HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-09-06 Planning Board Minutes
PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY,SEPTEMBER 6, 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
Michael Bazinet
Ted Brush
John Kenney
Don Meagher
Lisa Shaw
City Staff Present: Anne Krieg, Planning Officer
David Szewczyk, City Solicitor
John Theriault, City Engineer
Brittanie Thomas, Asst. City Solicitor
Chair Huhn called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Motion by Member Meagher to move items 2 & 3 to beginning of agenda, seconded by Member
Shaw. All members in favor, none opposed.
LAND DEVELOPMENT PERMITS & MAP AMENDMENTS:
1. 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 October 4, 2022.
Chair Huhn declared conflict of interest, no objection by members. Chair Huhn exited Council
Chambers. Vice Chair Perkins asked for any public comments. No comments on this item. Member
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 – Tuesday, September 6, 2022
Meager moves to continue hearing to October 4, 2022, seconded my Member Bazinet. All members in
favor, none opposed.
2. Land Development Permit Application – Site Development Plan - Minor Subdivision
Modification –868 State Street –Map-Lots R71-021-A, R71-022-A, and R71-022-B –
Penobscot Point, LLC (Julie Sites) - Land Development Permit approval for a Minor Subdivision
modification, for planned group development, at the property located at 868 State Street, Map-Lot R71-
021A, R71-022A, and R71-022-B, in a Low Density Residential (LDR) District. The proposal requests to
modify location of one internal property line. Applicant, Penobscot Point, LLC (Julie Sites).
On September 1, 2022, the applicant withdrew their application.
Member Meager moves to accept withdrawal of application, seconded by Member Kenney. All
members in favor, none opposed.
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 16,
2022
Chair Huhn provided rules to manage the meeting – public comment limited to 3 minutesper speaker,
and limiting comments to site visit today, as well as density and safety of property/development.
Comments from the applicant were requested. Scott Braley with Plymouth Engineering, representing
Team Properties provided the following:
Pedestrian safety -Measured street widths, street will be 24’ wide curb to curb, which in places
is 4-6’ wider than adjacent streets; there ismore than ample room for the limited traffic in the
development for pedestrian safety, also with path proposed.
Density – requested to check within 500’ – this project is 0.2 acres per unit, 5 units per acre
which LDR provides for. There are multiple city projects- Meadow Farm (777 Ohio Street) and
Village Woods Condos off Bomarc Road- with similar densities, in LDR, and are conditional
uses
o The density within 500 feet is 0.36, which is less than ours, but the further you get out
from the project, the bigger the lots are. Immediately adjacent on Lancaster & East
Page 2 | 23
City of Bangor Planning Division
Planning Board Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, September 6, 2022
Broadway,densities are as low as 0.11 andaverages out at 0.3, which is slightly less
dense than this project. But across Essex Street and moving down North French Street,
there are some lots that are multiple acres in size, which skews the density
considerably.
Screening –there are a lot of trees around perimeter that will not be touched
o Areas where there are less than what will meet required buffer, plans show plantings
required for type A, subtype 1 buffer which LDR zone requires
Member Shaw requested clarification on proposed path location. Mr. Braley pointed out location on
map of proposed path- going around perimeter, terminating at Essex Street lot. Also comes off loop
road seen today at site visit, joining same path. Will not be a paved path. Intent is to be a natural surface
as most of the city trail surfaces are. Members in the audience also shown location of the path.
Member Meagher discussed Conditional Use standard A-4, density not as dwelling units per acre, but
as ratio of land area to building area, and the topic of building bulk vs. density calculations. Planning
Officer Krieg advised that it was up to the applicant to show that they’ve met that standard and bulk is
a comparison of building size itself on the property, not just the numbered units. Mr. Braley advised that
they looked at what LDR allows as far as units per acre. Member Meagher advised that what they’re
looking for as far as bulk is the square footage of the building footprint on the property divided into the
acreage of the lot on which it sits. It would have to be done for each of the structures within 500’ of the
boundary of the property of the project. Member Meagher, Planning Officer Krieg, and Mr. Braley
discussed where this information could be obtained. Mr. Braley inquired how this was implemented on
previous projects and Planning Officer Krieg advised that this may not have been asked for on previous
projects. Dwelling units per acre is what was calculated and what was evaluated per Mr. Braley. Vice
Chair Perkins indicated that this is a complex issue and the code talks about general character of
development regarding building bulk; references to general character. Find it hard to pin down
regardless of what the number is, until getting down to the rules to LDR, 5 dwelling units per acre; it
has to not exceed 5 DU’s per acre, and be a minimum of 3 acres, it’s very clear. Hate to make it more
complex than this. Member Meagher is fine with that, but he was discussing how bulk density is defined
in this standard. Thinks that what is allowed in the district in which this is in, which goes all the way
back to the ComprehensivePlan,is that this is clear the intention for this area is Low Density
Residential, and that’s a certain number of dwelling units per acre, not to be exceededand this project
is below that.Members had no further comments on density.
Member Shaw wanted to follow up-appreciates the walking path, but has concerns about pedestrian
safety,particularly foranyonewith mobility issues, wheelchair bound, etc. having to get out to the street
for the bus stop, for example. If you don’t have someone in your family that has to get a bus with mobility
issues, it’s an easy thing to not prioritize as high, but it’s extremely important. It’s part of what we’ve
Page 3 | 23
City of Bangor Planning Division
Planning Board Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, September 6, 2022
looked at for the Comprehensive Planning – we’ve done a walkability audit which is still ongoing. A
whole page is dedicated to sidewalks.This area should be fully accessible. Trail fits in with character
of Prentis Woods nearby, but she’s looking for a navigable area to get down the street if they’re mobility
impaired in any way, shape, or form. Mr. Braley indicated that this street is a private street, and also up
to 6’ wider than the adjacent streets, and there will be less thru traffic than adjacent streets. Believes
that for this private development, it provides safety as needed. Neither of the other approved city
projects mentioned earlier have sidewalks either. Member Shaw advised that as they reviewthe
Comprehensive Plan, those are items that they’re taking into consideration.
Member Kenney wanted to reiterate that an offer was made to add fencing in lieu of shrubs and plant
other trees instead of shrubs. Mr. Braley advised that this was put out at the last meeting and that has
been offered and is still on the table. From site walk today, there are a few lots cleared to property lines-
those are the areas that we’ve offered to screen additionally to meet required buffers. Mr. Braley
showed the Members where they were looking to do this.
No other questions for the applicant. Public comment was opened up.
Tim Pease, attorney with Rudman Winchell, here on behalf of applicant. Wants to reserve time at the
end ofthe hearing to address any issues that come up during public comments. Wanted to reiterate
that the publicpath is a public path, open to the public, great opportunity to enjoy space. With respect
to people who took tour today, can see the site lines. Added extra level of safety to those using the
roads and advised that the roads are 24’ wide.
Lori Cote Dunn, 630 Essex Street, noticed today that most of the things that were requested, 5-
6 was completed, but 7 wasn’t done, and 7 looks very important where it’s going to be placed.
