HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-02-14 22-096 ORDINANCE22-096 02/14/2022
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Council Meeting Date: February 14, 2022
Item No: 22-096
Responsible Dept: Planning
Action Requested: Ordinance Map/Lot: N/A
Title, Ordinance
Amending Chapter 165, Land Development Code, to define and regulate the uses known as Boarding House
and Bed & Breakfast including changes to parking and district allowances.
Summary
This amendment to the Land Development Code clarifies the definition of boarding house and bed & breakfast, provides
parking requirements for the uses, and assigns the uses as allowed in certain districts
Currently, bed & breakfast and boarding house are combined as a singular allowance. These uses have separate needs
and impacts under the building code, the state licensing requirements, as well as how the property is used for the use.
This work is also guided by the recommendations from the Affordable Housing Work Group in 2019. The allowances and
regulations also give greater allowances for properties in the historic districts.
Committee Action
Committee: Planning Board
Action:
Staff Comments & Approvals
City Manager
Introduced for: First Reading and Referral
Meeting Date: March 1, 2022
For:
City Solicitor
Against:
Finance Director
22-096 02/14/2022
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE
Date: February 14, 2022
Assigned to Councilor: Sprague
ORDINANCE, Amending Chapter 165, Land Development Code, to define and regulate the uses known as
Boarding House and Bed & Breakfast including changes to parking and district allowances.
WHEREAS, currently, bed & breakfast and boarding house are combined as a singular allowance, which
doesn't reflect their land use impacts; and
WHEREAS, the recommendations from the Affordable Housing Work Group in 2019 indicated the city should
consider expanding the allowances for boarding houses; and
WHEREAS, there has been interest in these uses as a way to protect and enhance buildings in our historic
districts,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BANGOR AS FOLLOWS, THAT
Chapter 165 of the Code of the City of Bangor is amended as follows:
§ 165 13 Definitions.
For the purpose of interpreting this chapter, the following terms, phrases, words and their derivations
shall have the meanings given herein:
BREAKFAST
An owner -occupied building, or an on -site live-in manager in a building, used as a single-family
or two-family dwelling that provides lodging rooms in which meal(s) are provided to overnight
quests for a feee, and that is open to the traveling public for a stay not to exceed 29 days.
BOARDING HOUSE, ROOMING HOUSE or BED-AND-BREAKFA ST
A single family dwelling or a portion of a mixed use building - 3 or more rooms are provided
for living• • 0 days or longer.- or may not• - provided, but there is at
leastone common- dwelling may or may not•- occupied by the owner •
operator. -• • • may also have a common••
§ 165-71 Residential districts.
D. Driveways in residential districts may be used to meet parking requirements for boarding houses, and,
buildings containing 2 to 4 dwelling units without the need to meet requirements in 165-73 and 165-74
below. Driveway length must be at least 15 feet for each parking space required.
22-096 02/14/2022
§ 165-72 Required number of spaces.
A minimum number of off-street parking spaces shall be provided and maintained by the owner of every
building or property hereafter erected, altered or changed in use, in accordance with the following
requirements:
C. Congregate housing for the elderly, and boarding houses: 4-2 1 space per 4 dwelling units or rooms.
F. Beardinghei ice rnnminn house or tourist home Bed & Breakfast: one space per guest room.
§ 165-88 Urban Residence 1 District (URD-1).
C. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in this district
(6) Boarding Houses located in Historic Districts, Historic Sites and Historic Landmarks as
designated and regulated in Section 148-5
La{6) Accessory uses on the same lot and customarily incidental to and subordinate to the above uses
or to an approved conditional use under Subsection D below.
D. Conditional uses. Subject to Planning Board approval under the provisions of § 165-9, the following uses
may be permitted in this district:
(2) Bed & Breakfast located in Historic Districts, Historic Sites and Historic Landmarks as
designated and regulated in Section 148-5
(3) Boarding Houses that are not located in Historic Districts, Historic Sites and Historic Landmarks
as designated and regulated in Section 148-5, provided that they are located on a major or minor
arterial street
§ 165-89 Urban Residence 2 District (URD-2).
C. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in this district:
(5) Boarding Houses
(6) Bed & Breakfast located in Historic Districts, Historic Sites and Historic Landmarks as
designated and regulated in Section 148-5
gL{5) Accessory uses on the same lot and customarily incidental to and subordinate to the above uses
or to an approved conditional use under Subsection D below.
22-096 02/14/2022
§ 165-90 Multifamily and Service District (M & SD).
C. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in this district.
(6) Boarding Houses
(7) Bed & Breakfast located in Historic Districts, Historic Sites and Historic Landmarks as
designated and regulated in Section 148-5
JQ(6) Accessory uses on the same lot and customarily incidental to and subordinate to the above uses
or to an approved conditional use under Subsection D below.
D. Conditional uses. Subject to Planning Board approval under the provisions of § 165-9, the following uses
may be permitted in this district:
(1) Bid reeming houses, bed -and -breakfasts not located in Historic Districts, Historic Sites
and Historic Landmarks as designated and regulated in Section 148-5, nursing homes, places of
worship, schools conducted as a gainful business and funeral homes, subject to the
requirements of § 165-9 and Article XIX of this chapter.
§ 165-91 Neighborhood Service District (NSD).
C. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in this district:
(11) Boarding Houses
L12)_" Accessory uses on the same lot that are customarily incidental to and subordinate to the
above uses.
§ 165-93 Downtown Development District (DDD).
C. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in this district:
(14) Residential units and boarding houses, provided that:
(a) All residential units and rooms in boarding houses located adjacent to the following public
ways and parks must be wholly located above the ground floor:
§ 165-99 Low -Density Residential District (LDR).
D. Conditional uses. Subject to Planning Board approval under the provisions of § 165-9, the following uses
may be permitted in this district:
22-096 02/14/2022
(2) Boarding Houses located on major or minor arterial streets
§ 165-100 High -Density Residential (HDR).
C. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in this district:
(7) Boarding houses
q4L81 Accessory uses on the same lot and customarily incidental to and subordinate to the above uses
and any use approved under Subsection D below.
§ 165-105 Rural Residence and Agricultural District (RR & A).
C. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in this district:
(15) Boarding houses
415} Accessory uses on the same lot and customarily incidental to and subordinate to the
above uses and any use approved under Subsection D below.
§ 165-111 Site developments requiring permit.
A. Any activity covered under this chapter shall require a land development permit under the following
conditions:
(7) Construction or renovation of one or more buildings with three or more dwelling units, including
multifamily dwellings, Feenging heuses eF beaFd ngheuses, eengn9unity living faeilities, nursing
homes, congregate housing and similar residential uses.
Memorandum
To: Honorable Bangor City Council
Deb Laurie, City Manager
From: Anne M Krieg AICP, Planning Officer
Date: March 17, 2022
CC: Courtney O’Donnell, Assistant City Manager
Tanya Emery, Director of Community and Economic Development
David Szewczyk, City Solicitor
Jeff Wallace, Code Enforcement Officer
Re: Planning Board Recommendation March 15, 2022
Amending Chapter 165, Land Development Code, by defining and regulating the uses
known as Boarding House and Bed & Breakfast
Please accept this memorandum as the recommendation from the Planning Board for the noted item. The
Planning Board considered this item in a duly noticed public hearing on March 1, 2022 and then the hearing
was dutifully continued to March 15, 2022. This continuance was to allow more time for public comment and
Board deliberations.
The notice was sent to property owners in the following districts: URD-1, URD-2, M&SD. This notification was
in keeping with the requirements of MRS Title 30-A Section 4352 Paragraph 10, which is also in the Council
packet. Staff created FAQ materials and background materials that included the research provided to the
Business & Economic Development Committee, as well as maps illustrating proposed locations for the use
allowances and current codes. These materials were placed here: www.bangormaine.gov/zoning
The meeting was conducted in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Members in attendance were the Chair, Ken
Huhn, and Members Reece Perkins, Ted Brush, and Don Meagher. Members Alison Coladarci, Lisa Shaw,
and Mike Bazinet attended by Zoom.
The Board voted, by a motion duly made and seconded, to recommend to the City Council that the
subject amendment ought not to pass.
The motion was carried 6:1 with Member Perkins dissenting.
This means there must be a 2/3 vote, or a super majority of Councilors voting in the affirmative to pass this
amendment.
Public comment was significant for the proposal. Please accept the attached minutes for the Planning Board
st
meeting March 1 as an acceptable record for the public comment for that meeting.
73 HARLOW STREET, BANGOR, ME 04401
TELEPHONE: (207) 992-4280 FAX: (207) 945-4447
WWW.BANGORMAINE.GOV
CITY OF BANGOR PLANNING DIVISION
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
Boarding House and Bed & Breakfast Amendment
Also in the Council packet are the emails, letters and phone conversations with people regarding this proposed
amendment. Below is the discussion that ensued and the Planning Board’s deliberations:
th
March 15 Meeting
Planning Officer Krieg presented background materials and explanations at both meetings. Those
presentation materials are in the Council packet.
City Solicitor Szewczyk explained the rules surrounding public comment, and the new timer device to
allow time for the public to speak.
Dominick Rizzo; 57 Leighton Street – thanked City Staff and Planning Board for the opportunity to
speak, and continuing public forum. Staff are hard workers, need to be commended for their work.
Thanked those for participating in meetings. In 2018-2019, he participated in the Housing Group as
member of the invited public. Housing Group goal was to prioritize topics that the City needed to
address, diverse housing was one of those concerns. He feels that Bed and Breakfasts should be
approved, but not Boarding Houses. Bangor is mostly owner occupied, single family neighborhoods. In
regard to parking, there should be no use of front lawns.
Miles Theeman; 45 Grove Street – indicated the zoning amendment represents City Planning at its very
worst. Boarding Homes and B&Bs can’t be separated in a single amendment due to differences that go
with each use. He sees the amendment will cause problems. He thinks that Boarding Homes & Bed
and Breakfasts can be in every district regardless of what staff indicated. He opined to the people in
attendance that there is a real possibility of a Boarding Home or B&B next door or near-by. He thinks
this is a terrible disservice to Bangor homeowners. City staff cannot keep up with inspections currently.
City presented zero data to support this decision. We need to consider impact on property value. On
Grove Street alone, properties sold for $900,000 collectively. He wants the City to reject this
Amendment, send back to City to get it right. There should be two distinct amendments, each written
clearly that Bangor residents can clearly understand.
Nancy Nicholson; 126 Maple Street – She indicated she is a member of Facebook Group, Saving
Bangor’s Old Houses. There is a variety of people in the group with one thing in common; hate seeing
treasured historical homes trashed and demolished. Many in the group do not think creating boarding
houses will help with property values. There are all kinds of 2-family houses and multi-units in her area.
Boarding houses will be snuck in all over the place. If this is to be recommended, should be added as a
referendum on ballot in November to let the citizens speak. A lot of people on her block had immediate
reaction of, “oh dear, I better sell while I still have a property value.” She added she is not
unsympathetic to affordable housing.
Bill Crawford; 5 Wingate Court – Wife came 2 weeks ago, wasn’t allowed to speak due to time. They
are in opposition to proposed changes.
Page 2 | 7
CITY OF BANGOR PLANNING DIVISION
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
Boarding House and Bed & Breakfast Amendment
Roch Le Blanc; 64 West Broadway – He lives in a historic district, and was at last meeting – asked
about the presentation provided last week – numbers that need to be understood. When this goes in,
anyone who has a home in a historic district, no matter condition or value, it’ll go up 17%.
Karen Campbell; 38 Leighton Street – She lives in old historic home since 2018. Member of Bangor
Livable Communities, which has been in existence since 2015. Committee based on 8 domains of
liability – one includes access to affordable housing. She appreciates work done to address needs of
affordable housing. She supports changes, attended all housing workgroup meetings. The Affordable
Housing Workgroup was a well-done process, provided a lot of opportunities for community to
participate. She supports those results and what Planning office is doing to see more affordable
housing. Home share options are part of what boarding houses are defined, Vermont and NH are way
ahead of Maine as they have allowed for these. Boarding housing is for students, intergenerational
families, and to allow for older adults to live in Community to be able to remain here and in their homes.
Christopher Fazel; 34 Garland Street - All properties along State Street would potentially be available
for these changes. His property would abut on many of these residences. City is missing an important
factor of urban redevelopment and funding. Private family housing is going to create more revenue for
city. People will move away from undesirable/unsafe areas. It’s important to consider that this could
drive increased flight from developing areas of Bangor. He moved here due to growth in City center. He
purchased his home 2 years ago, constantly improving his property. Neighbors recently bought
properties in neighborhood, young families with children looking to improve and maintain houses. He
objects to proposed measure, he thinks the effort should be funding those who need help without
jeopardizing future of community.
James Brochu; 466 State Street – He moved back to Bangor to bring family into a historic home,
renovating, updating home. He brought his business with him. He feels what’s proposed destroys
character in the area. Boarding houses are not going to solve the problem, they’ll be used to support
medical professionals and short-term rentals. He feels it will exacerbate issues with housing. We’ll be
destroying historic character and make it harder for people to move here, bring families and businesses
here. He supports affordable housing idea, thinks there are different ways to address. Chopping up
historic homes is not the way to go about it.
Kael Mikesell; 38 Summit Avenue – He appreciates the work that has been done. Questions that
wanted to get data on:
o National low-income housing coalition, 4% of all housing in US and 12% of all rentals
obtain federal assistance, inquired about Bangor’s numbers.
o Impact study?
Staff directed him to the work found here: www.bangormaine.gov/zoning
o How will infrastructure problems in Bangor be addressed by bringing more population?
Staff indicated the Comprehensive Plan will address population changes
Page 3 | 7
CITY OF BANGOR PLANNING DIVISION
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
Boarding House and Bed & Breakfast Amendment
o Lost recycling, roads terrible, sewage problems, water problems will be addressed in
this?
Not currently part of this proposal
o Bangor needs to get healthy first, isn’t healthy right now. We can’t bring in more people
until that infrastructure is healthy.
rd
Anne Marie Quin; 11 Chatham Street – She is a 3 generation in Bangor resident; her children are the
th
4. The strength in city historically is in the distinctive neighborhoods as the Tree Streets and
Fairmount Park. Areas are safe for children as they know and trust one another. People work to
enhance these neighborhoods, restore the history. The city should look to reinvigorate one
neighborhood at a time with various means of support. This proposal could destroy all of the above.
She witnessed this happen in Bar Harbor where she lived/worked for 15 years. Parking requirements
were reduced or eliminated, similar to this proposal. Do not put boarding houses in every
neighborhood, will not work. She feels this is a terrible detriment to the City. Bed and breakfasts are
great, but Boarding Houses must have live-in manager, or be owner occupied. Boarding Houses have
many out of state owners who have never been to the properties.
Kay Surpless; 53 Court Street; endorse and echo remarks by Anne Marie. Her neighborhood is Court
Street/Inner Ohio Street area, which is an interesting mix of short-term resident’s and long term. There
are apartments and single-family homes, assisted living, transitional houses, private businesses,
convenience store, day care, social service office, park, and a stream. She believes such
neighborhoods need a place between short- & long-term residences. We need to think about how this
could impact mixed neighborhoods, which has a delicate balance. It wouldn’t’ take too much to tip
neighborhood one way or another. There needs to be respect for all the other long-established
neighborhoods in Bangor with their own unique characteristics and history. She encourages Planning
Board to take as much time as needed to carefully reflect on and consider proposed changes which
potentially has a big impact on neighborhoods. She added that the goal is great, but unintended side
effects can happen.
Michael; Lincoln Street – He wanted to start bed & breakfast 30 years ago but was not allowed due to
zoning. Zoning allowed bed and breakfasts to become flop houses. There may be an unintended
nd
consequence of going into this capriciously. He had over 30 foreign exchange students, 2 owners of
home. Home is over 100 years old, restored it, passed down from one family to another. There is an
apartment building next to them, and a therapy house across street. He can’t sleep with windows open,
as there’s a guy that screams in the middle of the night. This was not the quality of life he expected. He
expressed concerns with out of state ownership – in one block, 17 single family houses, 13 apartment
houses with 41 units. They are owned by people from Michigan, Mass, and Penn. One apartment
house sold through a limited partnership in Bar Harbor for 1.9 million dollars. Bed and breakfasts and
boarding houses need to be separate and treated like separate entities.
Steve Brough; 76 Shepard Drive – Planning Board needs to go back to drawing board and separate out
two types of housing.
Page 4 | 7
CITY OF BANGOR PLANNING DIVISION
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
Boarding House and Bed & Breakfast Amendment
Doug Soloman; 75 West Broadway –. He feels this is unjust to families and residents purchased
residences on current zoning rules. He purchased home in single family residence area. Families
invested in homes and communities, wouldn’t have done so if they knew the city was proposing this. He
is looking for the safety and security that a single-family neighborhood personifies. City should have
more consideration to single family owners. Bangor should seek developers to solve this problem.
Obsolete property can be made into affordable housing.
Ariel Silver; 27 Bellevue Avenue – She had lived in house 4 years now, originally from Presque Isle.
She echoes sentiments from neighbors. She thinks that boarding houses will change nature of our
communities. Owner/manager needs to be living on site, more guidelines to where these can be
located. She has concerns about how a boarding house would affect property values. Property taxes
are a way to fund affordable housing, or housing for those in need of transitional housing. This needs
further thought and guidance before moving forward. She opposes the idea of opening up
neighborhoods to both boarding houses and bed and breakfasts.
Public comment closed 7:48 P.M. All members in favor.
Member Shaw added her reasoning and suggestions for the motion:
A. The question before us is one of land use and the text of the code that regulates it.
B. The current proposal combines significant land use changes that are residential and commercial,
respectively, combined into one action.
C. Supporting data is excellent for the residential aspect but does not address the commercial aspect
included in this action.
D. Eased parking restrictions, while important for increasing affordable housing. Are recommended for
areas of Bangor that are still “car first” on the spectrum of automobile reliance.
E. Suggestions:
1. Tackle the land code definitions text on its own first to clear up the conflation with bed and
breakfasts (tourist homes).
2. The present proposed use changes as separate residential and commercial proposals. These
items could be addressed at one meeting but as separate agenda items.
3. Provide comparison data collected from walk audit to areas proposed for eased parking space
requirements. If we base our logic for reduced parking spaces in part on less need for vehicles,
these areas should in turn be deemed “walkable” by the survey taken or by action coming from that
survey. This last recommendation is based on suggested integration of “walkability” addressed in
the Bangor Housing Work Group Recommendations \[pp. 10,12\].
