Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-05-23 Business and Economic Development Committee Minutes BUSINESS & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Wednesday, May 23, 2012, 5 pm City Council Chambers Minutes Councilors: Blanchette, Durgin, Hawes and Sprague Staff: Conlow, Heitmann, Martin, Morgan and Patterson Others: John Hamer, George Kinghorn (both from the DBP Board); Bangor Residents : Jim Stevens; Maria Mason; Nancy Crabitt; Deborah Turcott; Lt. Colonel Dave Vanshaun, Base Engineer for the Maine International Guard; Randy Gardner of Queen City Mining & Gardner Construction; Rodney Lane, District Manager for Lane Construction Corp. in State of Maine; John O’Day, Associated General Contractors of Maine Councilor Hawes, Councilor Gratwick’s absence, chaired the meeting. 1. Re-authorization of Bangor Center Development District Funding Shirar Patterson reviewed the process in terms of re-establishing the Special Assessment District and the process the City is required to go through by statute. She stated that the Bangor Center Development District, also known as the Special Assessment District, was established in 1987. The assessments have remained at .51 cents per $1,000 since 1992. This funds the activities of the Downtown Bangor Partnership, formally known as the Bangor Center Corporation; their main focus is to market and promote downtown Bangor, produce events that bring people downtown; also advocate for infrastructure improvements and beautification efforts that attract businesses and retain businesses and residents downtown. For the process there are 4 City Council Orders and 2 public hearings necessary to continue the funding th of the Bangor Center Development District. These will be for consideration at the May 30 City Council meeting. The first public hearing is to consider adoption of the proposed development program and th budget (John Hamer & George Kinghorn further reviewed in detail). This was published on May 18 in nd public notice in the Bangor Daily News as required. The 2 public hearing is to consider implementation of assessments on properties within the district (this also was published in the public notification on th May 18 in the Bangor Daily News). The proposed list of properties to be affected is available in the City Assessor’s Office. The proposed assessment for the coming year remains at 51 centers per $1,000; the total district value is $107,331,500; an overlay rate of 2 cents per $1,000 is proposed (which has not changed from past years) so this brings the total to 53 cents per $1,000 for an assessed value. The overlay rate is to cover any non-payments or issues that may arise with that. Staff is asking Committee to recommend to the City Council passage of the Council Orders and to conduct the public hearings. John Hamer, current President of the DBP Board and George Kinghorn, current Vice President of the DBP Board, both spoke to the committee on the various activities and projects that have been accomplished this past fiscal year. st George Kinghorn (who will be the incoming President of the DBP Board as of July 1) further reviewed the Board’s goals for the upcoming fiscal year. He added that, at Councilor Durgin’s request, he has looked into the possibility of closing off Broad Street and what the implications would be to do that or at least minimizing Broad Street so that it is only one lane. It is felt that by extending that, it will make it more pedestrian friendly thus further enhance West Market Square. As an exploratory type of study, is the continual study of safety issues; the perception of safety whether it is real or not should be looked at closer – this might include the Pickering Square bus depot. Also want to work collaborative with the City on parking enforcement issues. Lastly, promote downtown through maps and other marketing efforts as DBP continues into FY13. Councilor Sprague made a motion to move staff recommendation as presented to the City Council. Seconded by Councilor Durgin. Unanimous Committee vote. 2. Discussion on Blasting and Quarries City Solicitor Norman Heitmann reviewed this item for the Committee stating that Bangor residents have asked to address the City Council regarding their concerns/comments about quarries in Bangor. He stated that currently there are 3 approved quarries in Bangor; the most recent one approved by the Planning Board in March 2012. Quarries are allowed in the Rural Residential Agriculture District (RR&A) as a conditional use. Conditional uses have to meet certain standards set forth in the ordinance and have to get Planning Board approval. There are City ordinances that regulate the quarries and regulate blasting which is one of the concerns that residents have about the quarries. Norm stated that there are numerous state regulations concerning blasting (which he reviewed in detail). Anyone who wants to conduct blasting has to obtain a blasting permit from the City. The issue that has brought this conversation to the Committee at this time is the most recent approval of the Planning Board action. That matter is now in court - numerous people in addition to the developer have attended the Planning Board meeting to express their concerns. The Planning Board ruled in favor of the quarry operator saying that they had met the site plan requirements and the conditional use requirements. The law does provide the right to