Loading...
2022-06-13 22-214 ORDINANCE22-214 06/13/2022 CITY COUNCIL ACTION Council Meeting Date: June 13, 2022 Item No: 22-214 Responsible Dept: Planning Action Requested: Ordinance Map/Lot: N/A Title, Ordinance Amending Chapter 165, Land Development Code, to Define and Regulate the Uses Known as Boarding House Including Changes to Parking and District Allowances as well as Changes to the Conditional Uses Standards and Procedures. Summary This amendment to the Land Development Code clarifies the definition of a boarding house, provides parking requirements for the uses, and assigns the uses as allowed in certain districts Currently, boarding houses are combined with tourist homes and bed & breakfasts as a singular allowance. These uses have separate needs and impacts under the building code, the state licensing requirements, as well as how the property is used for this use. This order only addresses boarding houses. This work is also guided by the recommendations from the Affordable Housing Work Group in 2019. The allowances and regulations also give greater allowances for properties in the historic districts. It is also guided by the public comment received, as well as past comments from the Planning Board and the Business & Economic Development Committee. Conditional uses' review takes into account the environs within 500 feet of the subject property; thus this change also includes the technical change that property owners within 500 feet would be notified in the case of boarding houses which are conditional uses. Also, the use of the word "character" is removed in keeping with past City Council policies on modifying language that may not be inclusive and equitable. Committee Action Committee: Planning Board Action: Staff Comments & Approvals BED review City Manager Introduced for: First Reading and Referral Meeting Date: June 21, 2022 For: City Solicitor Against: Finance Director 22-214 06/13/2022 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE Date: June 13, 2022 Assigned to Councilor: Schaefer ORDINANCE, Amending Chapter 165, Land Development Code, to define and regulate the uses known as Boarding House including changes to parking and district allowances, as well as changes to the Conditional Uses standards and procedures. WHEREAS, currently, boarding houses are combined with other uses as a singular allowance, which doesn't reflect accurate land use impacts; and WHEREAS, the recommendations from the Affordable Housing Work Group in 2019 indicated the city should consider expanding the allowances for boarding houses; and WHEREAS, comments have been received and taken into consideration by the general public, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BANGOR AS FOLLOWS, THAT Chapter 165 of the Code of the City of Bangor is amended as follows: § 165-9 Conditional uses. The Planning Board is hereby authorized to grant conditional uses hereinafter set forth in this chapter in specific cases, after public notice and hearing, subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards. No conditional uses shall be granted unless specific provisions are made in this chapter. All conditional uses shall be subject to land development permit approval as provided for in Article XVI. A. Standards for conditional uses. Before the Planning Board shall grant a conditional use, it shall have determined that: (4) The proposed use, although not appropriate for every site in the zone, is appropriate for the location for which it is sought because the proposed use will conform to the general physical development pattern of the development in the immediate area as to architectural style, building bulk and extent, and intensity of site use. As to architectural style, the applicant must show that the proposed structure conforms to the exterior facade, rooflines, shape, and materials used on buildings in the immediate area. As to building bulk, the applicant shall cause his/her proposed building to conform to the height and the existing ratio of land area to building area for other properties in the immediate area. For purposes of this chapter, the term "immediate area" shall include all properties located within the same block and within 500 feet of the site of the proposed use. B. Procedure. 22-214 06/13/2022 (3) Upon a finding of technical compliance by staff, the Planning Officer shall set a date for the public hearing and shall give notice to all property owners within IGO 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property involved, at least 10 days prior, of the time and place of the hearing and shall place a public notice of the hearing, at least 10 days prior, in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Bangor. The owners of the property shall be considered to be those against whom taxes were assessed on April 1 prior to the application. Failure of any person owning property within I98 500 feet of said property to receive notice of public hearing shall not necessitate another hearing nor invalidate any action by the Planning Board. § 165-13 Definitions. For the purpose of interpreting this chapter, the following terms, phrases, words, and their derivations shall have the meanings given herein: BOARDING' 'OUSE, ROOP41NG HOUSE or- BED -AND -BREAKFAST A building arranged or used for lodging, with or without meals, for compensation, for more than three and not more than 30 individuals. BOARDINGy or -BED -AND -BREAKFAST commonA single-family dwelling or a [)ortion of a mixed -use buildina where 3 or more rooms are orovided for living guarters for stays 30 days or longer. Meals may or may not be provided, but there is at least one - -dwelling-occupied bthe owner or operator. building may also commonhave a room.. § 165-71 Residential districts. D. Driveways in residential districts may be used to meet parking requirements for boarding houses, and, buildings containing 2 to 4 dwelling units, without the need to meet requirements in 165-73 and 165-74 below. Driveway length must be at least 18 feet for each parking space required. 