Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-08-16 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY,AUGUST 16, 2022,7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 3RD FLOOR CITY HALL ALSO; ATTENDANCE VIA ZOOM MEETING MINUTES Board Members Present: Ken Huhn, Chair Reese Perkins, Vice Chair Ted Brush John Kenney Don Meagher Lisa Shaw City Staff Present: Anja Collette, Planning Analyst Anne Krieg, Planning Officer David Szewczyk, City Solicitor Chair Huhn called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Low Impact Development Code –model ordinance draft discussion – Rich May, Stormwater Manager, Engineering Department Brief update provided for MS4 Stormwater Permitting for Low Impact Development Model ordinance to be submitted to Maine DEP on September 1, 2022 New ordinance must be in effect by July 1, 2024 MAP AMENDMENTS: 2. Zone Change –234 French Street – Map-Lot 041-128 – Contract Government & Institutional Service District (G&ISD) to Contract Government & Institutional Service District (G&ISD) Clarified Conditions - To amend the Land Development Code by changing a parcel of land located at 234 French Street, Map-Lot 041-128, from Contract Government & Institutional Service District (G&ISD) to Contract Government & Institutional Service District (G&ISD) with clarification to the conditions. Said parcel of land contains 0.12 acres and being more particularly indicated on the map attached hereto and made part hereof. Contract conditions are as follows: 1. The height of any buildings on the property shall be limited to a maximum of 35 feet. 2. The total building footprint shall be limited by the following exterior dimensions: 100 feet (on the north and south sides of the building), 28 feet on the front side, and 24 feet on the back side. Applicant/Owner: St. John’s Episcopal Church. - Applicant has requested a continuance of this item to September 6, 2022 73 HARLOW STREET, BANGOR, ME 04401 TELEPHONE: (207) 992-4280 FAX: (207) 945-4447 WWW.BANGORMAINE.GOV City of Bangor Planning Division Planning Board Meeting Minutes – August 16, 2022 Chair Huhn asked to recuse himself as he’s an officer of this church. Vice Chair Perkins motions for Chair Huhn to recuse himself, seconded by Member Shaw. All members in favor. Vice Chair Perkins reminded everyone to speak up so that those in the back and those that couldn’t hear as well were able to hear. Vice Chair Perkins advises that this item has been requested for continuance to September 6, 2022. Member Meagher motioned for a continuance to September 6, 2022 Planning Board meeting, seconded by Member Brush. All members in favor. Chair Huhn was returned to the meeting. OLD BUSINESS: 3. Land Development Permit Application - Minor Subdivision – Conditional Use – Lancaster Avenue – Map-Lot 044-043 – Team Properties, LLC - Land Development Permit approval for a Minor Subdivision, a Conditional Use for proposed planned group development of 12.13 acres, at the property located on Lancaster Avenue, Map-Lot 044-043. The proposal is for 30 duplexes with accompanying site changes/amenities, utilities/stormwater, parking, and access driveways. The property is governed by the requirements in the Low-Density Residential (LDR) District. Applicant, Team Properties, LLC. – Continued from August 2, 2022 Agent, Scott Braley,representing Plymouth Engineering o/b/o Team Properties, LLC – presented the following: o Trash –each homeowner will have their own trash receptacle, has a letter from Casella indicating that they’re willing and able to serve o Landscaping & Plowing – draft contact from Desuilt Construction- they’ll be taking on landscaping & plowing services o Condominium documents – draft submitted to staff, City Solicitor has for review – is part of the package, review will be done by City Solicitor – any changes needing to be made will be made, will be recorded along with subdivision plan upon approval o Water Service – pressure concerns – Bangor Water District has confirmed that they do have the ability to serve the development o Trees & buffering – met with City Staff and agreed to identify & protect trees outside required area for building, parking, roads, and grading and utilities. In the area where plantings are shown, either can use existing vegetation to meets requirements, or proposed plantings can be re-located behind units, especially those units 1 and 2, Page 2 | 19 City of Bangor Planning Division Planning Board Meeting Minutes – August 16, 2022 and 5 through 10, as referenced in the staff memo. Will remove proposed plantings if there’s existing vegetation. If there’s not enoughexisting vegetation, they will be adding plantingsto meet BuffertypeA, Subtype 1. Alternatively, if City Staff is willing to eliminate shrub requirements, these can be replaced with deciduous or coniferous trees. Or, they can get rid of shrubs and put into a fence instead. o Lastly, Essex Street crosswalks – discussed additional crosswalk discussed by dog park – whichever is most critical – still willing to provide one with flasher units o Member Bazinet wrote a memo – specifically wanted to address those items in memo – first one was parking and only having 2 spaces per unit. Applicant stated that the ordinance requires 1.5 per unit. So, 90 total spaces are needed and they have 120. That’s 30 spaces more than what’s required. With regard to parking on the streets, this is a private development, a private road, so it would be allowed. It’s a 24’ wide street and for reference, there is 1900’ feet of road within this development, allowing space for 90-95 vehicles. Lastly, on water pressure – again, you have the letter from the Bangor Water District regarding the ability to serve – the loop will improve the quality of water; it won’t change the pressure, won’t reduce the pressure o Conditional Use requirements – bulk – heard from neighbors that this doesn’t fit and is too densely developed. Believes that’s not the case. There’s no real consistency in this neighborhood with style, design, etc. Lots that are 0.11 acres surround the project. Has a density equal to what we are providing – we are providing 9 acres of green space outside of what is being developed With regard to consistency in the area, 96 East Broadway has a 0.73-acre lot with two duplexes on it – so it’s not rare or unknown in this area to have duplex in this area o Has worked extensively with staff, reviewed emails from neighbors, abutters, interested parties, supporters, and the staff memo tonight shows that we have met or exceeded all standards required. Also reviewed staff’s template decision for planning use and has no issues with that whatsoever with what has been provided