appeal Planning Board decisions; one individual did take advantage of that right and has filed an appeal challenging the Planning Board decision – that appeal is now pending in the Penobscot County Superior Court. City Engineer Art Morgan reviewed how the City handles the permits as well as their oversight by way of City ordinance to state law blasting. He stated that the City of Bangor has issued blasting permits to all activity that uses explosives. This work is categorized into 3 types of work – there is blasting to install utilities, sewer lines, water (both public & private). The City has found that blasting for utilities is the most economical and least damaging way for excavation of ledge rock to install utilities. The other activity that might be covered under this blasting permit would be for excavation of a private foundation or a swimming pool on private property. The last category would be for quarrying producing and crushing rock- this rock would be used as aggregate to make hot mix or to build road base or concrete aggregate, as well as stone dust that would be used on trails. It is a necessary resource for construction to proceed in the Bangor community. Bangor Residents spoke to the Committee on their concerns with respect to the blasting taking place at a new proposed Bangor quarry as follows. Jim Stevens, 128 Downing Rd., Bangor (his property is the closest to the proposed new quarry). He stated that he received a notice in February 2012 for a new quarry in Bangor. He attended the Planning th Board meeting on March 6 whereby he voiced his displeasure about it. At the end of that meeting as quoted from the Minutes of that meeting: “Planning Officer Gould indicated that this application is identical to that of the existing quarry which was located on the other side of Union Street. Anyone wishing to blast must first obtain a permit from the Engineering Dept. This quarry is only allowed in the Rural Residence and Agricultural District as a conditional use under Land Development Code Chapter 156, 165, 165.9 and the applicant must meet the requirements of the site development plan. Concerns brought up unfortunately are not details that are covered under the Land Development Code. Conditions do not ask the Board to determine this or adversely add impact to property values. There is no specific noise standard.” (David Gould asked that the ordinance be passed and it was passed). Mr. Stevens also read a statement of purpose of the Rural Residence and Agricultural District. (He passed out pictures of his property indicating that there is only 300 feet between his well and the proposed quarry site.) The noise of machinery is also an issue; and he’s very concerned about his property values. Mr. Stevens asked that City Solicitor Heitmann present his concerns to the full Planning Board and ask them to take blasting and quarries out of Bangor. It does not belong in the City of Bangor; he wants the City to help in saving his property values. For the record: Councilor Sprague noted that he is not related to the Sprague family that owns this quarry. Maria Mason, 1528 Union Street, Bangor (abutter to the new quarry that was approved). She passed out copies of Bangor’s standards for quarries; she also passed out the standards for quarries in the Town of Hancock. She noted that the differences were significant – standards for the Town of Hancock are stricter than Bangor’s. She stated that adopting standards that are more comprehensive is better able to protect the Bangor homeowners and the property values without making it impossible for people to do business is the right way to go. She added that you buy a house in a rural residential area that talks about preserving the quiet quality of life and the property values and then you do something that is so significantly detrimental to the property values that you will actually put people in the position where they can no longer move; they can no longer sell their homes. Paul Randall, 1556 Union Street, Bangor. Stated that blasting is a concern; he has owned his home for 2 months. Besides the blasting there is the constant barrage of grinding of rocks, the backing up of equipment (this is all non-stop during daytime, 6 days a week). Prior to purchasing his property he did contact the City with respect to what was the owner’s intent for the quarry. He was told the owner of the quarry would be using it for about a year; the permit would not be renewed by the City; the owner has agreed that he was going to put in a housing development through to Ohio Street. At that time, he also inquired about what was the intent for the property behind his house. He was told that it would be forested. Then he went onto the City’s web site and looked at the economic development plan long- term and saw that there would be soccer fields out there. But after two months of living in his home, he finds he will not be able to sit anywhere outside to enjoy his property. He is very concerned about his property value. Nancy Crabitt, 53 Downing Road, Bangor. Expressed several concerns about the quarry and blasting. She is also very concerned about the decrease in property values. As the other residents stated, they all have wells (no public water/sewer) and if the quality of water goes down due to the blasting they have no other resource. She is very concerned about the ability of the soil to absorb water which would