Keep talking about the road size. It won’t be 24’ during the winter. Keep discussing pedestrian
safety. Hope that you notice that there is a lot of adverse effect when you were out there today
looking at properties, was horrified when I came home to see everything out there. When you
look at the buildings, does the back part include the terraces? Is that 8’ included in that, or is that
portion going to come out even more? Utility sections coming out more? Even closer to us?
They’re literally looking inside. Will have 3 buildings looking inside my house. Will we be able to
pass drinks to one another when we’re on patios because we’re so close?
Dwight McIntosh – 55 E. Broadway – question about wetlands and if it’s been addressed at all.
In the scope of these drawings, has wetland been addressed with DEP, or are these adopted
from the 2006 drawings, and if so, are they negotiable? Are they even legal? I don’t know.
o Planning Officer Krieg advised that DEP walked site recently for stormwater permit and
that didn’t come up in the discussion. Per City Engineer Theriault, we didn’t see wetlands
for what we did walk. Question more for developer – was it delineated, soil scientist, etc.
Page 4 | 23
City of Bangor Planning Division
Planning Board Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, September 6, 2022
o Has culverts around his property, all around. It’s literally sitting water. Dogs are right up
to their bellies in water, your feetwould’ve gotten wet had you walkeddown in there today.
It may be okay, I’m not a soil scientist.
o City Engineering Theriault advised that you cannot increase the peak flow that goes off
the site, and this development should not increase peak run-off from the site. In process
with stormwater permit and pond to not increase peak run-off – typical of standard
developments in Maine and elsewhere. Addressed through DEP stormwater permitting.
o Mr. McIntosh asked about the pond and City Engineer Theriault advised pond is to reduce
flow off the site.
Member Meagher inquired that DEP has jurisdiction for wetlands. And Planning Officer Krieg advised
it’s up to applicants to have wetlands flagged.
Linda Mitchell, E. Broadway – this is the first meeting she’s come to. When the Board is talking
about pedestrian safety, they’re talking about pedestrian safety within that building community.
Wanted to know what the City’s going to do about lack of sidewalks and curbing on Lancaster
and E. Broadway, and if the City would consider the increased wear and tear. Always icy. Sounds
like a cluttered mess to her, can’t access Broadway from Alden Street. There is nowhere to go
– can’t walk your dog on the site, is more traffic coming from that area? Why does it have to
come off to East Broadway? Why can’t they just come out back off Lancaster Ave., instead of
into a quiet dead end? Rainwater washes out our driveway, basement flooded from next door –
it sounds like it’s going to be a clean up mess for the rest of us. Has anyone thought about the
people that already live here? City of Bangor should do some work before this takes place.
Ned Irish – sent a letter in a week ago, had to do with project classification for this development,
wanted Planning Officer Krieg to discuss how conditional use can override project classification.
Spoke of §165-11, definition of major vs. minor subdivision. Asked about approving a private
street. Planning Officer Krieg advised that itdoesn’t provide frontage for lots –ina new
subdivision for 30 lots, each lot has frontage –this is one lot with units on it. Instaffreview, we
held the roadway to City standards because of the number of units. Meets all the requirements
of a major subdivision. Mr. Irish inquired about city’s sewer extension and Planning Officer Krieg
advised that those were considered off-site improvements, and that they were held to the same
standards as a major subdivision. Mr. Irish asked about wetlands and Planning Officer Krieg
advised that there were no flagged wetlands shown and that all of the requirements of a city
street were applied.
Don Kimball, 652 Essex Street – third meeting he’s been to, very concerned, this in his backyard.
Walked the land today, land he’s cleared over 22 years. Piled wood, apple trees, cultivated.
Bringing forth his last defense, not a democratic process, was told that. Not here to protest, won’t
make a difference. Will allow Capehart to come to our neighborhood. Neighborhood deserves
Page 5 | 23
City of Bangor Planning Division
Planning Board Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, September 6, 2022
much better. House is 116 years old, never had a neighbor in backyard. Offended, house would
be offended if it could talk. Last defense is a Maine law on the books called adverse possession
–meetsall the criteria as far as what he looks at. Has to be twenty years, even though Emily
Ellis thinks it’s forty years. Approached an attorney’s office and will bring forth how much land
he wants. May have to have an easement off his land to get into their private area. Been mowing
that land for many years, never hid anything. That’s part of the criteria for adverse possession.
Emily will be served with a notice in the near future, and will determine how much land I’ll get.
Looking at 16 units in his cleared land, right up against me. Developed reputation over 28 years
in land management, knows what good construction is, and bad.
Melissa Bolduc, 151 Lancaster Avenue - has questions; property markers just put up a few days
ago. Haven’t had time to digest this. Very surprised how close properties abut our properties.
Was looking at the process when sold, were previously planning 36 units, not 60 units which is
what they’re now doing. Wants to know when he’s speaking of previous properties of up to 42
units, if they were built in the middle of properties that are 60-100 years old. Curioushow many
properties have been built like this with 24 older residences around them, especially with
blasting. They’re all single-family homes. Three-bedroom townhouses squished together, no
overflow parking – no space to build families. Asked about sheds, garages, etc. Was told that’s
up to the Home Owners Association.
o Planning Officer Krieg cautioned board in comparing to other properties – each
Conditional Use permit is a condition on itself, important to see this project on its own
merits. In terms of changes, if the Home Owners Association makes changes, those must
come back to the Board as a modification.
o Mrs. Bolduc states that in the developers’own words, this is a subdivision that’s never
been done before – not unreasonable to ask if this is something that’s been done, all of
our homes are in danger – if they’re going to blast, it’s reasonable for us to want to know
the people building these properties know what they’re doing.
Steven Laird, 647 North French Street - major concern, building a sewer line running down side
of property. Wetlands behind property. Any structure will interrupt wetlands that are already
there, suspect endangered species on site, and apple trees. Water overflow coming into the
basement- just spent $15,000 to fix basement to fix flooding. If this new project makes more
water come in and ruins basement, who will pay for that damage? Echoes concerns that people
have regarding pedestrian safety, runners, and traffic. A lot of speeding traffic now. Access to
North French Street, E. Broadway and Lancaster will make more traffic and more possibilities
for fatalities. If you make a walk pathway along our property, goes right up 95 towards Essex
Street, that will impact us with extra trash, possible theft from property. How will this be
addressed and who will take care of the issues if they arise? I’m pretty sure that some kind of
Page 6 | 23
City of Bangor Planning Division
Planning Board Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, September 6, 2022
theft will happen because of these projects – it’s just a thing that’s inevitable that happens in a
lot of these low-incomeproperties.
Planning Officer Krieg remindingboard that this project has not been presented as subsidized housing.
