Planning Board - workshop

On the agenda, but when we do introductions anyway.

The first, Vince Messer. John DeLeo, chair.

Rick Liles, vice chair, assistant chair.

Sub-chair, chair.

And I think we got, is Lisa there?

Lisa LaRue, playing board member.

Ooh, there she is. Is Matt there? Yep, Matt, UTA alternate.

Okay, do you want to tell us about the incident or not?

I plead the fifth.

Okay. Staff introductions.

Okay, I guess it's in your ballpark.

What? It's your show. What's that?

You said it's your show. Go to number two, staff comments. Yeah.

You're just going to skip.

Okay.

I want you to put it under there. Sorry. Planning board bylaws. Yeah, right.

Exactly. How do you stop this?

Okay.

So it's a whole different ball game here today.

A whole different type of meeting. It's going to be great. Good thing it's not.

I'm looking forward. My phone is now on mute. Sorry.

So, planning board bylaws. Apparently we used to have some, but they have not been able to be relocated. So we are... I think what happened is when the UDO was created in 2011, they just mushed in all the bylaws into Chapter 18. So this is us pulling them back out what we can or should. There's some debate on what should be pulled out, and then creating new bylaws to help us govern and run this meeting as efficiently and as best as possible. And bylaws do not have to go to council to be approved for updates they technically don't have to go to council to be created but we are going to bring them in front of the council once we're ready to adopt them so this is our chance to create some regulations or how we want to structure our meetings and that sort of thing so i'm curious to see what you guys have thought about the draft I put together or if you guys want to start from scratch.

So basically I understand, I mean, we're still going to operate under Chapter 18, which is more statutory driven or regulation driven.

Chapter 18 is like the rules that we have to follow. The bylaws are more of the details on how we follow those rules. So it's not changing, you know, it's not, They have to complement each other. Bylaws have to complement the existing ordinances.

Yeah, I mean, there seem to be, every once in a while, there seem to be a little overlap, so we've just got to make sure that they're consistent, that's for sure.

Yes, and once we're ready with as final a draft as we can get, we'll run it through legal and then make any last-minute changes. We can definitely, I plan on having at least one more meeting discussing these bylaws, and, you know, we can... you 100 more. It's kind of up to you guys, too.

So what we're really talking about is just this guy here. I mean, the rest is just background, right? Yeah. Like so-and-so did it this way kind of thing?

I kind of threw in, you know, kind of like a... I did throw in a what to expect at a planning board meeting document that I threw together quickly. This will... THIS IS INTENDED FOR THE PUBLIC WHEN THEY SHOW UP TO MEETINGS. IT'S KIND OF A HANDOUT, SO SETTING EXPECTATIONS.

So this is something that, for example, with the last, you know, when we had so much interest. Yes. That we would have given them this or even in advance.

I figured I'd have it at every single meeting as a handout next to the agenda and that way it's, and we'll post it on the website, that sort of thing. But that document is kind of derived a little bit from the bylaws and how we're going to be running meetings. Obviously, we do have to comply with city policies and that sort of thing. There is a larger project of standardizing a lot of operating procedures across boards and commissions. That project is in the beginning phases, so I will be coordinating with that project to make sure we're following what those expectations are. But we have a little bit of wiggle room to, you know, run our meeting how we want in some ways, but we still have to follow both the ordinances and city policies.

Now in the draft of the bylaws, a couple sections reference Chapter 18 with section numbers that don't exist in the current 18. Has 18 been revised and do we have a new one?

18, you should have received 18 in the updated packet I sent when we released the ordinances on July 1.

So that was the packet which had all kinds of stuff in it.

I gave you the manila envelope with the printed ordinances updated. Chapter 18 should have been in there if it wasn't. It's on the website. And this rough draft is supposed to be a very, just kind of a structure to go through everything and it's, just a starting point.

But the updates too though, didn't we do a lot of housekeeping updates?

We did.

So, I mean we need to have those, right?

They didn't catch everything, so this is our chance to refine what was done in the phase one update.

