Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-03-26 Business and Economic Development Committee Minutes BUSINESS & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday, March 26, 2013, 5:00 pm City Council Chambers Minutes Councilors: Chair Sprague, Joe Baldacci, Pat Blanchette, Pauline Civiello, Dave Nealley Nelson Durgin, Charlie Longo, Sue Hawes, and James Gallant Staff: Rosie Vanadestine, Norm Heitmann, Steve Bolduc, David Gould, and Art Morgan The meeting was called to order by Chair Sprague at 5:00 p.m. REGULAR AGENDA 1. Executive Session – Economic Development – Property disposition – 1 M.R.S.A. § 405 (6) (C) A motion was made and seconded to move to Executive Session. A motion was made and seconded to exit Executive Session. 2. Action on above item: There was no action on the above item. 3. Maine Air National Guard – Request for Lease of Land Steve Bolduc informed the Committee that the Maine Air National Guard wanted to lease an additional .56 acre parcel of land at the entrance to their base on Griffin Road and Maine Avenue. The reasons are for better security at their entrance, a permanent location for their sign, and for storm water control. He explained that The Engineering Department and the Airport have both reviewed the plans and request and are supportive. Councilor Baldacci moved to approve staff recommendation. Councilor Hawes seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. 4. Discussion on Quarries in Rural Residence & Agriculture (RR&A) District Norm Heitmann explained that a citizen had contacted the City regarding placement of quarries, not the existing quarries but for any future quarries. The Land Development Code could be amended to indicate where future quarries could be and brought to the Business and Economic Development Committee for further review and discussion. Planning, Code and Legal have reviewed and discussed this request. David Gould explained that a potential overlay district within the Rural Residence and Agriculture District could be created to show where any future quarries would be allowed. The first parameter was the urban development boundary defined in the Comprehensive Plan. This shows where sewer and water service could be extended throughout the city, if we get to that point of development. We would not want to put quarries in all of the Rural Residence and 2 Agriculture, only beyond those growth boundaries. The second parameter was 500 feet from any residential property line. The third parameter took into consideration where single-family subdivisions on the outskirts could go and provide a buffer to existing subdivisions, as well. Dave Gould reviewed the maps with the Committee to show where the quarries could go using those parameters. He explained that if there is no overlay district the other way to minimize where they could go would be to create a host of standards within the district. The problem with that is whenever anyone builds a house the boundaries would change. Councilor Baldacci felt that having defined areas that people knew where quarries could go would be beneficial and felt this overlay approach is a reasonable recommendation. David Gould explained that this was also established with what currently exists on the ground now. Councilor Baldacci asked how people would be notified of this zone if they were going to buy a residence. David Gould explained that people would still have to do their due diligence and educate themselves on what the surrounding zones are and what that could potentially mean for them. Councilor Gallant asked if test holes have been dug to determine if this overlay district has the necessary soils needed for a quarry. If it is not determined that the area has potential for a quarry this exercise is all for nothing and makes no sense to have it. We should know what resources levels are in the city and what materials are available here before making any decisions. Councilor Gallant was also concerned about where quarries locate because the further away they are, the more expensive it is for trucking and crushing the materials. Norm Heitmann explained that quarries are allowed now in Rural Residence & Agriculture District (RR&A) and we do not know the material available now as it is zoned. It will need to remain in RR&A because of the open space. As it is today, one could be next to a quarry when building in any RR&A area. This would prevent that by allowing people to know where the quarries could go now and in the future. Councilor Baldacci sought clarification that if we do not do anything a quarry can go any place in an RR&A zone now. Norm Heitmann indicated that this is correct. This ensures that people will have assurances as to their home and having peace and enjoyment of their homes. Councilor Durgin agreed that this idea makes sense but questioned if we are going to exclude quarry space now, we should test first to ensure that any quarry potential will be where we are putting the overlay district. David Gould explained that we would be saying this land’s “preferred” use would be a quarry vs. residential. The question is, is there a demand for quarrying in Bangor where we take a percentage of the RR&A land to make this overlay or limit it to where the quarry soil is best. Councilor Gallant explained that there is a need for certain types of sand to make materials needed for development. As the city grows we will need more concrete etc. If the overlay gets rid of the only place that has the material needed, to do this to protect homeowners interests without knowing where the material is would