Page 5 | 7
CITY OF BANGOR PLANNING DIVISION
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
Boarding House and Bed & Breakfast Amendment
Member Brush appreciates the work that went into this proposal. He suggested residency requirements
for boarding houses, or an in-house staff that must reside at the property.
Member Meagher agrees that the two uses should be separate, feels that staff did a good job of
separating them out in terms of regulation, but wants to be voting separately on them. He discussed
conditional use as a review process, and what the threshold should be on boarding house sizing.
Member Meager wants to see the City’s Comprehensive policy on all rental options across the board –
long term, short term rentals, that is a distinction between residential and commercial. He would like all
rental uses defined, areas allowed, permitted or conditional, and the City’s policy on regulating all rental
uses, even outside of the development code. Consistency and uniformity between uses when same
problem is a possible factor for all of those uses.
Vice Chair Perkins stated that he keeps hearing that the “city should do something” about housing.
Housing group from 2018 provided recommendations, and we still haven’t done all that was suggested.
He feels like it’s kicking the can down the road one more time. Boarding houses are already here now.
They’re not regulated because we don’t have regulation to govern them. Planning Officer Krieg has
done a great job. We have multi-units illegally all over the city. Problem isn’t the code, it’s the
ownership. Boarding houses that are downtown, many don’t have cars. Many times the owner does not
live there. He is not sure that he agrees on the parking issue. He thought the process of approval
permitting & conditional use can address issues. Parking and traffic are crazy in Bangor, not just
because of homeless problem, it’s a housing problem. He added there is a disabled rooming house
down the street from his home, been there 10 years with no issues. More problems with the multiunit –
no problems with rooming house.
Member Bazinet is not in favor of this passing in any form; doesn’t feel it’s in the best interest of the
citizens of Bangor.
Member Coladarci agrees with Member Bazinet. She stated that the city hasn’t addressed issues with
current properties not being up to code, and that it’s not responsible for the city to expand boarding
house zoning to other areas when we have lots of homes in URD-2 that need to be rehabilitated. In
terms of increasing population density with bringing in people to boarding houses, it’s still going to
create traffic in neighborhoods. There are current traffic enforcement issues in neighborhoods,
sidewalks need repaired. Having more people coming in on a short-term basis is concerning in family-
oriented neighborhoods. City should mandate current boarding houses, live in owner or a live in
manager to ensure house well-kept and residents held accountable for their actions. She also indicated
that owner should be a Maine resident. She thinks the parking requirements for Boarding Houses
shouldn’t be changed. She also indicated she thinks the Disruptive House code isn’t an insurance
policy for the boarding houses to adhere to general practice.
Chair Huhn applauded the planning department for hard work and courage to bring forth a proposal like
this. Staff is also working on a brand-new comprehensive plan. There are already 13 boarding houses
in the city and there will be more. Proposal should separate boarding houses and bed and breakfasts;
Page 6 | 7
CITY OF BANGOR PLANNING DIVISION
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
Boarding House and Bed & Breakfast Amendment
perhaps Conditional Use as a tool moving forward. In favor of the motion to recommend it ought not to
be passed so Planning Board can take comments back, look at proposal again, rework it and return
with a better proposal.
Planning Officer Krieg asked clarification questions, and received the following answers from Planning
Board Members:
Member Meagher - City imposed license and inspections on regular basis. He wants to
understand the rationale for requiring license and inspection in some rental situations and not
others.
Member Shaw – In terms of easing of required number of parking spaces, she would like to see
information from the walk audit incorporated to ensure that we’re not taking away parking ability,
or vehicle access ability without a good, walkable space in place for that.
Member Brush – He confirmed there should be a requirement of owner/manager to live at
property.
The Council is reminded this work was created as part of the 2019 Affordable Housing Work Group. The work
for this amendment commenced with the pending work on short term rentals, as these three uses are currently
linked together as one use in the Land Development Code. Staff intent was to separate out these uses and
regulate them differently. In researching boarding houses and how they are treated elsewhere, it was found
that shared housing or boarding houses are an economically viable way to create affordable units. Staff then
looked at each residential zoning district to make recommendations on whether the use would be allowed and
how it would be allowed (that is, on an arterial, or by conditional use.)
If the Council votes to not approve the amendment, it is requested the Council consider providing staff with
direction as to whether:
1. The Council wants staff to study the use further and bring back an amendment with possible changes,
a. and whether there are specific changes the Council would like to see analyzed for possible
insertion into a new amendment.
2. The Council wants this work delayed to the completion of the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The Council wants this amendment delayed indefinitely.
Additionally, staff will bring the updated tracking document of the recommendations from the 2019 Affordable
Housing Work Group to a future Business & Economic Development Committee to obtain direction on the
remaining recommendations.
These conversations are an important part of the overall planning processes for the city. As staff continues
working on the comprehensive plan, these hearings help us understand the tenor of the city’s residents.
amk
Page 7 | 7
ЌΉЊАΉЋЉЋЋ
Boarding
HousesandBed
&Breakfast
Uses
ZoningProposalPresentation
BangorPlanningDivision
Whatwillthis
presentation
tellus
HOWDIDTHISCOMEWHAT/WHEREARETHEHOWISTHEUSE
ABOUT?USESALLOWEDMANAGEDAND
CONTROLLED
A.AffordableHousingWorkgroup
Recommendation2019
Whyarethese
B.Touristhomes,boardinghousesandbed&
uses
breakfastlumpedtogetherasoneuse
proposed?
C.Criticalsituationforaffordablehousingand
diversityofhousing
Њ
ЌΉЊАΉЋЉЋЋ
Whatisaboardinghouse
RoomsareManagement
rentedonoroffsite
CommonLicensedand
spaceinspectedby
providedcity
Wherecan
boarding
housesbe
locatedinthis
proposal
Boarding
URD1HistoricDistrictsȟ,¨¢¤²¤&Inspection
Houses
URD1nonHistoricDistrictandLDRȟ#®£¨³¨® «Use
onanarterialonly
proposed
URD2,NSD,DDD,HDR,RR&ALicense&Inspection
allowances
Ћ
ЌΉЊАΉЋЉЋЋ
Whatabout
historic
districts
STREET,MAJORARTERIAL
Broadway,HammondStreet,HoganRoad,Main
Street,OdlinRoad,StateStreet,StillwaterAvenueand
UnionStreet.
Whatisan
STREET,MINORARTERIAL
arterialstreet
MountHopeAvenue,EssexStreet,GriffinRoad,
KenduskeagBoulevard,OhioStreet,StateStreet,
MaineAvenue,andFourteenthStreet.
LandDevelopmentPermitConditionalUsePermit
Whatisthe
Licensure
¢¨³¸Ȍ²oversight
FairHousingLaws
forboarding
InspectionforBuildingCodeandLifeSafetyCodes
houses?
Ќ
ЌΉЊАΉЋЉЋЋ
Whatisabed&breakfast
Roomsare
Management
rentedtothe
onsite
travelingpublic
Licensedand
Amealis
inspectedby
provided
city/state
URD1inHistoricDistrictȟ#®£¨³¨® «Use
Wherewould
URD2andM&SDinHistoricDistrictȟ, £
Bed&
DevelopmentPermit
Breakfastbe
M&SDoutsideofhistoricdistrictȟ#®£¨³¨® «Use
Allowed
BuildingPermitȟ,¨¥¤SafetyInspections
Torepeatwhat
Licensesȟ#¨³¸Clerk
theprocesses
LandDevelopmentPermitȟ2¤µ¨¤¶ofthesite
mean
ConditionalUseȟ2¤µ¨¤¶oftheuseonthesite
Ѝ
ЌΉЊАΉЋЉЋЋ
Whyare
Inkeepingwithnationaltrendstoreducebarrierstobuild
parking
affordablehousing
requirements
Carownershiplowerinrenterhouseholds
proposedtobe
Canusedrivewaytomeetparkingrequirements
reduced
Use/DistrictURD1URD2M&SDNSDDDDLDRHDRRR&A
BoardingHouseby Yes,onlyifYesYesYesYesNoYesYes
ChangeofUsePermit¨³Ȍ²ina
andInspectionwith historic
Code district
BoardingHouseby YesbutonlyN/AN/AN/AN/AYesbutonlyN/AN/A
ConditionalUse ifonanonarterial
PermitwithPlanning arterialstreets
Board
ToReviewthe
Proposal
B&BaLand NoYes,onlyifYes,onlyifAlreadyHotelsNoNoAlready
DevelopmentPermit¨³Ȍ²ina¨³Ȍ²inaallowedalreadyallowed
byPlanningBoard historichistoricallowed
districtdistrict
B&BbyConditional YesbutonlyNoYes,ifnotinN/AN/ANoNoN/A
UsePermitby inahistoricaHistoric
PlanningBoard districtDistrict
StateStatuteRequirementwhenadding
WhywasI
acommercialusetoadistrictwhereit
wasnotallowed
notified,or,
B&"Ȍ²arecommercialusesȟ ££¤£toURD1and
why¶ ²Ȍ³I
URD2andmodifiedinM&SD
notified?
Boardinghousesareconsideredaresidentialuse
(FairHousingLawsapply)
Ў
ЌΉЊАΉЋЉЋЋ
PlanningBoardmakesarecommendationtoCity
Councilastowhetherthisproposaloughttopassor
What
oughtnottopass
happens
TheBoardmayrequestCounciltomakeamendments
tothelanguage(processstartsoverifthisoccurs)
now
PlanningVoteInfluenceonCouncilaction
Thankyouforbeingapart
ofthisimportantprocess
BangorPlanningDivision
Џ
BoardingHousesȟ¨HistoricDistrictorArterialsonly
URDȟͶ
ExplanationofCode
Bed&Breakfastȟ¨HistoricDistrictonly
Proposal
ChangeProposal
BoardingHousesandBed&Breakfast
M&SD
BoardingHousesallowed"® ±£¨¦(®´²¤² «±¤ £¸ ««®¶¤£
URD2Multifamily&
Bed&BreakfastallowedonlyinHistoricDistrictsBed&Breakfastallowed
ProposalServiceDistrict
Proposal
Њ
NSDDowntown
BoardingHousesallowed(®³¤«² «±¤ £¸ ««®¶¤£
NeighborhoodDevelopment
"¤£lj"±¤ ª¥ ²³ «±¤ £¸ ««®¶¤£BoardingHousesallowedabovegroundfloor
ServiceDistrictDistrict
ProposalProposal
HighDensity
LowDensity
Residential
BoardingHousesallowedonlyonarterialsBoardingHouseallowed
Residential
(HDR)
(LDR)Proposal
Proposal
Ћ
Bed&
Breakfastand
Rural
Theyarenottogether,³§ ³Ȍ²partofwhythis
Boarding
Residence&
amendmentisproposed,³®²¤¯ ± ³¤³§¤¬¡¤¢ ´²¤
BoardingHousesallowed
Houses
³§¤¸ ±¤£¨¥¥¤±¤³
Agriculture
Whyaretheytogether?
"¤£lj"±¤ ª¥ ²³ «±¤ £¸ ««®¶¤£
#´±±¤³«¸³§¤¸ ±¤³®¦¤³§¤±Ǿ²®³§¤¯±®¯®² «¨²³®
(RR&A)
Whydoesthisseemso
²¤¯ ± ³¤³§¤¬®´³³® ««®¶³§¤¬£¨¥¥¤±¤³«¸
complicated?
Proposal
Whatarethe
common
themesfrom
Whattypeof
Onsitemanagementforboardinghouses
BoardingHousesandBed&Breakfastsbothgetlocal
theconcerns
Offstreetparkingforboardinghouses
licensing
andstatelicenses
Agreementsheardthusfar
Noboardinghousesinhistoricdistricts
occurs
Ќ
BoardingHousesarenottransitionalhousingwith
PropertyMaintenanceservicesnoraretheysheltersȟ³§¤¸arehomesrenting
Whatother
Othernotes
outrooms
DisruptiveHouse
codesapply
Thisproposaldoesnotaddressshorttermrentals
Ѝ
From:Kristin Vekasi
To:Planning-WWW
Subject:Land Development Code comments
Date:Friday, February 18, 2022 2:29:08 PM
________________________________
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or appearing to be from someone
within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you can verify the sender
and know the content is safe.
________________________________
Good afternoon,
I live in the affected region for the proposed changes in Bangor’s Land Development Code. I unfortunately cannot
attend the meeting on March 1. I am strongly in support of these changes. Bangor needs more housing options and
this reasonable change to the code is a very reasonable step.
All best,
Kristin Vekasi
138 Dartmouth Street, Bangor ME
From:Daniel Boone
To:Planning-WWW
Subject:Land Development Code
Date:Friday, February 18, 2022 4:45:53 PM
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK
links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is safe.
Good afternoon,
I received the letter from the Planning Board concerning the intended change to Chapter 165
of the Land Development Code. Why would the city increase the amount of Bed and
Breakfasts and boarding houses when they could simply shut down or change the rules
governing the amount of Airbnbs and Vrbos in the city and turn those into long-term housing
instead of daily and short term rentals? That would have the added benefit of increasing
housing and potentially lowering the cost for renters.
Further, I have been dealing with an issue concerning multiple short-term units in older houses
that are not zoned for it and the city hasn't taken action in years. I have low confidence that
code enforcement would be able to keep up with an influx of new multi-units all over. Add on
to this the difficulty of finding parking for all these new tenants on old small side streets and
you have a serious problem.
Please think this over before allowing more potential Airbnbs and Vrbos to take over the city.
From:Krieg, Anne M.
To:Bickford, Melissa; Collette, Anja
Subject:FW: Planning boArd meeting
Date:Friday, February 18, 2022 5:03:58 PM
For the file
Anne Krieg AICP
Bangor Planning Officer
From: Krieg, Anne M.
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2022 5:03 PM
To: 'beverlywm@aol.com' <beverlywm@aol.com>
Subject: RE: Planning boArd meeting
Hi there -
Thank you for sending your comments below. They will be forwarded to the Planning
Board and the City Council.
I would also encourage you to look at the documents that the city created to explain
the background for the request here: https://www.bangormaine.gov/zoning
Please note this effort is not related to any development but is a proposed zoning
language change. I understand your frustrations in your neighborhood, as we have
spoken a few times; but this proposal is not related St Joseph’s Hospital. It is related
to the recommendations from the 2019 Affordable Housing Workgroup.
Thank you again for taking the time to submit your comments and observations. Let
me know if you have further questions.
amk
Anne Krieg AICP
Bangor Planning Officer
From: beverlywm@aol.com <beverlywm@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 6:08 PM
To: Krieg, Anne M. <anne.krieg@bangormaine.gov>
Subject: Planning boArd meeting
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT
CLICK links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is
safe.
I received today a letter (addressed to Dorothy Warren, my 99 yr old mother). My
name is also on the deed of our home.
I will attend this meeting as I have concerns Re the impact on French Street. 2 years
ago wewere notified of a zone change requested by St Joseph’s Hospital/Penquis Cap
to build a Low income senior housing development on the land across the street from
my home!! That request was withdrawn after neighborhood gatherings and concerns
expressed.
Sooooo St Joes now has torn down 8 buildings and deceptively stated publically that
they expected to use this land forparking lot or community gardens.
How very interesting thst this zone change is now requested- without stating St Joes
plans to sell the land to Penquis for low income senior housing.
I would ask if you would provide me with email addresses of members of the planning
board so I can sendmy concerns toeach of them prior to the meeting.
The traffic on French Street will increase to the point of ruining the park use and
neighborhood.
And- the Cityhas allowed St Joes to move in and ruin the entire neighborhood
already!! Tearing down 8 homes on Congress Street and Broadway has certainly
changed myhome views. It isn’t fair- it isn’t kind. And certainly I don’t trust the
hospital now!!
Drive by! Come see if this is how u want your neighborhood to look!!! I don’t think
so.
I look forward to hearing from u.
Beverly Mansell
Beverlywm@aol.com
207-745-0636
424French Street
Bangor, Mel
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
From:David
To:Planning-WWW
Subject:Land Development Code proposal’s
Date:Sunday, February 20, 2022 11:11:18 AM
________________________________
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or appearing to be from someone
within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you can verify the sender
and know the content is safe.
________________________________
First and foremost, I would be interested in knowing if every
homeowner in Bangor received this notification? Secondly,
I’m opposed for allowing any and all corporate buying and
selling of properties for the purpose of disrupting neighborhoods
for their special interests only. We today know who our neighbors
are currently, and we help each other out during times of need.
Bringing in and putting into place these Bed & Breakfast and
Boardinghouses would and could be detrimental to our existing
way of living, by not knowing where these people are coming from
occupying these homes, etc.
In today’s world it’s all about Corporate Greed and the heck with
us hardworking low and middle class people of our Country.
Certainly $$ talks doesn’t it!
I would hope that you all think this subject matter over well in
your minds and make the right decisions for the better interests
of our taxpayers of Bangor and not these special interests groups
that have a way of persuading others with Big Money talking.
Sincerely, David R Ferguson
P.S. A response to this letter would be welcomed.
Sent from my iPad
From:Mary Wright
To:Planning-WWW
Subject:proposed changes to the Land Development Code
Date:Wednesday, February 23, 2022 12:29:33 PM
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK
links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is safe.
To the members of the Planning Board,
I have had a chance to review the proposed changes to the Land Development Code for the
City of Bangor. I understand the need to find more affordable housing for young people just getting
started in their careers, older people looking to downsize, and low income citizens looking for
affordable housing. In theory it might make sense to open up old historic home to allow multiple
boarders. Many of these homes have “unused” bedrooms. Certainly having several boarders might
help defray the high costs of maintaining the properties and help cover taxes and utilities. However,
I believe there is a significant downside and risk to allowing these changes to go through for large
old architecturally significant homes in historic regions of Bangor.
My wife and I live in one of these historic homes on West Broadway. We have lived here
for over 25 years. Over many decades the homes in the Whitney Park area have been inhabited by
owners who have raised their families, grown old and moved away, to be followed by new owners
with THEIR families. Whenever one of these houses goes on the market, there is always someone
new ready to move in with a young family. This constantly revitalizes the neighborhood. I am
concerned that allowing these home to be turned into boarding homes will forever change the
character of this neighborhood. It is unlikely that a prospective owner with a young family will want
to move into a home which has been broken up into multiple units and then convert it back to a
single family dwelling. I have driven around the eastern half of the city where there are numerous
lovely old homes which have been converted into multiple apartments. They may hold more people,
but the quality of the homes and their historical significance has been changed forever.