165-72 Required number of spaces. A minimum number of off-street parking spaces shall be provided and maintained by the owner of every building or property hereafter erected, altered, or changed in use, in accordance with the following requirements: C. Congregate housing for the elderly, and boarding houses: 412.1 space per 3 dwelling units or rooms. F. Bed & Breakfast: one space per guest room. § 165-88 Urban Residence 1 District (URD-1). D. Conditional uses. Subject to Planning Board approval under the provisions of § 165-9, the following uses may be permitted in this district: 22-214 06/13/2022 (2) Boarding Houses that are located on a major arterial street § 165-89 Urban Residence 2 District (URD-2). D. Conditional uses. Subject to Planning Board approval under the provisions of § 165-9, the following uses may be permitted in this district: (2) Boarding Houses that are located on a major arterial street § 165-91 Neighborhood Service District (NSD). C. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in this district: (11) Boarding Houses 12 " Accessory uses on the same lot that are customarily incidental to and subordinate to the above uses. § 165-93 Downtown Development District (DDD). C. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in this district: (14) Residential units and boarding houses, provided that: (a) All residential units and rooms in boarding houses located adjacent to the following public ways and parks must be wholly located above the ground floor: § 165-99 Low -Density Residential District (LDR). D. Conditional uses. Subject to Planning Board approval under the provisions of § 165-9, the following uses may be permitted in this district: (2) Boarding Houses that are located on a major arterial streets § 165-100 High -Density Residential (HDR). 22-214 06/13/2022 D. Conditional uses. Subject to Planning Board approval under the provisions of § 165-9, the following uses may be permitted in this district: M Boarding Houses that are located on a major arterial streets § 165-105 Rural Residence and Agricultural District (RR & A). D. Conditional uses. Subject to Planning Board approval under the provisions of § 165-9, the following uses may be permitted in this district: (8) Boarding Houses that are located on a major arterial streets COMMUNITY &ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CITY OF BANGOR PLANNING DIVISION Memorandum To: Honorable Bangor City Council Deb Laurie, City Manager From: Anne M Krieg AICP, Planning Officer Date: June 21, 2022 CC: Courtney O'Donnell, Assistant City Manager Tanya Emery, Director of Community and Economic Development David Szewczyk, City Solicitor Re: Planning Board Recommendation June 21, 2022 Amending Chapter 165, Land Development Code - to define and regulate the uses known as Boarding House including changes to parking and district allowances as well as changes to the Conditional Uses standards and procedures. Please accept this memorandum as the recommendation from the Planning Board for the noted item. The Planning Board considered this item in a noticed public hearing on June 21, 2022. The meeting was conducted in the Council Chambers at City Hall and on Zoom. Members in attendance in the Chambers were the Vice -Chair Reece Perkins, and Members Don Meagher and Ted Brush. Attending virtually were Members Lisa Shaw, Mike Bazinet, and Alison Coladarci (present for this vote). Vice -Chair Perkins chaired the meeting in Chairman Huhn's absence. Planning Officer Krieg reviewed the changes, noting the differences with conditional uses. From the staff memo: A. The Business & Economic Development Committee, upon reading and hearing concerns from residents and Planning Board members, asked staff to return the language that addresses the expressed concerns. B. The changes included: Remove bed & breakfasts from the current proposal 2. Require a boarding house to have on -site management or be owner -occupied 3. Allow boarding houses only on major arterials, or, in the Downtown District and Neighborhood Service District. (Note boarding houses are currently allowed in multifamily district, which is proposed to remain.); 4. Restrict boardinghouse allowance in historic districts to only major arterials; and 73 HARLOW STREET, BANGOR, ME 04401 TELEPHONE: (207) 992-4280 FAX: (207) 945-4447 WWW.BANG ORMAINE.GOV CITY OF BANGOR PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL 6.21.22 Boarding Houses 5. Allow as a conditional use and not as of right. C. In terms of the notice, the state statute requires that notice is sent to affected property owners in districts where the proposed zoning would allow commercial uses where there are none. When this proposal was last brought to the Board, it was the commercial use of Bed & Breakfast that triggered the need to send thousands of notices out. Boarding home is residential use and thus is not subject to the same notice requirements. Staff did want to provide notice, however, as we want to hear from people on the proposal, so we accumulated the emails we received from people from the last proposal and sent out an email to them describing the proposal as well as the Council Order. We have received some responses which are in your packet. The influence of LD2003 was briefly discussed, noting that legislation is for the allowance of individual units. Boarding houses are a single-family dwelling that rents out rooms to individuals. This is a different use. Roc LeBlanc from 64 West Broadway discussed the influence of this project on the Comprehensive Plan. He is also concerned with property maintenance. It was clarified that this work is from the 2019 recommendations from the Affordable Housing Work Group. It was also noted that the Historic Preservation Commission has jurisdiction over any changes to the exterior of a building in a historic district on a major arterial. Ann Marie Quinn expressed that she does not want this use allowed in historic districts, even on arterials. A Court Street property owner also agreed. The Chair noted that boarding houses have more requirements in the building code. If it's a house on Broadway, any changes go to the Commission. He noted this allowance gives options to prevent deterioration of historic homes. Member Shaw clarified the lot frontage allowances. Member Meagher reviewed his written comments (attached). A discussion ensued on the language that gives the Planning Board a higher level of scrutiny as part of their review of a conditional use permit. The Chair indicated this discussion should occur separately from this proposed change and that the proposal should move forward. Member Coladarci did not want to see any allowance for boarding homes in the URD-1 zone. She indicated this district needs to be preserved. She is concerned with investors coming in and buying up properties and