affect septic systems. Similarly with the septic system in this neighborhood there is no backup and nothing the property owners can do about it if the systems don’t work. Unless someone can reassure her about the ability of the soil to absorb the energy from the blast and not be altered, we’re looking at least a possibility of some extremely serious financial effects and quality of living effects. She’s also concerned about the constant noise as are her neighbors. Randy Gardner, representing both Queen City Mining and Gardner Construction stated that Queen City Mining owns the property of the new approved quarry and they are the holder of the property. Gardner Construction is his company – they operate both the existing quarry (otherwise known as the Sprague Quarry) and the new quarry (known as the Queen City Quarry). He expressed that he is concerned about the neighbor’s issues and to see what he can do to address those concerns. He also clarified what exactly they do, where it is and when they do it. His permit authorizes him to remove materials from this site mostly from blasting and crushing to provide material to a wide range of customers for construction and landscaping projects. He stated that blasting is the least intrusive of their operation. The drilling and blasting cycles take approximately 4 days to complete; they happen no more than 3-4 times a year (he does not think it has been done more than 3 times a year at this time). The actual number of days that blasting occurs is approximately 6 days a year; the actual total time of blasting per year was in the neighborhood of approximately 12 seconds. Their blasting is monitored very carefully and has been uneventful so far. Their permitted work hours of operation for both quarries are Monday through Friday, 6:30 am – 6pm; Saturdays 6:30 am – 2 pm. These hours are not mandated by the City’s ordinances or any other agency but were offered by Gardner Construction in an effort to make this operation livable for the neighbors. The other issue at hand is truck traffic – regardless of what happens with this quarry, these trucks will be coming to Bangor and they will be on our streets. However, by having the resource close to the market our industry is able to eliminate approximately 15,000 hours of trucking on Maine roads. Most, if not all of these issues, center around noise – this type of business is noisy. What hasn’t been said here today is that this property also abuts the airport and is itself a noisy operation. It also abuts to the east of another industrial facility that has excavators. The products from this quarry are vital to the economy, comfort and safety of all the citizens of Bangor as well as the surrounding communities. He feels it would be irresponsible to say no blasting, no quarries in Bangor. Lt. Colonel Dave Vanshaun representing the Maine International Guard stated that he was in attendance to gather information only, and not to oppose any legal, safe operation. He explained what the Guard operation does at this location; they are a flying operation – it is a very intensive business. They store almost 900,000 gallons of fuel and their fuel farm is very close to the northeast boundary adjacent to the quarry operation. From their fuel farm they run a hydrant system below ground to the airfield. This has become a very strategic operation; they are noisy as well. Their fuel system is very critical to their operation; if it were damaged they’d be out of business for days and that would have a large impact on both Bangor International Airport and the City. Obviously, they’re concerned about that. Just want to make sure that the entity and the City Engineers take this into consideration. He read the blasting rules and feels they’re prudent to protect areas such as the airport and Guard. He just wanted to make sure that the City was aware of that critical system (not an abutter to the quarry but very close -- about 800-1,000 feet away from the blasting). The Guard will probably do their own monitoring; a notification will be important to them as well and hopefully the City will help them to monitor it and not put a critical asset out of business. Rodney Lane, 210 Fourteenth Street, Bangor, District Manager for the Lane Construction Corporation in the State of Maine. He stated that he is not speaking for or against any other quarry operator but instead wants to work with the City to resolve any community concerns regarding blasting. Lane Construction has operated their permitted quarry on the Odlin Road for over 40 years; have maintained blasting permits with the City since that time. The presence of their quarry in Bangor has helped the city maintain its infrastructure and grow. Proper notification and open communication between all parties involved can be addressed in a timely and professional manner. It is our opinion that the City of Bangor currently has tools in place to regulate blasting within the City. While there may be a need for updated regulations given the situation that has arisen we do not feel it is fair to stop an existing business. Lane is willing to help the City address concerns but asked that the City consider the impact to existing businesses before adopting any blanket type decisions. DeborahTurcott, Sunny Hollow Place, Bangor. Her home is in a neighborhood that abuts the quarry on Union Street. She spoke at the Planning Board hearing late last