Unidentified female presented to the podium again, said she didn’t use up all of her time. Heard
that these people don’t necessarilystay to the plans provided, and if there was recourse if they
don’t follow the plans –how will we know?
o Planning Officer Krieg advises that Code Enforcement officer goes out with approved plan
to be sure everything is where it’s supposedto be
Jeff Grey, 100 Lancaster Avenue –thanked the Planning Board for site visit. Vehemently
opposed to subdivision. Lived in neighborhood for 15 years, doesn’t want to see itruined. Two
of the biggest issues concerning them are 1) hazardous conditions on the streets in the
neighborhood- they are terrible. If you want to see it in all it’s glory, you should be there after a
foot of snow when the switchbacks get greasy, roads are narrower,and people going off roads.
Doubling traffic is a liability and risk we’re not ready to take on, and 2) architectural style of
development doesn’t fit with neighborhoodswhatsoever. Applicant had several examples of
houses in our neighborhoods, all garages, story and a half, well kept lots. This looks like
something that won’t fit in our neighborhood. Roof lines, shapes. Good thing about our
neighborhood is that it developed over time, with style, shapes, and sizes. Gives it a lot of
character. Introducingsomething likehis will destroy aestheticsand not live up to standardsyou
folks are supposed to be following. Hope you all read Brian Ames email he sent, talked about
bulk. Wanted to come back up as he didn’t have enough time to present his thoughts. Said that
he knows the Planning Board knows what the right thing is and hopes that they’ll do it.
Keith LaPlante, 70 E. Broadway-reiteratespast concerns –safety issues. Safety issues and
water issues. No one has talked about certified engineering from the City perspective. Glad you
walked E. Broadway today, narrower in the wintertime. Snow plows have slid down the highway
and had to get a grader to pull them out. Major safety issues, what does the City have for
certifications? Liabilities as tax payers? What have been done for neighbors with water issues?
These are engineering issues for infrastructure. Addressing infrastructure to support this, don’t
have safety issues addressed, no engineering certification – where are the liabilities in that? We
need facts, not emotions. Haven’t heard facts on studies. No certified engineering studies on
safety –it’ll be dangerous. A lot of us walk that street. Water issues at the bottom down Alden
Street, it’s a swimming pool. Majorengineering issues with the city, no one has addressed it –
you guys own it and it’s going to get worse.
Greg Belisle – 128 Dewitt Avenue – walks the neighborhood a lot. Retired. Sees kids coming up
for the bus- they walk up Clark, walk up Lancaster, and wait at the end of the road. That street
is 6’ shorter than street proposed through development. Wants our kids to be safe; doesn’t have
Page 7 | 23
City of Bangor Planning Division
Planning Board Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, September 6, 2022
kids, but wants them to be safe. Walks streets every day, sees kids waiting for bus. Added traffic?
What’s going to happen? Should there be sidewalks? There should be. Who will pay for that?
City tax payers? Would you allow 60 individual homes to be built in that same space? Because
that’s basically what’s being provided as far as density. I don’t have problem with people
developing on their land, but there are other issues, safety is one of them, and that’s all I’m going
to say.
Melissa Bolduc, 151 Lancaster Avenue – presented again to the podium, said that it’s
appreciated that the Planning Board took their time and they have gone above and beyond, and
it’s not a waste of their time.
Monique Bolduc, via Zoom – Allen Street –daughter-in-law and son live on Lancaster Ave. Hope
you’re listening good and hard. When she purchased the house, knew no one was behind them.
All of the issues have been seen first hand with basement flooding, water. Unless City is
prepared to go around to all of these streets to put in sidewalks and culverts, and invest in
infrastructure, and allow maybe half of the housing, it might be okay. Unless you do all those
things, you’re opening up a big problem. People don’t deserve this in their backyard.
Understands that people want to do things on their own land, but put up garages, put in correct
infrastructure. Would want the street to be a City street-they’re going to build and walk away,
that’s their MO. These people deserve to be angry and frustrated. Doesn’t sound like the City is
listening and I want to know why, these people pay taxes. How can you allow this, even if all
requirements are met? When you can’t take care of people already living there? Granddaughter
has to walk to bus stop without a side walk. Not safe. Elderly walking dogs, whatever. Fix
problems before this is allowed.
Brian Ames, via Zoom –Lancaster Avenue –speakingto maximum number of units on
developer’s property. Refers to 5 units/acre, which is maximum allowed. Could propose
something far less. If he wanted to be closer to existing area around, he would be less than 2
acres. Did complex calculationon the area around theproperty, density comes up as far less
than 2 per acre.Also looked at the bulk of the buildings in the area –some are 1.5-story, some
are two-story; this development is 100% two-story. Fails the test of Conditional Use, far in excess
of existing amount. Would urge to consider facts in deliberation and turn down the Conditional
Use permit application.
Michelle Laird, 647 N. French Street –so much water in basement, like husband just said, spent
$15,000 to fix basement (showed Board members photographs). Belongings had to be thrown
out. As taxpayers, maybe put up speedbumps so no one comes over my lawn every day. City
trucks when they plow the roads, they come onto my lawn. People run down the road for track,
afraid for their safety, no sidewalk for them to use. People come around the corner so fast.
Please do not let this happen, I’m worried for kids. I have a friend up the road with young kids at
home. I’m afraid for them, please don’t do this, keep neighborhood safe from this happening.
Page 8 | 23
City of Bangor Planning Division
Planning Board Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, September 6, 2022
Marissa Mitchell, 60 East Broadway – walks dog –there are elderly folks, kids at bus stop,
walkers every day, people turn on road maybe a thousand timesper day, already not safe. Is
right by the road, people come speeding down the hill. Can’t control your neighbor, how do we
know they’re not going to steal property? More population in small area that isn’t safe. We
already live here, why is this needed? It won’t be safe, too many people for a small population.
Matt Verrill, 645 Essex Street – peak hours study not an accurate representation. Roadways 6’
narrower than road going in will still need to accommodate other vehicles. Traffic will be backed
up, quite busy as it is. Everyone who lives there is going to have a job and they’ll have to get
there at the same time. Traffic study wasn’t accurate and thinks that if it was, fewer units would
be approved.
o City Engineer Theriault provided quick refresher of the trip generation, based on trip
generation, ITE, associated with different types of uses. Average trip rate is.52 per unit
x 60 = 31 trips, no magic. No deep thought about how this is, it’s standard for what
everyone uses. Based on studies done over the years, recorded studies producing
average rates. All traffic engineers use the same book. Existing counts completed in
morning and evening at Lancaster and Alden, 2-hour counts. Performed on a weekday.
Took traffic numbers, placed them on both intersections and used the distribution
currently out there based on current traffic patterns. Ran level of service analysis, which
is software to plug in numbers, show stop signs, and tells you what expected delays are.
Estimated delays are provided. No issues observed with backing up traffic, wasn’t
blocking anyone’s driveways. Taking existing condition and proposed conditions, 3-4
seconds between them. Intersections operating at level C. This is considered okay.
