Planning Board - Regular Meeting

uh from my far left if you would please. Kathy Shaw. Thank you. Chelsea Eaton, Bob Hayes, Riley Bersron, Balah Hussein, Ed Barah, Morin Hopkins, Tim D. Ro, Andrea Westby. Thank you. Uh minutes. We had a chance to review the minutes. And can I have a motion uh if they're in order? If not, a motion telling me they're not in order. So moved. Moved. Second. Moved and seconded to adopt the minutes of the March 10, 2026 meeting. All in favor?

Thank you. We work from a prepared agenda. Um when we have public hearings, there's not a uh in particular order. If you're here to speak on an item, you don't have to be for or against. Uh you can just stand up and speak at any any time during that period of time. Your comments are limited to five minutes. Uh so please uh be succinct and direct uh with those comments. First item on our agenda is continued public hearing final site plan subdivision review Danville Corner Housing Development. Danville Corner Road application by Terodan Consultants LLC on behalf of Timothy Millet for a housing development with 69 single family homes and three multifamily buildings with eight apartments each. property is located in the general business district and will be be reviewed under chapter 60 article 16 division 2 site plan review and division 4 subdivision. This item is continued from the March 10, 2026 meeting. We'll first hear from staff uh with an updated report and then from the applicant then we'll open it up to comments.

Sam.

Yeah. So this is uh continued from the March 10th meeting. This was up for a final plan review. Um at the meeting, the board um discussed the condo declaration and um requested updated uh condo an updated condo declaration. Um they asked about the open space um about taking the the storm water pond out of the open space calculation. There were also questions about showing uh snow storage areas and confirming if the traffic study included the width and slope of Danville Corner Road. Um so the applicant presented a revised open space calculation that took out the uh retention pond. So instead of going from uh having originally about four acres of of contiguous open space, they have about three acres of contiguous open space shown around the perimeter of the site. Um other improvements included um moving uh the location of Delish Drive about 25 ft north for additional grading space. They added some additional parking to at the bottom of Delish Drive. Um the um initial uh storage building on lot three was removed for for snow storage purposes or actually the warehouse was removed for snow storage purposes. Um they also showed uh uh turning lanes for emergency vehicles and um in the uh cover memo uh the applicant states that cars were accounted for for the traffic study and the analysis took into account lane widths but not slope. Um from a staff perspective the traffic study meets the standard of our ordinance and is more than adequate uh to to demonstrate um adequate traffic capacity. So, the timeline to issue a final vote was extended at the last meeting and agreed upon by both the board and the applicant. Um, we've worked with the

applicant and have no additional needs at this time and staff recommend uh the board take final action on the application. Thank you very much. Um, representative from uh the applicant.

Hi, Craiguet with Terodine Consultants. Um I'm I'm sorry. Could could you speak up? We have some board members with a difficult Sure. time here. Thank you very much.

Yeah. Uh Craig Sweet with Terodine Consultants. Um thank you Sam for going through that. Um yeah, we did I wanted to touch on we we did shift Delish Drive um from the single family units down to um Danville Corner Road about 25 ft north to eliminate some retaining walls. Um, from there we did also add some dumpster locations on each of the parking lots and uh the applicant has changed from um doing storage within trash storage and hauling out the building to having two dumpsters in those locations. The warehouse was removed. Um that area is already open um tree line so there's going to use that for snow storage and any additional will be hauled off site. Um, and then as Sam mentioned, we updated the open space calculations to remove the the area that was showing the gravel wetland area. I've added some notes to the plans um to delineate those two areas. Everything that's hatched um in the eyes in the the function of the the residents will be their open space. Um, area one is the ones that satisfy the city requirements for open space and area two is um doesn't satisfy those requirements but are utilized as open space by the by the residents um as a common element. Um, we did send uh this plan over to parks and wreck and they sent a letter back um I I believe to the board um saying that this this meets um with their approach and um fits with what they're looking for for open space goals for the city. Um and I believe those were the biggest changes. And then um the applicant's attorney is also here to answer any questions if there are any on the condo docks. Thank you.

Thank you. I I do have a question about the condo docks. Maybe more than one, but the condo docks refer to 68 buildings, not 69. So, yeah, there there are 68 on the plan um not 69. So, one one was dropped um at some point and the 69 I think just kind of stuck in in maybe some memo or presentation, but there are 68 uh single family homes on the site. And the condo docs also talk about natural gas lines serving the property. I don't see those on the plan.

Um there are no natural gas lines on there. It's just um water and sewer that are going to be through there and electric. So, I think it would behoove the applicant to remove that from the condo docks obviously because people will be expecting that, right? Um, and I was the board member who was most concerned, I think at least most concerned about the slope of the intersection of Danville Junction Road and Washington Street. And I think that you and I had a discussion about that and I thought I made it clear that I was concerned about the queueing of vehicles waiting uh at that stoplight or the soon to be installed stoplight uh and the dangers that that might cause and I asked you if your uh engineer had taken that into consideration. and you checked and just reported back to me. No, without any supporting documentation or opinion that that is a safe condition.

Uh, correct. Yeah. And I know I believe DOT took that into consideration in their design of the intersection.

Well, the DOT is not the applicant. You are. And I specifically asked that question and all I got back was, "Yep, they didn't consider it." I'd like to know from you that we're not making a dangerous situation worse. Um, from the traffic, I I don't believe it is. Um, it's been reviewed um by the city and do DOT looked at it on their end for the their own intersection. Um, did any of those entities take into consideration the 7 degree slope at that intersection? I believe DOT did. Um, I couldn't say. You can't say.

Yeah. Well, you do have the burden of proof. We um as we spoke with city staff and they indicated that we've met all the all the requirements for the city's ordinance for that area. I think isn't didn't Sam address that? been saying that the DOT didn't take into consideration but didn't think it factored into the determination. The what Sam was telling us is that the applicants engineer said they didn't take it into consideration.

Am I correct though that the DOT didn't have any concern about that? Is that did I mishar you earlier? I I might have missed you. There was a previously uh discussion of um if DOT would do a peer review of the traffic study. Um they said they typically don't do peer reviews um and that they had didn't have an issue with the traffic. We we reached out to our engineers. They did not have an issue with the traffic as well. So this is being reviewed by what the what is said in the ordinance. So um that's the those are the standards we're going off of and they didn't have an issue with it. Do those standards address the 7° slope leading to this intersection? If somebody proposes a new road in a subdivision and there's going to be an intersection, um, uh, do we allow a 7° slope at that intersection? I mean there's as far as I know there's nothing in our in our or there's nothing in our ordinance that you know goes as granular as that. I mean, if if they're meeting the standard, they're meeting the standard. I mean, and if you feel like it's inadequate, that's fine. But they provided evidence, you know, in this application. They've retained VHB to do the traffic study. They've contacted our engineer. They've reached out to DOT. And so, that's the evidence that they can provide to meet that standard.

Is there any evidence that an intersection with that slope is safe? I I understand that the number of vehicles uh and all of that stuff and the level of service is met. That's all fine and good. That doesn't take into consideration the slope, which was a very basic question that I asked the last meeting and I still don't have an answer. I don't know that the city considered that. I don't I do know that the applicant didn't consider it. Um, so where is it in this record that this intersection is safe with regard to the slope and that we're not making it worse by dumping 190 some 890 vehicles a day onto it? I think under this the standards we're reviewing it under all that we can say is that the traffic study says it's safe and what if I understand you are asking maybe that it be review the traffic study be reviewed because we can ask for a second traffic study but if they we can't argue with the the findings of a traffic study.

I'm not arguing with the findings of the traffic study. the findings don't include anything to do with the slope and that is my concern under the general health, safety and welfare standard of the entire ordinance. I I just don't I I don't think that we've seen any evidence of that despite I think having been very direct in asking for it. Um I all I all I have unfortunately to say is that it was designed to the city standards. Um I know that I've had initial feedback from DOT that

what standards are you referring to and do they include the slope that I am concerned about?

Um I believe the city standard I don't have the exact ordinance number off the top of my head. Um I believe it's 46235 and I I don't believe it mentions slope of existing roadways on there. Um I couldn't quote the ordinance. Um I know that the modeling software that um is the standard that is used from VHB and I believe other traffic engineers does not um account for that which is what they indicated to us. um which um not being a traffic engineer, we leave my assumption to be that it is not something that is a standard um modeling software for this type of thing. Um

which is why I asked if your engineer had been on site and taken that into consideration and the answer was no.

They were on site to count the Danville corner and old Danville corner roads. They used the approved design calculations from the DOT for the intersection of Washington and Danville Corner Road. So they the numbers and information they used was from the approved DOT intersection out there which has been out to bid for the signal change and I believe um they have that there's it's been awarded. So they use they used approved numbers from main DOT in their calculations for the Washington Street and Danville corner road intersection. Anybody else? After the uh meeting last time, I uh repented to a certain extent recognizing that I suggested to the board individually that we should go to this site and uh I did. I did not. I kept the the handcuffs on. So I kind of do apologize for suggesting that. I guess a couple of things is that you know that's why I think I originally asked for a review at the state level of this project. Did it in fact anticipate the redesign of that intersection, this development? And I guess I really never got a clear answer to that because my understanding is that the design was prepared uh before this project was actually presented as a in application form. So I guess I had a some fear that you know with the numbers

presented as Riley says we have to go with traffic study presented but I think that recognizing this loading after the fact of the design of the intersection and the lighting uh should it be reviewed or I was asking should it be reviewed and I the response I that I was not really satisfied with because the state really just passed it back to the city and said the city really needs to do that review. So, you know, so I uh I did repent. I did not go up Danville corner road. I still have some concerns and I think part of our discussion at least you know even part of our considerations and maybe uh condition would be that there'd be some signage maybe the project has to include some signage warning uh traffic headed for that intersection that there is a slope there could be stacking of vehicles and that there there should be aware that people should slow down.

Yeah, I can say that um VHB did a no build build uh analysis in their in their um traffic study. We initially sent it to DOT. Um I got in an email that they didn't think it'd be an issue, but they hadn't done a full review. Um they did defer to the city as the city has delegated review for DOT. So um the city would would be reviewing applications similar to that on DOT's behalf. um in in any situation similar to a traffic movement permit. Um which is where it was it was left off that the city engineers reviewed it um and they were they said it was fine. Um first off, I noticed the updates and revisions to the condo documents and I appreciate that. That was something that was really on my mind last time. I think it's important to mention uh why Mr. bureer's point is valid in regard to subdivision section 60-1359. Item five will not cause unreasonable highway or public road congestion or unsafe conditions with respect to the use of highways or public roads existing or proposed. That in a nutshell is is Mr. bure podium and our responsibility to satisfy for me I'm having a hard time I don't know how far our purview is from the epicenter of a project you can have a project occur anywhere and there's going to be traffic impacts for a distance from that project. I can appreciate that the project was analyzed for Danville Corner Road. I

don't know if our position and planning board includes that ramp to Washington Street. Not that I'm negating the importance and the validity. I'm just looking for some guidance into how far away from a project should we be considering item five from that section I mentioned.

I mean the board's role in in this is to consider the evidence presented to them by the experts which would be VHB and our own city engineers. So, I do understand the concern about um how far back the road goes, the slope of Danville Corner. Um and I think ultimately, you know, obviously I'm not here to tell you how to vote. Um it's your decision, but I think this is the evidence that's being presented and they're following the standards of the ordinance. So, that's pretty much the evidence the board has to go by.

It's the same with the storm water plan. And if they're presenting evidence showing that, you know, they're not increasing runoff on the site, that's the evidence that they have. I I agree and I understand that's what what Mr. Burggeron brought up and that's what we've been told is and instructed to do is to factf finding done by governmental agencies is to be taken at face value and it's not up to us to further question those. So I I can understand But my gray area is how far away of a radius are we looking at these potential interactions with traffic? Tim,

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Riley, could you please read me that or that number again? Sure. It's sub it's under subdivision approval section 60-1359. It's in our packet, but it's uh number five will not cause unreasonable highway or public road congestion or unsafe conditions with respect to the use of highways or public roads either existing or proposed.

My question was uh could you point out again where the snow removal is? Sure. is um so the area where the warehouse used to be um is going to be um area that snow storage can be on site and then there are provisions um I believe in the condo docks to remove to haul it off site if needed. Thank you. Um so it was a 5,000 foot warehouse. That's it's a pretty substantial area. Um it's already largely cleared from the existing lot. So it's not going to result in any more tree removal. I I was just making sure it wasn't included in the open space. No, it was not. No, it's on it's on lot three. Um, and then so thanks

Tim. I I appreciate your observation about how far away from the project site itself we might go. And in this instance, I guess my concern is that we've been told, I believe, I'm not mischaracterizing the the traffic uh engineers report that nine out of 10 vehicles will exit the property and go down to that intersection. And there are 890 some odd trips a day. So that's more than 800 additional cars at that intersection. And since it's the only essentially extension of the driveway, if you will, before you get out to Washington Street, I um I think that it would be within our purview should we choose to um examine the health the safety issues uh to go to that intersection. on a another subject you mentioned dumpsters I think for the apartments

correct okay I think another requirement is solid waste disposal uh has to be at least explained as to for the property owners individually it's indicated solid waste disposal will be responsibility of each individual homeowner and will be disposed of properly. How are they going to dispose properly?

So, as of right now, before the homeowner association takes control um of the of the site, um there is a area about I think it was a couple miles from the site where you can do free household trash. I forget the name of the place. So, there is a spot to drop off household trash for free. And then once the um the homeowner association takes control um by the percentage they can contact a private waste hauler. When does a condo association take control? I don't remember.

I think there's a ramp up period but at 75% ownership or after 5 years of the condo units not being moved it switch over. it switches over automatically to the uh the association taking control and vote making votes on that. Bob, just let you know at the condos I live at, when I bought my unit, it was still declarant owned and we had to reach 75% owner occupied before we became a self- sustaining association and we had to get our own dumpster. That's not uncommon and that's worked for me. So you get your own dumpster on the your own property.

The association elected to have a dumpster on the property at the expense of the association. But before the association was an operating governing board, we individually had to bring all of our household trash to MWAC. Thank you. May I just a couple of questions regarding the documents? Um,

sure. Uh, I'm not sure what section I'm in. Um, article 10, operation of the condominium insurance termination under maintenance and repairs. I'm not sure what the the heading accurately describes that, but under maintenance and repairs, I don't have a page number. There's a section entitled maintenance of septic and subsurface wastewater disposal system. And I recognize that this is actually going to be hooked up to the city's um sewer line. So that that section is probably not applicable.

It's it's basic template language. But I mean if I suppose there came to be a situation where it was needed and approved that would apply otherwise the expectation is it will all be public water and sewage. Okay. And so there won't be any expectation on the part of the owners that they have a right to maintain that system if they don't appreciate the way it's being maintained by the Auburn Sew and Water District. Right. Okay. No.

And in some earlier meetings at least I expressed some concern about the minimal area. This was when that wasn't a condominium proposal. But now that is it is a condominium proposal. I understand that we've designated at least 2,000 square ft for each unit. But that lawn area is the is a limited common element as I understand it and it is part of the open space calculation. Um well I'll let you for a second.