year regarding the new permit for the quarry and their expansion which made it closer to our neighborhoods; our concerns are about the explosions, the blasting, the noise, the hours, etc. The quarry that was there when she moved into her home had been dormant for over 25 years. There are over 50 homes on Yankee Avenue and on Sunny Hollow Place. We are a business in Bangor as well - taxes are paid, heating oil is purchased, food is bought, kids go to schools, etc. We have listened to the last hearing, that was just an extension of one permit; they had had a 5-year permit that they started in 2007 – they let that lapse instead of reapplying for an additional 3 years. By letting it lapse and waiting for a few months, they then applied for another 5-year permit. I found this questionable. Concerns were brought up at that hearing - the blasting was extremely loud to the point where houses were being shaken. A neighbor’s home that was new was fine until after the blast – they then had cracks in the basement. They told by the mining company – “oh that’s just settling”. The residents are also concerned about the noise. Because of the way the rules are written we are outside of the notification boundary because the quarry abuts Brown Woods and our neighborhood and when you add up the houses and yards the yards were outside of the notification. We get noise at all hours of the morning – blasting exceeded the decibel limits that were required; they apologized for that and we were told at the last hearing that those weren’t really applicable under the new permit they were asking for because that was under the old permit. We were also told that DEP and others have different levels when it comes to decibel requirements for blasting. (She further said) that there’s no consistency on that and if we have concerns we were told to go to DEP. With regard to this current issue is that they operated at hours that they said they didn’t - they apologized for that. They had blasting noises that exceeded recommended levels - they apologized for that. The explosions were there and the constant banging of the trucks and equipment to get the rocks – it’s not just about the blasting 2 times a year, it’s the constant noise that goes on from there throughout the day and into the night. It was all apologies – we’re going to operate one way and come back and apologize later for how we operated. Now to find out, reading in the paper, that they’re looking to extend the quarry on the other side. That seems like one operation under two permits. Why weren’t we notified back late in 2011 that they wanted to extend the operation to the other side of Union Street as well. It’s questionable, especially when they sat there at the last hearing and said well business has been slow anyway. We should have been informed on that, that this was a major operation, that they were going to be using in two parts. Because the quarry had been quiet for 25 years, there are people who bought their retirement homes there, people who are raising kids there; they go into Brown Woods. The current quarry is expanding out towards Brown Woods and our neighborhoods but because of the way the regulations are written we would not be notified. Bangor opted to put residential areas there before the dormant quarry was reopened; we deserve just as much consideration whether we’re called residents or a business. I am for business but I am not for this business – the way they’ve gone about it is questionable; it’s circumspect and we’re always told one thing and they do another and then they apologize. I truly find it offensive. I don’t want my property values to go down in my neighborhood; neither do my neighbors. We are a business here too; we live here. Sharon Cassidy, 1576 Union Street, Bangor stated that the proposed new quarry abuts her property. The access road in and out to the new quarry goes down my property line. The quarry will be on the back side of her property (her back yard basically). One point that hasn’t been mentioned – the quarry can only exist in a 5-acre parcel to start. There is 50 plus acres back there; they’re starting in one corner – it’s only a matter of time they will use that 50 plus acres – they’re going to move it right across so it will always be in the residents backyards, whether it takes 1, 2, 3 years for the first five acres to be mined it’s going to move, it will back there for who knows how many years – we’re not just talking about putting up with this for a few years. It’s going to be ongoing and it should be taken into greater consideration than it has been. The Planning Board passed it way too quickly. If anyone from the City Council / staff lived in any of these neighborhoods they would be sitting in the same seat as all of the residents who have spoken here tonight are. Nancy Crabbit – While everyone is in favor of more business for Bangor, businesses are by their nature profit making institutions and this quarry would not have begun if there were not the prospect of making money from it. If you couple the profitability to the owners of the quarry with the losses of the homeowners this doesn’t seem like a very fair equation. Now if the very public spirited Mr. Gardner would care to come to an agreement to have the operations of the quarry compensate the owners of the properties for the losses in property value so that there was not in effect a transfer of wealth