Planning Board - Regular Meeting

and let's talk about introductions.

Lisa LaRue, planning board member.

Good evening, my name is Tim Pease, city attorney assisting the planning board this evening.

Rick Lyles, I'm the vice chairman, but the actual chairman is not here, so I'm the acting chairperson, so go easy.

I'm Mike Hange, board member. Mark Levine, alternate.

Matt Utia, alternate.

Okay, so we do have a quorum, so the meeting is official. First order of business is adoption of minutes from June 3rd, 2026. And we also have minutes, and this is an addition to the agenda, for Wednesday, June 5th, 2025. So can I have a motion or questions about the minutes from June 5th, 2025?

Make a motion to accept.

I'll second it.

Comments, questions, criticisms, witticisms? Okay, all in favor? Those are approved. And now for the minutes from the June 3rd, 2026 meeting. Same idea, minutes are here. But I don't make the motions, they don't get made. What's going on here?

I didn't have any comments. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes as submitted.

I'll second it.

Any questions or comments on the June 3rd, 2026 minutes? Hearing none, all in favor? Okay, unanimous. And that takes care of that. And next up, we have the preliminary plan review of a major use site development plan entitled Anchor in Campground for Applicant and Owner Superior Realty, Inc. And do we have people from that august group with us?

Steve Salisbury, here in Salisbury.

And you are the guy? The owner. He's the owner. Okay, nice to have you here. So, let me just start with a couple of comments. Obviously, there's quite a bit of interest in this particular development. One of the things that we'll be talking about, as we go through here, is whether or not we actually need to do a site visit, which the board can call for. We also have one resident on Zoom, and I think, do we have another engineer on Zoom, or is he in for the other project?

He's in for the other project, and the other resident has no.

And you have, I'm sorry.

The other resident is gone, yes.

Okay, all right. You have a handout, which is new tonight, okay, talking about what the planning board can and cannot do. And, you know, there's a list of can and can'ts, okay? And sometimes we have proposals for projects that, We may, you know, like, gee, I don't really like that one, but, you know, that's not what we do here, okay? We look at the ordinance, we look at the plan, we see whether or not the plan development meets the ordinances, and then that's kind of it. I would just, this is just my personal information. Has there been any contact between the owners and you and the community at all?

No, I reached out to seven Director Butters with a letter on February 11th, and I didn't receive any responses, which is extraordinary. I don't usually do that, but I felt, well, this is a new project. Okay, so you reached out, but to no avail. To no avail, and certainly we've got some response now. I just wanted to neighbors chose not to contact me.

Okay. And those are probably the original seven from the abutters list? Okay.

Maybe.

Maybe, right. True enough. And this is the first meeting on this project. and there will be at least one other meeting. Okay, this is the preliminary meeting, and then there's the final meeting. Routinely what happens is we have a discussion tonight about what they're proposing. They tell us, we ask questions, we take in comments and so forth, and then we make a decision in terms of completeness. And what completeness really means is are they, has the developer really hit all the high points that we asked them to address? Sometimes those are really strong, and it's like, okay, fine, they really did that. Sometimes they might have other questions or whatever, and those things have to be spiffed up, so to speak, or more detailed for the final. So anyway, so this is the first meeting, and typically the second meeting is about a month from now. but that depends on how this all goes, okay? And if we have trouble navigating that, we have our very own lawyer here to help us navigate. And I see that someone has just arrived. And your name, for the record?

Oh, my name, for the record, is Vince Messer, and I'm a planning council member.

Okay, so, and... We're going to start now. Are you going to recuse yourself? Yes. Sit there or are you going to sit over here?

I am sitting out there. I am recusing myself due to the fact that my daughter is one of the abutters, and so I am not going to participate in this portion, but I may speak as a resident.

Whoa, okay. I didn't know that. That's a surprise. So, okay, it's all yours to explain what's being proposed here.

Sure, thank you. Again, Steve Salisbury with Hurricane Salisbury. We've been trying to plan a development here for Rick over the last year. It took some time. We did the wet nose analysis, the soils analysis work with Rick on the layout and such as that. So we arrived at a 28 site RV campground. And this kind of a campground will have the expectations the campers will have their own independent water, sewer, electric hookups, so they'll be fully self-contained, self-sustaining type of living units. Some of the sites we drive in, if that matters to you, some will be back in. The drive-in ones are popular for the 40-, 45-foot motorhomes. But anyway... We've had a stormwater analysis done, which is in your packet, showing a couple treatment beds for the stormwater, which will be on the edges of the development. It'll be a single entrance off the Bayside Road, two-way entrance, that was just recently approved by the Maine Department of Transportation. There's good sight visibility there. Of all the places on the Bayside Road, that's one of the better. You can see 800 to 1,000 feet in either direction. So give the owners of those reclamation vehicles plenty of opportunity to observe traffic and pull out safely or pull in safely. BACKING UP TO THE HISTORY OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, OUR COMPANY, I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF KNOWING ROBERT RAY FOR 40 YEARS, AND WE WORKED WITH HIM EXTENSIVELY. MR. RAY DEVELOPED THE ALTONS AVENUE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CALLED SEALEY'S WOOD LOT, AND THAT WAS DEVELOPED THROUGH SIX DIFFERENT PHASES, WHICH YOUR BOARD APPROVED OVER TIME. And I remember back when the first development was done in 1990, there was a lot of controversy from the people that lived on the Bayside Road at that point in time, so much so that we actually took the first group of lots that ended up being 16 lots and then yellow, Bayside Road being over here, we moved that development a quarter mile off the Bayside Road just to appease some of the neighbors. Later on, we backfilled and developed that land between the first phase and the Bayside Road, but they were so worked up down there that we said, all right, we'll just move it back. We get a mile of land to develop, so Mr. Ray... I took the position I will build that quarter mile of road with no immediate benefit before I even get to my first house, and that kind of sold the project. I don't intend to do anything like that with this project. These 28 sites are going to be close to the Bayside Road. Rick owns 50 more acres of land or something like that back. What he might do up there in the future, we don't know. The 28 is what's in front of you. That's about all I have to say.

Okay. Do we want to get comments from staff about some of this now or after the board does their questions?

Thank you. However you normally do it.

Well, I was trying to...

Usually you guys go right first.

Okay. So what happens now is that we have questions from the planning board and, you know, there's sometimes a back and forth with, you know, Q&A right here. Sometimes it's like, oh, you all have to check on that or whatever. And then there's some staff comments and then there is a chance for, a public hearing, which is your chance to say whatever it is you need to say, okay? So, comments, criticisms. I normally go first, but I won't here, because I got the gavel.

Did you want me to go first, that way you're looking at me? Sure, okay. Thank you for being here. Have you had any communications with the power company and the ability to serve all lots? And what kind of improvements are you needing to get electric to the site?

There's electricity on the street.

Is it sufficient? You need transformers, step-downs?

Yeah. We're going to go with underground power, so we'll come in. a pole and then drop under power and probably have. We haven't done an electrical design with 28 sites. I would expect at least two transformers mounted on a cement pedestal and things like that with branch distributions from there.