In my opinion, the people who will take advantage of these zoning changes if they go
through, are real estate companies and landlords who will seize upon this opportunity to buy up
these properties, convert them into multiple apartments to make as much money as they can with
little regard to the upkeep of the historic homes themselves. This is not just speculation. The
evidence is readily apparent throughout the city.
I strongly urge the Planning Board and the City Council as a whole to more closely examine
the various neighborhoods throughout the city and limit these proposed changes to areas which do
not include homes and neighborhoods which are truly historic and architecturally significant. Surely
there is room for affordable housing without potentially destroying the character of historic
neighborhoods.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
George J. Wright III
Mary S. Wright
From:Krieg, Anne M.
To:"Shelly Lizotte"
Cc:Bickford, Melissa; Collette, Anja
Subject:RE: comments on text changes for boarding house and bed and breakfasts
Date:Wednesday, February 23, 2022 12:10:12 PM
Hi Shelly!
Thank you for taking the time to write your comments – this is very helpful!
See my comments below next to yours in blue.
Do not hesitate to ask further questions!
amk
Anne Krieg AICP
Bangor Planning Officer
From: Shelly Lizotte <rlizotte@artifexae.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 5:39 PM
To: Krieg, Anne M. <anne.krieg@bangormaine.gov>
Subject: comments on text changes for boarding house and bed and breakfasts
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT
CLICK links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is
safe.
Hi Anne,
I’ve got a few comments on the proposed text changes, and as usual, this
leads to questions.
I didn’t feel the submittal form was sufficient space to explain and/or
state our concerns. (Ellen and Myself are the two Bangor residents from
our office)
I understand the premise behind these proposed language changes and
have read most of the materials from the links on the website.
For Bed and Breakfasts, as you have it defined seems logical,
especially for historic structures. Why do you propose it be
permitted in RR&A but not in LDR?
\[Anne Krieg\] The minimum lot sizes in RR&A are higher and RR&A
also has more non-residential uses allowed than LDR – LDR is a
funny district to me for sure but it appears to be akin to URD-1 but
different in that it’s what we might call a “first ring suburb” kind of
zone. As we think about the districts as whole for the land use
plan in the comprehensive plan, these kinds of segregated districts
will be important conversations.
I think there is a missing category to cover short-term rentals that
are not bed and breakfasts, i.e. no food provided or live-in
manager. I believe short term rentals should be allowed in
residential zones provided that the proposed use is reviewed by
the City in some way. If the structure is a conforming use to the
zone, then renting it as that conforming use seems completely
fair. If deeper review is necessary, it could be conditional use and
allow the Planning Board to review. Even renting a home for a
weekend or for a week (think about the snowbirds that are in FL
for the winter) could be a great way to keep the home occupied
and maintained. I don’t think any residential zone should be
excluded. Maybe as part of obtaining a permit to rent short term,
owners could be required to list a property manager or
maintenance person, like how it’s done for Stormwater
Maintenance plans. Without a separate short term rental
category, it just seems to me that we are trying to prevent the
Airbnb type rentals in the City.
\[Anne Krieg\] This effort was pulled out of our active short term
rental project (language for this is pending.) As indicated in the
background documents here: www.bangormaine.gov/zoning
when we started to look at short term rentals in zoning, we
realized that we needed to address bed & breakfasts and boarding
houses too. The Land Development Code has these three uses
lumped together as a use so we had to separate them out and
assign them accordingly. In doing research on boarding houses, it
was apparent this might be helpful as another housing option. The
2019 Affordable Housing Work Group also indicated that boarding
houses should be allowed.
Boarding houses are more concerning to me than B&B’s. Mostly
because I worry about the regulation/control of these properties
where there is no management required to live on the property. It
concerns me that this may be geared toward becoming more
transient housing, with clients that may also have untreated
mental health issues. I know we need to accommodate the
unhoused individuals in the City, but I’m concerned that allowing it
to be Permitted without review in most residential zones is going
to lead to more unmanaged, derelict buildings. If property
managers had a dedicated office space (at the very least) required
in the building, it would be less of a concern.
\[Anne Krieg\] Remember that a house can have 5 unrelated people
right now without any more oversight than a single family
dwelling. The boarding house would be a change of use permit
which will trigger the code office to ensure that building code and
life safety issues are met. Some districts have boarding houses
going to the Planning ng Board so a public hearing with notice to
abutters will occur for that use/district as well.
I also think that permits for these uses should become null and
void if the property is sold, requiring the new owners to obtain
new permits to continue the use.
\[Anne Krieg\] If the city wanted to do a separate licensing code for
boarding houses, then the permit could go with the
owner/operator. This would be a separate undertaking and one to
consider – thank you!
Are there portions of the city that may see significant rezoning as
part of the comprehensive plan that would change where these
may be allowed? If so, I think we need to know that before making
this language change permanent.
\[Anne Krieg\] Normally, I wouldn’t take on large zoning changes
while working on a comprehensive plan; however we have been
continually working over the last few years I have been here at
implementing the 2019 Affordable Housing Work Group
Recommendations. This document is recent and was accepted by
the City Council. City Council had in the recent past directed staff
to encourage housing unit development. More recently, the City
Council has directed staff to work on housing as a critical issue.
Due to the Workgroup direction and the directives from the City
Council, I feel more comfortable as a planner in forwarding zoning
along during a comprehensive plan process.
To further answer your question, the Land Use Plan has not been
formulated. It is possible the district lines/allowed uses may adjust
once the Comprehensive Plan is implemented. Please note it
typically takes two years (sometimes more, depending on a host of
factors) to implement the Land Use Plan after the Comprehensive
Plan is ratified by the City Council. It is expected the City Council
would ratify the Comprehensive Plan a year from now.
I may have other comments come up in the next few days.
Thanks,
Shelly
Rayshelly Lizotte PE, LEED AP
Principal, Civil Engineer
T. 207.974.3028
C. 207.745.7449
W. www.artifexae.com
175 Exchange Street
Bangor, ME 04401
From:lovemaine
To:Planning-WWW
Subject:proposed zoning changes
Date:Wednesday, February 23, 2022 1:23:30 PM
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK
links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
I am strongly opposed to the proposed zoning changes in my neighborhood. I recently
purchased a home in the proposed area the Planning Board of the City of Bangor is
considering. Had I known this was even being considered I likely would not have purchased
this home. My home is in a historic neighborhood and one of the reasons to purchase a home
in a historic area is the character, appeal and lasting integrity of the neighborhood. Changing
the zoning in this neighborhood would have an impact on the character of the neighborhood
and potentially a negative effect on property valuation of residences investment, higher traffic,
crime, and unfamiliar neighbors that by nature would be transient.
Again, I strongly oppose this proposed zoning change and believe it is unfair to residents that
have put their hard earned money into a property and neighborhood as it exists currently. It's
not appropriate or fair to impose changes on someone's neighborhood in this manner.
Thank you for your time
From:Katie Schaffer
To:Planning-WWW
Subject:Chapter 165 Land Development Code
Date:Thursday, February 24, 2022 11:24:40 AM
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK
links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Anne,
I left a message on your phone line yesterday asking for someone to explain one aspect
of this proposal that is unclear to me in anything you have provided.
My question is about the Proposed Allowed Uses:
In an historic district - and specifically in the block of West Broadway where the Stephen
King Houses are - do you propose to allow out-of-town owners to buy and run boarding
houses? Or are Boarding Houses only allowed on the major and minor arterial streets?
I would appreciate an answer before the meeting so I could make an informed opinion.
Thank you.
Katie Schaffer
69 W Broadway
Bangor, ME 04401
From:anna
To:Planning-WWW
Subject:Boarding House and Bed & Breakfast letter
Date:Thursday, February 24, 2022 4:15:54 PM
________________________________
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or appearing to be from someone
within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you can verify the sender
and know the content is safe.
________________________________
I was wondering if this includes group home regulation. There are 2 at Broadway and Falvey and one around the
corner on Falvey that we know of. The one around Falvey has in the past had a male client who wanders Falvey
with no supervision. He will stand at Thornton and Falvey and walk across the street to walk in my neighbor's
puddles of water. He also was in a child's pool on Falvey and visiting the park.
There are a few houses that have college students boarding in them. All sorts of out of state cars. This has been
going on for a few years on Falvey, Naylor, and Nash. Any current regulation for this?
Ann Fessenden
From:Collette, Anja
To:"anna"; Planning-WWW
Subject:RE: Boarding House and Bed & Breakfast letter
Date:Friday, February 25, 2022 2:50:09 PM
Hi Anna, group homes are technically community living arrangements, which are already allowed in URD-1 (which
includes Bangor Gardens). These are different than boarding houses and are licensed by the state.
As far as the houses with college students, our current code allows up to 5 unrelated people to live in a house, as
long as the house has the square footage to support it. No additional permitting or oversight is required for that and
no changes to that are being proposed. The difference between college students renting out a house and having their
own rooms and a boarding house is in the way that they're rented- typically college students will rent out a house as
one entity/group, whereas in a boarding house, individuals rent out each room separately within a house (they may
or may not know each other and they're not acting as one group). This is an operational difference and is handled
within the Code Enforcement office.
-----Original Message-----
From: anna <puppetfes@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 4:16 PM
To: Planning-WWW <planning@bangormaine.gov>
Subject: Boarding House and Bed & Breakfast letter
________________________________
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or appearing to be from someone
within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you can verify the sender
and know the content is safe.
________________________________
I was wondering if this includes group home regulation. There are 2 at Broadway and Falvey and one around the
corner on Falvey that we know of. The one around Falvey has in the past had a male client who wanders Falvey
with no supervision. He will stand at Thornton and Falvey and walk across the street to walk in my neighbor's
puddles of water. He also was in a child's pool on Falvey and visiting the park.
There are a few houses that have college students boarding in them. All sorts of out of state cars. This has been
going on for a few years on Falvey, Naylor, and Nash. Any current regulation for this?
Ann Fessenden
From:Mary Richard
To:Planning-WWW
Subject:Possible changes to Land Development Code
Date:Saturday, February 26, 2022 2:44:00 PM
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK
links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Ms. Krieg
Thanks for the letter advising us of the Planning Board Meeting on March 1. I am unable to
attend but am offering here a few concerns/observations. I am sure they have been mentioned
before but just in case. Please know that I am not against rooming houses or bed and
breakfasts if they can be operated safely.
I live at 68 Pearl Street, a high density neighborhood with several apartment buildings. The
following is of concern should rooming houses be allowed.
Pearl Street is extremely narrow and several of the apartment houses do not/cannot provide on
site parking. If emergency equipment is called, it is difficult for the crews to maneuver.
When the snow plows are out, I have seen them forced to back up all the way from the corner
of State Street to Garland. The apartment house on the corner of State Street and Pearl Street
has absolutely no on site parking. The tenants are allowed to park at the home of the owner on
East Summer Street, a bit of a walk.
The apartment houses tend to be of old stock, and I wonder if they are all up to code to be used
as rooming houses.
I realize that Pearl Street, Fruit Street and Otis Street are not listed specifically, so my
concerns may be moot. I am, however, grateful that I have been given the opportunity to
voice my concerns.
Sincerely
Mary J. Richard
February 26, 2022
From:Katie Schaffer
To:Planning-WWW
Subject:Amending Chapter 165 Land Development
Date:Monday, February 28, 2022 10:02:53 AM
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK
links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is safe.
To the Planning Commission:
I am writing to say that I am not in favor of the changes you are suggesting will be made in
our Historic District, which is also a neighborhood of friends.
One of the reasons my husband and I purchased our home on West Broadway was because it
was in an Historic District. We were ready to, and did (and do) invest a great deal of time and
money to bring our home up to the standards of the rest of the homes on the street - all with
proper permissions and approvals. It is a neighborhood where we got to know and love our
neighbors. We look out for each other and care about the appearance of our homes. The people
who own the houses live here and care about historic Bangor.
We have been lucky that the people who have recently purchased homes are young families
who want to get to know their neighbors and they appreciate how lucky we are on this
beautiful street. If they own a historic house, live in it and take care of it and have reached out
to meet their neighbors, renting out a space would not be an issue. It happens already with
homes where it is grandfathered in. But I think that that scenario is overlooked with your
allowances.
I don’t think that this change will solve the myriad housing problems that Bangor has. But I
think it will cause problems in this historic district.
By your definition, but in different words, you are planning to add shared housing units, rented
monthly by a number of unrelated people with a landlord who may or may not live there.
Who, then, will be looking after the home, weeding the gardens, mowing the lawns, being sure
the trash is taken out and that the cans are brought in the next day? What is to stop these
homes from becoming party houses? And will some of those owners used their Historic Tax
Credit to chop up an historic home into smaller living spaces adding additional bathrooms and
more parking spaces (asphalt)? By doing that, families will not want to purchase with the
added oexpense of make a house a home again. Will this be overseen by the Historic
Preservation Commission?
The block of West Broadway between Union Street and Hammond Street is a block that
Bangor should be celebrating and enhancing. It is a huge tourist draw. Hundreds of people
come here each year to see Tabitha & Stephen King’s house (soon to become their foundation
headquarters and a Writer’s Retreat). They changed the zoning of their houses so that this
neighborhood would not change when they move on. The Writer’s Retreat will serve as a type
of Boarding House, but we have had the King’s assurance that it will be well looked after and
overseen by their foundation. Most of their neighbors have agreed that we are looking forward
to having visiting authors in our midst.
When people visit Bangor, they stroll up and down West Broadway, taking pictures of all the
large houses and looking at the beauty of the trees and gardens on this street. They are
generally happy people, interested in the history of Bangor and are grateful when we stop and
chat with them about how important a city Bangor once was. This is a street that can still tell
that story. Keeping the feeling of an Historic District should be important to the citizens of
Bangor. It is an enhancement.
But the city's oversight of multi-family rental units, as one can well see up and down
Hammond Street and Union Street, is not good. There are examples all over Bangor of many
once-beautiful homes that are now divided and falling apart - Repairs are made without
consideration of appearance. Historic details get removed.
The homes on this block are not changed on the inside - they have precious original details
that will be lost with the divisions into rooming houses with private bathrooms. I feel that
there needs to be much more clearly stated regulation about changes that can and cannot be
made to the homes here. I feel that I need to know that the Planning and Historic Preservation
Commissions will help new home owners with those renovations - guiding them to resources
to make suitable 21st century changes that keep the feel of this neighborhood the same. I have
not seen evidence that we have that type of guidance available here.
I am concerned about the amount of visible parking that may be added. I am concerned with
out-of-town landlords not paying attention to the ordinances when they make changes. Out of
town landlords generally do not have much interest in doing things for the good of a
neighborhood where they don’t live. I am concerned with new, required fire escapes that will
not be required to suit the style of the houses. Will dumpsters and rows of trash cans be
allowed?
I believe that this is opening a door to the inevitable change from a street where people know
their neighbors and take pride of ownership in their homes, to a street of commercial
enterprises without soul.
For the past number of years, once the owner’s wife moved out due to a divorce, the house at
75 W Broadway has been basically run like a rooming house. The owner spent infrequent time
there. He has other rental property and homes in the state. Strangers stayed in the house,
people rode ATVs in his back yard, snowmobiles through my yard. He cut down a large
portion of town property trees, and made ATV trails on the town property behind his house.
Trucks and cars were often parked on his front lawn. An epoxy flooring business was being
run out of the house, large deliveries made and company trucks parked there for days at a
time. This historic gardens were destroyed by the ATVs and then removed from the yard.
When we were finally put in touch with Officer Elizabeth Ash, as Mr. Young was about to
move and things escalated, she agreed that we were being “tortured” by this neighbor. But it
went on for years.
The beautiful house where Frannie Godfrey was born at 65 W Broadway was purchased in
December of 2018. The house is now empty most of the time. The owner and his family have
vacationed here for a week or two a few times. We introduced ourselves and entertained them
at the beginning. Later, sometimes strangers would arrive by taxi, spend a night as if it were a
rental, and then leave in the morning. Now, construction has been going on there since the fall
(see below). Is there a building permit? Did Historic Preservation get notified? I hope so. The
driveway was dug up and cement poured. (Dig-safe?)
So no, I do not approve of taking what was once, not too long ago, a family neighborhood and
making it even easier for things to deteriorate. It would be a shame for Bangor in the long run.
With all respect,
Katie Schaffer
69 W Broadway
From:larry puls
To:Planning-WWW
Subject:Inquiry from website
Date:Monday, February 28, 2022 12:13:44 PM
________________________________
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or appearing to be from someone
within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you can verify the sender
and know the content is safe.
________________________________
Thank you for your note regarding our questions.
We consider Thatcher St., Olive St. And, our street Olive Heights as this neighborhood.
When this development happened on Thatcher St., the beside neighbor asked questions and those were not received
well by the property in questions owner. It is our belief they are renting rooms for more than 30 days, using common
areas, i.e. Kitchen, living room. That would be a Boarding House according to the description provided. So how is
that permitted and what ordinances are they required to follow? According to the information we received this is
NOT permitted in URD-1 at this time.
We think further study as to how this happened is needed.
Larry and Bonnie Puls
Sent from my iPad
From:Krieg, Anne M.
To:"Jason Stutheit"
Cc:Michael Hendrix; Michael Legere; Hanscom Bilotta, Brenda; Bickford, Melissa; Collette, Anja
Subject:RE: Zoning change
Date:Monday, February 28, 2022 10:56:36 AM
Attachments:image002.png
Hi there –
These changes stem from the work from the Affordable Housing Work Group and the
City Council’s direction to address the housing crisis through allowing for more
diverse housing types. Short term rental is an active project at a staff level, but not
pending regulations are ready for release.
It is regrettable that some have linked this effort with any specific entity or possible
project as there are no pending projects for these uses.
I would encourage you to look at the background and research here:
www.bangormaine.gov/zoning.
Thank your reaching out to me!
amk
Anne Krieg AICP
Bangor Planning Officer
From: Jason Stutheit <jason@dpporter.com>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 10:44 AM
To: Krieg, Anne M. <anne.krieg@bangormaine.gov>
Cc: Michael Hendrix <mhendrix@covh.org>; Michael Legere
<MICHAEL.LEGERE@SJHHEALTH.COM>; Hanscom Bilotta, Brenda
<Brenda.hanscombilotta@bangormaine.gov>
Subject: Zoning change
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT
CLICK links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is
safe.
Anne,
Can you please explain to Mike that the zoning change being discussed tomorrow is not
because of the houses that got demolished but because it is a city-wide change to allow for
short term rentals. They have neighbors thinking it is because of the Hospitals recent work.
