Planning Board - Regular Meeting

mber 9th 2025 our remain planning board meeting and first item on the agenda is roll call and I will start with my left Bob Hayes Paul Jacques Stacy Leblanc Darren Finnegan Hussein

okay so I do see that we have a couple of members missing um Tim do Roile Bjon and Moren Hopkins um so at this time I will elevate Ed Bear And I will elevate Ed Bear to full voting um privileges. You just made it upstairs. Do both of them anyway. Do both of them anyway. There's only seven of them. And we need seven. Yeah. So one, two, three. four.

Oh, yeah. Right. All right. Perfect. All right. Um, and I'll also elevate Bal to full voting um, privileges and then at this point in time, I'll pause so Riley can state his name for the record. Riley Berseron. Okay. Excellent. Okay. Next item on the agenda is are the meeting minutes. So, at this point, I will seek a motion to accept or amend the meeting me meeting minutes of November 10th, 2025. So, move. Do you have a second?

I have an amendment before we do that. Uh, sorry, I was kind of late on the draft, but uh I think page page four is bottom of page four. My name is uh misspelled. Two L's, not three. So, yeah. Okay. That's all. So, I would seek a motion to amend the meeting minutes based upon uh and then correct Bal's name, spelling of Bal's name. So, move. Do I have a second? Second.

All those in favor? Okay. Motion carries. All righty. Next item on the agenda is um some old business that we have. So, um, item number or a 3A is was a public hearing site plan review 61 North River Road. The applicant has withdrawn their application, so no further action is needed at this point in time. Excellent. Next item on the agenda is 3B. So, public hearing site plan and subdivision review 530 and 538 Poland Road. Um, just as a reminder for the board, so B, C, and D, these are all items that have previously come before us last month that we had robust conversation around. Um, so the goal would be to not rehash what we've already discussed, but to bring forward um any new items, review those new items, um, match them to what we discussed previously, and then move forward with um, a motion of action. So staff, I'll hand it over to you um so you can give us an update on anything new when it comes to the Poland road um application.

Sure. So uh as mentioned in the memo board raised several concerns at the last meeting with respect to financial capacity formbbased code requirements and the dumpster location. Uh the applicant took those into consideration has made changes or has provided a different additional information with respect to those three items. Um so uh the applicant is here to speak and address any of those additional comments. Um staff is recommending approval with one condition about recording the plans um at the registry of deed deeds. And um I think that's it for this one. This one is a minor subdivision. So um as opposed to some of the other projects this evening, this would be uh a motion for final approval.

Okay. So would the applicants like to come forward? move over some reason I didn't I can just speak to it right now. Okay, I'll be honest.

Hi, Craig Sweet with Terodine Consultants here on behalf of the applicants. Um, yeah. So, after last meeting, we uh updated I provide some updated renderings from the from the applicants. Um, and we were able to shift some parking near building three to keep the same number of parking spaces but move the dumpster um to that location um because I know the other area was a point of concern. Uh, and then the applicants um did provide updated financial capacity. Um, so there were two additional letters provided with that but other than that it is um the same as we had last last meeting. All right. Do you have any questions for the applicant?

Uh Craig, um I'm looking at the plan. It's uh C 000. Uh it was part of your supplemental submission on December 1. Um the the parcel is divided into two lots if I understand correctly. And it seems like the lot line runs very close to building one of the buildings. Not quite so close but close to the second building and through the parking area. What's to become of the second lot? Um and isn't that a setback problem?

That is um a zone line there. So it is two lots. the um the building that's um existing is lot one and the rest is all lot two. So that zone that's a zone line between the traditional neighborhood uh development and the industrial district right there. Yeah, no problem. Thank Thank you. Okay, any other questions for the applicant? Okay, seeing none, I would seek a motion for public comment. So moved. Do you have a second? Second. All right. All those in favor.

Okay. So, if you are a member of the public and you would like to come forward to speak specifically about this project, feel free to come to the podium, state your name and your address. You have five minutes. Okay. Seeing none, I'd seek a motion to close public comment. Do have So moved. Do I have a second? Second.

Okay. All those in favor? Wonderful. All right. So, um, discussion, conversation amongst the board. Any questions for staff? We have none. that I would entertain a motion. Go ahead.

Actually, I appreciated the addition of a rear elevation schematic. I guess I did question there's two doors shown for each unit on the rear. One is just an access to a utility um closet. So, utility room. So, there's one back door and then one is a separate utility room for um since they're going to be rentals. So that way we can maintain it without having to go in the apartments. Yeah. Thank you.

And so as we um head into the these old business um items and I think all three of them were continued based upon needing additional information as we move forward from a motion perspective. If there is a motion to not approve this, I just want to remind folks that there needs to be a solid finding of fact behind it based upon um our ordinance. So, not just like I don't like the project kind of thing or I'm not feeling groovy about it. So, just want to kind of remind people about that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

I'll make a motion to approve.

You want me to read the motion in its entirety or I want to get a second? Uh yeah, unfortunately. Yep. Mhm. Yep. I make a motion the proposal meets the requirements of sections 60-1277 and 60-1359. Approve the application and site plans submitted by Terodine Consultants LLC on behalf of Jonah Chapel and Kyle Romik for the construction of three multif family structures with four units each at 530 and 538 Poland Road. Proposed project has met the standards pursuant to chapter 60, article 4, division 14, form-based code, article 16, division 2, site plan review, and division 4, subdivision. All right. Do you have a second?

Second. Do you have a discussion of the motion? All right. Seeing none, all those in favor?

Okay. Motion carries. Okay. So, the next item on the agenda is a Danville Corner Road. Um just kind of as a reminder, this is one where um we continued the project and now at this uh phase we would look to have a twopart um moving the project forward. It is both this one and um C oh sorry D um the academy street. So again, and staff maybe you can speak to this again if people have any questions about it, but it's a twopart. So uh this meeting and then going into January. So you do a preliminary um motion of approval if that's the way we choose to go um with any um conditions or um additional items, maybe a traffic study. Um but again, it's from a motion perspective. We're not looking to close it out at this point in time based upon the continuation that we did last month. We're looking to have a two-part um motion in in December and then into January. So, just kind of reminding people about that.

Thanks, Stacey. Yep. Um I should have mentioned as well to my right, Sam Picus. Sam Picus is new. Uh she's new planning coordinator and she's going to be um helping you folks out with the planning board going forward out here. So, I just wanted to welcome Sam.

Welcome, Sam. So, with respect to Danville, let me get the right memo here because so many uh concerns that were raised by the planning board last time. Um, there was a lot of discussion about the traffic and that impacting specifically Washington Street, Washington Street and Danville corner where the new traffic signal is supposed to go. Um, as mentioned in the application, they weren't able to complete a full traffic analysis in time for this evening's meeting. They are asking for u preliminary approval still um with the condition that they provide that. They're not looking to avoid that. They realize it's a requirement. They just clearly have it done in a timely fashion for this meeting tonight. Uh there was a question about right title and interest. They've provided additional information with respect to that. They've also updated the documents with respect to financial capacity. There was a lot of discussion last time about the lease and the ownership agreement out there. um whether or not this resembles that of a mobile home park um and how land leases may work in this situation. It is a unique situation. Um you have some correspondence from the applicant's attorney as to how this um ownership pattern will work out there. Um we've since shared that with the city attorney as well. Um, I'm sure you'll hear more tonight um from their attorney, but the city attorney acknowledges that while maybe something unique and different, there isn't anything necessarily legal about what they're doing. It's fully permissible um as proposed. Uh let's see, open space requirements. There's discussion last time about the open space and that there may have been some confusion because there's different references in the ordinance to usable open space um open space and unbuilt areas and then recreation and open space standards. Um this development applies because the standards go with the general business district. It is the

recreation and open space standards that are applicable. Therefore, they have to provide so many square feet per unit out there. The applicant has done that. they actually have additional land out there with respect to open space. You'll see one of the conditions we recommend is that the plans actually specifically document where that open space is, so it's clear going forward where these areas are on the on the subdivision plan. As Stacy mentioned, this is a two-step process, right? Preliminary approval and then final approval. I wanted to clarify um given the direction that the board was going last meeting if you feel that something is not um fully provided like the traffic plan that's not necessarily a reason to continue the matter to hold off on preliminary approval. In fact, it's probably just the opposite. Preliminary approval gives the applicant the opportunity to get input from you folks in the board and then you folks can make a motion to preliminary approval with additional conditions like yes, we want to see more traffic information. We need more information with respect to right tile and it is because we're not comfortable. You're not giving final approval. You're just giving them preliminary approval so they can actually move forward and do the additional research engineering study whatever it is they might need to do. We're recommending similar conditions again as last time here um as far as recording the plan in the registry um securing easements for water and sewer for water and sewer district making sure that traffic analysis is done so when they come back with that force will have more information in front of you. Um and again again that the subdivision plan be clearly delineated and label where the recreation open space is who's ultimately going to be responsible for homeowners association the landlord some other arrangement that's acceptable. I expect the applicant will probably talk to that about that tonight. My guess is is that the land owner is going to be responsible for this given the ownership

pattern that's being proposed out there with the land that Greg is here and again I apologize for some reason some of the files that I had downloaded in advance are not firing up so Oh that's just the plans

I think building you can talk and I'll I will find the plans. Um so as as David mentioned, we did provide some additional information on on some of the items and the traffic is is underway, but um we didn't have it unfortunately yet for tonight, but um staff did connect us with DOT and they had mentioned that they they didn't think um you know, as a preliminary look that they didn't think it was going to be that much of an impact to that traffic signal down below. Um, we'll obviously be in discussions with them more and provide them more information as it progresses, but their first initial reaction was it didn't seem like it'd be that that much to it. Um, and then so we were hoping that that could potentially be something for a condition for final as as we're working on it um for the standards. Um, an updated financial capacity was provided because the last one was over a year old. So, we just wanted to get that updated. Um and then for the open space we we're providing 7.7 acres. Um well 7.7 is required. We're providing 9.4 acres. Um we we'd u propose to to have that described in the land lease agreement there. And then also um in the recorded subdivision plan so it could be referenced there for so it's recorded and everyone knows where they can access that in that um in those areas. and we'll delineate it a little bit clearer and final with maybe a color plan or something like that to help um it pop a little bit more for those areas. Um the applicant's attorney is here tonight to speak more about the land lease uh for any questions on that. And then um the architect's here as well if there's any questions on the the individual homes that we had shown. Um other than that and for on the engineering side, I think that kind of covers all the questions we're responding to from last time, but I'm happy to answer any other questions about the site as well.

Yeah, absolutely. Uh I'll I'll ask the question of the applicant. Perhaps uh David can chime in as well. Um your legend, I think on your plans correctly, says that the minimum lot size is 10,000 square ft in the uh general business district and 100 ft of frontage. Right. I believe so. So, how is it that we can have 11 lots, for example, along the northerly border um in an area where there's only 700 and some odd feet of of road frontage.