It would be good to get that on the plans where those transformers are going. I'm seeing wetland impacts for grading on lots 7, 15, 17, and 19. Has that been cleared with, is that Army Corps that would do wetland jurisdiction?

It's under the, they have a threshold, so you can impact certain types of wetlands. These are forested wetlands, not of significance. We can impact 4,000 square feet before we need to obtain any type of permit on this type of wetland. Yeah, it's very minor, so, okay. There are minor impacts, not needing permits.

Okay. How are you getting water to the filter beds? I'm seeing some storm drain lines along the road, but then nothing connecting to the filter beds.

No, just gravity drain. The sheet flow will go into those filter beds and then disperse through the bed and out of discharge pipe.

Through sheet flowing then?

Back to sheet flow when it comes out the pipe.

I'm seeing flow labels on here but no flow arrows on your site and utility plan.

Yeah, we're going to upgrade that the next time through.

Another thing I'm seeing is a setback line label but no actual setbacks on there. Just so we would know what a typical setback looks like and how far you are away from that.

Guess what sheet are you looking at?

I'm looking at S1.

Okay. I see setback lines and labeling, 25-foot setback lines on the top and the bottom.

I'm seeing property lines, but I'm not seeing setback lines.

Well, just inside of the property lines is a two 25-foot setback lines. Am I crazy?

I see property line, but I don't see setback line. And that S1 may be... And that's the one I was given.

If you want to look at that one.

Maybe there's another one. Where's your copy?

This is showing.

I've had my eyes checked in the last year or so.

That's interesting. By someone confident?

Uh-huh. Okay. I know, transitions.

2020, is this the same period?

I didn't change it.

It came digitally from them. Well, we have it on some copies. Okay.

And by some other time, it will be on all copies.

Okay, next time all copies. And then I noticed for the storm, you're seeking the linear exemption for the treatment areas for your road. They're in a non-urban impacted stream and watershed, so I don't have an issue with that as being the stormwater guy on the board with that treating 75% instead of the 95%.

Yeah, that's the standard.

I'm sorry, I missed where that started.

In the packet, they were looking for an exemption on, according to Rule 500, or Chapter 500, the main DEP manual, a linear portion of the project, such as a road, a utility corridor. Normally, you would treat 95% of it, but if it's not in an urban impacted stream or body of water, you can reduce that to 75% treatment. Okay.

Else? No. Anything else down here?

Well, I mean, we're looking at the package here, and we're seeing missing the letter of financial capacity. Are you going to have it for the next time?

Yeah, I have it in my possession. We'll supply it at the next meeting. Okay.

We're missing the seal on the name, address, and registration number. You're going to have all that for next time?

Yep.

The arrows, obviously, you can set that in. Do I go through every one of these? I'm aware of the... You're aware of what we're missing? After the staff meeting. Oh. So we're going to need all this for the next time.

Yeah.

Oh, where we at on the groundwater supply evidence and quality?

All we have right now is the existing well. We're actually going to probably do two wells, so neither well will supply more than 2,000 gallons per day. And I'm probably going to update my packet to reflect that at the next meeting.

Has that been started or still?

We're not going to throw wells until we get approval and start building the project out. Okay.

Okay, so you will have to go ahead.

I just wanted to confirm that the digital packet does have a setback line. Okay. So don't forget that.

Okay.

And you have a statement from a civil engineer or whoever drills wells or whatever. enough capacity to service your development and not adversely impact the people at Alton, is that? Yes, yep. And we have that or we're getting that? We'll get that, yes. Okay, okay.

So Steve, on page 35 of Jim Kaiser's letter concerning stormwater management, he states that the long-term maintenance plan is the responsibility of the project's owner. Will you be including that here shortly or within the final? Because I don't see a long-term plan.

Well, I get that from Jim. There's a standard, like a little checklist you go through every year and check the culverts and check the media in the ponds, make sure it's still draining through there like that.

Is that something we can have next time? Absolutely. Okay.

That's all I got right now.

Okay, so do you have anything?

I do. Okay, hit it. First of all, in the discussion about the wells, you said you weren't going to drill a second well until approval, if I understood you correctly. That's right, yeah. So if you get approval and you drill the well and it doesn't meet standards, then what?

I have full expectation we can drill a well that will satisfy the demands of the camping facility. Okay.

And.

We'd only need a couple gallons a minute because the demands from an RV aren't such as a house. Right. There's 75 gallons a day is the design flow for an RV with full hookups, so. Okay.

And I assume that these. Just one second. So that's something that's checked with code down the line, right? Correct. Sorry.

That's okay, sir. I assume that these are not nomadic, if I can say it that way, residents. These are expected to be the trailers and so on will be permanent. It's not a campground, in other words.

Oh, no, it certainly is a campground. They could stay the season or they could stay a night or two and leave.

Is the expectation that there will be people staying there all season? So, for example, I can imagine seasonal workers from the island staying there.

Absolutely. If they're willing to pay, then Rick can correct me if I'm wrong.

A lot of the campgrounds have people living there that are local people who Airbnb their houses up. I expect maybe 15% of the occupancy to be that type of . So that they're actually residents, local residents who are doing this? That's right.

Okay.

So it is, as I, the word I used a moment ago is, it's nomadic. People can come and go and so on and so forth. Yes. Okay. Yep. concerned me didn't realize it until tonight is that you talked about the quarter-mile offset at the beginning of the first in the first yeah when we developed CVS woodlot we set back off the road a quarter mile and then you moved back closer to the road yes at a later time yes and how does that compare to what you're proposing for this PARTICULAR SECTION OF THE PROJECT.

WELL, THIS ONE, WE'RE GOING TO START AT THE ROAD, YOU KNOW, KEEP THE DEVELOPMENT AS CLOSE TO THE BAYSIDE ROAD AS WE CAN. OKAY.

SO MOVEMENT THEN AT A LATER TIME IS NOT PART OF THE GAME HERE?

NO, IF THERE'S ANYTHING LATER IN THE FUTURE, IT'S GOT TO BE FURTHER TO THE EAST ON THE REMAINING LAND. OKAY.

So Steve, on the report, the checklist report, it indicates about exterior lighting and narrative, needing a lighting plan, or note where the lights are on the utility plan. Noting that probably, I can assume that most of your lights are central to the RV park and not along the outside edges. Correct.

Just a couple lamps on the building, the office building and bathroom.

Can you show those next time as to where they are so that we have that? We will. Okay.

Yeah, we talked about that.

Kind of a mini lighting plan? Yep.

Okay. I show the cut fixture, but I'll show exactly where they're going to be. Right. That would be good.

You good?

And I'll show the contour where the 0.1 foot candle is. Exactly. Yeah.

Okay, so I have a bunch of questions. Some of these questions have actually been triggered by some of the written comments that we got from some people who live in the neighborhood, and some are just me. Okay. So I wanted to ask whether or not, you had any experience with similar RV facilities?

I've permitted six RV facilities in the last 15 years.