Member Brush inquired about the parking for each unit being part of the common area. It’s in the plan that the plowing contractor will do all common area parking- how will that work in front of each unit? Mr. Braley indicated that they would have to move vehicles before they plow; this is a private development, is privately contracted, and they’ll have to work with the plow company. Member Brush asked for specifics, which Mr. Braley was not able to provide as he is not the plowing contractor. Page 3 | 19 City of Bangor Planning Division Planning Board Meeting Minutes – August 16, 2022 Member Kenney asked about garages and if properties had garages around them for trash. Mr. Braley advised that it would be set up the same way as the City’s trash collection runs. Member Kenney asked where containers would be located and if there would be room in the utility rooms. Member Brush asked about space if the Home Owners Association and if the private owners could put a garage by their units. Mr. Braley stated that it was a private road and as far as if there was space to erect a garage, it would depend on the unit itself- some are closer than others, some have more space than other units. James Williams – Bangor resident – advised that they built his house 4-5 years ago; had been renting in Bangor for about 20 years. Emily got him and wife into his first house. Appreciates the work they did to help him out. Has no problems with home. They helped him build credit up to afford a house. Brian Flemming- 50 Ellis Court – provided remarks in support of the project; has known Ms. Ellis for 30 years. Moved back to area 4 years ago. With Ms. Ellis’ help, built in Ellis Court subdivision. Moved heaven and earth to get into home quickly. Love house and neighborhood. Bought and sold 6 properties since knowing Ms. Ellis. She’s professional, thorough, enthusiastic. Can’t think of any interaction with Ms. Ellis or team that has been anything but positive. Recommends them for any project. Amy Vachon – 40 Ellis Court – wanted to talk about lack of availability of homes for young professionals. Moved to Bangor 11 years ago, rented first 5 years. When it was time to buy a house, she struggled to find a place. Looked around at a lot of places. Now, it’s a whole different animal. Fortunate to be able to have house be built by Team Properties, in a subdivision. A lot of people in the subdivision that weren’t happy; felt we were invading their territory. Understandsliving in a place for a very long time and having thatland, but thinks that the neighborhood has added to that area in Bangor. In her profession, sees a lot of young professionals struggling to find homes in this area; it’s tough to find a place to rent, to live. Bangor is a thriving city. Team Properties builds really great places. Ms. Ellis has lived here a long time and wants the best for Bangor. For me, I look at the community and how can we make this place thrive. We want more housing and young professionals. Great opportunity for this. o Vice Chair Perkins asked that if she had a new coaching staff member coming to Bangor that needed/wanted to buy a new home, what would she suggest they might have to spend on this? Ms. Vachon said that it was a lot right now, we had that situation happen 2 months ago. Right now, it’s hard to find anything than less than $300,000, which is normal and scary. Page 4 | 19 City of Bangor Planning Division Planning Board Meeting Minutes – August 16, 2022 The recording encountered an issue at approximately 31:20-39:29 and there was no video/no audio. During this time, several members of the publicidentified themselves as former real estate customers of the applicant andspoke in favor of the applicant’s integrity and work. … video/audio returned in middle of gentleman’s testimony – feels like there is a great need for affordable housing in this area. Working on moving back into Bangor but is currently residing in Orrington right now as they couldn’t find housing in Bangor. Planning on returning to Bangor; didn’t want to leave here but had to take care of his parents. Looking forward to being back in the area. Nate Lewis – Kenduskeag Avenue – lived in Bangor his whole life, doesn’t plan on leaving – great place to live, looks forward to raising family here. Newer families are moving to Hermon, outlying areas. Sports numbers are shrinking. People are struggling to buy due to the market. Bangor needs more housing, investment here; rent control isn’t the answer. Ms. Ellis is proposing a great way to do just that – create more housing. Anyone that knows her, knows she truly cares about the city. Understands pushback from people that don’t want development in their backyard, but how else will we grow? Development has always been a part of Bangor’s history. Brother and sister-in-law live in Orchard Hills – used to be an apple orchard – is sure some people weren’t happy when that was developed. Now we have a beautiful neighborhood with 70+ units. These units also have systems in place for plowing, mowing, and maintenance. Very attractive to younger and older buyers. Our generation as a whole isn’t quite as handy as other generations. That’s part of the attraction to the outlying towns, newer buildings. Works for Cross Insurance Center selling group health insurance. Ms. Ellis owns the land, so if it’s within the zoning, we should be thanking her for her time, money and resourcesandfor putting it in Bangor. Vice Chair Perkins inquired if the discussion was going to be limited to items outlined in the agenda by Planning Officer Krieg. Chair Huhn stated that they couldn’t stop someone from talking about the project. Gentleman (didn’t introduce himself, wasn’t asked his name) said development was supposed to be done on 12.6 acres – supposed to be 9 acres of open area is the way he understands it. Begs anybody to put 30 condos on 4 acres of land – the math doesn’t cut it. May be wrong, but the statement was made that there would be 9 acres of free space out of 12.9 acres – which leaves 4 acres to put all these units on. Chair Huhn advised that the importance was to meet the density requirements of the project area. Gentleman advised that he appreciated that, but what he doesn’t understand is how can they put all those units on 4 acres if there’s going to be that much space? That only implies one thing. The next Page 5 | 19 City of Bangor Planning Division Planning Board Meeting Minutes – August 16, 2022 thing – where is the storage area they’re talking about? There’s a mechanical room, but there’s no indication of any doorway egress or ingress for any of those units. Don Kimball – 652 Essex Street –has a lot of concerns since