed that’s going …I mean, I can’t thank Widewaters enough for supporting the fact that there’s going to be a really great increase in the amount of traffic inside that watershed. That traffic tracks in hydrocarbons, tracks in heavy metals, tracks in quite a lot of different things that that detention pond is not going to stop. It will do…I’ll give credit where credit is due, it will handle some of the stormwater issues from that massive development, it does not answer all of the concerns, however. Thank you. Chair Fournier: Just a couple of questions. Fred, go ahead. No. By all means. Frederick Costlow: You talked about 6% being a sort of watershed mark. Chandler Morse: Yep. Frederick Costlow: Are you looking at the stream as a whole or a specific area when you were talking about the Penjajawoc being at 5% now? 28 Chandler Morse: The Penjajawoc is at 7% now, as a matter of fact, from where I measured it, which was downstream of the Saturn dealer, which is downstream of the bulk of the mall development. Frederick Costlow: So, the degradation downstream that far is only 1 or 2% above the watershed mark? Chandler Morse: Yes. Frederick Costlow: And, when you talk about serious, severe degradation, that’s not quantified in your report and I was just…what’s the difference…I mean, okay, you may see some degradation, between 6-7%, that probably doesn’t help us a lot in terms of what that means, or realistically, I mean, if you have slightly fewer Mayflies or something like that or are we talking more extreme than that and maybe you can give us an indication of what 7% might look like as opposed to 9 or 10 \[%\]. Chandler Morse: That’s a pretty complicated question. Frederick Costlow: Well, do your best and we’ll try to do our best. Chandler Morse: Biotic integrity is hard to measure and it’s hard to talk about in things that aren’t qualitative. I consider a three-fold decrease, in anything, significant and in the most sensitive and I don’t…it’s not just a couple of May flies. Mayflies are a biotic indicator of the total community and so when you start to see the most sensitive things in your community literally dropping like flies \[laughter\], when you start to see those things falling off, it’s a real sign of an issue. I’ve brought this stream’s condition; in particular to Lee Ansomides and Jeff Benis who are in charge of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection’s biological criteria and they were interested in doing further studies in it. That’s the macroinvertebrate, which it’s a fairly clear case. When you get above 7%, you’ve got a pretty big issue, qualitative, pretty big, but according to anyone and especially to me that knows those streams, that’s a pretty, that’s a large issue. The other things, physical and water quality, they don’t have that sort of step function. They are consistent and literally, right now, the Penjajawoc Stream habitat, from where I measured it, doesn’t look that bad. It’s really…It’s definitely not a worse case scenario. It’s got good substrate, it’s got riffle run habitat, it’s got stream banks with some integrity, it’s got ripairian corridors that are pretty adequate. So, I hope I’ve answered your question. Frederick Costlow: Well, you’re doing that, slowly. The…because we’re talking about one specific project, here, we’re talking about one area. Can you quantify the…this particular area. In other words, if this area is impaired, what’s the change to the total stream? 29 Chandler Morse: I can’t quantify that to be honest. Chair Fournier: Question. I was reading your handout so I may have missed…you said you were an expert or you had expertise. What is that expertise? Chandler Morse: Right now I’m getting a Master’s Degree. I just finished a Master’s Degree at the University of Maine in Ecology and Environmental Science with a specific and focus on impervious surfaces and how it relates to streams and in part of that, I did some research on Best Management Practices. Chair Fournier: Thank you. Anyone else, Ed? Ed Gould: Just one last witness. Bob? Bob Milardo, Professor of Family Relations at the University of Maine at Orono. Newburgh, Maine: Good evening and I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you. I’m a Professor of Family Relations at the University of Maine and I live in Newburgh, Maine. I’m a life-long birder and have taught field identification classes at the University of Maine and led field trips for over 25 years. This material that you’re being handed is a copy of my testimony and some appended material which I’m going to refer to in the testimony. I’ve been lucky enough to bird throughout the United States, Canada, and Mexico and in four continents. I don’t consider myself a superior birder but an experienced one in a sense that I’ve been doing it for a long time with some passion. I have visited Penjajawoc since about 1983 every year. I’ve never really missed a year. You wouldn’t want to if you lived close to Penjajawoc and I visited there roughly two to twelve times a year – sometimes more often than that and sometimes maybe only once or twice as I spoke to you before in the previous hearing in September so I’m just going to quickly reiterate some of the comments I made at that time just so they’re part of the record and then mention a couple of new items. The Penjajawoc is pretty exceptional. You already know that. In terms of bird species, over 180 species have been documented in the area, 17 of those have been documented as occurring the marsh, breeding in the marsh and they’re either endangered, threatened or otherwise on watch lists and you already have that information from Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. I think it’s unfortunate that this area we’re considering tonight was zoned for development. It’s unfortunate, but it’s only recently, within the last decade that the significance of the area has been documented into public record. One of the first studies to do that was a study done by Inland Fisheries and Wildlife or technically, I think it might have been commissioned by Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and it was done by Gibbs and Melvin and I provided you with a copy of that study. It was recorded in October of 1990 and it was a comparative analysis of 60 freshwater 30 marshes in Maine and the relative abundance of species in those marshes. The study was really interesting for us because of the special significance of Penjajawoc relative to those 60 other marshes. It’s