Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

2020 City Portland Planning Commission meeting to order. It is now currently 522. First item on the agenda is 87 North Main Street. Leila Buffon seeks a special use permit for the change and use to convert a residential structure in an R3 district into a bed and breakfast per 300-22, label 300-13, as well as approval of a proposed parking plan for 300-83, table 383 and 384, the ZBA will consider air appearances. Is anyone here to speak on their behalf?

Did we look at this last month?

I don't think so. I think this is new this month. This is a different one? This is the first time I've seen it. I don't know.

Okay.

I can answer any questions that you might have. Mrs. Bones is here today. Okay. When I was reading through things, I think it's a great idea. I just don't think they have enough room. We do. But a number of follow-throughs. Right.

I think we told her she had to come back or something.

Yeah, I don't recall that, but, you know, I was here. I'm pretty sure. What's this? It was last year. Oh, last year. I thought, I'll tell you about last month. Okay. No, no. Personally, I think it's a great idea. I just don't think they have adequate parking for the plant. That's what it boils down to. I just want to get your guys' input if you feel differently.

So if you have a question, Mrs. Bones said she's going to provide valet parking and parking.

What does that mean, though, to me? To me, that means somebody, one of them, are going to go out and move the client's cars back and back to the back of the house.

That's what she means by that. So, I mean, I don't believe it's the whole house. She's stupid.

This is to be three bedrooms, three rooms. So three clients, three hard guests for a bedroom. All right.

So what you've mentioned, I mean, Janice, there was going to be an approved parking plan. There's no parking planning here to approve, correct?

They didn't submit it. Well, she talks about the valet parking. I think that was how they were addressing it. That's not really a parking plan, but. It's not a map of where the spaces are going to be and stuff.

How many spaces are there, Roy, in the driveway? How much room? That's what a parking plan would show us. I know, but Roy said he can't answer. I'm just curious if there isn't.

Hold on a second. You guys might have this visually. It looks like they could probably squeeze three cars in the parking during the driveway and then they have a folks have a garage in the back.

Yeah, the driveway. It looks I'm here. It looks long enough to put three cars and then some and then looking at the map. I don't know. Yeah.

So you got plan that. Yeah. Maybe Bryce can't.

I couldn't tell from this wrong.

So she has

So it looks like there's a fair amount of parking lot back there.

On the other side of the barn, the garage, looks like, right?

Isn't that a grass area?

That's a brick patio.

But if you look behind the house, there's a lot of pig area. Yeah, where it's a parking lot area. Yeah.

I saw it on there, but I didn't. I was trying to see on Google Earth. Yeah, I can't.

Unless we scale it up.

Yeah, I did the same thing.

Are you using Google Earth or Google Maps? I used both. I did one yesterday, and then I tried again tonight. Can't see because the trees are in the way.

So you have...

Unless we go there and look. I mean, it's a long drive.

Yeah. The two-car garage back there, which can be used for the requirements for the single-family home, and there's only two, and then you would have three vehicles that... I'm not just saying it looks... That parking area between the garage and the house looks big enough for three vehicles. You are correct. It's not lined, but it does look big enough for three vehicles, especially with the valet parking. Yeah, right in here.

Yeah. So we'll put the homeowner in the garage. I'm just thinking the concept is how she's going to address it. It's not somebody with a bell.

Super 8, not even Super 8.

Camp in my head, Valley Park.

Not even. Maybe a fancy house.

Does she live in the house? Yeah, her and her husband live in

in the house. And the previous guy that owned this talked about how he used it for different purposes. And it's kind of similar to what she wants to get formal approval board. Yeah. So. Yeah. What do you guys think?

Those are nice houses. Yeah. Very nice. I'm pretty happy to see that we're repurposing a huge Victorian home. Yes. Yes.

And you guys be okay with the parking the way she's indicated it.

Again, we're being lenient on the parking plan, which I don't know why we're so lenient. It's not that hard to do for somebody who's committed to doing it. It looks like this business is already going. But I certainly don't want to get in the way of letting it go forward.

