Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Okay. Order the city bells of planning morning meeting for March 31st, 2026. Introductions, please. Please room. Planning board member. Vince Messer, planning board member. John Deo, chair. Rick Liles, co-chair, vice chair. Mike Hang, board member. Matt UTA, board member, alternate Britney Merrill, city planner. Robert Grant, code enforcement officer. Andrew Lllo, deputy code enforcement officer. And perhaps Mr. Peas. Tim Peas, city attorney, representing the planning board this evening.

Item number two, adoption of minutes from the February 4th, 2026 regular meeting. There any additions, deletions, comments, questions? Make a motion to accept as submit it. Second. Second. All in favor?

Okay. Item number three, conditional use review of a minor use site development entitled Everest Recovery for Applicant Everest Recovery Centers Main LLC and owner FG Management LLC. The proposal is to renovate a 5,500 foot building to operate an outpatient opioid treatment center. The subject property is a 2.15 acre lot located at 190 Bangor Road, Tax Map 50, lot 4-1 in the urban and stream protection zoning districts. Is there someone here representing Everett Recovery Centers? Come on down.

Yes, I can do that. Uh so good good evening uh members of the planning board. My name is John Podle. I am an attorney here representing uh Everest Recovery and with me to my left is Peter Morris of Everest Recovery. Peter Morris, CEO of Everest Recovery Systems.

Um I I'll try to be very brief um because I think this potentially could be just a short item for the planning board. So, um I believe the planning board may have the letter that I had provided to the city. I think it was March 12th or so. Um, so although it's outlined there, I'll do a very quick synopsis. So, Everest Recovery had obtained effectively a building permit for renovations, the change of use, and business license um for the location and had started doing the work. Um, city staff had identified possibly that there may be a necessary for conditional use approval process. um requested that the work stop so that could be reviewed for lack of a better phrase. So Everest recovery did do that. Um what we have been doing is there's a number of reasons or layers like we believe that conditional use may not be necessary. Um that is somewhat of a dense subject matter. So it involves both interpretive ordinances but also the federal law overlay because this does involve the ADA and rehabilitation act. So there frankly hasn't been a lot of time um to review those issues. It does take some time to review those. Um I have been in contact with uh the city attorney on those items. From my perspective, I think it makes sense from the the letter that I provided was really looking for um you know what is the city's position on these particular items. I think additional time is warranted to allow that to occur so that the city can formulate whether or not there does need to be a conditional use process or not. Um, I think that probably could be done

and then, you know, I'll say by the end of next week possibly. Um, so my specific request here quite frankly is is table or continue this particular application for in front of you because it may not be necessary or it may be depending on the outcome of those discussions and reviews. But I think that would be the wisest use of time from my perspective both for the planning board, city of Ellsworth and Everest recovery. So that is my request tonight is frankly just to table or continue that. Um again to allow the city we're happy to engage in discussions to review the various issues and items uh that were raised in the letter.

Mr. Mr. Morris, I assume you you're in agreement with Yes. with your lawyer. Just want to take it. Never disagree. I hope so. Sometimes you never have enough. Okay. Uh Tim, if you would come up some work.

All right. Um Tim Peas, I'm the city attorney. I think I want to take a little bit of time to step back so we understand um why we're here tonight. So, I got involved probably three or four weeks ago when the city staff asked me to look into uh the Evergreen um proposal out on 1A and whether they needed to comply with a requirement in the chapter 56. It's uh section 810.1 and it reads any opioid treatment program OTP registered under 21 USC 823 subg shall comply with the following requirements and and be part of an acute care hospital's main campus and so forth. Uh so when I see something like that in an ordinance it catches my eye because that's a very precise reference to a statute. So I'm thinking, okay, so if if it's an OTP program that is outside of A23G, then it it would seem that there aren't any performance standards associated with it. So I started to look more deeply into A23G. So A23G is a is a statute and there are code of federal regulations that that go with statutes. And I got to tell you, it's it's long. There's a lot to it. And I couldn't figure out for a while what the heck was happening because A23G as it currently reads is applies to research facilities and hospitals and so forth didn't seem to have to do a lot with OTPs. What we eventually found is that in 2022 the law changed. And when it did, what normally happens with laws is they will they'll add something to the end of the lettering so you don't get confusion. But here they decided to insert something before G. So previously