thinks the city should have controls on how many boarding houses can be allowed per district. Page 213 CITY OF BANGOR PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL 6.21.22 Boarding Houses Member Shaw wants to see the proposal move forward. She indicated we can work on this more but that staff made the changes that were requested and addressed people's concerns. Member Bazinet reminded the public that boarding houses would have to go to the Planning Board for permitting. Member Brush made a motion to recommend to the City Council that the application for a district change ought to pass. Member Shaw seconded the motion. The motion passed 4.2 with Members Coladarci and Meagher dissenting. amk Page 313 From:Carol Cutting To:Bickford, Melissa Cc:Krieg, Anne M.; Emery, Tanya; Steer, Julia Subject:Re: Boarding Houses - Planning Board Hearing June 21st at 7pm Date:Monday, June 20, 2022 12:37:10 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is safe. Your Committee has obviously put a lot of effort into this. I still do not believe boarding houses are a good idea nor that they will ease the housing crisis. I feel it's bad for Bangor, If you're going to allow them anyways, Additional suggestions might be : 1.) to have Boarding Houses to permanently lose their "conditional status" and ability to be a Boarding House -- IF there are over 3 legitimate police calls due to problems within a year. 2.) The City & Committee strictly firm up parking lot regulations! Currently there is NO Code prohibiting owners from using their backyard as a giant parking lot...nor that they need to use their driveway for-- i.e. in my case the apt. next to me is "allowed" to park 4 cars facing me in their backyard 5" from the line. On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 8:32 AM Bickford, Melissa <melissa.bickford@bangormaine.gov> wrote: You are receiving this email notice based on your participation in the public process regarding a proposal to redefine boarding houses and bed & breakfasts and add the uses to certain districts in March 2022. As you may be aware, neither the City Council nor the Planning Board supported the original proposal. However, the City Council requested staff to review all the feedback gathered through that process and determine whether an alternate proposal could be developed. After a thorough review of all comments and feedback received during the review of the initial proposal, there were a number of common themes identified. Based on our review, a revised proposal is being proposed that includes the following modifications: A. Remove bed & breakfasts from the current proposal; B. Require a boarding house to have on-site management or be owner- occupied; C. Allow boarding houses only on major arterials, or, in the Downtown District and Neighborhood Service District. (Note boarding houses are currently allowed in multifamily district, which is proposed to remain.); D. Restrict boardinghouse allowance in historic districts to only major arterials; and E. Allow as a conditional use and not as of right. Attached to this email please find, the proposed language is in the form of a Council Order, a map showing the areas this use can be potentially located if this proposal were to pass and the formal notice for posting under the requirements of the state statute . Please note major arterials are defined as: Broadway, Hammond Street, Hogan Road, Main Street, Odlin Road, State Street, Stillwater Avenue and Union Street st The date of the Planning Board hearing is June 21 at 7 PM. Interested parties can attend the hearing in person or via zoom. In addition, comments can be submitting by responding to this email. When the original proposal was under consideration, you may have received a notice in the mail. , This notice was required by state statute as the proposal included adding bed & breakfast use, a commercial use, to the district. A boarding house is a residential use as such no notifications were required as for this proposal. Based on the interest in the previous proposal, we are intent on notifying all parties who participated in the review of the proposal. Don’t forget to submit survey responses for the Comprehensive Plan here (by June th 15) https://berrydunn.mysocialpinpoint.com/bangor-comprehensive-plan/bangor- survey and the survey for the Recovery funds (ARPA) this city is receiving here https://bangormaine.gov/arpa Thank you, in advance, for your participation in these important public processes. BCC: Public Comments Received via Email Melissa Bickford Development Assistant Notary Public Community & Economic Development Planning Department melissa.bickford@bangormaine.gov Phone: 207.992.4278 http://www.bangormaine.gov COMMENTS ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO BANGOR’S LAND USE CODE REGARDING BOARDING HOUSES Lisa Feldman, Orono ME Though not a resident of Bangor, I did work there for decades. Like many residents of area towns, I have also visited Bangor regularly to shop, receive medical services, and visit the public library. I would characterize myself as a well-informed observer of Bangor’s municipal activities and someone concerned about its quality of life. I believe I am particularly qualified to comment on the changes proposed. For 12 years, I managed a small single-room-occupancy in Amherst MA. Unlike boarding homes as defined in the proposed ordinance change, SROs are specifically designed so that rooms are self-contained and common areas (usually only a bathroom) are shared. The building I managed had 12 SRO units—three floors with four units each and a shared bathroom on each floor, plus a standard apartment in the basement. Each SRO unit had a small kitchenette, consisting of sink, dorm-sized refrigerator, hotplate, and microwave. This kind of housing differs in some respects from boarding homes as defined in the proposed ordinance, but there is a lot of overlap. The most important is that both kinds of housing are aimed at people able to live alone (i.e. who don’t require assistance with daily chores or specialized medical or mental health care) but are looking for housing that costs less than a market-rate apartment. On the basis of that experience, let me comment specifically on the proposed ordinance changes: Separating boarding houses from bed-and-breakfasts is an important step, as it lays a basis—at least implicitly—for understanding that people renting rooms in boarding homes