HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-12-05 Planning Board Minutes
PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2017, 7:00 P.M.
THIRD FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
MEETING MINUTES
Board Members Present: John Kenney, Chair
Charles Boothby
Nelson Durgin
Phyllis Guerrette
Steve Hicks
Dora McCarthy
Peter Parizo
Chuck LeBlanc, Alternate Member
City Staff Present: David Gould, Planning Officer
Paul Nicklas, Asst. City Solicitor
John Theriault, City Engineer
Sean Gambrel, Planning & HPC Officer
Chair Kenney called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. To Amend Chapter 165, Land Development Code, and 177, Marijuana, of the Code of the City
of Bangor, by adding provisions regarding marijuana cultivation, products manufacturing, and
testing facilities by defining the zoning districts in which these facilities are able to locate and
putting certain security and oversight requirements in place. C. O. 17-378
Chair Kenney opened the Public Hearing. Asst. City Solicitor Nicklas presented the ordinances,
all regarding retail marijuana. He explained that the first council order does most of the work;
much of the language comes straight from the referendum language. He explained that this
ordinance also specifies the zones where uses may occur and requirements for distances from
schools, etc. Additionally, it includes security and oversight requirements based on the medical
marijuana law.
Member Boothby asked if there have been any public hearings by City Council. Mr. Nicklas
stated that there have not, but the issue has been discussed at council meetings numerous
times. City Planner Gould stated that the Business & Economic Development (BED) Committee
was the place where most discussion took place, and where the public weighed in.
Chair Kenney asked for public comments. No member of the public spoke for or against the
proposed ordinance amendment.
Chair Kenney asked for the staff report. City Planner David Gould indicated that this language
was put together by staff in discussions with Council. This is the point at which we either
recommend to Council, or not. He explained that if the board has concerns, those could be
sent to the Council with the Board’s recommendation.
Member Durgin stated that the issue at hand is not about supporting marijuana or not – but
should be making sure our legal framework is sound.
Member Parizo asked to clarify that retail sales not allowed at these facilities. Mr. Nicklas
stated that was correct.
Chair Kenney asked if we have medical definitions and regulations, why we need a different set
of regulations on retail sales. Why does a retail manufacturing facility need to be 1000 feet
from schools, etc., but medical does not? Mr. Nicklas replied that the regulations have been
based on language from medical marijuana and state language regarding alcohol. Some
difference may be related to medical cultivation being potentially smaller and less traffic-
producing than commercial cultivation.
Chair Kenney stated that our code does not address alcohol production, and that it seems
inappropriate to add the restrictions for marijuana.
Member Hicks inquired why these uses needed to be connected to public water and sewer.
Mr. Nicklas explained that this can be a very water intensive use, so infrastructure is needed.
2
Member Boothby asked if the State had defined OUI in terms of marijuana use, and asked if it
could be measured. Mr. Nicklas stated that there are some tests available, but they are not
practical or reliable at this time.
Member Guerrette asked Mr. Nicklas to explain 165-96-C (9) d. Mr. Nicklas stated that there
have been security concerns about having this use in a building with another use. He explained
that generally, most cultivations/manufacturers want their own standalone, specialized
building.
Chair Kenney asked why there was a buffer around churches, residential zones, etc. Mr. Nicklas
stated that the language here was mirroring state liquor laws.
Member McCarthy agreed that buffers are arbitrary, and pointed out that these are
manufacturing facilities, not sales facilities. Mrs. McCarthy stated that we should look at it as a
business, like any other. She felt that there would be very minimal impacts to churches,
schools, etc., from a manufacturing facility.
Chair Kenney stated that manufacturing is very limited in all our districts already, and that the
City shouldn’t need to regulate this use further. This is a legal economic activity. He wondered
if definition could be modified to make this an allowed industrial use.
Member LeBlanc states that he felt that the buffers for each use were inappropriate.
Member Boothby moved to recommend the text amendment to the City Council. Member
Durgin seconded the motion. The motion failed, with two voting in favor (Boothby & Durgin),
and five opposed (Kenney, Parizo, McCarthy, Guerrette, Hicks).
Assistant City Solicitor Nicklas asked each member to state their reasons for denial for the
record.
Member Hicks stated that he felt these regulations were too restrictive overall.
Member Guerrette stated that she felt the buffers were undue burden on these uses.
Member McCarthy stated that she also felt that the buffers were not necessary.
Member Parizo stated that he believed the regulations on these facilities should be more in-line
with regulations on alcohol production facilities.
Chair Kenney stated that he did not support adding unnecessary regulations on economic
development and felt that the Board had not been given a convincing rationale for why these
restrictions were necessary.