So part of the area of variance is that she applied for for variances for 384 feet 7, not having that lined in the back. Right, right. So whatever decision you made has to be based on it receiving the required area. And they're going to be here after us. Yes. Okay, wow.

I guess the ball could be in there at work time. It sounds like from what I'm hearing from you people, not guys, people, that the plan would like to be approved with the contingency that the variances be approved by ZBA. Is that what I'm hearing?

Yes.

Pretty much in a nutshell.

The only other thing that I would recommend, not that you guys have to take my recommendation, is they limit the parking of five vehicles. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Let's put that in the garage.

All right.

All right. Can someone make a motion to that effect with Roy's suggestion of limiting the number of cars to five maximum?

I'll make the motion contingent on the ZBA approval and limiting it to five cars.

Sounds good. All right. We got a second? A second. Tony? All right. Further discussion? All right, all those in favor of that proposal, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions?

All right, motion carried. Let me just clarify the contingency with regard to the parking. Yeah. Articulate that again to me.

That the ZBA has to approve the variance and that the car allotment can be maximum of five, including the two belonging to the owner. With three cars maximum for the business. That is correct.

So three for the business.

Three for the customer.

Two for the office. Yeah. Sounds fair. All right. Second order of business is me. I should have. Can I walk up for driver and see it? I missed it for a second. Ah, 2nd, order of business is 26. Colin have Lloyd Abbott seeks a flood plan development permit. Constructed 10 by 12 shed within the flood. Flood hazard zone along dry green under section 138 flood damage. Prevention regulations, the will also have to consider variances for this as well. Area parents. All right, um, thoughts on this proposal. We have a chance to read through it.

Yes.

Questions or concerns? I mean, he's only building a shed. It's not like he's building a home.

I understand that, but per FEMA regulations, it still has to be as blood-proofed as possible. I see. But then, obviously, it's a shed, right?

Yeah, yeah. Mayor Mrakas, So.

Mayor Mrakas, Two feet right.

Mayor Mrakas, or. Mayor Mrakas, Like this. Mayor Mrakas, So it allow water to pass. Mayor Mrakas, away.

Mayor Mrakas, I don't know.

Mayor Mrakas, Probably is done because he did fill out whatever.

Mayor Mrakas, But this also has to be provided. Mayor Mrakas, I like it. I'd like to make sure that that gets put into the proposed motion so that that is a requirement of the shed, that the variances have to be approved by the CBA, and that the shed is as anchored as possible is the best way to put it.

Anchored properly and as floodproof as possible.

Floodproof is feasible.

Where do those criteria come from? Is that from the CBA or is that part of the billing permit? What, the floodplain stuff?

That's you guys. That's the floodplain development. Okay. So whenever something is building a floodplain, I have to, by theory, regulations, even a shed. Right, right. I know it seems like an overkill, but, you know, I've been told in the past by the floodplain people that I have to do this.

Yeah, we just don't want things floating, you know, floating down there. the creek, I feel like they built.

A lot of these areas haven't flooded in years, but it's still part of the plan.

Is there a specific anchoring that they have to use?

It has to be anchored. No, there isn't. It just says anchored. It doesn't float away. You just can't put a, I mean, I guess you could put a bunch of blocks in it. But is that going to be buoyant? Exactly. It's a shed. It's not a house. It isn't a garage.

I'm asking, where's the list of requirements that we need to meet to make that play?

It's all on the FEMA website.

Is that what we recommend?

Even a fence, theoretically. Typically, if someone puts a fence in a floodplain, I don't make them come for a floodplain development permit. At some point, it's getting a little counterproductive. There are regulars for a fence. It's got to be a offset panel or it's got to be raised at least between a foot and six inches of water can either go through it or under. So maybe we should put like the FEMA... Anchor the FEMA guidelines? Sure, that's something you can test.

Yeah, that's a guy anchoring the shed. How about if we... Be cool.

That's a FEMA guideline. I'm the corporal. Not even the corporal, I'm the private here.