Okay, but didn't we make, has the council accepted those changes? Yes. Okay, so, I mean, we need to have whatever sections have been updated. Was that in the Manila envelope?

Everything that was updated.

Okay. I guess I'll have to look for the Manila envelope. So... I guess one question I have is the term limits. Where does that come from? We are going to have a public hearing, but you've got a quick question.

No, that was it. I was just wondering if you're going to be a workshop. There's confusion out there whether you're having a meeting or a workshop. We went to the website and didn't say anything about a workshop, just that you're still having a meeting and no agenda. And the phone didn't work. Yeah, we tried calling in.

But put it this way, we don't have any projects on the agenda.

Okay. We're concerned about the RV park if it's not going to be discussed. Oh, no, nothing like that today. Okay. Sorry for interrupting. No, that's okay.

Because you could be sitting there for quite some time waiting for Godot.

It's on the September agenda.

Okay, okay. That will be posted. Yeah, August. Okay. Okay. Thanks very much.

Well, thanks for showing up, though, and being interested. Sorry for the confusion.

Okay, so what's the purpose of a term limit, I guess?

So term limits have been popping up recently. This draft I kind of pulled from other examples around the state and what's kind of been trending lately to throw it in there and discuss. So term limits are intended to keep the board fresh, is to prevent burnout, and it's a pretty hot topic lately.

So John Fink, though, was on the board for like 30 years, right?

Yes, it's not traditionally the name.

So I mean, how does that work? I mean, so are these new term limits, or have they always been lurking back there and we chose not to?

No, they haven't been part of the thing. It's more of like you, the idea is you serve two terms consecutively at most, and then you take a term off, and then you can come back.

And a term is three years?

Five years for planning board.

Five years, that's what I felt like.

And then I've seen this standard term limit for boards is three years, and then they do two-year terms, take a break, and then come back. So it's just an option.

So is the five-year term, where else is that? Well, it doesn't say five years in here.

Not in the bylaws because it says it in Chapter 18.

Yeah, that was my question. So in Chapter 18, it does say five years.

It does.

That way it's one C. Is it worth saying again here?

We can cross-reference it.

I think I would.

Because the idea of the bylaws is not to restate what is in the government.

Right, no, I understood that. But yet some things are kind of restatements.

Yes, so we can definitely reference back to that.

And it seems to me that... a bylaws would – that's something that would be typically in a bylaws, right, is the term and so forth. So notwithstanding that you don't want to be redundant, I would suggest that you be redundant anyway. That's true.

There's a case for – because if one thing gets updated and the other one gets missed, there's that conflict, which is part of the housekeeping process. phase is to reduce those redundancies. So that would be maybe more of a legal question when we get to that to see due term limits and, you know, the, you know, how many years is a term? Does that live in Chapter 18 or is that part of the bylaws?

Or is it cross-reference?

Or is it cross-reference?

That kind of thing I think would be worthwhile having it cross-reference. I don't see any problem with that. so to speak, just sitting and reading those things, and I see it in place A and place B, it shouldn't be a problem, as long as it's consistent. Right.

I was just going to say, I mean, going back in time, I guess somebody would have to do some research to see how many Planned War members have actually stuck around more than 10 years. I mean, the way you have... If somebody has to come off because of term limits and you say, okay, you can wait a year and then come back on, but you then may very well put that person in competition with a five-year member that wants to continue. And so you may have two good members and now the council's got to decide who do they pick. I mean, the council has a choice of whether to appoint somebody or not. If they don't think a member is not doing a good job, then get rid of them. When the term expires and say, sorry, but we're not gonna give you another term. I guess I look at it, I mean, if council members aren't under term limits, what's the purpose of, because there's been times that this board has been down to five members and not so much in the distant past. We've been in five members with no alternates for a considerable amount of time.

And so is there a compromise in handling that in saying, okay, not necessarily saying after your term is up, your term is up, but rather the decision goes back to the council?