almost always in the top four or top five marshes in the state and in some regards, it would be the top marsh in the state in terms of species density or significance. It’s considered in the terms of those biologists to be a species rich area. But, in my language, it just means that there’s a lot of birds there and a lot relative to the total number of birds that occur in Maine in any one year, it would be over half of those. It’s also species-rich in the sense of the density of some birds that are on various watch lists. For example, the density of Pie-billed Grebe or (inaudible), are relatively high at Penjajawoc, relative to other marshes in Maine. Sometimes, incredibly so. It’s not even a small difference, it’s quite a large one and I referenced in my written comments the specific tables that you could look at to kind of look at where I’m getting, how I’m summarizing this information from those tables in the Gibbs and Melvin Report. The other point I wanted to make is that I’ve just mentioned that I think it’s unfortunate that this area was zoned the way it was, but it’s only relatively recently, within the last decade, that we’ve had the information available in the public record. It might have been in the private record, and certainly was, but not in the public record. The other point I want to make is that the Maine Natural Resource Protection Act identifies six habitat types deserving of special consideration and protection. Two of those types occur in Penjajawoc and I don’t think there’s any doubt on that. They occur in Penjajawoc, either in the proposed development site, or immediately adjacent to it and a third habitat type, of the total six, identified by that law, is possibly existing on the site. We don’t really have the information yet. With those habitat types, including nesting habitat for endangered species and that would be upland sandpiper which has been recorded nesting in the proposed development site or immediately adjacent to it over the last decade and even before that. The second habitat type is significant wading bird and waterfowl habitat and that was on, substantially documented by a letter from Slade Moore to the, I think Katherine Weber, one letter dated in July and one in August of the year 2000. So, it’s already well documented. The third habitat type is only a potential and that is the potential for vernal pools on or immediately adjacent to the proposed development. And, I base this notation on the report submitted to you by Chris Cronin and Aram Calhoun and their analysis of the existing record, the existing record and this development indicates the possibility of vernal pools, which would be a third potential habitat. Chair Fournier: I don’t mean to interrupt, Mr. Milardo, but you’re beyond your five minute… Bob Milardo: Oh, that’s good because I’m just about done. Chair Fournier: Thank you. 31 Bob Milardo: So, I think it’s unfortunate that Inland Fisheries and Wildlife didn’t conduct the necessary hearings and to designate this area as significant. Based on all of that information, and based on the information available to you including the letters of Slade Moore, one dated August 3, 2000 to Katherine Weber. I believe a reasonable interpretation of this area, a record regarding this area and the extensive record on its wildlife would lead a reasonable person to seriously question the wisdom of the new development. I don’t believe the applicants have successfully addressed the issues regarding wildlife and nearly read all of which were clearly identified in the previous hearings before the Planning Board and I believe it’s their responsibility to do so. I can hardly imagine an area more significant with regard to wildlife and more ill-fitting for development. Thank you. Chair Fournier: Thank you. Any questions? You’re all set, Ed? Ed Gould: Yes. Unless the board has any questions, that concludes our presentation. Chair Fournier: Thank you. I would ask for any other opponents, Bangor residents? Unknown Speaker: Excuse me, can we go back to proponents. We weren’t aware that they were going to be able to say all this foolishness. I live on the Gilman Road and …. Chair Fournier: I’m just going to ask for a point of order. We’re going to follow with our agenda and go forward. Unknown Speaker: But you haven’t followed your agenda, sir. \[unknown: another chance to rebut\] Chair Fournier: At the end, the applicant will have a chance to answer questions, or refer to any statements that have been previously made. It’s up to the applicant to provide that information. Unknown Speaker: (Inaudible) open discussion. Chair Fournier: At this point, I’m going to continue on with my agenda. Okay? Unknown Speaker: (Inaudible) 32 Chair Fournier: At this point, I’m going to continue on with opponents for Bangor residents. If… I really want to hit this 9:15 timeline and if we’re not going to hit that, I don’t want to delay this decision any longer. Okay. I’d really like to continue on with the agenda. \[Unknown Speaker interruption\]… with the agenda that I’ve set. Unknown Speaker: You haven’t followed your agenda. You haven’t given us a chance…. Chair Fournier: I’m not going to debate this here and now. \[Unknown Speaker Interruption\]. Right now, I’m still asking for opponents, Bangor residents. At this point, I’m still asking for Bangor residents, opponents. Thank you. Mark Edward, 62 Parker Street, Bangor: My only wish at this point is that this meeting was about 2 hours earlier so I could bring my children here, my two young children, so you can see who’s really going to be affected by this development. Mr. Chairman, you brought up the point that this meeting is not about zoning, this not about big box, this is not about Wal-Mart. Well, you’re absolutely right, and this meeting is not just about birds at the marsh and it’s not just about the benthic matter. This development is about community and it’s about our community, my community, the community that I am raising my children in. This development does absolutely nothing to benefit this community. To benefit my community. I could go on and on… Chair Fournier: Mr. Edwards, I’m just going to have to cut you short… Mark Edwards: No..No…do not cut me short. I have been waiting here all evening and we’ve only got a few minutes. You will let me finish. Chair Fournier: Mr. Edwards, I just want to state… Mark Edwards: I know what you stated at the beginning… Chair Fournier: What we’re talking about here is site development plan… Mark