are establishing a landlord/tenant relationship and putting this kind of occupation squarely under the jurisdiction of landlord/tenant law. You may want to bump up the requirements for parking spaces from 1 space for 3 rooms to 1 in 2. My observation is that especially younger people would rather skimp on housing space than do without a car, rather than vice versa. This would mean that some owners might have to pave a bump-out for one or two spaces. On the other hand, nothing prevents them for charging extra for parking. I understand that limiting boarding homes to major arterial streets is a political decision and, as a non- resident, I refrain from comment. Similarly, I see the requirement for owner-occupancy in particular, rather than responsible on-site management of any kind, as similarly political. The decision to make this use conditional rather than by right seems to me a sound one. Would some kind of site plan review be required? I assume that these boarding homes will have to be licensed. The rest of my comments are therefore aimed at sound management practices rather than zoning regulations per se. When I moved the SRO in Amherst, things were chaotic. The landlord was a young man, still in his 20s, who had inherited the building from an uncle. He had an undergraduate business major but no training or experience in rental property management. Tenants signed a lease and paid the equivalent of three months’ rent (first, last, and security deposit) up front. If people damaged the property or ran out on the rent, the landlord kept their security deposit and hoped for the best. Cleaning and repairs were done only sporadically. The yard was unmown, un-landscaped, and trash-strewn. The resident nominally in charge of management turned out to be sexually abusing adolescent boys, videotaping the proceedings, and selling the videos. In short order, he went off to jail. I explained to the landlord that he would make more money if he managed the building better, because he would have less tenant turnover and fewer repairs. He offered me the job on the spot. It took surprisingly little work to get the building back on track. In only a year or so, we went from neighborhood eyesore to valued neighbor and active participant in our neighborhood association. Amherst is a municipality about the size of Bangor. Our building was located close to downtown on a residential side street but only a black from a main traffic artery. Looking back, I realized that previous work experience had qualified me for the job. I had spent several years working as a paralegal, legal educator, and law librarian. I knew the basics of landlord/tenant law and had had training in alternative dispute resolution/mediation techniques. I had worked at a group home for disadvantaged adolescents, so I wasn’t unhinged if confronted with a troubled, angry person. (In truth, this was only a sporadic occurrence for me over 12 years.) My experience in library work had made me adept—in those pre-internet day—at finding information on community agencies and programs that might help my tenants when they encountered difficulties of various kinds. I had done a lot of cleaning, both as a college janitor and a residential cleaner. Of these helpful experiences, the most important was an understanding of landlord/tenant law. Pine Tree Legal Assistance has some great information on the rights and responsibilities of tenants on its website. Perhaps the City of Bangor could work with Pine tree or some other group to compile equivalent information on the rights and responsibilities or landlords and either require it or make it available and strongly recommended for landlords and rental property managers. It also seems to me necessary that operators work with the Fire Department to develop an evacuation plan. We were inspected annually by both the building Inspector and the Fire Department, which was helpful in encouraging the landlord to adhere to good maintenance practices. This language of the proposed ordinance on boarding houses is aimed primarily at buildings constructed as single-family dwelling converted to this use. I hope the City of Bangor will also consider regulations and programs facilitating new construction of SROs or small studio apartments. This is an excellent kind of housing for people of limited means who value privacy over amenity. It can also be a viable proposition for a developer. Without on-site laundry facilities or electric stoves and with shared bathrooms, builders save on plumbing and wiring costs. Allowing for a well-designed space of 15 feet square per unit (the room in which I lived for 12 years was a little smaller), yields a small building footprint, with more units per acreage than a conventional apartment building. Though SRO rents typically include utilities, the landlord can also save by installing energy- efficient appliances and lighting. This means rent per unit can be pegged at below-market rates. A small building of this kind is ideal for vest-pocket development. Our building had wired-in smoke detectors and a sprinkler system, required by law. Though the landlord in those days allowed indoor smoking and people cooked on hotplates, in 12 years we never had a fire. I would also stipulate that responsible on-site management—though not necessarily owner-occupancy—be a requirement for any kind of housing requiring people to live at close quarters. In my case I received a rent reduction of $50 a month (about $115 adjusted for inflation) for my work, which included cleaning common areas, yardwork, arranging for and supervising repairs, and interviewing prospective tenants. In twelve years, we went through a formal eviction procedure only once. Many thanks for your consideration. I wish you every success in broadening the range of affordable housing options for people in Bangor. COMMENTS ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO BANGOR’S LAND USE CODE REGARDING BOARDING HOUSES Lisa Feldman, Orono ME Though not a resident of Bangor, I did work there for decades. Like many residents of area towns, I have also visited Bangor regularly to shop, receive medical services, and visit the public library. I would characterize myself as a well-informed observer of Bangor’s municipal activities and someone concerned about its quality of life. I believe I am particularly qualified to comment on the changes proposed. For 12 years, I managed a small