Well, it is. I mean, when your term expires, then it's up to the council to decide whether they're going to reappoint you. If you want to go for another five-year term, it's up to the council to decide whether they can reappoint you.

So if I want to go for a second five-year term, it's still up to the council?

Yeah. Yeah.

So every time, almost... Every time you expire. Every time I expire, I get... They say, oh, you're not really expired.

And another conversation is, is five years too long? for a term, so he shortened that.

What we have... What else has... The Board of Appeals has... What are their terms?

I think it's three. Is it five? I think it may be five.

I'm used to three.

And the library, although that's elected, that's still – is that three? I don't know. I should know that.

The trustees, I think, are three.

Council is three.

I'm a two-letter word, and they're three. Somebody – is that Lisa? Go ahead.

Yeah. Yeah. I'm of the opinion that – Well, there's a couple things. I think five is a lot, and in the past I've always had – experience with three-year terms. And that gives the person enough time. It takes you like a year to get on board and then serve two years as a pretty knowledgeable member, typically. And if you're doing a good job, you could sign on for the second round. And if not so much, clear the stack and not have to stick it out for five years. That's kind of a good thing. It's a win-win. Maybe the person doesn't really want to do it or maybe they're not a good fit and they need to move on. Five years is a pretty long commitment in this day and age. So I would kind of go in that order and I like the two-term limit idea. My question becomes, at this point, Who will we lose in the very near future, or do we have anybody who is, you know, do we have a couple people that are going to be fulfilling their second five-year term, and are we going to cut off our nose and spite our face?

I think we would start fresh. So, like, starting from whenever it's enacted, that would be the start of your first technical term from when it's enacted. I've seen it suggested to do it that way to keep it a clean slate. But that would be in the bylaws, so ultimately up to you guys.

So Rick, who is going to- Yeah, that would have to be clearly stated because two years from now, we're all going to forget. Who knows, you'll be President of the United States, you won't be the person in charge anymore, and we'll all forget. And then something will slip through the cracks on that. So if that's going to be the case, that this becomes effective only after the expiration of the existing member's terms, So that would mean somebody who had already served two or three terms could serve another two. So we've got to be careful with that.

If you read the last sentence of that section, three term limits, it does state what I just said more eloquently. Okay.

Yeah, I think I read that and I was like, wow, somebody could be on for a lot longer, but you've got to start somewhere.

And the routine sequence, though, has been to serve as the alternate or as somebody who's the associate or whatever. But, you know, you start there, and then you become a regular member. I mean, I think that's the understanding. I don't suppose it's necessary that that's the way it goes.

Well, generally it does. I mean, and sometimes alternate members become a full member in a month, and sometimes it may take a couple of years. Right. And I don't know what the turnover is, you know, with the full members. I went from an alternate to a full member.

Can you go from a regular member back to an alternate member? Or you have to be off the board for a period of at least one year after serving two terms?

We would have to specify that in the policy, but I don't know what typically... I don't know what standard for that. I haven't looked into it that heavily.

On the side of this discussion, I don't know if it's an error on the website, but I was looking at what the expirations are for our current terms, and they all expire June 30th. I mean, mine expires in 28, Rick's expires in 29, Lisa and Vince expire in 30. And Mike expires in 31. Yes. So there's a mistake someplace.

There is, which I'm working with Ebony to sort out. I'm all right. Yeah.

Okay. So somebody, either Lisa or Vince's should expire in 27. I'm guessing.

Yeah. I think when I first came on, wasn't I fulfilling like an expired term or something like that? And then I got. Like a bump from alternate to regular?

I believe so. Probably. Yes.

And there was a miscommunication between me and Ebony. So we're fixing it.

Okay. That should be rectified.

I figured once we hit closer to the end of the term year, we'll go through all that.

Yeah, I don't like the idea, by the way, of going from regular back to alternate.

Yeah, I agree. Yeah, because I like your...

Using alternate as a training period and then go regular makes a lot of sense to me.

I agree.