The frontage for the site is taken off of Danville Corner Road and then it's all an access drive, which the lot itself is off of Danville Corner Road and these are all on the one lot. Well, that that's where I guess I have a little bit of uh difficulty because what you're proposing is to lease land to individuals and your plans don't say how big that piece of land is going to be. Um, but I think it still has to be 10,000 square ft and 100 ft of frontage on the street once you've created that lot. And I think your plan saturates too much the uh the amount of road furniture you have. And I'd like to see a plan that lays out these lots. I don't think you can lease a lot that's less than 10,000 square ft in the general business district, just like you can't sell a lot that's less than 10,000 square ft for development. So, I'm not sure why on this plan we don't know how big these lots are. And I think we should know. Now, I may be wrong. Maybe nobody else agrees with me.

Um, as the proposal is to to lease the land underneath the home. Um, in terms of legality of it, I maybe Rick can speak to that more um above me, but um everything else is going to be kind of maintained by by the applicant around the homes and the driveways. But, um, this this isn't a condominium and this isn't a planned unit development. It's a flatout subdivision. And also, Bill, before you leave, and um I do have a question about the open space. Um it seems to me that the ordinance requires that the open space be contiguous and your open space, as I understand your plan, is divided by streets and sidewalks and in case some cases buildings. Why don't we have the attorney first talk to your first item that you have questions about in terms of the square footage of the lease land.

Hi, my name is Rick Abandanza with Hopinson and Abundanza and um I know that was that came up at the last meeting from what I understand from David. Um this isn't a subdivision in the traditional uh sense. If this what to me it's more like a condominium. A condominium unit has one common area, one lot and there's different units on there and that doesn't trigger the subdivision rules. Now there may be traffic issues. There may be other land use type things that are certainly need to be addressed. But having different uh homes privately owned uh by the uh by each person, they they have access to an area. We they aren't going to be separately subdivided. It's not going to be a separate lot. is going to be uh an area as as shown on the plan that is what that is. I spoken um so I know there was also some concern is this more like a uh mobile home park. It doesn't meet the definition of that that statute is very clear as to what the requirements are.

I think the board's uh discussion about that was perhaps misrelayed to you. I don't think we were suggesting this is a mobile home park, but it walks like one and it talks like one. Yeah. And and with respect to the lots Mhm. we may differ on how large they need to be, but they plainly are leased lots because you're at least going to be leasing the area beneath the buildings. Correct. To the individuals. Correct. Correct. So that's a lot. Okay. Well, and did you say that you don't think a condominium is a subdivision?

Well, no. I mean, it a a condominium project has one lot. Well, it has that and then there's different units for each one of the separate homes on that. Um, so that doesn't I mean, you could have you could have a 100 units on a parcel this this large and it would not it would not trigger different subdivision rules. Those aren't different laws. But we don't have a condominium before us. That's true. Right.

Yep. But we there is common ownership by the developer. I mean, the ownership is in the developer. He's going to be leasing those areas uh to the homeowners. 99-year leases. They're all going to be able to be mortgaged. They can be financed. They meet all the secondary market requirements for that. And so um you know that to to that extent the there'll be rules and regulations in there. It's going to be it's going to be by grant much more like a a a subdivision. The goal is to have smaller more affordable houses in in the area. This is this is a huge benefit for the city where you can have city 69 more affordable units plus the 24 rental units. Uh and so um I spoke to the city attorney and and he was on board with the concept. um if there's more information that the board needs with respect to that be I know there's going to be another hearing in January. Um so you know I don't know what other questions you might have about that. I know there was something there was a concern about the taxability. is the assessor will assess the improvements on each on each lot or unit uh just the way they would in another in in any other commercial uh setting. The improvements will be assessed. They'll be taxed by the city. The city has the right to lean the improvements if the taxes aren't paid. Most of these will probably be financed. There'll be um there'll be tax escros and so the taxes

would assuredly be paid by the bank if not directly. Uh Jim will be taxed on the value of the land. So there will be a separate tax bill for that. It's not our place to get into how a like this might but you've raised Ed. Can you speak into your microphone? I don't know if everyone can hear him.

You've raised the issue of financing these these structures. Um yet the lease that you've provided to us would suggest that you you always use the word tenant, not owner, as if they're not the owner of the structure, they're just a renter. Uh but it also suggests that if they miss one payment to the landlord, uh you can evict them. Do you think that a lender is going to go along with that when they've when they've lent a quart million dollars? I'm pretty sure they would not because the lease will probably be subordinated to their mortgage anyway. Um,

so I'm just going to ask a quick question here, staff. um kind of from an ordinance perspective, I've never had us ever have come before the board uh a lease agreement or a tenant agreement as part of an approval of a project. Is reviewing a lease tenant agreement part of approval of a project? I've never seen it before. It doesn't need to be.

Okay. So it maybe it was just they were adding information, giving us information. Maybe they now it's it's some people have caught on to it. They're chewing on it a little bit. It is not contingent. It is not subjective to us approving or not approving this project that we have the lease. I just want to make that clear. Is that correct, staff?

I would that is correct. I would say that and and certainly Rick can speak to the intent of including it. Unless the board made a motion with a condition that the lease is subject to your review and approval, it's more supporting information than anything else. And I absolutely would recommend not including that as a condition because I don't think you folks or staff want to know or have to have an applicant come back every time a lease agreement is amended or negotiated. You know, they change the lease agreement from 99 years to 50 years. The fee goes from whatever it is to a different increase. That is typically and has not historically been in the board's purview as to the terms and the details of that lease. why it was included I think is back

and then it's setting precedent. So then if we're doing on this one then I would expect the board would then ask for lease and tenant agreements going thereafter, right? Like you we can't just pick and choose when we're deciding to review an agreement. I think you folks can absolutely look at it. I think you folks could ask for it out of curiosity, but it isn't necessarily anything that's tied specific to an ordinance required.

And from our standpoint, I agree with David. It was submitted to more show the relationship between the homeowner and the fact that there is uh a lease to the land owner. Uh the terms of that could be changed. They're going to be negotiated. There's probably going to be third or fourth drafts of that as we go along. There's going to be rules and regulations as we go along. But yeah, I I agree. It's not certainly no one expected that the board would need to approve the terms of the lease itself. Bob has a question.

Nor did I. I'm sorry, but nor did I, but you're the one that started discussing it, which is why I responded. But I do maintain that you have to have a lease that is no less than 10,000 square feet and it has to meet the standards of the ordinance and it can't just be waved away and we ignore it and just approve 69 units that might be somewhat shown as they are on the plan or not. Um that that is not something that I think our ordinance contemplates. So Ed, thank you cuz I was going to circle back with you to make sure that you have what you need from that perspective. like do you have what you need? Do you do you still have questions? I I just want to make sure that

I don't have a question. Uh it's my opinion that each of these units has to sit on a 10,000 square ft parcel that meets the minimum dimensional requirements of the general business district, not merely a 1200 square foot area where you plop the building down and that's it and everything else is owned by the owner. So I am concerned about that. I wouldn't be able to approve I wouldn't vote to approve the project as it's presented to us right now. Um and I am concerned about the open space because I don't believe that what's shown on the plan is contiguous and that word is left out of the application materials but it's plainly in our ordinance as contiguous land. Um and the word contiguous should be in there in the description that the applicant uses and it's not.

So can the applicant talk about that the open space and the Madam Chair, but just just to follow up a little bit with respect to the difference of plain unit development, condominium, apartments, and what's presented here as a development plan. I did ask the question earlier when uh uh well Eric was with us that in the past and I guess I'd ask the question if we had a condo project before us u is there a requirement now I think in the past if we had a condo project uh we would see the condo association package uh submitted as Well,

okay. But we don't have a condo before us, so we can maybe table that and review that at another time.

No, but I think it's applicable in the sense that what it does to a buyer of property or a condo or a lot. uh it assures some protection to the buyer and I think you know this lease uh I reviewed it quickly uh you know a lease usually really protects the owner uh but it allows the uh the lease uh the one that's going to lease uh he'll know what he's getting into but I didn't see a lot of protection to exactly what is going to be provided to

they're leasing the land. So it's the land, right? Make sure

I guess I'm just asking in the past uh with a condo associate condo project. I think we did have before us u the associate agreement which does provide some asurances to an owner as to what rights they have and what they truly own and so forth. So I think this is the question that's before us right now. Now, we're not I'm assuming from what's been said, the only thing they're really leasing is the square footage under the the structure. That is correct. A and and I get it. I get that we're try this has not come before us before the board before. I get that we're trying to make a very pragmatic decision and leveraging prior information to help us make a decision. So, I I get how we're trying to, you know, grab from different, you know, condo and and and try and extrapolate it to try and make it make sense because we've not had this before. So, Yep. Go ahead, Riley.

Could I could I ask staff to pull up is is the uh the general business is there a minimum lot size in the general business zone that would what was just brought up be applied to these if these lots aren't that big? So, um, let me pull it up, Riley, because it's it's the standards, um, it's multi it's zone general business, but then certain provisions of the multif family suburban district applied that includes the density. Um, and that's

and and when we have it up, I also I did want to also ask the staff's opinion on what was brought up about the frontage, if the frontage off a Danville corner is sufficient or if each one of those houses would need the same dimensions.

Yeah, I I don't I'm not sure that does. Um, let me try to connect the dots here. So when you are in sorry I'm in the wrong distance this giant finger throws me off here. Uh permitted uses residential uses that are permitted in the multif family suburban. So we have to look at that for whether the uses are allowed. And then when we go down to the dimensional standards um minimum width and depth again is multif family suburban density multif family suburban. The yard requirements of the general business district apply though. So we don't look at multif family suburban for the yard requirements. We look at um general business. Same with the open space requirements here. When you look at these open space requirements here, it's really not geared towards residential. It's geared towards commercial. Section I referenced in the memo is a totally different section of recreation open space provisions that applies and only applies to single family dwellings too. It doesn't apply to multifamilies. The open space that they need to provide is only for the 60 some odd single families out there. It's not for So now I need to go to multifamily. Here's our uses that are allowed. one family, two family, multif family. Great. That's what they're looking to do. Um dimensional requirements here. This is to um Ed's point, one family, 10,000 square feet, 100 ft. So, those are the standards there. Um, letter D. For a lot containing a mixture of one family and/or two family and multifamilies, the entire lot shall be subject to a minimum lot area

requirement of 10,000 square ft for the first dwelling and 2,000 square ft for each additional dwelling. Number two, maximum density is 17 units per acre. So, this is an amendment that you folks recently made, right? This is since in in my tenure with the city here and this is what the applicant is proposing to do this under. They have a mixture of single families out there and multifamilies. So, the thought being is great. I have a 10,000 square foot lot. I need to have 2,000 square feet for each additional dwelling out there. Staff's perspective, this lot literally could have 100 ft. Um, let's think about that twice. Yeah, I I think you could probably have a lot with as little as 100 ft width as long as it had enough lot area to accommodate all the dwelling in that property. I think Craig mentioned 700 feet or something free of frontage on Danville Road. So again, from our perspective, as long as they're meeting the lot area requirement of that 10,000 for the first dwelling unit, 2,000 for each additional out there, not exceeding 17 units per acre out there. There's no prohibition about having more than one residential unit on that property. There are some zoning districts where you can't have more than one dwelling unit on a property. Um, this is not one of them. Um, again, because you're in the general business district, which is actually a non-residential district to begin with.

