Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Bangor planning board unanimously approves Nichols Construction addition at 100 Thatcher Street

5601229 · August 20, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Bangor City Planning Board on Aug. 19, 2025, unanimously granted a land development permit to Nichols Construction for a storage-warehouse addition at 100 Thatcher Street after finding the project meets city land development code standards.

The Bangor City Planning Board on Aug. 19, 2025, unanimously granted a land development permit to Nichols Construction for a building addition attached to an existing storage warehouse at 100 Thatcher Street, board Chair Rhys Perkins said.

The board approved findings that the proposal meets applicable standards in the city land development code, including erosion and sediment control, transitional yard and buffering, setbacks and screening for outdoor storage, lighting, fire protection, height and impervious-surface limits, and district-specific requirements for the Industry and Service District.

Justine Drake, a civil engineer presenting for Nichols Construction, told the board the addition would enclose exterior storage currently kept outside and would not add bathroom, water or sewer connections. "They're not gonna have any bathrooms or need for water and sewer inside the addition," Drake said. She said electrical power would be pulled from the existing building and that the project proposes a single larger above‑ground propane tank to replace four smaller tanks currently located between two existing buildings.

Drake said the project does not include new parking spaces because the applicant does not intend to increase employees or operations, and the proposal adds an ADA-compliant space within one existing parking stall. The plan also includes an increased buffer on the property's east side to address a single adjacent residence; the applicant intends to use existing vegetation supplemented by new trees to meet the buffer requirements. Drake said the applicant is not proposing to pave a secondary gravel entrance at this time, rather they will keep a wrap-around gravel access drive to serve equipment storage at the rear of the building.

Staff told the board the application packet was complete, fees had been paid, and the applicant's standing had been confirmed. The board recorded that six members were present that evening (vice chair Jonathan Boucher attended by Zoom); members were reminded the code allows applicants to postpone review when fewer than seven members sit, but that a project may proceed and requires four affirmative votes to pass. The applicant elected to proceed.

The board considered the application in a series of motions that mirrored the code's structure. Motions found the record satisfied specific code sections on erosion and sediment control (land development code section 165-33.1), transitional yards for buildings in residential districts (165-66), adequate setbacks and screening for outdoor storage (165-67), lighting (165-81), fire protection (165-82), district site standards including height/FAR/impervious surface (165-135), Industry and Service district use requirements (165-103), and the land development approval standards addressing parking/loading, access drives, stormwater, outdoor storage/light pollution, landscaping, and placement/setbacks (165-114 and its subparts). All these motions passed unanimously on roll-call votes.

On the final motion the board "finds that the project meets the requirements for a land development permit for a major site development, and therefore, the board grants the land development permit for the proposed project." That decision passed by unanimous roll-call vote. The chair and all voting members recorded affirmative votes.

Next steps noted by the chair include administrative follow-up with the city's code enforcement office for permitting and inspections. Staff did not identify any required immediate utility trenching or new public-works improvements tied to this permit; the applicant will move forward under the conditions and approvals recorded in the planning-board decision.

The public-comment period was opened and closed without public speakers; the board proceeded directly from applicant presentation to deliberation and the series of findings votes.

Planning staff and the board reminded attendees that the city's code documents and the comprehensive plan are posted on the city's Blueprint Bangor site and that any appeal of the board's land development permit decision may be filed in the Superior Court of Maine, as the board noted during the meeting.