And so that means that you routinely, maybe not always, but routinely, you do get that year or two of experience and then, you know, become the real deal.

that's so it should state in there that it says now that after two consecutive full terms they're ineligible for reappointment as a regular member for at least one year so we need to they shouldn't be any kind of member right not regular not vice chair not alternate nothing that would be yeah my view yeah personally

So what do you do first ? Well, that's always the case, right?

I mean, that's always the worry. Well, right. But I mean, if no one else wants to apply for this job, three people, you know.

I suppose you could always do an exception.

I guess I would have to ask, what problem are we trying to solve?

What problem are we trying to solve? And just, well, according to what you said earlier, and I agree with it, is that you try to keep it fresh as opposed to have...

It's not a problem. It's just a method of doing it. And a lot of places do do it that way. We had three-year term limits, and it was all staggered. So that we were constantly cycling in.

And our board was a little bit bigger.

It had 10 members. So it was cycling in more people. A couple at a time. A couple at a time. And it gave fresh faces, fresh eyes.

Which is a little daunting to me, but... Well, I have an example of this idea of the space between after-term limits, the year off. It's a personal example. I served on a board here, a nonprofit board, and I was the chair. And my term as chair, as well as my term on the board, expired. And then after a year, they said, how much will you come back? And I said, sure. And when I came back, it was as if I had gone to Mars. Everything had changed. New people, new man, you know, everything was different. And my concern with term limits and that idea of, you know, a year off, so to speak, is jaded by that experience, my own experience. And I just think you're either on the board for X number of years and terms, or not, and it ought to stop right there. Because if you don't need me for a year or two, you know, then why invite me back?

And 10 years is a long time.

usually swapped over to the BVA the board of zoning appeals they swapped to a different board for a term and then they would go back to whatever they wanted to do but it still allowed that turnover of fresh eyes and a different outlook but it's really up for discussion it's not that we feel one way or the other or there's a problem we're not trying to get rid of you there's something to explore and I wanted to have that discussion to see what the temperature was I guess

I know. I mean, I guess I would be comfortable with, you know, 10 and out, so to speak, term limits, right? It seems like a big deal. At the same time, you know, John Fink was the example with, you know, a 30-year guy, right?

I personally think that's too long.

Yeah. Yeah, and he was chairman for, oh, 10, right? Yeah.

overdoing all the projects that come through a municipality.

And I've been reading the Moses book about that planner in New York City that had quite the reign and a lot of power. So there is a perception if the same board member is on for decades, they have a lot of perceived power and influence over what goes on in the city, which can be a good thing or a bad thing.

Yeah, but there's still only one vote.

Yeah.

And you still have them? Veto power at the council level. Actually, I'll open a public hearing to get raised thoughts on it. Got any thoughts, Raymond? That's one of the things I got thoughts on.

Come on up. I just want to say. I want to see right over there. You can sit right down there and enjoy the conversation.

Sit with the big kids. Sit with the big kids.

I am not in favor of term limits for you guys. I don't, I think if you were forced, planning board is forced to have term limits that some other changes that should be made, other branches of city government also should have term limits. It's going to start somewhere.

It's going to start somewhere.

Well, but I also think that I go back this September, full time, living in Ellsworth, 52 years. And I know there have been, going back that time period, long term board members on this board. And I don't know, I don't think anyone served as long as John Fink did, but I think there were some people in the past that had, may have had over 10 years. And I certainly think that there is something, you talk about freshness coming in, but I think there's something also to be said for people with experience. And I think over the years we've had, when I arrived here there were people like like John will probably know who I'm talking about, Teddy Beal and Dick Salisbury and Tony Junta that were all on for fairly long periods of time, maybe not quite altogether 10 years, but I think some of them over the period may have been on for longer than 10 years. So I just, I am not a fan of term limits. I think best example of term limits is supposed to be good bringing fresh blood into the main legislature, and it has, but a lot of experience has been lost, too, in the main legislature with term limits. Now, another point on the term limits, which I've looked at the thing, and I've heard Brittany's explanation of where it came from, but I'm just wondering, Are the people higher up in city administration that are pushing for term limits?

