Planning Board - Regular Meeting

2026 Planning Board Meeting, City of Auburn. Roll call first, starting to my far left.

Kathy Shaw. Chelsea Eaton. Bob Hayes.

Riley Bergeron. Bilal Hussain. Ed Barra.

Maureen Hopkins.

Tim DeRoche.

Andrea Westby.

Thank you. We have a minutes from both the May 28 in the August 11th meetings since we have a full board we probably ought to try to dispense with the May 28 minutes. So if I could have a motion from someone. We tend to that meeting. Get those off our chair. That was Chelsea marine Kathy and Andrea myself.

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes.

Thank you very much. The mood and second any discussion about the May 28th minute. If not all in favor please raise your hands. Passes thank you. Any board minutes of 11th 2026. They have a motion on those.

I move to approve.

Thank you very much. Second.

Second.

Moved and seconded to accept the planning board minutes of August 11th, 2026. Any discussion? If not, all in favor? Passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Item three, new business. Public hearing site plan amendment special exception. 220 Danville Corner Road, PID 122-006, application submitted by Platts Associates on behalf of Recovery Connections of Maine to change the use of the property at 220 Danville Corner Road from education to hospital. THE 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. WE'RE GOING TO HEAR VERY BRIEFLY FROM STAFF TO INTRODUCE THIS ITEM. THEN WE WILL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. Then move to public hearing. We'll then have any responses to comments made at the public hearing that the applicant might like to share with us. Then we'll have the staff's recommendations or report. And questions from the board can take place at any time. Thank you.

So this, I'll go through a little bit of the project and then have the applicant speak of specifics. But I'll give an overview of why we're here and why this is being reviewed by the board. Oh, I'm Sam. I'm the planning coordinator. So this is for a change of use from education to a hospital treatment facility. Staff have classified this use as a hospital, which is listed as a special exception in the general business zone. So special exceptions get reviewed by the planning board. This is why that application is here for your review and approval. Staff have corresponded with the applicant. We reviewed the application and deemed it complete in accordance with site plan review criteria under Section 60-1301, which is why the public hearing has been scheduled for tonight. We defer to the applicant to give specifics regarding their project. The packet you'll notice includes both the staff memo Which outlines relevant provisions as well as the findings of fact which were presented at the last planning board meeting the findings of fact our draft version and Thus this is what the planning board will be voting on tonight. And that's all we have from staff for right now. I

Sam, could I just ask what the amendment reference is when you say the site plan amendment is described as a site plan amendment? What approvals presently exist for this property?

So it was formerly an education facility for Spur Wing schools. So that had a previous approval. So this is why it's an amendment. It's a change of use and amendment.

Okay, thank you. All right, we'll hear from the applicant then.

Could you pull up the drawing? Just a second.

Is this on, can you hear me? Yep. I'm Dan Marino, I'm with Platts Associates. So the project is really, very little change or no change to the building. It's very minor in the context of its adaptability for the functions of what our client wants to use it for. The only things that we're asking to do is to, we're addressing a sewer main extension for the building. Sorry, I'm just bringing up the site plan itself. the site located on old danville road it's uh basically the the building is going to be used for with the floor plan as we've attached the floor plan is the parking is really for staff Patients don't bring cars or anything like that, strictly for staff. The dumpster is being modified to be enclosed on the site, and then we're putting curb stops for the vehicles parking opposite the building. And then the traffic waiver approved by chris bennett of city engineering for the utilities and of course the sewer septic we've submitted a plan and then the full construction set of drawings for the septic for the sewer line will will be in the permit set but it's uh that was approved also by auburn water oh sorry I can recap that if you like. I'm sorry. Why don't you do that? I'll be brief, so sewer line is submitted as part of the packet, it's approved by Auburn Water Sewer District. The finished construction plans for it will be in the permit set for construction. And that's to replace the septic system leach field that is presently on the site to the upper right hand corner right there. The dumpster will be a full eight foot enclosure, a wood slat enclosure. And of course the curb stops on the parking that is opposite the building, we're adding those in there. And of course the traffic study was waived by Chris Bennett. Would that open up for any questions? And I also have the operator of the facility

I'd like to hear from the operator of the facility to get a better understanding of what's going to take place within this building.

Good evening. My name is Jeremy Hiltz. I'm the founder and chief operating officer of Recovery Connections of Maine. Do you mind if I give you a little background about our program?

however you want to do it.

Yeah, so we have been operating addiction treatment at Lewiston Auburn for about nine years. We currently operate a 22-bed men's six-month program in Lewiston. We now are planning on using the facility to create a ASAM 3.5 level of care which means that it's a 45 day program so the residents will stay at the program for 45 days they wouldn't leave it's a um clinically managed high intensity residential program that means that uh lots of times when people come out of a hospital or something like that there's like no in-between gap to that they fit into so we would be able to uh provide them 24-hour care medically managed we have a physician a nurse practitioner as mental health counselors case manager, licensed alcohol and drug counselors on staff. We would have 24-7 staffing there. We also have residential advisors. Two of those would be on first shift, second shift, and third shift. So it would be managed 24 hours a day.

So the length of stay you anticipate for the people you're treating is 45 days?

Yes, sir.

And the medical staff consists of whom or what?

We have a medical director who is a DO. We have two psychiatric nurse practitioners, an LCSW. to licensed alcohol and drug counselors and to support staff that would be on site 24 hours a day. So this is like the program itself is the same level of care. I'm sure you all are familiar with the St. Francis House over in Auburn. I think it's on Dunn Street or over in Auburn. So it's the same model of care, but they lots of times don't have the capacity and we're seeing a a need to create more beds for folks that are really getting typically out of a hospital, a detox center, they would step down into our 45-day program for continued support.

So all of your patients are inpatient?

Yes, sir. They don't leave. And if they did leave the program, we have vans, transportation, they wouldn't without being accompanied by a staff member.

Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant at this time?

I have a couple. Yes. Is this facility licensed by the state? Do you require some sort of state licensure to operate this?

Yes, ma'am. We're not only licensed by the state, but we're also credentialed by a joint commission, which is actually a higher licensure than So we get licensed by the Department of Health and Human Services. We also get licensed by the Joint Commission after we get licensed by DHHS.

Thank you. And then just two clarifications. I noticed in the proposal overview it refers to it as a 28-bed facility, and the plans show 25. And the will serve or capacity to serve letter from the Auburn Water District refers to it as 13 bedrooms and the plans show 15. That is probably de minimis, but just for clarity and the record, could you confirm how many bedrooms and how many beds you anticipate having in this facility?

We have it scheduled through Platt's associate. They rated it for 28 beds themselves, and I do believe that there's 15 bedrooms.

So the plans are correct. Okay, thank you.

So you're gonna connect to the city or the public sewer but not water?

The water was deemed adequate by the city as well.

Do we have any, what do you mean by the city?

I think it's one of their comments that they responded to.

What evidence is there before me that the water is adequate? And this seems like a facility that can draw a lot of water.

How much water do you expect to consume in the course of a day? Just that it was evaluated and they put a, I apologize, that one I'll have to defer. I was under the impression that that was already answered by the Auburn Seward Water District that the water was adequate on site for what is in the building.

It's a well, it's a private well. It does have adequacy of water. Where is it, who says that it has adequate water for the proposed use? I'll have to find it, I apologize. You can find it after the public comment if you don't have it readily available. Anything else from any board members at this time?

Just one, and this is I think more directed towards staff. Have we seen evidence of right title and interest from the applicant as the lessee? I see that we have a quit claim deed for the owner of the property, but I haven't seen anything from the applicant lessee.

We don't have anything for a lease agreement.

And what about financial capacity?

The financial capacity is provided.

There is, okay.

Anything, Bob? No, I guess I'm looking at a letter dated August 13th. from the Water District, which says the property 220 Danville Corner Road, which is a current Water District customer. Sounds like they are on the water system.

I thought they were, because I apologize, I'm substituting for a staff member. I was told that the water was adequate. But we can make it a condition of approval that that's confirmed. So, yeah.

It says From the water sewer district as a property at 220 Danville corner Road Which is a current water district customer is requesting a passage of serve letter to connect to the sewer system based on the water usage and Description of being a 13 bedroom care facility the district is determined that we have sufficient capacity to serve the sewer sewer needs of this property

Right. I guess there's no question about the sewer.

The question is about the... Well, it says the water district customer, so I read that as... Again, I can get that clarified.

It says based on the water usage. So someone's reporting to the district on the water usage. I don't know. Is this property connected to city or to the water district line?

I believe so.

Because the summary in our packet says that it's going to be served by a private well.

I saw that also, so that's why I wanted to, I just read that too, but I was under the impression that it was served by public water. All right, can we confirm that before we go any further?

Yes, we can confirm that. And for certainty's sake, we can make that a condition of approval. a document be provided by the Water District that shows, because there's not clarity within the letter that you all just read out loud, we can allow them to update that letter to specify that they do have adequate water capabilities from the Water District.

In that update, could we also include the correct number of bedrooms?

Correct, yes.

And beds. There's 28 beds.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right then. We'll move on to public hearing. At this time, if there's anybody who would like to comment on this application, they may approach the podium. Try to limit your comments to three minutes or five minutes or some short period of time, if you would please. And begin. Thank you. Identify yourself before you speak, please.

Good evening. Steve Warren, 241 Danville Corner Road. Our property is across the street and I have a real concern. It isn't clear what the level of treatment this program is going to be offering. What is the nature of the addiction that's being treated? These hard drug addicted people and It doesn't fit the neighborhood to have a drug treatment facility in this rural setting. It's going to bring down the value of the properties, my property and everybody else in the area. So that is a concern that it belongs in more of a medical environment, hospital type setting neighborhood rather than in a rural residential neighborhood. The explanation doesn't clarify whether the people being treated will be uh... locked in or whether they're going to be free to roam the neighborhood uh... i think that's important to uh... identify people uh... have potential severe drug addiction that they not be roaming the neighborhood and you recently approved a major development that's probably going to have a lot of young people in directly behind this property so it's going to have close to 100 residences that will probably have many young people, and if the residents are out in the community without transportation, that's going to be a factor. There are no transit facilities servicing this neighborhood, so someone there without transportation would typically be on foot. There are no sidewalks, no pedestrian facilities. It's not a neighborhood that would be safe for people who have been in a treatment program and maybe just walked out to be on the street. The lighting, there's no street light in that neighborhood and The visibility for traffic, it's on a downhill slope and it's right at a corner. The driveway is not well suited for traffic to be entering and exiting, so it wouldn't really be an ideal environment for a facility where people might be walking out into traffic. There are no police facilities anywhere in the area. And if these people have issues, there might be a need for security that there's no police in that side of town. There's also no emergency services nearby. to deal with any other types of emergencies. And I have a serious question about the staffing being able to manage. I think I heard that there could be three staff people. That's probably at peak times. And for 15 or more residents, it seems like there could be issues with adequate staffing.

Thank you.

Would anyone else like to approach the podium during this public hearing period? Seeing no one, I'll declare the public hearing closed, unless there's an objection from anybody on the board to doing so. The public hearing is now closed. We'll ask that the applicant has anything to say in response to any of the comments made by Mr. Warren.

It appears that the concern is that our residents would be freely roaming the streets. They may walk off. This is a voluntary program. that's not a common issue like i said i've been operating residential treatment in the city for nine years uh well excuse me the air the community uh oxford street in lewiston um we uh haven't had uh that situation hasn't happened in a six-month program what he's describing uh we also have like i was saying that we do have uh transportation like we have vans uh somebody leaves the program they would be escorted uh off of the property so i don't think that that is uh concern that we have. We follow all state and federal law, so I understand the concern without, I can understand having a concern without actually understanding the population of people that we serve. I also wanna make it clear to say that the concerns are that everybody that uses substances could potentially be a criminal is not actually accurate. There are a lot of people in our communities that they need to get help, you know what I'm saying? That's what we're trying to do. We have been, in the city of Auburn, we also operate, three recovery residences in the city of Auburn. One of those is Spring Street in Auburn, where there was a high, very, very high police volume prior to us taking over that building. And we haven't had any since that time. So we're very good stewards and very responsible for being a good neighbor, being a good community member. It's very important to us.