It's not in the open space calculation. um that that area hatched around the buildings is excluded from the open space. So there's that dash line around the building. Anything outside of that is open space. Inside is the limited element. Okay. Yeah. So in the section of the condo documents it's entitled personal gardens. Yes. Section that would only apply to the area inside. They have the right to set out deck chairs or get approval for planting around the house or putting in a vegetable garden in that limited space that is directly around the house. Everything else will be maintained by by the association. Okay. So, the personal gardens that are referenced here are within that 2,00

very tiny gardens, but they do have the right to decorate the house and see to that little area surrounding as they see fit. didn't want to unwittingly create conflict between the open space and personal garden spaces. No, that's uh that should be separated. Thank you. Sure.

Do we have Yes. Greg? No, I just stand up in case any questions. Anything further from the applicant for now? Thank you,

Mr. Chairman. If I could speak on the traffic. So, for a new road, um that slope does exceed what the city would allow for a new collector road. Um Court Street Hill does. There's, you know, there's a number of existing roads within the city that exceed the slopes. Um we've relied, um I guess to Mr. D. Ro's question, I don't think it's out of the question to consider issues at that intersection. Um we've relied on the opinions of the professional engineers reviewing the traffic. Uh we've also spoken with main DOT um who didn't want to do the peer review because it would be out of the ordinary, but there's ample capacity at that intersection with the new traffic signal um to handle this traffic. Um, we certainly would have had a different opinion if there would it is a high crash location currently um without the traffic signal, but we believe that the traffic signal will address the high crash uh concerns and the trips for this development are are relatively minimal compared to what the capacity is at that intersection. Um it doesn't directly address your question about slope but that's been the discussion with the other engineers involved with the project as well as the information provided by the applicant. So I am correct that slope has not entered the discussion amongst the engineers who have reviewed that intersection. It hasn't been specifically brought up as a concern and there's not a stop sign at the bottom of Gooff Hill. Okay. Uh open it up to the public. Anybody uh wishing to speak on this particular uh item agenda agenda item uh please approach the podium.

Steven Be 575 Johnson Road. Uh, I'd like to first address a topic that I wasn't going to speak on, which addresses uh Mr. Bear's concerns about the slope in the Danville Corner traffic light. Frankly, this is an MDOT traffic light project and it is off the site and technically is not a part of this developer's presentation uh or a concern of the developer except in so far as that increased traffic load comes down onto uh Washington Street from Danville Corner Road. There is a substantial increase in volume but the safety or lack of it of that intersection is not borne upon one way or the other by the number of cars entering only be because of the volume of the frequency of occurrence uh on that uh at that intersection. Uh as I believe I've told you before I raised considerable objection to the proposed design of that intersection with the MDOT's assigned engineer on this project last fall. We had an extensive exchange of communications. The MDOT adopted a couple of the suggestions that I made. Uh did not adopt one that I feel is most critical regarding the lack of a turn lane and the removal of the warning light on Danville corn on Washington Street going north and south. So that now if the light is green on Washington Street North and South, uh there is no suggestion that one should slow if a car in the right-hand travel lane is attempting to turn right onto Danville Corner Road, which you need to come to an almost complete stop in order to do this. Uh the MDOT went ahead with their proposed design in spite of my objections. Uh the light uh was put out to bid in mid-March. the bids were closed on April 1 and I know who the low

bidder is but I don't know if the low bidder was awarded the the project uh without any turn lane in this uh in this proposal or the approval by MDOT. So that's my comment on that matter. The matter that I did intend to address with you this evening is because of the multiple presentations that have come before this board, the actual status of the public and private interests within this project. To my understanding, subject to correction by the applicants uh engineer uh the road within the project is to remain a private road. All the land is to remain the developer land except for the actual uh footprint of the building per se. The 2,000 square ft as I understand it is a combined or shared limited use uh area for use by the tenants but that the initially the developer and subsequently the condo association will own all the land except the actual footprint of the building. This raises the question and I'm concerned only with the public private aspects of this of the water and sewer lines to these individual buildings. If the water and sewer lines are to remain or to remain the ownership of the developer and then be conveyed to the condo association, then that raises a concern about what happens if the condo association or before that the developer encounters significant financial problems and the sewer district is required to impose a lean on the sewer lines and the water district doesn't have the same authority to impose a lean, but it can turn the water off if you don't pay your bill. So I think that there needs to be some

consideration given to financial security for conveying the public water to these individual buildings and the public sewage from those individual buildings in the area which is owned first by the developer and subsequently by the condo association before it reaches public property. Thank you. Steve Warren from 241 Danville Corner Road um across the street from this development. Um and I've expressed concern previously uh about a number of issues. The the biggest issue is the open space. the the neighborhood is going to be radically altered by this many units and there's nothing in the area for uh recreation or open space access. And this is going to create a situation where uh there's going to be a tremendous demand for some recreation for young people and for older people who want to get out and walk and u the concentration of units here uh means that that needs to be taken into consideration and I don't think the Calculations that are being done are realistic in terms of uh calling areas that are right outside person's dwelling to be open space and common to everybody.

Even though uh technically it may be uh the association owning it, it's not realistically open space. So it should not be factored into the calculation. And furthermore, the money that is being allocated for open space should go to the city to be used for something that's actually going to uh enhance the neighborhood and not just uh put into uh benches or something. that's really not going to give people a chance to uh recreate or um have open space, realistic open space access. So I think a lot is being done here to work around the ordinance and instead the calculations should be done based on what is realistically about 2 acres of open space and uh not contiguous either. Uh and so the financial calculation should be based on that realistic amount of open space and the the the money should go into the city's um use for adding to this. Another concern that I've got is traffic school buses. I mentioned this. I'm not sure if anybody researched this, how uh school buses are going to handle um

pickups and drop offs here. And another concern is there. There are um street lights shown on the other streets, but the main artery going in does not show any any uh street lights. Another concern is the condo association initially um is laid out to um have the developer uh only have a limited role in that. But after number of years, it isn't clear from the wording that the developer uh can't monopolize the board and end up um and the the maintenance the or the agreement uh that's that's presented uh says that the developer has the control over maintenance and that uh I know that I've as a time share owner uh have been victimized by the developer of the of the resort um monopolizing controlling the uh association in a way that they collect

exorbitant fees. and they control the board so the association so um nothing can be done about it. They they're they're in total control. So uh after that initial period uh having some uh requirement that the uh developer not have control over the board I think is a is a protection for the owners.

Thank you Mr. Warren. Um I just want to address a couple of your points for you before you you leave. I think that we pushed pretty hard on this open space issue and I think that the the concerns you raise are legitimate concerns. However, I think that the the shortcoming is in our ordinance and not with this this development per se. I I I think that um it probably meets our minimal standards for better or worse. And as for the condo governance, that's well beyond our our control. Thank you. Uh Spencer Dunn, 530 Court Street. I'm mostly here tonight to strongly encourage the planning board of Auburn to approve this project that over the last year and change has morphed quite dramatically and in this most recent plan actually expanded from the original one that was before the board well over a year ago that was less dense and would have generated less traffic concerns than the board is currently occupied by. that was basically dismissed has led to where we are now. Um, this project has been in essentially development purgatory for a year and change now. And from the original plan that had 44 single family units on it, we have departed, I would argue, in a good manner, but I'm sure others would disagree, to more units. But again, we need those. And a year plus out from the original plan, we're looking at 44 families that could be close to already moving into units that have been essentially put on the back burner because of code concerns being too vague or not clear enough that have generated over wrought oversight processes by the board. despite the fact that the plans in front of you met the code ordinances

when they were brought forward. Thank you very much. Anyone else? Does the applicant care to respond to anything that they've heard?

I would say that um I know there was a concern about the the utilities. Um that's the applicant did provide in uh the preliminary I believe it was the the financial capacity um and then they they will so they will have that for that and then there is performance guarantees I believe for construction which would um which would protect those the homeowners there um and then you know just to bring up the open space we've presented this to the parks and rec board a couple times and and they've told us that that this is exactly what they've wanted this fits what they want for Auburn Um they told me at the one meeting they don't want the funds. Um they'd prefer it to go into something like this. Um and I know they've written two letters of support for it. Um I think those were those are the main things um I wanted to address and I can answer any more questions.

Uh what excuse me what about a street light cell on the entrance? Uh there should be all over everywhere. Um, is it on a different plan? Should be on 1.2. It should be street lights throughout the entire development, but um they're all spaced about 150 ft apart. Yeah, they are on on C12. I see the the star asteric.

What was the last thing that you said, Tim? I do see the uh icons for street lights on one of the on C-1.2. It it does look like though that there should be at least three more on on Delish drive. They must have um gotten turned off when we shifted the road, but there there will be street lights on that road m in you know matching what we have on the other ones. It'll be throughout the entire development. The intent the intent is to provide this the same street lights throughout.

How how given that this is a condo um development now, how how precise do these plans have to be when you record them in the registry of deeds? I if those street lights aren't shown on on the plan, is that going to be problematic?

No. um because they're not on the subdivision plan, but um the the the layout of the lots, you know, we wouldn't change any any anything else that's on the subdivision plan would have to be where anything on the subdivision plan would have to be where it is. Um we don't have the street lights on the subdivision plan. So, um they would be part of the approved plans. Um and you know, it'd be happy to to just make sure that's in a condition of approval to make the the lights um match the rest. um cuz that they were there at one point. I think when we shifted it 25 ft, it must have gotten just the layer turned off on our end, but the intent is to have have lighting throughout the match. Thank you.

I'd like to note to uh Mr. MREN's concern regarding the declarant and uh control and finances. In the bylaw packet, article six, a full page exists explaining the board of directors and declarant control period um time frames and cost and investment.

All right. Well, I'll close the public hearing unless there's objection and we can have a discussion about uh what we want to do next for this project. I'm not looking at I'm not trying to put any pressure on you, but did I thought I saw your hand go up? No, no. Craig, do you think it would be possible for your traffic engineer to provide us with an opinion regarding the uh safety of that the slope of Danville Junction at that intersection?

Um I I believe it would um I I would um I know the applicant is looking for a vote tonight. I'd be happy to maybe if that's could be a condition to and if it is an acceptable slope, then good. And if not, we'd have to revisit the board maybe or something like that. I know he's looking for an um a vote either way tonight.

I can I can appreciate that he's looking for that vote, but I think I was pretty clear in why I wanted that information tonight. So, I don't feel a lot of responsibility for posing again the question and asking more specifically if I could have an opinion at that intersection and that specifically that slope is is safe. I think as uh Mr. Cousins pointed out it wouldn't be something that we would approve a new yet. We're being asked to approve an additional 800 vehicles a day approaching that. Yeah. Well, I know that the queueing was looked at for there and everything um as well like I mentioned, but understand

I had the impression that you specifically chose not to provide that information. No, that is not not the case at all. Um, on to be 100% honest, I thought it was just a question. Did it include it? And it met the standards and that was it. I I did not um I think we interpreted the conversation differently each way. Um, fair enough. I 100% did not just blatantly not I asked the traffic engineer and I I respond with the response. Um, anybody? Yes. Kathy.

So, I do have a question about again, we're going back to the traffic volume on a very rural road. According to the documents I'm seeing here, it looks like there's going to be 813 weekday trips on that road if this development goes through as planned. What is the current daily weekday trips? Now, do you know? Um, I believe it would be in the traffic study. I don't know all the numbers off the top of my head. Um, I know they and I know they evaluated the existing conditions. Um, but I I don't know all the numbers off the top of my head for there. Do you know where the traffic study is? Uh, in the

um, it was submitted in the last application as one of the attachments. Um, it wasn't updated for this one, so we didn't resubmit it. Um, I don't remember what attachment it is. Um, and then I believe there is some existing information attachment number four to the February 26th filing.

There's um multiple pages in their appendix towards the end on the existing simulation of traffic. Um, Yeah, I I I don't know my head that I ask is that your proposed development is going to be taking a significant amount of traffic and dumping it onto a very rural narrow road and it will have impacts for the neighbors. You cannot deny that. Um and while it may meet the standards sometimes you have to do the right thing and I'm not sure that this development with this density is the right thing. But that's it. Thank you. I have a question for staff. Do we have a date for when that intersection would be updated?

We we don't have an exact date, but the construction is the bid is awarded. The contractor has been hired and it is planned for construction this summer, which would be well ahead of any occupancy at the site. All right. And to the applicant, hypothetically, if approval was given today, construction began tomorrow, when do you or the developer anticipate residency occurring?

Um, it would be way it would be probably the first few homes might be towards the end of the year at best. Um, cuz he's going to have to go in and put the sewer in and get a pump station in. And it's going to be it's going to be a process. Um it' probably be the end of the year at best, I'd imagine. Um cuz he's going to once he he wouldn't start construction right away, you know, he's going to start within a month or so, but not like tomorrow. Um he'll have to get the building permits and all that stuff in line as well. So it's going to be a couple months be a month or so at least before he starts and then to get the road in and then you have construction and all the unforeseen headaches and all that.

Yeah. I would say at best you're looking at some occupancy at the end of the year at at like that's best case scenario. Yeah, I I imagine you're you're mostly probably looking at something with spring. Thank you. And that that initial construction as I recall in earlier conversation with you Craig would be the multifamily buildings.

I believe that I believe so. Uh no it would be um the loop because the loop has the pump station. So the pump station is um at the end of the loop which will where all the sanitary go. So it's going to have to be that that first South Grove Drive first to get at least that back there. And didn't we approve um another portion of this property for renovation into multif family? Um that was the um this spot right here currently on this is on a septic. Okay. But nothing's happened with that approval.

Uh he's been renovating it. I know he's been working in in interior. It's an interior renovation. So um no, there are no changes to the exterior of the site. Got it. Yeah. Thank you.

What's the board's pleasure? motion.

Happy to entertain a motion. I make a motion to approve the application proposed by from Tteran Consultants LLC on behalf of Timothy Millet for the proposed housing development consisting of 69 single family homes, three multif family buildings with eight units each, an accessory 5,000 square foot warehouse on Danville Corner Road, P122-004 and 122-005 pursuant to chapter 60 article 16 division 2 site plan and division 4 subdivision with the following conditions. The final subdivision plan must be recorded at the Andrescoan County Registry of Deeds prior to the insurance of building permits. What also that water and sewer easements must be granted to the Auburn Water and Sewer District prior to activation of the mains and also that revised site plans with corrected street lighting be received by staff. Before we second that, it's 68 families and the square 5,000 square foot warehouse is has been abolished. Correct.

That is correct. I'm sorry. I was reading off the suggested motion in our packet. Yes, it is. It's 68. Yeah, that's a typo. So, it has not been seconded. You could

Yes. Can I amend my amend my motion so that the motion reads I make a motion to approve the application proposal from Terodan Consultants LLC on behalf of Timothy Millet for the proposed housing development consisting of 68 single family homes three multif family buildings with eight units each on Danville Corner Road P122-004 and 122-005 pursuant to chapter 60 article 16 division 2 site plan in division 4 subdivision with the following conditions. The final subdivision plan must be recorded at the Andersken County Registry of Deeds prior to the insurance of building permits. That water and sewer easements must be granted by to the water Auburn water and sewer district prior to activation of the mains. And that revised site plans with corrected street lighting be received by staff. Thanks, D. Is there a second?

Second. Any discussion on the motion?