Is that a helpful ad? I don't know if I answered your question, right? Because there was another part to that, wasn't there? And uh, actually, it was the second part was about the frontage. So, you did actually answer the question and you answered the question with the 2,000 per additional that the staff's there's that there's enough land in this lot that this proposal would

I I will note um I I would agree with Ed and that the open space provisions do talk about um an acre of continuous contiguous square footage of uh land like one acre for the first unit and then um it 5,000 square feet for each unit afterwards. You folks have some discretion with I I would argue you have some discretion given that open space language there. In an ideal world, it would be continuous. But when you look at these open space stands, we're going to be talking about that again with another project tonight. It gives you folks a fair amount of latitude as to how the open space can be provided on that lot. I would agree that the applicant should probably making taking a position as to why it's not contiguous and why why it's spread out the way it is. So that might be a question for them.

I can I can speak to the open space. um you know as as David mentioned there's some as we read the plan the the ordinance or there's some leeway there and and typically you know how we see open space in in all over the place is um it's a separate lot that's usually created while this is all on the same lot and then there's also a provision most times you see I know it's not in the city of ordinance but um whereas the open space should be accessible and then there's usually provisions where you know if it's a crosswalk for a road or something like that that would be an acceptable contiguous rather than having like for an example like a 10 lot subdivision where you got an open space here and an open space here and then separated by a personal lot whereas this is all you know the sidewalks are all accessible to each flat of the open space um it's all the open space is outside of the the homes and the road you know as a as an area which we'll I can define further but um It's all accessible within just a crosswalk or the sidewalks themselves, not separated by individual lots. So that's that's how we interpreted it when we looked at the ordinance is that it's not cut off from each other. It's accessible, you know, 20 ft of crosswalk to get to the other one. Um whereas it's not completely cut off. So that's that's how it came to be where it is as it is. Does our ordinance uh carve out an exception for contiguous like where there are crosswalks and going across the street and things like that?

Not explicitly, but it does read as I read it that there's discretion of the board for how it is proposed as the open space for the use. Um so it doesn't it doesn't prohibit it as I read it, but it doesn't explicitly say that there's areas for crosswalks. Um question back for David I think then after his explanation of how so many units can be permitted here. Do you agree then David that the minimum lease area for the for the uh units the individual units uh has to be 2,000 square ft?

I don't know that I do, Ed. I think I think the goal of the ordinance is that there is land area that there's a that there's a total amount of land area out there that equates to the number of units. Um, and I guess I'm not I have to think should think before I talk here. How would this apply to a multifamily? I guess to to use your argument like if you if each dwelling each single family needed to have 2,000 square feet out there these same provisions apply to a multif family. How would we how would we how would that work based upon I don't know. Yeah.

Uh what about the setback requirements? Is the building dwellings being set back from any lines? Uh, they are not, but I believe they meet the setbacks as though that that Well, they I take that back because these are city streets, correct?

No, they're private streets. Okay. So, they're set back from the the overall property boundaries and each one is um each building is 30 ft apart. Um, that came up when this was in front of the board a year ago. Um, that there was a minimum I don't remember the exact ordinance, but there was a minimum of 30 ft separation from the buildings. Um, which those are all separated by a minimum of 30 ft. Um and I will point out um I was looking at some of the the math on the open space required open space versus the um what we provided and there is if you if you go to the minimum open space of 7.77 acres required um that leave is about a little over a thousand square ft of extra per single family lot. Um and then the homes are about um 800ish square feet um give or take on each one. So there's um I I I don't see any reason why we couldn't look into for final or or whatever for doing a kind of area of leased area which give these guys a little bit of a yard area that is leasable for in that around 2,000 square ft ballpark the 2,000 foot number. um when we provide some additional clarity just just for um

I think if you could do that um you you would then at least be allowing your tenant owners to put out a swing set Yeah. to put out a lawn chair because right now and and under your lease arrangement. They can't do that. Yeah. You can't put anything outside the building. Nothing. Because you're you're declaring it open space. If they put something out there, anybody and his brother has a right to use it. Uh so but you forbid it. And it seems if you can carve out a little area around each of these little buildings for a little bit of private space, it would probably go a long way toward Sure. making it a better project. Sure.

Yeah. And there's a little over a thousand square feet of per unit of of play out there for the single family homes at least. So, um I can definitely provide some more information on that.

All right. All good conversation. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Well, I guess I do uh we have had some discussion with respect to the traffic study that will be forthcoming. At the same time at the last meeting uh we wanted to have a little more definitive information also from MDOT with respect to the uh redesigning of the intersection on Washington Street. Uh I think I did request that we get something in writing that since we're outside the window of submitt with respect to that project uh to have the state recognize this project coming and in writing what uh impact that might have on their planning process with respect to that intersection.

Didn't you already speak to that? Yeah, there um David had sent um DOT our some info with the plans and informed them um and they responded and they said that they didn't really see it as um an impact on their end. Okay. So Bob, they did go to the MDOT very specifically though, I want I was requesting something in writing that we have had communication directly with MDOT and a letter from MDOT that this this project is being considered and what impact it might have upon the planning process that they're now in.

So David, you went to Yeah. Um, is Mike I'm going to look at Large Lege? Thank you. Um, because both Stephen and I have both had conversation with Mike for Leurge at DOT. And what was Steven's conversation with Mike in regards to as a concerned citizen? Okay.

Um, the um I reached out on my own given the comments that you folks made last time and I shared with them the information about this. Um the public com comment period had just closed with respect to the signal out there but I made him aware of the development. I hooked him up with Craig as well. Um I might have an email, but I know I have an email. Whether it says exactly what you're asking for, Bob, I'm not sure. But his overall comment was that based upon the amount of traffic that this development is proposing, they don't foresee any issues more so than what already exists out there. Um so we can get you something to that effect. Um from

but we can't force anyone to actually do it as a contingency of this project. They will be again um DOT is absolutely aware of this a project. Um Terodine and Craig have spoken with them. They are going to speak to the traffic out there. We can share whatever analysis they have with DOT as well. Um, but based upon my conversations with DOT, they don't anticipate this project. Um, I don't want to say not create an issue, but it it it when there's nothing that would prohibit the project from going forward. It's not alarming them to the point where they want to get involved. Uh, no, I don't believe they would get involved. There's no reason for it.

They typically would. you want in writing, right? That they're Well, personally, I would like to have something submitted from the state that they they they truly recognize this project and put them on the hook if they don't feel that this is going to have an impact. I'd like them to express that

if I I imagine they wouldn't give us any formal letter until we provide them with like a a full traffic assessment. Otherwise, they'd be um kind of looking at it blindly without that. So, we can happily get that from them when we finish the assessment. We can send it to them, but um they wouldn't I would imagine the state wouldn't be able to comment on traffic impacts without us providing them the traffic analysis describing the impacts.

Yes, I think that emphasizes the importance of the study that will be coming to us and being passed through to the state. Thank you. Would you want to include that in the third uh condition that one of the the third condition staff listed here? Yes. In addition to But then what happens if they if the main DOT says that that's not in their purview and they're choosing not to? They had the opportunity to say it. And then what? I'm sorry, Riley. Then at least they had the opportunity to say that. I don't think it's too much to ask. Okay. I just want to make sure that it's not just a hard stop that they didn't do it. And then so Bob doesn't get it. And so then

no, like you said, they need the traffic assessment to be able to say that. So since that's not ready yet, then on that says we are in our third condition that we a traffic impacts analysis would be submitted before we could do the final approval. So I think easy addition to that would be a statement from DOT on it. Okay. All right. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay, seeing none, I would seek a motion to open up public comment. So moved. Do I have a second? Second.

All right. All those in favor. All right. If you would like to come forward to speak about this project, please state your name, your address, and you have five minutes. Steven B575 Johnson Road and 93A Shepley Street. Excuse my voice. I have a cold. Uh perhaps I can fill in a few gaps here. At the last meeting, I informed the board uh and reminded the board that there had been a previous uh publication and public discussion about the impending placement of a full control traffic light at the intersection of Washington Street and Beach Hill Road and the Danville Corner Road. And I indicated that I had had some communications with Mr. Leurge of MDOT about that project, but and some safety concerns that I had, but that I had not apprised him of this impending Danville Corner Road development project because I didn't think it was the place of a private citizen to bring that forth at that stage of the application for this project. I suggested that perhaps staff might want to make such a communication with the MDOT in a public capacity. Uh David and I have had a communication back and forth in that regard and he has advised that he in fact as he's reported to you has spoken with Mr. Leurge uh and whatever the MDOT has had to say about that will be forthcoming uh to the extent that they wish to do so. I still do still have a significant safety concern about the way that the traffic is to be configured on the intersection at the Danville Corner Road, Beach Hill Road uh stops with Washington Street, but that's not immediately affected by the design of this project. It's a safety concern that will remain

regardless of the design of this project or approval of this project. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Anyone else like to come forward? Okay. Seeing none, I would seek a motion to close public comment. All right. Have a second. Second. All right. All those in favor.

Okay. Um questions, comments, deliberation, thoughts. I I I just want to put out there that um perhaps I don't have the most recent version of the ordinance regarding the u multi- it's called a multif family suburban district but what I'm looking at would suggest that nonetheless uh in a general business district when you are then referenced or referred to the uh multifamily suburban district uh for single family one family uh structure We're talking four units per acre, which in this instance, I think means 10,000 square ft. Uh if you're talking a multif family, you can have 17 units per acre. Uh so in a in a configuration where you're of multif family buildings, you could have 17 units per acre. Uh but where you are putting in single family units, I'm still of the mind that it's 10,000 square ft or four units per acre. Um,

and you want that one. Yeah, Paul's going to take it. Um, that that is outdated. That's been updated with uh additional single family units being allowed in ordinance. I'll wait till the final review and I'll review the ordinance again.

For what's worth that section up there is the the last amendment. I'm not sure if that's referenced in your version or not. That was this year. And I'll also note if people go online looking for amendments, what I've learned as well is um amendments because of our what we use a third party, it gets updated quarterly. So if we made an if you folks adopted an amendment um in January, it might not get online until sometime in March or April, which is kind of frustrating for staff, too, because we're looking for the most current language. Oh, sorry. All right. We want to take action on this. I think Riley, you had said you had three conditions. I have two. So, can you explain the ones that you have?

If I were to make the motion, I was going to use the three staff recommendated the recommendations that staff had for uh conditions. And there's three of them on the one I had. And I was going to add in uh to the third condition that we receive a letter from DOT conf. I'm trying to think of how to word it. Confirming confirming that there's no there would not be a negative impact of this development. Ed, did you want a condition?

Uh, I I don't know so much that I want a condition, but I think the board needs to decide whether we're going to accept the open space configuration that exists here because it's not contiguous open space. And if we're being asked to approve something that is not consistent with the ordinance because we have a right to do that apparently um I think we've got to agree to do that and so it would probably at some point we would need to have a discussion around that issue and whether we think that this is reasonable open space. I I thought that the the uh the memo where the fee in lie of where they determined it would be 6,300 was because it wasn't contiguous. That was just because there wasn't enough total area.

No, I think that the the this document was handed out to us for a later application or the coming in and asking that we wave the open space requ. Okay. This applicant hasn't asked for any any alterations from the requirements of the ordinance. So would you be seeking something like a fee in lie of or would you be seeking approval because it's not because it doesn't meet the open space requirement?