February 27, 2022
To: Members of the Bangor Planning Board, City Council
Members, Public
From: Suzanne Comins, 159 Howard St., Bangor
Comments on the Boarding House Concept in Bangor as I
understand it from a conversation with a member of the
Planning Dept. Staff on Feb. 24, 2022.
The city of Bangor’s proposalregarding allowing Boarding
Homes is intriguing. I believe we need places where people can
stay for longer periods of time when they are in Bangor to work,
so we are in agreement on this. I know of the old model of the
boarding house opened in desperation by poor widows in the
th
19 century, and I recognize that the modern model is quite
different.
However, I see problems with having a group of folks unknown
to each other, of different sexes, rooming in the same house
without any landlord or concierge-type person involved on the
premises. I believe any new model involving living spaces
should be considered “experimental” and that a great deal of
thought should go into the planning and execution of the model
community.
My background: I come from a family of successful landlords
from Augusta. My grandfather owned 80 units of rental
property. My dad also owned rental property. They were old-
school landlords—they repainted each apartment inside when it
was vacated, fixed things promptly, knew their renters (they
were all French and spoke French), and collected their rents
weekly in person so they could talk face to face, hear
complaints, and look over the property. Most of their renters
were friendly and satisfied.I believe we can all agree that most
landlords today no longer follow this model.
With this in mind, here are my concerns:
1. I question whether boarding house renters will be safe.
Presumably, people would be safe when locked in their
rooms, but how safe would they be in common areas,
which would include bathrooms and kitchens? Predators
and thieves, male or female, may cohabit with honest, hard-
working renters. It is not inconceivable that sex traffickers,
drug dealers, and other unsavory characters may consider
these rentals havens both for potential victims and for
sources of income. How will you know with whom you are
dealing, and how can you trust landlords to know or care?
With no caretaker on the property, what happens when
someone gets hurtor people break the law?
2. How will renters be vetted for good character? And, might
it not be better to have separate all-female and all-male
boarding homes? Yes, I may sound Victorian to many, but if
you are female or have a daughter who needed a room
while working in Bangor, wouldn’t you prefer a hotel or
motel rather than a boarding house with both genders? I
know I would—a female wouldhavea bit more protection
in that she would at least have somewhere to go to make a
complaint. Since I have seen too much to be very trusting, I
would not choose to live among unknown males. I think
this is a good policy, especially for females of any age. Is
the City of Bangor ready to try rape and assault charges as
a result of this living plan?
3. Who will monitor things like whether the trash is being put
out for collection or whether people are doing any
cleaning? Or will these services be provided? People who
choose to leave home temporarily to earn money working
long hours may have neither the time to do household
chores, nor will they have any intrinsic reason to do so. If
the place you are living in is not “yours,” why bother? This
being human nature, how long will it take to create
hygienic and infrastructure problems that may take large
amounts of money and time to correct?
4. How will landlords who do not live locally respond to
complaints, repairs, problems, etc.? We have watched in
despair for many years as some owners of Bangor
propertiesallowed their buildingsto decay. They seemedto
show little to no interest in solving either infrastructure
issues or immediate problems, such as “how do we get rid
of the rats in our apartment?” In short, will we not be
recreating our currentproblems? Bangor, like all cities, has
many landlords who do not respond to complaints. Who
will respond to problems with Boarding Houses? It will
hardly be a grand welcome to Bangor to put our guest
workers into homes like these, affordable or not.
5. Thus, we will not be much further along in our quest to find
a good solution to the needs of long-term, temporary
renters if we simply ignore human nature, both on the part
of the tenant and of the landlord. If Bangor is to do this
properly, we need more safeguards in place than merely
opening up more Historic homes with rental rooms.
6. Finally, are historic homes the answer? It may be true that
owners of these large homes and the city need to find more
uses for them for economic reasons. However, these large
homes also enhance the city and provide Bangor with a
cachet that multi-family homes and mixed-use development
can never provide. These old homes are the architectural
jewels of our city. I, for one, have no objection to tenants
staying in them. However, I do have a passionate objection
to this if these beautiful homes devolve into poorly-kept-
up, paint-peeling monstrosities. Only if the City of Bangor
is very, very careful will this not come to pass as our future,
just as destroying our open spaces and habitats will
eliminate the reason why people enjoy living in Bangor.
7. Therefore, we must balance our current needs with the
needs of the city going forward. Let’s make sure we save
what is truly thesoul of the city—historic architecture that
captures the grace and civic pride of our illustrious past.
These glorious buildings, once altered or gone, will not
return. Likewise, land, stately trees, and habitat lost to
development will notregenerate themselves.Once these
Historic homes and other properties are savaged or are
allowed to be defaced and ruined, they are prohibitively
expensive, if not impossible, to bring back, even if there is
civic will to do so.
I urge those unfamiliar with Bangor’s former glory to
consult some older photos. It is a sad fact that Bangor lost a
great deal of its valuable heritage during its Urban Renewal
phase of the 1960’s. Many Bangor citizens still shudder
over it. We know first-hand that it is impossible to recreate
the soul of a neighborhood or city once it is lost by gutting
or neglecting its historic areas or through the wanton
development of all its precious natural areas. Do we want
to live in the strip mall that constitutes much of America?
8. I urge Planners and Councilors to rethink the current model
of Boarding Homes as I understand it, and to find, at the
very least, ways to provide on-site caretakers for these new
living communities. Thank for your reading my thoughts.
From:Micah Pawling
To:Planning-WWW
Subject:Opposed Amendment to Land Development Code, March 1, 2022
Date:Tuesday, March 1, 2022 11:00:59 AM
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK
links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is safe.
March 1, 2022, 11:01 A.M.
Dear Planning Board of the City of Bangor,
As a homeowner in Bangor, I strongly oppose amending Chapter 165, described in the letter
dated 2/14/2022, as the proposed changes will severely compromise
residential neighborhoods. Moreover, boarding housesand bed & breakfasts are two different
types of developments that bring two totally different changes. While preserving old homes in
Bangor should be a priority, as well as affordable housing, the proposed amendment is
definitely not the answer. As it stands now, we all have more to lose than gain from the
proposal.
Sincerely,
Micah Pawling. (he/him)
Fern Street
From:Nancy Nicholson
To:Planning-WWW; Jerry Lyden
Subject:Comment for Public Hearing Tonight
Date:Tuesday, March 1, 2022 12:05:38 PM
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK
links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is safe.
Good Afternoon.
My husband and I plan to attend your zoom meeting tonight. We own a single family home
on Maple Street and would like clarification on several issues, the most important is this:
After reading your proposal we are not clear if ANY large historic home in Bangor can
become a boarding house, or just properties on designated streets.
We have many concerns about this and think that this is such an important issue that it should
be voted on in November as a ballot referendum by all of the citizens of Bangor. I hope that
you will address this suggestion at tonight's meeting.
Thank you very much,
Nancy Nicholson and Jerry Lyden
Maple Street
Bangor, Maine
From:Collette, Anja
To:"Nancy Nicholson"; Planning-WWW; Jerry Lyden
Subject:RE: Comment for Public Hearing Tonight
Date:Tuesday, March 1, 2022 12:11:58 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Hi Nancy, thank you for your comments; they will be sent to the Planning Board and City Council. To
answer your question about historic homes, in the URD-1 zone, boarding houses would be a
permitted use in a home that is either a designated historic site or landmark or in a designated
historic district. A list of these can be found here. Bed & breakfasts would be a conditional use in
these areas. If a home is not either a historic site or landmark or in a historic district, a boarding
house would be an allowed conditional use only on major or minor arterial streets (designated in the
definitions here).
Let us know if you have any additional questions or comments.
Thank you,
Anja Collette
Planning Analyst
Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
73 Harlow Street
Bangor, ME 04401
anja.collette@bangormaine.gov
Phone: 207.992.4234
From: Nancy Nicholson <nancynicholson12@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 12:05 PM
To: Planning-WWW <planning@bangormaine.gov>; Jerry Lyden <sil4star@gmail.com>
Subject: Comment for Public Hearing Tonight
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or appearing to be
from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK links or attachments
unless you can verify the sender and know the content is safe.
Good Afternoon.
My husband and I plan to attend your zoom meeting tonight. We own a single family home on
Maple Street and would like clarification on several issues, the most important is this: After reading
your proposal we are not clear if ANY large historic home in Bangor can become a boarding house,
or just properties on designated streets.
We have many concerns about this and think that this is such an important issue that it should be
voted on in November as a ballot referendum by all of the citizens of Bangor. I hope that you will
address this suggestion at tonight's meeting.
Thank you very much,
Nancy Nicholson and Jerry Lyden
Maple Street
Bangor, Maine
From:bonniepuls@aol.com
To:Planning-WWW
Subject:Tonight’s meeting about Chapter 165
Date:Tuesday, March 1, 2022 12:37:22 PM
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK
links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is safe.
Larry and I have some questions.
Who would oversee the parking situation if Boarding Houses are allowed? Off the street
parking is a must due to plowing. So if three rooms are rented out, and all renters have cars,
where do they park?
How may bathrooms will be required for how many rental rooms?
Will more than one person be in one room?
Will locks be allowed on individual rooms, if yes, what is the fire code for that?
We know a person who has a Rental Voucher, the apartment is substandard and the land lord
receives $850 a month and that is for all the apartments in the building as well. Gee, no
wonder the housing market is being driven by persons who just want the money. Out of area
buyers, among others.
We also feel neighborhoods should be advised when there is a boarding house in the area.
Who are these folks that will be renting? Established neighborhoods have children, older folks
and would not appreciate a person with a criminal record of any kind. Drugs are another
concern.
Housing is an issue in Bangor and in many other parts of the country. Can the planning board
access studies done in other places that have gone this route that will give guidance as to crime
rate increases and other matters that would effect an Historic or just a neighborhood.
Bonnie and Larry Puls
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
From:Carol Cutting
To:Planning-WWW
Cc:Carol Cutting
Subject:Boarding Houses Proposal Concerns -- Parking
Date:Tuesday, March 1, 2022 2:01:06 PM
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK
links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is safe.
I'm concerned that the Boarding Houses are not required to have on-site owner/supervisor and
this could lead to bad renter behaviors. A BETTER Idea would be to require an in-house
supervisor.
Secondarily, there is no guarantee these Boarding House units will be AFFORDABLE and not
just the highest rent possible by the owner.
Thirdly, why are other URD-1 areas on the East Side are not ALSO included?? It seems that
the East Side is the area that is continually focused on making it more congested with looser
zoning regulations.
My PRIMARY and Personal Concern is about PARKING!
The Proposal states: "165-71 Residential districts. --D. Driveways in residential districts may
be used to meet parking requirements for boarding houses, and buildings containing 2 to 4
dwelling units WITHOUT THE NEED TO MEET REQUIREMENTS IN 165-73 AND 165-
74"
Given that in URD-1 Zones, there is NO CURRENT REQUIREMENT that residents must
even USE DRIVEWAYS to park in.... only that a Set Back of 5 feet on the side-line and 10
feet on the rear-line. AND NO CLARIFICATION IF CARS MUST BE PARALLEL TO
THE SIDE-LINE OR CAN BE PERPENDICULAR.
\[I am currently dealing in an apartment in a URD-1 -Zone, where the landlord recently
changed all tenant parking from the Driveway, to THEIR BACKYARD --PERPENDICULAR
5 FEET FROM AND FACING INTO MY BACKYARD! The Code Enforcer has told me
Codes don't clarify parking must be Parallel to the Side Yard, nor even in their driveway.
THUS, I have 4 cars and headlights 7 feet from my picnic table with 8 headlights shining in
my house 20 feet away. THIS IS NOT OKAY!
With this new Proposal.... there will be no clarification as to 1.) where, 2.)parallel or
perpendicular, 3.) how many cars, 4.) nor need for a buffer yard! This will be destructive and
invasive for neighbors and quality of home life!
A Boarding House could have any number of cars facing directly into their residential
neighbor's yard ONLY 5 FEET AWAY! A "Walmart-style" parking lot.
--This #173-B. Code NEEDS to be Clarified that parking along Side Yards should be
PARALLEL for existing Codes in areas unaffected by this New Proposal.
--This Requirement exemption Parking Codes should be REMOVED from the New Proposal,
the present Park Codes kept and Clarified.
I appreciate the need for affordable housing. However, the ruining of backyard privacy is not a
way to maintain neighborhoods, keep a quality way of family life, nor a way for Bangor to
grow healthily.
Thank you. Carol Cutting - 14 Eaton Place
From:Chad Peterson
To:Planning-WWW
Subject:March 1st Meeting
Date:Tuesday, March 1, 2022 10:34:31 PM
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK
links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is safe.
Greetings:
I spoke at the Planning Board meeting and believe it appropriate to address the procedural
issues, to wit, not limiting speakers to the two minute limit that was stipulated and then
suggesting more public comment with limitations based on the discretion of the chair.
As a rare attendee of meeting such as this, I have never seen a stated time limit not enforced.
This is a serious error that opens the board for arguments of equal time and preferential
treatment of one speaker over another. That the time limit may be different or decided at whim
at the next meeting could be a liability.
Not a single person was denied the chance to speak and yet the decision was made to open it
up for more public comment? When does the public comment end? When the board gets the
comments it wants? When the board, through comment attrition, ceases to attract significant
opposition?
Why send this deeply flawed proposal to City Council?
Many homeowners and real estate professionals alike spoke against the proposal. A scant few
spoke in favor, one of which already runs a licensed rooming house. One that has on-site
management, it should be noted.. She largely spoke in favor of how her own boarding house
but didn't address the merits of the proposal.
At a minimum, the suggestion that Bed and Breakfast and Boarding House regulations are
disparate enough to merit separate proposals is reason to vote against it.
Most of the people's comments made it clear they understood the proposal and opposed it for
legitimate reasons.
I appreciate your service to the community and am grateful I was allowed to speak. I surprised
myself when I requested the solicitor's comments regarding procedural issues on the record,
but I felt the need to address it in real time. Thank you for making an allowance for that - in
itself likely a procedural error on my part.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Chad Peterson
From:Krieg, Anne M.
To:"beverlywm@aol.com"
Cc:Bickford, Melissa
Subject:RE: Planning meeting
Date:Wednesday, March 2, 2022 8:56:51 AM
Hi there –
Thank you for your comments below. They will be sent to the Planning Board and the
City Council for their consideration.
These hearings are important for the decision makers (Planning Board and City
Council) to fully hear from Bangor residents. We appreciate everyone’s time,
attention and participation.
As staff, we are compelled to forward current planning practice, and even more
notably, to seek to implement plans that have been accepted by the city. In this case,
we are directed to produce proposals that implement the work of the Affordable
Housing Work Group. The public process then dictates what pieces from that plan
are implemented. As noted last night, other recommendations from that plan have
already been implemented, that is, the allowance for Accessory Dwelling Units and
increased density allowances.
The Planning Board is dedicated to hearing from the public. We needed legal
counsel to ensure the motions were accurate for the record.
Please know the Planning Board received a full packet of all emails received as well
as phone records for all the calls received and returned.
Thank you again for alerting me of your concerns –
amk
Anne Krieg AICP
Bangor Planning Officer
From: beverlywm@aol.com <beverlywm@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 7:49 AM
To: Krieg, Anne M. <anne.krieg@bangormaine.gov>
Subject: Planning meeting
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT
CLICK links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is
safe.
I was on Zoom last night for the planning meeting. I would like to have spoken but
there were so many in person who had a lot to say that I decided to justlisten.
However if u have a 2 minute limit and enforced that limit, I think we ALL could have
gottena chance to speak.
I agree with the men who spoke at the very beginning. I hope some notes were taken.
And it appeared 75% of the folks who did speak were from West side of Bangor. I am
not surprised because West side is the “Elite” of Bangor!!
Obviously ghis zonechange is NOT being well received by residents. So I hope u all
are listening.
My comments are as follows:
Inspections Re: following guidelines about limitations is a joke!! Doesn’t happen and
there is no “rules” that can be enforced!! SDo let’s not use inspections:controls as
solutions!
Parking is another issue u haven’t recognized appropriately! I have complained
repeatedly Re: parking on Congress Street from apartment dwellers/visitors/ st Joe
offices and delivery vehicles! And I can’t even get signs for parking on one side only.
Apartments rented to 4 folks - with 4 cars and 2 parking spaces provided! Really??
And the traffic involved from these “boarding homes”. This zoning is just an easy way
to build apartment houses!!without being up front and honest
Check out traffic on Broadway! Really want apartments built on Broadway? Traffic
now is ridiculous. And the side streets are not built for that traffic
Yes it is East Side! But we can’t deal with this change any better than West Side can.
I hope the Planning Board is listening! If u have a public hearing, then organize it so it
can be handled! Don’t just cut it off because u are tired!! Enforce the rules. Organize
the speakers. Give the Zoom Attendees the opportunity to speak just as in person
attendees. There needs to be a plan by the Planning Board Re: hearing us ALL
Thank u. Pleasesharethese thoughts. I trust u will do more than just prepare a file that
noone refers to. I honestly feel “stifled” by the way the public hearing was handled
last night.
Gettingyour “legal staff” to determine how to handle the public response?? Really?
Either we are included or not!!
Beverly Mansell.
424French St
Bangor.
Beverlywm@aol.com
207745 0636.
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
From:bonniepuls@aol.com
To:Planning-WWW
Subject:Thank you
Date:Thursday, March 3, 2022 12:15:12 PM
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK
links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is safe.
For delaying the 165 amendment. Larry and I attended the meeting March 1, 2022 via zoom.
Lots of concerns! And we share most of them.
We appreciate your addressing the home on Thatcher St.
A small history. We knew the former owner and also realized why she sold. When that was in
the process the new owner was researched we realized the “business” that the home might be
used for. City officials were contacted and nothing was done. We could find no information
that informed us of the “ permitted community living for 8 or fewer persons with disabilities”
that you just provided. We question if that is indeed its use.
When the adjacent neighbor spoke with the home buyer and asked about a phone number in
case of any emergency or concern, they were told by the buyer that they didn’t need any
information and that if they wanted they could put 10 people in that home. Well, heated was
the description of the conversation to say the least.
How does the city check to see if the use described above is being followed?
We have a Penquis, Charlotte White, themed home going in on Olive Street. That took much
discussion to understand the process.
We are not blind or deaf to the housing needs in our city, however, our rights as homeowners,
wanting to keep neighborhoods single family units to protect our property values seem to be of
no interest to those who can “spot code” areas.
Cottage St. Has developed into an area not code sanctioned. So how did this happen?