not be wise. David Gould had no comments on this specific item. 3 Public Comments: Paul Randall of Union Street said that he moved here a year ago and bought farm land for alpacas. He is concerned about his quality of life. He is afraid that he is stuck with his property if a quarry goes behind him. He did his due diligence and looked at the long term comp plan and it showed the city owned the property behind him and it was going to be used for four soccer fields. That is not true as a quarry could go there now. He said that trucking is not an issue as he gets chips at their work from all over and Councilor Gallant’s worries are unfounded. Mr. Randall said that he wants the overlay as protection. He spent his whole life savings on his farm. He would have to get rid of his horses and alpacas if a quarry goes in. He also said the City should not be testing now as that should be the due diligence of anyone of the developers that wants to put a quarry in and not be an expense the City does for the developer. Randy Gardner a quarry operator said that he agrees that citizens are due good quality of life. However, this overlay district as it stands, would be like zoning marinas without water. Specific resources are required for quarry gravel pits and are only available in certain spots. The resources and gravel needed are not everywhere. Testing can find resources but this would be redoing work that has already been done. Certain uses in RR&A and reasonable uses are allowed there. It is appropriate to have quarries in open rural areas. He also agreed with Councilor Gallant regarding the trucking costs. He added that it is approximately $1 per mile and is a significant operating cost. The further away it is the more these costs will rise. He would like to find a way to coexist. He doesn’t want to drive people out or affect their quality of life. The necessary items are in quality and quantity and are only available in limited areas. Councilor Gallant questioned the state requirements that also dictate the operation of quarries. Randy Gardner believes this is part of the answer. The City can set stricter guidelines and that would be the best solution. The City only requires 20 feet from the property line and the state requirement is 100 feet at the top of the slope. Any noise requirements that are exceeded need to be reported to DEP and if it happens twice in one year there are fines based on decibel and vibration to control the blasting. However, blasting isn’t the problem. It only lasts .8 milliseconds 2 to 3 times per year. The City’s is 1/10 what the State’s blasting requirements are. Further setback requirements and regulating business hours would be helpful. They currently operate 5 days from 6am-6pm and on Saturday they operate from 6am-2pm. The crushing operations are the issue as they are loud, constant and annoying. Councilor Gallant questioned the barriers to minimize sounds around crushers. Randy Gardner said berming could also be used for mitigating sound. We are not addressing the situation we are just moving from one group of annoyed people to another. Councilor Baldacci felt there would be a longer term discussion on this topic. He would like to consider issuing a 180-day moratorium on any new quarries to determine policy and what makes sense while giving time to sort all of this out with detailed public discussion regarding proper districts, regulations and standards. Norm Heitmann has prepared a moratorium ordinance for the next Council meeting to let us look into this, sort out zoning and land development code issues, not be rushed and do it properly. 4 Councilor Nealley said he could support a short moratorium (60-90 days). This should not take six months to solve this issue. He is not adverse to certain districts if there is valuable capacity for quarries. Councilor Baldacci explained that the moratorium could be terminated earlier once a resolution is found. Councilor Blanchette indicated that she is comfortable with a six month moratorium to take the pressure off. She said that this Committee takes care of the businesses coming in and out of the City and we should give the staff time to ask the questions and gather information and data regarding this issue. Councilor Blanchette explained that the DEP permitting process is very long to open a quarry and those pieces are in place already. Councilor Baldacci said once they have applied, they would be grandfathered as when applied. Chair Sprague indicated that he would like a 60-day moratorium put on the Business and Economic Development Committee agenda for the first meeting in May. City staff can reach out to the citizens and businesses to have a quick resolution. There are many of the same Councilors involved as were involved this summer when the topic came up. Norm Heitmann said the Planning Board process is three weeks with referrals, etc. and 4-5 weeks just to start the process. Any Land Development Code issues would add time to it. Councilor Baldacci suggested shooting for four months but doing the moratorium for 180 days as it could be terminated at any time but allow flexibility without having to come back again if something comes up. Chair Sprague indicated that he would support 6 months and keep moving this conversation along. Public Comments: Nancy Kravitz, a Downing Road resident, indicated that this is the first time the overlay proposal was discussed and she is favorably impressed. It is quantitative not visual. She didn’t feel that 500 feet is enough of a buffer zone from a home and asked the Committee to consider a 1000 foot