Edwards: Okay. Site development plan. Let me get to that. Is this all about continuing the DOT development? If Wal-Mart does not come in here. If Widewaters does not come in here? Does that jeopardize this DOT development? They talk about continuing the DOT development. So, who’s in bed with who here as far as the development of Stillwater Avenue? Okay. Let me get to another point as well. They mention that there is going to be a crosswalk but no sidewalks. What is that all about? Where is community development? Where is pedestrian traffic? Where is bicycle traffic? Where does this fit into the development plan? It doesn’t. Is this the kind of City that we want to live in? 33 Answer that question? And, the second point about the traffic. We heard some wonderful studies about some traffic counts. Some great projections. A wonderful crystal ball that we just saw right up here. Who is accountable for when there is an error? What if the traffic far exceeds the projections, who is going to be held accountable? Thank you very much for your time. Chair Fournier: Thank you. If I could have your name and where you live. Dorothy Croall, 242 Nowell Road: I have resided there for the past 11 years which means I am from away and while that may lessen the value of my comments to some of you, I suggest that it gives me an important perspective because I have seen my own reasonably rural home town in New Jersey changed to endless asphalt over a short period of time and reminds me why I don’t live there anymore. So, my first point would be I hope we’re not just following in their footsteps and that we have learned from their mistakes. Many of the comments that have been made covered what I wrote, which his rather lengthy, but I will make a short point that hasn’t been made, which actually is a suggestion for why you might want to delay making this decision too rapidly. Over the past 6 months, I’ve learned a lot about this project, the Penjajawoc, and our City’s Comprehensive Plan and the only point I would add that has not yet been made is the idea that the City has professed in its plan to strive for a balance between economic growth and preservation of green space. If what I th read in March 15 Bangor Daily News, where it says part of the problem stems from and August 92 decision by Bangor officials who without needed state consent and relaxed restrictions along the stream, that has jeopardized a number of properties that are already developed because they are not in compliance. And, I know that in the early 1990, 1991, when I first arrived, I always used to see ducks in the stream adjacent to where Borders now sits and I saw my first Bobolink in Maine in the field that used to sit where Borders and Staples buildings are and Bobolink is one of the nine species recognized as threatened and endangered in this area and cited in the report Judy Markowsky provided you with. Based on this past problem of City ordinance not complying with state regs, I have urged the DEP to hold the City accountable through its actions and suggested not they use monetary fines, but that that City, for having reduced setbacks in some areas, try to require larger setbacks in others for protecting this marsh and stream and I will cite a report that Judy Markowsky listed in her study that researched 1997, documented that wetland diversity is adversely impacted by the density of asphalt up to a distance of 2 kilometers, which is 1.25 miles from the wetland. That’s a report in conservation and biology. Thank you. Chair Fournier: Thank you. Do you want to submit that as an exhibit? Dr. Croall, did you submit anything in the last hearing? I know you testified. Dorothy Croall: I testified. I did not submit anything. 34 Chair Fournier: Thank you. Diana Young, 95 Allen Court: There’s an aspect of the traffic impact that I haven’t heard addressed. The mention of the sidewalk on Stillwater Avenue brought this question to my mind. Is there any present way of measuring the ratio of numbers of pedestrians that one generally sees in that area to the parts per million of automobile exhaust gases? The air quality concerns me very much as a chemically sensitive resident. Thank you. Chair Fournier: Thank you. Gwethalyn Phillips, 75 So. Park Street. Chair Fournier: I’m sorry, that is not on. Gwethalyn Phillips: Gwethalyn Phillips. Chair Fournier: Gwethalyn Phillips. Thank you. Gwethalyn Phillips: I think on first blush, when everyone thought about this proposal months ago and now the proposal is back before us, many people without having taken the time to understand the area and study the area, think of it as another development like many of the other developments that are already out in that area. Unless you live in the neighborhood and the surrounding area, maybe you didn’t have an opportunity or reason to really try to figure out what was going to go on. I did try to take the time to find out because I do live in close proximity of Stillwater Avenue to Broadway and so forth and also had a lot of concern about the marsh even before I knew how precious it was. I think the testimony tonight reinforces to me the orders of magnitude greater that this particular development is over other development in the area and that in fact, there comes a point where the area cannot tolerate any more development, particularly of this magnitude. So, I would ask that when you look at the lighting and the sound and the run-off and the impact of the pavement and the traffic and all of those issues, that you stop and think what is about to be destroyed if this goes forward. I would say that enough is enough, that any town can have a Wal-Mart and, in fact, we do. But, only Bangor can have a Penjajawoc. Thank you. Joyce Schelling, 44 Grove Street: I am here because Kay Lebowitz was unable to come tonight and she asked me to read a letter that I’ll give to you afterwards. For those of you who do not know her, Kay is a former legislator and a former Bangor City Councilor. Members of the Planning Board: My first caveat is that I am not an environmentalist in a strict sense of the word. I was the first to be 35 overjoyed at seeing our area grow with new businesses and new families. I was also a fierce opponent of urban renewal. I was happy to see the expansion of our retail shopping choices with the building of the Broadway Shopping Center. Now, however, I question the need for additional big box spaces when I see gaping holes in storefronts at that same mall and vacant buildings around