We think the enforcement of existing code regulations must be reviewed and followed. That
might put some trust back into what the city is thinking for its future.
Bonnie and Larry Puls
11 Olive Heights
Bangor, Maine 04401
Sent from all new AOL app for iOS
From:Ruth Nadelhaft
To:Planning-WWW
Subject:proposed zoning change re:access to housing
Date:Thursday, March 3, 2022 1:41:54 PM
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK
links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear People,
I had intended to attend the planning board meeting but family concerns kept me home. I apologize for
submitting comments after the deadline. I was somewhat relieved to learn in the Bangor Daily News that
the Planning Board intends to work further on the proposal. I have several objections which I don't think
are driven by a NIMBY attitude.
First of all, I think it is the responsibility of the City, in concert with private developers, to provide more and
better housing that is affordable for Bangor workers and citizens. It is also, I believe, the City's
responsibility to improve and increase housing and treatment, when necessary, for homeless people. As
a taxpayer, I am prepared to make whatever contributions are deemed appropriate based on my property
assessed value. As I understand it, the City also benefits from the Biden Administration's distribution of
funds to help in the recovery from losses because of Covid 19. It seems appropriate to me to earmark a
considerable part of those funds to address the needs for housing and care especially for those affected
by the loss of jobs or increased medical issues as a result of the virus. I do not think the problems of
inadequate housing should fall on the homeowners in particular districts of the City. This is a city-wide
problem and should be addressed--and funded--by larger entities. If Bangor is a magnet, as I believe it
is, funding should also come from the State. And, as I note, the Federal Government has awarded
considerable funding to states and cities, including Maine and Bangor, some of which might well be used
to deal with the problems you propose to solve with this inadequate and unfair zoning change.
Within the proposed zoning change there are a number of questionable provisions, some of which were
drawn to your attention according to the coverage in the BDN. The allocation of parking space per rooms
strikes me as absurd. In a city with inadequate public transportation, in a state with totally inadequate
public transportation, just about every working person needs to own a car of some sort. Your zoning
proposal would not provide nearly enough off-street parking and would make parking problems worse
than they already are. Traffic, already an unsolved problem on many streets including the one I live on,
would only increase. In my attempts to get better patrolling of Kenduskeag Avenue speedway, I was told
by a very cooperative spokesman for the police that they have woefully inadequate resources in both men
and equipment to monitor speeding and impose fines. Your re-zoning, with its inadequate attention to the
effects on the neighborhoods singled out, would only increase traffic and parking problems.
I am making no judgments about the people involved. I noted the comments of one landlord who
defended the character of her renters. My arguments are with the proposal itself and in particular with the
assignment of responsibility to selected neighborhoods rather than to the community as a whole--which is
where it belongs.
I hope the proposal is scrapped and rethought in its entirety with adequate consultation involving property
owners as well as those in need of more and more affordable housing options.
Sincerely yours,
Ruth Nadelhaft
128 Kenduskeag Avenue
207 945 5323
From:plogan05@aol.com
To:Councilors; Planning-WWW
Subject:Changes to Chapter 165 of Land Code
Date:Monday, March 7, 2022 9:12:52 AM
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK
links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is safe.
296 Maple Street
Bangor, Maine
March 7, 2022
Re: Changes to Chapter 165 of the Land Development Code
To the Planning Board:
To the City Council:
I urge the Planning Board to NOT recommend the changes proposed to Chapter 165
and I ask the City Council to vote NO on these amendments.
I attended the meeting Tuesday night via Zoom and I share many of the concerns
expressed by my neighbors. I believe that the best way to bring more affordable
housing to Bangor is to have each property owner or developer bring his or her plan
before the board and abutting neighbors for input and approval. Several people did
just that at the meeting Tuesday night.
Designating certain prescribed areas of the city as boarding house zones, reducing
the parking standards and striving to increase the density of the urban core does not
seem to me like the way to go. In fact, it sounds like a recipe for disaster. Affordable
housing is a city wide issue and the solution is to be found city wide. Boarding
houses, apartment buildings, tiny houses and subsidized housing should all be part
of the mix and the mix should be spread out throughout the city, downtown to outer
limits. Each proposal should be considered on the merits.
I found it troubling that there was an attempt by someone at the last meeting to limit
public comments on the subject. Some people buy their homes, their biggest
investment, based on zoning considerations. I think anyone who wants to speak on
this issue should be heard.
The proposal to amend Chapter 165 of the Land Development Code should be
defeated.
Sincerely,
Pamela Logan
From:Mike Gleason
To:Planning-WWW
Cc:Krieg, Anne M.
Subject:Proposed Amendments to Chapter 165 of the Land Development Code
Date:Monday, March 7, 2022 2:39:12 PM
Attachments:WalterStreetResidenceProperties20220304.pdf
Importance:High
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or appearing to be from someone within our
organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is safe.
Greetings:
I am writing to protest any possible ”non-conforming” or “Conditional Use” changes for URD-1 Zones to allow the establishment and existence
of boarding homes and Bed-and-Breakfast Homes (“B&Bs”).
(so-called). Our street is approximately 1600 feet long (and 22 feet wide). Within that approximate “three block” distance, there are
currently 59 dwelling units. Of that number 43 are rental units (well, one is a “Sober Living” group home), and of that number, 20 of them are
owned by absentee landlords.
that overflow and/or are left at the curb for days (if ever taken in), and multiple resident vehicles that are either parked across sidewalks
(making street plowing difficult and sidewalk plowing impossible) or parked in the already-narrow street (in the Winter, frequently ignoring the
they take any proprietary interest in maintaining. For most of the absentee landlords, it appears that their primary interest is collecting rent.
To allow boarding homes in this neighborhood would add people and vehicles to an already congested street, and this situation is not exclusive
street conditions, and tenant attitudes.
114 Walter Street
207.944.7377
From:Krieg, Anne M.
To:"bonniepuls@aol.com"
Cc:Planning-WWW
Subject:RE: Thank you
Date:Monday, March 7, 2022 5:06:17 PM
Hi there –
Thank you for your comments.
If you do want to request anything from the Code Enforcement Office, you can call
them directly at 992-4230. I would encourage you to call to review your concerns
below.
Community Living is defined for specific purposes, and by state statute/law, has
protections that allow it to be located in residential zones. It is not the same use as a
boarding house.
On the proposed zoning changes, I would also encourage you to look at the
background materials found at: www.bangormaine.gov/zoning
Let us know if you have further questions –
amk
Anne Krieg AICP
Bangor Planning Officer
From: bonniepuls@aol.com <bonniepuls@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 1:35 PM
To: Planning-WWW <planning@bangormaine.gov>
Subject: Re: Thank you
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT
CLICK links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is
safe.
Didyou receive this? We didn't receive comment on our questions that we
asked throughout this email.
Bonnie and Larry Puls
11Olive Heights, Bangor, Maine 04401
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
On Thursday, March 3, 2022, 12:14 PM, bonniepuls@aol.com <bonniepuls@aol.com>
wrote:
For delaying the 165 amendment. Larry and I attended the meeting March
1, 2022via zoom. Lots of concerns! And we share most of them.
We appreciate your addressing the home on Thatcher St.
A small history. We knew the former owner and also realized why she
sold. When that was in the process the new owner was researched
we realized the “business” that the home might be used for. City officials
were contacted and nothing was done. We could find no information that
informed us of the “ permitted community living for 8 or fewer persons
with disabilities” that you just provided. We question if that is indeed its
use.
When theadjacent neighbor spoke with the home buyer and asked about a
phone number in case of any emergency or concern, they were told by the
buyer that they didn’t need any information and that if they wanted they
could put 10 people in that home. Well,heatedwas the description of the
conversation to say the least.
How does the city check to see if the use described above is being
followed?
We have aPenquis, Charlotte White, themed home going in on Olive
Street. That took much discussion to understand the process.
We are not blind or deaf to the housing needs in our city, however, our
rights as homeowners, wanting to keep neighborhoods single family units
to protect our property values seem to be of no interest to those who can
“spot code” areas.
Cottage St. Has developed into an area not code sanctioned. So how did
this happen?
We think the enforcement of existing code regulations must be reviewed
and followed. That might put some trust back into what the city isthinking
for its future.
Bonnie and Larry Puls
11Olive Heights
Bangor, Maine 04401
Sent from all new AOL app for iOS
From:Krieg, Anne M.
To:"Roch Le Blanc"
Cc:Planning-WWW
Subject:RE: Zoning Changes
Date:Wednesday, March 9, 2022 2:19:03 PM
Hi there –
stth
The Planning Board continued the public hearing from March 1 to March 15.
We have an economic development team that works with prospective developers in
Bangor located here in the city’s Community and Economic Development
Department. We also recently completed an economic development strategy which
can be found here: https://www.bangormaine.gov/content/318/334/default.aspx We
welcome anyone in the business community to partner together to seek new business
in Bangor.
I used to go to Vergennes a lot in the 90’s – it is a great town and I am sure it is
different now than it was then. It enjoyed the spillover from Burlington and is just up
the road from Middlebury. Across the way is one of my favorite towns in NY,
Westport. It is a great area.
I also know Rob Krier’s work – Architectural Composition was required reading when I
was planning school. It’s funny that you mention his office in Berlin - some personal
friends who spent 6 months in Berlin indicated parts of downtown Bangor remind
them of neighborhoods in Berlin.
As we work on the comprehensive plan, we are looking at a possible form based
code approach to obtain that composition which Krier dedicated his research upon.
Recently we had a friend of mine from the Ithaca NY Planning Department speak
about form based codes; you can view this lecture here (scroll down the lecture bar
th
on the left side to February 16): https://berrydunn.mysocialpinpoint.com/bangor-
comprehensive-plan/share/12ff3850 I would also encourage you to leave your
impressions and ideas on this site on the vision board, the map and in the noted
conversations.
Thank you for writing and participating in this important process. Your comments will
be sent to the Planning Board and the City Council for their consideration.
amk
Anne Krieg AICP
Bangor Planning Officer
From: Roch Le Blanc <rleblanc.ames.assoc@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 1:54 PM
To: Planning-WWW <planning@bangormaine.gov>
Subject: Zoning Changes
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT
CLICK links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is
safe.
Is there a meeting to continue the review of comments from the public, this Tuesday
(March 15th)?
And who is responsible for attracting developers to Bangor, in inviting them to fill our
housing needs with mixed use development?
I would like to know what steps have been taken and if there are calls I can make to
help.
As a side bar, I’ve often looked at the unique qualities this northern community has
and what it doesn’t have, andwhat works. This “Northern Exporsure” charm needs
some updating but I have yet to see applications to northern communities except one.
Vergennes VT. We had a lakehouse in upper New York State and for many years we
travelled thru this town that wason its last legs and then it changed. I don’t know how
but we witnessed the changes as we often stopped to shop and grab a bite to eat, going
from or going to. A set of rules must have been put in place, I think, like those Rob
Krier did with Berlin. But it has paid off for all the residents. Even when you go back
thru the layers from Main Street the effect is surprising, sensible and clean. Google it.
Regards
roc’22
Roch Le Blanc A I A N C A R B
R E G I S T E R E D A R C H I T E C T F O R
M A I N E A N D M I C H I G A N
www.rlbarch.com
roch@rlbarch.com
207-659-8876
MILES UNOBSKY THEEMAN
45 GROVE STREET
BANGOR, MAINE 04401
Re: Comments Regarding Amendments to Chapter 165 Land Development Code regarding
Boarding Homes and “B&BSs
Chairman Huhn, Members of the Planning Board, City Staff
I am writing as a follow-up to my March 1, 2022, public hearing comments on the above
This zoning amendment represents city planning at its very worst.
The City has a comprehensive plan and zoning to provide some structure to its various commercial, agricultural and
residential spaces. Historically and quite correctly the Plan and the Planning Board does not address issues with a “one
size fits all” approach. Rather it finds solutions that are appropriate to particular zones and serve the City’s residents. It
does not solve one problem; while creating others.
If you recommend approval for this amendment, boarding homes and B&Bs will be available throughout the city.
Virtually every residential home on every Street, whether it is Grove St, Laurel Ct, Hempstead Avenue, Norway Rd,
Thomas Hill Rd or Silver Rd to name a few, has the real possibility of having a boarding home or B&B next door.
While the attempt to consider boarding homes and B&Bs separately has merit, these housing options are VERY
DIFFERENT and presenting them in a single amendment reflects a terrible disservice to Bangor’ homeowners.
The economic viability of a B&B demands that there a visually appealing exterior, well maintained interiors and superior
customer/resident service. Conversely---and as you have heard from the testimony of numerous residents, read in
countless media report and admitted by City staff that it cannot keep up with inspections, code violations and
remediation----that is not the case with many boarding homes; particularly if the owner, is off-premises and cares little
about how the property is viewed, maintained and managed
In its February 14, 2002, notice regarding the amendment, the City noted that Boarding homes should be allowed in
historic districts because “…these changes give more options to owners, which increases the chances they will be
preserved appropriately and remain economically viable.”
Common sense would indicate that is absolutely not the case. AND the City has presented absolutely zero data to
support and defend this position. FURTHER, In response to an inquiry at the March 1, 2022 hearing about the effect on
property values of the effected and adjacent premises, the Economic Development Director’s response was to the
effect, “I don’t know anything about that, you would have to ask the City Assessor”. To me, this roughly translates to
“we don’t know, and don’t care. It is your problem.”
Consider for a moment, what it would be like to locate a boarding home next to your property. Consider the impact on
your property value and its attractiveness to potential buyers. On Grove Street alone, two homes directly next to and
diagonally across from my own sold for over $900,000 collectively. I can only wonder about what would have happened
if a boarding home was next door.
Please reject this amendment and send it back to the City to “get it right”- namely two distinct amendments-one for
boarding homes and one for B&Bs- each written in a clear, unambiguously way that Bangor residents can clearly
understand and that each of which doesn’t take ten minutes to explain.
In closing,I want to sharesomething I was reminded of on numerous occasions during my tenure on the Planning
Board—that we were appointed to serve the best interests of the citizens of Bangor; and HOW change is accomplished
is every bit as important as WHY it is proposed
Thank you
Miles Theeman
From:bonniepuls@aol.com
To:Planning-WWW
Subject:Reuse of condemned and abandoned buildings
Date:Friday, March 11, 2022 12:55:42 PM
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK
links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is safe.
We read with interest the story in the BDN this morning, March 11, 2022, about the proposed
legislation that would help cities and towns with the Housing Crisis, giving those cities and
towns more control over development of condemned and abandoned properties.
We would like to see a hold on redefining chapter 165 on March 15., 2022, until this proposal
has been researched by our planning board.
We feel updating, making safe livable housing for one or two apartments on existing sites that
have had homes is a better approach than allowing our historical buildings and possible
neighborhoods turn into boarding house locations.
Bonnie and Larry Puls
11 Olive Heights
Bangor, Maine 04401
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
From:David Green
To:Planning-WWW
Subject:Land Development Code change
Date:Saturday, March 12, 2022 2:28:27 PM
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK
links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi, this is David Green
73 Dunning Blvd
Bangor
Regarding the proposal to allow boarding houses and bed and breakfasts in URD-1 I have
spoken to many of my neighbors and all are against the change. We live just off Union St and
having boarding houses or B&Bs near us would reduce property values (there are studies on-
line supporting that). I imagine that most of the thousands of property owners in the city
would feel the same, if my neighbors are 100% against the code change.
I recognize that affordable housing is a problem in Bangor but this isn't the answer, or even
part of the answer.
The code change may even make the problem of affordable housing worse if institutional
investors take advantage of the code change and either boost up the rental costs or do not
adequately maintain the buildings.
Regards, David.
--
Regards,
David Green
207-669-2016
From:Thomas Hill Properties LLC
To:Krieg, Anne M.; Bev Cole Neighbor <beverlywm@aol.com>
Cc:Bickford, Melissa
Subject:RE: Zoning in Bangor Question
Date:Monday, March 14, 2022 4:36:08 PM
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK
links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is safe.
Anne,
Thank you for the quick response. This answers my questions but also generates a couple more. The
properties on Broadway in yellow concern me that boarding houses could be authorized there.
While I am glad that the ones on congress street cannot be used for boarding homes I would
presume they can be used as driveways or parking for those boarding homes. This generates more
concern as it did in 2020 when the hospital and Penquis Cap met with the neighbors as they wanted
to put low income housing here and have the driveways entering through to congress.
I will not be able to attend the meeting tomorrow night but the concern I have is the parking and
traffic congestion. We had a meeting a few years ago to address this traffic and proposed to have
north park street designated as a 1 way. We also wanted to address all of the on street parking for
the hospitals building on congress street during the week. We were told they would do a traffic
study and make a determination. Nothing was ever done. Getting out to Broadway from congress is
nearly impossible at times.
Congress and North park street are pass through streets to get to and from Broadway to center
streets and to little city side of town. Traffic today is a mess and adding more traffic to this already
congested area is just a disaster waiting to happen. Traffic going to the hospital already drive across
my lawn and parking is ridiculous as they sometime block in my neighbors. I know Bev has asked the
hospital about this several times but has had not had any success.
I am not sure the reason why nothing was done about the parking and traffic when we had a
meeting a few years ago. I know one of the committee members was opposed to the requested
changes as it cause them an inconvenience when they leave their day job at the hospital. I hope the
decisions are made for the right reasons and careful thought is put into them and not what is
convenient. We need to do what is right for the homeowners that have to live in these areas that are
being changed.
Thank you,
Michael Hill
Thomas Hill Properties, LLC
Contact
Michael (207) 412-0074
Thomas (207) 944-5501
From: Krieg, Anne M. <anne.krieg@bangormaine.gov>
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 2:36:19 PM
To: 'Thomas Hill Properties LLC' <THPropertiesllc@outlook.com>; Bev Cole Neighbor
<beverlywm@aol.com> <beverlywm@aol.com>
Cc: Bickford, Melissa <melissa.bickford@bangormaine.gov>
Subject: RE: Zoning in Bangor Question
Hi there –
Attached please find a map of the area in question below. This area in the purple
circle is bounded on the rights by Broadway, along the bottom is Congress Street and
the hospital parking is on the left corner.
The properties in blue are zoned Government and Institutional Services District.
Attached are the currently allowed uses in this district. No changes are requested in
this district as part of this proposal.
The areas in the light yellow/tan area are URD-1. The current proposal would only
allow the lots with frontage on Broadway to be developed into a boarding house. This
allowance is by a conditional use permit by the Planning Board. The lots on
Congress Street would not be able to develop a boarding house.
