Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-07-02 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR Meeting of July 2, 2019 Meeting Minutes Board Members Present: Ken Huhn, Chair Nelson Durgin, Vice Chair Ted Brush Ronda Hogan John Kenney Donald Meagher Lisa Shaw Michael Bazinet, Assoc. Member City Staff Present: Tyler Collins David Gould Chair Huhn called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Zone Change – To Amend the Land Development Code by Changing a Parcel of Land, 40 Nelson Street, Tax-Map 031-051-A from (Urban Residence 1 District) and Parks & Open Space (P&O) District to URD-2 (Urban Residence 2 District). Said parcel of land containing approximately .73 acres. City of Bangor, applicant. Public Hearing opened up by Chair Huhn. Application presented by Tyler Collins. Has been City owned for some time. City staff determined it to be parks & open space, but we’re not sure why. In order to promote housing opportunities, City desires to change the zoning. No proponents. 73 HARLOW STREET, BANGOR, ME 04401 TELEPHONE: (207) 992-4280 FAX: (207) 945-4447 WWW.BANGORMAINE.GOV Martin Brown of 58 Nelson Street spoke in opposition to the zone change. Adjoining property owner for over 30 years. Would like to propose to purchase the property for $1,000 with a contractual agreement to immediately return property back to the Bangor for parks & open spaces. In conjunction, he’ll also pledge $500 to help subsidize installation of gate and posting signage. Would also like to be allowed to remove several trees that might potentially be on his property. He has been a self-appointed steward to that area for over 30 years now. Wants to keep the land as a parks and open space for people who wish to use it as a park or walking area. Mr. Brown feels that a gate, or rocks and some signage will discourage squatters. If the city didn’t like this plan, he would purchase the property out right with no plans to build on the land. At this time, the land has been cleaned up and the squatters have been removed. Wants to preserve the neighborhood. Mr. Brown thinks that a portion of a sub-parcel he might actually own. Member Durgin asked if he was objecting to a zone change specifically. Mr. Brown said that it was an extremely important piece of land, and difficult to build on. He feels that if it’s cleaned up and pedestrian access is allowed, it would be an addition to the neighborhood, which is a plus. Member Kenney asked here Mr. Brown’s property was, if there were existing trails, and how is the land currently used by the neighbors. Mr. Brown feels that the property is best suited as parks and open spaces. Tyler Collins advised that the City’s desire is to have that land for housing. Member Hogan asked about construction challenges on the site. Mr. Collins advised that there were grading issues, but he couldn’t speak to the actual construction issues. Housing is possible there, as other contractors reported no concerns with building. Member Kenney asked what the process was for the City determining that this would making a good space for housing – and if Mr. Brown’s concerns were considered. Seems like this is a neighborhood park. Any public involvement for housing in this specific location? Mr. Collins advised that the City requested proposals in how the property could be best used. Stephen Corliss, who owns 50 Nelson Street spoke in opposition to changing the zoning. He does support Mr. Brown’s recommendation to keep as park & open space. Have had issues with squatters coming in, setting up camps and such for the past 3 years. At that time, they had no legal right to the property, so they’d contact Code Enforcement and the Police Department. Mr. Corliss said that it would affect the use of his property having someone living above him. He doesn’t see a feasible way for housing without extensive excavation to the area. Public hearing closed. City Planner David Gould provided staff report. There is a long history related to this property. Many years ago, the former Director of Economic Development thought that this could be green space – parks and open space. Tried to get this added to the City ordinance, and it never got to where it needed to be. Now, providing affordable housing is important. Over half an acre in size, thought about having this housing. Potential to have as housing, there are some limitations. The City sees parks and open spaces that continually costs money, homeless people ending up in these spaces which is increasing the burden on city staff. Theory was to take this out of green space, and make housing. 250’ from stream is shore land zone, this shouldn’t be this restrictive – it comes down to how you build and how well it can be done. Member Brush asked about moving to URD1, which would be less impact on the land? Mr. Gould wasn’t involved in the decision making, URD2 provides more options for housing by using URD2. More accommodations for housing. Member Kenney asked about the comprehensive plan. Member Kenney made motion to recommend zone change to City Council. Seconded by Member Brush. All members were opposed – motion to recommend zone change to City Council failed. Member Kenney – doesn’t seem like the best use of that parcel of land in his perspective. Used as park land by that neighborhood. Would like some public facilities in that neighborhood. Very modest neighborhood, better use would be to service the neighborhood without putting another structure on the land. Would rather see it undeveloped from an environmental perspective. Member Shaw – based on the information that she has, she thinks it’s inconsistent with the rest of the neighborhood and needs more evidence of consistency with comprehensive plan. Member Durgin – not enough information to move forward with proposal as written. Member Hogan – two opposing the zone change. Member Brush – inconsistent with bigger conceptual plan. Member Meagher – how does the comprehensive plan currently reflect this area? Is a modification of the comprehensive plan needed? Member Huhn – if it doesn’t currently fit the comprehensive plan, maybe it needs to be updated to reflect development in this area. OTHER BUSINESS 2. Meeting Minutes – June 18, 2019 Meeting Minutes for Review – meeting minutes were approved without changes. 3. Adjournment – Meeting adjourned at 7:49.