G um was H in its current form. H in its current form clearly talks about OTPs and the federal regulations talk about OTPs. So I went back to the staff and said can you find out when this provision was enacted? and it was enacted in 2007 I think but in a different provision than chapter 56. So that connected those dots. At the time it was enacted by the city. The intent was to cover OTPs as they are now. Notwithstanding the fact that it says G. So that's a starting point. Yes, we think this provision applies uh to Evergreen's facility. In the meantime, I had conversations with Evergreen's attorney and said, "Can you give us the registration requirements and and what they have um for certifications, and sure enough, it was under A23H." So, that was pretty helpful as well. It's not the end of the story, of course, because um they're also uh potential to wave standards. Um and that is found in chapter 56, I mean uh yes, chapter 56, article 6, 6.02. 029B. Um, and you can wave standards, but so long as the waiverss don't have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of the ordinance. Well, there's not a lot of performance standards with OTPs. But they're pretty.

Could you give me the section number again, please? Okay. It is chapter 56 article 6 6 2 60 602.9 B B as in B as in Bob. Okay. Thank you.

So I did take a look at the that section which allows uh the planning board to wave uh performance standards. But there's a caveat in there which is you shouldn't weigh them to the point where you nullify the intent of the ordinance. And if you look at back at uh chapter 56 article 8 section 810.1 a couple of the requirements are pretty basic. You've got to be part of a hospital's main campus. You can only have one OTP per acute care hospital. I don't know how many acute care hospitals you have beyond the one you have uh here and you can only have up to 30 patients. So I think it's fairly restrictive if you were to consider waving those standards. There's not much left. Uh but the applicant's lawyer um raises a good point about whether it's constitutional to have this kind of standard in the first place. And I started to look at that particular issue. Uh and there is some case law here in the area, the federal court in Bangor about 10 years ago, uh looking at one of the Bangor ordinance provisions. And it's it's not uh directly on point, but it's very suggestive that you have to be looking carefully about performance standards that single out things like OTPs because it could be a violation of federal law. So what I'm asking for in a very long-winded way to com compared to Mr. Ple is I think we need a little bit more time to figure out whether this is constitutional or not. Uh so before we just say well let's change the ordinance to make it refer to A23H instead. I think we need to dig a little deeper and find out whether this is an appropriate performance standard or not and then whether if you can have performance standards what would be the

limits that you can uh go to in terms of the city. So I'm suggesting that you may want to consider tableabling this for a little bit uh so I can dig in and my team can dig in and provide advice to the planning board and the city on the appropriateness of this performance standard. Any questions from the board for Mr. Pets? Sounds like a good idea to me.

Yeah, likewise. I just had a question and for future discussions I might have to recuse myself from this because I'm a member of the board of healthy Aadia and one of the things we run is the recovery home in your house. um right I don't know what the name of the street is but right out right in front of the um um city hall and um but my question is have you folks tried to coordinate in any way because they healthy does an awful lot of work with treatment and recovery and that kind of thing.

Yeah, we've been in contact not specifically with Healthy Arcadia but with some other providers in the area. We yeah we initially came to Ellsworth to look for Ellsworth because the state uh you know the state director of opioid response Gordon Smith who's an appointee of Governor Mills he he really uh pushed us to kind this area being a need an area for Hancock County and Ellsworth specifically. Okay.

So we I've already been in contact with uh an organization by a woman by the name of Judy Garvey. um she she's involved in another behavioral health services organization and typically our approach is once we once we get approval and once we get you know licensed we start having these connections with these local providers because we want to be we want to collaborate with them and be able to do handoffs and referrals in between agencies. Well, um, this is not an ad, folks, but Healthy UK is not only present here in Hancock County, they're present in Washington County and a couple of the other surrounding counties. So, there you might want to make sure you get in touch with them.

And if I need to recuse, I will do that in the future.