town caused by closing or relocations. I question the need for covering grass with concrete for the sake of moving to a virgin area when the present site of a business is within spitting distance of a large vacant building, thereby, leaving two large buildings and attendant asphalt lots. Chair Fournier: I’m sorry, I have to cut in. We’re not talking vacant buildings. We’re talking about conditional use…(inaudible) Unknown Speakers Joyce Schelling: This is Kay’s letter so I’m feeling responsible to read it. Is that okay? It’s very short. Chair Fournier: Can I have you submit it? Joyce Schelling: Yes, I can submit it. Chair Fournier: That would be great. As an exhibit. Joyce Schelling: And then I just want to say one thing for myself which is that all changes are so gradual that it’s easy for people to say what’s one more store. This is an inappropriate location for a massive store. Chair Fournier: I have to stop you right there. We’re getting off the subject here. Joyce Schelling: I think the size of the building and the size of the parking lot is relevant. Chair Fournier: Go ahead. As long as it’s within that framework. Joyce Schelling: It’s only in that framework and also just as a citizen, people have told me that we can’t do anything because we’re just citizens. I just came here tonight because when my children or grandchildren ask me later on what part did I play in destroying so much of the natural world that came to them, I can tell them that I worked hard to stop it. Thank you. Chair Fournier: Before you get started, I was just going to ask how many more people would be speaking, opponents, this would include Bangor residents and 36 other interested parties, if you could just stand or stand over there just so we get some sort of a timeframe. Unknown Speaker: (inaudible) Chair Fournier: I’m just trying to get a timeframe. Thank you, go ahead. David Blethen, 25 Parkview Avenue: In listening to the various testimony tonight, I would like to reiterate for folks in terms of run-off, the run-off catch basin. There are a couple of things that don’t seem to have been mentioned in terms of how they would be handled. One is salt. Salt, of course, dissolves in water and we have a tremendous amount of salt in any paved environment because of our snow season. We do a lot of salting, rather than plowing, as you all know and I’m sure in this parking lot, there will be no exceptions so we’re going to add salt to the water into the stream more than was there before. The other is the mention of oil and gas. Don’t forget also that cars in a parking lot will leave anti- freeze. Anti-freeze will mix with water and therefore would go into the stream. The discussion about gas and oil. Gas and oil will only float on water when the water is still. It doesn’t completely dissolve in moving water but it will pick up into the moving water and be suspended and stay suspended. The run-off basin will collect and catch the worst of an oil spill but the perpetual level of gas and oil that will be on the parking lot will mean that some of that is going into the environment and going through the basin unless you put some kind of a semi- Permian membrane and that would certainly be well beyond the cost of what they could do in this situation. So, that’s my comments. My second comment is I’m quite concerned, I keep hearing that a decision must be made tonight and a tremendous amount of material has been dumped on your desk tonight in front of you. All of it, by reference. Some very important things related to whether or not it’s appropriate to have this store at this site, including such things as environmental impact which we’re told that part of your ordinance requires you to be thinking about how does this development impact the land area around and the community around. It seems to be completely forgotten and we keep hiding behind zoning laws. You need to be…if you’re going to be carrying out your responsibility with regard to that ordinance which requires you to be looking at the impact then the material which was given to you, it seems to me you cannot make a decision unless you’ve had a chance to go through that material and have some understanding of what that material represents and how that really impacts the development here. Thank you very much. Chair Fournier: Thank you. Rich Uptergove, 79 Market Street: I’m a graduate student at the University of Maine and I wanted to echo his comments that when…as long as you need to look at things, I recommend that you take the time that you need and I’d also 37 like to say to the Chairman that that’s a difficult position to be in to have people yelling at you and be a mediator and I understand that being a teacher, I’m in that position a lot and I commend you for keeping your head… Unknown Speaker: We’re volunteers. Rich Uptergove: Thank you even more. I did want to say that I feel that the speakers have articulated themselves very well, especially in terms of the impervious surface, the traffic issues, and the environmental damage that can come to the Penjajawoc marsh and in terms of conditional use, I think they’ve addressed those really well and that at least casts a large shadow of doubt as to whether or not the applicant has met those needs of conditional use. In addition to that, the applicants first speaker, Kevin, slipped in a somewhat snide remark that they had to reduce the size of Wal-Mart and that will reduce the amount of tax money that will come to the City and I want to be sure that that’s not playing a role in the decision. As one of the proponents of the issue mentioned, it should be decided on the merits and I think that it should be decided on the merits and we’ve done a good job of making those points clear. Thank you. Chair Fournier: Thank you. Bill Tuck, 91 Pearl Street: I live at 91 Pearl Street. Been there for 44 years and have seen the City grow and change. I’d like to ask a question of the City. I understand the City has a permit to build a road from the Kittredge Road somewhere across that land and come out on the Gilman Road or someplace. Mr. Ring, would you know about that? Is that still in the works? Is there going to be a road built above this project. Chair Fournier: I’m just going to reiterate. We’re not here talking about… Bill Tuck: Nope. Chair Fournier: …that exterior road. We talking about… Bill Tuck: Is there going to…just…do we know whether there’s going to be a road there or not? Chair Fournier: You can ask that of Mr. Ring tomorrow morning. Bill Tuck: Okay. I’m going assume then there’s going to be a road there. Chair Fournier: Inaudible 38 Bill Tuck: No one’s going to tell me, I’m going to assume there’s going to be a road between the Gilman…between Rudnicki’s farm and Stillwater Avenue. Chair Fournier: I’m just trying to keep… Bill Tuck: Yeah, I know..I know Chair Fournier: …keep us focused on the matter at hand. I don’t want to deviate… Bill Tuck: No. No. It seems to be pertinent to what I’d like to say. Chair Fournier: If you could make your point then. Bill Tuck: Okay. My point is if Wal-Mart doesn’t build a place, does that mean that never again will anything be built there? Chair Fournier: I can’t answer that. Bill Tuck: No. Don’t answer that. I just want to put it out for conjecture or… I haven’t been to college. I don’t have a master’s degree, but I…and I don’t have a handout because I knew you guys….