setback. She indicated that she is in all for jobs for Bangor, but net job gain needs to be considered Sharon Cassidy, a Union Street resident, indicated that the most recent proposed quarry would be in her backyard. If it is deemed detrimental to a neighborhood it should not be allowed. She said that most people would feel that if a quarry were in their neighborhood it would be detrimental especially if behind your house. She felt that this should be redefined or better explained and something the Council should address. Randy Gardner, a quarry operator, indicated that he felt that ambiguities need to be cleared up for developers and homeowners. He said Industrial zones and Rural Residence and Agriculture (RR & A) Districts allow quarries and it is only the RR&A district that has issues. He indicated that he would like the moratorium to be only for the RR&A district so not to affect any Industrial zoned quarries. He also wanted to make sure everyone understood that the Union Street quarry is licensed and permitted and not part of this conversation. Mr. Randall mentioned that fuel costs per ton are much cheaper when you do the math. People within construction think they are good neighbors or want to be good neighbors. However, the 5 residents don’t feel that way as they feel trapped in their houses and they are stuck with no options. Councilor Baldacci moved to impose a 180 day moratorium on quarry use of land. Councilor Blanchette seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Chair Sprague outlined action steps for David Gould and staff to include looking at 1000 foot setbacks, reviewing Randy Gardner’s suggestions for tightening up the City policies regarding business hours, noise and setbacks and more details are needed regarding the overlay district being proposed. Committee members suggested having this item the only item on an agenda to allow for discussion and public input and the thought was to schedule this for the first Business and Economic Development Committee meeting in May. 5. Discussion Land Development Code – Transitional Housing & Emergency Shelters Norm Heitmann explained that the Hope House project brought to our attention the opportunity to amend the text of the Land Development Code to define Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing and to decide which zones they would be allowed in as they currently exist in Bangor. When it was brought forward back in 2012 the Planning Board and the Council voted it down. Now it is back before you to deal with the Land Development Code sections. David Gould explained that staff worked out definitions of transitional housing and emergency shelters that we currently have in the city. The other one fits it into the G&ISD. Councilor Civiello suggested because we have never had any of these in before, this is a policy that we should define more. She said transitional housing may not be what we are talking about tonight. She questioned the 24 month limit when it could be shorter. Rosie Vanadestine explained that Staff used the HUD definition and we also wanted to define what we have now without being too specific. We wanted to keep it somewhat broader because it is easier to further restrict it if necessary. Councilor Baldacci asked if emergency shelters are defined as no more than 70 beds does that mean they cannot go over 70. They could not go over if we legally define it. Staff explained that emergency shelters of more than 70 are not allowed, the same as with transitional housing, if more than 24 months it would not be allowed. It prohibits uses with no wiggle. Councilor Civiello questioned why staff did not provide for emergency shelters as for natural disasters or national/state emergencies. Norm Heitmann explained that emergency shelters defined as place for purpose and if other buildings are needed for emergency shelters for that purpose it would not still serve this purpose after the fact and is not necessary to include. This is for intended permanent uses. Councilor Blanchette also explained that any natural disaster is directed by FEMA and we would have to do what is directed by them and they would override the local level. Councilor Civiello asked about additional housing terms i.e., wet, dry, scattered etc. and should those be included as well. David Gould said staff could look at the number in certain proximity to prevent clustering them in one area and to disperse them throughout the city. Norm Heitmann explained that these two definitions define what we have currently and takes into 6 consideration how the ordinance conforms to what we have now and those would be in compliance. Councilor Longo asked if there was anything that was considered when drafting this text that was not included and removed. David explained that when drafting the language some concepts were discussed i.e., proximity and distance from others etc. Staff didn’t want to put too much in now and too many restrictions. Staff wanted to keep it simple because we can always add more if we need to down the road. Councilor Civiello had other ideas regarding operational standards of facilities. David Gould explained that the Planning Board has a limited purview around building buffers, setbacks etc. The Planning Board cannot dictate nor does it have authority to decide if an organization is operating as outlined and cannot police day to day operations. Norm Heitmann explained that people’s behavior is not regulated only standards that are objective through the Land Development Code. There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 6:45 pm.