I have a question. if we're if if all of this is going to be tabled and it's and they're willing to do it and the town it benefits the town and everyone for the long run to avoid court dates and all that stuff. Um the information you just spoke of the the need for the area. I think that might be something that would be useful in development of any criteria just to show that that could be a question that gets asked in the future of what is actually the need, who established it and what are those numbers. That would be helpful because it seemed to be when you read back in the 2007, the city council at that time was very focused on 30

30 and your documents say 60. So that's that's or I read that somewhere that you're looking at that number I think in the parking stats it was about it was the uh trip trip calculation. Right. Right. So whatever number you or any other agency might seek it could be important for the town to know the need. Well it's not clear where the 30 came from in the first place. It's not but that since that that was a focus for them at that time. So, and that's what they put in their agreement. So, let's find out why and then what has changed and obviously things have changed in life. So, let's let's update that thought process.

Yeah, I I can certainly get some data from the state on folks coming from Ellsworth in the Washington County area, the Hancock County. So, Mr. piece. I guess a question I have for you is that um can or should the planning board wave this? Does it and does it have to or does it need to go back to the council for rewrite before anything can happen? My recommendation is that we do more research to find out whether this goes too far before you decide whether

but I mean if it if it does go too far does that make this whole null and void and that that the whole piece of this ordinance is struck and it doesn't apply anymore. Does it need to go back to the council for review? Ultimately it would go back to the council for review um to take any action on the ordinance. I would make my recommendation that you would see and the council would see in terms of any legal issues that I spot with it because as with all the other things we've been updating, one of the things that's the kicker of why we're doing some of these is because state and federal law has modified over the years. We've got to get caught up. So that's

it is that is a a problem when you've got multiple layers of government um trying to keep up with everything. It's uh it is timeconuming and expensive and when it hits you in the face that's when we got to do it. Yep. And that is often when it comes up when there's an applicant and then you look at it more closely. I mean at this point I mean that performance standard obviously is not workable for Everest recovery and I think we're at a point that I mean this was specifically put in almost 20 years ago and and I remember it because I was chief at the time and had a lot of discussion with Michelle Ganon. She was a planner at the time and wrote that section and uh the council approved it.

So I'm talking of waving that section I think goes beyond our capability or power because we're we're not talking about sane rocks and bushes on on a previous waiver. I mean this is totally throwing out that section that the council specifically put in there. And I find it refreshing that we have two lawyers that actually agree. I'm the way forward. Wait till tomorrow. Yeah, wait till time.

No, I I I mean my view just to chime in. I I do think to avoid frankly unnecessary from my perspective, court dates, etc. this this time frame makes sense so folks can digest, review, even debate if necessary to see um you know what the right outcome may be. And if at the end of the day we disagreed we disagree that's fine but at least we took the opportunity to do something that you know may avoid those items. I know you folks are anxious to get going on your project. You've obviously been delayed and we've already started and just to be clear we've already started the construction demolition. We've put a lot of time and money into this and

so it is uh it's at a standstill right now and we'd like to you like we you know as you know as John pointed out we want to want to work with you and collaborate with you and hopefully we can come to a common solution you know and I agree I I think as I was reading this and and I read your letter I could see that and I wrote this down um I tend to do this that there was a concern because of the fact that it was conditional there's a very big concern and then there's a confusion based upon H and G

and then it's confining based upon you're going to have to be on a hospital campus or just 30. So those three items need to be addressed somehow some way and either eliminated or changed in some place to eliminate those those concerns. On a related note, it's not clear that the city actually defines conditional uses or has a process to approve or whatever conditional uses. So, I think that's something that perhaps went out with history

and but it seemed like it ought to be taken care of somehow going forward because the the because the idea of a conditional use and having a process to approve a conditional use goes way beyond just, you know, your clinic. It has to do with potentially lots of different things. So anyway, I would I would just throw that into the hopper of magical things to do.

Rick, we actually um the conditional use mentioned in this ordinance was a copy paste from before they implemented chapter 56. So when they did the rewrite of chapter 56 in 2012, they just copied over the performance section. And before um 2012, the conditional use used to be what they called site plan reviews. So it's a matter of terminology. Everything was a conditional use. Okay. Well, we need to to be consistent with that terminology going forward. Seems to it was very confusing and took us a while to figure out, but we did. We found it and now we know we can fix it.