Is the entry and egress of residence monitored 24-7?

Yes, ma'am. The building itself was designed for adolescents that were living in there. So there's key cards that like separate parts of the building from the others so that you can manage people in different sections of the building. That's already was designed by Spurling for the youth, so it's actually a pretty ideal building for us. So do these, I'm sorry. So your patients don't leave the building? Well, they will leave, but if they do, when they do leave, they would have to leave in the van or they would be escorted by a staff member. You know what I mean? They would come outside. Obviously, I don't think they're gonna be.

In the course of a day, do they get to go outside?

Yes, they could go outside. There's plenty of area out there to get air, exercise. A typical day would look like there's three clinical groups that happen. In between those times, they would be meeting with counselors and case managers to develop a discharge plan.

um the day is uh scheduled out from the time they wake up until the time they go to bed so understanding that they're there voluntarily if someone were to leave the building or leave the property would you know that yes ma'am

So as we're already operating, like I said, a residential treatment program in Lewiston, we have our RAs that do checks every 15 minutes right now, so we're really just adding another location to our existing service.

Just to address Mr. Warren's concern, and it would be one that I would share as well, if your residents were to take a walk, and I'm not concerned about at criminal activity or nefarious activities at all. I'm concerned about safety. Would they be walking along Danville Junction?

No, no, we wouldn't have them walking out there. I think like what he had said, there's no sidewalks. It's not something that we didn't plan on actually bringing them out there if they leave to get exercise like the the the actual property itself is large enough for um exercise and in the uh on the you know going for a walk around the property and stuff like that but we also um uh at our facility in lewiston we have a gym down there that we potentially bring them to if they're in a place where they can do that um But it's not going to be a thing where they would just go out walking in the neighborhood by themselves at night with no street lights or anything like that. What about during the day? Well, they would have to stay on the property. They wouldn't leave the property itself.

Would you define the patients as being all going through the course of substance abuse care and Yes. Healing from that? Yes. Would there be psychiatric care for psychiatric patients?

Well, I mean, we do not treat primary mental health. So there are some instances where our psychiatric nurse practitioner will treat people for common depression or anxiety issues, things like that. But if person has let's say high level of schizophrenia something like that would have no control over themselves we would refer that person to a specialist in that area Is there any dedicated outdoor black area or

is it just uh not familiar with the property itself but if people can go out and walk where do they walk they would be able to go walk on the property itself we wouldn't have them walk and taking a walk into the neighborhood so is it just open field behind do you have some sort of recreation dedicated recreation space uh

It's not so really this program is about stabilization right like so somebody's like transferring out of a hospital or something to that back to detox and it's really about stabilization so it's not a program where we're going to be taking them on a hikes and things like that and I guess I'm not understanding the question.

Bob, it's three acres in size, just to let you know. I'm not suggesting that's adequate. It's three acres.

They would be able to get out and get air, and like I said, we encourage exercise. Some people, though, aren't in a position where they're ready to start doing that at that moment, so it would be a light sort of recreation situation.

I gathered one of the concerns is the number of people that might be residents there, but the staffing is still fairly low. So if somebody, one or two or three or four individuals are outside, what supervision, or do they need supervision during this period that they're there?

Like I said, any kind of structured activity that happens during the day is monitored by staff. We currently, just to be clear, like in our organization right now, we employ 32 people, and then we're gonna add to that, so we are adequately staffed, and we are also adequately staffed by federal and state regulations. This is not like, we are overseen by the state government, federal government, and the Joint Commission on how we handle everything.

I appreciate what you're saying, but I still think there's a concern with your neighbor as to the liberty that these individuals might have without supervision.

There isn't a time during the 24-hour period that they would be unsupervised. The level of care that we're at is a high-intensity care. clinically managed uh um program right that means that the people are monitored uh with a staff member uh for 24 hours a day like i said our uh staff people they do checks and they have a clipboard they walk around they lay eyes on everybody in the program every 15 minutes

Okay, so somebody's outdoors, if you had two or three outdoors, somebody's out there with them.

Yes sir, yes sir, definitely, yes sir.

Thank you.

Nothing further, Tim? What's the protocol if somebody's missing?

uh we would um um well if they're missing there's not like really much that we can actually i mean if they're missing they're missing but we would uh contact the emergent their emergency contact uh obviously uh do our best to find the person like i said in my uh career i've actually never that's not something that we've ever really encountered But we would obviously do our best to find the person, figure out if they're okay.

And I think it's important that you understand where I'm coming from. My question reflects that of the gentleman that came up and spoke, but also given your rural setting and winter is long and cold. And if somebody, it's unlike what you have in Auburn and Lewiston, which is relatively urban, there's people around. In that setting, if somebody was missing in the middle of February, that could be very bad for that person as well, given its rural setting. I just think it's important to understand my questions.

Any time that there's an emergency situation, that's what it sounds like you're describing, is that we would contact emergency services if we felt like there was a danger of somebody being stuck out in the cold and the elements and stuff like that. Based on our monitoring of the patients, it wouldn't be that long before we'd be able to do that.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

I guess the question, emergency services, you're talking about local police and fire.

Yes, sir.

Hearing to be no other comments from the board. I'll turn it back to staff. And I just would ask if staff could address Mr. Warren's concern that this use doesn't seem appropriate for this area.

So as Sam prepares her response, I'll directly address the permitted uses in both of the zones. And hospitals are permitted use in these zones. The city of Auburn had designated that these areas are appropriate for these type of services. Specifically, I point to the definition of hospital and the range of inpatient care that is involved in hospitals and that the city has said that it is appropriate in these zones for these type of uses to exist. We're, as always, we're always open to discussion and seeing if we would like to change that, and we would follow the process to change those permitted uses in the zones. But as of today, because they're marked as permitted uses in the zone, that's the city actually signing off on this type of use is appropriate for the area. Thank you.

Staff, any other comments to be made on this application?

Yeah, I would direct the board to page one of the staff memo, which outlines the definition of a hospital. The use in general business includes hospitals, care homes, boarding houses, and lodging houses. And the definition of hospital includes an institution receiving inpatients and rendering medical care. There is an allowed use for outpatient addiction treatment clinics. However, as noted, that does not include an inpatient or residential addiction treatment program, which this is. So that's why it was not classified as that use and was instead classified as a hospital.

Back to staff, yes. If the board wish to go further in this application, we would just ask to add an additional condition to the two listed there. One that you all have already brought up beforehand has to do with water service, and that would be to provide written confirmation of adequate water service from the water district or the LPI. prior to signature of the plan. So that means that even before they even get to a building permit stage, that they would have to provide that written documentation from the Water District LPI, which would clarify the information that you received.

I'm comfortable with confirmation that it's from the water district, meaning that it is tied into the water system, or it will be tied into the water system. But I'm not comfortable with just passing on an LPI saying, yeah, he thinks of water. Somebody's going to have to go out there and test that well. I've got to know from the applicant how many gallons per day are going to be used by a 28-bed facility. I think it's a big not, it really is, to come here and not. knowing that and also the right type of interest absolutely I wouldn't be inclined to make that a sure absolutely that's just me

I would just add that I agree, and I think the evidence of right title and interest is kind of a threshold question that we really need to see.

In regards to the right title and interest, I agree it's a very important thing that we need to demonstrate. However, according to our ordinance under Section 60-1301, we do not require that. I believe it's appropriate for the board to request that, but I'm stating that it's not a listed, it's currently not a listed submission requirement. It's listed on the application.

It absolutely is, the threshold.

It's one of the five itemized materials on the development review application.

It's just for our own protection. I mean, we could spend hours reviewing something and somebody has no legal connection to the property whatsoever. That's just not the way we do business. Great. Is there anything in your report that you want to point out to us? You've given us a fairly extensive memo here. I'm sure we've had a chance to review it, but if there's anything that you care to highlight for us or for the general public before we move on to Voting on this matter, now's the opportunity to do that.

So the two, I would say the few highlights from the staff memo are so that the traffic, they mentioned they requested a waiver from engineering for that. They're anticipated to generate about five vehicle trips in the peak hour. The previous use for education was about 108 trips, so a significant decrease. Engineering has granted that the waiver from a traffic impact analysis. The second thing I would like to point out is regarding the sewer service, they're extending that. The existing sewer line in Danville Corner currently ends about 750 feet before the property. They're proposing to extend that line. The sewer and water district has reviewed it, and they have a plan showing a schematic of how they're gonna connect to that building.

Will that be the applicant's financial responsibility to extend that line? Yes. And there's a financial statement in the record somewhere about that?

No, there's not for the sewer.

And that's actually one of the conditions of approval. Anytime that they have to do anything right away, we have to bond for that. We do add a note on the plan that says if needed, however, that doesn't give me the security, so that's why we added the condition two that says that they will have to bond for that if they're doing work in the right of way. So that's a public improvement. The bond amount is actually in a different chapter. It's in Chapter 46. It's actually not in the zoning ordinance, but it does require approval from the planning board to allow us to require bonding.

How much will it cost to extend that?

I don't have an estimate, but the estimate needs to be approved by the the city engineer prior to getting a bond, but maybe the applicant does have to.

I'd like to know from the applicant, now that I'm looking at the financial, evidence of financial capacity, what I see is a letter from a bank saying you've got more than $10,000 in your account. So if this is going to cost more than $10,000, I want to know how you plan on funding.

It's the owner of the building's responsibility, he's agreed to extend, add the sewer line.

I guess it would be nice to have a statement from him that that's gonna happen and that he has the resources to do it. Right now, all we know is that you have $10,000.

You're the applicant for it. It's really, that's what was requested of me by the city.

Well, the city requests the document. Whether it's sufficient or not is really . Mr. Engineer, do you have any? Go ahead.

Actually, it was just going to be a question on procedural. It's a little off topic, but I'll just throw it out. I'm just looking back at department comments and not particular, even to this particular project, but when you request review by departments, is it by letter to each department?

We request it through both of our SmartGov system that asks all of our departments to answer review projects and also through email. So we do both ways.

and they always come back with a comment or at least they come back and say no comment? Or if you don't hear from them, you're just assuming that they've approved it?

So the actual provision in the zoning ordinance gives two weeks, basically two weeks for the different departments to answer back. And if they don't answer back, then we have to We never assume that they have no comment. We just have to say that they have not responded to the request for review.

Okay, so for instance, in this project, so you did ask for emergency services and They came back with?

Yes, so they actually did come back, fire and police did come back and said that they have no concerns as far as the application is concerned.

Okay, thank you.

But great question, a great question. I haven't executed a lease in my email, if you guys want me to see, I can email to somebody if you guys want me to include that right now. I don't want it right now.

So I'm going to say that I actually am comfortable approving this with these as conditions. I feel like I might be in the minority on that, but if we want to put it to a motion, or do you think would the applicant be more comfortable if we tabled it and allowed you to gather this information and come back so that it doesn't get rejected?

We would really like to see if we can get this a conditional approval because the financial capacity of the owner of the building, if you need it, we can get you that document. I'm willing to bet that the lease stipulates that all these things need to be in place because otherwise they can't operate their facility. As far as the water goes, we can make sure that adequacy of water will meet building permit and state regulations for use of plumbing. So it is within the realm of the building permit, in my understanding, that none of these things can happen unless those things are in place beforehand. So the bond is obviously within the boundaries of whatever the city.

