Committee backs drafting changes to land development code to ease permit renewals, tighten enforcement

The Bangor City Business & Economic Development Committee considered a package of proposed Land Development Code changes on procedural extensions, enforcement, and certificates of occupancy.

The planning staff presentation, given by Planning Director Ani Colette, said land development permits currently expire after two years and that applicants who miss that expiration must return to the Planning Board even when plans and the code have not changed. Colette told the committee the proposal would allow applicants who apply within 90 days of an expiration to be handled as a minor site-plan revision through staff review, provided the plan and code are unchanged. "We do propose keeping the limit of two extensions," Colette said, "so we don't have infinitely open land development permits."

Why it matters: supporters said the 90-day window would reduce administrative burden for applicants and staff; some members worried it could encourage delay. Councilor Mallard said the change "makes things a bit flexible for people," while Councilor Miller questioned whether developers would rely on the extension after being told of the two-year limit.

Details and safeguards: the draft would still require subdivisions to go back to the Planning Board because the subdivision plan must be endorsed for registry purposes. Colette said that if a major subdivision expires it could be reapproved through the minor-subdivision (single-meeting) process for final endorsement, noting that minor subdivision review also carries a reduced fee because advertising is not required. Colette summarized: "If it was a major subdivision and they did expire, they could go through minor subdivision, which would be the one meeting. And there is a reduced fee."

Enforcement and eligibility: staff also proposed denying new land-development permits to applicants who have outstanding code violations on any property the applicant owns, as a compliance tool. That rule would mirror practices in other communities; Councilor Fisch and Councilor Leonard voiced support, while some members asked for clearer limits so unrelated disputes would not block otherwise compliant projects. Colette proposed narrowing the rule to land development-code violations if the committee preferred.

Certificates of occupancy and phasing: staff proposed requiring phased developments to submit a phasing plan that shows when site improvements (landscaping, sidewalks, etc.) will be completed before occupancy of each phase. Colette said the change "would really help clarify the opening of issuing certificates of occupancy because it's not exactly clear in the code."

Next steps: committee members moved that staff prepare formal ordinance language and take the draft to the Planning Board for review, then forward the Planning Board's recommendation to Council for first reading. There was no final Council vote on the code changes at this meeting; staff will return language to the Planning Board and then to Council for the formal reading process.

What remains unresolved: councilors requested clearer limiting language on the outstanding-violation restriction and asked staff to confirm which elements would be administrative (staff review) versus those requiring public notice or Planning Board review.

Ending: Colette said she will bring the official ordinance language to the Planning Board and then to Council for first and second readings as required.