And in general, I think conditional uses are found, it sounds like they're to me from what I read to be illegal. Anyway, I have a thought just saying if it gets tabled

to get through the legal um sticky points and work it out and possibly go through council, possibly creating new standards, possibly having it become a form of conditional use or minor site plan, whatever it becomes. Um, I always suggest to anybody who applies for an application that ends up at the planning board, if it does, it's always a good idea to possibly go back and watch the wonderful videos that we have so that you can sort of understand the kinds of questions that we're probably going to ask you if you come back here. We always ask the same questions for pretty much everyone. you know, parking, traffic, number of spaces, how do you justify it, signage, dumpsters, screening, all those things. Now, granted, it's an existing facility, but when it was originally granted, it probably had things like parking spaces striped out. So, one of the things we've been working on is making sure that any renovated or existing structure or site is at least at the minimum that it was when it was granted. So, those are the kinds of things I would just tell any applicant just go back and watch a few videos and get familiar.

We did we did include in the packet a uh Yeah, I didn't bother reading all the particular details. Oh, you mean what what were you going to go ahead? I don't want to cut you off. We we did include a uh site in the parking dumps. That's there is a memo in the in the fire. But just so you know the kinds of questions we're going to ask since you've got time on your hands now, it's a good thing to spend a few minutes on. Let us use it all up. Yeah. We'll save you time later. Yeah. So, Robert, I have a question for you. Um the change of use from and to from what to what uh it's in the it's in your packet. I didn't I wasn't concentrating on that. Yeah, it it was it was um

there's a couple there's a couple of different sentences that say slightly different things. one uses the word commercial and the other one uses uh specifically the treatments that are Yeah. So I I believe when I when I first when I first did the minor site it was I the only thing that really works is a commercial use because commercial use is a catchall for everything. We don't we don't we don't have a hospital use in the in our ordinance, right? Doctor's office. Nothing. They're all considered commercial. Another shortcoming, by the way. you know,

that's not not really to be to be to be debated here. However, so you have to give it the closest use and so I determined commercial uses is designed to be the catchall for almost everything. So that's what I put it under. Um it was an office space that they were they were re they were reconfiguring into this treatment facility. Is that what your other businesses is that what your other facilities are? Are they considered commercial or are they considered business? It depends on the jurisdiction. We have we have uh health clinics, outpatient clinics, uh professional office. It really depends on which Okay. I mean, I think we're getting into questions now that they're going to work out.

Yeah. I think that's is an interesting item. I think we could talk more about that. I mean, personally, I think it's fits more like a professional establishment, which I think is what was there before, but you know, that's that may not matter based on other items that we'll be talking about. And I guess a lot would depend on if it's just outpatient or if it's inpatient. You just noted outpatient I think but we probably in the stat in our stuff it probably needs to be determined the difference of the two an outpatient versus inpatient like if it's they keep people 24/7 or you know overnight then that would be a different kind of context but you don't do that right not just these people out

so in terms of trip generation inpatient is typically more like a hospital outpatient is more like professional services yes exactly you inpatient requires a lot more staffing because you have 24/7 all that kind of stuff. I'm not saying for them, but I'm saying we review standards. Yeah. And different shifts, all kinds of things. So, thank you, Tim. Thank you for anything else from from you. I I think I'll I just restate the request just to continue or table this. I I don't think there's a date certain required. I think just allow I guess the attorneys and folks to chat and and I I'm sure we'll provide an update on this on the outcome of those discussions.

So, we do have a public hearing uh scheduled for us. So, I'll open the public hearing if there's anybody here that wants We only have a couple members of the public here. Are you here for this? Yes. Would you come up to the podium and state your name? And Keith Smith of Melworth. I would just like to uh express my support for the application. Um also I have a question. Why would the city limit it to 30 or 60 if if there's a need? Why you shackling? Well, this applicant that section was put in almost but it but I also heard 60 as well.