Okay.

They're all the same eventually. Pretty much. I mean, their character develops a little differently. Some are more seasonal. where the people stay the whole summer. There's more heavy in that, and then some are more in and out every day.

But you're not going to have any kind of restrictions in terms of, you know, half of the sites are for this kind of use and half are for that. It's just whoever gets there and does it, right?

We usually have a fee schedule. Okay, you want to spend a week, it's this much money. If you want to spend the whole summer, it's this much money.

Sure, and you sign in and there you go. There you go. Okay. So I have several questions about different things here. One is the buffer between that's it root some of the issues that are coming up over here yes and my question was how far back from the say how far how far from the back of their properties and the back of houses too close RV site in other words how much space is there between the existing houses on Alton and the you know the RV sites And how does that compare to the setbacks and separations that you might otherwise have in a, you know, a residential development?

Our units will be no closer than 75 feet to the boundary line with the Alton Avenue development. That's the back property line. That's right. So you've got 75 feet there.

I had 70, but that's okay.

and Mr. Ray was very efficient with his developments and he put the houses reasonably close to the road.

So there's additional buffer between the backs of the houses that are on Alton and that back property line?

Generally, yes. Okay.

Do we have any sense of what those are like? Apparently not. That's fine. What is in the buffer area now?

Those lots are, well, to answer your question, those lots are 240 feet deep. Those lots are 240 feet deep? Deep, from the edge of the road to the back boundary line. Okay. You know, if they develop that first 100 feet as 100 plus feet in the back of those lots. Some of them are open. Some of them have got trampolines and swimming pools and stuff like that in the back door yards. But there's some buffer there. What is in the buffer area? Trees and brush and some wetlands.

Okay, and the, so that's between the RV sites and the property lines. Can any, I assume the answer is no, but can any of those wetlands be developed at all?

Not without some substantial permitting.

Okay.

I have a question. Go ahead. Can you traverse through that wetland pretty easily?

Yeah, it's not, you know, it's not wet up to your knees or anything like that type of wetlands. Okay.

And I probably should know this, but I don't. What is the topography like between the Alton Avenue and the RV development? I'm sorry? What is the topography? What's the difference in elevation? Not much. Not much. It's pretty consistent. So whichever direction that's going is flat.

The grade goes from west to east. The further east you go, the higher the land. in the same way on Allen's Avenue.

I saw on some drawing that, and I think it was one of those ones that was dated from like years past maybe, I'm not sure, that there was a wire fence along the boundary. Is that still there? Yes, probably mostly gone now. Okay, all right. Is there any intention to putting in any kind of fencing or any kind of berm or trees or, I mean, more trees in that buffer area at this point?

Our plan right now is just to leave it as it is.

Okay.

Which satisfies the ordinance. I'm sorry? Which satisfies the ordinance.

No, no, I get that. I get that. What about potential expansion? You know, this development is at the one end of the development. One end of that, what is it, 40 acres or something? Okay, that's right. You're helping, right? Okay, thank you. What about expansion? It strikes me that the wetlands basically have a strong circumference around the RV site, you know, and that it would be, in my view, was it would

to you know develop on up you know back further is that accurate or is there a plan or we have no plans as potential there I'll say but it's going to require substantial amount of permitting first okay over our three acres of impervious so site location development act permit

It looks like the planners are getting ready to say something.

I was just going to remind you that our purview is this project only. Yeah.

Yeah, well, and you know how I feel about aggregate versus disaggregate views of development. You know, planning is about what happens in the future, so that's just my own personal.

Absolutely. Thank you so much.

Rick would like to ask a question.

Quick question for you. There's no plan for expansion unless the city comes down there with city sewer. You come down with city sewer, then I would consider. Not my sewers.

No, but I'm saying.

But we know the monkeys.

Okay. All right. Thank you. What would have to be the case for the developer if there was expansion? What triggers coming back to the planning board? I mean, if they put in, like, three more sites, my guess is they could just do three more sites with, you know, something. I guess we'd have to come back here. There's a couple more. Is there a trigger point, though?

So it's treated as a new project. As long as, you know, if they split it into lots, it would come back to planning board. And if it triggers the major use site development criteria, it would come back to the planning board.

Okay. So, potential expansion would probably have to come back to the planning board, but not, certainly it might be size dependent.

Is that fair? The only viable use I could think of that we wouldn't need to come back to you folks would be as far as four living units as of today, or three living units. Under the new housing law.

Okay. Okay. Okay. You already answered that.

Say again. I say we can come back for three housing units under the new housing law.

The state mandated a change in local ordinances about how many dwelling units could go on a particular site and so forth. And that was kind of a relaxation actually of how many units could go on a site and that sort of thing. So that's the context for what he's talking about, I think, right?

Yes.

Okay. Traffic and trip generation, my favorite area. So the driveway, and you're smiling, right? Not for long. I didn't. I expected some traffic questions. Okay, we understand each other. Yes. Okay, so the driveway... Can the driveway as designed, and I am remiss in this fact that I did not check that, okay? Can it accommodate larger vehicles with a vehicle in tow under the current design? So, for example, did you, when you look at the entrance and the radiuses and, you know, how wide it needs to be and so forth, are you using some template that shows a large RV, you know, towing a...

Yes, we asked the DOT for a 24-foot-wide travel surface and appropriate radiuses. And they're good with that? Oh, yeah. Okay. I own a 42-foot fifth-wheel RV, and I'm confident I could get in there with my eyes closed. Okay, then. So we're going to station you down at the gate and let you do that. Yeah, that's right. It's kind of like having a pilot in Bar Harbor, right? This is your test. I can get in there. Okay.

Does the state, well, the state, whatever standards they had, they enforced them because they knew what they were getting into.

Yes, they knew what to do.

Okay. You indicate that there is no specific land use code for an RV park. That's wrong. Who said that? Well, somebody said that in one of these things here.

Well, it's allowed use under our zoning ordinance.

No, no, no, no, no, no. I'm talking about the trip generation code. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay. Okay? Yeah. We're on the same page? Yes. Okay.

You said that, well, you or whoever said that there was no code for trip generation for an RV campground type thing, only there is. Okay. Okay? That said, I'm not sure that, But at the same time, I think that it really behooves you to do as good a job and as comprehensive a job, as much due diligence as you can. So you need to take a look at that. more because there is a there is a land use code and you can compare the trip generation characteristics of the RV for example to the trip generation characteristics of the Alton Road Street Avenue whatever you know how how that produces trips and so forth so and the only reason why you would do that is to give people who are looking at it some idea of the relative impact of having single-family units along the road versus the RV units I think you'll find that it works out to your favor to say you can also

And don't forget the Bayside Roses State Road, too.

No, right. I do know that. I do love them. You can also do counts at a similar RV site if that was necessary. Because the trip generation for... The trip generation for single family units is way better established than the trip generation rates for RVs. Yeah. You know, you have like a couple hundred studies that support models for single family units, you know, a whole bunch of them or whatever, and you only have a few studies. But nonetheless, you should do, you know, use what's available. If you think it's not enough, then you, there are plenty of places around you could actually do a quick count.

