PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2004
MUNICIPAL BUILDING COUNCIL CHAMBER – 7:00 P.M.
Present: Chris Dorion, Eloise Kleban, Andy Perkins, Eric Landis, Mike Tuell, Mark
Kittridge, David Thompson and Christa Schwintzer.
Absent: David Sewall.
Chris Dorion was designated a voting member.
Acceptance of the agenda.
MARK KITTRIDGE MOVED ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA. ANDY PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Approval of the minutes of November 19, 2003.
MARK KITTRIDGE MOVED APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 2003. ERIC LANDIS SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Public Hearings.
Brian Rahill explained that he does website development design and programming and he would like to operate out of his home. Many of his clients are in Maine and some within the Town as well as some out of state. Approximately 50% of his business is done instate. There will be minimal traffic impact from his business. He rarely has clients visit. He has read the ordinance and he understands the restrictions.
There were no further proponents or opponents.
Mark Kittridge asked if he was going to have a sign and Brian replied no he sees no reason to advertise his business as most of his business comes through word of mouth or through their internet website.
Mike Tuell asked what he had for parking? Brian explained he has two employees and there is a driveway behind the house that has room for 3 vehicles and there is a garage. It is mostly parking for his employees since it is rare that clients would come to this location.
The public hearing was closed.
2
CHRIS DORION MOVED TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION FOR A HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT FOR BRIAN RAHILL TO LOCATE A WEBSITE DESIGN, HOSTING AND PROGRAMMING BUSINESS WITHIN HIS HOME LOCATED AT 48 FOREST AVENUE, TAX MAP 19-4 LOT 32. ERIC LANDIS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Christa Schwintzer asked about the two employees and that most of the home occupations they review only involves the person owning the home.
Mike Tuell reminded her that the ordinance states no more than two employees are allowed. The ordinance is written very strictly in what a home occupation business can do in terms of parking, signage, traffic and it has to appear as if there is no business there. It is written strictly to not allow a commercial type environment in a residential area.
The board voted on the motion before them:
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Geremy Chubbuck explained his business would be a part-time, non-stocking or very minimal sporting goods business. Primarily it will be a custom order type business. If a customer is looking for something in particular he would locate the item, provide a quote and hopefully a sale would be generated. Another avenue of business he hopes to tap into is through something similar to Ebay that the sporting goods community uses called “Auctionarms.com”. Local firearms dealers don’t use this too often, they prefer to sell something that is in stock. His hours of business would be by appointment only and he would do it during reasonable hours of the day. It would be dictated around his primary job, which at the moment he is unemployed but hopefully he will be employed again shortly. It will also be dictated by his family responsibilities and his personal outside activities. There will be no impact on the local neighborhood from his business. There will be no additional noise and no additional traffic. The business will not be a structure; it is more of a paperwork entity. His anticipated start up time will be some time towards the end of the second quarter or the beginning of the third quarter. Upon receiving his business permit there is a lengthy wait through approvals with the Federal government to obtain his Federal permit. All applicable laws, rules and regulations will be strictly adhered to. He plans on having a low inventory or no inventory customer order type business. He doesn’t plan to stock guns in the house. He doesn’t plan on a road sign, as he is not a retail business. There will be no walk-in customers. It will be more of a phone type operation and paperwork type of business.
Further proponents and opponents were asked to speak.
3
Andrew Sheiff, 28A Crosby Street, asked why Mr. Chubbuck is unemployed?
Mike Tuell stated that this doesn’t have anything to do with the application.
Al Holmes, 150 Kelley Road, was concerned about the safety factor for himself and his family. Vandalism is a concern he has. He explained the prior owner of the applicant’s property had been broken into twice. He hopes the board takes his and his family’s safety into consideration as well as Mr. Chubbuck’s.
Mike Tuell felt the overriding issue is the potential for vandalism and since board member Andy Perkins lived in the same neighborhood, he asked his opinion.
Andy Perkins stated he is an abutter on the backside of the applicant but he has no questions at this time.
Mark Kittridge asked Mr. Chubbuck if he would like to address the concerns raised on vandalism?
Mr. Chubbuck stated it would be foolish to try to promise that your house would never be broken into. When he lived in Bucksport he had three attempted break-ins with no business and his dog scared away the intruders. Two of the three times he was home and he sees no relevance to that. Generally people who are going to commit crimes do not do it through licensed establishments, particularly ones that don’t stock firearms for retail sale. His house does sit back a fair distance from the road and he has a light in the tree in front of his home and his door. He has a very good view and decent lighted front yard. He would be foolish to promise the board that his house would never be broken into, and that is why we pay law enforcement in this town.
Andy Perkins asked if his break-ins were related to the fact he is a sporting enthusiast? Mr. Chubbuck replied that was not the case.