60 is the number that they're using currently using that on their applications. So, so they so would they be handcuffed if the elsewhere need is 90? No, that's that's we're just talking generically. Their application says 60, but if we're going to redo ordinance that so it depends on what the ordinance is.

Yeah. um as a as a uh person who um daily drives to Ellsworth adults to Bangor for um for treatment for um I'm sorry I'm nervous. Uh methadone treatment. I could tell you that anecdotally the need in Ellsworth is far greater than 30. I can tell you that. And I don't know if John, you have experience and maybe you agree or disagree, but um I don't know if the community has any idea the the challenges that addicts face to try to get method and I'm assuming you will have methadone is one of your options.

That's correct. Yeah. The challenges for addicts to get methadone is is really significant if they live in Ellsworth because the only place the nearest place is Bangor that I like just say that I mean there was a reason that 30 was put in there 20 years ago. I I don't need to get into that discussion because I I I'm sure that

the final outcome will be more than 30. Yeah. But if these addicts are looking to improve their lives and become productive citizens, it just I hope the city would have the foresight and compassion and and whatnot to um work with this applicant to to make that treatment available for Ellsworth citizens and and and people in Hancock County because again the only alternative is Bangor. and that is really a a problem for people that are trying to turn their lives around, trying to get meaningful work. Um, it becomes really a burden. So, I that's the only comment I have here.

Thank you. Can I may I say I just really support your position and I think um regardless well not regardless but whatever we can do with the ordinance the fact is that if you need more space if the only assuming we can't get it through is if you need more space it's only based on the limited by the amount of space you have. Anybody else would like to address the planner board? If not, I'll close the public hearing. Uh Britney, I would ask you, you have a suggested motion in here. I would think that the second half of that

you can tweak it. Just so the first we don't need a time reference. I mean, not and not that it's going to go to the city council. Just that Yeah, you can exit that. I thought we had to put in a time a distinct time frame, but we don't need to. So, um, the first part's good. Any other questions from the board or comments from staff, from the applicant?

No, I think we're good. Just I would just say I'd like to have just a continuence and then whatever note if if it's necessary to notice later, then we'll we'll it might be easier to notice the continuence. So this comes comes back next month as a preliminary. Well, I think that's for them to work out. That's we'll leave it in their hands. See what see what happens. So,

and I and I would just like you just like to comment. We met with Britney and her team last week at the technical review team meeting and um you know certainly I would encourage all of you to reach out to your you peers and law enforcement etc. and we're in soccer Maine, South Portland, Maine, and Manchester, Maine. So, we have a very good reputation. We run a uh we're helping people in recovery and we take that very seriously. So, things as loitering and uh things of that nature, we we we're there to help people get get better and um we take it very seriously. So, I would encourage you to reach out to these other folks.

Anything else? If not, then I'll make a motion to table the conditional use application entitled Everest Recovery for Applicant Everest Recovery Centers Main LLC. Second. I'll second. So, we're going to go forward with a conditional use term that's not legal. It's just No, we're table. We're not discussing. We're not making a decision. It'll be up to Tim and John to work on it at some point. I'm sure they'll back be be back before us in some form. So, we have a motion and seconded. All in favor? Now, it's up to you guys. Thank you very much. Okay. Thanks, folks.

Before we adjourn, I got a question for Britney. We do have Yeah. You're not leaving yet. You don't want to do we need to approve the January minutes or have we already approved because it wasn't on the agenda. That's what I got to find out because it wasn't J because I'm here to sign.

Go ahead and ask. Okay. So, um, we approved the minutes for February, correct? Have we approved the minutes for January? That wasn't on the agenda tonight. We did approve the minutes for January. I forgot to print you off a clean copy to sign at that meeting. Okay. Or the February. Okay. So, we're all set to sign that. Okay. That's all I needed to know before I signed it because you gave me the Dickens the last time I signed something without it being approved. According to your planning besides, you have to follow process. You've trained me well. That's good. We'll keep you around. Okay. So, it excuse me. Item number four, organizational revision regarding location of cannabis overlay map within the city organs.