Yep. Figure it out.

Traffic safety, not surprising, is a concern of the neighborhood. So what I would ask about that is what is the crash history of this stretch of Bayside and are the crashes related to turning vehicles and that sort of thing? Which, you know, we can then talk about whether or not this is, you know.

I think the crash history of Bayside was running into deer.

It may well be. Luckily, we'll know that when you look at the crash history.

Well, I've hit one already, so.

Okay. But you can get in a driveway, though, right?

Oh, I can get in the driveway. I might have hit a deer on the way down. Okay.

And you said that the sight distance was fine. It was like 1,000 feet or whatever. Yes. And that's certainly enough for a slow, awkward RV versus, you know, just a car turning. But, again, you may want to really... Spend a couple of sentences or a paragraph talking about that in the proposal. Understood. Let's see. Sewer system, we already covered that, I think. And stormwater runoff, water supply. And you're going to do something with kind of a quasi, lighting plan just to show what you have.

Although there's not much of it. No, but I will show the fixture locations and the foot candle contours.

And fire safety is okay with everything that's been proposed, which is a freestanding cistern of some size.

Underground cistern. Yes. Yeah, right. Yeah, yeah.

And you as another fire guy are happy with that? Yeah. Okay. Double check. Let me see here. Talked about the adequacy of the wells. And the groundwater impact analysis, he had several qualifying statements in there.

Forthcoming.

Okay. Emergency vehicle access is okay? Yep. Yep. Well, it's interesting to note that John Fink used to own this property. That's an inside joke because for many, many years, he was the chairman of the Planning Commission for like 30 years or something.

I believe his daughter lives next door.

To this? Okay. Is she okay with it? Um... There was a minor error on the driveway entrance permit. You asked for 30, it was going to service 30 sites and it really only 28, but that's just typing.

Well, I think we might have cut it back a couple sites since I made that application.

Okay, okay. Anybody else have anything else? I'm good.

staff have anything that we need to hear about or know about or bring our hands over I would like to say before we open up to public comment that we do have overflow upstairs and I know that a number of people upstairs also want to comment so when we open the floor up If people could cycle up, cycle out and go upstairs to let others come down. We're at capacity for the room right now.

Okay. Did you hear what he said? So you're going to lose your seats and you give them up to some other neighbor, right?

Anybody that would like to comment, please, when you're done, you can either go upstairs to watch or go home or whatever.

Fire is watching. Yes.

And we'll send people down.

And there was one more question from up here. So, Steve. Yes. Excuse me.

Could you speak up? Because it's hard to hear you. You've got to stop talking. It's hard to hear. Use your outside voice.

We call those the big dog voice. So, can you hear me now? Thank you.

So the question I have is you have a potential future sign location. Yes. On the site plan. Is that a lighted sign or a non-lighted sign? Do you know?

Lighted.

Lighted. Okay. Lighted sign. All right.

In compliance with the ordinance. Okay. Thank you. That's all I needed to know.

Okay, so we're going to open up the public hearing part in just a minute, okay? I know you're waiting for this. Let me just point out that we did get some written comments by email. I'm not going to read those into the plan, but they were included in the packet. And they came from Wyatt Braun, Susan Rossi, Logan, P-E-R-E-I-R-A, sorry. And Mary Veit, or yeah, Veit, I guess. And so those are, you know, and I also say that if you have other comments about this project, you know, after tonight, you know, it's okay to send those in by email or whatever as well. And there will be a public hearing. for any subsequent meetings here. And we will also be talking a little bit about whether or not there should be a site visit because the planning board can come out and do a site visit and we just come out and walk the site or whatever. No decisions are made at that particular kind of visit. The entire planning board may or may not be there, as you all may or may not be there. In any event, we shall... What's that? Sorry?

And site visits are open to the public. They get noticed, and about our letters also sent.

Okay. Did you get that? Everybody gets a notice if there's a site visit, you all will know about it. Okay. I would ask that, you know, I realize that there are a bazillion people out there and you all want to be heard in the, to keep this thing rolling along. I would hope that you would address things that have not already been addressed. So person number one comes up and says something about five different things. If you have something to add to that, that's fine. If you just want to recite the same five things over again, I don't want to sound arrogant, but don't. And we'll all get out. We'll get everything covered. Everybody really gets a chance to hear their objections or problems or whatever. Know that they'll be on our list of things that will be covered. you know, the next version of this or whatever, okay? Any questions about the process? If people start to drag things out really a lot, we may have to start, you know, kind of shorten, you know, allowable time. So be terse.

Okay.

You need to open it up. I know. I'm just . here it's going to be our model person so you want to come up you want to identify yourself identify where you live and rock and roll all right good evening my name is kelly brackett i have lived at 165 out nav for nine years

I hold in my hand a letter that I would like to submit to the board for the record. This letter, which opposes this campground, has been signed by 39 ALTNAV households and several of our Bayside neighbors who have joined in in the opposition. It opposes the application and requests that the board deeply consider our concerns that we're going to bring up tonight. I know we have a lot of people in overflow, but for those who are here in the audience tonight by show of hands, who opposes this proposal? Thank you. We're here because this proposal represents a major shift in land use and neighborhood character. We want to ensure that all impacts are fully considered before any preliminary approval is granted. This is not opposition to development in Ellsworth. We support growth and recognize the importance of tourism in our community. Many neighbors actually participate in vacation rentals and Airbnb of their homes. Our concern is whether this particular project, a high density commercial transient use is appropriate in our rural residential neighborhood. Residents about nav are prohibited by our covenants from operating public businesses on our properties. Yet we may now be expected to absorb the impacts of a commercial operation directly behind our homes. First and foremost, state law requires land use and zoning decisions be consistent with comprehensive plans. Ellsworth adopted its comprehensive plan in 2025, and it provides a clear vision for how growth should occur. The plan prioritizes preserving rural character, open space, and natural areas. It supports low-density residential development in rural zones, protection of water, aquifers, and wetlands, balancing tourism with quality of life for residents. reducing traffic impacts, and ensuring that growth is intentional, appropriately located, and sustainable. We believe that this proposal is inconsistent with all of these points. If the current ordinances technically allow campground development in rural zones, the comprehensive plan establishes the broader policy that the proposal should be evaluated against. The fact that 58 abutter notices had to be sent out clearly demonstrates that this is not an appropriate location. If the applicant is interested in a campground business, there are more suitable locations within Ellsworth. For example, there's currently a 41-acre wooded property for sale on Beachland Road that's zoned urban and allows campgrounds. The property is surrounded by businesses and other large wooded lots and would likely have half the number of abutters than the Bayside Road location. It would also put campers more centrally located to amenities and place RV traffic on the Route 3 corridor that is more suitable for large vehicles. This project has been compared in the Bangor Daily News with the Forest Ridge, Branch Lake, and Patton Pond Campgrounds in Ellsworth. But those comparisons overlook a very important distinction. None of these campgrounds directly abut a neighborhood in the way that this proposal does. They are buffered by extensive woods or have existed long enough that the surrounding property owners knowingly built homes nearby. I have satellite images. of each of these three campgrounds to demonstrate that they are surrounded by woods or have very few neighboring residents i would like to submit these to the board as well Campgrounds are already not permitted in neighborhood zones, which raises broader questions like what defines a campground? The proposed design looks more like an RV parking lot than a secluded retreat for campers to reconnect with nature. And what defines a neighborhood? While currently zoned rural, we are a neighborhood of almost 50 homes with one to two acre lots. We receive mail at each home, have curbside trash collection, school bus pickup at our doors, and town maintained roads. There are more homes on Alton Ave than there are in the Beachland neighborhood zone. Would the board, I ask the board now, you've been talking about a site visit, I'm asking you now, would the board be willing to conduct a site visit and compare the proposed site plan to the existing character of our surrounding neighborhood? Okay. The Campground Ordinance Chapter 56, Section 806 appears focused on protecting campground users, but does not provide equivalent protections for surrounding neighborhoods and residents. Phase 2 of ordinance revisions are underway to align local ordinances with the Ellsworth Comprehensive Plan, a process that the city has stated will involve public participation. Please do not allow this proposal to slip through the cracks during this intervening time as we will have to endure the consequences of that. Unchecked preliminary approval today or even the next meeting will create long-term and potentially irreversible impacts for our area and would be a failure of this board and the city to protect its residents. On behalf of my neighbors, I respectfully ask the board to place a moratorium on this application and any other campground applications in rural zones until all relevant ordinances are aligned with the comprehensive plan.