Is there any desire of the board to add a fourth condition dealing with a revised traffic study that specifically accounts for the slope of Danville Corner Road um by providing a report to staff that alleviates any concerns around uh the slope of the intersection? I would support that with the addition that the applicant also uh talk with public works with respect to signage that might uh be warning with respect to slope ahead as well as stacking of traffic and consideration of uh u I don't not sure what the speed limit is now but looking at the speed limit on that particular stretch I guess um sorry to interject um I do worry that that might not lead anywhere because we had asked the question before about the slope. So I worry that they might not be able to provide adequate information to um to that as well as you know the comment about public works. I'm of the mind that if this was creating this 7% slope, it would be of concern. But that 7% slope isn't going to get changed, especially by where the train is and the location of Washington A. That slope is going to exist no matter what. I think the traffic light that's not part of our consideration here is something that will be coming to help deal with the traffic in that particular intersection. And I will refer defer to the traffic engineers who looked at this and said that the added trips do not cause unsafe conditions. And that would be my thought on it.

I'm on the same page as Mr. Berseron.

I think it would be helpful to have the uh the opinion that uh Moren mentions, but I would question it for a couple of reasons. one, if it's a it can't be reviewed or challenged by anybody else because it's just a condition. Um, and uh, as Sam just said, what if they can't do it? And it seems like that's the problem we have is that nobody seems willing to do it. Uh, then then where would we where would we be? And while I do appreciate Riley's observation and uh and Tim's concurrence with it that it is what it is, well, what it is is, at least in my view, an unsafe situation being made being made worse. Um, and an applicant who has chosen not to try to address the situation, even if it's just with an opinion that says it's not a problem. We don't even have that. So no additional conditions. I'd still suggest that we add a condition with respect to improving signage to as a warning that there is a intersection ahead with a maybe an excessive slope to a you know possible you know red light. I I I I appreciate that, Bob, but I don't I don't think that we can we can't make the applicant put up a sign that it's a

I guess my language was suggest the applicant they work with publics to recognize the the hazard that we have been talking about and at least put up some sort of signage that would reflect uh safety concerns to slow down traffic. can advise that there's a possible stacking of traffic ahead. I I appreciate what you're trying to fix with that and I agree, but I don't think that's something that the applicant can do. I think that's entirely within the jurisdiction of um I think that's a city street, so it would be public works. Uh, so I think it's entirely up to their discretion.

I'm ready to vote on the motion. Any further discussion? Anything from the associate members? All right. Uh, all of those in favor of the motion, uh, signify by raising your right hand or out of the hand. I guess it doesn't matter. All opposed. Passes six to one. Thank you. Next item on our agenda is a public hearing. Preliminary site plan subdivision review. Hampshire Commons Apartments, 143 Hampshire Street. Application by Goral Palmer on behalf of Auburn Residential Development Corp. to construct a 32-unit housing first residential development. The property is located in the traditional downtown neighborhood district and will be reviewed under chapter 60 articles 16 division 2 site plan review division three special exception and division special exception and division 4 subdivision. There we go. Oh, I I believe the next item was a public safety facility for number two.

Well, I'll be down. I just read number two on mine and Oh, new business. Strike what I just said. You're right. I'm sorry. I apologize. Public hearing site plan special exception review Auburn public safety facility 550 Mined Avenue application by Wooded and Curran on behalf of City of Auburn to construct a new 44,000 square ft public safety facility for the Auburn Police and Fire Department. Property is located in the general business district and will be reviewed under chapter 60 article 16 division 2 site plan review and division 3 special exception. Do we have Yeah. Okay.

Is everybody prepared to hear this?

Yeah. So, before I begin, I'll just like to make a few brief remarks. Uh so, leading up to this agenda item, you know, I've been struggling to come to terms personally. Uh I know a few years back there was a referendum here in the city about the new public safety building. And, you know, I'll just full disclosure, I did vote against it. Uh I didn't think it was the right decision at the time. Of course, you know, the will of the voters was to move forward with the project. And so uh you know I have some personal feeling towards this project and I don't think I would make an impartial decision in reaching a decision tonight. So uh I'm also consistent in my belief as a steward of the public interest uh that I stand with what benefits the whole community. I think we all agree that we want to choose what's what's the benefit for the whole community over a few. I think moving the police station from its central downtown location uh to a different side of town doesn't really highlight community policing. It shows that community policing is better suited for certain areas over others.

No, I'm going to I'm if if you want to step down for bias, then you can make those comments from the floor, but don't make them No, I understand. I understand. So, I'm just going to say for those reasons that I uh will choose to step down for this uh for this agenda item. Okay. uh where it is a matter of u personal bias and not a question of a conflict. I don't think that we necessarily need to vote on this, but I will I think just take a prefuncter vote to uh have Balos uh to honor his request to step down. Is there anybody opposed to that? All in favor? Thank you. Y All right. Um now that I've gotten Yes. Do you choose to elevate an associate in his leash?

Thank you, Jim. Yes, I do. Um, we'll start. Uh, we'll elevate Chelsea for this item on the agenda. Uh, okay. Very, good. All right. Um, now that I've gotten the right application, um, we'll hear from the staff and then the

um, yeah. So, this is for a new public safety facility. It includes it will house the police department and fire department. Currently, police is operating out of uh, 60 court street. um and have experienced operational challenges along with the fire department. Um some of the site improvements for this project include a central fire station with six drive-thru apparatus bays, a police asset building, fire training facility and burn structure. This is a uh delegated review SLOA project. Um it's proposing um more than three acres of imperous surface. Um the city we review um uh projects for delegated review between three and 10 acres of imperous surface. Um the slow permit includes standards around storm water, solid waste, noise, water supply, and groundwater which they have submitted. Um this project also requires a traffic movement permit because they're they're generating more than 100 um uh passenger equivalent trips in the peak hour. This number was determined um by the IT trip generation manual for government office buildings. It might not be an accurate representation of how many trips it's actually going to generate, but that's what was used to determine that calculation. So they have uh submitted that they actually as of today have received a draft approval. Um lastly, the applicant is requesting two waiverss um which you'll notice in the memo. One is from building height. Um part of their structure exceeds the maximum building height in the general business 2 zone. The second request is on driveway spacing. So their driveways are are spaced um um too close together according to our our ordinance. Um and they provided um written documentation to support these these waiver requests. Um staff recommend that these are valid for the board to consider and act on.

Um, we've coordinated with staff, um, department staff and have no additional needs at this time. Um, and we just recommend the board review materials and determine if the project is ready for a vote at this time. I just have a preliminary question about the um you characterize it in your oral comments as a as a waiver, but in your written comments I think more accurately and as does the applicant as a variance for the height of the tower.

Yes. Um how our ordinance has a a very typical uh variance provision and one goes to the board of appeals to get a variance from a dimensional requirement which you acknowledge is is what this is. It's a it's a dimensional requirement unlike the spacing of the uh the exits or entrances. So, how and I recognize that our ordinance also seems to delegate some sort of authority to the planning board to grant a variance, if you will, but how do those two sections of the ordinance interplay? It would seem to me that you still need a variance issued from the board of appeals in order for this application to be properly before us. Yeah, I think the way I interpret that is uh the board has the ability like you said to grant variances. Um I think in this case um I would say it's it's up to the board whether they should go to to the appeals the board of appeals to get that reviewed. Um, but from a staff perspective, I believe that, and I think the applicant can speak more to this, but I believe that the previous building had the same uh fire tower structure that exceeded the height and it's only one portion of the building. Um, it's not the entire structure. So, that's why we feel it's a reasonable variance for the board to consider.

Have we had any experience with this before, Eric? Do we have a situations where this board grants a variance which seems we we do um the way the ordinance is written it does allow for that as part of site planner special exception review and we have historically done that as part of site planner special exception review. There are um there are a lot of a lot of cases where this flexibility has been used. H. So, does that variance get recorded in the registry of deeds like the statute requires for the issuance of a variance?

The uh it certainly can be. Um I don't know if I could say in every case that it has been. But the way that the or I I recognize your concern, but I think the concern may be with the ordinance. So, if I were building a house that exceeded the the height limits, I'd need to go to the board of appeals. But if I'm building a fire station, I don't need to. If you're not otherwise in front of the planning board for some other reason. Yes. And a house would not be in front of the planning board. Right.

Okay. Let's go. Um, good evening all. Thank you for letting me be here to present this project to you. My name is Megan McDevitt. I'm a senior project manager with Woodard and Kern and we are the site civil engineer of record for this project working closely with the city and city staff on it. Uh I'm going to try to keep this brief. Um just going to go through and talk about kind of the existing station as well as just the existing public safety departments. Give a brief overview of the project. Talk very briefly on the building design. Talk a little more briefly about the site design. and then I'll just speak to those variance waiver requests that Sam uh alluded to. So, the existing central station is the largest of the three fire stations in the city and this is because it not only houses the uh engine 3 staff but also all of the fire administration staff. It was built in 1972, so it's approaching its useful life. It no longer meets uh modern uh safety and operational needs, the needs of a modern firefighter. Um, also one of the issues with the current station is its apparatus bay floor is not structurally strong enough to support the tower truck. The tower truck should be located in this district. This is the most important district and the one where it best provides use. So, not being able to locate the tower truck here is a huge operational inconvenience for the fire department. Uh, the current building also provides quite a few health and safety risks for our firefighters. uh cancer and cardiovascular disease dis disease are the leading cause of injury in firefighters and the station currently lacks adequate pro uh protection to prevent those things. Um example is adequate gear storage, separation of living and work areas uh gear cleaning and proper decontamination and also just

that dedicated fitness to build your cardiovascular health. And um also these spaces are just under si under size and a lot of them are shared uses that shouldn't be. For example, the patient reporting room which should all be confidential is shared with the only confidence or only conference room in the entire station. And also the monk rooms and the showers and bathrooms provide no privacy for a diverse workforce. And I can demonstrate some of those here with the images today. You can see on the big image, the fire gear is right next to the firetruck, which means that gear is exposed to the diesel exhaust. So, it's getting those carcens in that gear that they are then breathing in. Um, some of the upper pictures you show is the uh fitness room, which is also the training room. So, if a training session is going on, another firefighter can't be out working out and getting um and building their cardiovascular strength. The picture on the upper right is that shared uh patient reporting space and conference room. And then down below you can see the photos of the bathrooms and the uh bunk rooms which are all big shared spaces, no privacy available to staff. Um so that's the exe existing fire station. Uh what we are proposing is also relocate the police here and that's because the police's accommodations are not any better. Um the police, which Sam noted are currently located right here at city hall, was a shortterm quote unquote short-term solution that's now entering its 14th year. Um there are significant in inefficient layouts here as many know police is separated by multiple floors and it makes it very difficult to operate and provide proper customer service. Uh there's insufficient growth for current and future needs in this current building. Essentially this building was not purposely built to house a police department. There's inadequate evidence room. Um and also the vehicle impound location is just not proper and there's no viable configuration space to meet detainee processing needs. So the city

staff has to go elsewhere to do that which is available or a use of available resources and time that is not being used to uh protecting our streets. So, similar pictures to the police's current uh configuration. As you can see, tiny uh training spaces, overcrowded locker room, and those two bottom pictures is actually the evidence storage uh space, which is getting flooded and it doesn't do well for the police when they're doing proper evidence maintenance if all the evidence is flooded and damaged during a storm event. So, not a proper location for those things. So, what is being proposed as part of this project? Well, it's a new 55,000 square foot public safety facility which has been right-sized and it's going to be purpose-built to serve both departments. It will meet modern standards uh with safety improvements. We'll have enhanced space for the police department that they currently don't have like a sallyport, booking, and detainee processing areas. We're going to modernize the fire department features given large drive-through apparatus bays. Large bays driving through with big trucks like that is a huge safety improvement. They don't want to have to back those vehicles up if they don't have to. Um, we're also going to improve the crew quarters and provide privacy upgrades to support a diverse staff. Um also by combining the two fac uh departments we can have some shared facilities and share some common spaces like the public entry lobby reception uh reception areas also the core function space conference room fitness training rooms and then there will also be an emergency operations center which will be a space for uh citywide staff to congregate if there's a critical response needed. So as part of the project there's also going to be three accessory structures. Uh the first one is the police asset building. This is really a large storage space for all their rolling assets, their variable message boards, their um

storage trailers, their motorcycles, uh the emergency response vehicle. Um and there'll also be a small area for do practical training to make sure they keep up with their standards and their knowledge. Uh there will also be a fire training building and a burn structure. So the burn structure, they have one in site today. That's where they'll do all their practice in. And then the fire training building is going to be a small individual building where they can go regroup after a training session and talk through what they uh just experienced, discuss what changes need to happen and things like that. So in addition to all these new structures, we also are doing massive site improvements because this is a large facility. Um there will be parking area improvements. There'll be new utilities, a storm water management system because of all the new area landscaping and site lighting. And here I just want to start by kind of showing an overview of what the building will look like. As you can see on the left side is the apparatus bay and then these are the different uh kind of uh support spaces. The fire is on the left side kind of next to the apparatus bay. Common space will be in the middle with the main entry lobby for the public and then the fitness space. And then on the right side is part of the police department with patrol. And this is that new sallyport and uh detainee processing area. And then as we go up to the second floor, we continue to have fire on the right side with their living space and fire administration. Again, more shared spaces in the middle with training rooms. And then the police department is on the right with the police administration, criminal investigation and evidence space. This here shows the elevation. As you can see, this is a very long building. Um, but the top one is the elevation of the front view and the bottom one is the elevation of the rear of the building. And here we provide a rendering to kind

of show you the materials that are proposed. a lot of brick as well as some metal paneling to kind of break it up and really recognize the two uh departments. These are just some elevation of the accessory structures that will be in the back of the building. The top one is that uh police asset building. Again, three large garage bays to store all their rolling assets. And then over here on the left side will just be a big open space to do practical training like proper takedowns and things like that. Um, these buildings are proposed to just be woodframed structures with siding and single slope roofs so we can pitch all the storm water away from the uh big overhead doors so we don't get icing or anything like that in front of the doors. Uh, this smaller elevation down below, this is that training building for the fire department. Again, a big open space for them to do kind of um uh debriefs after they do uh training at the burn structure. similar construction, woodframed uh siding, single slope roof, very very simplistic. Now, we'll talk about the site a little bit. For those who know where this is, this is at 550 Minet A. It's approximately an 8.4 acre site in general business 2 district. Um on the site, there's currently the existing fire station. There is an existing uh burn structure. It's a CMU structure there that the police use, sorry, the fire department uses quite a bit. And then there is a existing residential house that the city acquired the adjacent property in order to make this project work. So those are kind of the three main structures that currently exist on the site. And then if I overlay the survey, I just want to make sure it's clear there are quite a few uh natural resources on the site. Uh the site does uh border Taylor Brook and then there is also a small

tributary to Taylor Brook that comes through an existing culvert that's in very poor condition and uh leads into Taylor Brook and that undersized culvert has created some wetlands as well on the site. Um just want to show those. They're a little hard to see in the aerial because of the tree tree cover and things like that. So what is being proposed as part of the site? So here we have the new large public safety facility. We will have uh public parking in the front of the building. The parking all in the rear will be secured parking. We have the proposed police asset building over to the right here. And then down around the back is where the kind of fire training area is. In the center is the burn structure. This is a modular structure that comes and just gets dropped into place where the fire department can do all their training. And then right adjacent to it is the small fire training room where that they go in and do their debriefing. Um that's the general layout of the site. Some of the additional improvements that we have is we are adding a sidewalk to try to reduce the open space across this area. Currently it's one big huge driveway curb cut. So we're trying to at least provide improve pedestrian crossing along there. As mentioned we have uh drive-through apparatus bays. The intent is for the fire vehicles all to come and then drive through and exit in a forward direction out onto Minina A. Uh all new utility connections on the site, gas, water, electric, and sewer will all be new to all three of these accessory buildings. We are providing new site lighting all throughout. All full cutoff dark sky compliant, really minimizing any impact to adjacent properties. We have a whole new subsurface storm water management system. So underneath all these parking areas will be uh sand filter storage systems that have been designed to meet

the requirements of chapter 500 of DP uh providing full treatment and detention for up to the 25-year storm event. Um we are also providing stream improvements right now. Uh there is that undersized culvert that's failing and it's actually causing erosion into Taylor Brookke. We have worked very closely with Army Corps and the main department of inland fisheries and wildlife of how to readress that stream, put in a bigger uh streammart culvert, one that supports proper fish habitats and crossing and also provides better flow so we don't have flooding and erosion. And that will all be done as part of the project which will result in improvement to the downstream Taylor Brook. And then there's also new landscaping proposed throughout as long um as uh memorial sites to honor both the police and fire up front in front of the building. And this here is just highlighting that proposed box uh culvert and daylighting of the stream that is proposed. And now to speak briefly on the waiver requests. Uh this is the curb cut and driveway. I believe given the speed of min in this area, our driveway apron should be separated by at least 125 feet. Uh due to the total width of the site, we can't quite meet that. We also do need two entrances on either side. This is for allowing the large uh fire trucks to come in and make the turning through the site to get in and pull into the apparatus bay. It's also to make sure that there's adequate uh exits out of the site for fast response for police vehicles. Um we also have a large uh curb cut here. This is for specifically the apparatus bay and so that all six bays from the apparatus vehicles can pull straight out and into min at any time. Very similar to the current uh situation.