Andy Perkins asked how many firearms he carried as his own personal weapon? Mr. Chubbuck did not feel comfortable saying that on public TV.
Mark Kittridge asked if he had any anticipation of testing or firing of guns? Mr. Chubbuck replied there would be no discharge of firearms with this business and he doesn’t anticipate any bow firing or anything of that nature.
Mark Kittridge asked if he would be selling ammo and Mr. Chubbuck replied yes, on an order type basis.
Chris Dorion asked if he plans on installing an alarm system? Mr. Chubbuck explained his house does have an alarm system installed in it now. Any firearms he is in receipt of would be stored in one of his vaults.
4
Andy Perkins asked if he would be doing any repairs and Mr. Chubbuck stated probably not.
Mike Tuell asked if he had done this type of business before? Geremy Chubbuck replied no it is more of a hobby not for sale and profit and this will be a new venture.
Mike Tuell read a letter from Judith Cyr, 140 Kelley Road, in favor of the proposal.
Geremy Chubbuck felt that once he gets established and licensed, he will be sending out flyers on a monthly basis to the local police departments and local law enforcement agencies and minimal newspaper ads for auction arms transfers. This will be a low-key business and not a full-time job.
The public hearing was closed.
MARK KITTRIDGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT REQUEST BY GEREMY CHUBBUCK TO LOCATE A PART-TIME FIREARMS, ACCESSORY AND SPORTING GOODS BUSINESS WITHIN HIS HOME LOCATED AT 142 KELLEY ROAD, TAX MAP 26 LOT 34. ERIC LANDIS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mike Tuell felt in the time he has been on the Planning Board there have been two applicants with a similar type of business. One was more retail and the other was gunsmithing. He is not a gun enthusiast, it makes him leery having a place where guns are stored but in this case it doesn’t appear to be the intent. He is not opposed to this business. He explained that this is a one-year permit and if there were extenuating circumstances it would be reviewed again. He stated his record has been that he opposed such applications but he will vote in favor of this application because he does not see the impact on the neighborhood he saw on the other applications.
Andy Perkins is not a firearms enthusiast and he lives across the street from Mr. Chubbuck and feels he is following the letter of the law as far as the home occupation requirements are concerned and their role as planners is to approve or deny based on the ordinance and not personal opinion. He will be voting in favor of the application.
Christa Schwintzer felt the same as Andy Perkins.
Chris Dorion stated the home occupation is subordinate to the primary use, which is the dwelling so in 12 months it can be reviewed, which he feels comfortable with.
David Thompson stated he is a gun enthusiast and he owns a number of firearms. At one time he was a licensed dealer and he will be voting in favor because he feels it is a good type of business to have within the town.
5
The board voted on the motion before them: MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
New Business.
Mike Tuell explained that this is step one of a three-step process. The purpose of this review is to classify this project as either a major or minor subdivision. This is not a public hearing and he will not be asking for public comment. He stated there would be plenty of time for public input in the preliminary review and in the final review. Those will both be public hearings.
Helen Edmunds, an attorney for Pierce Atwood representing GMH Associates, Inc., explained this project falls within the site plan and subdivision regulations. GMH is proposing a Planned Unit Development (PUD) located off of Park Street, which will consist of 144 units of multi-family housing. It will be consistent with the PUD requirements in Section 18-136 of the Land Use Ordinance. Rob Frank from WBRC and David Hartsfield, Vice President of Development with GMH Associates Inc. are also on hand to address any questions.
The concept for this project is 144 multi-family units consisting of 12 buildings with 12 units in each building. The unit mix will be 4, 3 and 2 bedroom units, which is still under discussion with the developer. The primary and sole access to this development will be onto Park Street. They are exploring the possibility of an emergency only access as well. They have met with some of the neighbors and last week held a pre-application meeting with DEP. Discussions have also taken place with the Land Trust.
Mike Tuell explained that this would be the first application under the new ordinance since it was adopted after a lengthy process of updating the ordinance.
Rob Frank from WBRC explained there would be 12 buildings with 12 multi-family units in each building. There is another building which will be a community building for mail, a sales office and a common element which will be one of the first points of arrival as you come into the property. They have arranged the groupings to 2 or 3 buildings in a group on the uplands portion of the property. This allows them to minimize wetland impacts.
The drive comes in from Park Street and runs through the uplands on the site. They will also have interconnecting sidewalks and also some trail systems, which will include new trails and existing trails. This design layout does afford the maximum of a very natural buffer between almost all boundaries of at least 100 feet with the exception of being along Park Street where there is a 50 foot setback to the buildings under the PUD requirements. The purpose of the buffer is to screen this development from other abutting residential areas. The entire project is residential in nature including the
6
accessory building. The final density on this 61-acre parcel equals 2.4 units per acre, which is less than the 8 units per acre allowed in the C-2 zone. This entire parcel is located in the C-2 zone. The project site consists of two properties, which includes the large parcel and then the second parcel is on Park Street and will primarily be used for access to the project. The entrance will be suitably separated from the entrance of the University of Maine. A gated emergency vehicle only access is being looked at on the end of Hillside Road. The finished surface would be hard packed or crushed stone or something of that effect. Utilities are available on Park Street and Penobscot Street. The water system will be looped to provide adequate flow.