\[laughter\] I give you a handout every six months, called my taxes. I’m concerned a bit about the tax bill. I wonder… Chair Fournier: If we could just… Bill Tuck: We’re going to lose if that stays a field… Chair Fournier: Mr. Tuck, if we could just… Bill Tuck: I am. I’m… Chair Fournier: We’re talking about tax bills and let’s not talk about tax bills. Bill Tuck: I’m talking tax bills because I think the project affects my tax bill and the tax bill of my… I didn’t got to college, like I said, some graduate from college and I can ask them. They’re smart, but I just wonder, was (inaudible)… Chair Fournier: Sir, you should be asking these questions to the City Council, not us. We don’t… Bill Tuck: Okay. Chair Fournier: We don’t have… 39 Bill Tuck: Okay. Can I speak to the run-offs? Some other folks have spoken about the run-off. Chair Fournier: You certainly may. You certainly may. Bill Tuck: Okay. Since I’ve been born, a lot of Kittredge Road has been a dump, which was considerable run-off into that stream that we used to call Meadowbrook, it’s got a new name now I guess, but, running into the stream. I see hundreds of pigs raised on the Kittredge Road. The run-off run into that stream. See 200-300 cows on the Davis Farm and manure piles and when it rained, that went into that stream. I think we’re better off now than we will be if we let Wal-Mart build a road here. I really do. And, if there’s a danger to species there, when Mr. Rudnicki went out with his mowing machine and cut the hay twice in the summer, that was an endangered specie alright. I don’t believe that very many animals lived in that field with a lawnmower running over them twice a year. That doesn’t have anything to do with it, but if..I think…and the last thing I want to say is a concern in traffic. Wouldn’t it be a shame if there was so much traffic on Stillwater Avenue that we had to drive the legal limit? I would hate to have to drive on Stillwater Avenue going 25 miles an hour. I think it’s a shame for people to have to drive the speed limit in the City. Thank you. Chair Fournier: Thank you Mr. Tuck. Let me again…if we could please stick to the subject at hand, let’s not deviate. The hour is getting late. I had set a timeline of 9:15 to wrap this up. Obviously, we’re not meeting that. I’d really like to stick to the facts of the matter. Thank you. Wally Warren, 242 Essex Street: I’ve recently returned to Bangor to care for my 86 year old mother who resides there and I’m hoping that she can remain there. She has suffered three automobile accidents within the last 7 years in the neighborhood due to the increased traffic and it puts us at great strain. I might mention, Mr. Lingley, you brought up a very good point when you talked with Mike Waugh about the traffic east of the interchange off the interstate leading to Broadway. This is already a critical area. Seems to me that this would be devastating if not catastrophic if this project goes through with this increased traffic. This really needs to be concerned. It needs to be brought up and I appreciate you for your time. Thank you very much. Chair Fournier: Thank you. I’ll ask for any other opponents. I know this not an opponent, this is a… Unknown Speaker: Well. 40 Jody Jones, Wildlife Ecologist with the Maine Audubon Society: We are the largest non-profit conservation organization in the state with 10,000 members and we also own 60 acres on the Penjajawoc marsh. When I first arrived here I wasn’t aware that you folks would be making a decision tonight and I came prepared to help inform your decision and not necessarily take a position. Having said that, I would have to say that we are currently opposed to the development as proposed this evening but don’t believe that the issues that we’re raising aren’t able to be addressed by the applicant. You know, each week Maine Audubon gets phone calls, oh, you know, we’re a local group, we have an important special area we’d like you to get involved with. It’s important to us and you know, weekly, I tell these folks that we’re focused on only areas that are of statewide significance for species most at risk in Maine because we don’t have the staff to become involved with every local issue that people want us to become involved with. Some of them very good and important projects. But, that’s…I’m here tonight to do just that because the level of value that the Penjajawoc marsh and the eco-system surrounding it, is of statewide significance and has value beyond the local area, the region, and it is certainly of statewide significance. I think folks before me have articulated that well as well as Judy Markowsky who is an employee of Maine Audubon whose information you have in front of you. So, I won’t go through all that which is, some of which is in my letter. But, I did just want to add that freshwater emergent marshes like the Penjajawoc, make up only 3% of that type of wetland in Maine so it’s a rare type of wetland and it’s typically high value for waterfowl, water birds and some of the species that Mr. Malardo already mentioned, but the Penjajawoc is even a more special case than that 3% because of the diversity and the numbers that occur there. You’ve heard enough about that so I will skip that part of my testimony. And I wanted to just mention that there are the direct impacts of just, you know, paving over a nesting area and also the indirect impacts of development brings increased predation pressures from gulls, crows, associated with human habitation and development so the area that we’re talking about, the additional pressure from additional development