I would like to see it reconfigured the plan reconfigured in such a way that the open space was contiguous. Um, and I'd also like the applicant in that regard to also um show us a minimum of 2,000 square foot or whatever area they said that was available uh for actual leased areas where perhaps uh these dwelling these dwellers uh could put out a lawn chair if they wanted to.

So, I'm in agreement with the 2,000 um square foot uh ask. Um, I would amend your question around contiguous open space and ask staff to clarify um because we're hearing there is some flexibility amongst the board to make a decision around that. And I think we want some guidance around what that flexibility entails and before we go back to an applicant and tell them to completely rearrange their their um site plan. the flex. Well, I I think two things um with respect to that, Stacy is that certainly um the board could make that motion and the applicant can figure out whether or not they can make a a reasonable argument as to whether or not they can make it contiguous or not out there. Um the flexibility that I think exists there is in part the the payment in lie. Um and they have not requested that. So that that is not something that they've considered at this point. maybe they do consider that. Um there's also language in here about um just how the land is used and where it's going to be. So, I think, you know, if the board is so inclined, I don't know that it's a I think it would be appropriate to include a motion somewhere align where Ed is is going so the applicant can go back and potentially demonstrate or not have to demonstrate that they don't have to redesign the plan. Okay. Right. Okay. Um, I mean, if they can't do that, if they look at this and they work with staff and they can't figure it out, um, or they feel they're at an impass, I guess that becomes a discussion at the next meeting as to whether or not, um, it can move forward in that fashion. Although too, that might take them a little more time. And the the value of this two-step process is other than maybe them wanting to get approval as

quick as possible, they have six months before they act they six months before they have a six-month window to come back. So you may see them in January, you may see them in February depending on the extent of additional work they have to do. Would there be enough time for if if we say determine that this because it's not contiguous doesn't meet the open space standards that there could be a fee in lie of determined by the next meeting.

Uh that's something that the applicant make the applicant can make that request. City assessor then takes a look at that determines what a value would be and then there's a whole another process as far as how that goes. as far as the payment in LO if that is the case and um I did provide this in for another project this evening um projects that look to use the um payment in loo actually have go to the parks and recck committee and get guidance from them as to how those fees may be used in this area or somewhere else in the community. So I guess to your point Riley, yes, if they go through this exercise, they don't feel either they're confident that they've met the coord ordinance requirements, although they're not and they want to explore that payment in loop, great. They can come back and say, "We're going to go that route. Okay, they still need to go to the rec committee then and actually get a recommendation from them as to how those fees may." And I don't know what that number is. The assessor will determine what that number is. That's I guess what so what what we're about to vote on is for a preliminary approval. So I have I inclined to agree with that that this doesn't meet the open space standards. So for me, I would not approve it now preliminarily or would I approve it now pre preliminarily but with the opportunity for them to come back with it being contiguous or with the them to come back with us with a assessed fee in lie of so but I would still be that would be a a recommendation by us for the next meeting but I would still recommend approval preliminary approval.

Absolutely. Yeah. So you it's it's preliminary approval. So that's the route that the board wants to go. It's motion preliminary approval with the condition that they determine that it I just see it seems to to say it doesn't I don't think it meets the standard and then vote to pre gez. Yeah.

Preliminarily approve it. Seems like it's not an approval. If if that is your position that they just don't meet that standard then I suppose the condition could be that um they have to come back and demonstrate that um they don't meet the standard and they need to come back with uh an option of of payment instead. I it's up to the board, but I think the goal would be to try to give as much guidance to the count uh excuse me, to the applicant to move forward so they can actually take the next step recognizing that you guys aren't granting final approval. The the project isn't done, right? I mean, they could go through, you can grant f preliminary approval and the traffic could be a mess out there. Um, so that's again the the idea is they're they're getting input from you folks to take the next step out there. I think you're within I think you're it's totally within your purview to do that.

Couldn't Couldn't we Isn't it enough guidance from us because the burden's on the applicant to design its project to meet the standard or to make an argument as to why a standard ought to be altered if we have the authority to do that. Isn't it enough for us this board to say to the applicant, the open space configuration doesn't meet the standard, you it's incumbent upon you to come back to us either with an alternate plan or with an argument as to why this is the only thing that works. Well, I think the question is we're not I'm not entirely Hold on. I want to hear the answer because that's exactly what I'm asking. Yeah. And I I think that's well said. Exactly.

But hold on. I I don't I don't I'm not and you do not think that this plan meets the open space requirements. Is that what you're saying? Like that is your definitive final opinion. Like you've read the ordinance, you've read through it and you completely do not believe it does versus what we've heard from staff and the applicant which is saying there's flexibility. I' I'm hearing two different things here. Well, I don't think I'm hearing the staff or the applicants say anything more than there is flexibility, but it's their burden, the applicants, to bring something to us, not for us to sit here and configure it for the applicant. Correct. Satisfaction.

What the applicant has brought us doesn't meet this doesn't meet the language of the ordinance in my opinion. In your opinion, your in your opinion. I I'm not there, but Okay. Yeah. Um, in my opinion, staff said there was flexibility. Did you want to come forward?

Yes. My name is Travis Neto. I'm with Class Associates Architects. I'm working on the design of the buildings mostly. Um, but I've uh read the definition of open space out of the zoning that's available on the website and I don't see the word contiguous in there. Um, is is could could we see where that word is is used as part of the definition of the word open space? Um, and that I think that was some of the confusion at the last meeting because there's defin different different definitions that apply as far as open space, recreation, open space standards. I referenced a number of those in my memo. Um, but um, to answer Travis's point, it's in 60-1367. It's actually what you folks have in front of you tonight for another matter as well. And it's in the first paragraph there where it talks about no less than 43560 contiguous square feet. Um, so that that's where that reference is being made.

And so where are you saying that we have flexibility? My my point with the flexibility is when you read throughout this section here, and it's it's not the best written ordinance, but there's talk about here about how the board will determine where the the open space can be, if it's a dedication of land, if there's a fee in loo to to Ed's point, I think it's the applicant's responsibility to be saying we're meeting this requirement or we can get around it somehow or no, we have to do a payment in.

Okay. And that's what you like to see, Ed, as a condition. Okay, a lot of discussion. Does anyone feel comfortable making a motion? So what I heard for conditions is the M the MDOT um in writing some sort of opinion and then um Ed you wanted to see um a plan that outlined the 2000 um was it Are you writing it right now? Okay. All right. Okay, perfect.

I move the proposed the proposal meets the requirements of section 60-1277 and 60-1359. Grant preliminary approval to Terodan Consultants LLC on behalf of Timothy Millet for housing development consisting of 69 single family homes, three multif family dwellings buildings with eight units each and an accessory 5,000qt warehouse on Danville Corner Road PI122-004 and 122-005 subject to submission of the final plan to the board. Final plan for board review and recording after meeting all preliminary conditions. The proposed project meets standards of chapter 60 article 16 division 2 site plan division excuse me site plan review and division 4 subdivision with the following additional conditions. that before final approval is given, a written opinion from MDOT be provided to the planning board indicating that the intersection of Washington Street and Danville Corner Road uh light project will not be adversely affected by this project. You can revise that if you want. Uh, comma or semicolon. Uh that the final plan show 2,000 square f foot leased lot per single family dwelling and that the final plan depict an open space that is contiguous as required by the ordinance or that the applicant present an alternative plan uh or uh or any other proposal as allowed under section

1367 of the of the uh zoning ordinance regarding recreation area and open space standards. All right. Do I have a second? I guess I just asked a question. Does that uh So, let's have a second and then we'll have a discussion of the motion. Second. Okay. Let's have a discussion of the motion. I get my hand slapped sometimes from the public if it's not done correctly. Discussion of the motion.

My my discussion would be would did you uh want to include the traffic impact impact analysis being submitted as a condition? I think is that already in part of the suggested motion? It wasn't specifically referenced. It isn't specifically referenced, but it would be my intention that the traffic analysis be presented to us at that meeting as well. So, do we need to we need to include that as a condition? Could I add an amendment uh an amended additional condition that a traffic a traffic impact analysis must be submitted to assess system impacts and identify improvements necessary to maintain acceptable service levels.

Do you have a second of the amendment to the motion? Second. All right. Any discussion of the amendment to the motion? Well, I guess I would add two additional amendments.

Any discussion? I I have to follow this. You know, you know exactly what I'm talking about. You've been on that side. Do have a discussion of the amendment of the motion that Riley just put forth. Okay. All those in favor of Riley's amendment to the motion in favor. Excellent. Riley's amendment to the motion carries. Now we're back to the original motion. And do you have a disc? Then we are in discussion. Okay. And at this point, I would suggest two more amendments. Okay.

Which would be the two other recommendations from staff. Number one, final subdivision plan must be recorded. the Andrew Scott County registry of deeds prior to issuance of building permits. Number two, water and sewer e easements must be granted to the Auburn water and sewer district prior to activation of the mains. Second.

Any discussion of the amendment to the motion? Okay, seeing none, um, all those in favor to the amendment to the motion? Excellent. Now, we're back to the original motion, which was Ed's All right. All those in favor? Motion carries. Okay. Next item on the agenda. Let me find my agenda. Okay. The next item on the agenda is the 15 Academy Street. And we'll hand this over to staff. Great. Thank you. Again, this is another one that was continued from the November meeting. Concerns that were raised by the board were regarding the the site being deficient by 15 parking spaces. The applicants provided a letter of understanding with the valley's owners of the bed uh village in uh to get those additional parking spaces. They are within 1,000 ft of the principal building. So that would meet the code requirements. There were questions about

the sight distance on Main Street. Um pulling out of the driveway. Um the applicant has been working with uh Auburn police on that. Um I don't know that they have an update tonight for that, but um I've talked to the police department as well and we can expand upon that uh at the appropriate time. Traffic and vehicle stacking on Main Street in the academy. They've provided an additional analysis that had been completed but wasn't included in the application last time. Um at the end of the day, the analysis shows that everything would still be functioning at acceptable levels out there. financial capacity. They've provided additional updates with respect to um financial capacity out there. And then there's still the remaining waiver regarding the maximum building width. Um you recall that the formbbased code talks about a maximum width of a building out there. And that is the one uh waiver that they are asking for from the formbbased code. Again, two-step process with this and the same conditions are uh recommended should the board feel um that it's appropriate to move forward with preliminary approval. And Caleb and Jack are here on behalf of the project.

Perfect.