So we're really basically listening to what you all have to say, and it kind of goes into the hopper, if you will. But I don't think it's up to us, for example, to have moratoriums on things like growth.

Yeah, may I ask the lawyer if it's up to you? City Council, right?

City Council.

It is up to City Council? Yes. How do we get them to weigh in on this?

Well, you have to go talk to them, I guess. You know, there are opportunities at every council meeting for public input and this, that, the other thing. You can also presumably write to city, I mean, pardon me if I go wrong here, write to city council saying, you know, we would really like to have, you know, this as an agenda item on the, you know, in council meeting and so forth. So, but your path there would be to talk to council

and yeah the city charter spells out a way that citizens can initiate something like moratorium ordinance and like the chair said you could always ask the city council to adopt them such a moratorium themselves yeah and you might may well

want to take a route to find a champion on council, for example, that helps you get on the agenda and whatever. You didn't hear me say that.

Too helpful.

Yeah, too helpful, sorry.

All right, so since that's not possible tonight, we have several other neighbors that will be addressing our specific concerns. So I thank you for your time tonight and your attention to this. And I would actually like... I would like you to go after that.

A little bit of organization here. I like that.

Thank you. I guess the easiest thing would be to say what she said. Good evening. My name is Alfred Faber. I live on Marion Way adjacent to the proposed campground.

Say it again. I'm sorry.

My name is Alfred Faber. I live on Marion Way adjacent to the proposed campground. I also represent the interests of Mark and Pamela Faber, who own the property at 100 Altons but could not be here today. Let me start by saying that I appreciate the time and effort that's gone into reviewing this application. My concerns tonight aren't about whether campgrounds have value. They most certainly do. My wife and I are avid campers. My concern is whether this particular proposal is appropriate for this particular location. One issue that stands out to me is the intensity of development. This property has historically been a single-family residence within an established residential neighborhood. What is now being proposed is a fundamental change in how the land will be used. Instead of one home, we're looking at 28 RV sites concentrated into a relatively small area. While those sites may not technically be homes, they still represent people, vehicles, water use, wastewater generation, traffic, noise, lighting, and overall activity. The practical effect is much more intensive use of the property than what has historically existed or what most neighboring properties experience today. Unlike a residential neighborhood where families are relatively stable, this development is designed around continual turnover. Every new arrival brings additional vehicle trips, check-ins, departures, deliveries, and daily activity. That creates a different operational pattern than a traditional residential subdivision. So I would ask the Board respectfully the following questions. How does the density of a 28 RV site compare to what would typically be allowed for residential development on the same parcel? Has the board evaluated the relative impacts of this proposal compared to what the land would likely support if it were developed as permanent residential housing? Specifically, what planning principles support this level of density immediately adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood? I'd also like to raise a concern regarding the site's soils. The City of Ellsworth soil mapping identifies this area as having relatively low soil development rating. My question is simple. How has that characteristic been incorporated into the Board's evaluation of a project that significantly increases the concentration of people and infrastructure on the site? finally i understand that there's an existing home and older structures on the property could the board clarify whether all of those existing structures are to be renovated or removed i respectfully asked the board to carefully consider not only whether this project can technically be built it most certainly can but whether the intensity is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and whether the long-term impacts on nearby residents have been fully evaluated.

Thank you for your time. And again, this is just a comment. In the proposal, you do mention exactly what happens to the different structures that are already there. Sure. One is going to be rehab, supposedly. What about the other little ones?

Do we know? One's going to go away. One's going to be two buildings to be rehabbed, potentially.

The house? Into what? One's going to go away. Which one's going away?

Chicken coop.

Oh, okay. What are you doing with the house?

That's going to be the office and the bathrooms. And the barns? are going to be an event, you know, a gathering place for the campers.

Okay. What will that include?

Yeah, should that be included? Okay, yeah, that material is actually in the application, so...

Can you please make that public? I'm sorry? It is. It is. Yeah, already did that. Thank you.

Your share. It is.

How about the oak tree out front of the house?

Okay, we're getting into really specific things, which, you know.

It matters to us.

So this is for public comment period. I think it's important to allow people to come to the lectern one at a time, offer their comments. The applicant can receive that information and perhaps at the end of public comments respond to that. But having a conversation is going to get unwieldy, especially with the number of people that we have here and upstairs.

Next up. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Wyatt Braun. I'm a resident of one of the abutting properties on Alton Avenue. I have lived there for approximately 24 years. And I guess I would like to first, along with my other residents, thank you guys for hearing us out. And secondly, I guess just list my questions there. I guess for the sake of time, less poetic. But my primary concern is that the board may not be reviewing the current condition of the property as there is a new one acre plus clearing in addition to the previous agricultural land that is available for view on Google Maps and on the application that you all have received. This new clearing is obviously wetland according to both acquired photos, which I have, proposed maps. The clearing is also beyond the 100 feet of wetland removal as is stated in the proposal. I'm wondering why the applicant did not come to the board with this tree cutting. It is apparently in violation of the city ordinance chapter 56806.11, wooded areas and individual trees shall be preserved when practical, and appears to be, in my opinion, in bad faith. Has the engineer reassessed the property since the clearing? I believe that there is also no DEP permits on file, at least none that I have seen. Should the applicant have obtained these prior to this new clearing? There appears to be an ongoing investigation on the property from the DEP. Must this be resolved before the application can move forward? Will the Board consent to a property visit which has already been hashed out? How will the aforementioned clearing affect the local hydrology? Will this affect the septic percolation tests done in January of 2025? I would like clarification on how the stormwater runoff and septic percolation will be managed given the new clearing and 1.9 acres of impervious surfaces, particularly towards the back of the property since all four runoff beds are at the front of the property. Ellsworth soil maps show an intermittent stream on the property. I believe that this was already mentioned. But how was this affected by this new clearing? How will invasive species transport, i.e. through firewood as we are beginning to have problems on Mount Desert Island with emerald ash borer be managed? How will nuisance animals brought by waste from campers be prevented? Have there been any surveys done to measure wildlife impacts? Continuous woodlands are very important to our main wildlife and I guess wanton removal of them could cause wildlife issues. And I do not believe that residents were made aware of the campground until February of 2026, which led many to believe that a lot of the developer, I guess, pre-development was logging and did not believe they had any ability to contest. So that's my piece. Thank you. Thank you.