And this isn't going to be a bond that you're posting, is it? I'm sorry? It's not a bond that you're posting. Not you personally, but your client's not posting it. No, but those particulars we would make sure that they were in place to protect the city because that's part of the city's due diligence. But all of that requires the action of somebody who's not here, somebody who's signature we haven't seen on a lease, we haven't seen a commitment to do this work. It doesn't add up.

let me see if mr. mr. Brown can yeah I was gonna say I think there's an a purview of their decision so so this is one of the situations where you if you have outstanding comments or outstanding questions you can always request for a continuation of the review to our next meeting or pending the submission of the documents that you have requested and that way you're not putting anything decision where you are uncomfortable with making a final decision and if you have you've pointed out a couple of documents here tonight that will make you a lot more comfortable with moving forward to a final decision if you do not have enough information in front of you to grant an approval and you would have to make the decision are you ready to make a final decision tonight or would you like the additional documentation that has not been provided tonight and staff is fine with either way

Well, I'll say in response to Riley's comment that I'm prepared to vote to approve this project, but not until I'm satisfied that there's financial capacity, that there's right title and interest, and that there's adequate water. And I don't think that it's appropriate for us to make those conditions and then just walk away and not see what that financial capacity is, whether that water capacity is adequate, and whether there is sufficient right title and interest. I'm more than happy to continue the matter and give the applicant a chance to come back next month and we'll take final action then. I'm not inclined to vote no. I think it's a permitted use. I think it's unfortunate that the General Business District extends as far as it does from Washington Street up there, but it's a use that's allowed in that zone, and there isn't a lot of development that needs to be done. So you've got a preview of my position.

I agree that I would want all those things to but the conditions we're putting on seem to me something that would be I would trust staff accepting before any plans were signed because it's not something that I think it's they have it or they don't have it I don't think it's something that would be

I don't think that, I understand that it's a decision that staff could likely, is certainly competent to make, maybe even more competent than this board, but the ordinance authorizes or obligates us to make these determinations, not the staff. Tim.

I want to refer to Class Associates, one of their letters on page 7-7, statement 24. They volunteer to readily give financial capacity from the owner, Mr. Millett, upon request. So that shouldn't be a problem. And I agree with the chair. I think it's in our purview to see these documents and these questions answered before we give a final decision as well.

But if I may, the owner is also developing the property next door. Oh, we know. Yeah. That's why they're tied together as far as the sewer line is. There's an opportunity there.

It is 750 additional feet of sewer line, right? That can't be cheap.

Right.

But for financial obligation, if you need a document, I'm certain we can get that. Be careful how it's drafted.

to summarize the documents that you all want to see, the financial capacity letter, including the amount to extend the sewer line, adequate right title of interest for the applicant, connection to the property, and water capacity, demonstrating water capacity. Is that a direct summary? That's what I've heard so far.

Is there anything else? Yes.

I think just to be crystal clear, the water and the sewer capacity needs to reflect the correct number of beds.

Yes. And there's a difference between bedrooms and beds. So yes, for all information involved.

Is the parking, the parking is obviously more than adequate for this facility. Is there any chance you could tear up some of the pavement that's there then?

I think that's more of a financial thing, just not adding to the budget. Yeah, it is.

I recognize that. The question remains. Is the applicant willing to do that?

I'd have to confer with them on that.

Let me know when you come back.

and the reasoning for the reduction in the parking.

Yeah, because it's unnecessary, impervious area that doesn't need to be there for your particular use. I don't have any reason for it. Can't impose it upon you, I don't think. Not under the present rules. Yes, Kathy.

Thank you very much. I think that This is an opinion of mine, but the gentleman that spoke is concerned about the impact that this will have to his neighborhood. And I don't know if there's anything that as a planning board or as a developer you can do to help allay or satisfy the removal of any of those fears that he may have.

Can I actually speak as somebody who lives right across the street from the Auburn residential program? I've lived across the street from it for many years. It's at New Auburn. It's not rural. It's a very dense neighborhood. We have a lot of single family homes, multi-family homes. There's a school bus stop right next to the church where the program is. We've had no issues. I've never had any issues as a neighbor right across the street. They do go outside. There's always somebody with them. When they do leave the property, it's always with the vans. So as somebody who lives right next to the program, I have never had any issues myself. I've never seen any issues in the neighborhood. We don't have a police presence there. So I'm comfortable with it. I don't know if that helps.

It's not that it helps me, that it helps this gentleman and his neighbors. Thank you.

I'll continue on my role as the skunk at the garden party here. One other thing now that I've

And listening to Mr. Warren, he has concern about his property value being affected, and we do have a standard on that. And the standard is, I think it's under the special exception category. Paragraph four, that the exception sought will not alter the essential characteristics of the neighborhood. So we've gotta make that determination. and will not tend to depreciate the value of adjoining or neighboring, adjoining and neighboring, I'm sorry, the value of property adjoining and neighboring the property under application. And it's been suggested by staff, I guess, that the proposed development will not alter the essential characteristics of the neighborhood. The neighborhood right now is entirely residential. A former use which has been abandoned now

The direct neighbor, though, is the same owner. He has a direct stake in the property values as he's developing the lot adjacent to it.

He very well may, and he has, on the other hand, a distinct interest in seeing this property put under lease and collect that revenue stream, too. But the standard is that the applicant needs to demonstrate that it will not tend to depreciate the value of property adjoining and neighboring the property under application. The staff says it will not tend to depreciate the value of the property, and so what evidence do we have of that?

So one, the value of a property that has a structure that's been abandoned, that value starts to drop. And so use of the actual structure actually helps maintain property values more than having a derelict structure or abandoned structure on the site. And so that is why staff sees this as a reuse of an existing structure rather than the abandonment of the structure that would decrease values.

And does this particular reuse have a negative impact on the adjoining properties?

What I can say to that is that there is no evidence that it will depreciate values on the adjoining properties. Positive information, I can only give, there's no evidence that it will depreciate.

Mr. Chair? Yes. This introduces a very slippery slope, I think, in all of our considerations. even coming down from the state, because I think it could be argued with introducing any change in any neighborhood, it has some impact. When we get into some of the housing concepts, I think if we are going to get into that debate, It's going to be difficult because I see devaluation in a lot of neighborhoods with what's come down from state dictates as far as density and with respect to tiny houses and so forth. So unless we really want to put ourselves into a real assessing issue, I think we have to be very careful.

I hear you loud and clear I think to the solution there is that when we make amendments to this ordinance that standard needs to be the revised or remove but right now it's the standard. Right now to standard in and we we do overlook it but we've had a member of the public come in and raise this very issue for which we have a standard. So perhaps the applicant can just bring us a letter that says this is not from a real estate broker or an appraiser, somebody with the right credentials to say this isn't going to have a negative effect on neighboring properties.

Sure. The previous use of the building was operated by... mental health professionals things of that nature and there was troubled youth living in that building i'm just curious if that actually brought the value of the homes in the neighborhood down because it's pretty similar in nature to what was previously in the building

I hear you. I hear what Mr. Hayes says, and I understand what Mr. Brown says, but the ordinance puts the burden on you to show us that you're not having a negative impact on the value of neighboring property. This whole process places the burden on you as the developer. So if that's your explanation,

I mean, this is a special, this is a protected class of people. I just want to make that clear, that it's a protected class of people that we're treating, and it's important, I think, in conversations that that's part of, like, what is actually the thought process. This is an accepted use of the building, and it's a protected class of people.

Are you signaling that you'd like to say something?

Yes, yes please. To circle back around, right, is the items that you all would like to see are the financial capacity letter, the right title of interest, and the water capacity with adequate details. Are you, as a board, wanting also to see information on the valuations of the property and any evidence that it will not devalue adjoining properties?

I'm going to respond this way for the board. If the board's lukewarm about that, for whatever reason, that's fine. But as far as I'm concerned, the record is still open. If somebody such as Mr. Warren wants to go out and hire someone who submits an opinion that says it's going to have a detrimental effect, that's going to be the only evidence in the record. Fair. So the applicant has heard our concern and recognizes that burden.

So more than welcome to do that.

If he chooses not to, he chooses not to.

Sure. Is someone going to make a motion to continue this then? Because I'm still in favor of passing it, and I don't want to spend my time getting voted down.

I make a motion that we continue this hearing to either our next meeting or such time as we have the information requested. Would you like me to itemize the requested information?

From staff, it would be a lot cleaner if you would motion to continue the review of the application pending submission of the referred to documents.

All right, I will amend my motion to motion that we continue it until submission of the requested documents.

Second. Discussion on the motion? All those in favor of the motion? I second it. I didn't know if anybody else was going to, so. Six in favor of the motion. Anybody opposed? One opposed. Thank you. Next item on our agenda is Old or Continued Business, Chapter 60, Zoning Amendments, LD 1829, LD 2173. Continue our discussion of proposed blocks, open space, and street standards. We have- Mr.

Chair, I think you skipped. Did I skip something? Yes.

Item 3, Sub B. Sorry. There wasn't a space. All right, I did. I skipped something. We're back to new business. was an error of my formatting i'm sorry not a problem no i just needed an excuse to cover um proposed zoning amendment variances and waivers so we have a provision in our ordinance that may be believe it or not inconsistent with state law mr brown yes um so we do have uh

couple of provisions in our ordinance are not consistent with state law as it refers as it as it relates to variances and waivers the Planning Board is not granted the power to give variances for projects and specifically it's any provision that is directly related to restrictions based on zoning you are able to give waivers if granted the power to do so by the legislative body for more general standards. So the draft before you, with the recommendations of legal representation fixes some of those things. Your Board of Appeals already has an outline of how to give variances and so really what this is just doing is clarifying that the Planning Board does not have the power to give variances and only the Board of Appeals can do so and also that you do have the power to waive More general standards. Why this is important is because in your site plan section of the ordinance, you did not have the power to give waivers. Only in the subdivision section were you given the power to give waivers. So this corrects that. So for site plans or subdivisions, you would be able to give waivers to certain provisions. So the wording is before you, and I just give that back over to the chair for discussion. And we just ask if you're in agreement with the proposed amendment that you set a public hearing for a future meeting. So the chair's prerogative is to turn this over to Maureen because she's the one who raised it.

Fair, I think this is a important and very necessary correction and will be very helpful guiding us going forward and based on the Maine Supreme Court case that I don't think was included in this packet but was included in a prior packet and I reread today, I do think that this makes sense as written.

Wait for anybody else. And I do think that when I look at the proposed changes that you, the staff recommendation, and you get onto page 101, the page that starts with, anyway, it's section 1312, waivers and variances, as you revised it. I think this paragraph B, Since we don't have the right to issue variances, we're going to strike the word variance.

So for this one, we do want any variances that the property has been granted to be on any approval. So we have documentation of that variance. So that's the only reason why that appears there. Well, it says any variance or waive is granted by the planning board. You're right, you're right. So this was not caught by our legislative, I'm sorry, our legal support. So I am in agreeance with that. We can make that amendment.

You can ask legal whether we ought to keep the word variances in the title. Titles don't mean anything necessarily, but it can be a distraction. Absolutely.

So you're recommending to strike B from the definitions?

Strike the word variance there, and I think, yeah, there's just there. Just strike the word variance from B.

Staff understands that as striking variances or?

Any other comments or observations?

I would repeat that comment for the following section, 1366B, any variances or waivers granted by the planning board. So I think we need to strike variances from that as well.

Any variances or waivers granted by the planning board? So it's the striking of any variances or

Do you like a motion from us at this time, or can you just come back to us with the revised ordinance language when we have it for public hearing?

We would need a motion to schedule a public hearing for October 13th with the amended language tonight.

Riley, can you make a motion?

I make a motion to scale a public hearing in regard to section 61366 and 61312, variance in waivers for, sorry, what was it?

October 13th.

For October 13th, for planning board meeting on October 13th.

I think I understand what the, just those, yes. We'll get a second on Riley's motion. Second. Thank you. Any discussion? All in favor? Passes unanimously. Thank you. Everybody ready to plow ahead? Anybody need a break? Moving on. Older continued business again. A chapter 60 zoning amendments LD 1829 LD 2173. Continued discussion of proposed block open space and street standards.