last meeting – sure that Ms. Ellis is going to meet criteria for development. If it was met in 2006, I’m sure it’s the same. Very concerned about thesenew housing accommodations for new owners. As a homeowner, he has toys, boats, stuff. There’s no accommodation for anything outside of the home. Are there restrictions on what a homeowner can bring to their home? What is going to pile up in these new homeowners’ yards? Boat? RV? 4-wheeler? Motorcycles? No accommodation for any of this. Small parking area. Plowed for 409 apartments, good luck for new contractor coming in to plow for these young people, when they get up; they might be up at noon or 1am. 24’ road filled with vehicles and filled with snow; that’s going to look wonderful. I’ll get a chance to look at it as it’s in my back yard. I have 16 units that I’ll look at and keep an eye on. I’m sure I’ll hear their dogs. Accommodations for dogs? Cats? Nothing has been planned, laid out. I was a president of a condo association for years. Had great people. The only hope is that this development takes place is that these so-called homeowners aren’t just tenants. I’m concerned about longevity of these homes. 20 years seems like a long time, but goes by in a matter of years for our older folks. Been in property management 40 years. These homeowners may or may not have ability to do anything. May not know how to use a hammer or fix things. Hope there is something long term in place, money set aside for replacement of things in 20 years. Affordable housing is something you might buy as a price point, but 20 years from now, you may not get what you thought you were buying. Robin Perry – 642 Essex Street – newcomer to the neighborhood, moved in 11 years ago. Didn’t care whatever happened out back. When this was first proposed, I began to hear things. Talked to people in the same business as Ms. Ellis. One person said that “I know Emily well and he builds crap houses. One time he was banned in Brewer. Would check with Code about visits and inspections. Definitely has a bad reputation, known to cut corners. Bangor Code was hard on him because he was caught doing substandard work on Bomarc Road. Talk with your Code Department and Brewer’s. There are minimum standards for building.” One thing I noticed, in the springtime,from about 4’ from property line straight across, there is water- some years it’s boggier. Lasts several weeks long after snow. There will be problems where they’re building on ledge and bad draining. Utilities won’t be well served on this project. Brian Ames –124 LancasterAvenue –revieweddrawings, hassome ideas –with respect to drawings, more information is needed on entrances on East Broadwayand Lancaster, how pavementwill beplaced withrespect to trees already there. Specimen trees, oak and maple trees. Drawings say that roadway may be shifted- that’s not sufficient. Exact details Page 6 | 19 City of Bangor Planning Division Planning Board Meeting Minutes – August 16, 2022 are needed. More information on sewer extending down Alden Street. Existing specimen trees-applaud that it should be imposed on development plans to keep as many existing trees as possible. In respect to entrances on E. BroadwayandLancaster, 50’ width will pose problems in terms of design. Roadway detail shows ditches. Believes ditches are inappropriate for an older street such as Lancaster. Streets in Bangor have curbs, surface drainage, etc. Appropriate compared to the ditches. Screening – believes that the properties across from entrances need screening for headlights in windows from cars coming out onto roadway. More questions on conditional uses. Will have to come back up to the podium. Travis Doody – 692 North French Street – wants to bring attention to speed study that they did – 2367 cars in 5 days – highest recorded speed was 42 MPH. Posted limit is 15 MPH, nearly triple the speed limit. 55 enforceable violations. Lived there since 1990. Can’t count on one hand Bangor PD enforcing violations. Safety impact on neighborhood. Is 31 years old, a young professional. Fixing house up, not interested in new development. Would love to go drink beer and see a concert- don’t have time for that. Only has time to focus on family, job. Spoke with almost all my neighbors – main thing is safety. People walk in the neighborhood – it’s nice and quiet and it’ll be ruined as far as he’s concerned and it’s really sad. Understands that it meets density requirements, but it feels crowded and to have one person come in and say they want to do something and when you have the neighborhood telling you they don’t think it’s a good idea, they don’t see the benefits for them- too bad for us? That’s what it feels like. Matt Verrill – 645 Essex Street – concerned about traffic study – max is 31 vehicles at peak hours and with them having x amount of parking spots, that is more vehicles. Right turn only out of Broadway from Alden. They’ll have to go out on Essex Street. It’s conceivable that it’s going to increase. During the school year, there’s a lot of traffic at those times. On the other issues, can’t speak one way or another. Doesn’t feel traffic study is accurate. Dave Evans – 97 Bill Street – mentioned earlier about meeting criteria for density in the area. Asked Planning Board to look at poster board- if you draw a center line from center post to center post, that’s the length of Lancaster. The one from the post to the top is the length of East Broadway. 6 houses on that, 11 on the other side. Approximately 17 houses. You’re going to put 60 units in the backyards of this area. How is that not a density issue? Before coming over here tonight, made a drive around the border of this development- there are 21 houses. Dumping 60 in the back – just think about that. Gentleman who did not identify himself - wanted to clarify something mentioned in last meeting – invited the Board to go down East Broadway – concern is that East Broadway isn’t wide enough. Suggests that the board get into a vehicle and drive down East Broadway. Major expense to widen East Broadway. Road is not wide enough. Mentioned Page 7 | 19 City of Bangor Planning Division Planning Board Meeting Minutes – August 16, 2022 this before, especially with snow banks. Also, overall concern is the demographics and ability of infrastructure to expand in the area. Brian Ames presented again – did research from 2006 on what had been approved. 