Hi, good evening. Caleb Brass with Goral Palmer. Um thanks David for the summary there. Um I'll keep it brief as well and just kind of reiterate quickly. Um, just on the next slide, I had just a couple bullet points. So, um, things that we already talked about relating to public comment at the last meeting meeting. Just wanted to kind of gloss over quickly. We talked about lighting. Uh, talked about no changes to the building post approval. There was some comments on traffic. Uh, I think a couple of other items. I believe we commented on all of those at the last meeting, but wanted to at least kind of just brush on those. you know, all full cutoff fixtures that we have proposed on site in addition to the elevation difference between our general parking area and then those adjacent lots. Um, we're certainly understanding and and the intent is that everything proposed for our architectural elevations um it won't change post approval here or that would require some sort of uh administrative action at at the least um with the planning department. if not coming back to you folks here. Uh on the traffic congestion um kind of loops me into our other bullets below here. Uh we had an additional analysis that we had provided to the planning department uh last year and had gone through no additional comments from city staff at that point but uh that was just unintentionally omitted from our our most previous uh submission here. So, um, that goes through the full traffic impact analysis ordinance, uh, that you all you folks have. Um, all all fairly good in that sense. That included a capacity analysis, I believe, at Elman, Maine, Academy and Maine, and then the site driveway conditions. Um, all of those are are meeting or exceeding I think we have levels of service A and Basically for all of those intersections there. Uh, as David mentioned, we provide additional financial information. Uh we talked about the site distance here really briefly. I had uh more or less

the same interaction with uh city police department. I think that in it it was written into the planner's memo here. Ultimately the police I think kind of identified the issue. Um we had discussed via email. Um, I don't believe that it's really an uncommon condition here for um, a driveway on Main Street or in the downtown area that might have um, a temporary sight distance issue um, coming out onto Main Street where you do have allowed uh, on street parking as well. I think in addition to that, what I might note is that those sight distances are taken 10 feet away from the travel way and then a certain distance three and a half ft above the ground. So, if there's a car in that line of sight, um, at the time of the measurement, that's what's put in there. But ultimately, uh, if you pull up to a street and there's a tree in the way, you're probably going to creep forward a little bit when when you go to look out. And so, the same would be true here where if there's a car parked there, you're also going to have a protected additional 8 ft that you can kind of creep forward uh, to be able to get some better view. So, uh, I don't think that there's really any issue with with that sight distance. I think I'd go along with with the recommendations from others that, you know, if if the board certainly thought that we needed to uh try to remove an on street space, we could certainly go that route, but I think the police department uh on off-site parking uh we had provided additional information there, letters of understanding with um the uh adjacent folks on High Street at the village in. And then uh last item here that we just want to continue that discussion on was the waiver item for the building length along our frontage there. Uh other than that um I have the same plans we had and rendering from last meeting. Uh we do have at the very end updated black and white elevations too we can look at. Um that elevation also included the one update that we didn't have in time for your packets last meeting. That was um just an update

on the penistration and then ultimately we did remove the architectural site plan that had the wrong kind of conditions along the added street there. Other than that, I'll turn it back over to the board uh and happy to open up discussion. Excellent. Any questions for the applicant?

I'm I'm not clear. I'm sorry. So yeah, I I'll just bring you back to the um the sight distance requirement because I read in the packet uh I guess it's more a question for David. In the conversation with the police department, did they specify a particular solution to that if they were willing to like you know end park street parking to a certain distance to accommodate the development? Is there any solution to that? Yeah, I I they didn't make a a final decision out there other than they would work with the applicant. The conversation was though that um parking could be eliminated out there as far as the police department's concerned. They didn't think that it was necessarily um spaces that are in high demand. And if it does make a situation a little safer, then it's probably not an issue. It was striped, I believe, four or five spaces out there. We were trying to figure it out. If you look at Google, you can kind of see where the images are. and DOT went out there and striped it as part of the repaving something totally contrary to what was there before. Um those spaces are not striped anymore. It's actually a a narrower um or maybe a wide shoulder but not necessarily enough room for parking there. So um I I think it can go either way and it's going to be a matter of a final recommendation between the applicant and PD as to how to how to proceed out there. Is the waiver still in play? Are you still looking for a waiver for the length of the facade?

Correct. Just the one waiver.

Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Seeing none, I'd take a motion to open up public comment. So moved. I have a second. Second. All right. All those in favor. All right. Um, if you would like to come forward and have uh have comments about this project, come to the podium, state your name, your address, and you have five minutes. Okay, seeing nobody coming forward, I would seek a motion to close public comment. So move. All right. Second. Second.

All those in favor? Great. All right. Discussion, conversation, thoughts. motion. You know what I do want to say though and Steph I have a question for you. So when if the motion is to preliminary approve um as part of the motion in our packet, it says recording after meeting all preliminary conditions. There are five conditions noted within our packet. Can they just say all five preliminary conditions if there's any extra as well? They don't have to read the specific five conditions out the way that Bob previously did. Correct. Probably not, but at the same time, um,

okay, for the record, I mean, for the record. Okay, that's fine.

Someone's going to have some mic time. I make a motion that the proposal meets the requirements of section 60-1277 and 60-1359 and grant pre preliminarily preliminary approval to Goro Palmer on behalf of Auburn Town Center Apartments LLC for the construction of a 53 unit residential development at 15 Academy Street. Subject to submission of the final plan for board review and recording after meeting all preliminary preliminary conditions, the proposed project has met the standards pursuant to chapter 60, article 4, division 14 formbbased code, article 16 division 2 site plan review and division 4 subdivision with the following conditions. One, prior to the issuance of buildings permits, the final subdivision plan shall be recorded at the Androsken County Registry of Deeds. Two, no plans shall be recorded and no permits issued until the applicant demonstrates to city staff or the planning board if necessary that 15 additional off- streetet parking spaces have been provided. Three, no plan shall be recorded, no permits issued until the applicant demonstrates that final easements are signed and recorded. Four, that a waiver from the maximum building width shall be granted and allow a proposed 276 ft building width along Academy Street. And five, before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant must coordinate with the city to determine whether parking restrictions on Main Street are necessary in the immediate vicinity of the driveway.

Do I have a second? Second.

Do have discussion of the motion. Okay, seeing none, all those in favor? All right, motion carries. All righty. On to the next item. New business, right? Okay. New business, public hearing, site plan review, preliminary subdivision review, 146 Manley Road. Um, and when you say preliminary subdivision review, we're doing that twopiece again. Okay, the preliminary with conditions if there are any. And then, um, you can always continue if we need to. Um, but I think we're getting the hang of this. So, So, Trillium Engineering has submitted a project on behalf of Homes for All LLC for 14 lot subdivision at 146 Manley Road. It's in the T42B district. That's a form based code district. Um, this is subject to subdivision review because they're splitting it up into more than three lots out there. So they've met a number of requirements through their application as far as updated site plans addressing the subdivision provisions out there. They've um referenced the formbbased code application and they've s provided um some renderings with respect to that and they've done a simple traffic impact analysis indicating that 17 trips are expected in the peak car out there. Engineering has looked at that and agrees that it's ne negligible um as far as traffic. Um there are a number of issues that remain with respect to this. Um there are wetlands on the property out there and the applicant has noted that they'll need to obtain DP permits for wetland disturbance to meet setbacks out there. Um staff's recommending that any required disturbance setbacks be

shown on the plans. Open space. We just had a big open space discussion here. Um, this is a 14 lot subdivision and they need to require 63,560 square feet of open space. Their total lot area is 110,27 square ft. So given the density that they are looking for out there, they want to do a fe pavement for the open space. Um, what I provided you folks um, this evening was a copy of the ordinance. Um, and I shared this with the applicant as well, highlighting the sections that speak specifically to the the Lou and P, excuse me, fee and Lu arrangements. And I added notes there that kind of summarize um, for the applicant and really for staff's benefit as well as the boards as to how this works. Um, my understanding in speaking with staff is they can't remember the last time they actually received a payment in loo. Um there was one project on Gamage Avenue. It was a three lot subdivision where it was considered but they never paid. Um it sounds like everybody has done open space and no one's actually contributed. So this is somewhat uncharted territory for everybody. Um and and again the reason I broke this down to try to make it clear as to how this process is supposed to work. We can talk more about that as we work through the project. Water and sewer requirements. There's some concerns about whether or not they're going to connect to um Rodman Road or um Manley Road out there. They've been having conversations with water and sewer about that as to how to make those connections. If they do make the connections to Rodman Road, they will need to get a city um an easement from the city. Um again, the applicants speak a little more to that. Um but um staff has looked into that and city is acceptable to granting an easement if they need to go to Rodman Road. storm water. They have not completed a storm water design at this point. They are aware that they need to have one out

there and it'll need to be determined who's responsible for the storm water out there. If it's going to be the city or homeowners association, I understand the road to be a city accepted street at this point, but depending on how they do the storm water out there, um it'll need to be determined whether or not that's the city's responsibility or against some other um entity like a homeowners association. and uh financial capacity. You do have a letter that was provided to you this evening um from the applicant. I literally received it probably maybe around 4:00 today um referencing funding associated with this project. Uh again, it's a two-step process. So, they are looking for preliminary approval tonight with any conditions. You'll note that there are a number of conditions um that staff is referencing with respect to this project at these times. Certainly uh ask that you guys take that into consideration as well as any other concerns you have. And there Eric Dooie is here on behalf of the project.

Great. Thanks David. Appreciate that. Um, so Eric Dubbie Troy Engineering and been working with staff on this project for it's been probably a little while actually been a number of months and I know that the owners have been working on this too. First time for you. So we're looking forward to getting your comments on um on this particular subdivision. The I guess the big uh the big question for us is really the open space. um connection to utilities, knowing that this is preliminary and we have some work to do between final, certainly working with staff and working with um public works and engineering about those connectivity issues and just trying to figure out what the what the best way to do that. We've received some feedback that um connecting in Manley Road is preferred on that even though there's a moratorum there. So, I think we need to do a little more um back and forth with them and then talk about the water and then sewer connections on that technical uh basically technical solvable issue for sewer is um checking on the um the elevations for gravity. If we don't have that, then we're certainly going to put in some sort of um pumping station that's going to meet city specs. So, don't have an issue with that. We can solve that between now and and final and then and then get that nailed down as well. Storm water. Same thing. We didn't really jump into storm water yet. We we can we have some options to be able to do that. Again, another technical issue that we're going to meet the requirements with regards to engineering and with public works. Um and uh but didn't want to go through that step as of yet until again we really nail down the open space and kind of have that discussion and get some feedback from the planning board and kind of nail that down. We did

supply some information about traffic, about the 17 peak hour trips, AM, PM. That's been nailed down. Sorry for the tardiness of the or the lateness, I should say, of the financial capacity, but again, knowing that we're trying to get checklist items done. Um, and this is a preliminary meeting, getting those nailed down before we go to in this two-step process before we go to the next one. That's really what what our goal is on that. So, So, with the recreational requirement, I mean, I think David nailed it down pretty well. We've got 110,000 foot lot and the way the ordinance is written, having an acre for the first 10 units and then 5,000 square ft for any additional units. I mean, obviously with a with that size lot, small lot in city lot, it's tough to do those open space requirements for that. So, so that's why we said at that point, um, really our choice is the inloop fee on that. It's been done before, probably not that frequent, but certainly that's that's what our option is to be able to provide the the affordable housing that we're looking at for year. So, we did take a look at the wetland impacts. We're under the thresholds that D um, you know, is for tier basically tier one. So, we know that we have those setbacks to the rear of the um the property on that. So, we did take a look at a firet truck templing uh or template turning radius on that, provided that information as well that was requested and um we know that that meets that requirement and I think that basically sums it up. um the formbbased code. We hadn't really discussed that too much with staff, but we have supplied some

information on that. So, again, looking for feedback on that as well. So, I think that's that's kind of a bunch of the stuff that we've been going back and forth with staff and look forward to hearing some of your comments, questions. All right. So, this is a new project before us. So, we have the applicant right here. Any questions? preliminary thoughts you'd like to float by them.