OK, so we're back back to proposed amendments to make sure that not only are we compliant with LD that is appropriate for our local jurisdiction. Last time, as a recap, we finished our discussion with just reading the open space section. And so we have a couple options today. We did not go through the changes to the to the streets chapter 46 the street section and traffic and so we can either go through open space once more again and then go on to traffic or we can at least go and introduce the changes that we are thinking about for chapter 46 the street standards so it is going to be you all's pleasure i also can go over certain changes from the last version you've seen incorporating your comments and your suggestions from the last time that we've been here and also highlighting some of our own to ensure that we have adequate documentation especially for the open space areas so it's going to be the pleasure of the chair what would you like to tackle first

I'd like to do whatever the board wants to do, but I think we probably should put open space to bed before we move on to streets. That's my thought, only my thought. Getting a nod to my left.

All right, so the open space section. I'm gonna go directly to the open space section and actually highlight the changes from last time. And give me one second. So since last time, we've added in a section. We're going to have to get direct feedback from legal representation. But in reading through your open space section, you do not have, in our opinion, my opinion, you do not have strong enough dedication and maintenance of common open space and services provisions. which becomes extremely important when we start talking about private roads and private open spaces and maintenance and requirements to take care of those spaces. One of the reasons is is that if You do not have these provisions in place, and we are requiring people to create open spaces, right? And it's in the ownership of the people who are making a subdivision. Technically, they can put it in a holding company and then never pay taxes on it. And then what happens with that is that eventually the city will foreclose on that, and then it becomes the city's problem rather than the responsibility for the land that is subdivided. And so in seeing that issue, I have searched through a couple different jurisdictions and how they deal with dedication and maintenance of common open spaces, and I've added in some provisions here. This is still a work in progress, but this does give additional protections to ensure that those open spaces will be taken care of, basically. One of those sections I'll highlight directly is the developer. This is under 4. So 6C1367A4, the developer shall maintain and operate the common property until 51% of the lots, units, or total constructed space, whichever is appropriate, has been sold to persons other than the developer, at which time the responsibility for the maintenance and operation of common property may be turned over to the homeowners association. Section does not apply to require public improvements for which the developer is responsible until he is released from the performance. And so that's direct language to make sure that who is taking care of this open space and when does it start to change hands. That's language that you did not have in your audience before. One of the things I am curious about is number five. And I bring this up because here I've already witnessed that you use open space for multiple things. And sometimes you have open markets Temporary open markets and some of your open spaces on actually public land open spaces and if you had five then your your use of that open space would be restricted to just Recreation and you couldn't use it for anything. That's that's for commercial or anything like that So that is a different layer of protection over those open spaces that I wanted direct feedback from this board about because in your jurisdiction, I've already witnessed that sometimes you have markets on your open spaces and this would preclude those things from happening there. Additionally, it's also further subdivision where we now know that sometimes you want a little bit more flexibility with subdivision, especially in situations where fifty years ago you've made an open space and it's been wide open but all of the backyards were faced towards the open space and now it needs to be a little bit more active which requires more eyes on the open space and so if this was in place number five you could not actually make additional units that are facing towards the open spaces to design that open space to be a little bit more active where that would come into place is the situation where we're facing right now where you had a lower density in the area and now by state requirements or city requirements up to density and that neighborhood is now changing in character for a more dense area that more units are coming into that area and so there wouldn't in that case you could up the density on all other units but you couldn't do anything with improving eyes on that open space And so that's why I wanted direct feedback on number five, on what is the pleasure of the board. Because some jurisdiction says, no, we just want it for recreation. That's what we want our open space for. Other jurisdictions are, we want a little bit more flexibility, so we don't really want this restriction for our jurisdiction. If it was an easy question, I wouldn't bring it to you.

I actually had a quick question about four first, if that's okay. I don't want to throw us too off. Is that, is this the same language as, I think it's the same language as we have for the responsibility for trash removal as with the, I think the wording of the 51% of lots until the...

It's common. This is very similar to it. It's not the exact language, but it is very common, yeah.

I just didn't know if making it the exact same language would be...

We could look into it.

More efficient or consistent, I guess. Sorry, that was just my thought.

In number five, the word perpetuity stresses me out. That might just be some lawyer baggage. But I don't have any specific feedback or suggestions for change, other than I don't like the word perpetuity.

So I'm gonna be honest, me neither, especially in Maine where perpetuities are not, are looked at a little bit differently, and this is why I need feedback directly from our attorney on number five, because then we really do need to start thinking if perpetuities are no longer a thing, then we need to start thinking about, well, how then do we decide when it's time to change to a new use or anything like that?

I agree. I don't have any articulate suggestions for you tonight. I just don't like the word. Something to think about.

Yeah. So we could take out in perpetuity. It would be more comfortable.

There needs to be something there.

Does there? Just continue.

For so long as... the land is used for the permitted subdivision?

This is my favorite part because the two attorneys are talking. I can get some guidance on this and then come back if that's gonna be helpful.

I guess I'm not familiar with any situations where open space is used for anything other than open space. You've mentioned that there are some markets or something going on, and you kind of don't have to tell me what those are by way of examples. STRIKES ME THAT IF WE'RE TALKING IN A SUBDIVISION CONTEXT, RIGHT, IF A PERSON BUYS A LOT IN A SUBDIVISION AND YOU SHOW A 10 ACRE OPEN SPACE ON THAT SUBDIVISION PLAN, THEN THAT'S THAT. THAT'S 10 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE AND I AS A LOT OWNER HAVE AN EXPECTATION AND LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE ONE THAT THAT'S WHAT THAT WILL BE, RIGHT?

Yes, but it's about what type of open space is that going to be used for? Is it for active recreation, passive recreation? Is it a situation where... it's actually considered to have improvements there, or do we want that space to have equal opportunity that HOA decides what activities go on to that open space, and maybe it's only temporary structures can go there. And what I bring up about the open space and commercial activity, is that we have a provision in our ordinance that says that permits cannot be issued except in consistency with approved plans by the planning board and so if you have a restriction that no commercial activity can happen on the open space and then someone tries to come in for a temporary event permit for doing some type of event of of open market for a yearly basis, then technically we cannot grant that permit. And this is something that came up because a permit came before my desk of just a regular zoning check for an open market and it was a temporary event permit. And so I needed to check the approvals of that subdivision of that site to make sure that it's gonna be consistent with that use because of that early provision zoning ordinance. So that's the trap that I fell into that I'm trying to avoid.

And the alternative to what you're proposing is that we simply .

Sorry, I'm gonna go a lot closer. An alternative would be that we leave it to the developer to propose what is going to happen in the open space. Now we have a definition of open space, so whatever is going to happen in there has to be consistent with our definition, but people can be creative, I guess. But that would be an option to what you're proposing, right?

Yeah, that could be option, or you can just leave it as it must be consistent with the approval. And so if someone, if a developer is coming in they have a thought of using this open space for recreation, open rec and passive recreation, that's what it's gonna be used for. If they are asking this for active recreation, that's gonna be used for. If they have another idea of it's going to be 12 acres of open space and open, Fields that they're gonna have regular events on and that needs to be approved by you all the body and need to be a part of the actual approval so just to make it Consistent with the approval without the extra restrictions that you're seeing in five that it can only be used for non recreational activities Non-commercial non-commercial recreation

How could open space in a development be commercially purchased?

So it's not about the commercial purchase, it's about the use on the land. And so this is a restriction that no use on that open space can be for any type of commercial purposes. So I don't know if you're doing a cookout and you're charging people for a cookout, commercial purpose, can't do it.

If the community had a farm stand there, this would not- Correct.

Wow, okay.

And that's the point, right?

So if the Girl Scouts are selling cookies on the open space, that's a commercial use? I'm sorry.

Samoa's just going to have to go. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm not going to tell them. I'll probably delegate that to other planners.

I think we need to loosen that up quite a bit.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay, so would you all like to continue or do you have additional comments or questions or just about this section?

I have qualms about it. I don't know if I have any more comments.

Well, it's not the last time we're gonna see this. This is just initial things and I need to still come back to you to make sure I've answered all your questions and all your wants.

So this is you presenting things and feeling us out, basically. Correct. Yes. We don't like number five.

Okay. All right. You don't know what you like, but something, but you know you don't like number five. I'm okay with that. All right. Okay, for timing purposes, and to make sure I still have you all's attention before we hit eight o'clock, we're still before 7.30 here. This is when you're most active. I would like to continue to chapter 46.

Okay. You've done a study that's determined that we're more active between 7.30 and 8 than other times of the night?

I'm sure that all of us have been doing activities throughout the day, and so as we're going towards 8 o'clock, I know no good conversation happens after 9 o'clock. And so as we approach the 9 o'clock hour, I'm very cognizant. See, yeah, I'm very...

I think you know that as long as Tim's on the board, we won't be going after 9 o'clock.

Okay, fair, fair. So Chapter 46... Chapter 46 is design and construction standards of street sidewalks and other public places. And this has come up because of not only the increased density, but the reduction of parking requirements on sites. And so now we have to start thinking about on street parking. and the creation of new roads. Because again, we also want to allow private roads to be built and to be developed.

Can I stop you just for a moment? Absolutely. I'm very interested in this topic, and I don't want to delay and get beyond 8 o'clock. But unlike Chapter 60 amendments, which we make a recommendation for, and it goes to the council, Our recommendations under chapter 46 will just be. Thoughts because we don't have any role to play in the development or amendment of 46 do we.

No not through statute, however, because it's It's a part of the design of the built area. I feel that it's extremely important that the planning board reviews this and give their thoughts.

Absolutely. I have no problem. Just for fellow board members, there's a slight difference in our role.

Yes, absolutely. Yes. And so in working with the city engineer and director of engineering, I've asked them, for, okay, keeping these in mind, what type of changes would we need to make to this section? And for the first one is waivers. And so because we are upping the standards of some streets, it's, at the same time, it's back to practice to ensure that we can give waivers for better design. And so this section is the first one, 4643, that we've illustrated, we've, added the wording for waivers, and where the applicant can demonstrate that a safer design for the pedestrian may result from the alteration or that a specific hardship is created by the enforcement of this article. Where before, waivers only through hardship, this actually brings in, if you can get a safer design for the pedestrian, that can be considered for a waiver. The city engineer shall consult with the planning department prior to the granting of such waiver. That's through a conversation through the director of engineering and myself on, okay, so let's keep this in mind of the full design of what's going on and not just leave it directly only into traffic design. So we have to start thinking about the pedestrian as well. So we continue down. And the next changes we are seeing are in Division II streets and applicability section. This is a change that was from the city engineering. They did not like the lanes as written. And so they're proposing a change that lanes are one-way streets providing access to a residential subdivision with average daily traffic of 100 vehicles or less. And so that's a change that they're requesting. And I think it has to do with turning radiuses and the use of lanes in those situations.

The next one. They're one-way.

One-way street. To use a lane. To use a lane type of street. So it has to connect the two.

It connects two streets.

Yeah, it has to connect to somewhere. If you are doing a one-way, then you can only use that lane type. in a situation where you're getting additional access from other places, but not in situations where you're going to a dead end and you would have to turn around and you have two-way traffic, and that just has to do with the design of lanes in our jurisdiction.

Is there any limit to the length of a lane?

In other sections, yes. You have provided yourselves with restrictions of the length of lanes. We sort of have looked at that before, but this is one of the situations where we could link back to other conversations of dead-end streets and lengths of lanes and things like that. Tim?

Yeah, I was just going to say the condo development I'm in in Auburn is designated as a lane, and it is a one-way through the development back out to Stevens Mill Road. So there's one right there that fits the definition.

And as a reminder, these are for new construction, so this would not be applicable to things that are in existence today. If you go down to Chapter 46, 175, minimum street design and construction standards chart, this is where the requirements decrease and increase both ways. And so now for lanes, pavement width has been decreased to 20 feet. Because it's one way, you don't need so much pavement, so that's been decreased. But for local roads, right-of-way width has to increase as a default. You can decrease it through waivers for a different design, but the default is 60 feet because of the on-street parking that's going to be required in those situations for those new streets, because you no longer can require additional parking on the site because of LD-427. Um. And so the pavement width would have to change. And then the other change that's important to staff is the sidewalk width. And sidewalk width was five feet, which is the state minimum. And if you've ever been on a sidewalk that's five feet in width, trying to walk with somebody right next to you, it is very uncomfortable because there's not enough width on the pavement. That one foot really does make a difference. And so best practice is to make, if you are designing a place for people to walk, to have the sidewalks at least six feet.