Yeah. So, that's mine. As I was developing the memo Oh, sorry. Just saying cannabis again. I know. As I was developing the the memo and preparing for the city council meeting to adopt the overlay, I realized that it needs to be in article three, which is the zoning article, not article 8. So, it's truly an administrative thing. Um, you guys already approved the the the map itself. It's just I wanted to make sure that you all are aware that it's going to be in article three instead of article 8 because we were keeping track of which part of it.

I know but I don't want to speak for you. So my recommendation is to make sure that it's in article 3, not article 8. So move. Is there a motion that was in there? No, I didn't. Yeah, that was that was the motion what you said. Oh, so yes. And I said moved it. So we're good. Oh, we need a second. Second. Well, third. Any other discussion? All in favor? Thank you. Very embarrassed to have to come back for that one. But another ordinance related thing is the next item. Yep. Review item number five. Review and discussion of policy items from phase one of the comprehensive ordinance rewrite.

So, thank you all who were able to make it to that workshop last month. It's still last month because last day of March. um uh to to um go through what those substantive changes for article 50 or chapter 56 was. Um and if you haven't had the chance to look at the recording, if you weren't able to make it, you know, please, it's a long one, but there's a lot of great information in there. Um I thought that we had a laundry list of policy decisions for the planning board, but then when I dug into it, it's really one thing, so I just wanted to make sure I run it past you. When we're talking about um the housing density and the revisions that are required by law, um we talked about um if I can get this right, we talked about minimum lot size and how it really depended on if it was in the growth area or not and if it was served by public water and sewer or not. Um and uh so we never really officially decided um that if the area was not served by water or sewer that we would keep the existing minimum lot size that's already in there. So I just wanted to confirm that you all are okay with that.

And that was the suggestion that Matt That was the suggestion Matt made. Yeah. So I just wanted to to verify and double check with you that there weren't any red flags from that idea. Um and if not then we can proceed. I make a move for you. Okay. I'm fine. I'm okay. Yeah. Okay.

Okay. Um there were there was one other it wasn't really a policy decision, but it was something for us to check in with. Um and it was about the aligning the the maximum height for affordable housing units with the maximum height of our ladder trucks. And I talked to our chief um uh Scott about this and he said that there anything above where a ladder could meet there are code of codes that cover this and make sure that over a certain height there are sprinklers and systems and all that kind of thing. So he was not concerned about that height limit. But I know he had left the meeting right

before um this came up. So I just wanted to close that loop with you all too. And do you remember what the height limitations were? I don't not off the top of my head. It was something like it was um No, I don't remember. I don't remember how much of a difference it was. You talk about the current ladder truck? No, we didn't talk about that. Okay. Because that would be the reach for the ladder truck he probably would be talking about as far as heights. Yeah, likely. Yes. It's a 100 foot area. Yeah. So, but again, he said that if if it's a place where a ladder truck couldn't reach, there are codes that cover that gap. That's correct. Yes. All you need to do is look at some of the not here, but some of the cities,

not only in this state, but elsewhere, there's a lot of ladder trucks that ain't ever going to make it up to those sites. It all depends on access to the building as to how things go. I mean, and and that's where the the fire protection code, life safety code, and all those things come into play as far as fire department access, especially under NFPA1 as far as getting around a building and things like that. So they take into consideration um options if they can't um and if they can't basically you may look at sprinklering the building you may look at other things but it all depends on access. Yeah.

And I would think I mean right now I'll turn Rob and Andrew but uh I mean maximum height roughly 75 ft right now 65 65 65. Yeah. Okay. I think that's terrible. Uh I don't think we should have that low of a height limit. I mean that prevents pretty much anything over five stories. I mean there's way to protect a building. I mean you look at I mean Bangor I mean any place. I don't care how tall the building is. It's just how it was written. Yeah. Oh I know it. And like going forward I think in whatever rewrite that would come under whatever height you should get rid of that. can get with it.