Standard steps taken to look at a project, nothing here was hard, difficult or showed traffic
issues. Looked at DOT high crash locations for area for accident problems at Essex St &
Lancaster Avenue or Alden Street and Broadway – not high crash locations. No reason
to think there’s an existing issue. This is not a significant increase. Traffic volumes on
Lancaster were 300-400 vehicles per day. Questions and comments were being shouted
from the rear and hard to differentiate.
o Someone presented to the podium asking when the study was completed – City Engineer
th
advised June 9, saw kids waiting for the school bus. Same gentleman said that he
appreciated the study, but the numbers would be doubled. A young mother with 2 kids
would be in and out 8-10 times per day and it’s a hazardous place to drive. More signage
per mile than any other residential area in the city, 4 switchbacks going up the hill, narrow
streets, no sidewalks, it’s a disaster. Potentially 180 more vehicles are a hazardous
situation and feel like the city will be liable for this. Someone gets hurt, maybe you could
address that. With the signage put up and reconstructing right hand only from Alden to
Page 9 | 23
City of Bangor Planning Division
Planning Board Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, September 6, 2022
Broadway, with everything done by the City in that neighborhood, would the City be liable
if someone got hurt in there by all those extra cars in there? Legitimatequestion.
City Engineer Theriault referenced speed study –set up radar recorder –on a
utility pole up Lancaster towards Essex street, left out for 5 days. Average speeds
th
– 50% going 26mph – is what was recorded, 85percentile speeds were 28-29
mph. Set this box up all over city. Fairmount Park average speed 28mph., 85%
was 32mph. Howard Street park average was 29mph, and 85% was 33-34mph.
Average is 27-28 mph in areas. Roadway came in lower than typical than in front
of parks & school. More conversation from the room that was hard to differentiate,
asked to present to the podium.
632 Essex Street – woman – question with buildings – thought they were going to mark specific
buildings. City Engineer advised that they asked what to mark and what to clear. Used GPS unit
to assist. Advised not to clear the whole area and do typical of what the offset is. When they did
the road that came off the main road, they did a couple of the back lots and property lines. They
didn’t go deeper as there were heavy trees they would’ve needed to cut down to lay those
buildings down. Prefer they didn’t do that. Was at the last meeting, and was told that they would
mark building behind hers, and they didn’t. Asked if that include patios and decks. Wanted to
know where they would need to start.
o City Engineer Theriault advised that applicant showed foundational footprints only.
Referenced building footprint only. Clarification between cement patio and decking. Patio
considered landscaping and decking is considered a structure.
o Lives on Essex Street, husband asked about crosswalk. Because of the traffic study
showing 7,000 vehicles in 24 hours. People try to cross in frontof their house to get to
the new walking area. Claims at least 45% of vehicles were speeding at least 10 miles
over. Something needs to be done because it’s scary.
o City Engineer Theriault –at Watchmaker & Essex Street, will be a flashed cross-walk,
and possibly one down Essex Street further down at new access point to trail systems.
David Evans –97 Bill Street –understanding thattheseduplexes will be $250,000 per unit –is
that each side, or one property? Chair Huhn stated he believed that was for each side. Asked if
there was recourse if they go from changing the rule of selling for$250,000 to renting them
because they’renot selling them fast enough?
o Member Bazinet advises that it’s already in the wording to rent.
o Mr. Evans was told that these would not be rentals- could end up with 3 people splitting
rent and 3 cars in the yard. People here have also asked for less units – instead of 30
units, how about 15 units? Instead of going with 30 and 60. First meeting was more
antagonistic, now it’s more of a negotiation. Board would do people justice to consider
Page 10 | 23
City of Bangor Planning Division
Planning Board Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, September 6, 2022
this fact, that maybe less is better than the full extent, all the way around, for people
existing in the area and people coming in.
rd
Kelly Hashey, 3 meeting she’s been to - doesn’t feel like nay neighbors given respect. Keeps
asking same questions, not getting concrete answers. No idea about blast survey. Leave so
much decision making up to applicant, it’s like we don’t exist.
Sandy McIntosh - walks and almost got hit a number of times because of traffic, and you’re going
to gibe me more traffic? Instead of her making $15 million on this project, why not put in a couple
of houses? What’s the matter with you guys? Put in a couple houses, or sell the land to someone
else. These don’t belong where they’re being put. Density – we’re all single houses, not huge
condos that look like Capehart.
Robert Strout – 697 North French Street – looking for the association, is there anything you have
that shows how this will be set up? If they do patios all the way to the property line, is that
something the association would deal with? Asks if there are rules, guidelines on how it’ll be set
up? A simulation is what everyone is talking about, to have buildings come in as to what they’ll
look like, as well as who will be in the area. Have 3 people in wheelchairs that I see walk from
Lancaster to East Broadway to Bill Street, to North French Street, and turn around, and come
back up. One is blind and walks alongside the wheelchair person. Another on East Broadway –
there are people that will be out there with walkers and canes.
Travis Doody – North French Street – speaking to safety for a moment – when making decision,
please remember that I am outside playing with two young daughters and am worried about
safety. Cars come around corners fast, scared that his 3-year-old might get too close to the road
one day while not paying attention. Sounds extreme, but it happens. Please keep my children
in mind when making a decision as far as safety is concerned.
Member Meagher moves closing of public meeting, seconded by Vice Chair Perkins, all members in
agreement, none opposed.
Parking:
Member Meagher states that application exceedsthe number of spaces per dwelling units compared
to the Code. No additional comments on parking spaces.
Low Density Residential District, Conditional Uses:
Member Shaw provided majority of concerns from what she’s hearing are around 165-9-A.2, hazardous
conditions on contiguous or adjacent streets. Seems to be a lot of concern heard and also what she
laid eyes on today, the connection with Lancaster Avenue, was yikes, really tight. Having said that,
understands that technically, it fits. That was pretty tight.
Page 11 | 23
City of Bangor Planning Division
Planning Board Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, September 6, 2022
Member Bazinet, item 4, under same 165-9, conditional use. In order to grant, must conform to general
character of development of immediate area. Doesn’t see this project fitting that standard. Member
Meagher asked how it doesn’t fit, what inconsistency does Member Bazinet see? Bazinet stated that
going by plans only, structures are all boxes, rectangles, doesn’tfit with neighborhood. Bazinet states
that the neighbors are single family, single story homes. These will be two story and significantly taller.
Meagher asked if there weren’t others of that size and Bazinet felt that the single story out numbered
them. Doesn’t feel item 4 is met and concurs with Member Shaw on item 2. Chair Huhn said he also
has concerns of architecture meeting style of neighborhood. Member Meagher observed that it’s the
responsibility of board members that if a standard is not met, to cite the standard and be very specific
and very particular and very detailed about how standard hasn’t been met by this design. Bazinet went
back to item 4, said it was read verbatim, and it doesn’t leavea lot of room for error- doesn’t fit with the
surrounding area. Meagher said that he’s obligated to say how it doesn’t fit. Bazinet isn’t an architect
but tried to explain it the best he could.