I have a question more for staff. So, okay. Okay. Yeah, absolutely. So, there there seem to be an awful lot of open issues whether it's sewer Can you hear him? Okay. Uh, I can a little bit. Yeah, it looks like the microphone's maybe a little bit off. So,

well, all right. Um, there appear to be a lot of open issues still. sewer, water, as you've mentioned, as David mentioned, and um it would seem rather premature to grant some sort of preliminary approval with as many open issues as there are, but um perhaps we will. I do want to compliment you, and I know I've raised this with other applicants before, but at least you've submitted, although only today. I appreciate the uh financial uh capacity letter. It's just very specific. It says that there's money set aside. they can make these improvements. Um, and compared with some of the other financial capacity letters we get that I agree.

Yeah, this ought to be a template that perhaps you can show other applicants. Um uh with regarding the open space, I realize that um our ordinance, I think, is very generous in giving the developer a lot of uh flexibility, but I I I do want to hear a general discussion about what recreational opportunities there are for uh people who might be living in this this development. I mean, that's that's an area that's mostly commercial and industrial. I mean, so if you contribute $6,300 to the city of Auburn parks and reccks department, what does that really do for these people out there? That a question for me or staff?

Oh, yeah. It was an opinion, but you know, I mean, no, we're kind of getting off target here, but I I am in a little bit in agreement with you, Ed. Um, there are some open items, and I was like, huh, okay. But I I I hear what you're saying. So, do you want me to address a few of those or I guess what would be be nice to know is, you know, is is it realistic to think that next month you're going to have all of these open items closed? If not, let's just uh wait until you closure and we'll take it up in the spring.

Yes. So, I'll certainly defer to the board on on that piece. What I can say is that knowing what we know um from the last day or so that um so if we end up doing the inloo fee then we have to go to essentially the recreation commission to get that approved and figure out you know how that money is going to be used and and then be able to go through that process. That's not going to happen till January. So at this point, the first the first point where we can be heard back here is going to be February. So we can certainly address those issues that we're talking about. Um again, technical issues, you know, the biggest issue still is recreational open space for us, but the other technical issues, I mean, we've already had conversations with staff and and they're easily solvable from from an engineering standpoint. So um and that's what we're going to end up doing in in the next next month. So, so I don't have any concern about solving solving the utility issues, getting capacity issues and um and the storm water issue. I mean, the wetland is really just if I can just be frank on that

because that's one of my concerns is the wetlands. Yeah. So, essentially what we're talking about is we've got a finger here that comes in back here. This won't be impacted over here, but we're probably going to do is somewhere some sort of straight line over here and in here. And we're talking about less than uh I think we're talking about overall less than 5,000 square feet impact for the wetlands themselves. So well if you're at 4,300 or so isn't you don't need approval for that do you correct? I mean you still have to go through Army Corps but technically you don't need approval.

So hold on. So, I'm looking at the environmental permitting says all wetland boundaries, disturbances, and setbacks must be shown on the final site plan. And you're saying you're you're guesstimating about 5,000. Yeah, we've looked at we've we've looked at that already. We haven't shown that as of yet, but certainly show that in the final plan. Do you know why it hasn't been shown on the site plan? I No, I'm not sure. um we just ended up putting it in for preliminary and we didn't really get into the wetland cells but since we've worked with staff in the past since we've submitted we've worked with staff and said look this is you know good question on that this is what we've come up with with our calculations

I will say for full transparency um planning board just so you know we have uh pre-planning board meetings and I did ask David I was like why is this on our agenda so I'm not I'm not wasting your time I did say why is this on the agenda and you had said the applicant wanted to come before us. So just just in case you guys are questioning me.

Absolutely. And so just to kind of further that talk. So let's just say if there's a huge issue with the recreational open space here um you know with the planning board or they certainly have a separate opinion about the inland fee or whatever else then it makes this project very difficult from you know our point of view of moving forward. So for instance, if we had to meet open space requirements and we were at um you know we could only get two lots then at that point we've wasted our time doing engineering utility connections plans things like that. So that's why we're really here to get feedback specific feedback on the form base and on the recreational.

Okay good to know. Yeah because again I'm not trying to avoid that. I'm just saying it gets expensive for us to be able to do that and maybe people aren't familiar with how we work, you know, engineers in general, but that takes up a lot of our time solving those issues. So, if we solve the issue on a 14 lot subdivision that doesn't go forward, then I've wasted my clients time and effort on that and money. What's that? And money. Yeah. Yeah, that's exactly right. So, um, so I just, you know, I want to be fully transparent and just say, hey, look, this is it's a big question. you know, the technical issues are very simple for us. We do that every day. That's that's the simple part. It's the other stuff that's a little more subjective. So,

do you have a number of units you'd have to eliminate to be able to meet the open space requirements? I know there would be some reconfiguring obviously, but yeah. Um, is it close? No, that's I didn't think so. No, it's not. I mean, when you talk about 110,000 foot lot and you talk about taking David talked about 65,000 square ft, I mean, that's over half and you have wetlands on that lot. So, it's start, you know, you're not going to build the roadway. So, you're going to do separate driveway access. So, this is where crushing the open space, too.

Yeah. Smaller lots. I mean, this is where the ordinance doesn't always talk about smaller lots. I mean, when you when you go to design these things, the open space talks about bigger lots and and things like that and uh but it makes it very tough to do um smaller lots with this form based code. Uh with regards to open space, I guess my question for staff was um since we're not really discussing the merits of the open space standards versus whether or not this meets them. Uh and you mentioned that the park department said they haven't received the is would there be would the board have the ability to make a condition that if we were to approve a fee in lie of that uh ground couldn't be broken until the parks department received that fee.

There's a a whole mechanism here that needs to be somewhat followed here. So the assessors determined that the fee would be $6,300. Um, before any final approval is granted, the wreck department actually has to take into consideration how that money would be used and provide you folks a recommendation. Um, they're supposed to look at whether or not there's any existing facilities in this area and maybe that's where it gets used or h how is it going to get used. You folks can weigh into that as well. There's actually language in here that talks about um the board needing to discuss whether um the there a land dedication should occur or whether or not a fee in L is acceptable. Um interestingly enough, you could say no, we think that this needs open space and and to Eric's point, that changes things quite a bit out there, right? he doesn't want to spend a bunch of engine time and money on a 14 lot subdivision only for the board to say no you need open space because that changes everything out there. So I think at a minimum tonight it would be good for both staff and the applicant to know that um it's it's a fee in L is reasonable as a reasonable alternative to providing open space out there. They would then go to the recck committee. They meet once a month. They're literally meeting tomorrow night but not in time for this. So, they would go to a January meeting where the applicant would say, "Hey, great. We got a development out on Manley and Rodman Road. We're going to be able to contribute potentially $6,300 and the planning board needs a recommendation from you folks as to how and what's the best way to use that. Is it benches? Is it sidewalks? Is it swings? Is it making pedestrian crossing improvements or something out there?"

So, in this zone, it's generally for residential purposes. Um, and to get 14 units per acre, you'd really have to have multif family structures, right? I know this these are all single family, which is what's making it difficult to get the the open space um cuz you're allowed three times almost 310 because it's not quite three acres, but um but That's that's absolutely right. This is this is and my understanding that was a change that was made some time ago. Open space apparently used to apply for all residential developments and there was an amendment made at one point and now it applies to single family. It's not clear to me whether or not it was discussed at the time whether the open space provision should apply to form based code

right areas but it does. I think the open space provisions whenever they were drafted were probably done uh more in the traditional residential zoning districts that Yeah. And as the developers get more creative, it's throwing new issues in front of everybody um to discuss and figure out. That said, I don't know that it's a bad thing necessarily either for developments to be having this conversation because it is dense development and is it appropriate to provide open space and this has been a successful delivery method for the owner doing the single family versus the multi just to kind of answer that question.

Just I have a couple of questions. I think this is a good project. Um my understanding is that these would be single family homes that would be sold and owned by individual families. That's correct.

That's great. Um has the city of Auburn offered to convey to you perhaps their adjacent land that apparently I read somewhere is unbuildable or unusable. Is it is it possible that that could be your open space? It's right next door. There anything wrong with that land? So just to be clear and we're talking about this piece here. There have been discussions with the city a little bit back and forth. I'm not sure exactly you know the conversations about that about you know incorporating that into this parcel. I can tell you that it's not going to meet you know it's let's just say this it's not going to be the 63,000 along with other stuff. So, we're not going to meet the intent of the ordinance if you know that with that piece of land because 60 I'm sorry, 63 Yeah, essentially 63,000 you know 560 is what we're talking about for because we have 14 lots. So, you're talking about 43 560 plus 5,000 per um unit. So, so we're not getting that 63,000 with that and and the other pieces of land with the roadway.

Now, the the other piece of that it is partial wetlands and it is partial drainage ditch and you know to answer that other piece of the question that you asked and some scrub brush and things like that. Okay. Um, did I see some discussion between you and the department about whether there would be side a sidewalk on your street?

That we hadn't really focused in on that um and discussed that. Uh we that's why we looked at the uh kind of the traffic piece. I'll again I'll defer to you know staff and the board about if that's required then we can certainly discuss that and add that in. Um, I'll know with that that there is a requirement there to for the applicant to to address that and then engineering would make a determination as to whether or not a sidewalk is needed out there for connectivity. Um, it has been discussed. Um, I don't know that engineering has taken a a final position on it. There is a sidewalk on Manley Street. Um, this is should be a quiet road out there. There's no reason to go down this road unless you're living on it. So there may be an ability to have a um not have to have a sidewalk. Um but that's been the extent of the conversation at this point.

What does how does the city staff make it a determination about whether a sidewalk is necessary or not? What is there a standard? I I don't know that there's so much of a standard as much as looking at providing connectivity to existing pedestrian infrastructure in the area. So there is one on Manley Street there now. So, does it make sense to have I don't know the the length of this road, but literally I mean you walk in either direction within 100 yards you're probably getting to a sidewalk. So,

any other questions for the applicant?

Okay, seeing none, I'd uh seek a motion to open up public comment. So moved. Do you have a second? Second. All right. All those in favor? Motion carries. Um, if you are a member of the public and you like to come forward and uh have an opinion about this project, please come to the podium. You have five minutes. State your name and your address. Um, hi Chelsea Eaton. Uh, Trap Road Auburn. I just have Chelsea. Did we get your last name? Eaton.

Okay. Chelsea Eaton. Okay. Um, I just have a question. There's something I'm not understanding. What What is this $6,300 from the parks department? Is that I'm just curious what that is? I'm not understanding it. Is it is that something that the um the developer is not meeting open space requirements and so they're proposing uh this funding to the parks department as uh a replacement for the open space to put something in that neighborhood? I I'm not I don't I don't understand it. if somebody could just clarify that. That's all.

Okay, perfect. Thank you. All right. Anyone else like to come forward? Okay, seeing none, I would take a motion to close public comment. So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All right. All those in favor. Okay. So, um, she had a question about the, uh, payment in Lou for the open space and how it works. So, I don't know if applicant if you want to if staff wants to. David, do you want to do or you want me?