Can I ask you a couple questions? Absolutely. Start with the sidewalk one, because it's on my mind. Sure. Can we do anything to prohibit the placement of utility poles within the sidewalk?

Yes, please do.

Okay.

Can you do something?

Yes. I will add that to my list, and that is something that is in every conversation I have with .

Oh, okay. And I appreciate the rationale for widening the right-of-way. Parking is probably now going to become an on-street phenomena. is the pavement width going to be sufficient for parking on or are we going to be that you've got a 60 foot right-of-way but that doesn't make it necessarily

yes and so exactly and that's why the pavement width had to increase so it had to increase to actually allow on-street parking to exist on that design street if you did not increase the actual pavement width and only increase the right-of-way you would never get on-street parking because that no one would pay the expense of actually doing the extra pavement. So you'd be in a situation where, on paper, you have that right away, but as far as improvements, they wouldn't be required to actually make any on the parking.

So if we're now required to have 32 feet width of pavement, what's the travel lane? What are the two lanes of travel? What does that take up of those 32 feet?

So the lanes of travel, our preferred lanes of travel, and that's just coming from the planners, is 10 and 1 half feet. But state standards, they're going with 11 feet right now. And so that's 11 feet. 11 feet makes 22. then you need at least nine feet for on-street parking so that takes you up to the 30. the parking on one side of this correct imaginary street okay but the right-of-way is big enough to allow parking on both sides of the street so and so that's why the parking right-of-way has been increased and so for a If you have a situation where a neighborhood is expanding over time and getting more intense over time, then you already have that right-of-way width. You're not taking land from one of the lots that's been created. You have that right-of-way width to actually do the improvements on the street.

I have a quick question, if I may. This may sound... What about snow banks? Is there any allocation for any of these widths with sidewalks and streets for the inevitable?

Yes, there is. And that is why we have requirements. And that's that space between the edge of the pavement, that grassing area between where the sidewalk meets, that five feet. is where the poles go and where the snow goes. And that's the reason why that exists, because if it did not exist, then when snow comes by, the snow would go directly on the sidewalk, right? And so it's a buffer area that's designed to hold snow and hold all utilities and poles and things like that. That's the whole reason for an esplanade. And that's actually the additional feet in the right-of-way, too. You have to do 10 feet, 10 feet, and then you also have the sidewalks

Who maintains the esplanade? Who mows it, weeds it, makes it look good?

It would be a requirement. If it's a private party, it'd be a requirement by the subdivision.

Well, I think we're going to get to the section of the ordinance that doesn't give the council any choice but to accept one of these roads if it's built. So it becomes a public road. Who's going to maintain the esplanade and a public road?

So if it's on the public road, then the city has to maintain that, which then I would recommend changing that provision that requires the city to accept those roads, and so you can allow those private roads to exist.

Why doesn't the city have any mowers?

city does have mowers uh but we've been talking about expenses and we've been talking about expansion of road networks and so this is one of the things that's going to be a policy decision whether the city would like to take over those responsibilities for for new streets or they want to make it the responsibility of the new subdivision that's that that the area serves i don't want to dominate the conversation here so

Do we have any sense of how much these changes increase the cost per foot of building a street?

No, because it's going to be variable. And it's going to be variable because density is also increasing. And so it goes into the development costs of doing a subdivision. And so it will increase the cost of doing infrastructure development, but that's going to be offset by the additional density that's coming in. In some instances, you are more than tripling the density that's allowed in areas. And so this is a part of ensuring that you have adequate infrastructure to support that area. The same conversation goes with water and sewer. Pipes can no longer be a certain size. They have to grow. And that extra expense is going to have to be borne by the developer.

So we're gonna reduce the front foot, minimum front foot requirements for lots throughout the city?

Yes, you have to by state regulations. You can't make a 5,000 square foot lot with the width requirements that you currently have. So those are shrinking. It's a trade-off, it's a trade-off. I like the questions. OK, so now we're at section arrangement and layout 46178. And I'll direct you all to. The additions are going to be an F through. M, initially. We've talked about this before. And this is one of those things that is going to be a topic of discussion. So F, driveway access to the collector or arterial streets shall be avoided to facilitate the free flow of traffic and minimize traffic hazards. That is already one of those things. where G, actually it's where land abut to street with illegal speed limits equal or above 35 miles per hour in the designated growth area, added those wording, new development shall be accessed only from new streets laid out as a part of the development. This gets into access management on fast streets that are in the growth area. Last time we talked about this, we brought up, what about the rural areas? You know, this is going fast roads. You're going to stop them from having driveways from rural areas. And I said, good point. let's go back and revise this and so this is actually getting at the root of what we're trying to get at is that on streets that in the growth area that you have a lot of people going through and these are going to be collectors and arterials and the speed is is designated to be 35 miles per hour you really do need a street connecting to that to that faster road this is just opinion by planners but we're not policy makers So this is something that I'm putting up for consideration. I don't know if you all wanted me to pause right here or you wanted me to continue on other additions.

I have a quick thought about F. The phrase shale be avoided doesn't give us real specific parameters to make a decision so if it's Shall be avoided or like it if they'd like in less of cases where X Y & Z or something like that Whereas something spelled out but shall be avoided doesn't really that's pretty Yeah, absolutely and so this is actually some language that we're looking at right now I Want to give you some information of the genesis of this

This is law, right, and it shall be avoided is one of those things, it's too squishy language, and so it's hard for enforcement, but we do have an issue with our developing arterial streets, and I'll point you directly to the main one that we're seeing more development go on is our center street. Center Street and access to Center Street, which is classified as an arterial, access management is becoming an issue. It's becoming a really big issue with fire, with police, with traffic engineering, and we're gonna have to address it soon. And so this language will probably need to be changed to have stronger language for arterials such as those. But it's a point well taken. Why not do it now? Why not replace shall be avoided with prohibited? We can, yes. And so this is one of the topics that have come up recently and we wanna make sure that we have the correct language. We're still in workshop.

Yeah?

Yeah, so we can address that.

But your desired outcome is to prohibit.

Yes, and to prohibit direct driveway access, and so they have to access the street before they get into the arterial, just because it's dangerous for our parties. I'm just going to be honest. It's dangerous not only for the people who are coming out of the driveway, maybe backing up onto an arterial street, but also the people who are driving where they have to stop suddenly, and it's not at a light. where they are expecting to stop. And usually it's not the first car. The issue is the second car because they can't see. And so the first car actually usually is pretty safe as someone's pulling out or going in. But because the person behind them is on an arterial or is close, you can't see that well. And so that's when the majority of rear ends happens is there. It's between that second and that third car. So that is a point of concern that people are now having. So yeah, we can change the language.

only seems like that's where I wanted to go and that's oh yeah I think that like if it was more specified where Shelby avoided except for in cases of whatever the case is because then you're also if you say prohibited then in the case where someone has a property on arterial street you're telling them they can't build anything that needs a driveway if there's no other way to get no other way to build it so I'd I think there I wouldn't say we should have a prohibited. I understand something we want to avoid and that's what it says here, but it should only be avoided in cases of where there's certain parameters that we have that they can check that we could say, well, there's no other option here. And then it'll allow it to be up to our judgment, but. I saw I just didn't want to say I straight to prohibiting it completely, but I would want more specific language as to what is accepted.

Yeah. And so this is a part of a larger conversation, especially because on Center Street or I would say roads like Center Street where the design of the road has to change because of what the amount of development on there. You would also implement things like requiring giving right-of-way on those parcels that directly abut the right-of-way. And so what that does is that starts to create an access lane. And so where slow traffic can be until you can get to access points that puts you on the arterial, but that comes after the design phase. So that's what we're in this phase of really figuring out how to have the best design for situations like this. I'm gonna be honest because your city hasn't been in that situation before. And so we wanna make sure that we're getting it right.

Does the ability of Auburn's wishes to design Center Street have impacted by that? It's like a state route that they're in charge of the maintenance of it?

Yeah, it does. It absolutely does. And so it's all parties involved, and so it's more of... we would work together with the state to come up with a design that solves the problem. And then we also would need to change our regulations to make sure that as the area develops, that we're getting the proper improvements or the right of way in order to do those improvements. And so it is not something that's going to happen overnight, but it would happen over a series of years. And once you get that space, you can actually do so. So it would be something like you can have driveway access today, but you also would have to have an easement on the front of your property. So at such time that this does connect and become an access street, that you then would have to access it through the access road rather than direct access onto the arterial. So things like that. It's very longer term planning, but that's how it has to be. Okay, so the next one is, all subdivisions and non-residential development sites must include a continuous pedestrian network, which must provide access to all development areas and civic spaces within and between sites. If sidewalks are provided, they shall be of a width of no less than six feet. And so this is now a requirement of, you need to provide sidewalks to get into the building. And to be able to get to the site this comes into play um yes we understand that overnight just one parcel and other this neighbors don't have sidewalks and it it seems unfair to them but over time as the other parcels start to redevelop and you need to start and everyone has a sidewalk you now have created a pedestrian network someone has to start and you have to have a provision to require them to start this work is that sidewalk within the public right-of-way It's it's both it's within the public right away and to make sure that you can get from that sidewalk in the public right away to the actual building because what happens right now is that technically they would have to make a sidewalk on this the Beginning but then in order to get into the building you're walking on on an interior Drive or road to get to the building and we have that all over the place and so that's actually a It's not ideal because there's no actual pedestrian access to the building.

You're not talking sidewalks that are parallel with the street?

It's both. It's parallel with the street, but then how do I get from that street sidewalk to the actual building?

Let me ask you about the sidewalk that's parallel with the street in your future. Yes. Is that within the public right of way?

Yes, that would be within the public right of way in this jurisdiction.

So the public right of way on Center Street, for your example, would accommodate a six foot wide sidewalk?

Yes. Going to be an esplanade between the edge of the road and the sidewalk? That's the design. That's what it's supposed to be. And so in that instance, you would need there's a planning study that would happen to redesign the road, and that would be a part of a bigger project. And those type of projects, it's the right-of-way, you're making sure you have enough right-of-way first, and then it's all being done at the same time within the public right-of-way. But in order to connect to that, you need some connection between the public right-of-way and to the actual development itself.

If it doesn't fit, we exercise our power of eminent domain and take some land, right?

In certain situations where there's a public benefit, that is an option by the city, but that's not something that... It doesn't appear that it would be necessary. Yeah, it's not. You can just do street calming and other improvements to get there. There's always different ways. Here we go. So the next one is to discourage excessive vehicle speeds in areas intended for pedestrian traffic. Curb extensions shall be provided on all new streets within the development designed for pedestrian traffic at all intersections and at intervals of 500 feet or less. So this is, you're seeing this design all throughout the city now. It's popping up, but what it does is that and slows traffic through design. And you don't even realize that it's happening. So what happens if you just have the open right-of-way and the parking, when there's no cars or anything there, cars instinctively go faster because you have more space. And so you have to have something design-wise to calm them down. I am not a huge fan of vertical changes, but because you have curb extensions, it makes it naturally easier for you to go slower and through places that pedestrians are expected Next one. All new streets within the designated growth area must provide on-street space adequate for the parking of vehicles. And if such streets remain private, the developer or property owner may not prohibit such parking. This one. is an important one for private streets. Say, okay, listen, we know that some developers may want to wiggle out of the requirement of providing on-street parking, but this is saying that no, if you're making a private road, you must provide the actual on-street parking for that development.

Is that now mandated by state law?