And then the final one is the variance for the uh building height. Um, as Sam noted, the m vast majority of the building is well within the standard height, which I believe is 45 feet as measured from the center line of the property at the rightway. Um, so most of the building is in like the 35 to 36 ft range, but there is a hose fire training tower that we are proposing. The this is critical use to the fire department. They one use it not only for training and um doing practices of getting out of windows, climbing down buildings, uh going upstairs, but they also use this is where they actually hang and dry all their hoses. So they have to take their whole hose, they bring it all the way to the top and they bring it all the way down and let it properly drain to make sure that it works the next time they need it. Uh this is being proposed at about 56 ft 55 56. So it is 10 to 11 ft over the current ordinance. But as you can see in this picture here, there currently is a tower at the existing station. And that tower is actually five or six feet higher than what we're proposing. So it already exceeds the dimensional standard and we're actually going to bring it a little bit closer into conformance by reducing the overall height because we don't quite need as much standard there. Uh part of that is because the existing building is raised with the grade. So same overall dimension by lowering our building a little bit. That's what brings us closer into standards.

Can I interrupt real quick? So, your variance in the height is you're asking for a lower tower than currently exists. Is that accurate? Yes. Thank you. And actually, that's all I had. So, there are any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them. What What is the amount of frontage that the the lot has? Do Do you know that?

I have to be honest, I don't know the number right off the top of my head. So, the the the two driveways or entrances that we're looking at on either edge of the site plan, are those the two that are that are less than 275 ft apart, or are those two It's it's really this driveway entrance on the left to the the apparatus bay. Yep. Curb cut here. We have the 125 ft between these two driveway curb cuts. Well, the our staff memo says that the driveways have to be 275 ft apart. I think it's Is it a 50 50 mile per hour? Um, it's not.

It's 35. Yeah, I think it's 35. Okay. But they drive 50. Yeah. Well, what what is it then? Is it 275? Is it 12? What? What is it? Oh, it is. It would be 150 for 35. So is a variance needed at all then?

Yeah, I think it would be for these unfortunately it' be for these two over here because these two curb cuts are close. These curb cuts here um for the the apparatus bay and this uh most right or most east entrance we would meet I think that standard. It's the most uh west one and the apparatus bay is where we're we're close. Okay. Thank you.

I guess I just want to uh dig at the issue that Ed brought up at the the very beginning here a little bit and I'm I'm not comfortable that we have the authority to grant a variance. I see it's referred to as a variance in here and then in the planning board action section we have a motion to approve waiverss. I am very comfortable that we can approve waivers. My understanding is that the state statute vests jurisdictions for variances exclusively in the zoning board of appeals uh requires a showing of undue hardship which is a four-part test. And I don't think we have the authority to do that. I'm absolutely open to being corrected on that. Um, but if this does require a variance as it's defined by the state statute, I don't know that I'm comfortable that we have the jurisdiction to give that. And looking at the ordinance section that you provided, section 60-1312, it says that the planning board can relax dimensional requirements. It doesn't specifically speak to a variance. So I'm I'm just curious uh if the staff feels that the planning board has the authority to grant something that under state law does require a variance. So section 601312 um says for those developments subject to site plan review the relaxation of dimensional requirements which is variance shall be reviewed by the planning board and the modifications of the dimensional requirements shall be allowed as the planning board may deem necessary to carry out the objectives and intent of site plan review. Um so it's the basically the board is allowed to act on a variance request

um if the board feels that in this case it's not demonstrating undue hardship um you can vote against it but our ordinance does allow the board to act on variances.

I think you're I think the ordinance may allow that but I think it's it's uh superseded by state law. makes that the sole province of a board of appeals. Can we with a straight face call this a waiver rather than a variance? I'd be much more I I have no problem granting a waiver. Um um but I I I do have hesitation about calling it a variance. It's a term of art. It's a legal term that I think is reserved to boards of appeals. I have no no problem with a with a with a variance from the to allow this this tower especially if it's a essentially a a reduction in the existing height of the building. I think the planning board has historically use that for the relaxation of dimensional requirements like the height of this building. Um, I get what you're saying about the state law. Um, but that's what our current adopted ordinance allows for.

Yes. I'm not familiar enough with the statutory definition of a variance to know if a relaxation of the dimensional requirements is in fact something that requires a variance or if it is something that requires a waiver. Because to your point, Ed, I don't um I don't see an issue with what you're asking for and um how it meets the standards of our ordinance, but I do have a concern with the planning board granting a waiver. I think that's just opening uh the project up a variance, I'm sorry. Um opening it up for challenge later. Any other questions?

If if a motion was made and the verbiage waiver was used in conjunction with precedent already set by the planning board, if there is issue down the road, what could the fallout be? If we use the I don't make want to make it seem this simplistic, but I think if we use the word waiver, we're all set. I think if we use the word variance, we're open to an appeal that I think would be successful. Thank you. Yeah.

I just want to say before we open it up to public comment, um this is a very good application. Um, I'm not passing judgment on the merits of the propos proposal, but the application is very good. Every eye is dotted and tea is crossed, and I I appreciate the effort that's gone into it. It's head and shoulders above what we see. Thank you very much. And I will pass it along to my team. They'll appreciate that. Yep.

I actually do have a question. There's a letter from the main historic um preservation commission that says that the current building is eligible for the historic the register of historic places. What is being done about that?

Yes, thank you for bringing that up. I apologize I didn't mention it. So, um, as part of any, uh, typical permitting efforts like with Army Corps and D, we're required to engage state historic preservation to see if they have any concerns. In this case, due to the age of the building and the uh, type of construction. They did indicate that it is um, could be eligible for the National Register. We are going through the proper section 106 uh, consultation, which is the historic consultation. uh that requires us to uh come up with some form of mitigation uh with state historic preservation. We have drafted a memorandum of agreement with them of those mitigation measures which they have accepted the draft mitigation. The mitigation measures are that we are doing a recordization of the existing building. So full pictures, super detailed, they actually will spell out exactly all the pictures we need to take. So there'll be a historic record of the building. So we always will have that historic knowledge of its architectural style. Uh state historic preservation has accepted the memorandum. The city has actually already signed off on it and sent it back to historic preservation for their signature. So at this point we are one signature away from completing the section 106. And I pretty sure this was the same approach that happened with the recent high school upgrades. Same same process went through on that one as well because of the age of the structure.

Thank you. Anything else? Actually do have one more question. Yes. Um, how are current operations going to be handled like during construction? Yes. Uh, so one investment the city has made is they have purchased 67 Kittyhawk property at that address and they are actually building a temp fire station there. Um, also I'm sure some of you have seen on 180 Main Street, 180 181 Main Street that Engine 2 is currently being renovated.

South South Main Street, sorry, South Main Street. Uh, that is currently being renovated. This project is being timed. So, um, the engine 2 project can be completed and the Kittyhawk temp facility can be completed and the staff at this will be relocated to those two stations temporarily. Um, also dispatch currently sits in the um basement of this building and they are actually being relocated to the third floor right above us

right above this and that is all scheduled to be completed around October November time frame. So this building will be fully empty which will allow for the most efficient construction. We can demo it, we can get in, we can get it built and we can get those guys and gals back in there. Without objection, I'll open the public hearing. Any member of the public like to address this particular agenda item. Steven Bean. Uh could you please put up the front elevation from the Minet Avenue direction? Um actually the one with the schematic here the showing elevation. Now if uh the other view showed that there was a single slope roof over the uh apparatus doorway area this shows a flat roof in this elevation.

Uh yes the roof over the main large building is all flat. The single slope roofs are on the auxiliary kind of accessory structures only. Those are the the single slope roof is on the accessory only. Can you show that elevation, please? Yes. I apologize. I don't have a side view of this, but looking from the side, these would slope backwards. You can kind of see it a little bit here. Well, where is the elevation that shows the slope backwards as you term it? Um, yes. Apologize. You brought it up once before. May we see it again? I don't know if I have anything that shows the back. Well, there you are. That shows a an angled or sloped roof, does it not?

No, this is it's just the perspective of which it's being taken. It's going to be a flat roof with internal drainage. Yep. With internal drainage. Correct. Okay. Uh and is that internal drainage spaced equally along the entire surface of the flat roof? Uh yes, it's all spaced so that it has proper slope and there's multiple drainage catchments and then they all go to internal gutters that tie into the storm drain system. Thank you very much for that clarification. Of course. Anyone else care to address the board?

No. Very good. We'll close the public hearing without objection. Yes,

I expect more people to come up. Uh Bilah Hussein guys look look familiar to me. Uh 40 Weaver. So I've got three main points. Uh I know of course is the prelim preliminary hearing but as we we got the board moves forward uh I really think that they should take things these things into consideration. So one uh the traffic movement permit. So this development is anticipated to generate more than 100 net new peak trips per hour. uh and this triggers a traffic movement permit from MDOT. So I would say that uh the board should really make it a consideration to make it a condition of approval that the applicant consult with the LA complete streets committee as per ordinance that no permitive occupancy be issued unless recommendations from the complete streets committee be implemented as part of this plan. Uh second concern uh is relating to the light fixtures. So, uh, is there a way to make the lights less intrusive for budding neighbors in the nearby retirement home, of course, in the elementary school right across the street? Uh, is the installation of motion sensored lighting being considered whereby when there's no one moving in the property, the lights will dim and when there's movement happening, well, when there's no movement happening, the lights will dim. And if there is movement, the lights will get brighter uh for safety concerns, of course. And then three and most importantly I think I feel like is uh the missing of a 500year and a 100-year flood plan which was not provided to the board. Uh I'm sure the neighbors well if the neighbors showed up uh of 550 mined a can speak to their experience in recent times particularly in 2023 with the recent flooding in the community that Taylor brook is a significant tributary that comes from Taylor pond into the little Anderson River and given the close proximity of this site to Taylor Brook I think I mean we heard from the applicant that they were concerned about flooding in their

current location. I mean, there's no plan to there's nothing in the plan right now to say that uh if flooding does occur that there's something that's going to be dealt with. Uh so, I would like to see the board move either go to feimma.com and see where the 100red-year flood plan is going to look like, the 500year flood plan, and where on that property it's going to impact and what the uh what the plan is for this project to uh fix that solution. Uh, and so yeah, those are my three concerns. Thank you. I have a question for you. I I I'm not familiar with the complete streets committee or its

Yeah. interaction with other city boards department. Can you fill us in on that? Yeah. Well, I I've got limited information. I'm sure staff can fill you in, but I think uh in the complete street ordinance, if a project has, correct me if I'm wrong, if the project has more than 100 peak trips and triggers a traffic traffic movement permit, that it is uh that the plan should go forward to the complete streets committee to uh to come up with a plan for pedestrian safety. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Anyone else like to address the board? May I respond to the flood plane question? Yes, I did notice that it was it was addressed in your application. You could perhaps amplify that for us.

Yes. So, I do want to show here this uh kind of dark dotted line is the actual 100-year FEMA flood elevation from their um mapped FEMA maps. It's elevation 212. That's why we documented on the plane. Um these are retaining walls. So, we are significantly raising the grade to one make it flat so it's very uh accessible and be used for vehicle turning and parking, but it also is to elevate these critical infrastructures. This is a level four building so it needs to be protected at all costs. But the proposed finished grade of this building is 225.5 I believe. So we're 12 feet above the uh current recorded 100-year flood elevation in this uh floodway. Um so I do want to note that we we are providing a lot of protection there. The building in the back here is similar and even the elevations of these little training buildings are up above that 212 currently recorded FEMA 100-year flood plane. Could you also address um the lighting and the projected impact on adjacent parcels and what the lighting plan is for the exterior of the building?

Yes, we've uh developed the lighting plan um to as I mentioned to be full cutoff to try to minimize any um slippage onto adjacent properties. I do know staff noted that we are very close to the proximity of this uh adjacent resident and we're looking at tweaking or adjusting um the lighting there as needed to just minimize uh any light trespass across that property. Also potentially adding some vegetated screening to that neighboring buffer just to minimize the impact on their property. Will we know what your ultimate plans are for that before we approve this project? We're happy to provide an update of that plan. Um,

were you aware of the complete streets ordinance and its interplay with projects that generate Yes. Um, the city's actually already presented this the complete streets committee. They were made aware of this project I believe 6 months ago or so. uh Chris Bennett from the engineering office sits on that board and presented that we were doing this project. So, and has there been any um we received a few comments as part of the traffic movement plan from a few members of the board and those have been incorporated in MDOT's traffic moving permit appro

Are there any crosswalks in the vicinity of this project or sidewalks or anything of that? There are sidewalks on both sides of the street. The nearest crosswalk is at Fair View Elementary and then down at the intersection of Minet and Court where improvements are being proposed as part of the traffic department. I can say I think having the police department across the street from Auburn's largest elementary school, also having a police department placed on one of Auburn's most speed abused streets is a very good thing. I think I've closed the public hearing. If I haven't, um I will over unless there's an objection to that and uh we'll move to deliberations. Is that what's on our agenda for this evening? Is this a this is not a two-step process, is it?

This is not a two-step process. Okay. So, when when might we have that additional information about the the lighting and things of that nature and the buffering? Um, we'd happily do that as a condition of approval that we need to provide an updated lighting plan and landscaping plan before pulling any building permits or things on the project.