18 buildings approved, 36 units. Deemed to meet conditional use criteria. Believe that sets a standard as a reasonable approach to the development of the parcel. Current layout of the units involved appears to be about double the density. Inferring from that, proposed density is about double what was approved and double what exists on the ground today. Take away is that we are looking at a pretty large increase in number proposed units. Basically, doubles present standard, doesn’t meet conditional use standard. Jeb Eastman –145 Lancaster – directly next to proposed driveway into the property – primary concern is the trees. \[The applicant\] would like to keep them, but they all have to go. 6 pine trees all overgrown and tall, going to interfere with power lines. Giant maple tree in the back where trees to the left and right rotted and had to be cut down- it’s going to fall on my house. It’s garbage and has got to go. It’s going to fall on the proposed property, someone is going to get hurt. It’s off my property line. They all interfere with the potential road- getting rid of those trees and putting something else in would be way smarter. Rot & mildew on house from shade, trees damaging value of house. Every single construction vehicle is going to be driving by my house this whole time, concerns about those trees and erosion in the area. Rest of it I’m not concerned about. Can put up a privacy fence. There’s a visibility issue. People coming out of that road onto Lancaster won’t be able to see cars coming from Essex side – concern about my driveway and access road. Ned Irish – 119 Lancaster Avenue – doesn’t know what the intent is of how these are to be constructed – proposing panelized construction in a shop, stick framed in a field – what’s the delivery for this project? Fall of next year? 30 units to be done in a year –that’s a lot of guys out there. Enormous trucks bringing panelized wall assemblies into the neighborhood through a narrow section through East Broadway or a tight turn on Lancaster. Alot of impracticalities that seem unpleasant for anyone, let alone those driving trucks or people paid little amounts of money for doing the work. Other concern is quality of product this customer is buying. Doesn’t appear to be any type of an exterior access to a 4x6 mechanical space. Not sure that qualifies as a substitute for a garden shed, let alone a garage, or a place to put anything. Could prattle on about parking spaces for a place that could house 12 adults.Doesn’t appear to be sidewalks anywherein this development which seems terrifying for young professionalswho will probably procreate. There are no sidewalks on Lancaster which is terrifying for us, giventhat radar device which caughtatop speed of 42 MPH. Safety issue is something that desperately needs to be considered in the midst of all of this. We’d love sidewalks. We’re concerned about how this is impacting our community. Page 8 | 19 City of Bangor Planning Division Planning Board Meeting Minutes – August 16, 2022 Melissa Bolduc – 151 Lancaster Avenue –first house on Lancaster next to Jeb. In regards to trash removal – saw a letter that said that Casella would not be coming in, publicly or privately. Not sure if this has changed since the note was posted on the website, but would like clarification. It looks like the necessities of what it takes to come to the Planning Board and get approved, so many of these issues had no process to them, such as the parking, stormwater management, landscaping, HOA. Asked who was going to be taking over the HOA – Planning Officer Krieg advised that it would be a condominium association that would be formed for the maintenance, who would be all of the owners of the condos. Clarification was attempted on who the “association” consisted of as well as the monthly association fees. Young professionals might make only $15-30/hr., which would be about $65,000 annual income. With the cost of student loans, there is no way that is an affordable property for any one young professional. Gentleman (did not identify himself, wasn’t asked to) – wanted to bring up a couple more things – these condos, the HOA we know nothing about yet, what if they only sell 1 unit this year and go through winter without selling another one? How are those homeowners going to be able to afford plowing? Who will sustain this? Final statement – this has nothing to do with low income housing, it has to do with making money. I’m sure she’s abiding by rules and regulations. If this was me, I would be looking to make money. Nothing to say if these don’t sell that they can’t rent to low income individuals, Section 8. This is not low-income housing, I’m sorry. Low income housing does not set in my head as $220,000 and whatever the HOA fees are. Melissa Bolduc – presented back to the podium – understands HOA, asked if it was going to be Magnolia Hill. Wanted to make a comment about the first meeting. No one was informed of this. There was a whole conversation about basketball references, being a U- Maine inductee, but that has nothing to do what we’re dealing with. Not sure why the article in the paper discusses that. She asked us to be neighborly, to be welcoming. We’re looking out for those. Some houses were built improperly, had to have drains installed. Issues with stormwater. Will add 300 new water sources. Each place is 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms so that’s at least 300 water sources not including washing machines. We are not being un- neighborly but do feel angry because we did not sit down, we never had a meeting. We’ve not seen a for-sale sign on property for 2 years. I’m curious about how she discovered the property was available for purchase. Also, she said she didn’t meet with us because Brewer treated her with a mob mentality. A team player doesn’t turn their back on a new team because an old team didn’t treat them nicely. That’s not how you behave. There are ways to set up meetings. Taking turns, not using vulgarity. We weren’t treated that way so of course we’re all angry. Back when Lancaster Farms was looked at and developed, it was a smaller property. The open area they’re suggesting is the highway. Pre-blasting is Page 9 | 19 City of Bangor Planning Division Planning Board Meeting Minutes – August 16, 2022 another issue and a whole other comment. This is important to those living there- getting a pre-blasting survey prior to any approvals. If they’re looking at blasting ledge, that’s a whole different ballgame for all of us. As far as the crosswalk goes, people are usedto waiting at the end of Lancaster for us who are turning left. There’s better visibility, better access to the dog park from Lancaster to Watchmaker. Michelle – 647 North French Street – has lived there off and on for years – people come around the corner going way too fast, come on our lawn and ruin it. No one ever fixed it, father put cement blocks on their lawn. People continually