Do not hesitate to ask further questions.
These will be sent to the Planning Board and the City Council for their review.
Thank you for sending along this question!
amk
Anne Krieg AICP
Bangor Planning Officer
From: Thomas Hill Properties LLC <THPropertiesllc@outlook.com>
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 1:41 PM
To: Krieg, Anne M. <anne.krieg@bangormaine.gov>; Bev Cole Neighbor
<beverlywm@aol.com> <beverlywm@aol.com>; Thomas Hill Properties LLC
<thpropertiesllc@outlook.com>
Subject: Zoning in Bangor Question
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT
CLICK links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is
safe.
Anne,
Good afternoon. For clarification, the land where St Joseph's it tearing down the older
homes on Broadway and Congress St, What would the zone changes that are proposed
do for these parcels? I believe they are URD2. Would the changes allow boarding
homes to be built on these locations?
Manager
THomas Hill Properties llc
THPropertiesllc@outlook.com
From:Krieg, Anne M.
To:"beverlywm@aol.com"; Thomas Hill Properties LLC
Cc:Bickford, Melissa
Subject:RE: Zoning in Bangor Question
Date:Monday, March 14, 2022 6:04:45 PM
Thank you for these comments.
I am not aware of the traffic one way proposal but I will find out more.
Conditional uses require full traffic studies so curb cuts would be looked at for
projects on Broadway.
amk
Anne Krieg AICP
Bangor Planning Officer
From: beverlywm@aol.com <beverlywm@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 4:43 PM
To: Thomas Hill Properties LLC <THPropertiesllc@outlook.com>; Krieg, Anne M.
<anne.krieg@bangormaine.gov>
Cc: Bickford, Melissa <melissa.bickford@bangormaine.gov>
Subject: Re: Zoning in Bangor Question
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT
CLICK links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is
safe.
I agree with you. And Congressand French Streets were never expected to be major
arterial street but the more living quarters/ businesses permitted our this area, the
traffic congestion gets worse.
Thank u for your very clear explanation Michael.
Bev Mansell
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
On Monday, March 14, 2022, 4:36 PM, Thomas Hill Properties LLC
<THPropertiesllc@outlook.com> wrote:
Anne,
Thank you for the quick response. This answers my questions but also
generates a couple more. The properties on Broadway in yellow concern
me that boarding houses could be authorized there. While I am glad that
the ones on congress street cannot be used for boarding homes I would
presume theycan be used as driveways or parking for those boarding
homes. This generates moreconcern as it did in2020 when the hospital
and Penquis Cap met with the neighbors as they wanted to put low income
housing here and have the driveways entering through to congress.
I will not be able to attend the meeting tomorrow night but the concern I
have is the parking and traffic congestion. We had a meeting a few years
ago to address this traffic and proposed to have north park street
designated as a 1 way. We also wanted to address all of the on street
parking for the hospitals building on congress street during the week. We
were told they would do a traffic study and make a determination. Nothing
was ever done. Gettingout to Broadway from congress is nearly
impossible at times.
Congress and North park street are pass through streets to get to and from
Broadway to center streets and to little city side of town. Traffic today is a
mess and adding more traffic to this already congested area is just a
disaster waiting to happen. Traffic going to the hospital already drive
across my lawn and parkingis ridiculous as they sometime block in my
neighbors. I know Bev has asked the hospital about this several times but
has had not had any success.
I am not sure the reason why nothing was done about the parking and
traffic when we had a meeting a few years ago. I know one of the
committee members was opposed to the requested changes as it cause
theman inconveniencewhen they leave their day job at the hospital. I
hope the decisions are made for the right reasons and careful thought is
put into them and not what is convenient. We need to do what is right for
the homeowners that have to live in these areas that are being changed.
Thank you,
Michael Hill
Thomas Hill Properties, LLC
Contact
Michael (207) 412-0074
Thomas (207) 944-5501
From: Krieg, Anne M. <anne.krieg@bangormaine.gov>
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 2:36:19 PM
To: 'Thomas Hill Properties LLC' <THPropertiesllc@outlook.com>; Bev
Cole Neighbor <beverlywm@aol.com> <beverlywm@aol.com>
Cc: Bickford, Melissa <melissa.bickford@bangormaine.gov>
Subject: RE: Zoning in Bangor Question
Hi there –
Attached please find a map of the area in question below. This
area in the purple circle is bounded on the rights by Broadway,
along the bottom is Congress Street and the hospital parking is on
the left corner.
The properties in blue are zoned Government and Institutional
Services District. Attached are the currently allowed uses in this
district. No changes are requested in this district as part of this
proposal.
The areas in the light yellow/tan area are URD-1. The current
proposal would only allow the lots with frontage on Broadway to be
developed into a boarding house. This allowance is by a
conditional use permit by the Planning Board. The lots on
Congress Street would not be able to develop a boarding house.
Do not hesitate to ask further questions.
These will be sent to the Planning Board and the City Council for
their review.
Thank you for sending along this question!
amk
Anne Krieg AICP
Bangor Planning Officer
From: Thomas Hill Properties LLC
<THPropertiesllc@outlook.com>
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 1:41 PM
To: Krieg, Anne M. <anne.krieg@bangormaine.gov>; Bev Cole
Neighbor <beverlywm@aol.com> <beverlywm@aol.com>;
Thomas Hill Properties LLC <thpropertiesllc@outlook.com>
Subject: Zoning in Bangor Question
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization.
Messages claiming or appearing to be from someone within our
organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK links or
attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content
is safe.
Anne,
Good afternoon. For clarification, the land where St Joseph's
it tearing down the older homes on Broadway and Congress
St, What would the zone changes that are proposed do for
these parcels? I believe they are URD2. Would the changes
allow boarding homes to be built on these locations?
Manager
THomas Hill Properties llc
THPropertiesllc@outlook.com
Boof!N/!Lsjfh-!BJDQ!
Qmboojoh!Pggjdfs!
Djuz!pg!Cbohps!
84!Ibsmpx!Tusffu-!
Cbohps-!NF!15512!
Boof!N/!Lsjfh-!BJDQ
From:Jon Everett
To:Planning-WWW; Councilors
Subject:Proposed changes to Chapter 165 of Land Development Code
Date:Tuesday, March 15, 2022 12:45:45 PM
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK
links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is safe.
Jon Everett
540 Union Street
The proposal to amend Chapter 165 of the Land Development Code introduced at the Board's
March 1 meeting is ill-conceived, and poses a serious threat to the quality of life and the
property values of Bangor homeowners. This proposal as it stands is completely untenable
and must be rejected. The proposal has at least 4 serious problems.
Problem 1, Two entirely different uses are treated as if they are the same.
Apparently, the city land development code does not distinguish between "tourist homes" and
boarding houses. The use of the term "tourist home" is quite dated, so it seems likely that this
part of the code has not been revised in quite some time. In more modern parlance, a "tourist
home" would be known as a "Bed and Breakfast". The problem is that Boarding Houses and
Bed-and-Breakfast establishments are completely different uses with completely different risk
profiles. Until these two categories are clearly distinguished in the City's land development
code, any zoning change dealing with either of these uses poses an unacceptable risk to
residential property values.
As of 2022, Bed and Breakfasts and Boarding Houses are not remotely the same thing and
should not be governed by the same zoning rules. While it may be acceptable for a
homeowner to operate a Bed and Breakfast in a URD-1 or URD-2 zone subject to some
limitations, it is NEVER acceptable to locate a Boarding House in either of these zones.
For purposes of Bangor zoning, the defining features of a Bed and Breakfast should be:
a) that the house is the primary residence of the owner
b) that the owner is in residence at the house whenever tenants are present
c) that the house is a single-family residence; multiplex dwellings should not be used for bed
and breakfast establishments
In addition to this, there should be limits on the number of rooms to be rented simultaneously
and the duration of tenancy. There should be a requirement that the property have sufficient
parking for the number of rooms to be rented. A permit from the City should also be
required, which may be revoked or denied if the property has been the subject of nuisance
complaints. These additional regulations may be outside the domain of the Planning Board,
but they should be adopted by the City Council before any zoning changes relative to Bed and
Breakfast establishments are considered.
Motivations for the definitions:
a, b) Sever any connection between the Bed and Breakfast and Boarding House concepts.
Codify the idea that Bed and Breakfast clients are more akin to house guests than tenants of
hotels or Boarding Houses.
As the term is commonly understood, Bed and Breakfast clients behave as short-term house
guests who happen to pay a fee for their stay. They share part of the living space in the
owner-occupant's primary residence. This requirement is crucial. An owner-occupant will be
very careful who he or she allows to stay in his or her own primary residence. He or she will
naturally want to limit the disruption caused by tenants, because as the owner occupant, he or
she will experience those disruptions first-hand. In contrast, absentee landlords tend not to
care very much about quality of life degradation at their properties because they themselves do
not experience it. This is fundamentally what distinguishes Bed and Breakfast houses from
Boarding Houses. By ensuring that any negative effects caused by tenants are felt more
immediately and more acutely by the homeowner him/herself than by the neighbors,
disruptions will tend to be self-limiting, reducing the need for enforcement action.
c) Limit the density of occupation. Multiplex dwellings are already at their maximum
capacity. A Bed and Breakfast in a multiplex dwelling will feel too much like a hotel to its
neighbors.
Motivations for the additional regulations:
a) Limit the magnitude of the business activity in a residential area.
b) Ensure that the property can accommodate the number of additional cars.
c) Ensure that the use can be curtailed on an individual property basis if that property
becomes a nuisance. Otherwise, the use might be construed as an absolute right based on
zoning criteria alone.
Problem 2, Boarding Houses do not belong in URD-1 or URD-2 zones at all.
Period. Full stop. No exceptions. The Planning Board and staff need to remember why we
have URD-1 and URD-2 zones in the first place. Fundamentally, it is to protect the property
values of the homes in these zones. Boarding Houses will devalue the single-family homes
that surround them. A peppering of Boarding Houses in URD zones will eat away at the
quality of neighborhoods, resulting in widespread blight. As blight progresses, the city will
collect less tax revenue, and experience an increased demand for police services. Declining
quality of life and property values are what lead affluent people to move to Hermon,
Hampden, and Holden. The reason people choose those towns is because they act to preserve
their residents' property values whereas Bangor does not make this a priority. This
concern was one of the recurring themes during the public comment segment of the Board's
March 1 meeting.
The planning staff probably would want to assure me that the presence of Boarding Houses
will not reduce my quality of life or the value of my property. Such assurances are hollow. It
is easy to dismiss risks that one is not exposed to oneself. The Planning Officer does not even
live in Bangor. Let's ask some real estate brokers what they think.
Twisting the straightforward, commonly accepted meanings of terms like R-1 and R-2 zones is
just as damaging as habitual spot-zoning. If you're going to allow anyone to do anything
anywhere, why have zoning at all?
Boarding Houses, regardless of their interior configurations, are essentially extended stay
hotels, and they should not be allowed in any zone where hotels are not allowed.
Problem 3, This proposal applies changes in an arbitrary way.
This proposal does not change the acceptable uses of URD-1 and URD-2 zones city-wide, it
makes changes to arbitrary parcels within those zones. The areas affected by the proposed
change form a bizarre gerrymander, the boundaries of which are completely arbitrary. Why
are properties in URD-1 and URD-2 zones that happen to be on arterial streets not worthy of
URD-1 and URD-2 zoning protections? Why should this amendment not apply to Norway
Road, or Montgomery Street, or Judson Heights? Would any member of the Board want a
Boarding House located next to their house? Interestingly, the areas targeted by this action do
not include any of the streets on which members of the Board or the Council live. The
Planning Officer does not even live in Bangor. Neither the people who proposed this change,
nor the ones who would approve it will have to live with the consequences.
It is easy to play social engineering games when one does not have to live with the
consequences oneself. It is easy to be generous with other people's assets. At the March 1
meeting, when the City staff were asked to explain how they arrived at the boundaries of this
zoning change, all I heard was vague mumbling and hand-waving. If this is such a great idea,
why does it not apply to the highest valued homes in the City? Am I to understand that only
the wealthy are entitled to the protections of URD-1 zoning? Really?
Also, why should it apply to a trailer park?
Problem 4, The goals of this change are ill-defined and the action ill-justified.
The proposal and accompanying documents fail to articulate specifically what purpose is
served by the proposal. A proposal with potentially far-reaching long-term consequences is
justified not by a carefully researched and well reasoned rationale, but by two pages akin to a
collage of wishful thinking, magazine quotes, and trendy jargon.
The need for affordable housing is real. If the City wishes to address the problem, the first
step is a rigorous study to quantify the needs, examine the reasonable options available, and to
explore the potential positive and negative consequences of each. Based on the quality of this
proposal, it appears that a responsible study of such a complex problem is beyond the
capability of the City Planning staff.
SUMMARY:
The proposal as submitted is untenable. It must be rejected outright. The connection between
Boarding Houses and Bed and Breakfast houses in the land use code must be severed.
Although properly regulated Bed and Breakfast houses are not fundamentally at odds with the
concept of URD-1 and URD-2 zoning, the City Council has some regulatory groundwork to
do before the Board can safely consider permitting Bed and Breakfasts in residential zones.
Boarding Houses have no place in URD-1 or URD-2 zones.
From:John Cahill
To:Krieg, Anne M.; Bickford, Melissa; debbie.laurie@bangor.gov; courtney.odonnell@bangor.gov;
clare.davitt@bangor.gov; richard.fournier@bangor.gov; susan.hawaes@bangor.gov; angela.okafor@bangor.gov;
gretchen.schaefer@bangor.gov; jonathan.sprague@bangor.gov; dan.tremble@bangor.gov;
dina.yacoubagha@bangor.gov
Cc:John Cahill; Maria Cahill
Subject:Vote No on Proceeding with a Plan to change Chapter 165 of the Land Development Code
Date:Tuesday, March 15, 2022 3:05:47 PM
Attachments:Notes for Planning Meeting Regarding Changing Chapter 165 of the Land Development Code.docx
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK
links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello!
Please consider the notes I have attached in this email regarding the proposal to change the
zoning for Chapter 165 of the Land Development Code. Thank you for taking time to consider
these important points before moving forward with this proposal. Please vote no!
Regards,
John and Maria Cahill
263 Pine St Bangor
From:Chad Peterson
To:Planning-WWW
Subject:March 15th Public Comment
Date:Tuesday, March 15, 2022 3:11:42 PM
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK
links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is safe.
Greetings:
I had planned to attend the public meeting Tuesday, March 15th, but was called out of town on
an important matter.
I strongly encourage sending the motion regarding " Amending Chapter 165, Land
Development Code, by defining and regulating the uses known as Boarding House and Bed &
Breakfast" to the city council with a recommendation not to pass AND suggest amendments to
the language - starting the process over.
That much time and energy has been devoted to this process is appreciated, but the proposal is
deeply flawed and not in line with contemporary solutions, one of which is cooperative
housing, which is an up and coming response to high housing prices in other parts of the
country.
Evidently, Bangor already allows five unrelated people to share a property. An owner renting
a room or two or more rooms to share expenses or traditionally renting to a group of
individuals is an acceptable usage with no need to be codified.
True, Boarding Houses have made something of a comeback in response to housing
affordability, but the successful ones that have made the news have a specific audience and are
actively managed on-site. Imagine renting a hotel room in a hotel that has no janitorial
services for the common areas, including a kitchen that is open to all guests. This is a
reasonable scenario to imagine given human nature and what Bangor is proposing to allow.
That follow up information regarding Current Code language for disruptive housing and
property maintenance is aspirational. Obviously, enforcement is a challenge - as others have
commented. To describe parts of the neighborhood just outside of the Whitney Historic
District where I live as "tidy" or well maintained would be laughable. This in spite of the
existing codes.
Bangor can be forward thinking and respond to the affordability issues in a way that meets the
up and coming generation(s) where they are.
For the record, I have no opposition to the Bed and Breakfast language. That could be
separated from the egregious Boarding House language and reintroduced quickly.
Regards,
Chad Peterson
243 Cedar St
Bangor
From:bonniepuls@aol.com
To:Planning-WWW
Subject:Pleased
Date:Wednesday, March 16, 2022 10:41:04 AM
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK
links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is safe.
We are pleased with the decision made last night at the meeting. We take umbrage at the
gentleman’s remarks that “ just because you don’t like something, it’s not how this works”.
When we as home owners and tax payers “don’t like something”, it’s on us to express our
displeasure, offer alternatives, and speak up.
We agree with making ALL rent policies the same in every area of our city.
In our search for answers we discovered that 5 unrelated persons can live in a home. How do
we know if they are paying rent for a room? There are semantics in the current verbage that
can be misused by persons, we feel, that need correcting. Perhaps this falls under rent
guidelines that have been asked to be reviewed.
We have written many thoughts and questions. Do these go to all Planning Board members
and City Council Members?
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
From:Laurie, Debbie
To:Planning
Subject:FW: Shared Housing Proposal
Date:Wednesday, March 16, 2022 1:42:47 PM
From: Laurie, Debbie <debbie.laurie@bangormaine.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2022 1:43 PM
To: 'Annamarie Pluhar' <annamarie@sharinghousing.org>; Councilors
<councilors@bangormaine.gov>
Subject: RE: Shared Housing Proposal
Good Afternoon,
Thank you so much for reaching out and sharing your passion and expertise. I will certainly pass
along your email to our planning department.
Debbie Laurie
City Manager
From: Annamarie Pluhar <annamarie@sharinghousing.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2022 12:49 PM
To: Councilors <councilors@bangormaine.gov>
Subject: Shared Housing Proposal
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK
links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Councilors,
I am very sorry that I missed the public comment period on shared housing.
Only today picked up the information that the Planning Board voted not to
recommend the proposal. As you can see by my signature that I’m ALL about
encouraging shared housing and would dearly like to talk to someone about how
citizens can be encouraged to live together and the fears of folks can be managed. Or
talk to all of you.
If you look at our site (I’m the founder of the nonprofit) you will see that there is
course called “5 Key Benefits of Shared Housing” - cost, companionship, help around
the house, sustainability and whole person health. This is a good thing for people to
share! I haven’t been able to find on-line the actual proposal—I agree with people
worried about transients and short-term housing - but I do think we need to find a way
forward for government to make sharing more viable and not exclude the option for
citizens.
Sharing a home requires compatibility and people need to learn how! We have a plan
for that. :)
BTW: I’m a resident of Dummerston, VT (tiny town outside Brattleboro) and a
Planning Commissioner for my town.