I'd like to speak on that. I I have a hard time willingly um dimming lighting at a police station. Um, I think there can be very many occurrences where people might need to get to a police station for whatever reason in the dark of night and having it well lit is not just important to safety but also important to security and also important for the people that need to get there knowing where to go. Can I make a comment on the lighting? And this is mostly a comment, but actually if if anybody has an answer to this, this would be this would interest me as well because I've been doing some research for a personal project regarding dark sky lighting and dark sky ordinances. And I actually have LD1 1934 in front of me, which is an act to promote responsible outdoor lighting. And this is a law that went into effect January of this year. I'm trying to get some clarification on this LD actually and I went to Phil Cra or I mentioned it to Phil. Is it Cra? I don't know. Cra. Okay. And and he he couldn't give me a clear answer either on how the city of Auburn would interact with this new LD1 1934. Anyway, what I'm getting at is if you look in this um uh ordinance

statute

statute. Thank you. There are exceptions and exemptions to public safety buildings and uh things like hospitals and even sports arenas and things like that. But obviously we're talking about this building. So I I don't really have a a opinion on either way. I'm I'm just kind of bringing this information up because I'm actually looking for clarification on on how the city of Auburn would interact with this. And to to me I I don't know. I think it's up for debate. I I don't know. I don't know if I I'm being clear at all, but uh yeah. Well, why don't we ask if the applicant is aware of that statute and whether this this plan is designed to comply with that statute?

Uh, I have been made aware of that statute recently as we've been going through the design. We are working with a lighting expert to do the design and um I would have to get back to you and provide confirmation of whether they have met all the standards of that new LD. I I personally am not uh an expert in it. Yeah. And and I'm not trying to say I'm an expert either. And in fact, I'm trying to say the opposite where I'm I'm really curious as to how, you know, this just happens to be coming up at a time when I'm researching this and I'm I'm curious as well as how as to how would uh play out.

I think I I appreciate the the comment, Chelsea. Um we're going off of the our current ordinance and the current standard. And so I think uh the standard for tonight that the board is considering is will the lighting recess onto abuing properties? Is it going to create uh safety hazards for motorists? Um what they've showed is that they're showing fully shielded cutoff lighting for the building. They have a phototric plan that shows um how much the lighting is going to exceed at property levels. Um they have lighting details as well. Um and and the parking area will include light poles. Um so the standard is to decide whether that's going to impact motorists, whether it's going to impact abunding properties.

I uh understand that the cut off lighting has been a standard for a long time. Anyway, um and look briefly looking at this statute, I do there would be an exception for public safety facility, but there I would still uh if we approve it like a condition to be an updated landscaping even though cut off lighting does not spill onto the other property doesn't make it not visible and screening on that uh really adjacent property would be uh I would like to have as a condition of approval.

Well, is it the applicant's position that the current lighting plan and the current screening meets the standards? Yes, I would say the current screening and the current lighting plan meets the standards, but we would be happy to add additional screening to be respectful of our neighbor. and your client's prepared to spend that extra money. Guess that's a yes.

I guess I'm ready to entertain a motion if there's one to be made here. Uh Chelsea, you're voting in this. So, uh, are we with with like this follow the step staff, uh, suggestion to vote on the waiver request first and then vote on them. Very good.

Uh, I make a motion to approve the applicant's waiver request from section 6D-526, building height. Second. Was that you asking for a second? Yeah, I second. I second. Okay. Any discussion? All in favor of granting the waiver on building height. I make a motion to approve the applicant's waiver request from section 60-800 driveway spacing.

Second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of that motion? unanimous as was the last motion I believe to just record a note. I make a motion to approve the application for the Auburn public safety facility located at 550 Minadav P209-035 in the general business district pursuant to chapter 60 article 16 division 2 site plan review in division 3 special exception with a condition that a updated site plan including screening be submitted to staff. Seconded.

Moved and seconded. Any discussion on this final vote? Do we want to add the additional uh conditions suggested by staff that final sewer and water easements are in place prior to activation? Second. Um, what would Robert's rules of order tell us to do? I'll just make a new

All right. Would Would you mind if uh if if Moren is prepared to make a new motion, would you mind withdrawing your motion?

Not at all. I withdraw my motion. Uh, I make a motion to approve the application for the Auburn public safety facility located at 550 mined a PID 209-035 in the general bis general business GB2 district pursuant to chapter 60 article 16 division 2 site plan review and division 3 special exception with the following conditions. Uh, one, the applicant provide an updated site plan showing additional screening um to prevent light uh, pollution on the adjacent parcel. And two, final sewer and water easements are in place prior to activation.

Could I ask you to replace the word prevent with minimize? Mitigate. Mitigate. Second. Discussion on the motion being none. All in favor? Unanimous. Thank you very much. Thank you all.

Is everybody ready to keep chugging along here? Okay. Next item of business is a public hearing preliminary site plan subdivision review. Hampshire Commons Apartments, 13 143 Hampshire Street. Application by Goral Palmer on behalf of Urban Residential Development Corp to construct a 32-unit housing first residential development. The property is located in the traditional downtown neighborhood district and will be reviewed under chapter 60 article 16 division 2 site plan review division 3 special exception and division 4 subdivision. Hear from staff first.

Yes. So this is a uh 32 unit uh housing first uh lowincome housing project on the corner of Hampshire Street and Gamma Aav. Um the project includes associated landscaping, a bicycle parking area, and a 14 space parking lot. This development qualifies as a major subdivision due to the number of units being created, which requires a two meeting process per our ordinance. So the applicant is presenting a preliminary plan tonight and then they will have six months uh to resubmit for a final plan. Um there are two different submissions that the board should have received with this. Um the first submission uh showed the driveway location located less than 50 ft from Hampshire Street which did not meet our ordinance. The updated plan shows the driveway location that's been moved further away closer to Western Prominade. Um I've spoke with engineering about this and they had no issues with the revised location. Additionally, the applicant will be speaking to several waiver requests um relevant to the formbbased code, which is why this is also being reviewed as a special exception. Um the first two pertain to lot with and building width. Um uh the third pertains to uh the front yard fence. And then finally, uh staff is requesting that the applicant present a waiver from section 60554. Um because we require two parking spaces per every three dwelling units, the applicant is proposing 14 parking spaces which is short on what we would require which would be 21. So we ask the applicant to speak to a waiver request um pertaining to that standard. Um we recommend the board review and consider the information as presented and determine if the project is ready for a preliminary plan vote. Uh we also recommend that the board act on the waiver request so the applicant has some direction for final plan submission.

Okay, great. The applicant. Okay, thank you. Oh, wait. Hold on. Any any question? I'm sorry. Any questions from the board to staff preliminarily? Okay, go ahead.

Thank you. Good evening. My name is Marty Sidlowski. I'm the executive director of Auburn Housing Authority. Um, as you can see, there is this is a team project. So, my role is to basically introduce the team and give you a little bit of background. So, I did, you know, the housing authority has been operating since 1966. We own or manage 564 units in Auburn. We have 11 units in um, Mechanic Falls. We are spread across 12 locations. We are authorized to issue up to 595 housing choice vouchers. So that's essentially what we've grown to in the 60-year period that we've been in operation. Um the project before you was offered to us through city leadership. We were we we are and we were very pleased to be asked to become a partner in this. We've had very strong support from city departments um and this team was collaboratively built um over a period of time. So we're happy to answer your questions. Um the nuts and bolts of your questions will come from others. Um so let me just take a moment if I can. The developer on the project is developers collaborative Amanda Bartlett. Uh the service provider is Spuring which Angela is behind me, Angela Blier. The architect is Jenny Stanley to my right from Invivid. And na last but not least is the engineering firm of Gorl Palmer represented by at the end by Steve Bushy. Thank you.

Great. Thank you, Marty, for the introduction. Again, I'm Amanda Bartlett. I'm the development consultant on this project. Um, I work for Developers Collaborative. We're a leading developer of affordable housing in Maine. We've constructed 1,600 U units across Maine in 64 separate projects and 26 um individual communities using uh the same funding source that we'll be using here for this project. Um, I'm super excited to be a part of this project. Um partially because um you know this project is unique in that typically the developer or the potential owner like Marty would be the one with the idea and the plan and coming forward before you. Um but in this case it really is a testament to the power of municipal leadership and crafting a team to bring an idea forward. Um which is why we're all here tonight. Um, I'm also excited because uh prior to um beginning my journey at Developers Collaborative three years ago, I served as the executive director for Augusta Housing Authority for 10 years. And so I'm happy to be working on a housing authority project. It's it's great to be in familiar territory there. And um actually my first project uh my first development project with Augusta Housing Authority, uh Steve Bushy was my civil on that. So, um, we've been working together for a long time. Um, as Marty mentioned, um, with this project, you know, this, uh, project is, um, a housing first project funded under Maine Housing's home for good program, which is essentially Maine's version of housing first. And, um, we were successful in applying um, as a team uh, to be awarded funding under that program. Main Housing issued an RFQ um with awards being made last year and

we've been working um towards this this stage here for quite a few months now. Um so in terms of goals and objectives um you know we're here tonight bringing forward a plan that we've spent a lot of time on both in terms of the site plan as well as the um design of the building. Um, you know, one of our focuses always is, uh, bringing forward a design that is community oriented and certainly gives a lot of consideration to neighborhood, um, compatibility and impact, and we hope that we've achieved those goals in the design you see tonight. Um, in terms of financing, this project has all of the financing it needs to move forward. I think in our application packet, we provided a project timeline for you um hoping to get to construction loan closing with main housing um in fall in the fall um late October hopefully of this year with construction to be completed um late fall or certainly by year end um next year. So, uh, this is a project that is greatly needed in this community and, um, we're excited to be able to, um, bring this proposal forward tonight. Um the one thing that I did want to mention and I think Steve will talk about this in a minute as well but um because of the particular uh population to be served with this project. You know this will be permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless individuals utilizing a proven model that has been in existence in Maine for 20 years. Um we have a good understanding from talking to the operators of those uh similar projects um about what the parking needs are for the folks living in the properties. And um the feedback that we've received is that really none

of the residents have vehicles at all. And so the parking um that we are planning is adequate to support uh service provider staff on the site, property managers on site. And we've also um worked to ensure that we're able to retain public access to the park through a walking path and two public parking spaces um to ensure that um park park access is still provided. and that was something that um city council and certainly Mayor Harmon um wanted to see in the plan. So with that, I'll turn it over to Steve.

Thank you. Steve Bushy again with Gro Palmer. I went back to my cover sheet here just to be able to lay out uh for everybody's familiarity. Three pieces of property, two of which have frontage on Gamma Jav and then the third largest piece uh has frontage on Hampshire Street. The Hampshire Street uh parcel has a parking lot on it today. And then the other two parcels are uh empty vacant lots. I believe if I uh read Street View correctly, that there may have been a house I believe on five gamma jav at some point in time, maybe 20 years ago or so. And I'm not sure really what happened uh to that. Uh it's 77 acres. To the east of us is Chestnut Street Park. And as I said, we've got uh damage in Hampshire Street for frontage. Site location here on this aerial gives you a little bit of a perspective relative to location. Uh I just wanted to provide that for public here get a sense of where we're talking about. So Hampshire Street here, if you can see the cursor, and then Gamage, the site here just west of the Chestnut Street Park. Here's our uh boundary survey information. We had a professional surveying company, Owen Haskell, Inc. uh do the survey for the parcel and they've come up with the legal descriptions and working through all of those pieces because uh ultimately this will reflect if the process is successful uh a land transfer from the city to the housing authority. And uh part of this process includes a subdivision piece because we have three parcels in play. Ultimately, I believe it's the understanding that in the deed transfer, uh, these three lots would be combined under a single description and single deed. Um, there are some utilities that go through and I apologize for the clarity perhaps here, but most importantly through the

property uh, basically extending from the intersection of Hampshire here as it comes into Gamut Street, the uh, city maintains or the Auburn Water and Sewer District maintains some utilities. We've got a a trunk line, storm drain line, 24 in uh line that ties into, I'm guessing, a fairly large collection system. And then ultimately that makes its way down uh towards the river. There's also a uh interceptor sanitary uh sewer line here as well. That's uh quite important. Uh that will both remain in place. uh as being city property, interestingly enough, I don't believe the deed history here shows that there are easements in place uh currently, but there will be obviously because the city controls it and we can uh describe and put forth in the land transfer easements that will benefit the water and sewer district in the city for uh the future. So, that's that's a good thing. We've purposely uh positioned our building here which also in a moment uh away from those utilities and we've had some discussions with Mike Broadband as to what he's interested in seeing and he's given us some setbacks and so forth knowing full well that if in the future he ever has to maintain those lines or have action on those lines th that easement that will be put in place and the development activity that we're proposing will all allow for that. that is maybe further described here in this you can see in the the color the utility easement and then in red the outline of the three parcels and that will be made part of this land transfer as I just described. We're in the uh T4.2 traditional downtown neighborhood multif family is an allowed use within that. You can see this is just an excerpt from the city GIS the T uh 4.2 2 zoning uh

distinction here down in the lower corner. So that shows basically the entirety of the neighborhood here is in that uh neighborhood traditional downtown neighborhood district uh except for the Chestnut Street Park here just slightly to our east. Here's our proposed site plan uh highlighted by the new 8700 square foot uh building footprint. And in a couple of slides here, Jenny will walk you through floor plan and uh the building pieces per se. Uh the site development, as I said, we position the building basically to the south of this over the existing parking lot area and uh away from those utility easements that basically go just to the north side of the building. Um I think one of the critical site functions as well as Amanda had alluded to was the maintenance of a a pedestrian corridor of sorts from this intersection. So in fact at the corner is a city transit stop which is obviously very beneficial for this development but uh I think highlights the uh ability and opportunities to have uh pedestrian access and continuity through to the Chestnut Street Park. So, we're showing basically some hard surface area that you can see here. We're expecting would be a concrete sidewalk zone of sorts. Uh, we'll be infilling a driveway that exists today into the parking lot. Basically making that sidewalk. We'll be doing the same thing for an existing driveway. And as Sam had uh indicated, our initial submission included a driveway using the existing uh opening here on Gamut to come into our parking lot. And staff had said, "Ah, this is a little too close to the Hampshire Street intersection." So, we said, "All right, well, we'll move it uh further north here and gain some separation, and I think you'll see in our application. Uh we provided you what

your standards are, and we exceed the standards now and so forth." So, that's uh all good. Uh in that regard, we'll close up that existing curb opening and make it sidewalk, traditional sidewalk. So, we're be doing that basically at two locations. Uh to the front area here of the building, our main entrance, and Jenny will talk about that here in a moment, but you can see uh a fair amount of flat work, concrete sidewalk is what we're proposing, and that would transition then into some stone dust that would match and blend in for the walk that goes into the park today. Uh this building's going to have uh an outdoor covered uh bike storage area. We're still maybe working on a few details to that uh in terms of uh exact numbers of bike capacity uh EV charging, EV bike charging type uh uh measures within that space. But we think that that will be uh a nice feature to the outside here. 14 space parking lot. I'll talk about the waiver uh uh request uh aligned with that here in a second. Have a couple of handy handicap spaces. Uh and then a solid waste enclosure area that'll be screened. We have that basically to the far north a little bit away from the building and so forth for uh benefit of keeping that away from the building space. We also have a smoking area that'll be designated in that uh far corner here as well. And as of today, uh, I learned we may need to cover that, uh, smoking area, uh, based on main state housing, uh, rules. So, we're going to, uh, finalize up that particular, uh, element of the of the site plan. Uh, here over to the east side, there is a triangular area that we'd like to take some benefit for, uh, for open space, uh, healing garden. At