There must be someone out there.

I would just like to comment on Wyatt's comment.

Did you hear what he said, that there's a current DEP investigation? Kind of like an answer to that now.

I'm sorry.

No, no, we're not going to get into that. The comments were made, but the board is not going to respond to that. The staff's not going to respond to that, okay?

But are you aware?

Well, I think that we just answered the question that we're really not going to answer those, that kind of back and forth. We can't answer the question. We can't answer the question. Next up, please.

My name is Amy Faber, and I live on Marion Way, just off of Alton Avenue. So my concerns are focused on the groundwater availability impacts to our neighboring wells, the wastewater disposal. And I would like to understand whether the capacity of this campground has been adequately evaluate for 28 sites. So last summer, obviously many residents in this area experienced drought conditions and concerns about our groundwater. I would like to understand what analysis has been performed to demonstrate that the campground's water demand will not adversely affect neighboring residential wells during future drought conditions. So my questions are, has a hydrogeologic study, pump test, or groundwater analysis been performed? If so, who performed the study and what were the conclusions to the neighboring residential wells? Has the applicant demonstrated that the campground's projected groundwater withdrawal will not adversely affect our wells during future droughts? What is the projected peak daily water demand during the busy season? Given recent drought conditions, what evidence has been provided that the aquifer can support both existing residential wells and a new commercial campground in the area? If neighboring wells experience reduced yield after the campground begins operation, what protections or remedies are available to the homeowners? Also, questions around wastewater and the septic system. What is the projected wastewater flow generated by this 28 site campground? There seems to be a discrepancy where the study says it can handle 990 gallons per day, but the design was showing a generation of 1950 gallons per day. What is the condition of the existing septic on the property? Will the existing septic handle the office in the bath house? Or will a new design be needed for the hookups? What soil testing was performed to determine whether the site can safely support the level of wastewater disposal? Has the proximity of the septic field to our wells been assessed? What is the vertical separation between the proposed septic in the area and the groundwater? Also, will the dump station be open to public use? Meaning, if you're not staying there, that you can come and dump your waste from your RV. And also has the proximity to the bay and the wetlands be assessed. Lastly, no one has mentioned this yet, but I just wanted to make a point about the traffic. I understand that the Maine DOT has approved on the road. However, if you've driven on the bayside road, And I realize it was paved three years ago. It's a crumbling road. These are very big fifth wheel RV sites. It doesn't just accommodate cars. It also accommodates pedestrians, as I am one of those pedestrians. I would please ask you to consider the traffic impact, not only for cars, but for pedestrians on the road. I know I'm not the only person that is a pedestrian also on that road. And closing, just as a resident of Ellsworth, just one final request, please. Put yourselves in our shoes. This is a very quiet area of town. And we live in a neighborhood. This is a very nice neighborhood. And we do not want the area changed like this. Thank you.

My name is Deborah Ireland. I live in Elton's Avenue. I've lived here for 10 years. I'm worried about the property values on the surrounding neighborhoods. There was somebody who could have been in a house on the end of Elton Avenue for over $400,000. The minute they heard about this new RV park, they withdrew their bid. And I'm just worried that in the future you might have to go and reevaluate all our properties because the property values will go down. And then another thing, I'm really worried about the noise coming from that park. I think there should be a noise barrier put between Elton Avenue and the park all the way up the road just to keep down the noise. I think that would be good. Maybe something like they put in highways because there's going to be a lot of work from that construction and building things up there. And then are we going to be able to have generators Will those people have generators up there?

They could, right? If they had a generator on them.

Yeah, that's going to be very noisy. So I think they really should have a sound barrier. Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Kim Smolich. I live at 31 Allens Avenue at the bottom of the hill. I've lived there for 27 years, and I also appreciate the opportunity to be able to address the planning board tonight. I'd like to ask you to consider this proposal not from the perspective of someone staying at the campground for a weekend, but from the perspective of the families who will live beside it every day. We chose Alton's Avenue because it's a quiet, residential neighborhood. We enjoy peaceful evenings, dark skies, and the ability to sit outside, mostly on our porch, without the constant noise and activity that comes with a commercial recreation business. A 28-site RV park would permanently change that character. This is not simply a different type of housing. It is a tourism business with a revolving population of guests. Even well-behaved campers generate activity. Vehicles arriving throughout the day, late check-ins, people gathering around campfires, children playing, dogs barking, outdoor conversations, music, generators, smoke from fires, cigarettes, marijuana, and potentially fireworks. None of these activities are unreasonable for a campground, but they are entirely different from what homeowners reasonably expect next to a well-established residential neighborhood. The engineer's letter suggests that an elderly clientele will minimize these impacts, but is this campground legally restricted to seniors? Will it be an adult-only campground? If not, I don't believe the Board should base its decision on assumptions about who might choose to stay there. future owners could market this campground to anyone. Under main planning standards, my understanding is that you, as the planning board, are asked to determine whether a proposed development will create an undue adverse effect on surrounding...

Looking at what does that depict and so forth. The ordinance anticipates that the applicant will do some flagging, so see where the roads and so forth are, and that will help you understand... Property corners will be marked. Exactly. And I've, you know, Steve has been doing this a long time. I think he would know how to make it so that you are looking at the right things. Don't do any deliberating. I know you know that. And in terms of it is a public meeting in the sense that people can attend, but it isn't a public hearing or public comment time. people may have questions but i'd ask them to hold those questions and either submit them to the staff separately submit them to the board separately or come to a future public hearing to express those concerns but it's not a time to get into a back and forth or q a and that way you can get in understand the lay of the land and then come back and and do the rest of your job here in this building all clear

Okay. So we will have this defined hopefully tomorrow, and we'll start putting that information out. It will be a public statement in the paper or whatever, just like there is for this.

Yeah, published twice in the paper and posted on the city website and posted in the lobby downstairs as well as the other letters.

Okay. Okay. Thank you for your attention. Thank you for coming. Thank you for your comments. And like I said before, if you feel the need to send us... When I say us, I mean Brittany, actually. You know, send us some comments or whatever, or a script if you spoke from one or whatever. kind of clarification would be good. Thank you so much. And we move on.