single-room-occupancy in Amherst MA. Unlike boarding homes as defined in the proposed ordinance change, SROs are specifically designed so that rooms are self-contained and common areas (usually only a bathroom) are shared. The building I managed had 12 SRO units—three floors with four units each and a shared bathroom on each floor, plus a standard apartment in the basement. Each SRO unit had a small kitchenette, consisting of sink, dorm-sized refrigerator, hotplate, and microwave. This kind of housing differs in some respects from boarding homes as defined in the proposed ordinance, but there is a lot of overlap. The most important is that both kinds of housing are aimed at people able to live alone (i.e. who don’t require assistance with daily chores or specialized medical or mental health care) but are looking for housing that costs less than a market-rate apartment. On the basis of that experience, let me comment specifically on the proposed ordinance changes: Separating boarding houses from bed-and-breakfasts is an important step, as it lays a basis—at least implicitly—for understanding that people renting rooms in boarding homes are establishing a landlord/tenant relationship and putting this kind of occupation squarely under the jurisdiction of landlord/tenant law. You may want to bump up the requirements for parking spaces from 1 space for 3 rooms to 1 in 2. My observation is that especially younger people would rather skimp on housing space than do without a car, rather than vice versa. This would mean that some owners might have to pave a bump-out for one or two spaces. On the other hand, nothing prevents them for charging extra for parking. I understand that limiting boarding homes to major arterial streets is a political decision and, as a non- resident, I refrain from comment. Similarly, I see the requirement for owner-occupancy in particular, rather than responsible on-site management of any kind, as similarly political. The decision to make this use conditional rather than by right seems to me a sound one. Would some kind of site plan review be required? I assume that these boarding homes will have to be licensed. The rest of my comments are therefore aimed at sound management practices rather than zoning regulations per se. When I moved the SRO in Amherst, things were chaotic. The landlord was a young man, still in his 20s, who had inherited the building from an uncle. He had an undergraduate business major but no training or experience in rental property management. Tenants signed a lease and paid the equivalent of three months’ rent (first, last, and security deposit) up front. If people damaged the property or ran out on the rent, the landlord kept their security deposit and hoped for the best. Cleaning and repairs were done only sporadically. The yard was unmown, un-landscaped, and trash-strewn. The resident nominally in charge of management turned out to be sexually abusing adolescent boys, videotaping the proceedings, and selling the videos. In short order, he went off to jail. I explained to the landlord that he would make more money if he managed the building better, because he would have less tenant turnover and fewer repairs. He offered me the job on the spot. It took surprisingly little work to get the building back on track. In only a year or so, we went from neighborhood eyesore to valued neighbor and active participant in our neighborhood association. Amherst is a municipality about the size of Bangor. Our building was located close to downtown on a residential side street but only a black from a main traffic artery. Looking back, I realized that previous work experience had qualified me for the job. I had spent several years working as a paralegal, legal educator, and law librarian. I knew the basics of landlord/tenant law and had had training in alternative dispute resolution/mediation techniques. I had worked at a group home for disadvantaged adolescents, so I wasn’t unhinged if confronted with a troubled, angry person. (In truth, this was only a sporadic occurrence for me over 12 years.) My experience in library work had made me adept—in those pre-internet day—at finding information on community agencies and programs that might help my tenants when they encountered difficulties of various kinds. I had done a lot of cleaning, both as a college janitor and a residential cleaner. Of these helpful experiences, the most important was an understanding of landlord/tenant law. Pine Tree Legal Assistance has some great information on the rights and responsibilities of tenants on its website. Perhaps the City of Bangor could work with Pine tree or some other group to compile equivalent information on the rights and responsibilities or landlords and either require it or make it available and strongly recommended for landlords and rental property managers. It also seems to me necessary that operators work with the Fire Department to develop an evacuation plan. We were inspected annually by both the building Inspector and the Fire Department, which was helpful in encouraging the landlord to adhere to good maintenance practices. This language of the proposed ordinance on boarding houses is aimed primarily at buildings constructed as single-family dwelling converted to this use. I hope the City of Bangor will also consider regulations and programs facilitating new construction of SROs or small studio apartments. This is an excellent kind of housing for people of limited means who value privacy over amenity. It can also be a viable proposition for a developer. Without on-site laundry facilities or electric stoves and with shared bathrooms, builders save on plumbing and wiring costs. Allowing for a well-designed space of 15 feet square per unit (the room in which I lived for 12 years was a little smaller), yields a small building footprint, with more units per acreage than a conventional apartment building. Though SRO rents typically include utilities, the landlord can also save by installing energy- efficient appliances and lighting. This means rent per unit can be pegged at below-market rates. A small building of this kind is ideal for vest-pocket development. Our building had wired-in smoke detectors and a sprinkler system, required by law. Though the landlord in those days allowed indoor smoking and people cooked on hotplates, in 12 years we never had a fire. I would also stipulate that responsible on-site management—though not