No, it's not. And so that's the reason why this is important is that we're just given the requirements to cut all, most of our parking. But there's no, there's not been any discussion of well, how, what do we do then for our most denser areas when it comes to parking? And an answer can be we'll just let the private market decide. If parking becomes so much of a problem, then eventually someone's gonna make a parking lot or parking spaces and then the private market can decide. That actually leads to the question though of okay, well what about the interim when a solution is not in place or where no one wants to actually fulfill that need? And so then we have situations where neighborhoods now become very irate because the neighborhoods themselves aren't designed to accommodate the amount of vehicles that are going to be required because of our lack of adequate public transportation, universal public transportation.

I don't really envision a scenario where a private developer develops a subdivision or a condominium where there's inadequate parking and expects to sell anything, but that's neither here nor there. How does that work with our new trash collection processes?

So it works pretty well. And so, you know, one side of the street, it actually provides more space. Because you're providing on-street parking for a lot of places, you actually have the space to, in some areas, it's going to be on one side of the street. And so, you know, maybe parking is not going to be available on one side. You can park on the other side. And so in low density situations, it works really, really well because you have the space to do it. In higher density situations, it's still going to be a similar thing is that you still are going to need somewhere to park. And so if you have this whole network has one street parking, so then you can shift from this street from that day or maybe around the corner or something like that. So this actually provides some additional capacity to the network itself. It's not going to solve every problem, but it does provide a partial solution to the additional density that we're expecting.

don't love this provision i don't like the idea of restricting private developments to the point where they can't put in certain parking restrictions there are lots of restrictions that go with homeowner associations and i don't think we should force people to allow on street parking just as a matter of course that's fair

My responsibility is to give you tools, right? So if you don't wanna, you're thinking this is not the right tool for us, we're okay with it.

I see Maureen's point, where it's like, okay, you won't plow it, you won't sand it, but you're making me let people park on it.

So it doesn't say that it's required public parking. It says required parking. So if you would like to, normally what happens in a situation where density is increasing in an area is that then you start doing parking permits. And that's what happens in cities all the time. You have to start, you're going from a more passive parking situation where we're just saying, hey, you can park in these areas during these times to an active, an active involvement in the parking situation, and you'll start seeing parking permits. So in a private development, you'll start seeing parking permits on the street parking. That's kind of how we've seen it work out in other jurisdictions. But it's usually not a problem until you get to a level of density that it's a problem. So that's it. We've seen certain solutions work here and there, and this is a possible solution. It is not a golden solution, but it is a tool that you can use if you choose.

Getting negative vibes, am I right?

I am getting negative vibes over there. But I'm getting silence everywhere else. So I'm OK with the feedback.

I think it's only fair that if you get silence, you have to assume it's acquiescence if you don't speak up at some point.

That's fair. That's fair. So maybe we will return to this. This is just an introduction to it. We'll return to it. But I'm hearing the feedback. I'm hearing the feedback.

I guess I'm having trouble. We want greater density. We want greater housing. Yes. And we try to keep the price down of housing so it would be affordable.

Mm-hm.

But at the same time, in order to accommodate greater density and affordability, You know, we have to build in more public infrastructure or demand greater infrastructure from the beginning, which pushes up the development cost. And I guess if we don't provide the necessary parking and so forth, one way or the other, over time, it gets back into that valuation or assessment of where does values go to neighborhoods? So we're trying to keep the cost of getting into housing down, but you're increasing the price of development. And then over time, because we have created dense setting, I'm not sure in the end the values hold up. is a real battle between making availability and trying to keep things functional.

Yeah. And what I'll say to that is that cost doesn't disappear. It's shifted, right? And so if the private developer is paying a premium for the parking spaces, right? If we require them to have more parking spaces, that space could have been used to create more units, whatever have you, which would decrease their costs on that portion. In the other portion, if they're doing it at such a scale that they're creating new roads, And then we're saying that not only do you not have to provide it in the individual sites that you're creating, but even the road network, we're not requiring you to build in the capacity in the new network that you're building. And so then that shift is then shifted to another part of the network. You're not getting rid of the cost. The cost is to shift it somewhere else. And it may be a completely different cost. You may see it in increased costs for public transportation, which is a different way. It might be a more efficient way to do costs that way. You may see a different situation where you have satellite parking lots in certain areas. It may be more efficient to do that way. in a certain area, but the cost, it's going to be born of development, it's gonna be shifted somewhere, it doesn't disappear. And sometimes, you know, you do have tracks, census tracks here, that people don't have cars. In that instance, At this time, they're not bearing that cost, but if it ever shifts that people are coming in and they want cars and the new people coming in want cars, they're going to have to pay a premium to park those cars somewhere. I've been in different cities. I've lived in different cities. I can tell you Sometimes I have to pay rent and then I pay for parking my car per month costs. And it's a part of how do you wanna work your system? Are you okay with just the private market figuring that out? And that's also a choice. I'm okay with that, but I wanted to give you a range of choices. The default is that if you keep the same structure of roads and not requiring the parking to be there, then it's going to be born in some other way. and to be okay with those solutions coming up. And no one's going to dictate of, okay, this is going to be the solution this way. The private market may provide a different solution, or publicly, we may provide a different solution. But the question is going to come up sometime. The question's still going to come, where are the cars going to go? Because right now, our network of public transportation is not adequate to provide people to get exactly from where they are to where they want to be at all times. I mean, we're not New York.

This just seems like kind of a stretch. I mean, most developments are going to have garages and driveways for people to park their car. And I understand that it may be aspirational that we reduce our reliance on vehicles, but I don't think we're there yet. And I think that there is room for private developments where people don't have to look at cars parked on the side of the road all day. And I think that should be left up to the developer and to the people who are purchasing those units or those lots.

That's fair.

To Bob's point, I think you didn't mention that presumably the greater density allows the developer to recoup some of that additional cost. Correct. Additional lots.

Yes.

And if I understand right, in this growth area, the minimum lot size is being dictated at 5,000 square feet. Correct. Which is an eighth of an acre. Do you know, in enacting that standard, anybody did any research to say that in a generally rural state, people are going to buy 5,000 square feet? Well, we have those size lots in the city today. Yeah, those probably existed since 1900. Yes. We don't have any new ones. It's, again, it's the stamp lots. Because I think, I don't mean to interrupt you, but I think the developers are still going to build 20,000. That's 30,000 square foot lot.

Some will. Absolutely. And I would say, you know, it's going to be, this provides choice. It does provide choice. And a developer is going to go what best he believes the market is going to provide a return for what they're building.

To Bob's other concern about cost, I think there's only so much that we can control. I mean, the price of plywood, tariffs, and what have you, do a lot more with that cost than anything that we might impose.

Correct. There's a lot of market forces at place. Bond markets are going wild right now. And so it's constantly changing. And inflation will play a pretty good role in whatever goes forward.

ready to go to the next provision I just want to ask one observation yes since I've been on this board I don't think we've approved but two land subdivisions everything's been 60 90 unit apartment complex any of what we're talking about apply to the road or driveway leading into

Yes. If they're creating a new road, under this provision, they would need to provide on-street parking on that road to the apartment. So it's a road? It's a road. Not a driveway? No, not a driveway. So this doesn't apply to driveways. It only applies to roads and streets. The developer's not going to argue that it's a driveway? They can try, but the amount of traffic would not be allowed on a driveway. Okay. I believe there's an upper limit of traffic that's allowed on the driveway. But that's something good to ensure that we have that's locked down. Okay, so the next one is, okay, so this one is actually an allowance, right? Because we have L, then it's also incumbent that we provide M. The thing about pedestrian improvements is that there needs to be a separation between the speed that vehicles are traveling and where the pedestrians can go. And so if we are requiring them to developments out in the suburbs and if in the rural areas they're creating larger subdivisions and they have to provide sidewalks, we're not going to make them provide on-street parking. So new streets within ag, rural, residential, or LDCR districts and outside of the growth area shall provide on-street parking or an enlarged esplanade of 14 feet in width between the street and the sidewalk with the city engineer approval. What this does is that separates that vehicle traffic from the pedestrian. When the sidewalk is closer to the street, it is less safe for the pedestrian. And the 14 feet is intentional because you have a five-foot esplanade that's already standard, and then the width of an on-street parking space would be nine feet. So that's how you get to the 14. And so in situations where you're in a cityscape or a center street or a street that has on-street parking, you would have 14 feet of separation between the vehicles going and the people walking. And that's actually why people feel a little bit more comfortable because of that separation. However, when you're going to other places, that distance really does shorten, and then the sense of safety for the pedestrian is lost because you no longer have that distance. distance think about Minot Avenue as you're coming up around the bend and they have a sidewalk that's that's pinned between a wall and the actual road with no esplanade and if you're walking on that at in that at some sections are five feet it a sense of danger is really, really high. And actually, that's actually one of the points that people have gotten hit in your city. And it's because of that, there's no separation between the vehicle speeds and where the pedestrian is walking. So that's why you see M here, is that it provides a standard distance between the sidewalk and actually the road itself and where the vehicles are going, which is 14.

Let's use that example you just used. Say there's a situation where it's topographically impossible, citing what you just mentioned. What is the out for that?

You mean for a waiver? So it goes back to our prior section, that city engineer, if there is a certain, if you can provide a safer design for the street, that's in keeping in mind with the pedestrian and roads that you can provide that to the city engineer and we can provide a waiver from that standard street scene so this is why the street standards here are seeing a level of strictness above because you can get waivers from the provisions if you're having what's safer from pedestrian and certain situations where that occurs is that we're street with speeds are slower The lower the speeds go for vehicles, the closer than people can be to a point where there are certain situations where people and vehicles are on literally the same space, referred to as a one-arm. And it's a weird word, but it's literally a street where people and vehicles are at the same time. And there's no safety concerns. The concern comes with speed. And so that's why we provide waiver provisions for that. OK, so the next portion is P. Again, I'm throwing these out to you because these are tools that you may have not gotten. And also, if you do not ask for better design, you will not get better design. So P, to ensure future street connections where a proposed development abuts undeveloped land greater than five acres or a future development phase of the same development, street stubs shall be provided to provide access to all abutting properties or to logically extend the street system into the surrounding area. All street stubs shall be provided with temporary turnarounds or cul-de-sacs and the restoration and extension of the street shall be the responsibility of any future developer of the abutting land. This one is interesting because you used to do it. And there's certain situations here, and it's just suburban residential, and this is before homeowners associations were a thing. There are certain neighborhoods here that have roundabouts next to an arterial street that have paper streets connecting those. And the reasoning being is that there was an idea as over time, you would want to connect that into your street network, but you stopped it. And so this actually was taken from other municipalities in Maine because this was a regular practice in Maine, but it stopped over time. But you have examples of this in your own jurisdiction, that this actually did occur. So, who's gonna own the street stub that goes to the budding property? So on your side of the property line, you own that stub. All right. And you own the other property. Yes.

And you decide to develop your property.

Mm-hmm.

How much are you going to pay me for that stub because nothing here says I have to give it to you?

It doesn't, but it requires the connection. And one of the standards, it does require the connection if the other development does develop, and it requires them to actually link into your stub. And so it's a development on both, it's a requirement on both sides.

I guess I'll need to see that other section of the ordinance that requires me to give you my link.

So it's not giving, but it does connect. It requires to connect into.

You're benefiting tremendously by my expense to bring that road to the line. I agree with it as a planning aspect, but somebody's going to have to reimburse me for that. And I don't think the ordinance can force that exaction out of you.

So other jurisdictions have forced this, and this has withstand the test of provisions? Do we have that provision in our ordinance? So I can make sure that we do have that provision, and so we can make sure that that is all legal. It doesn't mean that you need to use it, but it does mean that we can make sure that that provision is in there to ensure that connection as properties improve next to each other.

And I think you also need to perhaps figure out a way to refine or define undeveloped land of five acres or more, because there could be a house surrounded by land, 10 acres. Is that undeveloped with one house on it? It's always a tricky problem.

So yes, I agree.

But I think it's a terrific standard.

Yeah. But it always needs a little look. So the next one. Each development shall incorporate and continue all collector or local streets dubbed to the boundary of the development plan by previously approved but unbilled development or existing development.

So, again. Yep.

Undeveloped land, yes.