The captain's my captain. All right. I'm so you want to make a motion to that if I talk about my it's and you get all that. Pretty much OK and we get a second. I Jim I for the discussion. All right all of the paper and I I am opposed. Any of sessions I motion there. I was one of the 3rd item on our agenda. I can find it here.

I do have these rail of bones for 87. Yeah, we did not. It is approved. I'm typing to her.

Yeah, it's approved. The use permit. She still has to ask, yeah, does DBA still issue her a special use permit? We cannot do that.

Okay.

That's above and beyond our... expertise. You issued the special use for the DBA.

It should be, you know, contingent. Yeah, we put that in on the DBA.

As long as they approve the department. All right. Our next order on the agenda is 41 Elm Street, full state environmental assessment review for the demolition of a property formerly known as the Roundhouse Mill owned by Brian Malchick Rental LLC to allow for the Future redevelopment of the 1.5 acre site. Part of the city brownfield opportunity area document. Well, okay. The documents have been provided to us. Is the former feed place? Yeah, that's a big thing that on the corner of Greenbush and. I remember that I'm using that too, isn't it? Yeah. No, it wasn't. Feelings, thoughts about this proposal?

So there's no plans yet, right? It's just to knock it down and make it available?

So the New York State requires a full secretive view for the grant.

Okay, so he's going for a grant, so we need to do the secret.

Do you know what the plans are? Housing development?

Yes, housing development. Okay. So Roy, should we move right into the secret part three? Yeah. Okay.

Yeah.

All right. This is a long one guys. It's going to take a while. Part two.

Pardon? It's actually the same exact thing. Only anything that you answer, no or minor, you just go down to the next section.

Okay. So part two starts out with impact on land proposed action may involve Instruction on or physical alteration of the land surface of the proposal. And part 1 has an a through. I'll get it when we get there. Okay. So, suppose action may involve construction on land where depth to water table is less than 3. Is that a no or a moderate.

I think we just had to answer which is the proposed action. Yeah.

And so the answer is no, because they're just worried.

I'm sorry. We don't know. We skipped through the next one.

You're right. Okay. So to answer that one is the consensus no for that. I'll check it off on my copy here. So then we skip to the next one. I'm sorry about that. I'll take that as well. Thank you. Thank you. All right number. Number 2, the proposed action may result in the modification of destruction of, or have it pivot rather access to any unique or unusual landforms on a site. Such as cliffs dunes. Minerals minerals, fossils and caves. The answer is no, that's just not them. You're safe. Oh, okay. Yeah, I'll check. No. Uh, number 3. The proposed action may affect one or more wetlands or other surface water bodies, such as streams, rivers, ponds, or lakes. I don't think there's any wetlands. There is no. All right, number four, I believe we're up to, yeah. Impact on groundwater. Proposed action may result in new or additional use of groundwater or may have the potential to introduce contaminants to groundwater or an aquifer.

I don't know about that one.

I don't think it's going to impact the aquifer. That's just my thoughts. I mean, I know we live on an aquifer, Portland on an aquifer, it's an underground lake, but I can't envision anything getting into the water just from Terrence's place down.

Is there anything in our obstruction, in the materials?

Well, when you look at the questions A through G, I don't think we affect any of those.

Okay.

So everybody's good with a no on that one? Yeah. Okay. So four is a no. Five, impact on flooding. Proposed action may result in development, in development on land subject to flooding. It's not before you'll know. Okay. So that's a no. All right, number six. Impacts on air and climate. Proposed action may include a state-regulated air emission source, CPART 1DF, D2F, D2H, and D2G, or generate greenhouse gas emissions over 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents. See Part 1, D2H. And the impact on the air or the climate.

While we're tearing it down?

There will be air monitoring required while the ball returns.

I don't think so, but... Right, but the level we're talking about production.