No, they haven't. They have not seen my draft copy.

Okay, all right, okay.

It's purely a discussion.

Then I won't go off on one rant that I hadn't prepared. Thank you for your consideration. Term limits, term limits, I... I think you've got to ask as to who is doing this. I don't think that term limits is something that... planning board itself has the right and power to establish. I think it is something that should be established actually under Chapter 18 by the City Council. I don't think you can establish it under bylaws. Also, I just have another question. Ellsworth has had the five members in the five-year terms for a long time. I tried to do a quick look today and I couldn't find it, but IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WAY BACK LONG AGO, THE SIZE OF PLANNING BOARDS WAS SORT OF ESTABLISHED IN EVEN THE TERMS WHERE I THOUGHT ESTABLISHED UNDER STATE STATUTE. AND I THINK YOU MAYBE SHOULD HAVE

It might have been repealed.

Well, I found something that was repealed, so I'm not completely sure. But I think you've got to find out from city attorney about that and also as to who has the power to do it. I think that if you do adopt this, that it has to be adopted as part of Chapter 18.

Are you talking about the term limits specifically, not bylaws, just the term limits? So that would make sense for the cross-reference, that it can't be in bylaws, that it just stays in 18, and the bylaws are whether or not people can speak for how long and all that other stuff, right?

No, I think that should be in, I think it has to be in, if you go to that route, it has to be in Chapter 18. That would make sense. and not the bylaws, and adopted by the council. This gets me to one of my second things. I went through Chapter 18. I went through the draft of the bylaws that Britain provided, potential bylaws for you to consider, and I took a quick look through the other ones that you had there, Orono, North Yarmouth, and the draft bylaws, excuse me, from the Maine Municipal Association. And even, and I didn't find anything in those about term limits at all. So I just wanted to just, I don't think term limits are needed and I think you've got to be careful what you do. My next point is I don't think you necessarily need bylaws. I went through Chapter 18 and Chapter 18 sets out Pretty good procedures. Procedures that you have been following for years, I think, without a lot of trouble. I think that's all I have to say on that. Do you really think that you need to do it? You could make your amendments and changes, if there are any, to Chapter 18 and continue on that.

I think the same thing. I think there's some duplication, but, you know, can the bylaws be incorporated in the chapter 18? And because also is the council of the mindset that, okay, if there's changes made to chapter 18, the council has to change it. The way it's proposed right now, if there's changes made to the bylaws, we change it. Is the council gonna be accepting to that? I find it hard to believe that they would.

that's why because we're doing a review of chapter 18 too so this is kind of a this discussion is supposed to help us define what needs to go into 18 versus what we want in the bylaws i mean obviously changing the bylaws would be a heck of a lot easier because the plan board could do it ourselves exactly most are supposed to be more like how do we run this meeting

as opposed to like when you have all the public you could say it's you have three minutes to speak and that's it and you have if there's a group of i mean we had our bylaws broke it down to you have two minutes we set it at every meeting lined it out you have two if public comment keep it to two and a half minutes and that's something that you could put in bylaws i like how we have it now where it's up to the chair to set those Exactly, so you raise kind of right. You do have the ability to have bylaws without having bylaws.

But if the council doesn't accept that and says, everybody should have a chance to talk for 5 minutes, 10 minutes, whatever.

I don't think the state will decide. If they do that, they'd be hypocritical because they don't allow that in their own meeting.

Well, so where are the limits on their own meetings?

They adopt them in their annual... In November, every time a new council is seated, they adopt the annual rules for how the meetings are run.

And of course, Robert's rules are stricter than what we do.

So shouldn't this body be operating under the same rules?

conditions rules that the council is guidelines we are quasi judicial so we do have to be a little bit more formal than like a regular Commission but we don't have to be as strict as Roberts rules which is like a whole can of worms sure recommended that a claim where the city decides Robert's rules because it is so strict and you almost need a lawyer president to help guide you through that. So I'm not looking to be that strict.