came up on their lawn from driving too fast. There are kids on that street. Just spent $15,000 to fix basement due to water in the basement. Had to take out a loan to pay that. Way too much water, doesn’t know where it’s coming from. Hearing that it’s from the hill. Neighbors have water in their basement. I hope that this doesn’t go through. Mom would be devastated. There’s continually trash on lawn from people throwing it from vehicles. It’s ridiculous. Mother would be ashamed if this ever happened, hopes that this doesn’t happen for her and neighbors. Kelley Hashey – 687 North French Street – it’s always a “hot mic,” both sides can be heard saying comments about the other. Has zero faith in this team. Worked in property management for 4 years. Worked in Swan Village; they are thrown together. Reports having monarch butterflies in her yard, vernal pools and wetlands on this property. Team isn’t shouldering the burden on housing; why isn’t it in their yards? Most residents have been here over 30 years, the speaker over 60 years. Why does the City think we need more people here when we don’t have the services to take care of us now? It’s not the housing problem, the labor problem is worldwide. David Dunn –634 Essex Street –believesthey’re being built more as apartment buildings than condos. Is there a mechanism in place to prevent this? Or is it up to Condo association? Culvert on property to deal with runoff-very concerned about recourse if development has adverse effect on the runoff. Jeff Barnes – 129 Clark Avenue – nice area to live in, built in 60’s and 70’s, no sidewalks. Decent place to live, appreciates that. 0830-0900, to go to get an iced coffee at Dunkin’, turning left onto Essex Street can be a real problem. Goes down to Broadway and takes the right. Can’t take a left on Broadway now. Essex Street is inadequate, no bike areas, some sidewalks. Where you’re trying to build, it’s barely adequate for housing stock there now. Narrow street withan“S” turn, not wide enough, no sidewalks. From traffic standpoint this project should not be approved. Michelle Libby –116 East Broadway –everyone has been talking about the neighborhood being wonderful, it certainly is. Has a vehicle in her yard every year from the way people take turns on the road.One year a motorcycle ended up in her yard, rider was lucky not to be hurt or killed. Scary situation sometimes. One year, when a car took out the arrows to Page 10 | 19 City of Bangor Planning Division Planning Board Meeting Minutes – August 16, 2022 direct people that this is a sharp corner, it was never replaced. Guarantee that you could put one up and it would be taken down again. No sidewalks. People love to walk on the road. Traffic will be a nightmare. Runoff –we can’t sayit enough. It is ledge, ledge, ledge. Mosquitos so badly at times due to water in yards. Can’t have gatherings. Water in basement. Other concern is natural gas – concerned with blasting. You’ll have to blast a lot. Paula Logan - 622 Essex Street – concerned about blasting and runoff problems. Traffic concerns, especially around the road near the recreation area there. More cars through the area are her concern. Melissa Bolduc – 151 Lancaster Avenue – presented to podium again – is there going to be a pre-blasting survey done before anything is approved to determine how much ledge? Planning Officer Krieg advised that the City has blasting requirements, including the survey, and that it would be a requirement prior to starting construction. Ms. Bolduc wanted to know that as a taxpayer if there could be a pre-condition of approval for the blasting. Planning Officer Krieg advised that they have to follow blasting requirements. Mrs. Bolduc requested “go slow children” signs and sidewalks. City Engineer Theriault has told them that the road is too small for sidewalks. Mrs. Bolduc feels that blasting has a major impact on all of us. Wants speed bumps, signs. Asking for safety and help for herself, neighbors and potential development. Doesn’t feel that her concerns are being addressed and nothing is being answered. Planning Officer Krieg explained that the City Engineer and Police Department work on the process for signage and that it’s a separate process. Chair Huhn advised that the blasting process is a very strict process. Mrs. Bolduc wants them to reidentify as to what they’re going to do about the septic. Concerns about wastewater as well as the water flow, runoff. Would like another explanation as to what their plan is about septic, as they said they were doing their own type of treatment. Ned Irish –presented back to the podium –asked Chair to advise on start to finish on approval of the process and where weare in the time line –Chair advised that hearing would be closed after public comment and deliberation. Laurie Dunn -634 Essex Street –lived through both of these requests–during the first one, had option to purchase lot behind them as a buffer. Onthe second one,that went away;met with gentleman, he knew about agreement, was good and was sold us some land. Now, we come along and I have 2 buildings in my backyard.Just built new screened in porch to enjoy backyard. No buffer in the plans between whatever is behind those buildings and my house. Would have enjoyed a little bit of a buffer put in. The size of this proposal is too much for this particular area. Page 11 | 19 City of Bangor Planning Division Planning Board Meeting Minutes – August 16, 2022 Unidentified male – any regard to wildlife in area? Know of 6 deer that visit on regular basis – moose that visit on regular basis. Last two days, there’s been a bear out there enjoying the berries. As well as the monarch butterflies. Unidentified male –last question –accountability –if this is approved and in 20 years it turns into a shit show, who is going to be accountable for that? You’ll all be retired. Hopefully I’ll still be in my home. Builder won’t be responsible. Affordable housing? This has nothing to do with that, it’s a big illusion. A $250,000 house in today’s market is poorly constructed. Stick built or not, it’s poorly constructed. Inferior housing 20 years from now. Capehart will look good. New homeowners don’t know anything about repairs. Who will be accountable? Won’t be pretty in 20 years. Robert Strout – 697 North French Street – lived in neighborhood about 60 years – trash truck currently backs down East Broadway to service those folks. Some traffic is on the side of road, some park on lawns. Asked about the Planning Board walking the site. Asked if there are representatives to go out and do that? Some representative of the city? Does a citizen get a chance to request this? Anne advised that as