3
2. To Amend Chapter 165, Land Development Code, and 177, Marijuana, of the Code of the City
of Bangor, by banning retail marijuana stores, with the understanding that the Council may
revisit zoning for retail marijuana stores after the full implications of allowing such uses in the
city are understood. C. O. 17-379
Chair Kenney opened the public hearing. Assistant City Solicitor Paul Nicklas presented the text
amendment to the Board. Mr. Nicklas advised that there was a great deal of discussion among
council, and that there was sentiment that this ban would be revisited after state regulations
were more stable. He stated that the Council’s intent was to act now to give businesses
owners’ clarity, rather than leave the City’s position ambiguous when state laws take effect.
Chair Kenney asked for public comment. Chris Gagne stated that the City could still control
retail stores through licensing requirements, rather than banning the use outright.
Chair Kenney asked for the Staff report. Planning Staff David Gould advised that the proposal
was very simple as proposed: no retail marijuana sales will be allowed in the city limits.
Member McCarthy asked Mr. Nicklas to clarify why the City has decided to handle the issue at
present by banning it. Mr. Nicklas stated that currently there is a moratorium to gauge
impacts. A ban is a little safer because moratoriums expire. This is a placeholder while the
discussion continues.
Member Parizo expressed his reservations with a ban, stating that there are already methods of
regulating recreational substances, and that he thought the City could develop better
regulations than an outright ban.
Chair Kenney asked if commercial districts had been considered as locations for this use. Mr.
Nicklas advised that there has been a lot of discussion between council and staff on the location
of retail stores. Chair Kenney stated that he was very uncomfortable with a ban, and suggested
that the City could extend the moratorium instead.
Member Guerrette asked if there are other similar uses that have been banned by the City. Mr.
Gould stated that fireworks were banned in the City after legalization, but that ban was never
rescinded. Chair Kenney noted that the fireworks ban was not included the land use ordinance,
and asked why retail marijuana would be. Mr. Nicklas stated that the City Council is required to
4
have a public hearing with the planning board, and that state law gives the city authority to ban
the use if they please.
Chair Kenney asked if reversing a ban at a later date would be hard to do. Mr. Nicklas
responded that it would be hard to tell at this point.
Member Guerrette asked when the City’s moratorium expires. Mr. Nicklas stated that he was
not sure at the moment, but that the state’s moratorium expires on February 18, 2018.
Chair Kenney stated that he’d like to see discussion of areas where this use might be allowed.
Member Leblanc asked about the future discussion process for council. Mr. Nicklas advised
that the Council wishes to see impacts on other communities before making a final decision. In
discussions to date there have been many different opinions and no overall agreement in the
Council.
Member LeBlanc stated that he’d rather see a continuation of the moratorium than a ban.
Chair Kenney asked what happens if the City doesn’t have a ban in place then when the State’s
moratorium expires. Mr. Nicklas stated that local regulation would default to state law, and a
retail marijuana establishment would be considered a “store” with limited restrictions.
Chair Kenney stated that he felt that state level restrictions are a necessary piece of the puzzle,
and that it seemed hasty to ban the use outright without knowing the whole picture.
Member McCarthy agreed that she would rather extend the moratorium rather than ban the
use, and that she believed the ban would chase away prospective business in the City.
Member Durgin moved to recommend adoption of the text amendment to the Council.
Member Boothby seconded the motion. The motion failed, with two voting in favor (Boothby &
Durgin), and five opposed (Kenney, Parizo, McCarthy, Guerrette, Hicks).
Assistant City Solicitor Nicklas asked each member to state their reasons for denial for the
record.
Member Hicks stated that he felt that the Council had plenty of time to consider this issue and
that they should’ve come to a decision rather than proposing a ban.
Member Guerrette stated that she felt that if the Council wanted to wait and see the results of
legalization, they should extend the moratorium, not ban the use.
5
Member McCarthy stated that she felt a ban wasn’t appropriate for this use and would rather
see the moratorium extended.
Member Parizo stated that he believed the effect of this ban was punitive on a legal use and so
he can’t support the ban.
Chair Kenney stated that he did not support adding unnecessary regulations on economic
development, and felt that the Board had not been given a convincing rationale for why the ban
was necessary.
3. To Amend Chapter 165, Land Development Code, and 177, Marijuana, of the Code of the City
of Bangor, by banning retail marijuana social clubs. C. O. 17-380
Chair Kenney opened the public hearing. Mr. Nicklas presented the ordinance, which he stated
was very similar to the last one. This ordinance bans retail marijuana social clubs, which are
similar to a bar. He stated that the council was fairly firm on this and did not seem to have
plans to revisit this ban at a later date. He noted that the State moratorium on Social Clubs
runs through July 2019.