Vice Chair Perkins struggled with this as well, finds this standard 4 difficult to pin down. Looked up what
general character means. Our code says “conform to general character of architecture.” There’s a lot
of different architecture there; typical story and half houses similar to the ones by the golf course, raised
ranches from a different sort of era, and over time it’s how it developed. Part of why he doesn’t have a
problem of character proposed – doesn’t see these being significantly outside general character of the
other buildings in the area. Can’t pin down exactly what Member Meagher is saying, can’t pin down
specific problem with the architecture. Each house is different in their own way. Even looked up “general
character” and says “typical or average.” It’s not definitive. Member Bazinet provided a passage he just
pulled up, “architectural characteristic”, rhythm, style, and basic detailing – all those things can be in
play here. Has already made a statement as to why it’s detrimental. Someone needs to say why they
disagree. Feels that he’s defined what he’s said. Rooflines, shapes of building, architectural rhythm
does not fit with the area and will cause detrimental impact to surrounding properties.
Vice Chair Perkins added that if there are things we agree upon or don’t agree upon, we can agree on
what we agree on and what we don’t agree on, and approve each one separately if it makes sense to
keep things moving.
Parking has been agreed upon. Agreed on most of the conditional uses, disagreement on architectural
design. Member Kenney provided concerns on A2, unreasonable traffic congestion. Feels that traffic
congestion has been adequately addressed by City Engineer, but as has been brought up by many in
the public about hazardous conditions on contiguous or adjacent streets, is up in the air for him.
Hazardous for vehicular? Pedestrians? Itleaves the door open for what hazardous means.For
architecturalstyle, exteriorfaçade, rooflines, etc.–these are cookie cutter duplexes inasingle-family
neighborhoodwith a variety of structures built is a major deviation from what’s there now, from his
Page 12 | 23
City of Bangor Planning Division
Planning Board Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, September 6, 2022
viewpoint. And the fact that there are no garages, storage areas. Almost all houses I saw had garages
associated with them. Asked if the Board should vote on all these items.
Planning Officer Krieg advised that conflicting opinions provide conversation, if something could be
changed in application to fit it, or a condition placed on it –sidewalks, etc. The Board can provide
conditioning attached to that finding –“we find that this could be safe if they did these things…” Would
try to focus on those items where there is a conflict and go from there.
Member Kenney advised that a sidewalk from Lancaster to Essex Street should be a condition of
approval. Chair Huhn expressed concerns about safety, but City Engineer Theriault advised it was
within safety measures, but maybe sidewalks would change that safety measure as opposed to speed.
Member Shaw advised that sidewalks are a deal breaker for her on this. Realizesscope of the Board
doesn’t exceed beyond proposed project unless it does –there is a problem and we can’t fix that here,
but we can not make it worse. The way it’s laid out now makes it worse. Doesn’t question the traffic
study. It’s so tight throughthere, has a hard time imagining anyone with any limited mobilitycoming
through safely. If that’s the street that people will be using to meet buses, that’s a concern for her.
Member Brush asked about sidewalk from entrance of development to Lancaster Ave. Discussed
language surrounding a sidewalk – from proposed entrance on Lancaster to intersection on Essex
Street, and language regarding coordinating with City Engineer. Member Shaw wanted to see a
sidewalk in the development as well. Discussion surrounding those on foot or mobility impaired having
the right of way. Member Meagher stated that applicant is exceeding City’s road standards. Member
Shaw feels that they’re lacking without sidewalks. Member Bazinet doesn’t feel a sidewalk from
Lancaster to Essex Street will make a reasonable impact on this whole project. Discussion that
sidewalk would connect to current sidewalk on Essex Street and provide safer passage from a street
wider than a City street up to a City street. School kids could utilize this to catch the bus. Chair Huhn
inquiring about having a consensus on this, or voting on each piece as they move forward, if there’s
controversy over it.
Member Meagher states that the reality of the decision is if it’s the conclusion of 4 members that any
single requirement in the code is not met, then it’s a denial of the application. Meagher not sure if board
needs to go beyond any single instance of that occurring, as that’s determinative. Planning Officer Krieg
stated that, looking at the language, if the board feels that there is something that the applicant can do
to support a finding, especially in conditional uses, and it’s reasonable and directly affected by/to the
development, it’s within the Board’s rights to request that – if you feel for example that safety issues
are served by having a sidewalk off-site, it’s within rights to ask for that.
Chair Huhn asked if it was a reasonable thing to vote on each one. Planning Officer Krieg advised if
there was conflict, to take a vote on that particular finding.
Page 13 | 23
City of Bangor Planning Division
Planning Board Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, September 6, 2022
Member Brush needed a brief break, at which time the board decided to take a 5-minutebreak.
Meeting reconvened at 9:18 p.m.
Chair Huhn asked if they had come to an agreement on architectural style. Member Bazinet referenced
section 4, and speaking to comments made earlier, suggests going to single story, single family, which
would fit the area- no duplexes. Vice Chair Perkins stated that houses there now are not just single
story.Member Bazinet indicated they are predominantly single story and didn’t see any 2-story
duplexes. Suggestsgoing to single family homes, rather than 60\[units\]in that area. Member Bazinet
believes building bulk and intent of extensive use applies here. Vice Chair Perkins states that he saw
a lot of raised ranches today, which is not a single story, and architect mentioned there were a lot of
one and a half story homes. Seems overboard to limit this project to a single story with raised ranches
and one and a half story homes in the neighborhood. Member Bazinet stated that it does not fit with
the neighborhood, he’s not an architect and can’t define it clearer. Drawings seen thus far are
rectangular, cookie cutter boxes. Minimum of architectural flare being applied here. Vice Chair Perkins
asked how to help applicant get there with this –what would you see as being, if you can, explain what
would make it work. Member Bazinet indicated that there were no duplexes in surrounding
neighborhood. Seems to be only one in the neighborhood, but possibly two. Member Bazinet stated
thatthe duplex style of building, as applied to \[section\] 4, does not fit with architectural styleand bulk
of existing neighborhood. Why not have developer tell us what the remedy would be? City Solicitor
Szewczyk indicated that the public hearing would need to be reopened to ask that specific question to
the applicant. Chair Huhn indicated if we don’t ask the applicant, then we’ve wasted our time, and if
someone wanted to say something about bulk, density or sidewalks, we can sit up here all we want,
but if she’s not in agreement… we’re trying to move this along. Planning Officer Krieg advised that
they’re suggesting a style, they will need to change the plans, to change the layout. Recommending
having conversation with applicant prior to taking a vote. Szewczyk indicated that in order to obtain
more evidence, it must be opened again and limit participating to that purpose.
Vice Chair Perkins moves to reopen meeting to ask applicant specifically concerning the duplex being
changed to non-duplex building, or another style, seconded by Member Bazinet. All members in favor,
none opposed.
Applicant Emily Ellis indicated that with respect to architectural style, there are 8 single level homes, a
couple are very small, little boxes; there are several, possibly 3 duplexes in area, house at 133
Lancaster Avenue that looks like a duplex. Thinks that what the gentleman spoke about character
changing over time speaks to intent of this project. We have young professional people who want to
come to Bangor and make a home in the city. The way they live is different than what we grew up with.