Yes, I think we're good on that. All right, number seven, is it left? Yeah, yes. Supposed action may result in a loss of flora or fauna, C part one, D2, M2Q. Is that a no or yes? Say that's a no. It's a no. Only the rats and pigeons are... Right. It's just, I don't know. Maybe somehow, you know, I'm going to bring that up. We're just saying, you know, impact on agricultural resources, the proposed action may impact agricultural resources. And you guys create all that parts and stuff. Any impact on agricultural resources? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. All right, going on to number nine. I can't read this. Impact on aesthetic resources, the land use of the proposed action is obviously different from or are in sharp contrast to current land use patterns between the proposed project and a scenic or aesthetic resource. Nope. We're okay with that. All right, so that's a no. Number 10, impact on historic and archeological resources. Proposed action may occur and or adjacent to a historic or archeological resource. We have no fossils in the cave. Nope. Are you sure? Well, I haven't seen any. You might be there.

There you go.

All right, that was 10. All right, number 11, impact on open space and recreation. The proposed action may result in a loss of recreational opportunities or a reduction of an open space resources design, I'm sorry, or is designated And any adopted municipal open space plan that we create more open space yeah so we're okay there with them all right number 12 impact on critical environmental areas proposed action may be located within or Jason to a critical environmental area. I don't think so okay we're okay now number 13. And you know. Uh, impact on transportation and pros action may as well and change to existing transportation systems. No.

Just so you know, I was concerned about this question with the railroad being right there, but the tracks are far enough away where the demolition won't happen. Okay.

All right. Uh, number 14 impact on energy. The proposed action may cause an increase in the use of any form of energy. no i don't see that happening here uh 15 impact on noise odor and light the proposed action may result in an increase in noise odors or outdoor lighting and all we'll do is tear it down so i don't think that anything will be there yeah lasting i don't think that's all it says right like it says any proposed action may result in blasting within 1500 feet No, they're not going to do that. They're not going to do that. Yeah, I think they're going to have to use blasts.

And no routine orders from them.

Okay. Moose is on the number 16. Impact on human health. Both actually may have an impact on human health from exposure to new or existing sources of contaminants.

So that's a Good one. As far as I know of those, there's still some cranes and silos. No one knows the amount of cabinets that are inside that building. Animal stuff. But an engineer did look at the building and his only concern was The grain and the silos that are left. Right. And the animal.

Yeah. Should we go through this one? I mean, it wouldn't hurt. Yeah, let's just go through it. All right. Let's go through it. Just be on the same side. All right. Um, this is 16, a proposed action is located within 1500 feet of a school, hospital, licensed daycare center, group home, nursing home or retirement community. That's a no, right? The closest is the county office. That's not another. There's no bigger. Thanks. Not a way. Yes. But what's that? What about the show that he said? Where's that located?

In the county office building in the basement. I don't think it's a licensed daycare center, though.

No, it's not. Okay. B says the site of the proposed action is currently undergoing remediation. Oh, God, we're just tearing it down, right? Right. Okay. C, there's a... There's a completed emergency spill remediation or a completed environmental site remediation on or adjacent to the site of the proposed action.

So they have a plan. They're going to have air monitoring. They'll have all that because they got a state variance for the abatement because the building is unsafe. The state makes them have a plan and air monitoring and everything else. So they will have a small impact.

Or should we indicate they have a plan of them? Or that they have a state... It's either no or moderate to large impact. No or small impact. I'd say no. No or small impact. No or small impact. Okay. All right. Let's see. All right. The site of the action is subject to an institutional control limiting the use of the property. Easement or deed restriction.

Easement.

Is there anything in the deed that we don't know? No. Okay. Part, that was Steve, right? Yeah. Steve, the proposed action may affect institutional control measures that were put in place to ensure that the site remains protective of the environment and human health. Nope. Okay. Letter F, the proposed action has adequate control measures in place to ensure that future generation Treatment and or disposal of hazardous waste will be protective of the environment and human health. I don't see any future actions. It has no future.

It's a double negative.

Letter G, the proposed action involves the construction or modification of a solid waste management facility. That's definitely no. H, proposed action may result in the unearthing of solid or hazardous waste. I don't know.