in the surrounding area does have indirect impacts beyond the direct ones. And, I’ll skip this part. I’m sure you’re glad. Okay, so what I’d like to ask of you is to use this information to, as a Planning Board, to plan both for development and for conservation and open space in your town. And, to do that, I have four recommendations for you this evening, two of which are specifically related to the Planning Board and two are to the applicant and I believe that these are reasonable and modest recommendations. The two for the Planning Board are, and I know this is a little bit off the subject, but since the applicant has attempted to meet the requirements of the application as if the perimeter road were a reality, I would encourage you, as a City, to look at that perimeter road at least concurrently with this application because people who are hoping to develop in this area are already having to accommodate that. The second one for the Planning Board is I would ask that you request the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife come 41 before you to express their views on the values of this…of the Penjajawoc because, as has been mentioned before, there is a concurrent process going on at the state level. Your process should be independent, but it should be informed by the information that’s going back and forth between the applicant and the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. My two recommendations specific for the developer are to maintain an adequate buffer between the development and the edge of the marsh, to minimize the direct and indirect impacts listed above, and that this should be at least 250 feet. This means that buildings, parking lots, and retention, stormwater retention ponds should be completely outside of this and the applicant mentioned that the average is 320 feet or whatever the average was he said. It’s not the average I’m interested in, it is the closest point that that retention pond comes and that whole pond should be outside that 250 buffer so as you take a look at the map this evening or over the next course of however long your going to review this information, please make careful note of that, it’s not the average we’re interested in, it’s the closest point to the edge of the marsh (TAPE ENDED)… Sophia Wilder, 54 Penobscot Street, Orono: …not in Bangor, but an area resident. I just wanted to ask a question. Are you making a decision tonight yea or nea? I’m confused about that. Chair Fournier: It was my intent earlier and unless there’s a motion to continue to a later date… Unknown Speaker: There will be. Sophia Wilder: I would urge you to review this information. I’m a town councilor in Orono. I do not understand how you could possibly make a decision tonight with all the studies that you have been given even though some of those studies I’m sure you’ve seen before, but I think you’ve been presented new evidence tonight and I would be suspicious of any decision made without reviewing that information. So, I would urge you to do that. I also heard tonight…I have another question. Somebody said, I’m not sure who it was, that the size of this building, 244,000 square feet, which I’m quite abstract, not so concrete, but somebody said it was like 10 Circuit City’s. Is that correct? 10 Circuit City’s and I have one word to respond to that, obscene. \[clapping\] Unknown Speaker: Hello. Chair Fournier: I’m still asking for opponents at this point. 42 Unknown Speaker: Yep. I’d like to bring to your attention a paper that was brought to the Planning Board by the Maine Audubon Society and was authored by Judy Kellogg-Markowsky… Chair Fournier: I’m sorry, could I have you please step down. I’m still going through the process of opponents. Unknown Speaker: I’ll be an opponent now. Can I say what I have to say? Everybody else has gotten to. Chair Fournier: If I could please have you sit down. Unknown Speaker: No. I… \[Several Speaking at once – no clear idea of whom is talking\] Unknown Speaker: I would like to say that of all of the endangered species that they’ve been speaking of, (Chair Fournier: Could you please turn off the mike?) …there are only three that Markowsky put in her report…I don’t believe that she said were threatened… Chair Fournier: Thank you. Unknown Speaker: Actually what she said in her report was… Unknown Speaker: If you can tell her that her comments since they are not… (inaudible) Unknown Speaker: In my opinion the (inaudible) area is not immediately threatened by proposed Widewaters Development… Chair Fournier: Can I ask…? Unknown Speaker: She said that about all except three. One of three have not been seen in the area since 1993 in her report… Chair Fournier: Can I ask…? Unknown Speaker: Another one she really didn’t know it was endangered because… Chair Fournier: Can I ask that you please…? Unknown Speaker: … close to the development area. 43 Chair Fournier: Can I ask that you please…? Unknown Speaker: Thank you. Maine Audubon. Unknown Speaker: (inaudible)…comments not recognized by the Chair and will not be considered by the Board (inaudible). Chair Fournier: Opponent? Bill Masters, 75 Maple Street: Yes I am. Chair Fournier: Thank you. Bill Masters: I know you want to go home, Mr. Chairman, we all do, but this is very important. My name is Bill Masters. I live at 75 Maple Street here in Bangor. I’ve been there for 17 years, 28 in this area. I’ve seen it change a lot. One of my biggest concerns I think, is the traffic problem and yes, there is a traffic problem and it’s not going to get any better. I can put a little more realistic term or face on this traffic problem. At the end of Forest Avenue on the opposite side of Stillwater Avenue, sits Taylor Field, home of Bangor East Side Little League. For over 50 years, east side kids have been playing little league on this field. A side note, it’s one of the longest continuous running little league programs in the country. Some of those folks, probably sitting in this audience, who used to ride their bikes or walk to this field. That’s not possible anymore. Think about it, a car every 3-5 seconds. My sons can’t run that fast. I wish they could, I’d have them steal more. You know this is more than just about shopping areas or developing the tax base, folks. When the traffic affects our children’s safety, then we need to stand up. Thanks for you time and good luck making a decision. Chair Fournier: Any other opponents? Mike McCarty, 184 Stillwater Avenue: Chair Fournier: If I could