I think we might be able to come to some sort of a compromise. Maria Mason – It appears that the current blasting standards really are designed for street blasting – what with staff talking about utilities and blasting for foundations for somebody’s house, that kind of thing. I think if those regulations and requirements were left in place for that kind of blasting but what we’re talking about here is truly production blasting – if there were some more protective requirements in place for that. On my behalf that would not be a problem. So that of course the utilities getting in in the most efficient manner could continue to take place – personally that would not be a problem for me. The other thing I would say with respect to Mr. Lane is that that’s an industrial area, not a rural agricultural area and what we know from talking to neighbors who abut the quarry on the other side is that people who kept horses over there and had to sell their horses because the blasting was so problematic for them that the horses spooked and it was no longer safe to keep them. If you can’t keep animals in a rural and agricultural district where can you keep them. So I think this needs to be considered. John O’Day, resident of Richmond, spoke on behalf of Associated General Contractors of Maine (a statewide construction industry trade association representing about 200 general contractors, specialty contractors and construction related firms around the state). He stated that his company has a number of members in the Bangor area who are affected by this proposed talk of a moratorium. These discussions are of state-wide significant when they occur as there is always the prospect of a precedent setting action that affects other communities. One of the things that’s of great value from an economic development perspective is to have a stable regulatory scheme that’s predictable for businesses. Communities like Bangor which have had stable regulatory schemes benefit from that. Other communities which have more volatile processes often don’t find the same levels of investment in commercial interest. Our member companies will be available through whatever process you deem appropriate. We are concerned about the issue of policy volatility in particular. (He passed around further written comments to those in attendance.) Jim Stevens – We’re talking about a business that wants to take a section of woods and clear the trees out where it is full of rock behind everybody’s house and blast it which they said was a small part of it. After that it’s picking it up, putting it in the machine, grind it and making rock. If nobody’s looked around, Maine is full or rock. You don’t have to do it in downtown Bangor. It’s not like we’re talking about oil. We have people talking here from the construction business from all over the state to set a precedent. We want to set a precedent to protect our house values; if anyone of these people had spent as much money to build a house in the country like I did, and I picked that lot because it was the last lot on the road; the City owned the rest of the land and I brought another lot so nobody could live next to me and yes I have to put up with the airplanes but they were there first and I understood that when I went there. I have never complained about the airport and I have never complained about the guns when they have the firing range, that’s part of our military and police department - we understand that. But when somebody comes in and threatens our property values and threatens our well water -- what would happen on a Friday night when you turn on the water and it comes out milky or gravel comes through it, plugs up your pump – what do you do; you don’t go to Home Depot and get a new well. You can’t bathe, etc. Our fresh water is our important commodity and we have that there. It cost me a lot of money to put in my well and it cost me a lot of money to put in everything. All it is is about a couple of people investing money to try to make a buck off a bunch of rock. There are other places where you can go buy a mountain – they do it in Winterport; Hughes Brothers has tons of rock, etc. Chair Hawes stated that City Solicitor Heitmann told us in the beginning it is not the purview of this body to override decisions of the Planning Board, however, it is the purview of this body to look at regulations and ordinances. It appears that this is a topic that deserves further discussion and to look at the regulations. What is the wish of the Committee at this time ? City Manager Conlow stated that at this point it is up to the Council – there are two issues that seem to be on the table and City Solicitor Heitmann did a good job of outlining those. The issue of blasting is the issue that Ms. Mason said that our standards maybe don’t meet those of some other communities. If it is the Council’s purview we can certainly go back and look at how we might address those standards and come back to you. The Land Use standard is already in play – that was approved and it is going through the court system and I don’t believe that is a question for the City Solicitor and that there is much we can do about those that are permitted and those are now pending in the court system. So any land use decisions that the Council would have, Jeremy Martin (Code Enforcement Officer) take a look at it or David Gould (Planning Officer) would have to affect future