They’re minimalists. They come to their home, they love it to be brand new, thinks a 3-bedroom allows
opportunity to grow family in Bangor. The style of home that is going to keep Bangor in the forefront of
Page 14 | 23
City of Bangor Planning Division
Planning Board Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, September 6, 2022
evolving demographic is this style of home. I’ve done this for 25 years now. When I look at this project,
I know neighbors are up in arms and change is hard –honestly, with this application and development,
if I were a neighbor, this would be the perfect opportunity. Because of 12 acres, the engineer says that
there are 9 of them that will remain open space. Having walking trails with the ability to walk on the land
you’ve already been walking on for years. 9 acres of open space. Crosswalk across Essex Street.
There’s no part of this application where we haven’t tried to accommodate the neighbors. Goal is
affordable, new construction. This is simple, straightforward, has been engineered, designed, and fits
a need that we have in our community – it’s as affordable as we can make new housing. As far as
architectural style, doesn’t believe that there’s a specific style around the neighborhood. The Dunn’s
house is fairly new. Don Kimball’s house is a Bangor Box. Robin’s house is a saltbox. There’s a cape.
No distinct architectural style. 85% of inventory in Bangor is 1900’s. If we want to grow, we have to
think outside the box a bit on how we’re going to adequately entice the brightest and best young,
talented and professional people to come to us. That’s why the architectural style is a hard one, there’s
no specific style around these neighborhoods.
Chair Huhn inquired about density while the meeting was open. Vice Chair inquired about density and
sidewalk issue. Emily Ellis indicated that density-wise, it’s less dense because she can’t go anywhere
in the surrounding area and walk across someone’s back lawn. Offering accessible open space to
everyone in the neighborhood. If this is re-engineered with a single house in the backyard, if that house
wanted to put trash by the lot line, they could do that. With an association,this will be very well kept
and won’t have same impact as if it would be a single-family home on its own lot. You don’t get to tell
neighbors what they can do on their lot. Neighbors sill have access to 9 acres of greenspace, crosswalk,
and a sidewalk from Lancaster to Essex Street. Doesn’t see how this can be made better.
Vice Chair Perkins indicated that the meeting was not opened up to go on other things, opened up
meeting to ask specific question in regard to style of building. Density was not why we opened up the
meeting. Member Meagher indicated that they needed to get through this and maybe open it up again
as it was the most difficult to manage and the most significant. City Solicitor Szewczyk stated that the
public meeting was only opened to discuss architectural styles. If we wanted to go to other, we’d need
to close and reopen it.
Mike Woods presented to the podium and began discussing two projects approved by the Planning
Board, one on Bomarc Road, and Grandview Estates off Grandview Avenue. Wanted to provide
information on density intensity for what the Planning Board has previously passed.
Member Meagher added another observation focusing on what’s the actionable requirement, and that
the proposed use will conform to the general character of the immediatearea. Conforming to general
character is what needs to be accomplished. As he looked at everything he saw when he walked around
the parcel, it would be impossible for him to say there was a general character of the development.
Page 15 | 23
City of Bangor Planning Division
Planning Board Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, September 6, 2022
Didn’t see any general character of the neighborhood at all. Developed over the course of 100 years.
Are we going to ask applicant to re-create what development styles occurred at the beginning of the
last century?
Chair Huhn moved to close public hearing. Member Meagher seconded closing of public hearing. All
members in favor, none opposed.
Member Brush agreed with Member Meagher; neighborhood doesn’t have a specific style, but
development has a very dominant style, which is different than the non-style which is in the
neighborhood now. It’s like apples and oranges, comparing them. One with no style, one with a very
dominant style. Member Meagher provided that the only way development can conform to general
development in immediate area, of which there is not a general character, is if each of the buildings are
different than every other one in terms of height, architectural style, façade, footprint. Is that what we’re
saying they have to accomplish?
City Solicitor Szewczyk offered comment regarding §165-9-A4 of the Code; applicant bears burden of
satisfying all elements for permit to be granted, and must satisfy as to architectural style, building bulk
and extent and intensity of site use. This provides guidance on how to satisfy those 3 elements and he
would follow those guidelines specifically. Member Meagher asked regarding architectural style, if
there is no consistent general character in immediate area (façade, rooflines, shapes, materials used),
how does the applicant comply with that? City Solicitor Szewczyk indicated that was for the Planning
Board to decide on and to use that guidance when making the decision.
Member Shaw thought Member Bazinet made a good point about the extent and intensity of site use,
which is something that can be compared to the surrounding area. Member Kenney indicated that there
was a way to compare intensity and extent by looking at land area to building area. Discussion
regarding ordinance wording as to intensity and building bulk. Vice Chair Perkins, as he understood
Member Bazinet’s concern in regard to that issue, most of the homes are single family and these are
duplexes, correct? Member Bazinet indicated that was correct, as well as the intensity of the use of the
land, development being plopped down in the middle of a predominantly single-family home
neighborhood. If this was undeveloped, I don’t think these conversations would apply. Looking at the
map, this is being put right in the middle of an existing single-family dominant neighborhood. Intensity
is doubled what it normally would be, and provision in code allows us to determine appropriateness
going into a particular area. If the board wishes to out-vote him, that’s their prerogative. It’s not
appropriate for this existing neighborhood. Member Kenney stated if this was one building on one lot,
there wouldn’t be any trouble fitting into this neighborhood. Member Bazinet stated that if this was
going into an undeveloped area, these issues wouldn’t be on the table, according to the maps we’re
Page 16 | 23
City of Bangor Planning Division
Planning Board Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, September 6, 2022
looking at, this is going into an area already built. Use and intensity exceeds what’s going on in
surrounding areas.
Member Meagher, stated that if applied strictly – if surrounding area were open space, theproject on
its face would have to be denied. By definitionitwould be a greater use than itsopen space-until the
surrounding area was developed, the undeveloped area would have to remain.
Member Brush advised numbers from both Plymouth Engineering and Brian Ames. Formulas are
different, but Plymouth Engineering shows density of 5 units per acre. Looking at neighborhood,there’s
2.8 units per acre for neighborhood. For abutters, 3.3 units per acre. Ames comes out with 1.7 units
per acre. Whatever way you cut it, project has more intensity, using these numbers. Not as good as
square footage but that’s what we have.
Member Shaw wanted to reiterate extentand intensity of site use, as pointed out – no further definition
as it’s written, kind of subjective. Suggestions for remediation on this- put in a sidewalk and reduce
number of housing units – whether that’s single-family units or reduce number of duplexes. Intensity
is too much for the area. If you take this parcel of land and put it in the middle of nowhere, there are
allowable things that can happen, but this isn’t happening in a void. As a board, we’ve punted back
applications before for Conditional Use.
Vice Chair Perkins agrees that §165-9.A4 is very subjective. Refer to §165-99- it says 5 dwelling units
per acre and it doesn’t exceed that, so I have no issue. It solves the problem for me. Chair Huhn advised
that this is including all of the acreage and that people have a problem with them being all squished
together. Vice Chair Perkins doesn’t need anything different;that’s what the applicant was asked to do
and what the Code demands; is okay withadding a sidewalk if it solves this problem. MemberBazinet
statedthat was not his point.