just break in for one second. How many more opponents are there going to be? Okay good. Mike McCarty: We’ve heard a lot of comments from folks who live in the immediate area. I live at ground zero, people. There…we moved to our home on Stillwater Avenue before the mall and it was a nice, quiet residential street and for 25 years we’ve seen that street grow into a major expressway. Speeding cars, dirt, smog, pollution, that kind of thing. I think you have to consider the downstream effects of the traffic. It literally takes me, on a Saturday, at least a 44 five-minute wait, just to back out of the driveway to go where I want to go. Of course, this affects not only myself but those who also live on the street and in the neighborhood, as well. We already have a traffic problem. We already have a situation where I think air quality in the neighborhood is compromised by the traffic. What’s gonna happen with significant additional development in the proposed area, development area, who knows? It can only get worse. The City of Bangor, working with the state, has expended considerable effort and time and money in making sure that the new interchange gets built the right way so that traffic in the neighborhoods can be mitigated by diverting some of this. I think with additional retail development, major retail development, you may throw this advantage all away. So, please consider, I ask you ask well as the many others here tonight have asked you to consider the traffic impact on further development in the area. Thanks. Chair Fournier: Thank you. Seeing or hearing of no other opponents, I’m going to again stick to my schedule. The applicant is to have an opportunity to respond to the statements and answer any questions, in brief. Kevin Kane: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Chair Fournier: The Chair recognizes Mr. Kane. Kevin Kane: For the record again, my name is Kevin Kane with the Widewaters Stillwater Company, the applicant. There’s been a lot of testimony tonight that has interchanged the word Penjajawoc and the Bangor Bog. I think it’s important to clarify for this Board that our property does not abut the Bangor bog and that we are not planning to pave over the Bangor Bog. Our application reflects a very successful Bangor corporate citizen who would like to expand in your market because of their success and the reception they have received from this community. It was physically impossible for them to expand in place. That’s what created the desire for Wal-Mart to relocate to this site. We, as a developer, purchased this land because it is currently zoned for the development we propose in front of you tonight. It is part of your master plan that you have drafted and had public hearings on many years ago. This plan is in complete conformity with all current zoning and proposed zoning that is being suggested by Maine DEP. Your impervious surface ratios that we heard so much about allows for 70% of a site to be paved. We’re using 10% less in that area, 67%. It comes down to a question of the rules of law. Unknown Speaker: No. Kevin Kane: Yes, it does. Because we bought this land in a good faith believe that the zoning ordinances that were passed and that are enforced by this City are valid and are binding on all property owners. We have met the 45 requirements. We have seen the bar set, changed once, and as I predicted earlier tonight, has been raised again, about our setbacks from the stream. But, at some point, we have certain rights ourselves, and we have tried to work with the various environmental agencies in this state and we continue to try and find some common ground because we respect that even though they didn’t go through the legal process beforehand to designate this area, we certainly understand the concern, we’re not insensitive to the significance of the area and are working to try and find some common ground. But, everything in front of you tonight is consistent with your laws. We have proposed to mitigate our impacts in traffic. We have proposed to mitigate our impacts from stormwater run-off and we’ve asked for no special relief, no variances, just what your ordinance provides. I think we’re at least owed that much as a corporate citizen of your community. Thank you. Chair Fournier: Thanks. I know there are a couple of questions or I think there are a couple of questions. Frederick Costlow: Just a point Mr. Kane. The Land Development Code from the City of Bangor does authorize the Planning Board to consider the effects on the scenic or natural beauty of an area or historic site or rare or irreplaceable natural areas, so I was just saying, in terms of the rule of law, as I understand for the code that the Planning Board has been given under the approval standards of section 165 – 114 I, that this is something that the Board can consider, although it’s not set out in numeric how we are to consider it. I wanted you to be aware that section I, if the Board were to deem an area be an irreplaceable natural area, and I think from your testimony that you believe this area, at least according to Fish and Wildlife to be an area of significance, I would just say that the criteria, one of the criteria that we will be using is something from the Land Development Code. That being section I, along with others and I do share your point, but I just wanted you to say when the applicable rules of law that we’re operating on, do allow us to consider that type of information. Kevin Kane: Mr. Costlow, I respect that section of the Bangor Code… Frederick Costlow: Okay, that’s… Kevin Kane: But, having said that, I’d like to also clarify, we respect the significance of the stream, but more importantly, the significance of the Bog. But, the only criteria that has been offered for us, we have met and as soon as we meet it, it gets changed again and that’s the concern I have about property rights. If this Commission did not intend for this land to be developed the way we propose, then you would not have gone through the process less than a decade ago to deem this part of your master plan. You would not have designed 46 a parallel service road to interconnect to the interchange from 95. We are operating in consistency with what the long-term plans are of this City. Frederick Costlow: I’m not suggestion you aren’t, sir. I think you’ve made some valid points and those points will be considered. The only thing was you were telling that we were operating…I just wanted you to be aware there were other