quarries. Councilor Sprague suggested that an educational workshop for the Council would be helpful on this subject. He added that he is interested in Jim Stevens point about the purpose of the district at hand and the balance between home owners and businesses. He is concerned about the intersection of local and state regulations and how Bangor’s regulations do compare with other areas around us. He does not want to penalize existing businesses; there is a grandfather issue here where some of these businesses have been operating in the City for quite some time. The balance between property values versus business interest – it’s not just pure profit for a small number of people; it’s hundreds of people and you extend it outward that are employed by these businesses. We’re really talking about people’s livelihoods here and I can understand the frustration -- this is a very tough issue. We need to balance industry and homeowners rights. I understand the concerns – I don’t think the homeowners necessarily be penalized or criticized at all for purchasing property near a long dormant quarry. I think that that is an excessive standard to hold them to. I would like to take up the offer of a quarry tour and I’d like to have an offer to visit some of these homeowner’s properties as well. I don’t have the answers to any of these questions but I do have a long list of things to talk about again. City Solicitor Heitmann added that when he listened to the residents who spoke here tonight there are two issues. One is the City’s zoning policy and 1 is the City’s ordinances that regulate all things relate to quarry. I want to make the observation that the City’s ordinances that regulate the operation of quarries, while important is not quite as important as some might suggest because there are extensive state regulations. The state law dealing with blasting is 3 ½ pages; it makes reference to the Bureau of Mining and their standards, so actually can’t stop reading the state law you have to go to other material to find out what you can and cannot do. The other community’s ordinance that was presented to us on blasting Section B is actually word for word from the state – so it really doesn’t add that provision there. One plus I suppose if the state were to change their rules the municipality may have that rule in place it could stay in place. But literally it is word for word. So I am not sure that it necessarily is the answer by changing things to do what the state says – not such a bad thing but I am sure that’s going to be the answer to the problem. It certainly is worth looking at what they do and how it compares with state regulations. If there is interest by the Council on taking a look at our zoning policy and what we allow in RR&A, then staff can do that and make recommendations that we do something or do nothing. If we do something, what we should do. We can certainly look at whatever regulations are out there and whether we should seek to change our regulations to try to make them perhaps more stringent or maybe it would be something at some point we talk with the delegation in terms of state law. They recently dealt with metallic mining (which is not the same thing as quarries). The other consideration of course, as the City Manager indicated, is that there are existent businesses and these businesses have vested rights and if you were to attempt assuming you could actually prohibit any particular business to be within a community then it amounts to a taking. Much of any action that we would be looking at taking if we do take any is going to be prospective; may not address these immediate issues that these residents have. But if it is the Committee’s wish that we come back and provide more information looking at specifically to address some of the concerns, questions, issues that the people today have brought up then we could do that easily enough – we’d come back to this Committee with more information. Councilor Durgin stated that he thinks it is incumbent upon us to look at the regulations to determine if from the perspective of the City of Bangor if we need to do something with the comprehensive plan as it relates to the issue of mining and blasting. Do we have adequate protections built in; what are the remedies that we can offer and how do go forward. I think that in retrospective it appears that the law has been followed. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t something that could be done in the future. But we need to look at this right now and I would like to have the information that Solicitor Heitmann was just talking about provided to us so that we go forward with that. Councilor Blanchette stated that having owned property on Old Orchard Drive out adjacent to where this is I, too am subject to the blasting. I hear the crusher running all morning, it starts about 7 am; the last blast was really, really loud and shook my whole house. I thought it was one of the sonic booms we used to have from the airplanes it was so bad; it finally dawned on me what was going on. I can understand why the people are really upset about this – it would be intrusive on your lifestyle if you’re home all day. I think we can work with the people that own these quarries and if the hours from 7 am – 6 pm are very intrusive I think they probably would be wise to shortening their hours that they’re running the pressures so that they’re not