We'll add it to the feedback and address it in phase two. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, that's it's ridiculous. But I would add to that, John, having said that, I agree with you. Yeah. But we also have to make sure that the other conditions are written in sprinkler system. And if they're not written in, it defaults to the state code or the fire code. Now the the multi-story housing that would be permitted in any zone or what zone would that be permitted? The other side of the coin. Somebody wants to build a 10-story multi-house you know complex in a neighborhood thereby changing the neighborhood thereby changing people's views and access to folks. you you have

so that's also a planning question but like you have to when you consider that stuff you have to consider the character of the zone the neighborhoods or whatever that you're but the problem is under the new federal laws and state laws we can't really restrict multi- family dwellings in a lot of areas that's to go one story above now with this new law change of the restricted height one story above the restricted height so it's like 14t maximum above the um current height limit okay Right. So, right now, if we say the maximum height limit is three stories and if it's an affordable housing unit, it can go extra. Yeah. Because you don't want to get too carried away and put something that just doesn't

Yeah. We don't have a lot of tall buildings and also so not yet. You might. So, it's definitely a good conversation to have other concerns besides Yeah. I think you know the more and more especially in an urban area the more and more you know we're running out of lots. Yes. You know vacant lots so to speak and if you can't build out then yeah the other direction is building up. Is there any way to um in the conversation in an urban area allow for taller and in a residential area neighborhood keep it lower? That is certainly yeah that's certainly something that we can take into consideration in phase two

because I think you'd also meet with a lot less resistance from the neighborhoods and the and the residential zones whereas if it's in an urban zone like you said it's there's nowhere left to go up is the way and that's the place for it. I mean I think we'll lose it out there. I mean, not that we're Portland, but I mean, the Portland Planning Board just approved, I think, a 55 story building. Obviously, you know, Ellsworth, but really, you don't think it? Well, maybe I don't know. But, uh, yeah, I think right next to Oh, being on the second rewrite.

Yeah, I I'll take this opportunity to give a very brief Oh, we're finished with that agenda item, right? Okay. Yep. Just a very brief update on where we stand with the ordinance rewrite. Um so uh I am going to city council on Monday for their monthly workshop session to give an update about the project. We are almost finished with our immediate stakeholder meetings. I'm meeting with Harbor Commission tomorrow night and then board of appeals was um I was going to give them an update or you know tell them about the project and what the next steps are but we ended up having to move that meeting until the end of next month. Right.

Yeah. So it'll be a little bit longer to meet with them and chat with them but their substantive changes won't happen until phase two if they happen at all. So I'm not too too worried about about that part. um we are meeting with Mason tomorrow morning um to talk about all the feedback that we've received and we have shared everything with them so far. Um they have some ideas of things that need to be pushed off to phase two. Um so we'll discover that more tomorrow, but we are on track for having the um amendments done um and uh come before you all for the May meeting of the planning board. So, I think that's the 6th, I believe. And then it would go before the city council to finally adopt in their June meeting, not the May meeting. The May meeting is our budget meeting. So, I don't want to add more stress to that agenda than we need. So, and that will get and if it's adopted in June, that will get us in um to compliance by that deadline. At the same time, there is a fix it bill um for LD1829, which is the one that has the majority of the affordable housing zoning changes. There's a fix it bill that's going through workshop right now. Um a lot of the feedback is coming from the southern part of the state. They're more developed than than we are. They have a lot to say. I'm keeping an eye on it and so are some other people um in the city. One of the things I think that will impact us the most is the compliance deadline will be pushed out to next summer, which would give us a little bit more breathing room. So, I'm keeping a very close eye on it. It's gone through at least three separate workshops. So, I don't know what what's going to happen, but we have no choice but to proceed forward with what's actually in law right now. So, that's where we are at the moment. Phase two, we've been getting feedback as we do our stakeholder meetings and we're compiling a list. I'm also going through the comp

plan to look at the action items related to ordinance reform and zoning revisions and putting together kind of a master list of all that I've I've heard of so far. So, that'll be addressed a little bit in that presentation at the workshop on Monday with city council. May uh Danielle u maybe fill the board in on I went to a special meeting last week of the council just before budget session on Twilight's request for the for the CBDG grant for LB Ellsworth. Maybe you could just Yeah. fill the rest of the board in on that.