Is this more to like establish SOPs?

Yes to help establish SOPs.

Or the turnover that Lisa talked about as your president and someone to pick it up and understand what they expect

Yeah, provide a little bit more detail on how we run things, the process of things. That's my...

So it's not just in your guys' brains.

Yeah, Lisa.

Go ahead, Alicia. Lisa.

While I'm sitting here listening about this, I looked it up, and it appears that in the state of Maine, very few towns or cities have established term limits specific for planning boards Only Lewiston and Agunquick currently have term limits for planning boards. They said that planning boards are typically, you know, it's hard to fill the positions with the volunteers, so you take the experience that you're offered and stick with it. So, I mean, that's just to throw that out there. And to the topic of how many minutes we let people talk and how we handle our board meetings and how the chairman can manipulate different things, leaving it vague, Part of that is not only that we're quasi-judicial, but it's also that each application stands on its own. No application has an effect on the next. So a chairman can look at an application and say, this one's going to need a lot of conversation. This one, you know, let's limit it to a minute. Next one might limit it to eight because each application stands on its own merits and needs. I like the vagueness of that because it gives the chairman the authority.

Can I speak? Yeah, go ahead. I would agree with her on that, and that's one of my pet peeves with the council and to some extent with you, but not as much of you as with the council. There are things that are more complicated and have more nuances to them that people should have the time to speak to address all of those various things, and that... And that leaves it up to the chairman to allow further time beyond the three minutes, which is what the council has in which the council just, you can't get anywhere with them. But I've noticed that in here in recent times that you have been willing to listen to longer arguments and which I think in depending on the nature of the creature, That's fairness to the proponent, the developer, the applicant, or whatever, and it's also fair to people who are opposing it to have questions about it.

Yeah, I mean, I see that point. I think it would be difficult to say, okay, is this person worthy of three minutes of rebuttal versus 15 minutes? And where do you draw the line?

My people, there's 50 people like we had two weeks ago. Everyone can't have half an hour.

I understand your point, Raymond, that three minutes is not much to get your point across.

Well, the intention of the limits is to make sure everyone has a chance to speak. And then at the end, if everyone's spoken and there's time left over, they're supposed to be able to restart so they can come up again and have another three minutes. But it's supposed to be a fair process.

Well, the other thing, though, is with our stuff, people can send in comments, right? And they'd be part of the record or whatever. And it's like, I don't think I can get this set in three minutes. I can send you a 10-page report on it.

Because a lot of times people make the comments, especially the more... Passionate? Yes. Good word. Have a tendency to read from their script. And it could very well go on for 5, 10, 15 minutes. We can read on our own.

Is it possible that it could be, given the number of people present wanting to speak, et cetera, that the chair could say at some point, you know, okay, you've been speaking for 15 minutes. gavel time to let someone else speak.

Yeah, I mean, I think you've drawn a fine line. You know, if it's open-ended, then you're going to run into the issue of, well, why are you cutting me off?

You had to set that at the beginning of the meeting.

Tonight we're going to give five minutes to speak. Whatever. So you have to do that at the beginning of the meeting.

And then that way it's fair for everybody.

Yeah, that way if you keep it the same every time, it's fair across the board. I can see if you said, all right, we're going to keep the last... months meeting to two minutes, two and a half, whatever, to help get all these people through. And then the next meeting that only has ten, they get five, eight minutes. Because there's four, those people that got the two minutes, they're going to be mad. I would think. But maybe they won't be mad.

Well, it's tremendously hard to draw these lines. Exactly.

That's why you pick a number and stick to it, and it's even fair cross-court. But...

I'm kind of with Ray on this one. I'm reluctant to put a time limit on it. If they're here and they want to talk about it, they should be able to talk about it.

And that's the other thing. You have 9,000 people, and I'm coming from a space that had 90,000. You have to. You can't. You can't.

We can set a time limit, like a hard stop on meetings. So it's like you only have until 9 o'clock. And if you go over, then it goes on the next month's agenda.