Mike Tuell asked if they would be requesting a variance where the road comes close to the property line? Rob indicated the edge of pavement is shown at 20 feet in all cases and the uplands are pushing them to that side. If a variance cannot be given then they would have cause to push further into the wetlands but at this point they show them at 20 feet.
Mike Tuell asked if 50 feet was required and John Robichaud felt that was correct.
Rob Frank explained that a soils description (Class D) had been provided in the board’s packets. This shows there are typical Orono soils. Roads will have to be elevated because of poor drainage.
Rob stated this will be a privately owned, maintained and operated project. The roads will be designed to meet or exceed the Town’s road standards, but they will be privately owned and maintained access drives that work through and interconnect the property.
Christa Schwintzer asked why they were not planning on the Town taking the road? Rob replied primarily because of the access to the property. If they were to create a road the setback to the right-of-way would push them further into the wetland areas. Another reason would be that in a PUD this doesn’t set them up for the process. They like the flexibility to move. They also might not be able to meet some of the radius curves for a collector street because it would push them further into the wetlands. What they hope to provide is a layout that is similar to a road standard but in fact would not be proposed to be accepted as a road. He doesn’t feel the applicant is looking to do that.
Mark Kittridge reminded him that the new PUD ordinance requires that the roads be designed to meet the requirements of Article 7, Section 18-210.
Rob asked the direction to go considering the roads will be a privately owned and operated system and what will be appropriate based on the scale of the project? This is not an arterial street nor is it a collector street. He asked for guidance from the board. He presented to the board several plans addressing issues such as wetlands, buffers, etc.
7
All of the plans were the same as used at the informational meeting the previous week with the neighborhood.
Eloise Kleban asked the length of the road. Rob thought it was between 1,800 and 2,000 feet.
Mark Kittridge asked if these were three story buildings? Rob replied yes.
Mark Kittridge stated the ordinance allows a maximum height of 35 feet with a minimum pitch on the roof of 3:12. Rob would not exceed the 35 feet in height and the minimum 3:12 pitch on the roof will be their maximum. Rob explained that the building footprint is 5,000 sq. feet and the ordinance limits it to 16,000 sq. feet. They are looking at the maximum of 12 units per building. All buildings will have exterior entrances through a breezeway. The buildings will appear to be 2 ½ stories, but they will in fact be 3 stories.
Andy Perkins asked if this was going to be rental units or condo type units? David Hartsfield explained they would be rental units.
Eric Landis asked about other approaches such as clustering toward Park Street and if they have enough space for compensation of wetlands that would have to be disturbed? Rob replied they have to demonstrate that they minimize the impact. They looked at four schemes, which the board will be seeing, to see how they arrived at this plan. This scheme has about 36,000 sq. feet of impact whereas another plan would have impacted 58,000 sq. feet. They looked at several road layouts as well. They feel this scheme shows that they have minimized impact to wetlands.
Eric Landis felt there was a half-mile walk to get out of the development and he feels most people won’t walk. He would like to see a development that is more pedestrian oriented.
Rob felt if the buildings could go higher they could cluster the plan even more so, but the PUD ordinance has to be met.
Mark Kittridge read the definitions of dormitory and multi-family dwellings and that the application indicates this is a multi-family complex.
Helen Edmunds explained this is a multi-family dwelling and the key point for the definition of a dormitory is that it is an accessory use to a college or university. The definition of an accessory use specifically says that it is on the same lot as the primary use. This falls squarely into the definition of multi-family dwellings and is excluded from the dormitory definition because it is not an accessory use to the University. There is absolutely no connection between this project and the University.
Mark Kittridge asked what is the target clientele? Is it students or families?
8
David Hartsfield explained that the target clientele is both students and non-students. The unit mix has not been decided yet. The mix of students and non-students is not
known and will be open to the community with the exception that some students will live here.
Mark Kittridge asked if traditional families would be rented to? David Hartsfield again stated they have not decided on the final unit mix so it speaks a lot to who would be interested in living in this community as to exactly what type of units there will be with regard to the number of bedrooms, bathrooms, etc. This has not been figured out yet. He is not saying no that families wouldn’t be invited here, but what they are trying to create is a community and understands the variations of the different folks that would be there. He can say certainly it will be students, but he can’t be sure at this point how many single non-students and married families and families with children might also be incorporated.