Yeah. So, the the request before council was to pursue a grant that will um make the financing whole for the large uh or not large but for an affordable housing slashmarket rate um housing development that'll behind be a it's um Dan Black's um project that's been kind of like held up. It was approved by you guys um in May of 20 May and June it came to planning board of 2024. So it was approved.

They will come back to planning board for a road redesign when they're ready. Yeah. Is this the one by the railroad track? Yes. So, the request um before council was to pursue a grant that will help make the finances whole and I think it I can't remember the number but Dan the developer is actually providing the match for the grant. So, the city is kind of doing the administrative work in supporting this project. Um but no taxpayer dollars are going towards the match for the grant or anything like that. on a level put in for a million dollars and and Dan's putting out $250. Is that the one that came before the border a different?

Yeah. No, it was one that they couldn't afford to do it because they couldn't get financing. No, no, no, no. That's No, that's one back of thevenue at all. This is what 60 I can never remember. I ask you every time. It's like 60 36 36 units. A portion of them will be available for 80% of the mean area income. A portion will be 120% of the area median income and then the remainder will be market rate. Unfortunately, the resident of Be Avenue has is currently dragged us into the spirit court. Yeah.

And it's still I believe in session or you know working through the pro process. So hard when so the board approved it but it's now in a quagmire because someone outside of of the process yeah local citizen a resident okay all right it got hung up at our board of appeals um two meetings and and six months basically okay and then the city won the second appeal so the the developer could move forward but then the resident appealed the superior court and that's where it sits.

And the developer is also looking to donate some green space and the road to the city of the road. If if this grant comes through, does that street become a city street? Then I think that's the desire is to have it be a city street. I think, correct me if I'm wrong because I wasn't here when this went through the process, but I believe originally the plan was for it to be a private street. That's correct. Yeah. And I think the revision if it come if well it makes sense given the make it a public I think I think it would have to become city street probably. Yeah.

Yeah. But the the council approve of the request, you know, it doesn't tie the city into anything because it they approved it by vote of 5 to2. And so now Twilight submits the application and now you just wait to see if the the get funding on and then it would be up to the city then to go back to the city decide whether they wanted to take the money. Right. Very rarely in my experience being on a grant manager. Very rarely does a municipality turn down free money. Yeah. Well, welcome to Ellsworth. I said very rarely. I didn't say never.

We're special. I mean, unfortunately, it just, you know, I think everybody, most everybody wants this project to go forward and, you know, put a shovel in the ground, but they can't do it in court. So, we are in a waiting process. I have a feeling that's where it's going to head is right to court. No question about it. Well, there I wish they I wish they' go to court and get a ruling. Yeah. But we'll keep you updated if that project has to come back to planning board obviously. So Oh, Britney, did you want to bring up or have you talked to Mike about I didn't get an answer back from him. About what? But your reappoint?

My reappoint? Yeah. You're signing up for another five years. For five years. That's what the term is. I will sign up for another whatever years it is. I'm not sure if it was five years, but whatever. Yeah, five years. Five years. you make it. It's assuming. Let's see. How old will I be in 75 year? In five years. I I don't know your to do that math on that. I accept I accept your prop your I accept. Just a second. This was your five years. All right. Cuz that'll go from the June meeting. Yeah. Yeah.

So on affordable housing stuff, what about that other project? Weren't we going to try to get in touch with the town going to try to get in touch with them and find out if they bothered to come here and then? So, I did hear back from them a few weeks ago, or not from him, but from the architect. Um, and who are we talking about? The WL properties. Oh, Poland alley. I did hear that they were looking to break ground this summer or this year when as soon as they could um with the approved plan as is. Wow. Wow. So, they must have gotten financing hopefully. We're figuring out somehow. So, and if I hear any more, I'll keep you updated. Okay. Anything else?

Do Do I have to go for to be at the council meeting for this? You can if you want, but I don't want You do have to swear the oath, but I'll I'll come after. Huh? You can send a proxy. I can send a proxy. Okay, we'll do that. I'm not going to go. You wouldn't be able to remember the date. You could all go in support, you know, make it a thing. A motion to adjourn. Second. Okay, babe.