And show me the money. Yes.

Because I'm... So, you know, I... What I'll say about requirements for improvement on land. You have not required in the past that there's some demonstration of financial capacity or changing of hands that you requiring, that this new requirement requires you to do better standards or whatever have you. It's the cost of development. And you have not required us to take into account that full cost of what that's gonna be. fully within your right to ask the questions and us to provide some information for that, but it has not been practice of every improvement in our standards that we have to account financially for every type of development. Because it's going to change and keeping in mind that this is Intended for the situations that we are going up to a density level that we previously have not experienced before and so we want some assurances that the Improvement to the public spaces the public sphere which includes private roads because it may not cut off private rates That's why you don't have gated developments here. And so there is some expectation that the improvements that you're making to your land has to actually be adequate to actually support the type of developments that you're doing. And so the amount of traffic that you're producing for your improvement should not adversely impact the street network. And you all have remarked on such from a previous review that you had recently, and you had direct questions about the street network and up the road on the street network. I'm not going to be very specific on that, but you've asked the similar questions because of that and because of the question of has this development adequately improved the network to actually support this amount of traffic that it's going to be producing. And so these are the type of provisions that you have in place to ensure that that's happening over a network-wide. So, having that in mind, the next statement is all streets constructed giving direct access to dwellings or intended to use for direct pedestrian access to buildings shall have a design speed lower than 25 miles per hour. Why this is important is because if you're giving direct access and you want to design that your roads are slow enough that it's not going to be dangerous Completely dangerous to the pedestrian. Once you get over 25 miles per hour, you go into collectors, and those really should be public streets. The ones that you're having pedestrian movement on and you're wanting pedestrians to be close to that road, they should be lower in speed. And even the 25 miles per hour is a higher standard than what's best practice when they say 25. And so this is one of those provisions that you wanna ensure that vehicles are gonna go slower where you are putting pedestrians.

I think 20 is plenty.

Yeah. Who enforces that?

It's about the design. And so you would have to approve the design speed of the road. and so that would be checked by engineers, our own engineers, to make sure that the design speed of this road is going to be 25 miles per hour. And so the design should be checking the speed of the road. It should not be designed that people can go 40 miles per hour on this road. It should be designed exactly for that speed. And there are multiple, multiple, multiple books and certifications to make sure that that design is adequate.

So it's designed, but there's nothing that prevents the motorist from driving 50 miles an hour. Correct. Just like on our other roads? Well, our other roads, public roads, can be enforced by our police department. Can they enforce the speed limit on a private road?

I'm not sure they answer that. I've heard the answer previously before, but because I'm not... I don't know. Yeah, I don't know the answer, that I can get the answer to that. But that's even more of a reason that the design of the street should not be higher than 25 miles per hour. Because then if you can, if you can physically go over that speed, then people will. That's just how movement works on the streets.

So you're talking curves and dips?

Correct. Yes. Mostly it's improvements and horizontal and making sure that you're not having a straight shoot. It's the same reason why on Route 66 it's not a straight line and why it's so dangerous because it's so straight. Same way with the highway to Wilmington, North Carolina. It's a straight line and you're going to go to fall to sleep or you're going to go speeding. It's one of the two. It's a straight line So they are standards for all highways and all roads on why they have to go Way because it actually it's designed in the street about speed.

It's all about Everybody okay with the curvy street standard

and so you know that also plays into herb extensions and things like that and you can design

No, I'm still amused because, again, for a developer, of course, it's much easier to go in. Going back to the width of the street and so forth, they'd much rather go straight in. And, of course, as soon as you start adding curves or corners, that's cutting down somewhat on the usable space to build upon or try to design the layout of the structures. So there's really pluses and minuses in all these considerations. It's a true puzzle at times.

Yeah, yeah.

Can I ask a question? Sure. I'm picturing these curvy streets and trying to keep speeds down and thinking about what Bob just said, where if a developer has a large enough parcel of land to develop, that they would have to put curves in the street to keep traffic down, to keep speed down. Wouldn't they be inclined instead to make blocks where you've got a straight line, but you're doing shorter sections? So they're not going to lose... Development opportunity because they're making curves they're gonna make grids of shorter little streets and Put houses all throughout because just as even if it's straight if it's a short section in a block with a stop sign You're not gonna go above 20 miles an hour there So is that kind of is this gonna is this gonna help create? blocks I guess is my question because I've liked the block standards that you've been teaching us about, and the interconnectivity, and to me, this creates blocks.

It is an incentive towards that design, but also what it does is that it disincentivizes through traffic, which is one of the things that has already been in your standard so far, is that when you're getting to that level of a neighborhood, you don't want to encourage through traffic of going throughout just a cut through through this neighborhood. And so the design speeds ensure and the block standards ensure that you can get that level of density and that level of connectivity is required to have that level of connectivity, but you don't have excessive through traffic of people just going through these neighborhoods. And so it's looking at all sections of the design to ensure that it can be places that families can live and not just be cut through.

Also, I think that's the the block design could be a type of design to slow traffic that curvy roads one option But having stop signs every you know 50 feet is another 100 whatever it says I think that is a that could lead to incentivizing this type of development whereas that's the way you slow the traffic down is by having multiple nodes of intersections

Okay, so we're going to go to cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets. Section 46.180 and under 3. So, look at this. Cul-de-sacs shall be a maximum. This is in the regulations already. Cul-de-sacs shall be a maximum of 600 feet in length measured from the center line of the feeder street to the center of the turnaround radius. unless the planning board finds that a greater length will not, and I've included, reduce future connectivity of the area or create a hazard as based on the availability of hydrants, accessibility to firefighting equipment, and anticipated use of abutting properties. added in a cul-de-sac exceeding 600 feet in length shall provide a six foot wide paved path to another street which is not a cul-de-sac this pathway shall serve as an additional pedestrian connection to the required sidewalk abutting a street this is a requirement so this is doing a couple things one is reinforcing you already have a maximum length of a dead end street leading to a cul-de-sac. Surprise, it's already in here. And that's 600 feet, which is about standard. You see, the standard is usually about 600 to 660 feet. Don't ask me where the 660 came from. I can tell you off the tip of my tongue. But what this also does is that this ensures that if someone wants to get out of that, it's not going to reduce the future connectivity of the area. That's the language that I've inserted here. where the other language is just, it's not gonna create a hazard. The other portion that was included is that it's about the pedestrian network. So if you are gonna create cul-de-sacs, we're not saying that you can't create cul-de-sacs, but we're making sure that if you're creating a cul-de-sac, that anybody who's living on that cul-de-sac will have pedestrian availability to go to another road instead of having to go all the way through that dead end street back to the main street. And this is important when you get to bigger subdivisions. It really is the standard when you're building subdivisions where you start to have these almost connecting cul-de-sacs like this, and they never touch. And then if someone's living here, they have to go all the way around to get to a location right here. even if you're a pedestrian. And so what that does right now is it reinforces that I'm not walking. I'm going to get in my car, I'm going to drive from my cul-de-sac, and everyone's going to drive from their cul-de-sac to get on the main road. But if you had a different way to get around, pedestrian path, you would use that pedestrian path from your cul-de-sac to the street. So this is actually a part of street connectivity, and that's why that's been included here. This is just best practice. You can use it. You can leave it out. That's fine. I'm fine with either or, but I have to provide you the option to use the tool.

Question? Yes, sure.

So the 600 feet, how do you measure that? Does that start off from the end of a driveway to the beginning of the road?

So where the road starts, where you will have a road, and if you want to create a cul-de-sac, it starts from the point that you're creating that dead-end road from. That's where the 600 feet starts in length. And so that's the length that you currently have in your ordinance.

I'm going to ask other board members. Were you all aware that there was a 600-foot limit?

So it's not in the zoning ordinance? It's not in the zoning ordinance, but it is in the chapter 46, which means that everyone should be following this. Okay.

But when we get our packet, everything that we are reviewing comes from all of our standards are in the zoning ordinance. So we're relying on Other departments, we're relying on department to review these plans for consistency with other ordinance before they come to us. But I'm thinking that we probably approved a lot of projects with streets or accesses that are in excess of 600 feet. I know that one down on Brickyard Circle must be in excess of 600 feet. Now, it doesn't end in a cul-de-sac, but it ends in a parking lot, and it's the only access to the facility, so it's, by definition, or by design, it's a cul-de-sac. You gotta go in, you gotta turn around and come back out.

Yeah, because the requirement to create a cul-de-sac at a dead end street, correct.

And I may be wrong. Maybe it is less than 600 feet, but I don't think so. And that was not flagged for us. So we need to know that these things are going to be flagged so that these roads that are shown in the plans are brought to us to meet all of these standards.

Yes.

OK. then we go down to section 46 182 it's just a pet peeve of mine under one sidewalks with asplenades to help be provided along both sides of all local streets right now you only require one side and what that happens is that if you're on the other side that you don't have a sidewalk you have to cross over the street in order to get to a to your street network, and if you have a four-year-old, speaking from experience, who wants to run into the road, it is quite dangerous, especially if you just wanna take a walk. And so this is one of the ones that is from my personal experience, because I'm on a road that I am not on the side of the sidewalk, that if you're designing a residential area, it needs to be, that's the whole point of having sidewalks is to have pedestrian access. So I've added that in here to ensure that new development, oh, development, it's okay, but new development will provide sidewalks to these areas. That's just their point.

Bob? That seems... I love my grandchildren. I raised three children. I had a sidewalk once on my side of the street and I've had sidewalks on the other side of the street. I don't think that that should be a necessary requirement. I really don't. I mean, that's a significant expense when the purpose of a sidewalk is to provide pedestrian access. I don't think having to cross the street is.

Also, if it's new development and somebody develops on this side of the street, they have to put a sidewalk over there anyway.

They don't. That's what, because we're, so just think about Danville. There's only sidewalks on one side of the street.

Told you, Maureen, you have PTSD over that.

You did say that. Anyway, my thought is that that's over.

I disagree. Yeah, I want them on both sides.

Yes, we have debate, yes. I think this would have been real nice maybe a couple years ago with the new Edward Little High School where currently there's only a sidewalk on one side of the street and having it on both sides would have made sense for students going and going onto the property.

You have to act as a body and so this will come up again, but this is one that we can flag. It's a community. We act as one body. So the next one is the planning board. See, this is a direction to the exact planning board, right? The planning board. I'm sorry.

I'm sorry. Before you go on.

Yeah.

If I look more carefully, that's not applicable to a subdivision in the ag zone or the low density country residential zone. It's only in On both sides of a collector commercial or industrial Street. I don't know if we define commercial industrial streets. I know a collector that's probably defined but we're not talking about every development.

Now you're not talk about every development, but now that the topics out there they want to think about it. And you can put caveat to it only within the growth area.

I was just going to say, I feel quite strongly that in the growth area, in these densities that we're talking about, there absolutely needs to be sidewalks on both sides of the street in those areas. scenarios and these high density growth areas that we're talking about the amount of Housing in residences that are going to be coming in some of these areas. There absolutely needs to be sidewalks on both sides of the street in those scenarios and Not in every single I mean that would be I understand so I understand what you're saying there but It when I drive down, I think it's East Main Street in Yarmouth where there's it's the most unbelievably dense area you can imagine. There's people and kids and it's crazy there it and there's a sidewalk on one side of the street and it's it's crazy. So when it's that dense it needs to be on both sides. Long winded, I'm sorry.

Can we get a map for our next meeting that shows us the developable land in the growth area? I mean, that's not already developed. I realize you could tear buildings down and start a new I see how much property we're really talking about you.

I can attempt but your growth areas. It's very large. So I can I can attempt that but I will attempt it. That day.

I mean did this almost shows us and this has property lines on it. Yes.