Well, and the chair can always say, because there's ones that go long. I mean, there is redundancy from speaker to speaker. And you can start to ask individuals, like, is there something new here? And that becomes fodder for the chair to say, well, OK, well, if there's nothing new, then let's go to the next person who has something to do.

I think what we're talking about is trying to prevent a filibuster.

Yeah. Seriously.

Right. You know, it is somebody gets up and talks for 15, 20 minutes, a half an hour, or whatever, and suddenly it's deadline time for the meeting.

Yeah, I don't much care for that idea. You know, because then you're putting an imposition on the applicant. You know, you say, okay, we're going to stop the meeting at 9 o'clock. Well, we start at 5.30, I mean, it's three and a half hours, but I mean, still, like, you know, I mean, there's probably been a couple meetings going past 9, but they're in the minimum, and I don't think it's fair to the applicant to say, oh, sorry, come back next month because we ran out of time.

But is it fair to everyone involved, including this board, to say you can go on and on and on and on and on and, you know, have a meeting go till 9.30, 10 o'clock, past my dinner time? You know, and so on. There's got to be a line somewhere.

At the same time, it isn't broken right now, right? and maybe the answer's in there. Kind of more or less keep on doing it the way we're doing it. And if it starts to break, then it's pretty easy to say, because of the bylaws or whatever, here's the new sub-rule for this particular meeting. It's three minutes or whatever. I would suggest that

First, we've got to decide whether we need or want a chapter 18 and bylaws, or do we combine it into chapter 18? I think to some extent, that's probably somewhat of a council decision.

The comprehensive plan suggested bylaws. Oh, okay.

Is that right?

Mm-hmm. Good job.

I must have dozed off through that section.

That's our authority.

I don't remember that. Isn't it time for another comprehensive plan?

Probably.

If you review it and determine that what is in the present Chapter 18, plus what other revisions you could make in Chapter 18, will serve the purpose of or bylaws, then you reviewed it and you come to your decision and then it's your duty to pass it on to the council. And my basic point is I said I went through, I looked through the bylaws and basically I think most of this, not the bylaws, chapter 18, not in probably the detail that Brittany has, but still, it looks to me that basically everything is there. The procedure that you follow when an applicant comes before you with a proposal is set forth there. And some of the, and I don't know whether you've changed that procedure in your draft, in some of the other drafts, materials that you have provided, there are set-ups where for the actual public hearing that the applicant makes their presentation as part of the public hearing. That isn't the procedure that's set forth currently in Chapter 18 and that you end up also planning what I think has been following for one heck of a long time. They let the applicant make makes its or his or her proposal and then the planning department and other staff, the code enforcement and other people, other city officials add what they have to add to it and then you go to the public hearing and then allow the public and any opponents or opposition to it to have their say at that time. But the procedure that's been followed, if you ever have an appeal, and I don't think you, other than Beals Avenue, I don't think you've had an appeal on anything in years, but you put together for your record on the appeal, it's basically you have detailed minutes and you have, in this day and age now, which I would think is part of any record on the appeal, would be the, you could do a transcript, but you could also have the film, it's available. So you have the stuff and you have everything there for a record, so I don't, and it's already set forth in Chapter 18 of the City Code, so I, and you can make any necessary amendments that need to be made, which I don't think there are really that many to that, and have the council adopted, and since you're working on it, I thought that 18 and 56 were pretty all set and just housekeeping things that were taken care of and that there wasn't going to be much, if anything else, coming on them. But now it sounds like from comments that Brittany made at the workshop on Monday that there's going to be something coming on them. Is it going to be very much?

We're reviewing, and this discussion is going to inform some of those changes, if there are any changes.

Well, in your research, I mean, is... Is it common for a planning board to have an ordinance and bylaws?

Yes. Like I said, the bylaws can go a little bit more detailed about how things are set out and then they're easier to change so you can adapt quicker to any needs. especially if we start getting a ton of projects through or whatever. So it's just an option.