necessarily owner-occupancy—be a requirement for any kind of housing requiring people to live at close quarters. In my case I received a rent reduction of $50 a month (about $115 adjusted for inflation) for my work, which included cleaning common areas, yardwork, arranging for and supervising repairs, and interviewing prospective tenants. In twelve years, we went through a formal eviction procedure only once. Many thanks for your consideration. I wish you every success in broadening the range of affordable housing options for people in Bangor. From:plogan05@aol.com To:Planning-WWW Subject:Re: Proposal to amend Chapter 165 Date:Saturday, June 18, 2022 10:16:49 AM WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is safe. 6/18/22 To the Planning Board: I think the Planning Board should table this proposal until Bangor is able to assess what impact the sweeping zoning changes recently passed in Augusta will have on our city. I urge the Planning Board to vote to NOT recommend these changes to Chapter 165 at this time. Sincerely, Pamela Logan From:beverlywm@aol.com To:Bickford, Melissa Subject:Re: Boarding Houses - Planning Board Hearing June 21st at 7pm Date:Thursday, June 9, 2022 9:58:08 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is safe. My concerns are : how many units would be allowed per building. And parking situation per resident. ( corner Congress Street and Broadwayis a LARGE apt building - apartment rented to a group of young men ( possibly 5). Parking for 2 vehicles so they are parked on Congress Street night and day! Take up one lane of traffic). And second- I would like consideration Re: traffic in the area!! If u it’s are built on Broadway, traffic can’t turn left when traveling north! (Ie Congress Street with no left turn off Broadway). So traffic will increase substantially on Congress Street/ French st!! Traffic for hospital is already a major inconvenience for residents living near. Thank u for updated information. I intend to zoom the meeting. Have a good day. Bev Mansell Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS On Thursday, June 9, 2022, 8:32 AM, Bickford, Melissa <melissa.bickford@bangormaine.gov> wrote: You are receiving this email notice based on your participation in the public process regarding a proposal to redefine boarding houses and bed & breakfasts and add the uses to certain districts in March 2022. As you may be aware, neither the City Council nor the Planning Board supported the original proposal. However, the City Council requested staff to review all the feedback gathered through that process and determine whether an alternate proposal could be developed. After a thorough review of all comments and feedback received during the review of the initial proposal, there were a number of common themes identified. Based on our review, a revised proposal is being proposed that includes the following modifications: A. Remove bed & breakfasts from the current proposal; B. Require a boarding house to have on-site management or be owner-occupied; C. Allow boarding houses only on major arterials, or, in the Downtown District and Neighborhood Service District. (Note boarding houses are currently allowed in multifamily district, which is proposed to remain.); D. Restrict boardinghouse allowance in historic districts to only major arterials; and E. Allow as a conditional use and not as of right. Attached to this email please find, the proposed language is in the form of a Council Order, a map showing the areas this use can be potentially located if this proposal were to pass and the formal notice for posting under the requirements of the state statute . Please note major arterials are defined as: Broadway, Hammond Street, Hogan Road, Main Street, Odlin Road, State Street, Stillwater Avenue and Union Street st The date of the Planning Board hearing is June 21 at 7 PM. Interested parties can attend the hearing in person or via zoom. In addition, comments can be submitting by responding to this email. When the original proposal was under consideration, you may have received a notice in the mail. , This notice was required by state statute as the proposal included adding bed & breakfast use, a commercial use, to the district. A boarding house is a residential use as such no notifications were required as for this proposal. Based on the interest in the previous proposal, we are intent on notifying all parties who participated in the review of the proposal. Don’t forget to submit survey responses for the Comprehensive Plan here th (by June 15) https://berrydunn.mysocialpinpoint.com/bangor- comprehensive-plan/bangor-survey and the survey for the Recovery funds (ARPA) this city is receiving here https://bangormaine.gov/arpa Thank you, in advance, for your participation in these important public processes. BCC: Public Comments Received via Email Melissa Bickford Development Assistant Notary Public Community & Economic Development Planning Department melissa.bickford@bangormaine.gov Phone: 207.992.4278 http://www.bangormaine.gov From:Nancy Nicholson To:Bickford, Melissa Cc:Krieg, Anne M.; Emery, Tanya; Steer, Julia Subject:Re: Boarding Houses - Planning Board Hearing June 21st at 7pm Date:Tuesday, June 21, 2022 2:07:13 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Ms. Bickford: Thank you for inviting me to comment on the revised Bangor Boarding House Proposal. I was unable to complete my original commentary due to time restrictions at the meeting last month which I attended and prepared for. I hope you will have time to read this before tonight's meeting. I think that the requirement to have an on-site manager or owner occupancy of a boarding house is an improvement. However, I am wondering how the city plans to monitor and/or enforce this rule? Additionally, I would like elaboration on a point that Mr. Reese Perkins touched on in his post-public commentary. In his comments - Mr. Perkins mentioned that boarding houses (as well as rentals) are a business. I agree. I want to know why single family tax payers pay the EXACT same property taxes as someone who is making a considerable profit running a boarding house or rental property. In my neighborhood, which is zoned as URD 1 - my husband and I counted over 48 apartment buildings with more than 2 units in an 8 block radius. We presented our report to the council several years ago, and it was pretty much brushed under the table. Landlords are making quite