Member Kenney in terms of intensity anduse, this is the highest. Other conditional use category is on
top of that;referred to Brian Ames’letter in terms of his numbers, surrounding intensity of use, and how
different is proposed vs. what is there now. Vice Chair Perkins advised that applicant hired engineer
who provided us the numbers- immediate properties, with exception of two, were 0.20, very similar to
what this project is.
Member Meagher feels standard is unfortunate in “intensity of site use” sincewe don’t know what
metrics that is supposed to consist of. Member Bazinet referred to “immediate area.” Member Meagher
clarified, “what is meant as a numerical measurement.” Discussion of dwelling units per acre, as well
as percent of impervious cover.
Chair Huhn indicates intensity of project in this neighborhood doesn’t seem to fit. Member Meagher
provided that if the extent and intensity of use is too much compared to the surrounding area, what
Page 17 | 23
City of Bangor Planning Division
Planning Board Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, September 6, 2022
quantitative metrics will they use to suggest what is appropriate? Member Kenney indicated that they
should use existing ratio of land area to building area on this parcel, and compare it to the other parcels
within 500’. It needs to be below that number, if below,it’s okay, if above,it’s not okay. Member Meagher
states that it’s easy to calculate that on the application, but in the 500’ radius, you wouldn’t use an
average, you’d take each structure and do calculation for the lot on which it sat, using all structures on
the lot – house, garage, outbuilding, every structure on those lots within the 500’ radius. How do they
get the square footage of the footprint of all the structures on each of the lots within 500’ short of going
out and GPS each structure? Member Kenney advised we have a good parcel viewer/GIS program,
that shows each parcel mapped, so that they can see average – pretty clear metric that this project
must meet. This can be done relatively quickly. Immediate area showing parcels that are part of this
project- believes that they should be within 500’ of parcel and within the same block. We would have
to go with that number.
Member Meagher continues to read what’s been explained as information required to be provided to
the board for the decision – a decision can’t be made without it, as it’s in the requirement. Member
Kenney feels that would satisfy his intensity issue. Member Meagher feels that’s as close to a definition
of site intensity and use they’ll come up with.
Vice Chair Perkins wanted to be sure they all understood what’s being asked- we’ve spent a lot of time
on this project, and to ask the applicant to do one more thing, we should know where we are going with
this. Member Bazinet feels that the Board should take the amount of time it takes to get to the
conclusion. Chair Huhn asked what we were achieving with the answer and Member Kenney feels that
it would answer the intensity of use issue. Question posed to City Solicitor Szewczyk, who advised
that the applicant has to satisfy each of the elements in order for the permit to be granted. The Board
could vote on it tonight or could ask the applicant for additional information, but can’t guarantee the
applicant with regard to that information, because there are other elements must be satisfied as well.
Member Kenney asked if they could agree on all other pieces without that information. City Solicitor
Szewczyk advised a decision can’t be made on everything else if you’re asking applicant for more
information. Member Bazinet pointed out that if we’re asking for a mathematical equation to be run,
shouldn’t it done by the City so there is no biasone way or another? Planning Officer Krieg advised
that the burden is on applicant to show they meet. Member Bazinet feels that this should come from
the City instead of having the applicant go through the exercise, because it would be bias.
Szewczyk advised materials could be received from applicant or abutters.Planning Officer Krieg
advised that whatever is provided would be reviewed. City Engineer Theriault advised that a licensed
engineer shouldn’t be biased – his stamp goes on everything that he does. Information is looked at, but
we’re expecting it’s valid, proper and ethical. Member Bazinet explained if you hire someone, they’re
working for you in your best interest, and wants City Engineer Theriault to present sum and equation
Page 18 | 23
City of Bangor Planning Division
Planning Board Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, September 6, 2022
because it takes the bias out of the mix. Member Meager thinks as the City Planner explained, the
burden of proof demonstratingordinancehas been complied with is on the applicant. Member Bazinet
advised that he’s made his opinion and they can out-vote it.
Member Meagher provided that in all likelihood, each of the structures on the same block within 500’
will result in a different number. There will be a range of higher and lower numbers;thinkswe need to
understand how these ranges will be related to a single number for the development? Average for
whole area has been suggested. Need to know how we’re going to deal with a range of numbers before
we ask to get them.
Member Shaw asked specifically that whatever calculation is used and whoever does it, if there isn’t
one that’s laid out in the Conditional Uses under A.4 that specifically addresses the extent and intensity
of site use, will it even stand up? Member Bazinet stated that it applies to immediate area, within the
same block and within 500’ of the proposed use, and now someone needs to run the calculations.
Member Shaw wants to be sure that this would stand up if challenged, based on what we have right
now in the Land Code. City Solicitor Szewczyk discussed the Land Code and that the applicant shall
cause buildings to conform – if you feel that hasn’t been shown, the only way to satisfy the element is
for the Board to give applicant opportunity to show that ratio has been satisfied – but – if applicant is
submitting additional evidence in that regard for due process concerns, shouldn’t the others involved
be allowed to show their calculations as well? Member Shaw advised that’s notwhat she’s asking, but
discussed intensity and extensity of site use.
Asst. City Solicitor Thomas clarified for City Solicitor Szewczyk in that in terms of holding up, they have
to satisfy that bulk – if you want to use that for intensity, you’ll be using it for bulk anyway. They have
to conform to that bulk.
Chair Huhn asked members if there were any other areas of specific issues, clarified that they were
talking about sidewalks and ratios. Member Meagher discussed two sidewalk items –from this
development to Lancaster Avenue to Essex Street, and interior sidewalks from every parking lot out to
the road and from interior road to Lancaster Avenue. On both of those, he refers to City Engineer
Theriault, posing the question,“what is it about the specific and particular design of this project which
would make it unsafe for pedestrian travel on foot or wheelchair?” Theriault advised that the street
policy states,if you’re doing a development connecting to a street that has sidewalks, you put them in.
There’s not a requirement if you’re connecting to a street without sidewalks that you must have them.
If sidewalks don’t exist, there hasn’t been an outcry or significant need to warrant this. City has a long
list of areas with higher traffic volumes wanting sidewalks andwaiting for funding to make it happen.
This development is not going to be a cut-through;traffic generated will be traffic of development itself.
Estimated to be, like he stated earlier, 31 trips during peak hour for the PM, and 26 for the peak hour
in AM. Total traffic of about 360 vehicles per day. That’s not a lot of traffic, so if you’re walking, the odds
Page 19 | 23
City of Bangor Planning Division
Planning Board Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, September 6, 2022
you’ll encounter two vehicles at the same time in the same spot is fairly low. It’s not going to happen-
it’s usually going to be one vehiclegoing one way, another going the other way. Didn’t seeastrong
need to put sidewalks on this local privateroadway. If you’re talking about sidewalks on Lancaster
Avenue where this development outlets with the other roads to Essex Street, that’s a more likely
scenario that you’ll have a population using this and that’s a good start. As the requests come in for
more sidewalks on Lancaster, someday we’ll have one, but it’s not going to be within 5 years. At least
this piece will be done and it’ll see the most pedestrian traffic at that point.
