PLANNING BOARD
Gardiner Planning Board April 21, 2004
City of Gardiner, Maine Regular Monthly meeting 6:00 PM
ROLL CALL
Present: Pat Hart, Acting Chair Deborah Willis Pamela Mitchel Susan Crawford Edward Lawrence
Absent: James Montell Allie Vigue Bob Moody, Alternate
Also Present: Jeffrey Hinderliter, Planner/CEO
Dorothy Morang, Planning Board Recording Secretary
Erik Stumpfel, Attorney for the City of Gardiner
Shirar Wilder, Housing Associate, City of Gardiner
Charles Applebee, City of Gardiner Wastewater Treatment Plant
Vic Krea
Phil Barter
Roy Pierce
Dodie Kaloust
1.) In the absence of Chair, James Montell, the meeting called to order at 6:14 PM by Deborah Willis
A motion was made by Deborah Willis and seconded by Ed Lawrence to elect Pat Hart as Acting Chair.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. 1 abstained (Pat Hart). Motion passed
2.) Roll call taken.
3.) Consideration of the Minutes from the February 18, 2004.
Deborah Willis moved to accept the February 18, 2004 minutes. Pam Mitchel seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. 1 abstained (Pat Hart not in attendance at that meeting). Motion passed.
4.) Acting Chair Hart read item 4 from the Agenda.
Applicant: City of Gardiner, Agent: Wright-Pierce
Proposal: Upgrade of Wastewater Infrastructure (Essential Service)
Location: 1 Steamboat Street, City Tax Map 35, Lot 29; 23 Steamboat Street,
City Tax Map 34, Lot 144; 22 Depot Square, City Tax Map 37, Lot 155
Zoning: Central Business
Final Site Plan Review
Jeffrey Hinderliter gave a review of the Application and provided copies of the Site Plan Review Criteria and Findings of Fact as presented previously at a workshop to refresh member s memory.
Acting Chair Hart indicated that Wright-Pierce has standing as demonstrated in a letter from the City and it was included in the packet at last month s workshop. She asked if any of the Board members felt that they could not avoid the appearance of impropriety with respect to this Application. None did.
Jeffrey Hinderliter indicated that it was a straightforward application and that it was mandated to be done by federal and state law. The project begins at the pump station by the waterfront and goes down to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The portion that is being addressed here is listed by Tax Map and Lot above. Essential Services are permissible in all zoning districts without the Planning Board s approval accept in the Central Business Zoning District. The three lots mentioned above are within the Central Business Zoning District and therefore Planning Board review is required.
Chuck Applebee introduced himself and gave an overview of the project. He passed around copies of a map depicting the project area. Victor Krea, representing Wright-Pierce indicated that it was a new force main sewer pipe and you won t see any difference in the area when the project is done. He said they are hoping to go out to bid with the project by next month.
Jeffrey Hinderliter asked if the site would be secure during the construction phase. Victor indicated that the contractor would ensure the site would be secure at all times.
Acting Chair Hart asked about waivers. Jeffrey Hinderliter indicated that they would not be applicable to this project.
6:26 PM meeting opened for public discussion. None was given.
6:26 PM meeting closed for public discussion.
Acting Chair Hart read the Finding of Facts
Acting Chair Hart read each of the Review Criteria, a. through t. and the Applicant s response to each of them. Each Review Criteria was voted on separately.
Review Criteria A.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria A. as written by the Applicant. Deborah Willis seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria B.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria B. as written by the Applicant. Deborah Willis seconded the motion
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria C.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria C. as written by the Applicant. Deborah Willis seconded the motion
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria D.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria D. as written by the Applicant. Deborah Willis seconded the motion
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria E.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria E. as written by the Applicant. Deborah Willis seconded the motion
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria F.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria F. as written by the Applicant. Deborah Willis seconded the motion
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria G.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria G. as written by the Applicant. Deborah Willis seconded the motion
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria H.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria H. as written by the Applicant. Deborah Willis seconded the motion
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria I.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria I. as written by the Applicant. Deborah Willis seconded the motion
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria J.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria J. as written by the Applicant. Deborah Willis seconded the motion
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria K.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria K. as written by the Applicant. Deborah Willis seconded the motion
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria L.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria L. as written by the Applicant. Deborah Willis seconded the motion
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria M.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria M. as written by the Applicant. Deborah Willis seconded the motion
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria N.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria N. as written by the Applicant. Deborah Willis seconded the motion
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria O.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria O. as written by the Applicant. Deborah Willis seconded the motion
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria P.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria P. as written by the Applicant. Deborah Willis seconded the motion
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria Q.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria Q. as written by the Applicant. Deborah Willis seconded the motion
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria R.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria R. as written by the Applicant. Deborah Willis seconded the motion
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria S.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria S as written by the Applicant. Deborah Willis seconded the motion
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Review Criteria T.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept Review Criteria T. as written by the Applicant. Deborah Willis seconded the motion
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to approve the Application before us.. Deborah Willis seconded
the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Acting Chair Hart thanked the Applicant for coming and providing information.