a bit of profit on these buildings and I do not think it fair to tax single families (many of whom may be struggling financially) at the same rate as a professional landlord or even the manager/owner of a boarding house. Additionally, although I do understand the need for affordable housing, the privacy concerns in boarding houses create considerable challenges to afford both residents and neighbors both safety and privacy. I was wondering if the city has a number in mind of exactly how many boarding houses will be allowed as a percentage of total residential city properties? What measures will the city take to inspect and supervise them, and what repercussions will occur if someone sneaks in a boarding house where it is not officially allowed? I do, however, think that owners of single family homes should be allowed to renovate their properties to form 2 private units if they wish and an appropriate floor plan can be created. I understand that this strategy falls outside of the current proposal, but it is part of a solution to the issue, especially if prospective tenants could choose their roommates, rather than forcing strangers to live in intimate quarters. I think that it is disrespectful to bleep a concerned resident off after speaking for 2 minutes, while allowing board members unlimited time to speak. I understand that the board members are volunteering their time and doing valuable work, I just think the process of the way public commentary is handled could be improved - if a time limit must be part of the process it should be longer than 2 minutes. The real answer to the need is not boarding houses but small private apartments with ethical and professional management. There are many emerging technologies to create this type of housing and the city should be looking into this. Respectfully, Nancy Nicholson Maple Street Bangor, Maine ReplyForward On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 8:33 AM Bickford, Melissa <melissa.bickford@bangormaine.gov> wrote: You are receiving this email notice based on your participation in the public process regarding a proposal to redefine boarding houses and bed & breakfasts and add the uses to certain districts in March 2022. As you may be aware, neither the City Council nor the Planning Board supported the original proposal. However, the City Council requested staff to review all the feedback gathered through that process and determine whether an alternate proposal could be developed. After a thorough review of all comments and feedback received during the review of the initial proposal, there were a number of common themes identified. Based on our review, a revised proposal is being proposed that includes the following modifications: A. Remove bed & breakfasts from the current proposal; B. Require a boarding house to have on-site management or be owner-occupied; C. Allow boarding houses only on major arterials, or, in the Downtown District and Neighborhood Service District. (Note boarding houses are currently allowed in multifamily district, which is proposed to remain.); D. Restrict boardinghouse allowance in historic districts to only major arterials; and E. Allow as a conditional use and not as of right. Attached to this email please find, the proposed language is in the form of a Council Order, a map showing the areas this use can be potentially located if this proposal were to pass and the formal notice for posting under the requirements of the state statute . Please note major arterials are defined as: Broadway, Hammond Street, Hogan Road, Main Street, Odlin Road, State Street, Stillwater Avenue and Union Street st The date of the Planning Board hearing is June 21 at 7 PM. Interested parties can attend the hearing in person or via zoom. In addition, comments can be submitting by responding to this email. When the original proposal was under consideration, you may have received a notice in the mail. , This notice was required by state statute as the proposal included adding bed & breakfast use, a commercial use, to the district. A boarding house is a residential use as such no notifications were required as for this proposal. Based on the interest in the previous proposal, we are intent on notifying all parties who participated in the review of the proposal. th Don’t forget to submit survey responses for the Comprehensive Plan here (by June 15) https://berrydunn.mysocialpinpoint.com/bangor-comprehensive- plan/bangor-survey and the survey for the Recovery funds (ARPA) this city is receiving here https://bangormaine.gov/arpa Thank you, in advance, for your participation in these important public processes. BCC: Public Comments Received via Email Melissa Bickford Development Assistant Notary Public Community & Economic Development Planning Department melissa.bickford@bangormaine.gov Phone: 207.992.4278 http://www.bangormaine.gov From:Micah Pawling To:Bickford, Melissa Subject:Re: Boarding Houses - Planning Board Hearing June 21st at 7pm Date:Monday, June 13, 2022 1:29:12 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Melissa, Thank you for the e-mail. As it stands now, I reject the amendments because it can compromise residential areas. I am trying to discern the authors' goals or previous concerns about our beautiful small city. If filling vacant large homes is an objective, the proposed plan is not the answer. Too many slum landlords already exist. Since housing is in short supply, I recommend that the city officials cogitate on ways to encourage sellers to work with responsible buyers that will improve the city, not cram people into limited living quarters. Attract buyers and provide incentives for improving the property, not simply using it as a source of income which will lead to the deterioration of the establishment. Thank you for understanding. Best wishes, -M. On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 8:32 AM Bickford, Melissa <melissa.bickford@bangormaine.gov> wrote: You are receiving this email notice based on your participation in the public process regarding a proposal to redefine boarding houses and bed & breakfasts and add the uses to certain districts in March 2022. As you may be aware, neither the City Council nor the Planning Board supported the original proposal. However, the City Council requested staff to review all the feedback gathered through that process and determine whether an alternate proposal could be developed. After a thorough