Mike Tuell felt if they had a mix of units, one, two, three and four bedrooms, he thinks it gives the impression that this is what they intend to offer to whoever wants to rent there and if the project is all four bedrooms only students will rent that.
David Hartsfield explained in some of the units they were proposing 4 bedrooms/2 baths and in those units they were sized to have one occupant in a private bedroom, so that would be 4 occupants with 2 bathrooms, a living room, a dinning room, and a laundry in each unit.
Mike Tuell explained his experience has been 4 bedrooms with 8 people.
David Hartsfield indicated not in their case. They do manage many student-oriented projects around the country and he can assure the board that the leasing and management does not allow for 2 occupants per bedroom.
Mike Tuell asked what some of the safeguards they build into it to prevent this from happening. David Hartsfield replied they would manage this property. Their maintenance staff not only make repairs but they do quarterly inspections of each unit for assessment of damages to each unit and they have routine inspections monthly and it is very easy to see if there is more than one occupant there. Many of their properties are rented furnished, which also directs toward the number of occupants. It is also included in the lease that there shall be only one person per bedroom.
Mike Tuell asked for a description of on-site management.
David Hartsfield indicated what they typically have and are going to have here is an apartment unit that will be occupied by one of their staff people, so that person would be in residence 24 hours a day. They also have a variety of staff people that work out of the community building such as the property manager, often an assistant, administrative help and the maintenance and grounds keeping people.
9
Mike Tuell asked the total staff anticipated for this project and David replied a half dozen core people, and then another level called community assistants who would be residing in one of the units and they would be called upon to staff the clubhouse in the evening hours and be another line of defense.
Mike Tuell asked if they had private security and David replied not typically a private security firm, but they secure the place and review it themselves and they work with the local law enforcement as to the type of rapport they want, whether they want to come in and patrol or inspect or whether they want to be called on an as needed basis. This can be tailored to the community.
Mike Tuell asked if this was a concern with the private road and will there be ramifications about police patrolling a private way? David stated they have already begun that discussion with the Town Administrators and are open to whatever way makes the most sense. He would welcome the Police Chief at upcoming meetings.
CHRIS DORION MOVED THAT THIS PROJECT BE CLASSIFIED AS A MAJOR SUBDIVISION. MARK KITTRIDGE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mark Kittridge felt clarification of the streets needed to be addressed and read the ordinance section in 18-210.
Mike Tuell asked what should be considered not in the best interest of the project to deviate from those standards?
Rob Frank felt the lower 2 radius depending on which road standard is being looked at. Some of those would require them to go into the wetland areas. The smaller radius they could use would allow them the most flexibility in design to work around these. Width-wise they don’t have a problem and on the depth they are probably exceeding Town standards for roads. He feels they are looking at geometry more than anything here. As far as traffic goes, if you look at what the project generates, it is not a through street and they would be leaning toward the rural standard from a sense of the use from a traffic sense and is not as a collector.
Mark Kittridge stated on a collector street the ordinance requires a 200-foot centerline radius and a minor street requires a 150-foot radius.
Rob felt if they could meet the 200-foot requirement, they would certainly do it. They were only concerned about the radius because of emergency vehicles passing, but that far exceeds what they would need to do and is not coming close to requiring a 150-foot radius for emergency vehicle turning. This is their primary concern, large vehicle turning radius.
10
Mike Tuell felt input from the Fire Chief at the preliminary meeting as to whether the radius is too tight would be appropriate. He felt if they were to allow a smaller radius they might want to have a wider street.
John Robichaud read the definitions of streets and number 5 dealing with minor streets. He feels what the plan shows meets that definition.
Mark Kittridge felt since the roads aren’t exactly configured yet that they aim for the collector standards, if possible.
Rob Frank asked that they go down through the standards to see what applies.
Chris Dorion asked about the property line including a deeded right-of-way or deeded access out to Park Street so people could walk and connect onto the south end of the University.
Rob stated they do have a right-of-way that is parallel to the emergency access, which connects to the sewer easement.
11
Mark Kittridge asked if utilities are underground and Rob replied yes that is the intent. The utilities would be brought in as part of the roadway construction on the way in.
Eric Landis asked about the streets on the plan (Peters, Pond and Hillside) and the way predecessors left these streets to allow for expansion of the neighborhood and asked about opening the area up. By accepting this layout they would be closing off the Crosby Street area forever and he asked how the board feels about this?
Rob Frank felt it was left because of the natural elements, i.e. the stream.
Eric Landis felt a more contemporary layout like this encourages automobile traffic more than a traditional layout.
The board thanked the applicant for their presentation and looks forward to the next step.
MARK KITTRIDGE MOVED TO ADJOURN. ERIC LANDIS SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth Vaughan