Um, I think Miss Eaton might understand it better than she thinks. That's exactly what it is. Um, they because they can't provide the required amount of open space within the development. The ordinance gives them the ability to contribute an an amount of of uh, excuse me, a fee in exchange for providing that open space. And then that fee can be used to provide recreational improvements somewhere. Ideally, those improvements would occur in or around the neighborhood of this development, but it doesn't have to occur there. The recreation committee can provide recommendations, suggestions as to what may occur. There aren't any I don't believe there is anything for recreation or open space anywhere in this area. So, it's probably actually a neighborhood that would actually benefit from something.

All right. Okay. Um, questions, comments, thoughts? I think you heard the applicant say, um, yeah, there are some some outstanding items, right? But before they move forward, wanting to Well, I I had expressed some reservation about granting a preliminary approval, but I'm I'm satisfied with the applicant's description of the problems as being or the open issues as being easily surmountable. Fair to say what you've said.

Yeah. um and that really it's out of our bail wick until the recck department or rec committee comes back to us with their proposal on the open space. So I guess I I'd be inclined to to grant the preliminary approval rather than continuing the preliminary review. Yeah, I'm inclined to go with Ed based upon the reasonability of being asked this. Right. It doesn't come very often, right? And if we were opposed to it, then it does not make sense for them to, you know, continue with all the other pieces. So, may I ask staff one more question?

Always. Yeah. So, this will be a private road. Uh, no. I believe or a public road. I believe they're proposing as a public road. Okay. That's the intent is to design it to public road standards. Sidewalk or non. That's what I thought. and utilities. Same thing. Um, okay. Definitely look into the sidewalk cuz I'm I if it was private, I think you need a sidewalk to connect to the main road, but I'm not sure about a public one.

I'll note I mean I I I think it's safe to say the city isn't necessarily interested in accepting any more streets than we have to. Um but it's the applicant's purview to um pursue and uh you know this is roads are built to the same standards public or private to the same standards. Because of that most applicants then look to have a road accepted because there is no difference between the two. Um so uh we don't necessarily need any more roads to plow or patch or anything like that. They certainly can uh go to the council and seek approval as a city accepted street. All righty. If there's no more questions, I would seek a motion. Uh I have I'll just step up. Uh, I make a motion that the proposal meets the standards of sections 60-1277 and 60-1359 and pre preliminary approval and pre and preliminary approve of the application and site plan submitted by Trillum Engineering Group on behalf of Homes for All LLC has submitted an application for a proposed 14 lot single family subdivision at 146 Manley Road PI 198- - 037 and 1 198-038. The proposed project has met the standards pursuant to chapter 60, article 4, division 14, formbbased code, article 16, division 2, site plan review, and division 4 subdivision.

There are six conditions

with the sixth condition. Okay. with the following uh and I move that we uh grant the prelim preliminary approval of the application subject to the following conditions. One, environmental plan uh permitting applicant shall obtain all required MD wetland permits. All wetland boundaries, disturbances, and setbacks must be shown on the final site plan. Two, open space applicant must meet the 60 Well, oh no, we're not doing that. uh or obtain approval of a fee in L. So I guess the motion would include the approval for a fee in L three. Water and sewer applicants shall coordinate all water sewer designs with the city and Auburn uh water sewer district including main size hydrant and service details. Connection to Manley Road is preferred. If connecting to Rodman Road, a city util utility easement, P number 198-036 is required and gravity flow must be verified for engineering site design. Full storm water design and maintenance plan must be provided before final approval. applicant shall address sidewalk connection to Manley Road uh and provide updated fire apparatus turning movements. I think this one's already been addressed.

It is. Yep. Correct. Yep. So, you can just move on. Yeah. Yeah. And then five. Prior to recording and issuance of building permits, the final subdivision plan shall be recorded at the Anders County Registry of Deeds. All right. Do you have a second? Second. Any discussion of the motion? Okay. Seeing none, all those in favor? Excellent. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you for your feedback.

All right. So, the next item on the agenda is 100 Penley Corner Road. This is a solar project. Um staff is going to talk about this. This project was before us. We approved it. I think what happened is they there's an expiration, right? It's been greater than two years. So, just kind of bringing it forward. Um again, but just just I know this was years ago. So, just so everyone knows, this was previously approved. Um, and now we are it's back before us. So TRC and Next AMP on behalf of Auburn Renewables 2 LLC are seeking site plan and special exception approval for a 0.99 megawatt ground solar array in approximately 11.9 acres on Penley Corner Road. Stacy mentioned this was previously approved for um by the board as a 2.5 megawatt facility. So this is a slightly smaller area um reducing the impervious area. The ordinance as some of you may know is very specific to solar energy generating facilities. Um, I won't go through all the criteria that are listed in uh the memo here, but they are very specific as far as height regulations, technical safety, maintenance, lot coverage, visual impact, lighting, unbuilt areas, maintenance plan, and

whatnot. Um, they've addressed all of these criteria in as part of their application. Um they also must provide um uh basically a bond for purposes of decommissioning the solar array should it ever cease to be used. Um they provided a copy of that. Um that was required by D. Um all these solar facilities require the same type of decommissioning um requirements that D requires. So they they've met that requirement there. Um so in addition to the solar generating facility requirements, they also have to meet the um site plan review requirements and they have to meet the um special exception requirements. Um one thing I will call out um they talk about lot coverage in the ordinance. The ordinance states that lot coverage shall not exceed 30%. Um they are at 0.54% of a 11 acre parcel. So they're well below the lot coverage um ratio. There is a provision in the ordinance talks about no um about when 1% of the a district has been developed into solar generating facilities. The board must determine whether additional projects will material materially alter the district's land use stability. Uh this project is below that one% threshold. Um looking at what the board has actually approved in the past since the ordinance was adopted in 2020 uh it looks like um only about 73 acres of 19,000 have been approved and or developed with um solar projects. So we're well under the threshold before we have to start requiring applicants to u talk about their additional impact to the a zone. I guess maybe the other point I wanted

to point out is um there's language in there that talks about um soil development on prime farmland and applicants have to demonstrate the so soil t soil types excuse me that um these projects are located on um so there's a difference between prime fire farm land and farmland of sight farmland of statewide significance this project is not located on prime farmland even though it is being farmed out there. Um so because of that it doesn't actually it's not applicable but the applicant went through the exercise showed the soils out there and demonstrated um that it is while it may be on um state uh land of statewide significance. It's not on prime farmland and that's the prohibition in other ordinance.

I think that's really it from staff's perspective other than we have the um special exception and site plan criteria in there. We are recommending one condition of approval that the applicant shall submit a final asbuilt plan to the fire prevention officer indicating all shut off shutdown mechanisms for emergency response. That's uh language that's in the solar ordinance there. So, we figured we put it in as a condition just kind of as a checks and balances to make sure that that actually follows through what if and when the project is up there. Sorry, I don't know this gentleman's name.

Hi. Uh good evening. So, I'm Henry Barrett. I am a director of business development at Nexamp. And so, thanks for for having us here tonight. As you mentioned, um, we were here several years ago. Um, just a little bit about Nexamp. We were founded in 2007 and we started out primarily building smaller rooftop and wind turbines. Since then, we've evolved into a vertically integrated solar energy company. We design, own, and operate all of our projects. We're long-term owner and operator. We've been working in Maine since about 2019. We now operate about 43 projects across the state, both in central Maine and person territories. Uh we have about 15,000 uh community solar subscriber customers throughout the state of of Maine. So we also own the the project just around the corner off of Riverside Drive as well. that project came online in 2024. So, as you mentioned, yeah, there's there's kind of a long history with this project. It started out at a at a much at a bigger size. We ran into uh impact study delays with CMP. The state then changed rules a couple of times on how big a project we could do. And so the current size of just less than one megawatt is what the state currently allows for these community solar projects. So here we are. We've gone through all the studies with CMP. We've assigned interconnection agreement with them. And so we're back here to uh um go for secondary approval um given the the changes that we've seen in the project. Um,

as mentioned, it's it's a currently a farm field now. Um, farmers been uh sewing corn out there for the last several years. And um I'm also here with uh TRC, our civil engineering partner. And at this point, I'll I'll hand it over to to Tom kind of go through some more details in the site plan and then happy to answer any questions you may have. Everybody, Tom Daniels with with TRC. So, I want to just point out a couple things on this plan. Hopefully, you can hear me. The it's a little messy because this is our comparison plan. I thought it'd be helpful to show you what it looked like before and then what we've done to refine it from there. So, the the horizontal lines are the previous array layout. You can kind of see those grayed out underneath the blue. That's a a fixed tilt system similar to what's out at Riverside. Those don't move. Those are standard and they run in the east west direction facing south. Based on the the reduction in the project size and and the change in equipment in addition to shrinking it by about half. So the original layout the fencston in area was about 11.8 acres. This new fenced in area drops it down to about 5.9 acres and then that's going to be a single axis tracker array. So those are the ones that they run in the north south direction and they track from east to west as the as the sun moves. So that's another change that's happened with the technology that's allowed this project to stay viable and feasible as the size decreased. The point of access on Penley Corner Road is going to stay. There's an existing farm use, it's not really curb cut because there's no curb on that road, but uh the existing, you know, access path that's going to be upgraded to a gravel low access road. Uh we've designed the the site to to provide access for both construction vehicles, which will be the largest vehicles that ever enter this property to deliver the transformer and some of the equipment. And then that area is

large enough for large fire apparatus to maneuver safely and stage in there ever was a need to access the site. Post construction, um very low use, low traffic. A couple times a year, they'll only be allowed to mow two times per year. That's a state requirement for their storm water permit. There are no wetland impacts. We've reduced those as previously proposed and we are now going through the process of amending and revising the previous permits solar decommissioning uh storm water PBR permit by rule which we've already received and there is no NERPA or Army Corps permits required here. So that is generally the overview. Uh closest solar panel to the property line is approximately 90 ft. That's in the the kind of the northern northern tip there to the northern property line. And then to the closest of butter to the south, there's a house that was recently built since the original project was approved. Solar panels are about 430 ft approximately to that nearest resident and there is no tree clearing proposed for this project.

Excellent. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Seeing none, I'd open I'd take a motion to open up public comment. So, so move. Do you have a second? All right. All those in second. Second. Second.

Okay. All those in favor. Great. If you Oh, is this This is a public comment, right? Yeah. Um, if you would like to come forward, uh, state your name, you have five minutes and your address. Stephen behes I previously provided. Uh I'm curious uh this application is to be reviewed uh under site plan review and division three of article 16 chapter 60 special exceptions. But I'm curious as to why it's being reviewed under the more general special exceptions provision of the ordinance and not under the very specific provisions governing solar arrays that is provided in section 145 of uh chapter 60. Uh as the board may recall, there was a very massive amendment uh series of amendments made to the Azone ordinance uh which were finalized less than two years just about two years ago, September of 2023. And under those there are a number of permitted uses and some 20 or so special exception uses. Among those, I believe it's uh subsection 18 is that governing solar arrays. And that section under itself is virtually two pages in length and contains a great deal of detail on solar arrays. And I'm wondering why we're not reviewing it under that subsection.

All right. Any other members of the public like to come forward?