review of all comments and feedback received during the review of the initial proposal, there were a number of common themes identified. Based on our review, a revised proposal is being proposed that includes the following modifications: A. Remove bed & breakfasts from the current proposal; B. Require a boarding house to have on-site management or be owner- occupied; C. Allow boarding houses only on major arterials, or, in the Downtown District and Neighborhood Service District. (Note boarding houses are currently allowed in multifamily district, which is proposed to remain.); D. Restrict boardinghouse allowance in historic districts to only major arterials; and E. Allow as a conditional use and not as of right. Attached to this email please find, the proposed language is in the form of a Council Order, a map showing the areas this use can be potentially located if this proposal were to pass and the formal notice for posting under the requirements of the state statute . Please note major arterials are defined as: Broadway, Hammond Street, Hogan Road, Main Street, Odlin Road, State Street, Stillwater Avenue and Union Street st The date of the Planning Board hearing is June 21 at 7 PM. Interested parties can attend the hearing in person or via zoom. In addition, comments can be submitting by responding to this email. When the original proposal was under consideration, you may have received a notice in the mail. , This notice was required by state statute as the proposal included adding bed & breakfast use, a commercial use, to the district. A boarding house is a residential use as such no notifications were required as for this proposal. Based on the interest in the previous proposal, we are intent on notifying all parties who participated in the review of the proposal. Don’t forget to submit survey responses for the Comprehensive Plan here (by June th 15) https://berrydunn.mysocialpinpoint.com/bangor-comprehensive-plan/bangor- survey and the survey for the Recovery funds (ARPA) this city is receiving here https://bangormaine.gov/arpa Thank you, in advance, for your participation in these important public processes. BCC: Public Comments Received via Email Melissa Bickford Development Assistant Notary Public Community & Economic Development Planning Department melissa.bickford@bangormaine.gov Phone: 207.992.4278 http://www.bangormaine.gov From:Annemarie Quin To:Bickford, Melissa Subject:Planning Board question Date:Monday, June 20, 2022 9:49:00 AM WARNING: This email originated outside of our organization. Messages claiming or appearing to be from someone within our organization may be fraudulent. DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you can verify the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mel, Thank you for all of your recent help with BHPC packets et al. I’m presently reading the 6/21/22 Planning Board packet and I’m surprised to read the following Planning Department’s recommendation: “restrict boardinghouse allowance in historic districts to only major arterials”. This came as a surprise because it has been my understanding that boardinghouses would not be allowed in historic districts. We live in one of the two most historically important communities in the entire State of Maine, and we are so fortunate here to be surrounded by many architecturally important buildings placed in historic surroundings. This is particularly the case in our historic districts. Many people visit Bangor principally to visit them. We simply cannot allow these historic districts to be encroached upon. I agree with Micah Pawling concerning decisions which could compromise the neighborhoods in “our beautiful small city”, this is especially true, I believe, in our historic districts. Will this issue be clarified at a Planning Board meeting? And, if so, when? Best wishes Mel, Anne Marie Comments by Planning Board member Donald Meagher on Item 2 of the June 21, 2022 Agenda 1.Small apparent typo in 165-99.D.(2), 165-100 D. (8), 165-105 D. (8): These sentences read “Boarding Houses that are located on a major arterial streets”. 2. Amendments to changes in 165-9 Conditional uses should be taken up for a vote separately from language on Boarding House. There may be differing opinions by Board members on each topic. 3.The term “intensity of site use” in Conditional use standard A.4. remains undefined. The other factors for comparison, architectural style and building bulk, and how they are to be compared by the applicant to properties located on the same block and within 500 feet are explained in this standard. How does the applicantgo about meeting their burden of proof on this comparison for intensity of use? What is being compared?Is it traffic (which is covered in 165-9 A. (2))? Is it percent of impervious cover (also covered elsewhere in the Code)? Is it number of dwelling units per acre (also covered elsewhere). 4.Intensity of use might be an important (perhaps primary) factor in determining the appropriateness of a proposed Boarding House to the residential neighborhood in which it would be located. Number of proposed rental rooms and onsite manager compared to the number of bedrooms in the other properties within the 500 foot comparison area? 5.I agree with taking Code amendments for uses up individually, so that the Planning Board is voting on just this single topic. However, as I have expressed previously, before I vote on individual use changes such as Boarding House, I want to see the City’s policies on all rental use types, including policies outside the Code, presented comprehensively. Are potential concerns present across multiple rental use types treated consistently and uniformly? If similar concerns are treated differently between rental uses, what is the rationale for that? Also, I think the City needs a policy (it may already exist) on responding to complaints regardingany rental use property and how the problems expressed in those complaints will be addressed and corrected in a timely manner. IN CITY COUNCIL JUNE 13, 2022 COrd 22-214 First Reading and Referral to Planning Board Meeting of June 21, 2022 CITY CLERK IN CITY COUNCIL JUNE 27, 2022 COrd 22-214 Rock LeBlanc, Zach Robinson and Kate Surpless spoke against the passage of this ordinance Motion made and seconded for Passage Vote: 8 – 0 Councilors Voting Yes: Davitt, Leonard, Okafor, Schaefer, Sprague, Yacoubagha, Fournier Councilors Voting No: None Passed CITY CLERK