part of the project, City staff reviews. Mr. Strout wants to make a request- willing to walk the land with whomever wants to walk it. On the construction, not sure if there will be blasting or not – nobody in this room wants to get into insurance fight about damaged basements from blasting – that’s a long- term process. You’ll be fighting City Hall to get this resolved. Also, saw on the plans, in the fine print, there’s some information forwarded from 2006 application – is that going to be updated? Under the note sections. Anne – if the info is accurate, it can forward. Homeowners’ association – hasn’t been done well, over time enthusiasm dies down. People have brought all the houses up from 1960 to now, all houses are brought up to nice standard, wants to maintain that standard. Unidentified female – owns properties in City of Bangor. Son told that she was wasting her time, decision had already been made. Hope you listen to the people of the neighborhood, we’ve been there a long time and it means a lot to us Unidentified female-thought about trash pick-up–how Casellawould pickup trash. Casella recently moved to automated side loader –wanted to be sure that will work with the roads and how everyone will be parking in the street and where the trash cans will go. Brian Ames – presented to the podium again – development standards – architectural style proposed is a two-story box type of construction of duplexes. Compared to existing neighborhood which is generally1.5 story garrisons, new England style buildings. Don’t look at all like the proposed buildings you see here. Intensity of development is probably doubleof what’sexisting nowfor thesurrounding lots & buildings. It’s certainly 40% greater than what was previously approved for the conditional use. Asks that the Board look at the Page 12 | 19 City of Bangor Planning Division Planning Board Meeting Minutes – August 16, 2022 previous proposal and how that relates to the standard that was set, and look at the buildings andhow they relatetotheneighborhoodsthat arelongstanding in this area. Planning Officer Krieg wrote down notes with questions applicant might be able to answer or herself. City Solicitor Szewczyk asked about Zoom participants. No Zoom participants came forward. Planning Officer Krieg addressed the following items: Asked Mr. Braley to run through dimensional controls and terms, allowed units per acre for this district o In 2015, when there was a comp plan update, zoning changed to LDR – allows up to 5 DU per acre, that’s why we have 60. o Question regarding 9 acres of open space – density allowances are based on the full property, as explained by Planning Officer Krieg Mechanical room – it’s well within the Planning Board’s purview to work with the applicant to have an exterior door. Member Kenney asked for access for trash receptacles. Planning Board can work with applicant on this; well within purview. Building standards are addressed with Code Enforcement during building permit process, blasting requirements will be met working with Fire Department and Engineering Removal of trees – if the board acts on the application, one of the requested conditions from staff is a pre-construction meeting with staff to go out with applicant before starting the project to go over a lot of these things – construction practice, laydown areas, removal of trees, all the details concerning the neighborhood – staff typically work with applicant directly in the field on those Sewer – did get a communication from the Sewer Department - signed off on \[the development\] Board may want to consider a stop sign leaving property onto Lancaster and East Broadway so people will stop and look – there were some comments about visibility o Mr. Braley advised that there were stop signs indicated on the plans Would be good for applicant to confirm once again about trash removal – there was some confusion that wasn’t was going to happen. City was not going to do trash removal, the condo association would have to pay for private removal of trash. o Mr. Braley – trash pickup will be private, tax dollars will not be used for this. It’s a private contract with Casella; Casella just happens to be the same company that does the City’s trash pickup. Privately paid for by homeowner’s association. Page 13 | 19 City of Bangor Planning Division Planning Board Meeting Minutes – August 16, 2022 In terms of affordability –by the formal definition of affordability in using public funds, this is not an affordable housing project – it is a market rate project –not applicable here In terms of whetherit would beapartments or condos–that gets talked abouta lot in planning/zoning –cautions theBoard on making those distinctions. Zoning is regulation of land. You’re being asked to approve units. It’s great that we have documents in advance for condo units, but sometimes they don’t need to go back to the city for approval. A unit is a unit. We don’t make that distinction between the two. Blasting requirements are taken care of at the building permit phase by staff. Condo association- asked the applicant to review how this will be a phased development as to the number of units and occupancy – how is maintenance managed? o Mr. Braley – Team Properties will be the developer & general contractor until the last unit is sold. Someone mentioned the $2,000 – the HOA is established when this is started building. As they’re built and each unit is sold and closed, $2,000 goes into the HOA account. Once the project is fully built out, HOA takes over in earnest for everything. Member Shaw had question about Chapter 165-114 item b – on-site loading/access must be arranged in a reasonable and safe configuration including pedestrian travel. Is her understanding from the previous meeting, was that because the road is being treated as a driveway, if kids need to get on the school bus, they will need to go to the end of the road- is that still accurate? Is this considered an on-site use that they, as pedestrians, be able to safely get there? Mr. Braley advised that this is a private road, the school buses will be stopped at the ends, parents will get them to the end of the road by trail, street, lawns, etc. This street is considerably wider than area streets where this happens. Discussion about where the buseswill pick up kids. Member Kenney inquired about density numbers- was there a comparison of proposed density in acresper dwelling unit oftheproposed project(calculated as 0.2 acres per DU)compared to what’s there now for existing residential within 500’ of project area. Was that density comparisonmade? Planning Officer Krieg stated she had not done that. Applicant asked to speak on