least that's what we're describing it as. uh expectation that uh tenants here would be able to have a little bit of space in the backyard area and how we fully play that out besides maybe some raised garden beds or just some other areas where people can go outside and contemplate and so forth. You'll see in the back of the building we do have a patio area with the expectation probably of having a grill or uh picnic table and that sort of thing for some outside uh space. Um, as I said, along the street front, we have a sidewalk and the building is set back. Within the setback provisions of the code, uh, and within that space, we're planning on a bunch of landscaping uh, to give a little bit of a I guess gap buffer between the face of the building and the sidewalk pedestrian zone uh, to that waiver request, which I'll talk about here in a second about having a fence. We're not proposing any fence in the front yard, but we are proposing uh the uh placement of a fence on the sideyard to separate here to that residential property and then around the the back area uh perimeter as well. That would be no more than 6ft tall fence. Um the other pieces here to the site which uh show that the site's really well positioned and well located availability all the utilities I covered a couple of them now but uh Hampshire Street has public water uh uh and natural gas in it. So that's uh really good. Uh the sewer uh line both in the trunk line and then a collection system within the street is good. They actually have three-phase power as well. Building will have an elevator and three-phase power is uh certainly a positive for that. Uh drainage. Um it's a pretty small site and I guess the highlight that I will say there's really not much there for

infrastructure today other than a catch basin in the middle of that existing parking lot. We'll take our roof drainage. We're basically building a building over the parking lot. We'll take the roof drainage and tie that into the existing pipe system that goes through the property. The parking lot that we're proposing, uh we're going to put in a water quality treatment uh measure there, BMP of sorts that will provide water quality treatment for the entirety of that parking lot. Not necessarily, as I interpret your code, uh we uh wouldn't necessarily need to provide anything uh based on the size of this project, nor do we trigger anything with the D. But I think it's good standard practice uh uh given where we are here in Maine to provide water quality treatment. So the measure we would put in would be basically something that would satisfy a D uh peritting requirement for water quality uh treatment. So feel like that's a plus. Uh lighting, I know you talked about earlier uh in the previous application about lighting and so forth. We only have two 16 ft tall uh LED cut off fixtures in our parking lot. Uh I can show that here. One here and one here. And then we have a number of 8ft uh high mounted lights over the doorways basically for safety and security. uh the system was uh designed by a professional lighting vendor and they went through the Auburn regulations and so forth and are also very familiar with a housing project such as this and uh that's what they came up with. We've provided that in your package of materials for the sorts of lights that we're proposing and so forth. I mentioned earlier the proximity right there at the corner to the uh city link fixed transit stops right there. There's a sign on the corner of Hampshire. Uh there's a couple of of benches there on the sidewalk that in our plan effectively remain in place. We might

shift them slightly because we're going to add more uh concrete space to the sidewalk to make that transition for people to be able to go back and forth uh from the sidewalk or the bus stop into this building. uh wanted to provide something more than just a five foot wide sidewalk or six foot. I think we're 13 14 feet wide there. So, it'll give an opportunity for people who were bicycling or walking and what have you. I would expect that there at times may be, you know, a number of people walking back and forth there. Uh as I said, the bike storage uh for EV bike charging that seems to be quite popular. We think that's uh an amenity that really goes well with this sort of uh use. And then the garden space at the rear of the site, uh proximity to the park, uh sidewalk systems, and then uh as Virginia will talk about here, some of the programming space inside the building waiverss. We'll talk about the parking supply here for a moment. My read of your code.

Can I Can I interrupt you just for a moment? I've been waiting for you to get to this. I'm sorry. I've been waiting for us to get to this. I don't think you're required to have a single space, let alone 21. So, I don't understand the need for a waiver at all.

I'm glad you've raised that because my interpretation as well of the code was that it says a maximum for affordable housing project, a maximum of uh two spaces for every three units. And so that would be basically 21. And we're providing the 14. And uh I suppose in a certain way I'm in agreement here that for clarity's sake if we don't need a waiver we can pull that off. Uh that was my interpretation and I'm happy to hear uh the board's if you're in agreement with that but that was that's just my my my view. It may not be the board's view but and I didn't I hear your colleague say that she doesn't think you need any spaces.

Yes, that's correct. In the experience of folks who've been operating this exact type of housing for 20 years, essentially no residents or you might have one resident with a vehicle and so the parking need is really limited to service provider staff or a property manager. And how many how many would that be in in on this particular project? So, this project has um two staff on staff at all times, 24/7, 365 days a year in terms of support service staff and then a property manager. Um there might be additional service providers that come in, third-party service providers that might come in to the property and provide services.

What could you do with that portion of the site if it wasn't a parking lot? Um, I will say that in talking to other providers that they felt like there were times when they might need something close to this number of spaces depending on what activities are going on at the property. So, when we were looking at what number felt reasonable but not excessive, this was kind of where we landed. and with consideration to the ask that we provide two of the spaces for public use to provide continuity and access to the park. So really 12 spaces are for the project and two are kind of public spaces.

Thanks. Just for what it's worth, I don't think a waiver is necessary, but probably have while we're talking about parking, uh, neglected to necessarily add because of the curb cut closure on Hampshire Street, there's, uh, parallel parking there on street parking along that stretch. Now, and my uh, feeling is with that driveway being closed up, probably get at least one, if not a couple more uh, basically on street parking spaces. Thank you.

Uh the next waiver request is as you can see here under that particular section on the uh T4.2 the lot width and uh it says that the lot width is restricted to 120 ft. And so the first lot uh that we're building on has 137 ft. And if you add up uh along the frontage of Hampshire Street, I think we have 193 ft. Um what we've offered here is that the council uh in support of the uh transfer of the land uh has looked at that and uh we think that this is just a sub a piece of this is the land as it is. And um as it relates to having a maximum of 12 ft uh under the zoning piece. That's something that's um kind of out of our hands per se because the land's already been created and these are the lots that are in place. So that's under the lot width and we're looking for a waiver of that maximum lot. We're not really creating anything that's not already there. The second one has to do with the building width is uh something maybe a little bit more specific on uh perhaps we have some opportunity to do things there but we're asking a waiver. So within uh the 4.2 to the building width can be no more than 110 ft maximum. And we're proposing a building width that's 112 ft, just slightly more. And really that is on the basis of the programming that we're trying to provide and uh the layout of the of the building while still maintaining all the setbacks uh that you have for the sidelines uh for the building. Jenny will go through that programming piece here in a moment.

Uh and you might get a a better sense and we come back to these waiver pieces. Um we think that with the proposal it's providing for our programming in our unit count which is quite key at 32 units. uh we offered here at least to show you that as an alternative uh we could make a narrower building, but uh we still have the ability to maybe take the building um another story taller. And that's just a different perspective of how a site development and building on this site might feel relative to the context of the neighborhood because under 1829 LD1 1829 as an affordable housing we could add another story here but we're only providing a three-story building which seems to be pretty consistent certainly consistent with the current zoning and current neighborhood per se but that's uh if we were trying to maintain the programming but abide by this building width provision within the code. Uh that would be an alternative wouldn't not one that we're uh really interested in pursuing and that's why we're asking for this waiver uh of this uh dimensional provision.

Could I interrupt real quick? Sure. Could you go back to your previous waiver request please regarding the lot widths? So I'm looking for some clarification from staff with this as well. We're considering three separate lots or are we considering three separate lots that are being deed into one lot? It's three separate lots that are going to be combined to one lot. So, okay. So, it's three pre-existing lots that will be deed as one new lot and that's why the waiver request was flagged. Correct. Yes. Yes.

Thank you. And then the last uh waiver request uh and this too uh somewhat like the parking might be in a category of uh do we really need a waiver request or not? But basically uh this provision talks about front yard fences being a minimum of 2 ft in height to a maximum of 4 feet uh are encouraged within the front yard. Um we're not proposing any fence at all in the front yard. Uh we're proposing landscaping instead and we do have a 6ft tall fence to the sides. Uh and just for clarity uh we not proposing anything that would be taller than 6 ft. Um sure we may have had something that alluded to an idea of a 8ft tall fence but would would be no 8ft tall fence just 6' tall. Um so kind of feeling like this falls also in the category of maybe there's not a waiver request specifically here if within the framework of uh the language in the 4.2 talks about being encouraged. We're not providing one. So not certain that we want to put it to the board's purview. I suppose here's a landscape plan. I apologize. I wish I'd had uh a color plan here uh to present to you and I offered this earlier this morning uh to Sam without benefit of having a color here. But we're pro proposing a number of new trees and plantings and I know that staff has suggested in their writeup that maybe some additional planting and I'm certainly amendable to that. We'll uh look at that and I think we can probably add some more. I uh would expect that perhaps along the frontage of Gamage here. You can see we're growing some trees there. Uh some trees along the north side of the building and

the rear of the building. Have a lot of low growing uh uh shrubbery and grasses along the front of the building just to try to uh break that up a bit. But no trees per se. We don't have enough space really uh to plant trees in the immediate front of the building. And I think your setback provisions kind of preclude that in the first place because they're looking for a maximum setback. Uh there's a minimum but a maximum as well. It's just not a lot of space there, but I think we can provide a lot of vegetation nonetheless between the building and the sidewalk to provide a degree of of separation and buffering from the windows and and so forth uh passerbys on on the sidewalk. May

may I ask you a question about your landscaping? You've given us this drawing, this rendering of a beautiful building with lots of landscaping. Is that what the landscaping is going to look like? It's pretty close. We'll get to that here in a second. I have this on the on the Well, we're talking about landscaping right now. I mean, right here. Yeah. So, yeah, the exact uh I think our numbers are probably equivalent to that, but the exact species that I've certainly laid out right now probably don't quite match what's here and we can take a better crack at that at another rendering if that was the the uh board's wish on that. Um

I I think I don't know what the board's wish would be. My my hope would be that we would have a copious amount of landscaping like you're showing in this

Yeah, there's a few trees over here. In fact, if this vantage is kind of from Gamut as you just before you're going to turn on to Hampshire, there's actually a couple of trees here. I'm trying to uh keep. They're not real big, but uh they would provide a little bit of a a break here on on the corner, but um I think there's probably a little bit of liberty done on the rendering, but not not too bad. Do there would obviously be a condition of our approval that the landscaping be maintained as a project similar to this down the other end of Hampshire Street where the landscaping is abysmal. That's that's no problem.

That's what it's not a problem. We would consider in terms of you know development whatever is included in landscaping will make sure that the operating budget for the life of the project will support the ongoing maintenance of any landscaping that is committed to.

So I pulled up the architectural floor plan here and I'm going to let Jenny talk a little bit about that. Good evening. Um I'm Jenny Stanley with Invivid Architecture. Uh I'm just going to walk you through the floor plans. Um so Amster Street is on the lower portion of the building. Um the entrance to the building is right at the corner. So in yellow the vestibial uh all the blue spaces are uh kind of shared amenity spaces. Um um it is uh a shared kitchen um with with seating for all the residences. Um two kind of um lounge areas with TVs. Um conference room. Um medical office at the top. Um the library um um room also at the top there. um a donation closet, shared laundry, uh offices and um kind of um staff kitchen and then in green it's it's it shows um units. So it's are all um units for one single person. So, it's kind of a studio style unit, single bed. And then the upper floor, um, we only have, uh, units. So, the this is like the second floor, but the third floor looks the same. Next slide. An elevation of the building. So, we have masonry on the first floor. Uh, a fiber cement wood grain. Look. um

on the upper two levels at the corner. It's all uh glazed uh atrium and then uh we have the bumpouts to kind of give some uh leaf to the building um and the corners kind of um going with the ordinance of trying to fit in with the neighborhood. This is the rendering of the building. see the masonry at the lower level and the glass entrance corner. So, there's a lot of visibility for for uh for like into the common spaces. All the residences have like the window.

You'll have to raise your voice a little. I don't Oh, sorry. Um Yeah. So, and then the residences all have the to at least at least two windows per per unit. I think if you're a little closer pick up sorry I have the softest voice everybody always says to um I think that is it

heard that far as the plans and uh architectural pieces that's what we have the last slide uh basically just this kind of outlining our expectations here of next steps uh with review we know this is a twostep process given the subdivision component to it and then site plan and I would expect there's going to be some public comment opened tonight and maybe we'll hear some of that and uh planning board deliberation uh if we're successful here in the next month or so which we hope we are uh to be able to go through and then do construction documents the procedure here as we normally uh work through these things as Amanda had alluded to we've done a number or a lot of projects uh over the years in working through main state housing uh the team collectively goes through prepares uh construction documents uh so all the disciplines besides myself and the civil uh the architectural side the structural side and I'll I'll note we have had a um geotechnical investigation done on the parking lot and the site so we know what they have for soils there and they're uh suitable for to build this sort of building on it. Uh there's some environmental work being done as is just often the case as well, but thus far uh no red flags showing up as to any environmental concerns on the property. So that's good. Uh if we can get through that process through the summer uh towards uh August period, uh then everything kind of wraps up and final surveys and land descriptions and closing documents are put together and basically all the lawyers do their thing and we would get to uh a financing close out. We do have multiple steps with mainstate housing. we have to submit at 50% 90% and 100% uh of document completion and at each one of those phases main state housing and their

staff does their own uh internal review. So it's it's fairly uh uh heavy lift here to to get through the process but it leads to you know obviously a good project and something that gets built well and and so forth. um maybe start construction here in October time frame, October, November with uh I'm putting here a 14-month roughly uh typically for these sorts of buildings uh time frame for completion of construction. Uh don't know if we need to talk about delivery, how that works through contracting forces and if it's going to be a a design bid build process we would call where we would design everything and then put it out to bid or if a construction manager might be interviewed and selected to manage the process somewhat through and uh do the pricing exercises and all of that. I

I probably should have cut you off sooner. I think we're just well beyond the scope of our review. And I think we we have a cut off of 9:00 this evening. So I'd like to move this along if I can. If you have anything further, we're done. Thank you. Thank you. Um any questions for the applicant before we open the public hearing?

Is that a no? All set. Okay. Um Okay. We're going to open this public hearing. Before we do, can I just get a show of hands who would like to address the board? because I'm trying to time this to make sure we got one. Okay, let's proceed. Thank you very much, sir. Stand up. State your name and address. First, I think you may the only one, not just the first one.

Joe Mey, 82 Webster Street. Um, I've heard a lot said tonight. Um, first thing is I'm not against any uh homeless uh building. um to accommodate situation. So well known. However, how tall is this building going to be? 35 ft.