5.) Acting Chair Hart read item 5 from the Agenda.
Applicant: City of Gardiner, Agent: Barn Door Committee
Proposal: Land Use Ordinance Amendment and Zoning Map District Change
Location: 18 Neal St., 17 Brunswick Ave., 20 Brunswick Ave., 31 Brunswick
Ave., 34 Brunswick Ave., 36 Brunswick Ave., 37 Brunswick Ave., 43
Brunswick Ave., 53 Brunswick Ave., 71 Brunswick Ave.
Jeffrey Hinderliter introduced himself as the representative for the City of Gardiner to the Barn Door Committee. He referred to his memo dated 3/25/04 and gave an overview of the work of this Committee. He indicated that the Committee had recommended re-zoning several parcels on Brunswick Avenue and one on Neal Street from Central Business Zoning District to Professional/Residential Zoning District and one lot on Brunswick Avenue from High Density Zoning District to Professional/Residential Zoning District. The new Professional/Residential Classification would be added to the District Use Table with a Use/Municipal review designation. Detached Canopy would be added to the District Use Table (Section 2) as a new commercial use and the definition to the Definitions Section (10). Also, a
revision of the Downtown Area description, which would include the deletion of Church Street and the addition of Fillmore Place.
Jeffrey indicated that the outcome of the vote by the Planning Board would determine the type of vote necessary by the Council. If the Planning Board s vote is in favor of the proposal, the Council would need a majority vote to pass the proposal. If the Planning Board s vote is against, there would need to be a 2/3 vote by the Council in order to pass this proposal.
Pat Hart indicated that, although she rent s an office in one of the properties listed in the proposal, she has no financial stake in the building and felt that she could be impartial. The other Board members agreed with Pat.
Board members discussed the selection of those lots and why they didn t consider the other side of the street.
7:07 PM the meeting was opened for public comment.
Phil Barter indicated that this sounded like the old Business/Professional District that was talked about before. He asked if it could be called that but allow residential uses within it. He asked about the vacant lots. Jeffrey indicated that the Councils direction was very specific. It would have to be brought back to the Council to add these lots. Phil asked what were the proposed permitted uses and prohibited uses in this district. Jeffrey showed Phil the chart.
Dodie Kaloust, who owns 36 Brunswick Avenue, supports the changes.
Eric Stumpfel, Attorney for the City of Gardiner, said that although the C. N. Brown canopy issue was the impetus for this Committee, the efforts have been to protect the area and to look at a zoning policy for the area. He indicated that any recommendations must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Jeffrey indicated that the recommendations were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
7:17 PM meeting closed for public hearing.
Board members continued to discuss the issue and whether or not it makes sense to continue this change all the way up the hill. They also discussed Lot 31, which is City owned and is a vacant, grassed lot. Apparently some of the members did not have the current use chart. Jeffrey Hinderliter recommended that they table this proposal to give them a chance to look at the current Use Table.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to table the whole thing. Susan Crawford seconded the motion. Pam Mitchel made an amendment to the motion to add: and request further information from the Barn Door Committee. Susan Crawford accepted the amendment.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
6.) Acting Chair Hart introduced the next Agenda item.
Applicant: City of Gardiner, Agent: Planning/Code Office.
Proposal: Land Use Ordinance Amendment: Addition of Contract Zoning
Standards
Jeffrey Hinderliter gave a brief overview of this proposal. He indicated that it would be a Zoning Ordinance amendment and the standards for this are found in state statute. He said that, after an extensive review by the abutters and City Council, the applicant would enter into a contract, subject to state statute rules, that would allow the applicant to use the property for a use not otherwise permitted, but within the spirit of the surrounding uses.
Eric Stumpfel gave an example using a lot in the High Density Zoning District. He indicated that if an applicant wanted to build a small hotel, which is not currently permissible, it might be able to be done with proposed restrictions and conditions that become part of the deed. It was asked if this wasn t spot zoning. Eric explained that contract zoning must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with permitted uses in the area. Spot zoning is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He said that the Council would have to give final approval after public hearings and possibly neighborhood meetings. If the neighbors were in overwhelming disagreement, it might not be approved.
Jeffrey Hinderliter indicated that the use would be enforced through the contract, which would be binding and list very specific conditions. He also said that this process would be especially good for transitional areas. He said that several larger cities use contract zoning. It was adopted by the Legislature in the late 1970s or early 1980s. The key is conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Deborah Willis made a motion to send this Contract Zoning proposal off to the City Council with our blessings. Pam Mitchel seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
None
7.) ADJOURN
Sue Crawford made a motion to adjourn. Pam Mitchel seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
8:13 PM meeting adjourned.
Board members signed Mylar s (4 copies) from Wastewater Treatment Plant proposal.
| 