My name is Robert Parent. I mean, I live at 1313 Riverside Drive. I pretty sure my property, if it's like last year, borders the uh project here. And like I had um I don't know what the exception is, but the last time this came up, quite a few of us, the neighbors in the area, a problem with this cuz this landowner has already have a project on his property already. He's a farmer. Massive area, which you can see from Riverside Drive, especially when the sun hits it. Um now this is on his property. We got to get the the question is agricultural resource protection. How is this agricultural? And if this is an except for this, what stops me with mine just under 8 acres putting up under, you know, a building development on my property because I think right now the lots are supposed to be just four I think four acres or something. Um it's the whole philosophy if you will. My question is about uh if we're setting aside agricultural area and a farmer is using it for industrial production which is what this is. Uh this is not just a whole production law. Yes. Yes. Um where do we stop and what is the impact for us? I see a lot of studies of impacts but my land borders there. uh my taxes going to be lowered because my value of my land goes down because he's making money. These are serious issues for the neighbors anyways the area. Just something to consider in this. I know you've you accepted the other project but as this goes in two years is there going to be another field the same farmer coming up with this? Is he farming electricity or is he you know growing corn or raising uh cattle? uh

it's something to the for us who live in this area who have to abide by the restrictions and now they're being eaten away for somebody else to make money. So this is just an issue uh I think we in general as I I don't sympathize I sympathize with you people with your work but it's an issue we have I think that should be addressed with what's coming here. It seems to be there's a whittling away at the whole concept of what's agricultural and what is protected resources. That's it. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else like to come forward? Okay. Seeing none, I would seek a motion to close public comment. So moved. Second. Second. All those in favor? Okay. Excellent. So could you uh speak to Mr. Beal's question about why we're reviewing it?

Yeah, absolutely. So the applicant has addressed those criteria. I think the concern may be that my motion doesn't actually reference those criteria. Page one of my staff comments actually references the section that um stabil referring to 60-145 and highlights all those criteria 1 through 11 there. So I believe from staff's perspective they have addressed that section. Um if there's some concern to that I guess the applicant speak can speak more specifically to those sections. Um other than um my suggestion would be then that the motion should not only just reference the uh site plan review and special exception criteria but also the criteria of section uh 60-145. And could you also, we went over it earlier, but could you just restate the the limits for the agricultural use of solar and and where we're at within those limits?

Absolutely.

Thank you, Riley. Um, so some of you folks probably are are more familiar with this than I am, but um I believe that was part of the reason the ordinance was written as such to make sure that there were some um guard rails or limits as to how much agricultural land might be developed with solar projects. So the the ordinance which was adopted in May of 2020 basically says that you can put solar arrays in the A zone as a matter of right if you meet the requirements and go through the process tonight once we hit 1% of the A land developed with solar projects then they have to speak to additional criteria as far as the land use stability. I could pull up that section of the ordinance to see exactly what those provisions are, but we're not at that point yet. So, until we hit 1%, then there's an additional set of standards that applicants will need to speak to in order to get approval. Um, indirectly related to is again the the conversation about the soils out there. Yeah, ordinance does regulate a specific type of um soils that need to be avoided when these developments are proposed. This is avoiding those soils. It is farmland out there. Um it's being used for for for farmland out there, but it doesn't fit the criteria that would necessarily prohibit an array from being installed out there. All right. Questions, comments, thoughts?

So, if we were to move move forward with a motion to approve, we'd want to modify what we've been given from language to include the the section 145 of the ordinance. Is that what I'm hearing? Because it has been evaluated under that provision. Pivot. Uh yes. uh that I mean the majority of this memo is referencing that section of 60-140. So we would just add that to the motion. That's what I'd recommend.

All right. Would someone like to make a motion? just comment real quickly. Uh I feel like maybe it was a couple years ago, I don't know, the state kind of incentivized solar farms and having building solar on agricultural land that's been contaminated with PAS and like unusable farmland. So, I'd just like to just put out there that, you know, I mean, even though this isn't prime farmland, it is identified as statewide significance. And so it's just parted to the comments that the public made was that if we want to preserve and the comp plan or the uh ordinance wants to preserve agricultural land in this town to sort of keep in mind that we should be using our land and resources uh utilizing it appropriately. And I think although this project could be could be done on unfarmmable land even though it's not presented to us today as that there we should be considering that in terms of future projects moving forward. So

appreciate that. Yeah.

Just for clarification. What's what's the what's the uh section name for 60-145? What's his title? I don't have the ordinance in front of me.

Uh I believe it's 60 article 18 solar generating facilities. I can uh 6145 19 I think. Do I say that here?

Yes, which that's what I was pulling up here on the screen for the board. So see this is it starts here at 19 and it's literally all these criteria that I believe Mr. Be was referring to in addition to um site plan criteria and special exception criteria. So, I would suggest if the if the board's inclined, the the motion would include reference to if they want, they could use that language. Um, chapter 60, article 4, division 2, section 145, B19. I make a motion to approve the site plan special exception by Auburn Renewables to LLC con to construct a.99 megawatt ground solar array on approximately 11.9 acres on Penley Corner Road. proposed project meets the standards pursuant to chapter 60, article 16, division 2 site plan review and division three special exception and article 18 solar energy generating systems as well as section 60-4 division 2 section 145 with the following condition that prior to the final electrical approval the applicant shall submit a final asbuilt site plan to the fire prevention officer for indicating all shutdown mechanisms for emergency response.

Do you have a second? Second.

Do you have any discussion of the motion? All right. All those in favor? Excellent. Motion carries. Great. All righty. One more item. The zoning map amendment initiated by the city council at the request of the Auburn Lewon Municipal Airport. See, at the request of the Lewis and Auburn Municipal Airport, the council voted unanimously on October Number six, a direct staff prayer zoning amendment uh for the planning board's consideration. The proposal seeks to reszone approximately 27 acres of airport airport owned land from suburban residential and low density residential to the industrial district. Both parcels are currently split zone between residential industrial and they're owned by the airport. The intent of the airport is to bring all their land to compliance by designating it entirely in the industrial zone. Um sure the applicant will get into it but um with respect to the one property the Roundy property that consists of about 24 acres which approximately 8.7 acres is zone suburban residential so the thought is 8.7 acres of that would become industrial and then 185 Foster Road that's about 76 acres approximately 18 acres excuse me 18 and a half of it zone low density residential again that would all become industrial Um, part of this requirement is due to some grant assistance, a FAA requirements that talk about um

preventing and avoiding incompatible uses in and around the airport area. So, as I understand it, the airports are looking to reszone these properties industrial for the purposes to um make the land more compatible with types of airport uses, eliminate land use conflicts, um provide additional funding opportunities in the future, avoid potential obstructions u for airspace out there, and ideally this will tie into the comprehensive plan. Um there Jonathan can speak more to this, but they're actually doing a master plan themselves right now at the airport and that would be ideally taken into consideration with the comp plan. So there is a um draft motion before you are here. Um so Levante is here to uh answer any additional questions.

Any questions around this thoughts? Seems very reasonable to me. I have a question that might border on snarky. Uh, so did the uh did the airport ever enter into that lease with UPS that that UPS never produced when it wanted to build its parking lot earlier this year? They did. They got um Yeah. Unrelated but related, right? Uh they did. They um don't ask me what the date is, but we established a a date that they would go upon for the parking. And this time of year would probably be a good indication to see how heavily it's being used.

May I ask just one question? I'm When you refer to the two properties, the Roundy property and then 185 Foster Road, is anybody living on those or are those just historic names for the Jonathan Labonte, city transportation director, Auburn Lewon Airport director. Uh, no,

the the Roundy property, as it uh has been known, was owned by a family uh that had a through the fence agreement um so they could operate landside or airside, which is a a no no. Uh the airport ultimately acquired it through an IRS um auction. Um, it was a residence. Anyone driving down Hotel Road would see the former residence. Looks like a control tower. The 185 Foster Road was actually acquired by the airport from the Auburn Business Development Corporation.

All right. Does someone want to make a motion? Uh, I make a motion pursuant to chapter 60, article 17, division 2, amendment to the zoning ordinance or zoning map to reszone approximately 27 acres from suburban residential parcel ID 156-015 and low density country residential parcel ID 107-011 to the industrial zoning district. Excellent. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion of the motion?

I guess question. Are we moving this for further action to take it a public hearing? This is just going back to city council. Um, this is the public hearing. So, the the city council initiated the amendment. We sent notice of this as a public hearing. and you folks are basically providing a recommendation back to the city council. So, do we need public comment? Okay. Yeah. So, I just was following the agenda and there was no public comment. Sorry. We can suspend this motion or we can move public comment to we can open up um agenda item. It's

it's the same as any other project. Sorry, I I'm not sure I It is a public hearing, so you should open it up to public. Okay. So, do you want me to make a motion to suspend? Can we just Yes. Yes. What? I I think you should suspend it and then go back. I'll make a motion to sus someone make a motion to suspend the motion. I'll make a motion to suspend the motion I just made. Do you have a second? Second. All those in favor? Excellent. It carries. All right. So, um I'll seek a motion to open up public comment. So, move. Second. Second.

All those in favor. Excellent. If you would like to come forward and speak about the zoning map amendment, please come forward to the podium. State your name. You have five minutes and your address. Okay. Seeing none, I seek a move to close public comment. So moved. Do you have a second? Second. All right. All those in favor? All right. Great. Motion carries. Um, all those opposed. Well, I guess Okay, I'm closing public comment. So, you can The motion carries and because we have a a FA. So, all those in favor of closing public comment. All those opposed, I need a vote from you. You're opposed. Two opposed.

Okay. So, all those opposed to closing public comment. I I need a a motion. I need I I need No, I don't need no motion. You're right. I don't I Okay, you can speak. I guess. Was this advertised as a public hearing? Yes, he said that. Okay, I missed that. Yeah, I'm sorry. Even though it's not mentioned here this evening, a public hearing is part of our agenda. Um, I guess I did not reference that, but no, we did send notice out to all the abutters within 500 ft just like we would for any other public hearing project.

Okay, that was my question to be sure that we had sent out the appropriate notice so the public was aware that this would be a public hearing tonight. Okay. I assume that happened. So I we did notice in the legal act. Thank you. So, from a motion perspective, do you guys want to wait until they send out the notices? The notices went out. Everything Everything's done. Okay. There's nothing to We've We've done everything that Okay. I thought I heard that they were not done. No, everything was done 14 days in advance. Okay. What? Do it again. Darren, can you sing it? Okay.

Uh, I make a motion pursuant to chapter 60, article 17, division 2, amendment to the zoning ordinance or zoning map to reszone approximately 27 acres from suburban residential parcel ID56-015 and lowdensity cy country residential parcel ID 107-011 to the industrial zoning district. Do you have a second? Now I'll gladly second that motion. Any discussion of the motion?

All right. All those in favor? Okay. Motion carries. Next item is public comment. If you'd like to come forward. Okay. Seeing none, we have miscellaneous and then we'll adjourn. All right. Seeing nothing miscellaneous. Um I'll seek a motion to adjurnn. So moved. Do I have a second? Second. Second. All right. All those in favor? All right. Great. Thank you, everyone. I was a little concerned that we weren't going to get through it tonight, but I'm so glad. You guys are in a tight ship, so that's great.