35 ft. Looks a lot taller than that. Um but anyway, um I heard a couple things tonight that kind of go hand inand with my concerns about this. You had mentioned the Dunkin Donut uh not the Dunkin Donut, the uh safety of the uh stacking of the traffic. Has anybody been down by Dunkin Donuts at around 6:00 in the morning, 7:00? They got cars lined up down the street. Uh the lighting problem. Well, I lived right down the street from the uh new PAL center and they have a massive hallogen light. Can't even watch the fireworks from my front door anymore because of that light. The reason I'm bringing this up is simple. the city of Auburn can put the allow this project to come in halfass, excuse my French and make us look bad and make every person everywhere else be resistant to projects like this. It's incumbent on you folks. It's incumbent on law enforcement. is incumbent on code enforcement to police these types of things to make sure that is happening the way it's supposed to be. The reason I bring up code enforcement, it just so happens that I think it's two houses to the right of this building.

There happens to be a boarded up shack that's been boarded up for 20 years. It's an eyes saw. It's a It's a urban blight on that street next to that building. I call it the Sanford and Sun garage. They have multiple vehicles. Some are literally ripped apart. They're not driving those vehicles. I don't care if they're registered or not. It's a junkyard. So what we have here is we have planning committee people, we have code enforcement people, we have developers bragging up the uh it's going to be such a great project, but if everybody does not do their part, the residents in this area, mainly me, my neighbor, we're going to pay the for it. It's incumbent that you guys do your job. Make sure that these folks are doing what they need to do. And once it's built, the park, they don't have lighting down the park. They got it over at the PAL Center, but down in the park, it's unlit. Excuse me. It's unlit. There's crime down there. There's vandalism. Nobody's talking about that. Why did we have to light up the PAL center? Because they were worried about security. Because law enforcement isn't there to do their job to do what they need to do to protect that area. So their answer was, "Well, we'll put up

a nuclear bomb for lighting." Now, my concern with this project, and maybe one of you folks can answer this, is this going to be a transient situation to where people are constantly coming and going, or is this going to be a live-in situation to where people across the bridge say aren't coming here for one night? Okay, that's a that's good. Your time's up. And that But is that a living situation? Yes or no? Well, we'll see if they want to respond to your question or not. Thank you very much. Sure. Okay. Thank you.

Um, this is permanent supportive housing. The residents will have leases and they will be subject to leases. So, there is no intent to have a shelter function or anything like that. This these are their homes. They are home for good. Thank you.

Would anyone else care to address the board on this particular matter? Okay. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing unless there's an objection. Public hearing is closed. Any discussion amongst the board? We will be revisiting this or not revisiting taking this matter up again at our May meeting for final approvals. But uh it's our opportunity to tell the tell the applicant if we have any concerns they might want to address before we get together again and perhaps you can address the waiver request as well.

Yeah. Couple procedural questions just for the sake of paperwork and u and that are the the waivers. We should decide if the front yard fence waiver and the parking lot waivers are even necessary for discussion. Sure. Okay. Well, let's take up the parking lot waiver. You've heard my my view of that. Um I don't think a waiver is necessary because I don't think that our ordinance requires a minimum number of spaces. I I agree with you on that.

Seems to be consensus that a waiver is not necessary. I don't know if we need a vote, but I think the record would be clearer if we took a vote on on that particular waiver request, which will be that we don't believe it necessary. Okay. And so, uh, so with the parking, you you would say that it I would say that a waiver request it meets the standard of our ordinance. A waiver is not applicable. Very good. Uh I'll make a motion that the parking as proposed meets the standards of our ordinance and a waiver is not necessary. I'll second that. Any discussion? All in favor? That's unanimous.

You want to take the next one? I make a motion that the waiver request for the fence is unnecessary as it refers to a front yard fence and this fencing would be in the side and the rear and therefore does not apply. Seconded. Could we also consider that the the two-foot fence is only encouraged, not required? What's that? It's the 4oot that's encouraged. Is it not? This is two to four a two to four foot fence.

All right. So, I amend my motion that the waiver request for the fencing is not necessary due to the fence height and that the fence proposed is for the side and the rear of the building when our section is referring to fencing on the front which does not apply. I'll second.

You'll second that. Been moved and seconded that a waiver for a front yard fence is not required in in short. Any discussion? All in favor of that? Very good. We have another waiver request regarding the building being 2 ft longer than otherwise. otherwise required longer, wider, whatever it is. Um, is is there a waiver? Go ahead.

Um, if you could speak to this request more more, Stephen, about uh the building width. So, you're only 2 feet longer than our standard. Is there um a reason for that? It just it's it's more, you know, units that you can build. Um, so if you could speak to that a little bit more so the board has some understanding. So, here's the floor plan for the first floor. And uh Jenny outlined the entrance area here with space for various programming elements. And I know that in the last month or so, we've had a fairly uh lengthy amount of discussion about how all of these program pieces play themselves out relative to how uh this building is going to be staffed and operated. in particular for the benefit of the tenants. Plus, we have four units here. And as you can tell, those uh units are uh relative to length versus width, they're somewhat narrow units uh but long uh given the depth of the building. So, we've fit this in as best we can and we've come up with this dimension of 112 ft. And um we think that that's the comfortable uh length and dimensional piece here particularly in the front entrance area where we're trying to achieve a number of different operational pieces for the people who are going to be here as oversight staff and their ability to be able to see things that are happening uh particularly in the the areas where people will congregate and and so forth. And then within the programming, as you said, we have a number of different programming pieces here, library, medical space, uh, and so forth. So those all take up, you know, a certain amount of area and space, and that's how this building is kind of laid out. I wanted to just add to to Steve's comment that um it's the design um and all of the community space and even the size of

the units themselves are not just a wish of us as a developer, Marty as an owner or service provider with Spurwink. But um main housing has outlined um required design standards for the home forgood program that dictate exactly what types of community spaces are required to be included in the design. And in addition to that, um both main housing and the uh tax credit investor who will be uh national equity fund on this project um have indicated that the unit size needs to be approximately as close to 400 square ft as possible. And so the combination of the required unit size in addition to the required community spaces associated with the design standard um really dictate how this building is laid out and there isn't a ton of flexibility in terms of shifting that.

So our standard is 110 ft wide correct and you're at 112 or it's 110. They're proposing 112. Yes. Right. So that's a 1% increase in width, which is a half% each side of it, which in my eyes doesn't warrant a waiver request. That's how I feel. It's a half a percent wide on each side than than our standard. I mean, it's one foot each side. So you would you I would consider the building 110 ft basically. I I don't think the I don't think the waiver is necessary due to the it's it's half a percent wider on each side.

But won't it be necessary in order to build 112 ft or are you saying No, no, no. I'm saying I I'm seeing 112. I I don't think the waiver is necessary because it's such a small deviant. I think I uh I I think I agree with you, but for the opposite reason. Yeah, I was going to say I I I agree that I think that we should grant the waiver because it's so negligible, but uh that we should still vote on it. You you worded it more eloquently, but we're saying the same thing. Was that a motion to grant that waiver?

No, Morina. Uh, I make a motion to approve applicants waiver request from 60-549 building width. Second. No discussion. All in favor of the request for the waiver granted unanimously. Thank you very much. Any other comments to pass on to the applicant before we

Okay. Okay. Uh so uh thank you guys for the presentation. I think one of the most impressive things about this application was the uh this part I highlighted the proposed development will contribute less than one acre of impervious area. I think that's phenomenal. Not a lot of developments can say stuff like that. And I think in terms of what this project is going to provide for the city, the minimal impact in terms of the environmental aspect of it is definitely something worth noting and I think you know credit to the team that helped uh provide that. And I had one concern relating to uh I guess this is more of a technicality but you know you mentioned the city link bus stop and transit oriented development and with the work that I'm also serving on a different board of the comprehensive plan looking for the next 10 years of the city. That's another main contention is like being able to incentivize those types of developments and this looks like something that is is geared towards that. I wouldn't necessarily consider it. I'd say it's transit adjacent because, you know, it's conveniently located right near a bus stop. But I guess my question is uh how are you making it more transit oriented in terms of the development as a whole? Like how are you centering transit as a as a way as the development is as as the development is around that transit? And could I ask you to hold your response until your return in May? Because I would like to take up the other two matters if we possibly can tonight.

Yes, sir. Would the board like to consider their request for lot with Yes. Marine was about to do that. Uh I'd like to make a motion to approve applicants waiver request from section 60-549 uh lot width. Second. Second. Any discussion on that? All in favor? That waiver is also granted unanimously. Is there any other guidance that the board has for the applicant before they come back for a final approval in May?

I I I am serious about the u the landscaping. I think it's very important. I think we've heard Joe express some concerns about general deterioration of the the neighborhood and if uh we could spark some sort of a improvement down there, it would be great. And so it would be an ongoing um uh condition that the uh landscaping be maintained in perpetuity.

Excellent. C can I ask for clarification on on one thing just quickly? Um, could you possibly go back to the the screen that has the rendering of the outside of the building? Yeah, that that one there. And I'm now want I want to clarify for myself, but also in reflecting on the public comment about the height of the building. Is this building two levels? And so, go ahead. That's right. That's right. Because it's the first floor with the that has four units and then bunch of community space and then two the second and third floor has all units and it's three stories 35 ft tall. Okay. Thank

uh one more suggested motion for us to make before we close on this. Could somebody

uh I make I make a motion to approve the preliminary plan for Hampshire Commons Apartments located at 143 Hampshire Street P250-311 250-310 250-309 in the traditional downtown neighborhood T-4.2 two district pursuant to chapter 60 article 16 division 2 site plan review division 3 special exception and division 4 subdivision with the following condition uh final sewer and water easements are in place prior to activation

second no discussion all in favor of that motion unanimous thank you very much thank you for your presentation get ready fair parking lot to be full of the winter. That's Auburn's Chief Sledding Hill. Uh we have a a board policy to adjourn at 9:00 unless we uh I don't know if we need a unanimous vote. Marine has just left the building. So I guess'll she'll be back.

No, we're not done. Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry. It just seemed that way. We have three more uh items on our agenda. I just want to see if all the uh the applicants for that for these items are here. Uh is there a representative of uh Poland Road subdivision, 506 Poland Road. Thank you. Limitless Towing and Myrtle Street. Okay. I I'm going to uh uh ask the board if we could take the Myrtle Street application out of order. And I would simply like the board to consider that I don't think the application's complete. Uh it doesn't have any uh evidence of uh right title and interest in the property. And so I'd like the applicant to have an opportunity to come in with a complete application. So, um, if we if you if you check your packet, you'll see that there's a broker's listing agreement or something of that nature offered, uh, as evidence of right, title, and interest, which it's not, and it's four years old. Uh, so I I don't think the applicant really has complete application at this point. In any event, he's not here. So, I would make a motion to postpone the Myrtle Street application to a date uncertain.

All in favor? Thank you. All right. The next item on our printed agenda. Oh, here we go. Um, I'll entertain a motion or not uh that we will continue past 9ine, try to take care of the next two items on our agenda that perhaps we will agree that we will go until as late as 9:30. We need to or I I've never entertained one of these motions before. How do we do this? It does have to be unanimous. Okay. Is it merely a motion to exceed 9:00 or should we set a deadline?

Uh, Eric, can you speak on that? Yeah, I think it's a motion to open a new item after 9:00. So, I think you would open an item now and then if you want to open a new one after 9, then you would make that motion. All right. So, it's individual applications per application. All right. Then, uh we'll take them in the order they've been presented to us. The first one will be Poland Road subdivision 506 Poland Road. application submitted by Frank Perry to subdivide the property located at 506 Poland Road to create a third lot division. Property located in the traditional neighborhood district will be reviewed under chapter 60 article 16 subdivision division 4. Thanks. Um yeah,

I'm sorry. Is there this is pretty simple. Do you want to say anything staff or just um No, it's pretty straightforward. heard um the first split actually occurred at 502 Poland Road last year to create a 2 acre lot. Uh Frank Perry, who's the applicant, is creating that third division. He doesn't currently live at the property. It's creating a third lot which is going to be access via shared common driveway. Um we've been coordinating and he'll have that common driveway easement language provided as well, but it's pretty straightforward. All three lots meet the minimum standards. Yes.

Go ahead, Mr. Um, I'm not sure what you what more you need to know other than that's a pretty straightforward. It's simple. Um, subdivision or at least Sam helped me to make it simple. Um, it's my first one, so figuring it all out and meeting those requirements. Um, she was a great help with that. Um, the shared driveway, there is an easement going to be also in that for utilities to get to because the third lot is behind. Um, so we have to have an easement in that. That wording will be in the deed and the shared driveway wording as well. Uh, like she said, other than that, um, there's no, right now there's currently a house on the the front part, um, which would be one of the division subdivided pieces or parcels in the back. There isn't anything there yet, but the intention is that it will be a house. Looks like there are two houses on the park.

There's a house that is not part of the subdivision. That was the the original divide. We did two and then now we're making three. So there's one that says land of Frank Perry. Yeah, that's you. And then the other one is Atlantic Homes. All right. And the third parcel, who owns that right now? Um Atlantic Homes is it's all one right now until you approve it, then it becomes two. So staff, this is pretty cut, dry, easy. You have no concerns. It's basically in front of us because procedurally it needs to come in front of us.

Yes, exactly. I guess for myself, I had a hard time going to the map provided because I saw a 502 Poland road and I guess and I have to admit I had to go to uh online to get more information which we're not supposed to do but I had a hard time visualizing and it's a simple matter and certainly u agree to it, but I I had a hard time with the map particularly that was provided trying to understand it.

Yeah, I think um the tax map will not show the split that happened last year. So, if you look on the tax map and type in 506 Poland Road, it won't get you to what is being displayed on the site map. It will show one entire lot and not the 02 acre split. Um, so I'm wondering if that's where your confusion is coming from because that split occurred just last year by wasn't updated on the tax map yet. Um, it wasn't updated on our online tax maps. Guess I'm still somewhat confused because I'm It was originally It was originally 502 and it was originally 502.

Yes. And then they because we split it, they changed the addresses to 498 and 506. Once this is approved, we'll have another address for the back lot. I assume it'll be one of those a number in between those two somewhere in there. That's probably why you were having a hard time. It was a different address that we that we had changed. All right. Thank you. Make the two. Yep. Any other questions for the applicant? A public hearing. Uh it's open for public. Any public comment? Seeing none to close the public hearing. I entertain a motion.

I make a motion to approve the application for the Poland Road subdivision located at 506 Poland Road, PID188-016, pursuant to chapter 60, article 16, division 4 subdivision. Seconded. It's been moved and seconded to approve this application for a three lot subdivision. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? We want to add Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. I'm Was there approval? A condition of approval. You have a condition you'd like to see? I I missed. Oh,

with a condition prior to recording the subdivision plan, the deed is updated to include language for the common driveway easement. Whoever seconded agree to that? I do. Thank you. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? Unanimous. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. So, it's 9:02. The people from uh the towing company are going to wonder what we're going to do. I don't know. They've been awful patient. I think we should let them. Okay. Requires unanimous vote for us to continue. All in favor? Very good. Staff?

Yes. Um, so this is a proposal to operate a tow yard and recovery business at 2 276 Riverside Drive. This requires a special exception review under a general business zone. Um, this is really to ensure uh the applicant has been operating without permits. This is to ensure they can continue operating while being in compliance with our ordinance. So they do need planning board review and also they need um additional permitting after. Um all impound vehicles will be screened behind the existing building. Abandoned vehicles will be located to audit automotive and salvage. Um the existing building will be used to store timber equipment for LNL timber. The applicant is proposing security lighting, a freestanding sign and which images are attached in the application. Um staff recommend um in the event the v board votes um that as a condition of approval the applicant discontinue all operation until all permits are in place and a sewer connection to the building is established.