Yeah, but you would have to go to an aerial and you would have to do a land use analysis of green area or then to your point of undeveloped or it's really under the underdeveloped land so you have to define if one house is on this parcel that's 10 acres is that classified as developed or is that undeveloped because we know that you can just add hundreds of more houses under this Provisions so it's it's those complications that make the ask. I'm gonna withdraw the request. Okay. All right I can get aerials of the growth area though So we can you can we can do that and we'll have some information that goes forward. Would that be fair? Okay Sorry planner planner So the next one is Originally said the Planning Board may require walkways in open space or recreation areas that are designed to link residential units with recreational and commercial facilities, other common facilities, school bus stops, and existing sidewalks and walkways in the vicinity. May. I thought that should be a shall.

You may want to define vicinity, because that could be argued by a developer, what distance is considered a vicinity.

Which is going to be an interesting question, is that do you want to leave it in your purview when you're reviewing plans to decide if it's in the vicinity? Because traditionally, it would be in your best judgment if this is going to be in the vicinity. Or do you want hard numbers?

But my vicinity may very well be different from Ed's. Correct. You know, it's...

But that's why you act as a board, right? If you want hard numbers, I can start thinking of hard numbers. And maybe I can put a proposal together. But it's designed to be on your best judgment from project to project.

I don't like gray areas to Carlo.

That's fine. I know. I understand. I understand. But we can use those to our advantage.

Yeah. And I like how Ed thinks. Yeah.

Provided it's not an unlawful delegation of legislative authority.

I guess going back again to sidewalks, both sides, I guess, again, in the high density areas where we're encouraging not only just residential, but we're thinking there will be some mixed use, the coffee shop, little restaurants, whatever. So I think if it's going to be walkability, then there is going to be a lot of movement depending upon where those little shops might be. So I think that's a reason for sidewalks on both sides. I think even these pathways for linkage to open space, I think we need to keep open space close to developments for sure. But again, if there's going to be a lot of activity and we are encouraging more walkability, then we've got to provide the walking space. I was glad that our chair did recognize that rural areas, we never had sidewalks, and probably in the rural areas, we don't need them. But again, I think then it comes to the roadways themselves, even rural areas, We have to pay attention to, because we do need bike lanes, because we are using our rural roads for more biking, and right now it's a hazard on most of our rural roads.

Some of the things that you have to start thinking about as you grow as a city. Okay, so I will go down to six. I read 6B, and I did not think that that was appropriate. The planning board may waive the requirement to build sidewalks under the following circumstances. Your name, the planning board, comes up pretty often in Chapter 46. So to your earlier point, Ed, it does give you power within this chapter to make certain decisions. So we'll start highlighting these things for you all when it comes to it. right development um but to be be originally stated when the developer can demonstrate that the cost of building the sidewalk makes the project financially impossible i.e the developer has sufficient financing for the project except for the cost directly attributable to the construction sidewalks they can get a waiver from the planning board From a person who's worked in development for a very long time, if a sidewalk puts you over the line, then I'm gonna go to your point, Ed, on financial capacity. Then that means that you do not have enough financial capacity really to really be taking on that project. The cost of sidewalks is minuscule in relation to the cost of development.

And also they get to choose what they decide is affordable, so.

Yes, yes. So I've been sure to take that provision away. And then I believe one of the last ones is during street construction materials. And this comes directly from the engineering department. They do not like bituminous curbing because, and the reason being is that it falls apart after two years. And so they've asked to change that over to slip horn concrete. And you can see that on their curbing materials.

I know what slip form concrete is, but is that a trademark term?

No, it's not a trademark term. It is exactly what you think it is. It's the concrete that's been formed into a curb rather than.

Although seeing those in action, the plows have taken a good chunk out of those as well.

Yeah, I don't even think they last two years. I think it's the first snow and people take those out. Slip form? No, no, the bituminous. I think Riley's saying the same thing.

Yeah, no, the slip form in my neighborhood took a beating with the plow.

Yeah.

And that's brand new.

So the other portion is three, right? And the other one is granite. And granite's becoming so expensive that... We have to think of other solutions, but going down to two minutes, that's a little step too far. And then we go down to base materials under 46184, construction standards, where the engineering department has specified under aggregate sub-base course that material shall be crushed product source from a quarry, because I believe they've been having problems with that with developers. And the same thing under the aggregate base course as well.

But these are really building standards. This would have been a project that we're no longer involved with, right?

No, actually, so what happens is that this would be things that have already, that'd be checked by the engineering department before it gets to your review. And this is a part of their engineering review. Okay. And the same thing with curbing down below under E. Again, slip form concrete and slip form. Is that the last change in this document? I believe that's the last change in this document. Yes, that is the last. I had a note here where the last change was, so I think it was taken out. Yes, that's the last one of this document.

So we're going to move on to our next item, but I don't want to leave this entirely. I'd like next time to talk about Division IV traffic impact analysis standards, specifically the waivers that the city engineers authorized to grant, because I felt like we had been stonewalled at least on one occasion because the city engineers said the traffic report's not necessary, and I think the board thought there was some real traffic gaps.

Yeah.

something happened with your mics ed i'm sorry i'm sure it's me um i'd like next time we get together to start with division four traffic impact analysis standards i'm just really not that comfortable in my experience with having the city engineer waive a requirement to be a traffic study i'd like the board to be able to determine whether a traffic study is required or not i'd like to at least have a conversation about that sure we can have a conversation about that

Talking about 46-236?

234 is where I saw it. Is there something in 236 as well?

It's the same thing, the authority of the traffic movement permit.

Which is slightly different.

Which is different, yeah, I'm looking at it now.

Yeah, traffic movement permits are issued by the- By the state? By the state, right, correct. Okay, yes. Yeah. All right. We've got to get on with this because at 9 o'clock, I know somebody's going to make a motion to go home, so I wouldn't want to. Are we okay moving on? I don't think we had anything more to discuss. Public comment?

I'll waive the impending 9 o'clock motion by

And I rushed to get to you too. You feeling okay? Miscellaneous. Yes.

I was actually hoping, I didn't know if there was an update to the project we approved on Academy Street. We spent a lot of time going over that and I heard from somebody that it is no longer happening and I didn't know if there was any update from the planning department on it.

So I can get you an update on the upcoming meeting on that project. I believe that they're still going forward. They may be still going forward, but I wanted to make sure I can get correct information before I share.

Yes.

understanding we're going through a lot of ordinance revision right now just looking at the application that came before us tonight for the change in use to a hospital and looking at the definition of a hospital seems like that might be something that we could revisit and maybe update some of the language there that's not necessarily priority because I understand there's a lot of zoning amendments but just for future consideration

It's needed. Yeah.

Some of the words used in that definition. It's much too broad. Yeah, but it's also, I mean, there are some words in there that we just don't use anymore. You don't have to be woke. I mean, everybody knows you don't say those things, right? Correct.

Yeah. Just, yeah. I'm looking at some of the updating some terms that we don't necessarily use anymore.

Yes, absolutely. We saw that in Okay.

Yeah. Sort of a long Riley's line of questioning or not. I read an article the other day about a project that we've approved on Stetson Road. And maybe there'll be a TIF, maybe there won't. That doesn't matter to us as a board. But I thought there was a comment made by a reader in the newspaper, which I'd like someone to research for me, that when we approve an apartment complex, for example, that might have two bedroom units, the amount of tax dollars generated by that type of housing seems to pale by comparison to a single-family home on a lot somewhere. This particular writer was suggesting that we take the cost to educate two kids and the amount of taxes generated by an apartment complex dwelling unit that accommodates a family of four, that the tax dollars generated are much less than that same family of four living in a single-family home. i don't know where i'm going with that but it seems to strike me that as i've said before what we're seeing and maybe with the changes in state law it'll be different what we see are apartment complexes after apartment complexes we haven't approved a single family residential development except for a few lots in the last few years so could you ask the assessing department if you understand my question if there's any significant difference

Yes. And actually, within our work plan for staff is a cost of services study, which actually will delineate, hey, this is the revenue differences between this type of development and this type of development. And so that is in our work plan. That does take... little bit more time to generate but we are working on that and so when that is available I will be providing that to everyone because that actually provides a lot of insight into what type of developments particularly for this city generate revenue versus the amount of services they consume and so we are working on that.

Anything else under miscellaneous? Chelsea.

Just for clarity, can somebody please remind me when the next couple of meetings are? Are we done for September? Is there anything I'm missing? Like what's coming up?

Thank you for asking that. We do need to have some guidance on when we're going to be meeting for those who weren't at the last meeting last night. Apparently, I haven't seen it yet, but I guess we received the final version of the comprehensive plan today.

So you all received that on the 9th. That was with the same email I asked you all to confirm that you're going to the meeting. So I'll send that back to you.

So we got that on the 9th. That's different than the one that you had given us in August. Yes. We have the final now. Yes. And there's a 65-day clock ticking. Yes. Can you walk me through that and in seven minutes develop an outline of how we're going to proceed to review that?

absolutely so our timeline going forward is we have four meetings before we have scheduled to make official recommendations to the city council um on your comments about the comprehensive plan first meeting september 23rd is our next meeting it's next week we are meeting still in september On that meeting, we will continue to talk about directly just the comprehensive plan and the ideas that you all have or you want to basically go through the plan, and anything that you may want to in the future, give a direct recommendation for. So this is about, hey, having your points of interest done. We're going to go through the different sections. Do you have comments or concerns about that? What that would allow is that that would allow staff to come bring you back at the next meeting, October 13th, regularly scheduled meeting and that we can we can put your ideas into some draft recommendations and so we can then confirm with you all about are these the ideas that you want to vote on not that you agree on but just agreeing on the question that needs to be asked to you all that you're going to be affording to So September 23rd is a meeting just about the comprehensive plan that we're going to be walking through different sections and talking about it. October 13th is a regular scheduled meeting. Our schedule is pretty light as far as applications go. So we're going to use that to continue to have some time to talk about the comprehensive plan. And then the next day is October 14th. So on October 13th, at the end of that meeting, we should have some draft recommendations, but we have to hold off on voting because October 14th, the next day, is the public hearing And at the public hearing, you'll get direct comments back from the public. We actually have some surveys out that we'll be getting information back from those surveys to provide for you. And so that might spur other questions that you might have or other discussions. So we have September 23rd, October 13th, October 14th, it's a public hearing, And then on October 28th, that's during the time that you're adding to the questions that you want to make recommendations to, doing formal votes for that, you're adding in information that you heard from that public hearing. And so at that point, you either will have a really good idea of the recommendations that you want to provide to the council, or you may have you may need another meeting or so but that's your decision point of are we ready to give recommendations to the council and vote on these recommendations or do we need another meeting to discuss something that's come up and we haven't come to the point that we can take a vote on this. With these recommendations, the point is not to get consensus through all members. It's to hear all points of view and to make sure that you've heard your other members and their points of view and that are comfortable with coming to the point of a vote on those recommendations. and so that is our schedule going forward so far the september 23rd october 13th october 14th and october 28th from there we can amend the schedule as we see fit but that's our schedule so far

When we get together on the 23rd, do we want to focus on a particular section or sections? I mean, I think we all can review this, but if we had a chance to focus on and know that we're coming to a meeting to talk about specific things.

yes and so we're actually going to be walking through the plan and going through you know do we have any questions or concerns about the vision statement and the policy and goals and we're going to be going through those sections um as we're going through that meeting and sit to talk about those certain certain topics And so the expectation is that you all will read the plan from now until we start to meet. And it's okay if you haven't read all throughout it on the 23rd, but the best that you can will help us really go through those conversations. But the expectation is by October 13th, everyone has read the plan and we've addressed all the different sectors. We've already gone to a preliminary point for the future land use map. So we were going to return to that conversation on the 23rd as well at the end of the conversation. We're going to get a chance to go to the other sections first for a preliminary glance, but then we're going to return to that section of the future land use map because as we heard during their prior meeting, there were two topics that were being queued up as questions of can these or will these be recommendations to the city council.

Okay. Okay. Are you excited? Planning board items for discussion. I can't believe there'd be any more, but are there any other more? All right, motion to adjourn.

So moved. Or seconded, is that what you're looking for? Seconded.

Okay, yeah, I made the motion. All in favor? Adjourned, thank you very much.

Thank you.