that. Mr. Braley stated that there were several lots surrounding that are between 0.11 and 0.15 acres, which is a higher density than theirs. Member Kenney asked if they looked at the 500’ buffer and Mr. Braley advised they did not look at that. Conditional use standards discussed among board members (165-9-A(4)). Member Meagher motioned to close the public hearing, seconded by Vice Chair Perkins. No further discussion, all members in favor, none opposed. Page 14 | 19 City of Bangor Planning Division Planning Board Meeting Minutes – August 16, 2022 Member Meagher – as he reads template City Staff provided, would divide the code requirements into two major categories –one of them is that the decisiononwhether the project meets the requirement or not is a binary decision –yes or no –because requirement is a numerical standard. Ex: number of parking spaces per DU, percentage of impervious cover – it’s a number – it’s met or it isn’t. Another set of standards is where it’s a matter of degree. There’s some judgement involved and it is different than a binary decision. Think binary ones are pretty easy, it’s yes or no. Discussion about proposed use, traffic conditions. Member Kenney discussed going through item by item. Review of template provided by City Staff, discussion of development standards and use conditions. §165-99 – LDR Zone –permitted use vs. conditional use. Project not a permitted use, but considered a conditional use; conditional use must meet a number of standards in §165-9, so the Board should go over those standards. There also other items that say that attached residential is an approved conditional use, provided that items A through F are met. We’re looking at conditional use requirements and if it meets those items in the ordinance. §165-114-B – concerns surrounding provision of safe pedestrian travel for on-site uses as currently laid out/presented. Discussion regarding students and school buses, lack of sidewalks on Lancaster Avenue, as well as East Broadway, winter conditions and plowing, sidewalks in the proposed development. Discussion on keeping roadway at 24’, but adding sidewalks. §165-14-G – building location concerns – meets all required setbacks; however, there are concerns about whether they’re situated to avoid adverse effects on surrounding properties – many up next to neighbors’ properties and houses – could be considered unreasonable, adverse effects. Is up to applicant to make sure that there isn’t an adverse effect. Planning Officer Krieg advised that there were concerns about units close to existing homes; there is room to require more buffering in those areas as a condition if you feel that would ameliorate that, or a redesign. Could work with the applicant directly on this. Discussion about unreasonable adverse effects on adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. Buffering requirements have been met for the project, per Planning Officer Krieg, and in the public hearing you’ve heard from neighbors about adjacency of units to their properties. Can condition more buffering for certain units; certain buffers are already required. Site visit discussed; application of standards for deliberations. If the board chooses to do so – might be a case here to determine adversity of proximity to surrounding houses. City Solicitor Szewczyk advised that a site visit would need to be noticed as a public meeting; doesn’t happen often, but it’s possible. Chair Huhn suggested that with public comment on this property and in relationship to housing and affecting everything else, it might be a prudent thing to do. Concerns have been expressed about how it will affect them. Member Shaw thinks that a site visit should happen if the board is willing. Member Kenney indicated as a conditional use, architectural style was concerning as Page 15 | 19 City of Bangor Planning Division Planning Board Meeting Minutes – August 16, 2022 well as the building bulk. Meeting would need to be continued to that date. Clarification on public meeting vs. public hearing-there would be no public participation and no discussion amongst Planning Board members. Applicant will need to show where the structures would be located via stakes for corners of buildings to determine layout. Public is not allowed to participate in the site visit- unable to communicate with the public at this time. Advised to visit site with no deliberation at the site and to not reopen the meeting afterwards. Discussion regarding public commenting and accepting additional comments – no more testimony can be provided by applicant or members of the public, to include emails to the planning office. They’re able to meet with staff, but comments may not be passed on to the Planning Board for consideration. Staff asking applicant to stake out buildings, etc. Can ask for additional information from applicants during deliberations and staking out corners would be doing that. Clarification of what is expected at the site visit. To continue the meeting will need to be for good cause shown- viewing site will assist in deliberations. Solicitor feels that if a site visit is necessary for deliberations, that is good cause. Discussion regarding public notice of site visit being th , 2022. If completed before thenext required and lead time required for the notice for September 6 meeting, ample time could be provided. A 5pm time was discussed among board members. No additional areas of concern were expressed other than pedestrian safety, building bulk & character of development/architectural requirements of the site, and building location. Member Brush had questions about the trees and saving as many trees as possible. Is there a way to see what that means? Can trees be marked? Planning Officer Krieg advised that in 165-114-F, under landscaping, there is a statement under paragraph 5 that the Planning Board shall encourage preservation of existing tree growth. Member Meagher stated that the staff memo recommended a condition that applicant get together with City Staff on which trees are to be taken down and which trees to remain, which would be agreed upon between applicant and City Staff. As part of the site visit, this could also be determined. Discussion of location of private road being marked out as well. th Question on if the applicant is able to complete this prior to the next meeting on September 6 , 2022. Ms. Ellis advised that getting a surveyor to the site, laying out the entire road and every single condo th on a private street, and flagging trees bigger than 6” prior to September 6, 2022-could possibly could get this done, but you’ll not be able to see what is actually going to happen there – it’s difficult. Can