Thank you. Thank you for staying. Yes. Thank you. Any questions for staff? Why don't you make your presentation now? Thank you. Okay. um more than what's in your packet. I just took some pictures so you could place your eyes on where the construction you're going to have to face us and some of us don't hear. I'm sorry. That's okay. Just so people Thank you. Can also

um just so you can see how far away we are from the flooding. So there's a shelf and then there's the river. Um, so I know one of your major concerns was fluids and um just debris from salvage and um vehicles that are in an accident. So we are very far away. When you drive by it doesn't look like you're far away, but when you get close to it, you really are. Um and um our vehicle plan was very important. Um Samantha is great to work with. Um she's helped me come a long way with this. Um, typically they're gone within 14 days. If there's an accident that's under investigation, it does not leave in 14 days. It's usually like 21 days. That just goes with the police reporting and how they how fast they can expedite that. But when it comes to like impound vehicles or it comes to criminal vehicles or anything like that that we're towing for the city of Lewon and Auburn, they are gone within 14 days and then the state paperwork picks up. Um, so it's rotating. I know that there's been some pictures taken of our lot from there. I don't know who they've been submitted. A lot of these vehicles are registered to us. So, I know what the major concern was. We don't want it to become a junkyard. Neither do we. Um I am very proactive on that. I'm kind of a haunt. Um and I track down insuranceances. I tracked down everybody. I'm I'm on it because we don't want them either. Um we do get money for storage. So, adverse of like us helping the business out with getting more money for storage. I want to roll these vehicles over. Um, so we really are concerned with the pictures that were taken. Um, we didn't have a, you know, we couldn't tell you which ones were ours and which ones weren't, but there was no more than three vehicles at any given time that weren't registered in the lot. And those out of those three vehicles, two of them, um, the police took the plates off.

We don't know what vehicle. We don't have any pictures. We don't have any idea what you're talking about. Um, I don't think we care. your application your application is so maybe I'm I shouldn't say too much um no but that was just a concern and it's a concern for us too and that we want to give the building a facelift that's ugly um we want to make the city of Auburn um happy that we're there um we do have an estimate for painting and new doors and so if we're permitted we'd like to make the building look a lot more presentable so your application says that the the impounded cars or the towed cars whatever you want to call them are going to be inside a fenced area. Yes, sir. And that fenced area is how large?

Well, let me ask is the fenced area is it fenced in right now? No. Okay. So, you but you will you will be fencing it in and it will be will it be a a fence that that blocks view? Yes, sir. Okay. and the other side of the building. It'll go the same. So, you're just going to see the front of the building. You'll see nothing behind it. And how many vehicles will that area hold?

It's really hard to say. Um, I mean at least 25 um comfortably cuz you have to get wreckers in and out of the back of the building. So it might only hold 11 trucks, but it will hold 25 sedans. And there won't be any stored outside of that area? No, sir. And your personal equipment or equipment from this logging company, that'll be all inside the fencing area? No, inside the building. No, no,

no. It would be it could be inside the screening if you if you wish. We were going to have it above the screen um screening, but we can make our dump trucks and our tractor trailers and trailers and skid steers and front end loaders and stuff like that. But the salvaged and junk and accidentrone accident vehicles will be behind a stockade fence. Yes, sir. For a couple reasons. A, it's not pretty to see, and B, um, we have to have it secured, and we can't have people in and out of unsecured area grabbing belongings or other people's belongings. We have to have it secured.

So, regarding your own personal equipment, your application reads, "And work on our our own snow removal and trucking equipment." And then it's also written here, no mechanics work will be done at the garage as it's just a cold storage building. So where are you going to work on your vehicles?

Well, we were when we were talking to the city, no oil changes, no fluid exchanges and stuff, but like if a tire needs to be changed or or something of of that nature because we do do commercial snow plowing for the city of Lewon and Auburn. Um, so there are times, um, public works calls, they have a flat tire. There's times that we have a trailer with a flat tire. Something on those of those ends with no painting vehicles, no mechanics like of exchanging fluids and stuff like that, I guess, is more detailed in that for you. Where's that going to be done? What's that? Where are those activities going to take place? Outside or inside? Um, if there needs to be stuff like that done, it's done at like an outside shop

uh on your property outside on this property. No, sir. No, no fluids and stuff like that. No, cuz we don't have the I means to do that kind of kind of stuff there. Ed, are you asking if the maintenance would occur inside a building on the property? Yes. So would it happen inside a building on the property or outdoors in the elements? Um the tire the tires and stuff like that like we said would probably be done inside the building or depending I mean it's it's basically cold storage. There's no insulation or anything. It's more or less it's cold.

If it's raining it's it's not raining on you in there. I guess it's out of the elements. But so your preventative maintenance on your personal business vehicles and unscheduled maintenance would happen off that premises. Is that correct? Yes. Thank you. Yes. Uh excuse me. Uh could you give us more information about the business dealings that you have with APD, LPD, and main state police? Is it strictly just with Sorry, my It's okay. Is it strictly, you know, accidents, snow bands, and things like that?

Um, I would say 85% of our business is strictly working for the city of Lewis and Auburn. Um, but we're what? We're the only ones that do the Yeah, we do all the service Auburn PD. We do the tire changes, cruisers break down. We We're the ones that haul them either to the town garage or over to Um outside towing we don't do a lot of but outside towing would mean the vehicles aren't even at the at the yard. So we do a a point A to point B toes. Um and those aren't those don't come back to the shop.

Okay. And so is it fair to say that once you are in possession of this vehicle and bring it into the lot that it's in an off it's in a uh sorry question here. So, is it fair to say that the cars that you tow are placed in off- streetet parking? Yes, it's fair to say that. Yes. Uh, another question is a more detailed explanation of your snow removal plan. You said that you have a that you contract snow removal. Do you do that onsite as well? Um, well, we do our own Yeah, we just plow the plow the yard, but we have business contracts with Shaws and TD Bank. We have outside contracts.

Okay. No, my I guess I'm being more pointed. Do you have a contract? Do you contract out or are you responsible for the maintenance of your property? We are responsible for the maintenance of our property. Yes. Okay. Including snow? Including.

So, you know, just throw a scenario out there. It's a blizzard. Uh, obviously you deal with snow bands. So, you you know, you get a you answer the call whether it's Auburn or Lewon. You get the car. you bring it into your property for storage. Snow ends, that's usually when people go out and plow the snow, right? Uh so by that by that by that point when the snow is settled and you're clearing your property and you set a time for the person that owns the car to come and you know

redeem it mean yeah and come and and uh redeem it and get it back. Are you who's resp I guess my question is who's responsible for maintaining the snow of that vehicle that you've towed like brushing the vehicle off and like brushing the vehicle off and around it. Is it on the Is it on you? Is it on the customer that had the car towed? It's on us to keep the lot cleared so they can get it out. But as far as cleaning the cars off and stuff, not really our I mean, we're always usually around. I I've given you to release the vehicle anyway. So, I mean, we've we try to help as much.

We're not like you're on your own. We'll help anybody get in and out. So, we're we're always at the premises. Yes. What are the soils on the premises like? Uh, it's pretty fine gravel um where it was gags and they used it for that was a I think it was a I think it was a pre-cast. What they used the building for was to make pre-cast years ago. So, it's pretty pretty solid ground as far as that goes. I don't really know what's under it. that it dries really fast. What are you going to do to prevent leaks?

Uh we have um we have these huge um containment booms for um you just kind of put it around the vehicle. Keeps anything from leeching out. It absorbs everything but water. So that they're fantastic with that. Um and we have spill we have spill mats go underneath them. If there anything that's leaking, we put And then we just we have a dozen of each of those. Yeah. put them in a five gallon bucket and dispose of them properly like we do. Yes. Do you have like a fee schedule for your customers that come and retrieve their vehicles? Yes, we have to provide that to the city every year. We have do have a fee schedule. Okay. But do the customers have access to the fee schedule?

Um, no, they don't. I I guess I've never like I'm the dispatcher. So it I mean I just have to I have to go by everything that I I see that is the fee schedule for the January 1st of every year to the city. So if like there has been questions like some people charge 200 for a parking ban. You can't. It's 150 and then 24 hours later $50 a day um for storage. So if I was to say no your car is 300 then I'd be going against that and I could get in trouble or lose my contract with the city. Yeah, because from my experience, I think

particularly when it comes to snowbands, there's a lot of predatory practices out there. So, I just want to make sure that there is some sort of information for the public to have access to that. Uh, so I don't know if it's incumbent upon you as a business owner or incumbent upon the city to be able to provide that, facilitate that for the public. Well, the Auburn Police Department uses them, so I'd say they're probably pretty reputable. Not really sure. It's a planning board issue. One more. Yeah, you're right. Go ahead. Uh I guess it's more towards staff. I mean, is there a reason why this property that's right on Androsogen River is not subject to shoreland uh ordinance or anything like that?

Um yeah, so it is actually in the shoreland zone, but the water uh storm water runoff on the site is draining away from the Androskagan River towards Riverside Drive. Okay. So, I guess my next question based off been hearing today is flooding, potential flooding of the river. Is the site immune to that? I mean, it seems pretty close. It's on the right side of the Riverside Drive or the side close to the river. From this point here, yeah, to the water. Uhhuh. You're probably 200 ft. But that that's a flat B and then it drops down the river. Okay. That's not water is right there.

Question for staff. Is this application complete without a without a survey? I mean, the the applicant said that there was a survey, but there's really not. I mean, there's this little It was done by Casco Bay Surveyor. I'm sorry, what? Um, there the most recent survey was done by Casco Bay Surveyors. Well, where is it? Um, it was in there, right? It was the blown up version. The the package that that I um received was showing uh two lots. Um, that's the one that I received from you from Casco Bay.

Um, it's from Sebago Technics.

Okay. The applicant just said that the distance shown in that photograph is 200 ft. But what I'm looking at here, I don't know exactly what it is, but it's got dimensions. The entire depth of the lot is only 200 feet from the road to the river. And the building is clearly within 100 ft of the the river and you're proposing to put in the storage area in the back which would be within I don't know be closer than that um 50 ft 60 ft of from the river that seem more accurate

I'm tell it's it's over 50 now this you go across another flat spot come right to the this your application is I'm not making these numbers up. No. Um you're not I don't know if the I don't know if the survey went right to the this right to this point and not because I mean I should have I should have gotten a better picture and a measurement for you but I definitely could provide that.

I see on the survey from the tie line it's 46.22 feet to the river. Yep. And the distance of the building to the river is 100 100 or so feet less than that. Does this does this fence accurately depict what you're going to install? Yeah. 8 foot. Yes, sir.

Made of wood like this. Mhm. Yep. Say it again. supposed to be.

Oh, well, let me open this. I'm sorry. Yes. Uh, I'll open this up for public hearing unless there's objection. Okay, Steve speak to this. No. All right. Want to close the public hearing.

We'll close the public hearing. Okay. We'll enter our deliberations now if that's uh the board's desire and certainly include additional questions for the applicants if there are any. I guess my question is actually for staff. Um, looking through our application packet, I see the application checklist and I see where the applicant has um, either indicated that they've submitted the information or that it's not applicable. Does staff agree that everything that the applicant has marked as not applicable is in fact not applicable to this application?

Yes, I agree. I think in terms of u the question about the boundary survey um which is showing two lots the parcel today is one lot um and I don't believe you have an updated boundary survey that shows it as one lot and and none of the boundary lines on that parcel are changing um in certain cases I think it's acceptable for the board to grant a waiver from the boundary survey or to if it's possible for you to provide an updated one um certainly would be helpful. The site plan um as you see is a is a handdrawn plan. She's showing a screening and locations of lighting. Um I believe our ordinance uh does require site plans to be drawn to scale. Um this is uh obviously it's a it's handdrawn. It does show all the proposed elements. Um it's clear where the screening is going to go. Um I think if the board is looking for an engineered plan, it's certainly acceptable to request. Um but kind of explaining how um what they're showing on the site and it is to our understanding this building was just um sold. So this is what our new the the gentleman we're leasing the property from. This is um his paperwork. So I could work with him too to see if you know he's got an updated one or if we can obtain one. So if if it helps you.

So I'm looking at the this drawing which I assume you submitted. Sorry about that everybody. Can you see that what I'm looking at? So the the fenced in area that you're going to erect is going to be entirely behind the building. It isn't going to extend to the left or to the right of the building. It's It'll be behind.

See, that's the problem. I have to This plan says that it's going to be entirely behind the building. And if we approve this and this is what you build it. I can't. Can I? Yes. Yeah, that's okay. across the then that would be my concern about there not being a survey is you're going toward the abuing property um to the

did I put west or to the south east or to the south so this isn't what you're intending to construct I might have missed it's in the front we want to screen the front so you just see the front of the building and then everything behind it is screened so I apologize Ed Should we give them the opportunity to come back next month with a revised um survey?

The problem with that is we have a funeral to attend. We leave um May 8th for Florida and we come back on the 18th. And I'm sure that falls in the guidelines of the second Tuesday of the month. Correct. When you meet again. That's why we were sweating when we didn't think we're going to be heard because we have a a funeral to attend in Florida. I mean, I think I share your concern, Ed. We're We have to approve what's in front of us, and if we approve what's in front of us, that's what you have to build. Um, and so we will we will need the correct site plan in front of us. Um, otherwise, you'll be out of conformance when you start building.

Would it be acceptable if we submitted that and we just weren't here for next month? I think somebody representing the project will need to be here. You can um if you're available, come back in June. That's the following meeting. Do you let us be here by Zoom? The city doesn't allow that. City doesn't. Okay. We don't not allow it. The city Okay. Yeah. But that is the only concern on the Do you have anyone that could proxy for you in May? Could the owner come too? I mean,

he is in Ireland right now. Um, he is hard to get a hold of, but I can I can try to touch base. I don't know his schedule. I can try to touch base with you. Your your husband wife. Yes. Your husband nodded that somebody else could come. Would it if if Well, we'll we'll figure it out. Yeah. If that means getting approved, all we can do is grant you an extent continuence to May. I think that's probably our best bet. Yeah. And sign a letter saying that person can speak on your behalf and Okay. Okay. Thank you. Well, do we have to do that in the motion? Yeah, let's do that in the motion.

I make a motion that we postpone the hearing site plan special exception to 276 Riverside Drive, Limitless Towing, to the date certain of our May 2026 meeting. Thank you. Second. All in favor? Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Uh yes. Potential for one more extension. Uh if we could have the miscellaneous items. Just wanted to be able to be able to give have the board give feedback for the CIP that was presented last month. Uh we could get you guys. Thank you guys.

Thank you. And also a secondary item. No more than five minutes. I think you're going to have to convince Tim of it. I mean, I think we were all expecting to have have a late night with seven items on the agenda. So, I mean, I just was uh uh I hopefully it's amicable to the board, but uh yeah. Well, we've had a request to uh to take up one more item, which would be our recommendation. Well, more than one miscellaneous. Yeah. Why don't you tell us what you would like to put in the form of a motion, see how it goes.

Okay. So, I'd say I move to open the miscellaneous item of our agenda to focus on TIP feedback from last month and a potential workshop for the board. Second. All in favor? We're adjourned. I know. And I know they're

tri. Oh.