Okay, you want a bio break? Not for me, but...

I'm all set. I want to go five minutes.

He wants a five minute break. Jason, why don't you take a five minute break? So it's five...

Oh, we're turned on.

Okay, perfect. Thank you.

Okay, so we are back to item number four, which is the final plan review of a major new site development plan entitled PEO Halloran, Inc. for applicant and owner PEO Halloran, Inc. Is there somebody here? Are you here? Is that what you're doing over there? He's here. He's been here.

Or our volume's not on. Check support. He's flashing like he's not muted. No, can't hear you.

OK, he's unmuted on our end.

I can't hear him. I got ringing in my ears.

There's nothing.

Oh, we have the first team here tonight. Oh, good. Or maybe the second team, depending on your perspective.

Is this the A team? Probably the B team.

If it works, it's the A team.

He's not talking. He should say something.

Move your lips.

If he turns off his video, that might clear up his bandwidth.

He's still bleeping.

So I can call him. He can be on the phone. I've got his phone number.

We're going to call you on the phone.

Let him go back and see what happens.

He sat through that whole thing just to be muted. Yeah, right. Forever. Permanently.

You want me to try calling him?

Hi.

Hey, so I got you on speakerphone.

Okay, I will turn off Teams then.

Okay. Okay. Okay.

Because I'm getting an echo from you. Okay. So we are requesting final approval tonight. We made some minor revisions and provided some additional or supplemental information for the board. And I will try to go in an order. The entrance, as we discussed last month, is permitted for a 40 foot width. and we have 30 feet in the throat right now. And I did review it with the owner and we intend to maintain the 30 foot width for now. So no change to that existing entrance that's there that the owner is using as the entrance.

A question right there though is MDOT's 40-foot, is that a requirement or a suggestion?

No, it's a suggestion.

Oh, okay. Because the way it was read, it sounded like a requirement to me. I mean, I'm not sure that I care, but, you know, if MDOT said one thing, you need to do that thing.

Right, right. No, we could have a maximum of that.

So, and you're sure that that's what MDOT meant?

Yes, I am. So I did revise the trip generation report and we did take counts from the existing facility on a Wednesday and a Saturday and then for this site I extrapolated them, if you will, and doubled them. and utilized those trip numbers for the proposed facility.

Okay. And that's fine. And I don't have disagreement. But for future reference, you were somewhere along the line you cited using the sixth edition of the trip generation stuff. And we're now up to 11.

Yeah, at $1,400 a year.

Yeah, well, no, I hear you. That's why I don't have my own personal copy. But the point is, though, that somewhere along the line, they eliminated all projects on which the models were based that were done before 1990. So a lot of the models and so forth have been updated. So for the future, you need to beg, borrow, or steal a newer edition because... Starting out with a 25-year-old one isn't going to cut it.

No, yes, I agree with you. Yes, I agree with that.

So, forewarned is forearmed.

Yes, that's correct. So... We did, when we were discussing the planting buffers last month and we did remove the planted buffer on the southerly end of the project as it's city property adjacent to it and it is wooded. And so we would not be essentially buffering anything. I did include, information from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and I did review the DIF main DIF&W database and I summarized that there was nothing in that vicinity that was highlighted on the DIF&W database We did provide letters from the Natural Areas Program and Maine Historic Preservation and their comments. And I guess I will just reiterate that we had discussed that the more southerly entrance that is blocked off at the present time will be removed by December 31st, 2026, as it's called for in the plan.

Do you have more words?

I really don't.

Okay, and this is a code question. Does there need to be a port-a-potty or anything like that on this site at all or any kind of other kind of collection device?

Not if they're not planning on having a permanent employee there just come and go.

And that's what they're proposing? Yeah, there's no permanent employee as far as I'm aware. I thought we talked about that last time, but I didn't.

just going to come and go from the shop.

There are bathroom facilities at their shop, so if he has to or truly whoever it is. Or there's forest. Yes, there is that, too. We don't encourage that yet, but there are trees.

About 10 acres wooded behind it.

Okay, so anything else? Any questions on the part of our esteemed board?

I don't have any. Frankly, I don't have any questions for you.

Do they have any questions for you? I think it was good last time on the stormwater, so I have nothing further.

There was no change to that, right? No. Okay. So they have a bunch of waivers that they're requesting, right? Yes. So the question that I have is do we pass those waivers one by one and then do the overall motion? That's the order we do it? Okay. So the first waiver has to do, is that, so we're going to do that?

And there was also, just to add in, there was also the signage issue, that there's a sign there now and they're not proposing anything new.

Not right.

Correct?

I think that's correct. That is correct. Correct.

Okay.

Else? Nope. Nope. Okay. So the first one has to do with the landscaping. So if you look at page six of the thing that Brittany had prepared, there's all kinds of wonderful language. And we'll just do the waivers, exemptions one by one. Okay. That's a good idea. So need to have a motion to approve the landscaping design modification. Do you see where that is?

Can we do them all in one motion?

I think we need to do one by one. I think we need to do them individually.

It's cleaner one by one, so let's do that. Nice try, though. I'd ask Tim if he was still here.

So waiver for roadside buffer requested.

This has to do with, you know, the landscaping design modification, active stormwater treatment zone. It's in your planning board report.

Okay.

This thing. That one. Okay.

I don't have it in front of me, so.

Ask and you shall receive. Okay, so... The first one, right here. We do this.

This one? Yep. So I'm going to make it a motion. Okay. I move to approve the landscaping design modification request under Section 813.11 for the major use site development entitled PEO Halloran Incorporated at 923 Bangalore Road, Map 75, Lot 13-1. We find that the active stormwater treatment zone provides an adequate, high quality visual and spatial buffer that satisfies the underlying intent of section 801.5. This approval is explicitly conditioned upon the applicant adding a permanent note to the final site plan stating that the 50 foot grass stormwater zone shall be maintained as the approved alternate roadside buffer.

Need a second? I'll second. Discussion? Comments? Issues? City, you have anything? No? All in favor? Passes unanimously. Next one.

Next one. I move to waive the technical photometric plan submission required by the major use site development plan entitled P.E. O'Halloran, 923 Bangle Road, Map 75, Lot 13-1, finding it unnecessary due to the project's limited scale. This waiver is conditioned upon the applicant utilizing only two fully shielded, downward-directed security fixtures that prevent light trespass as verified by the code enforcement officer in accordance with Article 8, Section 812.

I second that.

Discussion? All in favor?

Next one. I move to approve a design standard modification from the strict minimum foot candle requirement of Chapter 56, Article 8, Section 812.5D for the major use site development entitled PEO Halloran at 923 Bangalore Road, Map 75, Lot 13-1. We find that the strict compliance is unnecessary. because the lot is used solely for unoccupied shed and storage container displays and operates exclusively during daylight hours. This waiver is conditioned upon the applicant using only two downward directed security fixtures and adding a site plan note restricting the area to daytime use. Second.

Somebody?

Second.