Chair Kenney asked Mr. Nicklas to clarify if these clubs were public or private. Mr. Nicklas
stated that a marijuana social club was much like a bar - Customers buy and consume
marijuana on the premises.
Chair Kenney opened hearing for public comments.
Mr. Geoff Gatwick of Kenduskeag Avenue stated that that the voters of the state had spoken in
favor of these uses, and that the state marijuana task force has worked long and hard to
develop state law for legalized marijuana. He felt that the City should wait for the state law to
be adopted in February before deciding to ban the use. He believed that a ban is not what
people of Maine voted for.
Mike McCarty of Mount Hope Avenue asked how the police were supposed to enforce this if
there are no tests for intoxication. He believed that because of this factor, allowing these uses
seemed like a bad idea.
Chair Kenney asked for the staff report. Mr. Gould explained that the City wanted to get ahead
of the state’s regulatory process so that business owners could decide whether they were
interested in buying property or investing here in Bangor or not. He explained that the Council
6
could not come to an agreement, and felt it would be helpful to businesses to at least put
something in place.
Member LeBlanc stated that he felt it was pretty clear that this is meant to be an outright
permanent ban. He said that the citizenry has spoken, and that the City should respect that
process.
Member Boothby advised that if we can’t identify impaired driving and don’t know if social
clubs are benign or not, the City should ban them until we have better information.
Member Parizo said that he is also concerned with impaired driving, but that this doesn’t seem
different than a bar.
Member McCarthy stated that she felt if council wanted a ban, they should do so, but that it
shouldn’t be put in the Land Use Ordinance.
Member Hicks stated that he believed that the extra training for impairment would not be
significant.
Member Guerrette stated that this ban felt premature.
Chair Kenney advised that he didn’t really know anything about marijuana social clubs, but
asked what other states did and wondered what Maine’s regulations would be. Mr. Nicklas
advised that generally other states have banned Marijuana Social Clubs.
Member Boothby moved to recommend adoption of the text amendment to the Council.
Member Durgin seconded the motion. The motion failed, with two voting in favor (Boothby &
Durgin), and five opposed (Kenney, Parizo, McCarthy, Guerrette, Hicks).
4. To Amend Chapter 165, Land Development, of the Code of the City of Bangor, by allowing
secure residential care facilities in the Government and Institutional Service District. This
amendment would allow for a secure residential care facility for housing and care of such
individuals. The ordinance would require the facility to be on a major arterial road and on
the same parcel as another state facility, such as Dorothea Dix, in order to limit potential
security issues. C. O. 18-31
7
Chair Kenney opened up the public hearing. Mr. Nicklas presented the ordinance and pointed
out the location of the proposed facility on the property. He stated that currently there was a
moratorium on this type of use in the City. The moratorium expires soon, and moratoria can’t
be used to permanently block a facility on the Levinson Center property. Residents at the
public hearing for this use in that location spoke clearly that they would rather see this sited on
the Dorothea Dix campus.
Member Durgin asked if the patients proposed for this unit are currently being treated at the
Dorothea Dix Psychiatric Center (DDPC). Mr. Nicklas stated that they were, but this would be a
secure “step-down” facility, which does not exist at DDPC.
Member Hicks asked if there was a vacant space in DDPC where this could be located. Mr.
Nicklas stated that much of the former facility is vacant, so likely yes.
Member Hicks asked if people on the other side of Hogan Road would have concerns with this
location. Mr. Nicklas advised that it was possible, but that they did not speak at the September
hearing. Many at that hearing supported this location over the Levinson Center location.
Member Parizo inquired if there were other parcels in Bangor where this could be located. Mr.
Nicklas stated that as the ordinance reads, the DDPC Campus was the only parcel where this
would be allowed.
Member McCarthy asked where this could be located if the moratorium were not in place. Mr.
Nicklas advised that was hard to say because this was an unusual use, and might be considered
a hospital or group home, and that ambiguity was why the city instated the moratorium.
Member McCarthy inquired what would happen to this use if DDPC closed in the future. Mr.
Nicklas stated that this facility would likely be grandfathered.
Member Guerrette asked what would happen if multiple facilities were proposed over time, in
different locations on the parcel. Mr. Nicklas advised that was possible and that there would no
limit on the number or location as long as it met the zoning requirements (setback, etc.).
Chair Kenney asked for confirmation that the City can’t just ban the use, and Mr. Nicklas
confirmed that was correct.