provide an answer to Planning Officer Krieg when she knows. Board further discussed seeing buildings that were in closer proximity to the houses that posed the concern. Mr. Braley advised that a GPS should be used, doesn’t seem reasonable or necessary to lay out all the buildings, just the ones of concern, which were 1 and 2, and 5 through 10. Member Kenney motioned to hold the public meeting at 5pm before next meeting of September 6, 2022, on-site, contingent upon applicant being able to facilitate, but a second was not received prior to more discussion. Vice Chair Perkins is against this, but wants everyone to be satisfactorily Page 16 | 19 City of Bangor Planning Division Planning Board Meeting Minutes – August 16, 2022 informed. His understanding is there are 3 issues – sidewalk/pedestrian safety concern, general character ofbuildings matching neighborhood, and unreasonable adverse effects on adjacent properties 1and 2, and 5through10. Unsure what the Board wants to look at as far as trees-we need to know what we’re trying to do on this trip. Members discussed Planning Officer Krieg’s staff memo and suggested conditions for consideration. Site visit is more to building placement and conditional buffering versus trees- board okay with recommendation to have the trees discussed at City Staff level. Member Brush provided suggestion about external access to mechanical rooms; should be included in the motion- unsure which requirement it meets, but it’s a suggestion. Discussion amongst the Board about obligation regarding this suggestion. Member Kenney mentioned that maybe the applicant could take it into consideration. Member Kenney motioned to continue the item and schedule the public meeting at 5 pm on th , if applicant able to stake out units and roadway, and motioned to continue September 6 deliberations to 7pm, seconded by Member Meagher. Member Shaw included the reasonfordoing this is to look at the density. Applicant to prepare density study of the area, whichwould be considered in testimony – would need to re-open the public hearing to provide adequate time for the public to hear and testify on it. There was further discussion of process issues and reopening a public meeting. Member Meagher indicated it might be useful to confirm with applicant the area to make the comparison to – same block and within 500’ of proposed use. No further discussion, all members in favor. None opposed. th Member Shaw motioned to continue deliberations for site development plan to September 6 meeting, motioned seconded by Member Meagher. All members in agreement, none opposed. Member Brush inquired about instructions on where to enter for the site visit; Planning Officer Krieg advised that would be in the notification. MAP AMENDMENTS: 4. Zone Change – Vacant Parcel on Broadway and North Bangor Road - Map-Lot R41-027 – Rural Residence and Agricultural (RR&A) District to Contract Shopping & Personal Services (S&PS) District - To amend the Land Development Code by changing a vacant parcel of land located on Broadway and North Bangor Road, Map-Lots R11-012 and R11-013 from Rural Residence and Agricultural (RR&A) District to Contract Shopping & Personal Services (S&PS) District. Said parcels of land contain 5.1 acres, and being more particularly indicated on the map attached hereto and made part hereof. Contract conditions are as follows: 1. Total estimated percentage of lot allowed for impervious surface will be limited to 50%. Allowed total Page 17 | 19 City of Bangor Planning Division Planning Board Meeting Minutes – August 16, 2022 is 70% under the zoning of Shopping & Personal Service District. Current lots will be combined into one. 2. Current curb cut on Broadway will be for right exit turn only, and marked as such. Applicants/Owners; Duane Williams and Glen McLellan. Applicant/owner Duane Williams, lives at 952 Kenduskeag Avenue; presented the following: Revised request- looking to re-zone to Shopping & Personal Service District Contract Lots to be combined. Plan is to have a small retail area (cabinet shop with storefront) and area for assembly, small other retail areas, and that will be it Storage units on the right-hand side of the parcel Vice Chair Perkins inquired about conditions. Mr. Williams advised that they have changed theoriginal request and didn’t need the full commercial zoning. Scope narrowed down to what was needed, more palatable to the project. No questions for the applicant. Planning Officer Krieg stated that staff worked with applicant to address any abutter concerns and confine the development that applicant was looking to do. Vice Chair Perkins discussed the Comprehensive Plan; there’s a railroad next door which created an industrial use prior to Comprehensive Plan’s original inception. Everything is RR&A in that area and there is an odd piece of property that sits in that area; it’s an odd slice and the land not utilized to any great extent. Comprehensive Plan is vague on this particular piece – away from the recycling plant, they clearly wanted it to be RR&A, but this area isn’t clearly stated in the Comprehensive Plan on what the intention was. No further questions/comments for the applicant. Vice Chair Perkins recommends to amend the Land Development Code by changing a vacant parcel of land located on Broadway and North Bangor Road, Map-Lots R11-012 and R11-013 from Rural Residence and Agricultural (RR&A) District to Contract Shopping & Personal Services (S&PS) District. Said parcels of land contain 5.1 acres, and being more particularly indicated on the map attached hereto and made part hereof. Contract conditions are as follows: 1. Total estimated percentage of lot allowed for impervious surface will be limited to 50%. Allowed total is 70% under the zoning of Shopping & Personal Service District. Current lots will be combined into one. 2. Current curb cut on Broadway will be for right exit turn only, and marked as such. Applicants/Owners; Duane Williams and Glen McLellan. Seconded by Member Kenney, no further discussion. All members in favor, none opposed. OTHER BUSINESS 5. Comprehensive Plan Check-in –No updates 6. Meeting Minutes –August 2, 2022 –Correction to page 8, Melissa Bolduc is referred to as “his”, should be “her.” Page 3; typo at the top. “Jet out” should be “Jut out.” Member Shaw Page 18 | 19 City of Bangor Planning Division Planning Board Meeting Minutes – August 16, 2022 moves approval as amended, with a shout out to Mel, seconded by Vice Chair Perkins. No further discussion, all members in favor. 7. Adjournment -10:21 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Melissa L. Bickford Development Assistant Planning Division Page 19 | 19