Please feel free to reach out to me. Sharing Housing is a win/win solution when done
right.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Annamarie Pluhar, President
Sharing Housing, Inc.
Information for individuals
Author: Sharing Housing, A Guidebook for Finding and Keeping Good Housemates
802-387-0487
“I think it is a universal human need to have someone who wonders where you are
when you don’t come home at night.” — Margaret Mead
Comments
I am opposed to allowing any more apartments to be built on the land St Joseph Hospital owns on Broadway/Congress St. Traffic
on Vongress/French stree/ N Park Street is already affecting our neighborhood. More apartments=more traffic and obvious
pattern is the same traffic pattern as St Joes Parking lit already created.
See my Email already submitted to Planning Board.
I am concerned about the parking requirements. It states in subsection 165-71 D: "Driveways in residential districts may be used
.... and buildings containing 2 to 4 dwelling units without the need to meet requirements in 165-73 and 165-74 below," but those
two subsections were not included so I have no idea what those requirements are but I'm concerned about lowering the
requirements. ALSO, in subsection 165-72 C: "...and boarding houses: 1 space per 4 dwelling units or rooms," which I feel must be
wrong and certainly shouldn't be permitted. There should be 1 parking space per dwelling unit or room! Otherwise these cars will
end up parked on the streets, causing congestion, especially after snowstorms, blocking views from cars coming out of driveways,
etc.
Will the boarding houses have to apply for a license from the City of Bangor? Will there be a fee for this license? How much will
that be? If there is a fee, can you freeze that amount for 5-10 years?
Will inspections be necessary? How often?
We have invested almost $200,000 in improvements to our home. What guarantee is provided by the City of Bangor Planning
Division that our property value, and general quality of life will not be negatively affected by this proposed zoning change.
Based on the information that I have received, I am opposed to the proposed changes to Chaper 165 of the Land Development
Code regarding Boarding Houses and Bed and Breakfast establishments. I believe a better way to bring affordable housing to our
neighborhoods would be to bring each property under consideration for such zoning changes before the abutting neighbors for
input regarding what is being planned for an individual property.
I plan to attend the Zoom Meeting for more information on this issue.
Im concerned that
the Boarding Houses are not required to have on-site owner/supervisor and this could lead to bad renter behaviors. A BETTER
Idea would be to require an in-house supervisor.
ALSO, why other URD-1 areas on the East Side are not ALSO included??
My PRIMARILY and Personal Concern is about PARKING!
The Proposal states: "165-71 Residential districts.
D. Driveways in residential districts may be used to meet parking requirements for boarding houses, and buildings containing 2 to
4 dwelling units WITHOUT THE NEED TO MEET REQUIREMENTS IN 165-73 AND 165-74"
Given that in URD-1 Zones, there is NO CURRENT REQUIREMENT that residents must even USE DRIVEWAYS to park in.... only that
a Set Back of 5 feet on the side-line and 10 feet on the rear-line. AND NO CLARIFICATION IF CARS MUST BE PARALLEL TO THE SIDE-
LINE OR CAN BE PERPENDICULAR.
\[I am currently dealing in an apartment in a URD-1 Zone where the landlord changed all tenant parking from the Driveway, to
THEIR BACKYARD --PERPENDICULAR 5 FEET FROM FACING INTO MY BACKYARD! The Code Enforcer has told me Codes don't clarify
parking must be Parallel to the Side Yard. I have 4 cars and headlights 7 feet from my picnic table with 8 headlights shining in my
house 20 feet away. THIS IS NOT OKAY!
With this new Proposal.... there will be no clarification as to 1.) where, 2.)parallel or perpendicular, 3.) how many cars, 4.) nor
need for a buffer yard! This will be destructive and invasive for neighbors and quality of home life!
A Boarding House could have many cars facing directly into their residential neighbor's yard ONLY 5 FEET AWAY!
--This #173-B. NEEDS to be Clarified that parking along Side Yards should e PARRALLEL for existing Codes in areas unaffected by
this New Proposal.
--This Requirement exemption should be REMOVED from the New Proposal.
I feel that this change will support more dynamic and diverse housing opportunities in these districts. As a resident of URD-2, it is
important to me that density and diversity are a priority, encouraging more locally-owned and managed properties that fit our
City's needs. I have heard many opinions opposing this change which are based on a poor understanding of our housing needs and
which sit too comfortably with NIMBY-ism and exclusionary policies.
Name
Beverly Mansell 424
French ST
Debra Garcia - 29 Bates
St
Peggy Sheriff 818 Essex
St
Richard Garfield 134
Kenduskeag Ave
Pamela Logan 296
Maple St
Carol Cutting 14 Eaton
Pl
William Harper 132
Cedar St
From:Laurie, Debbie
To:Krieg, Anne M.; Collette, Anja
Cc:Emery, Tanya
Subject:FW: BOARDING HOMES
Date:Saturday, March 5, 2022 10:55:47 AM
FYI
From: Laurie, Debbie <debbie.laurie@bangormaine.gov>
Sent: Saturday, March 5, 2022 10:55 AM
To: 'Lisa Feldman' <feldpersonl63@gmail.com>; Councilors <councilors@bangormaine.gov>
Subject: RE: BOARDING HOMES
Good Morning,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this topic. I will pass your email along to the staff in Planning
as the public hearing process continues. Again appreciate you sharing your experiences, that is
helpful information to have.
Debbie Laurie
City Manager
From: Lisa Feldman <feldpersonl63@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 4, 2022 9:57 AM
To: Councilors <councilors@bangormaine.gov>
Subject: BOARDING HOMES
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK
links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Friends on the Bangor City Council,
I read with interest coverage in the Bangor Daily News of a recent proposal to make
boarding homes a more accessible option in Bangor and citizen reaction. I believe boarding
homes-- aswell as Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units-- are a viable and underutilized
means of addressing Bangor's affordable housing crisis. I agree with residents that this kind of
housing must be at least minimally staffed.
This is something I know about. For nearly 12 years I staffed a small SRO in Amherst,
Massachusetts: 3 floors with 4 rooms (each with kitchenette) and a shared bathroom on each
floor and a conventional apartment (for 2 or 3) in the basement. I originally came there as a
tenant. The building was old but in good repair, but conditions were chaotic. The landlord,
who was in his 20s, had inherited the building from a relative. He had a business degree but no
clue about rental property management. I had worked as a paralegal, and had worked on many
landlord-tenant issues. One morning, I woke up and found a very large man I'd never seen
before passed out cold across my threshold. I stepped over him, walked to the police station,
and asked them to get my landlord on the phone. "You'd make more money in the long run if
youmanagedthat building better," I told him, "because you'd have fewer damages and less
tenant turnover." "Fine," he said. "You do it." So I did.
Over the years, my fellow tenants ranged from grad students to people being released from
the state mental hospital. Tenants were Black, white, Hispanic indigenous, Jews, Christians--
youname it. There were elderly and disabled people, people rendered homeless by divorce or
domestic violence, people starting their ownbusinesses, people in the restaurant business who
worked irregular hours and had fluctuating incomes, straight people, gay people, transgender
people, people who drank, people who lost their jobs and didn't always find new ones right
away.By and large, we all got along fine. I cleaned the halls and bathrooms once a week, and
residents kept them clean between times. We had no major tenant-on-tenant disputes, and very
few noisecomplaints. When residents had problems, we talked them over and worked out
solution strategies. I helped tenants having problems connect with everything from workplace
Employee Assistance Programs to the local survival Center or the Salvation Army's
emergency rental assistance program. When they got into more than a month's arrears and
didn't see a way to get back on track, we worked out voluntary exit strategies.
In 12 years, I had to call the police on a tenant once (a domestic violence issue). I had to
resort to a formal eviction process once-- this for a man who turned out to have a long history
of moving from college town to college town, using fabricated references, paying his first
month's rent and security deposit, and then refusing to pay more.
I would amend your boarding home proposal to require that they be owner-occupied or
staffed. Staff could receive a rent reduction rather than be paid a salary. Some kind of
registration and inspection (annual and upon complaint) should be required. Owners/managers
should be trained atleast once a year-- in the basics of landlord/tenant law, in how City
government and services work, in the map of various community agencies. Perhaps in
cooperation with Penquis or some other non-profit, the City government could organize a
support group for managers of congregate housing, so they could meet every month or two,
get to know one another, and talk over common problems and workable solutions.
Lisa Feldman
Orono ME
From:Krieg, Anne M.
To:Bickford, Melissa
Subject:FW: Comments regarding the Boarding Home/B&B Amendment
Date:Thursday, March 10, 2022 10:36:43 AM
Attachments:City Council Testimony-----031522 .docx
Please place this email and attachment with the public comments – thank you!
Anne Krieg AICP
Bangor Planning Officer
From: Miles Theeman <mutheeman@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2022 10:35 AM
To: Krieg, Anne M. <anne.krieg@bangormaine.gov>
Subject: Re: Comments regarding the Boarding Home/B&B Amendment
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK
links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is safe.
HiAnne
Thank you for the clarification. However, if you are referring to my comments in the
second paragraph, ie.." virtually every residential.... I'll stand by what I said
Take good care....Miles
On Thu, Mar 10, 2022, 9:33 AM Krieg, Anne M.<anne.krieg@bangormaine.gov> wrote:
Thank you for these comments. They will be sent to both the Planning Board and
the City Council for their consideration.
Please note that it is not accurate to state that the proposed code allows boarding
houses and bed & breakfasts in every residential home on every street. You may
want to look at the materials provided here (www.bangormaine.gov/zoning ) For
example, in URD-1, boarding houses are only allowed in the historic district or on
an arterial like Ohio Street. In the Low Density District, boarding houses are only
allowed on an arterial like Griffin Road.
If you would like to adjust your comments noting these facts, let me know. The
packet for next week’s meeting doesn’t go out until noon.
Thank you again for taking the time to prepare comments.
Anne Krieg AICP
Bangor Planning Officer
From: Miles Theeman <mutheeman@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2022 9:16 AM
To: Krieg, Anne M. <anne.krieg@bangormaine.gov>
Subject: Comments regarding the Boarding Home/B&B Amendment
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming
or appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO
NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the
content is safe.
Good morning Anne:
Enclosed is a copy of the comments I will offer at the Planning Board meeting on
March 15th.. Please share with the Planning Board.
Thank you again for speaking with me.. Please confirm receipt of this note.
Take good care...
Miles
From:Collette, Anja
To:"larry puls"; Planning-WWW
Subject:RE: Inquiry from website
Date:Monday, February 28, 2022 8:27:20 AM
Hi Larry, no, VRBO's are short term rentals and are not the same as boarding houses as we're proposing. A boarding
house would be a home where individual rooms are rented out for more than 30 days and the tenants share a kitchen
and other spaces. A short term rental is any rental less than 30 days and they are not currently allowed anywhere in
the City. We are working on language for short term rentals and that will likely come out in the next month or so.
As far as your neighborhood on Thatcher Street, it wouldn't really be impacted by the proposed changes since it's
not in a historic district and it's not a major or minor arterial street. Those are the only areas in URD-1 that are being
impacted by the proposed changes.
Let us know if you have any additional questions or comments.
Thank you,
Anja Collette
Planning Analyst
Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
73 Harlow Street
Bangor, ME 04401
anja.collette@bangormaine.gov
Phone: 207.992.4234
-----Original Message-----
From: larry puls <larrypuls@icloud.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2022 2:11 PM
To: Planning-WWW <planning@bangormaine.gov>
Subject: Inquiry from website
________________________________
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or appearing to be from someone
within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you can verify the sender
and know the content is safe.
________________________________
A question before the March 1st meeting regarding amending Chapter 165
Is the term "boarding House" also referring to VBRO's?
We have a home on Thatcher Street that is being used as a "Boarding House" or VRBO, depending who one speaks
to. I see its zoned URD-1 and that use is not permitted, under current guidelines. Council members were informed of
the proposed use of that property, yet it still became a "Boarding House" or VRBO. Why?
IF, this change takes place, what guidelines will that home on Thatcher St be under?
Bonnie and I will attend the meeting by ZOOM. We are not in favor of this proposed change.
We would like to see and know that current guidelines will be enforced.
We are also URD-1
Larry Puls
Sent from my iPad
From:Krieg, Anne M.
To:"Ruth Nadelhaft"
Cc:Bickford, Melissa
Subject:RE: proposed zoning change re:access to housing
Date:Monday, March 7, 2022 8:57:46 AM
Hi there –
Thank you for taking this time to review the documents. This is very helpful to our
work!
Parking is listed in many housing documents as a barrier to providing affordable
housing. Often people do not have their own transportation so the need for cars is
lower than in market rate housing; however your comment of not having bus routes in
your area is notable.
The people who participated in the Affordable Housing Work Group are listed in the
recommendation document on the noted website; they are cut and pasted below:
The City of Bangor is grateful for these community members that gave their time and
expertise to learn, share and participate in the development of the recommendations and
implementation plans in this report.
BANGOR HOUSING WORK GROUP MEMBERS: This group met 7 times from September
through December 2018 to hear from panel presenters, understand and identify issues
impacting housing in the community and develop this set of recommendations.
Danielle Ahern Bangor Savings Bank
Chris McLaughlin, LCSW Northern Light Acadia Hospital
David Bushey Bangor Police Department
David Milan Town of Orono
Erica Caron Bangor Innovative Neighborhoods
EMMC 14 Troy Morton Penobscot County Sheriff's Office
David Casavant Husson University
Shirar Patterson United Way of Eastern Maine
Mark Woodward Neighborhood Representative
Joanna Russell Northeastern Workforce Development
Mia Dubois St Joseph's Healthcare
Ben Sprague City of Bangor - City Council Chair
Suzanne Farley Wellspring
Kate Sterns Luce Acadia Hospital
Sean Gambrel City of Bangor
Laura Supica City of Bangor - City Councilor
John Karnes R&K Construction
Erica Veazey Pine Tree Legal Association
Jeff LaBree City of Bangor
Brian Williams ERA Dawson Bradford
Francis Leen Local Landlord
Roberta Winchell Winchell Law and Associates
BANGOR HOUSING PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS: This group met from May
through August 2018 to plan the Housing Work Group process and presentation series.
Jason Bird Penquis
Ann Giggey Hope House|PCHC
Tyler Collins City of Bangor
Jennifer Giosia Penquis
Jamie Comstock City of Bangor
Dale Hamilton Community Health and Counseling Services
Cathy Conlow City of Bangor
Patty Hamilton City of Bangor
Josh D'Alessio Hope House|Penobscot Community Health Care
Kara Hay Penquis
Tanya Emery City of Bangor
Christopher Linder Penquis - MaineStream Finance
Rindy Fogler City of Bangor
Mike Myatt Bangor Housing Authority
Mel Fongemie (Bickford) City of Bangor
Jeff Wallace City of Bangor
Ed French Catholic Charities of Maine
Your comments will be sent to the Planning Board and the City Council for their
review and consideration.
amk
Anne Krieg AICP
Bangor Planning Officer
From: Ruth Nadelhaft <rnadelhaft@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 6, 2022 10:22 AM
To: Krieg, Anne M. <anne.krieg@bangormaine.gov>
Subject: Re: proposed zoning change re:access to housing
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT
CLICK links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is
safe.
Thanks for your reply and the additional material. It's my impression that the
various planning groups did a good job of seeing and describing the needs. I
can't tell how diverse the membership was of the various groups, but I suspect
that people like me and my immediate neighbors were not well represented.
While the needs of many in the Bangor catchment area were apparent, the
effects of the proposed changes to accommodate those needs were a lot less
satisfactory, in my judgment. I found one specific mention of the ratio of
parking space to rooms, and it was one space per four rooms. In my part of
Kenduskeag Avenue off-street parking is already so tight that people have
converted front lawns into parking spaces, covered grass with asphalt to
provide parking spaces. As I noted, this is an area of inadequate public
transportation. Your proposals would not help--and would actually worsen-- an
already bad situation regarding transportation, traffic, speeding, and crowding.
I would be glad to know more about the participants in the various working
groups. You refer to the single aged populations, several of whom are my
immediate neighbors. We have lived here long enough to see the rise and fall
and rise of the area. The implications of the proposed changes as far as our
neighborhood is concerned are daunting. Nothing in the proposed
implementation invites my support. If developers, as you say, are
concentrating on 'expensive' housing outside the desired area, it seems that
negotiation is in order so that at least two kinds of housing result (in NYC it's
the 80/20 formula, as you probably know). There's lots of work to be done on
many fronts. I am not convinced by your arguments that this neighborhood
targeting approach is fair, useful, or desirable.
Thank you again for providing the background material. I am not usually free
to attend meetings since I'm the elderly wife or an elderly person with
Parkinson's and I don't like to leave him in the house for substantial periods of
time. But I'm certainly willing to engage with these issues and I appreciate
your sense of urgency since inadequate affordable housing in Bangor has
been on the docket almost as long as we;ve lived here, and Covid hasn't
helped.
Regards,
Ruth Nadelhaft
On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 2:31 PM Krieg, Anne M. <anne.krieg@bangormaine.gov>
wrote:
Thank you for your comments below. They will be sent to the Planning
Board and the City Council for their review and consideration.
I would encourage you to look at the documents providing background on
this effort on the city’s website: www.bangormaine.gov/zoning
Thank you again for taking the time to send us comments.
amk
Anne Krieg AICP
Bangor Planning Officer
From: Ruth Nadelhaft <rnadelhaft@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 1:42 PM
To: Planning-WWW <planning@bangormaine.gov>
Subject: proposed zoning change re:access to housing
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages
claiming or appearing to be from someone within our organization may be
fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you can verify the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear People,
I had intended to attend the planning board meeting but
family concerns kept me home. I apologize for submitting comments
after the deadline. I was somewhat relieved to learn in the Bangor
Daily News that the Planning Board intends to work further on the
proposal. I have several objections which I don't think are driven by a
NIMBY attitude.
First of all, I think it is the responsibility of the City, in concert with
private developers, to provide more and better housing that is
affordable for Bangor workers and citizens. It is also, I believe, the
City's responsibility to improve and increase housing and treatment,
when necessary, for homeless people. As a taxpayer, I am prepared
to make whatever contributions are deemed appropriate based on my
property assessed value. As I understand it, the City also benefits
from the Biden Administration's distribution of funds to help in the
recovery from losses because of Covid 19. It seems appropriate to
me to earmark a considerable part of those funds to address the
needs for housing and care especially for those affected by the loss of
jobs or increased medical issues as a result of the virus. I do not
think the problems of inadequate housing should fall on the
homeowners in particular districts of the City. This is a city-wide
problem and should be addressed--and funded--by larger entities. If
Bangor is a magnet, as I believe it is, funding should also come from
the State. And, as I note, the Federal Government has awarded
considerable funding to states and cities, including Maine and Bangor,
some of which might well be used to deal with the problems you
propose to solve with this inadequate and unfair zoning change.