What about the drug things? We don't know.

There would be no small, I mean, I don't know, small. No, yeah. All right. Letter I, proposed action may result in an increase in the rate of disposal or processing of solid waste. No, no, no.

or small solid waste, right?

Right. Letter J, the proposed action may result in excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. That applies there. Right. Letter K, the proposed action may result in the migration of explosive gases from a landfill site to adjacent off-site structures. And then letter L, the proposed action may result in the release of contaminated leachate from the project site. I would say small. I would say small. Any other impacts that we are not getting on? I can't think of anything. All right, let's move on to letter 17 or number 17. Consistency with community plans, the proposed action is not not consistent with adopted land use plans. Right. So that's a no right that's again so let's get the rest of those consistency with Community character the proposed project is inconsistent with the existing Community character signal. will be. Right right right. All right, number 19, impact on disadvantaged communities. A proposed project may impact a disadvantaged community. I hope it impacts us. Well, in a positive way, right? Not a negative way, right? That's a good point, Amy.

Yeah.

All right, number 20, future physical climate risks. The proposed project may be vulnerable to future physical climate risks or increase the vulnerability of human or ecological communities to future physical climate risks. Nope, no. So now we know we've covered that. All right. We've covered that plan or all part two. So we can respond with a no for that, that it's not going to impact the environment in a negative way. Right.

That's great. So you got to make a negative declaration? Yeah.

Yeah. Somebody want to make a negative declaration to that effect? I'll make that motion. All right, John. Second. Second. Brendan. All right. Further discussion? All those in favor of declaring a negative declaration? Say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

All right, all those in favor of designating us or the board as a lead agency, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All right, so we've completed the environmental speaker review. Where do we move from here? I guess we have to approve or disapprove the project.

I think that's all the action needed. Yeah. Oh, that was it. The final agenda item. The final agenda item.

needed to proceed with those parts we're going to table that until next yes all right got a motion to table item number four in oscar to our september meeting i'll make some moves tony second brennan all right any discussion all right all those in favor say aye aye aye anyone opposed any abstentions okay so that's been table all right the last item on our agenda is to approve the ministry on the last month's meeting i think most of us have done all this we're here um Yeah, that's right, Mike. Any changes or corrections to the minutes that we picked up on?

Just the change in the zoning was the month before.

Oh, it was the month before?

Because I was there.

Yeah, I looked at this. There were five in the 80s, and then the very last minute, six. I wasn't sure how that fit into the month.

So the change in zoning proposed by Roy?

That was...

That was actually the meeting before this one.

I don't know why it's the same piece. Okay. Hold on. So did I include something in there?

It's the zoning map. It's the biggest one. That's the one because it changes.

Was that not June?

All right. So for the July 6th meeting? Right. We're thinking that might have been taking place in June.

Maybe we're wrong. That's what we want.

Uh, okay. And, uh, well, I. Well, then we probably didn't approve it. So I, well, let me check. We should go back. Yeah. Is that I didn't renew? Yeah. So. Oh, I see exactly what I'm.

I don't think so. All right. So let's approve that last thing. Proposed change to zoning. Uh, Matt, with the idea that it should have gone into June.

It was in the June minutes and I, as I reuse formats, I guess I have a question that might fall under the same thing.

It says agenda item one, and it starts talking about the approval of the special use permit. And then it talks about apartments on the first floor all within item one.

And so is there something I'm not understanding here? You know, let me go back. It's clear to me that I did not. I did not complete these minutes. I'm going to make a motion that we maybe table this until next month and review it.

Let me go back and review the June and July and make sure that I

Have the cross is supposed to be there correctly.

Yeah, and you know, you know has to be you know approved again Just bring them both back to us and we'll prove that the September 8 will do. Okay, next table those until next one The last thing we have to do is prove a German. We want to move our internal motion there second seconded a discussion

The next meeting is the 7th, is that correct? Yes. Is that Labor Day?

Yeah, that counts. We may at the beginning of the year discuss that and let me find our calendar.