sticking a salt stick in the wounds of the people that bought property and live out there. I think we need to look at our blasting policy in the City of Bangor. I was on the Council when St. Joseph’s hospital was doing their expansion; St. Joseph’s occurred a lot of expenses because they advised the abutting property owners that lived close to where the blasting area was going to be that the blasting was going to happen at a certain time. What they didn’t do was take into consideration all of the houses on Montgomery, down on Center, Blackstone, are setting on ledge. So when they blasted and it got to the corner of the ledge it just went right down through. So people had a lot of damage to their houses – it cost a lot of money to get that rectified. We have not, as a City, looked at our blasting rules since then – that was 15years ago – it’s time we looked at them. May be we need to tweak it. The rest of it I have to say until the court comes down with a decision I don’t want to jump and try to do anything that the court is going to take in their purview and that’s the way it should be. I don’t have a whole lot of confidence in going through the legislature to get any of these things tightened up because the model in the 125 and if the makeup stays in the 126 is let’s make business easier for people instead of more restrictive and that’s the mentality that’s going to go in that. We need to tweak this – the businesses need to be conscientious of the neighbors that they are abutting and I think maybe an adjustment of ours when they can do this. It isn’t the people (Sue Hawes has a house right next to it) don’t just notify Sue. What kind of ground are you on – are you on ledge and it will travel. When I can feel it on Old Orchard Drive, I can imagine what the people on Union Street feel like. We need to look at our plan; go back to look at our comprehensive plan. When we are a City of 33,000 people that has agricultural zones that agriculture cannot survive in, we’ve got a problem; we’re doing something wrong. I think it is time we go back; I can’t make a promise to anybody in this room that we will come up with the answers but when we get done we will have some tighter regulations and we will know what we have to do as far as not only quarries but other things that cause a lot of damage and that’s construction, road blasting, building homes. City Manager Conlow stated that she would like to look at how the City structures their blasting permits and take a look to see if we can’t tighten up those regulations. On the land use issue, is it Council’s wish that we go forward and take a look at the land use issue of quarries in the agricultural and farm district. Councilor Hawes added: City Manager Conlow we are right now in the center of budget discussions. This is going to take the staff and departments a fair amount of time to gather all of the information back; what would be reasonable so that we give answers to the people that are here when we can expect this to be back on the agenda. City Manager Conlow: I am going to guess at this point you’re giving priority to the blasting portion of it, because the land use portion would probably take longer, so I think these guys largely have finished their portion of the budget and so I don’t know what their time frame is. Art Morgan replied that 30 days would be a reasonable time. Councilor Hawes – so not the next BED meeting but the following meeting? Art Morgan – Yes. Councilor Hawes – It’s probably going to be better that we do it in pieces anyway because you’re really trying to shove everything through in a short amount of time. For those of you who have joined us from whatever side you were on we do appreciate you coming in; we have heard your concerns on both sides of the issues. We are going to come back in a month with at least the first portion of probably the blasting will be first. With the recommendations made the Council will again discuss this. This Committee would have to ultimately send it on to full Council. Solicitor Heitmann: If anyone is interested in making sure that they are kept informed of any meetings, they could send to City Hall, c/o Norm Heitmann, Legal Dept. (if you email to Legal Dept., everyone in Legal gets the depts.. email). Keeping in mind if you send me your email address it is public information; so if you want your email address to remain private, do not send it to me because if someone asks for it I am obligated to share it. But if you want to in case there is any change in scheduling whether it’s increased, shortened or lengthened, you are free to send me an email - just tell me you want to be on the list to be kept informed of what’s going on and any memos we do in advance of meetings, if you want those let me know and we will be glad to provide those to you. So if you go on the City’s web site and go to the Legal Dept. it’ll just say legal@bangormaine.gov (my name is Norman Heitmann and then the email address. I will then respond to acknowledge that I have received it. The following items were postponed until a later meeting date. 3. Executive Session - Economic Development – Extension of Lease – Stillwater Realty, LLC – 1 M.R.S.A. § 405 (6) ( C ) 4. Committee Action on Above Item 5. Executive Session – Economic Development – Extension of Lease – Economic Development Property – 1 M.R.S.A. § 405 (6) ( C ) 6. Committee Action on Above Item Meeting Adjourned.