Member Meagher’s decision on sidewalks will be to rely on the City Engineer. Member Bazinet feels
that it must be determined first if this is appropriate for this area and this needs to be ironed out. Member
Meagher feels building bulk issue is the only remaining one to be solved. Vice Chair Perkins provides
that he was okay at the start, previously discussed bulk and intensity of use. Sidewalk issue is not a
struggle for him, is happy with whatever is needed. Wants to condition it to get it done, but not holding
up things. Member Shaw indicated her two unresolved issues is the extent & intensity of site use and
safety on adjacent and/or contiguous streets, particularly Lancaster Avenue. Those are connected
traffic wise, but especially with pedestrian safety. Member Kenney feels similarly on all the issues as
Member Meagher; the other thing is the building location – Item G. Applicant is willing to beef up buffers
and fencing, wants to see this on the plan, wants to see the changes on a plan – type of fence, how
high is the fence, etc.
Member Brush stated that he thinks that there was a buffering concern on buildings 5-10 as well as 1-
3. If we’re going to put in added buffering language, look at those buildings 5-10 as well. As far as other
issues, is okay with the ratio of land area to building area as a metric and is only concerned about
sidewalk from entrance to Essex Street, not interior sidewalks.
Member Bazinet concurs with Member Brush & Member Shaw’s comments. Chair Huhn provided
comments on architectural style- it’s an eclectic neighborhood and this would just add to the mix. Would
be satisfied with the intensity and sidewalk to Essex Street.
Vice Chair Perkins asked if board is amenable to making ratio a condition of approval? Chair Huhn
asked about the acceptable ratio. Vice Chair Perkins provided that it shall conform to height and existing
ratio of land area to building area for other properties in immediate area. Chair Huhn asked what that
conformance was? City Engineer Theriault asked for clarification – doesn’t mind doing it, is sure Scott
Braley will do it as well – what are we asking them to do? Are we asking them to do footprint of building?
Footprint of lot? Two storybuilding, so it’s two times? Board discussed whatthey would be taking for
numbers. Definition of building area was looked up. Member Meagher interpreting “area” to be
synonymous with “volume,” and this is not defined in the ordinance. Discussion regarding building
footprint of all the buildings/structures on the lots divided by lot size, then taking average of all lots and
areas. Discussion among many board members regarding numbers.
Page 20 | 23
City of Bangor Planning Division
Planning Board Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, September 6, 2022
Planning Officer Krieg advised that LDR is a mix of single family and attached residential; it’simportant
to ascertain what’s considered for general character. Discussion of what number is acceptable-below
the acceptable number? Member Meagher suggested within one standard deviation of the average of
the neighborhood. Board members continued discussion.
th
Member Shaw moved continuance to meeting of September 20 for calculations, seconded by Member
Brush. All members in favor, none opposed.
4. Land Development Permit Application – Site Development Plan – Conditional Use –
Vacant Map-Lots 041-026, and 041-027 –Broadway & School Street –Bangor Retail
Management III, LLC- Land Development Permit Application – Site Development Plan,
Conditional Use for proposed multi-tenant building consisting of 2,467 SF of restaurant with
drive-thru, 3,000 SF of retail and 2 separate 1,700 SF restaurants at vacant property located on
Broadway & School Street, Map-Lots 041-026, and 041-027, in the Shopping & Personal
Services (S&PS) District. Applicant: Bangor Retail Management III LLC.
Jake Modestow, Stonefield Engineering presented the following via Zoom:
Shared screen to show Board project, project site aerial map
Located on southeast corner of Broadway & School Street, 1.73-acre parcel
Small portion of green space on the lot
Signalized intersection at Broadway & School Street
Will raze area, increase amount of pervious coverage, and construct new, modern
shopping center – colorized rendering provided
Slight orientation change
New 9,075 SF building, and 3 separate users
i. 2,467 SF drive in restaurant, Starbucks, 11 car queues
ii. 3,000 SF fitness center, national tenant
iii. 3,600 SF medical clinical, national brand, nothing locked in
iv. 72 parking spaces, bike parking area
v. 2 trash enclosures, masonry in nature
vi. EV charging stations at rear of property, constructed separately
vii. Right in, right out onto Broadway
viii. Full movement driveway on School Street
ix. New sidewalk along Broadway to School Street
Vast improvement in impervious coverage from 100% down to 60%
Stormwater management plan detailing improvements from subsurface level provided
Page 21 | 23
City of Bangor Planning Division
Planning Board Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, September 6, 2022
Bioswale to be located on right side of property- improvement of quality & quantity of
stormwater
Proposing 11 LED area lights that will bearoundperimeter of site for proper illumination
i.Even distribution of lightandminimizinglight spill
Over 28 deciduous trees around perimeter, 48 evergreen trees, and 140 evergreen
plantings scattered in type A-2 buffers.
Conditional Use narrative provided, applicant feels that all of the standards are complied
with, in-line with neighborhood architecture
Pylon sign at Broadway & School Street, will comply in size and setbacks with all
applicable zoning codes, all three tenants being on the sign
Working with DOT to ensure driveways and traffic analysis done within industry standards
Provides adequate queuing without creating detriment to surrounding community
Vice Chair Perkins inquired about ensuring people will not go left out of the Broadway exit – Mr.
Modestow advised right out movement only, concrete island, channelizing flow from that driveway.
Member Brush asked about exits/entrances on School Street. Mr. Modestow provided full movement
driveway, access to School Street or Hillside Drive.
No other questions from the board. Planning Officer Krieg advised that they need to finalize their Traffic
Movement Permit, but it’s in process. No public comments.
Vice Chair Perkins moves to approve Land Development Permit Application – Site Development Plan,
Conditional Use for proposed multi-tenant building consisting of 2,467 SF of restaurant with drive-thru,
3,000 SF of retail and 2 separate 1,700 SF restaurants at vacant property located on Broadway &
School Street, Map-Lots 041-026, and 041-027, in the Shopping & Personal Services (S&PS) District.
Applicant: Bangor Retail Management III LLC, conditioned with applicant providing evidence of Traffic
Movement permit, seconded by Member Bazinet. All members in favor, none opposed.
Member Shaw thanked applicant for his patience and for those that stuck it out.
OTHER BUSINESS
5. Meeting Minutes –August 16, 2022–
Member Bazinet was not in attendance for the last meeting, noted that he was.
Member Kenney moved approval as amended, seconded by Member Meagher.
nd
6. Comprehensive Plan Update – Still working on the Policy document, will bring to the 2 City
Council meeting this month, then to Planning Board for the first meeting in October for a formal
presentation.
Page 22 | 23
City of Bangor Planning Division
Planning Board Meeting Minutes – Tuesday, September 6, 2022
7. Adjournment 10:47 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Melissa L. Bickford
Development Assistant
Planning Division
Page 23 | 23