Within the proposed zoning change there are a number of
questionable provisions, some of which were drawn to your attention
according to the coverage in the BDN. The allocation of parking
space per rooms strikes me as absurd. In a city with inadequate
public transportation, in a state with totally inadequate public
transportation, just about every working person needs to own a car of
some sort. Your zoning proposal would not provide nearly enough
off-street parking and would make parking problems worse than they
already are. Traffic, already an unsolved problem on many streets
including the one I live on, would only increase. In my attempts to get
better patrolling of Kenduskeag Avenue speedway, I was told by a
very cooperative spokesman for the police that they have woefully
inadequate resources in both men and equipment to monitor
speeding and impose fines. Your re-zoning, with its inadequate
attention to the effects on the neighborhoods singled out, would only
increase traffic and parking problems.
I am making no judgments about the people involved. I noted the
comments of one landlord who defended the character of her renters.
My arguments are with the proposal itself and in particular with the
assignment of responsibility to selected neighborhoods rather than to
the community as a whole--which is where it belongs.
I hope the proposal is scrapped and rethought in its entirety with
adequate consultation involving property owners as well as those in
need of more and more affordable housing options.
Sincerely yours,
Ruth Nadelhaft
128 Kenduskeag Avenue
207 945 5323
From:Krieg, Anne M.
To:"bonniepuls@aol.com"
Cc:Planning-WWW
Subject:RE: Tonight’s meeting about Chapter 165
Date:Tuesday, March 1, 2022 4:07:39 PM
Hi there –
Please see answers below in blue.
These will be sent to the Planning Board and the City Council for their review and
consideration.
amk
Anne Krieg AICP
Bangor Planning Officer
From: bonniepuls@aol.com <bonniepuls@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 12:37 PM
To: Planning-WWW <planning@bangormaine.gov>
Subject: Tonight’s meeting about Chapter 165
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT
CLICK links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is
safe.
Larry and I have some questions.
Who would oversee the parking situation if Boarding Houses are allowed? Off the
street parking is a must due to plowing. So if three rooms are rented out, and all renters
have cars, where do they park?\[Anne Krieg\] Parking would be reviewed at the permit
stage.
How may bathrooms will be required for how many rental rooms? \[Anne Krieg\]
There are building codes that require number of bathrooms per person for this use.
Will more than one person be in one room? \[Anne Krieg\] There are building codes
thatcontrol how many square feet in a bedroom per person for a boarding house so it
depends on the size of the bedroom
Will locks be allowed on individual rooms, if yes, what is the firecode for that?\[Anne
Krieg\] There isa life safety code inspection required for both boarding houses and b
& B’s and this will be reviewed then
We knowa person who has a Rental Voucher, the apartment is substandard and the
land lord receives $850 a month and that isfor all the apartments in the building as
well. Gee, no wonder the housing market is being driven by persons who just want the
money. Out of area buyers, among others.
We also feel neighborhoods should be advised when there is a boarding house in the
area. Who are these folks that will be renting? Established neighborhoods have
children, older folks and would not appreciate a person with a criminal record of any
kind. Drugs are another concern.
Housing is an issue in Bangor and in many other parts of the country. Can the planning
board access studies done in other places that have gone this route that will give
guidance as to crime rate increases and other matters that would effect an Historic or
just a neighborhood.\[Anne Krieg\] I could not find any studies but the market for
boarding houses for young people fresh out of college and older people looking to live
in a community space that don’tneed services (like the Golden Girls kind of thing) is
increasing in many cities in the country.
Bonnie and Larry Puls
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
From:Bradley Miller
To:Krieg, Anne M.
Subject:Re: Ruling on Boarding Housing
Date:Monday, March 21, 2022 2:41:06 PM
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or
appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK
links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello ma'am.
Thank you for your very prompt and thorough response. You answered all of my questions.
I would very much appreciate my original email being forwarded to Bangor city council.
It is a solution to a very grave issue that has troubled the region long before C19 created a
troubling housing crises. Boarding-style homes are just where some people are at. Motel
efficiencies aren't necessarily safe or affordable and a one bedroom apartment is not within
reach financially
Take care,
-B Miller
On Monday, March 21, 2022, Krieg, Anne M. <anne.krieg@bangormaine.gov> wrote:
Hi there –
Thank you for taking the time to send Planning staff your comments.
Zoning enactment begins at a planning stage. In the case of boarding houses, it
began with the work of the Affordable Housing Work Group. Looking at shared
housing options and diversified housing choices was part of the recommendations
coming from this study in 2019. You can view this work here as well as the
background work for the amendment: https://www.bangormaine.gov/zoning
Then Planning Division staff prepared the draft to change the Land Development
Code (zoning) to allow for boarding houses in other districts. Currently this use is
only allowed in the Multifamily & Service District zone. From there the draft goes to
the Business & Economic Development Committee for review and permission to
move forward.
Then the formal process is commenced with First reading by City Council, who
sends the amendment to the Planning Board for the formal public hearing. This
public hearing follows the requirements of the state statute that requires an ad in
the newspaper, posting in city hall and mailing notices to affected properties. The
hearing allows for any member of the public to speak on the proposed amendment.
The Planning Board, after hearing from the public and holding their deliberations,
makes a recommendation to City Council on the amendment as to whether it ought
to pass or ought not to pass. In this case, the Planning Board passed a motion that
the amendment ought not to pass.
th
The process continues to March 28 where the City Council will make a decision on
the amendment to pass the changes, send it back to staff for more work or reject it.
We can send your comments to City Council for their consideration.
amk
Anne Krieg AICP
Bangor Planning Officer
From: Bradley Miller <bradley.miller@maine.edu>
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2022 1:03 PM
To: Planning-WWW <planning@bangormaine.gov>
Subject: Ruling on Boarding Housing
WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming
or appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO
NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the
content is safe.
Did you hold a public hearing for people of the greater Bangor area to come speak
on the issue?
I don't how you deliberated the issue but I can say it is a very disappointing decision.
Bangor desperately needs boarding style housing.
You couldn't have considered how you could have made it work. You could have
zoned for boarding properties. You could have created city ordinances to make it
very unpleasant for trouble makers to retain renter's rights if they caused trouble.
Bangor needs boarding housing. Retirees on terribly small budgets. College students
who need to focus on studies rather than working to afford exorbitant rental costs.
People transitioning from public assistance to being independent. Traveling
professionals. The homeless who are determined to make it out of their desperate
situations and working through vocational rehab.
You've made the wrong decision and it seems like a particularly hasty dismissal of
the topic.
-B. Miller, resident of the greater Bangor region.
--
Regards,
~B. Miller
--
Regards,
~B. Miller
MRS Title 30-A, §4352. ZONING ORDINANCES
§4352. Zoning ordinances
A municipal zoning ordinance may provide for any form of zoning consistent with this chapter,
subject to the following provisions. \[PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. A, §45 (NEW); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C,
§10 (NEW).\]
1. Public participation required. The public shall be given an adequate opportunity to be heard
in the preparation of a zoning ordinance.
\[PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. A, §45 (NEW); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §10 (NEW).\]
2. Relation to comprehensive plan. A zoning ordinance must be pursuant to and consistent with
a comprehensive plan adopted by the municipal legislative body, except that adoption of an adult
entertainment establishment ordinance does not necessitate adoption of a comprehensive plan by a
municipality that has no such comprehensive plan. As used in this section, "adult entertainment
establishment ordinance" means an ordinance that regulates the operation of adult amusement stores,
adult video stores, adult bookstores, adult novelty stores, adult motion picture theaters, on-site video
screening establishments, adult arcades, adult entertainment nightclubs or bars, adult spas,
establishments featuring strippers or erotic dancers, escort agencies or other sexually oriented
businesses. For purposes of this subsection, "zoning ordinance" does not include a cluster development
ordinance or a design ordinance prescribing the color, shape, height, landscaping, amount of open space
or other comparable physical characteristics of development.
\[PL 2007, c. 247, §6 (AMD).\]
3. Zoning map required. A zoning map describing each zone established or modified must be
adopted as part of the zoning ordinance or incorporated in the ordinance. Any conflict between the
zoning map and a description by metes and bounds shall be resolved in favor of the description by
metes and bounds.
\[PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. A, §45 (NEW); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §10 (NEW).\]
4. Exemptions. Real estate used or to be used by a public utility, as defined in Title 35A, section
102, subsection 13, by a person who is issued a certificate by the Public Utilities Commission under
Title 35A, section 122 or by a renewable ocean energy project as defined in Title 12, section 1862,
subsection 1, paragraph F1 is wholly or partially exempt from an ordinance only when on petition,
notice and public hearing the Public Utilities Commission determines that the exemption is reasonably
necessary for public welfare and convenience. The Public Utilities Commission shall adopt by rule
procedures to implement this subsection. Rules adopted pursuant to this subsection are routine
technical rules as defined in Title 5, chapter 375, subchapter 2-A.
\[PL 2009, c. 615, Pt. G, §1 (AMD).\]
5. Effect on local governments. County and municipal governments and districts are subject to
any zoning ordinance.
\[PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. A, §45 (NEW); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §10 (NEW).\]
6. Effect on State. A zoning ordinance that is not consistent with a comprehensive plan that is
consistent with the provisions of section 4326 is advisory with respect to the State. Except as provided
in this section, a state agency shall comply with a zoning ordinance consistent with a comprehensive
plan that is consistent with the provisions of section 4326 in seeking to develop any building, parking
facility or other publicly owned structure. The Governor or the Governor's designee may, after public
notice and opportunity for public comment, including written notice to the municipal officers, waive
any use restrictions in those ordinances upon finding that:
A. The proposed use is not allowed anywhere in the municipality; \[PL 1993, c. 721, Pt. A, §11
(NEW); PL 1993, c. 721, Pt. H, §1 (AFF).\]
Generated
| 1
§4352. Zoning ordinances
11.18.2021
MRS Title 30-A, §4352. ZONING ORDINANCES
B. There are no reasonable alternative sites for or configurations of the project within the
municipality that would achieve the necessary public purposes; \[PL 1993, c. 721, Pt. A, §11
(NEW); PL 1993, c. 721, Pt. H, §1 (AFF).\]
C. There are no reasonable alternatives to the project, including sites in other municipalities, that
would achieve the necessary public purposes; \[PL 1993, c. 721, Pt. A, §11 (NEW); PL 1993,
c. 721, Pt. H, §1 (AFF).\]
D. The project will result in public benefits beyond the limits of the municipality, including without
limitation, access to public waters or publicly owned lands; and \[PL 1993, c. 721, Pt. A, §11
(NEW); PL 1993, c. 721, Pt. H, §1 (AFF).\]
E. The project is necessary to protect the public health, welfare or environment. \[PL 1993, c.
721, Pt. A, §11 (NEW); PL 1993, c. 721, Pt. H, §1 (AFF).\]
A decision to waive a restriction under this section may be appealed by the municipality or any
aggrieved party to Superior Court.
\[PL 2003, c. 688, Pt. C, §20 (AMD).\]
7. Petition for rezoning; bond. Any zoning ordinance may provide that if a person petitions for
rezoning of an area for the purpose of development in accordance with an architect's plan the area may
not be rezoned unless the petitioner posts a performance bond equal to at least 25% of the estimated
cost of the development. The bond shall become payable to the municipality if the petitioner fails to
begin construction in a substantial manner and in accordance with the plan within one year of the
effective date of the rezoning.
\[PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. A, §45 (NEW); PL 1989, c. 104, Pt. C, §10 (NEW).\]
8. Conditional and contract rezoning. A zoning ordinance may include provisions for
conditional or contract zoning. All rezoning under this subsection must:
A. Be consistent with the growth management program adopted under this chapter; \[PL 2001, c.
578, §21 (AMD).\]
B. Establish rezoned areas that are consistent with the existing and permitted uses within the
original zones; and \[PL 1991, c. 504, §1 (AMD).\]
C. Only include conditions and restrictions that relate to the physical development or operation of
the property. \[PL 1991, c. 504, §1 (AMD).\]
The municipal reviewing authority shall conduct a public hearing before any property is rezoned under
this subsection. Notice of this hearing must be posted in the municipal office at least 13 days before
the public hearing. Notice must also be published at least 2 times in a newspaper having general
circulation in the municipality. The date of the first publication must be at least 7 days before the
hearing. Notice must also be sent to the owner or owners of the property to be rezoned and to the
owners of all property abutting the property to be rezoned at the owners' last known addresses. Notice
also must be sent to a public drinking water supplier if the area to be rezoned is within its source water
protection area. This notice must contain a copy of the proposed conditions and restrictions with a map
indicating the property to be rezoned.
\[PL 2001, c. 578, §21 (AMD).\]
9. Notice; general requirements. Before adopting a new zoning ordinance or map or amending
an existing zoning ordinance or map, including ordinances or amendments adopted under the laws
governing growth management contained in chapter 187, subchapter II or the laws governing shoreland
zoning contained in Title 38, chapter 3, subchapter I, article 2B, the municipal reviewing authority
must post and publish notice of the public hearing required under subsection 1 in accordance with the
following provisions.
Generated
2 |
§4352. Zoning ordinances
11.18.2021
MRS Title 30-A, §4352. ZONING ORDINANCES
A. The notice must be posted in the municipal office at least 13 days before the public hearing.
\[PL 1997, c. 36, §2 (AMD).\]
B. The notice must be published at least 2 times in a newspaper that complies with Title 1, section
601 and that has a general circulation in the municipality. The date of the first publication must be
at least 12 days before the hearing and the date of the 2nd publication must be at least 7 days before
the hearing. That notice must be written in plain English, understandable by the average citizen.
\[PL 1997, c. 36, §2 (AMD).\]
C. \[PL 1993, c. 374, §3 (RP).\]
D. \[PL 1993, c. 374, §3 (RP).\]
E. Notice must be sent by regular mail to a public drinking water supplier if the area to be rezoned
contains its source water protection area. \[PL 1999, c. 761, §8 (NEW).\]
\[PL 1999, c. 761, §8 (AMD).\]
10. Additional notice; limited areas. Notice must be given in accordance with this subsection
and subsection 9 when a municipality has proposed an amendment to an existing zoning ordinance or
map that, within a geographically specific portion of the municipality, has the effect of either
prohibiting all industrial, commercial or retail uses where any of these uses is permitted or permitting
any industrial, commercial or retail uses where any of these uses is prohibited.
A. The notice must contain a copy of a map indicating the portion of the municipality affected by
the proposed amendment. \[PL 1993, c. 374, §4 (NEW).\]
B. For each parcel within the municipality that is in or abutting the portion of the municipality
affected by the proposed amendment, the notice must be mailed by first class mail at least 13 days
before the public hearing to the last known address of the person to whom property tax on each
parcel is assessed. Notice also must be sent to a public drinking water supplier if the area to be
rezoned is within its source water protection area. The municipal officers shall prepare and file
with the municipal clerk a written certificate indicating those persons to whom the notice was
mailed and at what addresses, when it was mailed, by whom it was mailed and from what location
it was mailed. This certificate constitutes prima facie evidence that notice was sent to those persons
named in the certificate. Notice is not required under this paragraph for any type of zoning
ordinance adopted under the laws governing growth management contained in chapter 187,
subchapter II or the laws governing shoreland zoning contained in Title 38, chapter 3, subchapter
I, article 2B. \[PL 1999, c. 761, §9 (AMD).\]
Any action challenging the validity of an amendment to a zoning ordinance or map based on a
municipality's failure to comply with paragraph B must be brought in Superior Court within 30 days
after the adoption of the amended ordinance or map. The Superior Court may invalidate an amended
ordinance or map if the appellant demonstrates that the appellant was entitled to receive a notice under
paragraph B, that the municipality failed to send the notice as required, that the appellant had no
knowledge of the proposed amendment to the ordinance or map and that the appellant was materially
prejudiced by that lack of knowledge. Nothing in this subsection alters the right of a person to challenge
the validity of any ordinance based on the failure of the municipality to provide notice as required in
paragraph A and subsection 9.
\[PL 1999, c. 761, §9 (AMD).\]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1989, c. 104, §§A45,C10 (NEW). PL 1991, c. 504, §§1,2 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 374, §§3,4
(AMD). PL 1993, c. 721, §A11 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 721, §H1 (AFF). PL 1997, c. 36, §§1-3
(AMD). PL 1999, c. 761, §§7-9 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 578, §21 (AMD). PL 2003, c. 595, §§4,5
(AMD). PL 2003, c. 688, §§C19,20 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 247, §6 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 656, Pt.
A, §2 (AMD). PL 2009, c. 615, Pt. G, §1 (AMD).
Generated
| 3
§4352. Zoning ordinances
11.18.2021
MRS Title 30-A, §4352. ZONING ORDINANCES
The State of Maine claims a copyright in its codified statutes. If you intend to republish this material, we require that you include
the following disclaimer in your publication:
All copyrights and other rights to statutory text are reserved by the State of Maine. The text included in this publication reflects
changes made through the First Special Session of the 130th Maine Legislature and is current through October 31, 2021. The text
is subject to change without notice. It is a version that has not been officially certified by the Secretary of State. Refer to the Maine
Revised Statutes Annotated and supplements for certified text.
The Office of the Revisor of Statutes also requests that you send us one copy of any statutory publication you may produce. Our
goal is not to restrict publishing activity, but to keep track of who is publishing what, to identify any needless duplication and to
preserve the State's copyright rights.
PLEASE NOTE: The Revisor's Office cannot perform research for or provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the
public. If you need legal assistance, please contact a qualified attorney.
Generated
4 |
§4352. Zoning ordinances
11.18.2021
IN CITY COUNCIL
FEBRUARY 14, 2022
COrd 22-096
First Reading and Referral to Planning Board Meeting on March 1, 2022
CITY CLERK
IN CITY COUNCIL
MARCH 28, 2022
COrd 22-096
Roch LeBlanc, Anne Marie Quin, Kay Surpless and Bonnie Puls spoke against passage of the ordinance. Scott Pardy, Mike
Tuller and Doug Dunbar spoke in favor of the ordinance.
Motion made and seconded for Passage
Vote: 0 – 6
Councilors Voting Yes: None
Councilors Voting No: Davitt, Hawes, Schaefer, Tremble, Yacoubagha, Fournier
Motion Failed
CITY CLERK