Okay. Comments, questions, problems? All in favor? Okay, now go back to the other one. Okay, so now we have proposed motions. One is to approve with those waivers and exemptions or not to approve or to table it.

I make a motion to approve.

Here she goes.

I make a motion to approve the final plan for major use site development entitled PEO Halloran, incorporated for PEO Halloran, with the three waivers that we so moved on.

Second? I'll second. Comments, questions, concerns, issues? All in favor? Okay. So moving right along. Are you still with us, Andrew?

I am, yep. Just sitting listening.

Okay. So you can quietly go about your business now.

All right.

Thank you. Because we have disposed of you. Okay, next up, staff comments. Thank you.

All right, thanks.

Yeah, bye-bye.

I have some.

Okay, hit it.

So hopefully my battery lasts. Number one, remember to keep your anchored in packets for the final review. Any preliminary stuff, please keep until it's been moved, and then you can toss it. But I do want those binder clips back because budget. Also.

I keep the packet, but you want my binder clip?

When you turn it in at the end, I want your binder.

Just don't get too excited with a gift. Because, you know, the city's going to go bankrupt if you don't turn back your... Well, I ran out of rubber bands, so you get binder clips right now. I prefer binder clips to buying the actual folders. I have a whole drawer full of rubber bands.

Well, I can use them.

Okay, sorry.

Anyway, I digress. Also, if you haven't yet signed the sportsman mobile home final approved plans, if you voted yay on them... And then I have the stack here. Before you leave, please pick up your new ordinances to add to your planning board binders. And then we've been working on a planning board guidebook that we would love to get your feedback on. This is supposed to help developers kind of understand the process through a little bit. please share your thoughts. We'd like to get feedback by July 20th, so we can get this launched on the website. And then the only other announcement I have is that the Danielle Gift, our Director of Urban Planning and Urban Development is Her last day is tomorrow. What? So she will be... We get rid of these plants. She's leaving tomorrow? What? She put in her two weeks last Monday, so her last day is tomorrow. She's going back to urban forestry and the non-profit world. So she will still be around on the Arbor Commission and such, but she will no longer be... And you're alone again in your office. I'm sorry. I'm starting to feel cursed. It's nothing personal. You're moving, honestly. Oh, yes. And I think we told you guys before, but the big move, we're calling it all of the customer service-facing departments are moving downstairs, and the non-customer service-facing departments are moving upstairs. So planning and code will be located downstairs, and city manager, deputy manager, and finance will be moving upstairs.

And when, I'm sorry, when does that occur?

It's occurring now and probably will wrap up in the next month or two.

In the next month or two? I have no idea.

Okay. Yeah, you're moving shortly.

I'm supposed to be moving next week.

Okay.

And go ahead.

Oh, that's it. I'm supposed to be moving next week.

So we'll see if it happens. But you also are going to keep contacting y'all for confirmation of the visit dates, right?

Yes, I already sent an email.

Oh, okay then.

And I will be calling if I don't hear from you early tomorrow morning.

Okay, so we're on track though, an early track.

Yeah, because I think there's a holiday deadline, so I need to get it in sooner than later.

You say an email already went out? Anything else? I really enjoy this.

You too. Oh, there it is.

Yes. Oh, yeah. No, that is great. That is great. Yeah, okay. And please, if you have any feedback on that or edits, send them my way. It's a living, you know, it's the first stop at it.

I think you probably ought to have these handy every planning board meeting. That's the intention. To hand out to the public.

And we will put them on the website.

To the public, yeah.

And also, because they show up for TRT, I mean, you can give them out there. I mean, you just give them out a lot because it's... a good thing.

So, I do have a question, however, and it's... I know we're in adjournment, but... You've got till 8. Huh? She's got the ultimate applause. She's got expiration date. I suppose I can ask this question. Is it a DEP investigation? or just a review of what's going on?

We don't know.

Because the difference between investigation and review, those are two distinct terms.

Exactly. And we know that they filed a permit, so it could just be flagged for that, but we'll have to do some more investigation.

Yeah, I mean, so did something they do trigger that thing? No idea.

We don't know.

What else would trigger it? No idea. Literally, no idea. No idea. We'll look into it tomorrow morning.

That's why we couldn't answer the question. We didn't have any information on that.

It's the first we've heard of it.

I mean, there's a big difference between a review and an investigation. Well, we'll get to the bottom of it.

We'll have updates for you in your next packet. I'm sure Steve will address it in his narrative, if nothing else.

There needs to be some... you know, notwithstanding that we're looking at the ordinance, you know, starting in July or whatever for all the incompatible uses and stuff like that. But there needs to be some discussion, I think, among the planning board somehow, you know, kind of in an executive session or whatever so that you can really, we can really talk about how do you deal with, you know, these kinds of, you know, big issues when, you know, 30 people show up and so forth. And, you know, how do we go about responding to questions and so forth? Because a lot of the questions that they raised, including you, you know, are there, right? I mean, you know, several of them were but they were there.

There was a lot that was in the packet.

Yeah, exactly. And unfortunately, the packet is not online. How do you deal with that? How do you interact with the public when it gets contentious like this?

Some of that's in policy decisions, too, because we don't post the packet just online. They have to request it, so it's not out there. We don't have, you know, that's something we can consider.

Anyway, I don't know how we do that, but we need to be able to do it. And as I've mentioned to you numerous times, and then two minutes later you take a vote, that basically dismisses everything everybody said, right, in public.

That's how the perception is, yeah. Anyways, that's... We'll dig into that.

Yeah, and I don't know what the answer to that is, because if I had, I'd share it.

I think you all did a pretty good job of... explaining that, you know, the completeness vote doesn't mean that it's approved. It's just that the packet is complete as presented. It's not a yes or no, you can do the project. So bulldozers aren't moving. Correct.

And I think that when we start talking about redoing things or whatever, just the whole idea of like, oh, yeah, this is a motion that's complete. Well, what does that mean to you? That means it's done. You know, like you completed your assignment. You're done.

You said the packet is complete is how, you know.

Yeah, but that's a new one. That can be subjective because some of those people in the public, some of those questions, they would think that those would be answered in the packet and that they're not. that to them it's not complete because their questions haven't been answered. So it's really subjective to them, you know, but we can only go by the checklist of the ordinance. That's what we do. There's a lot of things. You know, if it's checked off that it's been addressed,

It's not in our purview.

And it's hard to argue with that. I mean, that's all we can do.

In this particular...

But that's why we're going to do a lot of ordinance revisions, and we've started them. Yeah, yeah, somehow to do that. It's not just this topic, but a lot of our ordinances need to be re-evaluated to today's standards, to the kinds of questions that we get asked over and over again, the kind of concerns we have over and over again.

Yes, we have a meeting on Monday to strategize, so more to come on the ordinance phase two.

I mean, it's not easy redoing ordinances. The process that you've got to go through to... Or cheap. Or cheap. That's correct.

We're going to have fun.

It's going to be great. We're done? Trust me.

I think we're done. Oh, yeah. You guys want to adjourn?