factors in there that have to be considered. Kevin Kane: We are fully aware of that fact. Frederick Costlow: Okay. Fine. Chair Fournier: Thank you. At this point, I’d like to close the public hearing. I would like. Unknown Speaker: (inaudible) Chair Fournier: I’m sorry, I can’t remember your name. Charlie Curran: I’m Charlie Curran. Chair Fournier: Charlie Curran. Thank you. Charlie Curran: (inaudible)…the first thing I said to you people last time, I apologize for the last time I was here. I’m sorry I said that. You didn’t give us a chance to have our say. People are running around talking about Wal-Mart this and Wal-Mart that. Wal-Mart is the only store that I saw taking a collection for World War II veterans…(inaudible)… I’m trying to point out to you. (Inaudible)… Let me speak… Chair Fournier: Nobody…(inaudible)…I’m trying to keep this meeting (inaudible) Charlie Curran: (inaudible) Chair Fournier: (inaudible)…who the applicant is. Charlie Curran: Are you going to make a decision or is it going to be the Council? Chair Fournier: The decision will be made with this group. Charlie Curran: In other words, don’t go to the Council. Chair Fournier: This does not go to Council. 47 Charlie Curran: What you guys say is law? Chair Fournier: To the best of my knowledge. Charlie Curran: (inaudible) I wish you guys were around when we had urban renewal, we wouldn’t have any of these stores downtown. I worked downtown… (inaudible)…are you going out to the mall, he said, no, once you lose the (inaudible) then you lose (inaudible). Look at downtown now, because of this. Now, (inaudible)… you’re not losing taxes because…(inaudible)… Chair Fournier: We’re going on… SEVERAL SPEAKING AT ONCE… Chair Fournier: This is not the forum… Charlie Curran: They got the forum. You didn’t give us an opportunity. Chair Fournier: The proponents were given an opportunity. Charlie Curran: No, No we wasn’t. Chair Fournier: At this point… Charlie Curran: (inaudible)…you gave the proponents the opportunity to speak (inaudible)…the marsh, nothing about building…(inaudible)…you guys haven’t changed a bit since the last time I was here. Chair Fournier: Thank you for your comments. At this point…At this point, I’d like to hear from the Planning Department regarding this issue. Katherine Weber, Planning Officer City of Bangor: The Board is asked to consider the facts as presented and make a decision based on Bangor’s Ordinance (inaudible) plan and site plan submission and the proposed conditional uses. You have the conditional use provisions before you. Based on the information submitted, in the opinion of the Planning Division staff, the site plan meets Bangor’s ordinance requirements for the shopping and personal service district and the conditional uses proposed. Planning staff recommends approval of the site development plan and the conditional uses. Chair Fournier: Thank you. Robert Lingley: Yes, Mr. Chair. There is no way that I’m going to be able to weed out all this stuff and make a decision tonight. 48 Frederick Costlow: I concur with Mr. Lingley (inaudible) we would be remiss not to give both the applicant and the opponents have both presented material to the Board tonight and (inaudible) and I don’t want to give anything that was submitted (inaudible) and certainly it will take me a while to go through the submissions (inaudible) the applicants re-submitted the report of Mr. Slade which I haven’t had a chance to review plus some other documents by Mr. Waugh that were amended and the opponents that provided at least a close to a half inch of materials that I do plan on reading. Chair Fournier: That’s two. Three… Okay. I would make it a point of fact that the public hearing is closed. It’s not my intention to re-open the public hearing at this point. I’m sure we will have questions. Obviously, we would like the applicant there. At this point I’d accept a motion to… Robert Lingley: I would move that we continue this hearing on this topic. Chair Fournier: Can I make a suggestion on how we do that? If we propose a continuance for Item #1 Conditional Use (inaudible)… Robert Lingley: Yes. (Inaudible)… We have before us the (inaudible)… It’s buried in this crap somewhere. Not crap. Excuse me, I withdraw that comment. SEVERAL SPEAKING AT ONCE Robert Lingley: The, we have before us an application for conditional use and a site development plan and I would like to move to continue discussion of these two issues until the next available public hearing. Chair Fournier: It wouldn’t be a public hearing. It would be the next scheduled board meeting. Robert Lingley: I’m sorry. Frederick Costlow: I would second that motion and simply add that I believe in the regulations there is a time limitation that we have. I think it’s 21 days. Katherine am I right on that? Alright. Then the next available meeting would be within that time frame so with that caveat, I’ll just second the motion that the next meeting would be fine. So we don’t miss any deadlines. Chair Fournier: Any other discussion? Okay. All those in favor of the motion? That will pass 5-0. Take the second issue? (Inaudible) Let me change the agenda. Let’s do this quickly. (Inaudible) I think we have two that were submitted. I’d be glad to accept a motion that we pass (inaudible) 49 Robert Kreitzer: I move and approve the minutes. st Unknown Speaker: November 7. November 21. Chair Fournier: Thank you. All those in favor? Thank you. That passes 5-0. The last thing on the agenda is the final subdivision revision, Stillwater Avenue, Gilman Road, Widewaters Stillwater Company. Frederick Costlow: I would reiterate the motion to continue on the same basis that we did on number #1 until we’ve reviewed all the submissions. Robert Lingley: I’ll second that. Chair Fournier: Any other questions. All those in favor? Passes 5-0. Frederick Costlow: May I make a request. It would be helpful to me to create, if we could, a list, because I’ve been given a lot of paperwork here and I want to make sure that I don’t use something from the prior application. I would like a list of the exhibits that were submitted. I have my notes of the testimony, but so that I will know specifically what I’m going to consider. So, if you could do that… John Hamer: I have the list right here. Frederick Costlow: You do. Okay. Chair Fournier: There are 16 exhibits to the list. Frederick Costlow: Alright. That’s what I want to see. Okay, great. Chair Fournier: I accept a motion to adjourn. Unknown Speaker: So moved. Second. 50