8
Member Durgin stated that council has said that this wouldn’t be approved anywhere but DDPC
and that patients targeted for this facility have been receiving treatment at DDPC.
Chair Kenney asked for public comment.
Mike McCarty of Mount Hope Avenue stated that he didn’t feel that this was appropriate to be
sited so close to residential areas, particularly next to a park and with a school nearby. Mr.
McCarthy stated that there were too many questions about property values, insurance, etc.,
and that this seemed to him to be a bad location.
Member LeBlanc asked if the State/Governor’s office was amenable to the location. Mr. Nicklas
advised that yes, they were.
Lucy Quimby of Kenduskeag Avenue stated that she was a clinical psychologist and had several
years of experience working at DDPC, and had several reasons she opposed this facility being
built. She said that this work is already being done at DDPC, and is being done well. She
believed that this new facility will impact continuity of care and relationships between clinicians
and patients being moved from Augusta. This could end up being both destabilizing and
dangerous. She noted that this population is at high risk for violence. She also mentioned that
this facility being run by a private firm creates a lot of additional questions. She felt that this
issue is related to the management of Riverside should not be put on Bangor’s shoulders. She
stated that rushing to adopt this proposal was a bad idea.
Member LeBlanc asked if all patients would come from Riverside, or if some would be from
DDPC. Mr. Nicklas was not sure. No representative of the state was in attendance to answer.
Geoff Gatwick of Kenduskeag Avenue stated that he was also concerned about the continuity of
care issue. He felt that this was more of a policy issue than a land use issue, and that the
Bangor Planning Board should not be making the decision on this. He felt that the State
Legislature needed to sort out their issues at Riverview. He noted that Riverview doesn’t have
a facility like this but does have the space for it, and believed that it should be located there.
He wondered who would staff this location, who would pay for it, and why nobody from the
State was in attendance.
Member Boothby noted that the State has decided this facility must be located here and that
the Planning Board is tasked to find the right spot. He stated that if the planning board failed to
do so, the state could locate it in any number of locations in the City. He felt it was important
that the Planning Board recommend this ordinance change.
9
Member Durgin noted that the City currently has instated a moratorium on this use, and that
when that expires, the can the state could build this without council action.
Mr. Nicklas concurred that legally this use must be allowed to be built somewhere in the City,
and noted that the moratorium expires at the end of March 2018.
Chair Kenney asked for the staff report. Mr. Gould gave some history of the site, and noted
that a juvenile detention facility was proposed in the past, and in response the City rezoned
much of the property. He said that the ordinance before the Board was a proactive step by the
City; otherwise the state could build this else wherein G&ISD. He noted that many other uses
have been added on the property over the years. He said it was likely that a site plan for this
facility would come before the board soon. He underscored that the Planning Board should be
focused on the land use language, not the larger policy issue, and that ultimately, it was the
Council that decides the policy issue.
Member McCarthy asked how certain the proposed location was. Mr. Gould advised that as
written, it could be located anywhere on the parcel in the G&ISD zone. Member McCarthy
stated that she would like to see buffers for this use from facilities like the United Technologies
Center, Ronald McDonald House, Veterans’ Home, and the group Home on Mount Hope Ave.
Chair Kenney asked if the Planning Board had the authority to add buffers to the language. Mr.
Gould responded that the Planning Board could recommend buffers to the Council and that the
Council could decide to add them in or not. Any language change would come back to the
Planning Board.
Member Parizo stated that because there are no buffers included in the ordinance, he cannot
support this.
Member Guerrette stated she felt similarly, since that there could eventually be more than one
facility proposed for the parcel.
Member Durgin moved to recommend adoption of the text amendment to the Council.
Member Hicks seconded the motion. The motion failed, with one voting in favor (Boothby) and
six opposed (Kenney, Parizo, McCarthy, Boothby, Guerrette, Hicks).
Assistant City Solicitor Nicklas asked each member to state their reasons for denial for the
record.
10
Member Hicks stated that he felt that the requirement that this facility be located only on this
parcel was too strict.
Member Guerrette stated that she had concerns about where on the parcel this could be built.
Member Durgin said he was uncomfortable with the process and felt that the issue needed
more thought.
Member McCarthy stated that she felt the proposed ordinance wasn’t restrictive enough with
all of the other uses nearby.
Member Parizo stated that he felt it was important to buffer this from other uses nearby.
Chair Kenney stated that he did not think this was the appropriate parcel for this facility.
5. Planning Board Approval of Minutes – Minutes from the November 21, 2017 meeting were
unanimously approved with minor corrections.
6. Adjournment – Meeting adjourned at 10 p.m.
11