So the chapter 18 is kind of like, here's kind of legally what you can do, and the bylaws are how you can do it. Yes.

And new members, you can give them that. They know what to expect at meeting to meeting.

And as does the public. Yeah. And it's a much, you know, just in terms of them absorbing all that, it's easier. I mean, here's a five-page document versus, you know, here's your loose-leaf binder. 18's in there somewhere, and I don't know.

You guys could change them. If something in that bylaw isn't working the way you want it to, it's just a document.

It's supposed to help you guys and both of you run an efficient meeting that's steady, that's fair, that's the same thing every time, and then help the public understand the process, too.

Well, the chair's gone. Yeah. And someone else needs to step up. They have those bylaws and know exactly what's going on.

And they can even have a script of what the chair should say.

Exactly. That's something we had every time the chair just read one document at the beginning and...

hitting everything that needs to be said, so if anything gets appealed, we have that to fall back on. And then we can change it as needed more easily than taking it to council, which is a hassle. And the bylaws can be as detailed and specific, or they can be super thorough, or they can be a light bylaw, a one-pager. It just depends on how much information or how detailed we want to get.

So if the council would designate the authority to the chair and the board to make certain decisions, then the board would have, and we could put this in the language, as needed, as necessary, as appropriate, the authority to make adjustments in the amount of time a person has to speak and so on and so forth. So if we have a large group like we did last meeting, we're going to say, you don't have ten minutes to talk. You've got five or you've got three or whatever. But that's up to the board and more specifically to the chair to do that. And I think if we have that has been delegated to this group, then we do have the right and authority to make those decisions.

Well, Chapter 18 gives you your authority. The bylaws just tell you how to do it.

Okay, that's fair. But we can do it. My point is, we can do it.

Amen. I don't see the problem with having the Chapter 18 on the bylaws.

The bylaws can just be like the structure of the meetings and that sort of thing.

Term limits don't have to be included.

Yeah, and that's something that's good. Not term limits, but that's also good for a developer coming in fresh to the area. It's like, I need, yeah, this is what my... public hearing in Ellsworth is going to look like.

And that's what more I'm interested in is how do we, you know, we can keep it the same structure, we can tweak it a little, like that's what I want you guys to discuss and decide on and kind of do a more detailed meeting, like how does the process of meeting work and that sort of thing, those details. Term limits are something that if you're willing just to see what you guys thought about. And it's, you know, I've seen it, and my planning updates and all those articles about it being a thing.

Well, I think I'm liking the idea that bylaws equal good, notwithstanding Ray's comments.

Yeah.

Now, in terms of the term limits and stuff, I mean, to me, 10 years is a long time, and most people I would think would say, okay, enough's enough, I'm going to go retire or whatever. And looking at this group, 10 years might be way too long. I dye my hair this color, though.

We're not letting you step down. You're stuck here.

Well, no, no, I was just thinking about it, though. I mean... If the idea is to allow for turnover and stuff like that, which I think is a real valid thing, at the same time, I think there's a real trouble with enforced term limits when you get, I mean, if you think about state legislatures and stuff, I mean, and you're dealing with something like health care, you know, that takes a long time to really figure out where all the bodies are buried, what you can do, what you can't do, blah, blah, blah, right? And so you don't want to have someone being term-limited off at the end of six years who just has really become an expert in XYZ, whether it's in the planning board or the state legislature or whatever. So maybe the thing to do is to make shorter terms, like three years, and make it unlimited.

I just wonder if Vince thinks some of us are not going to make our turn.

Well, you know, some of us are being kept alive by mechanical devices. There's a history there.

I have a question, too, about the term limits.

I'm sorry?

I have another question with the term limits and stuff. Whether it's three or five, like I said, I think three is more doable because life changes so much and, you know, people want to commit and five is a big commitment. Okay. But if you're a regular member and you can only serve two limits, and my misreading that that means that I think it should be that after you've served two terms as a regular member, you should still have the authority if you want to, especially if we drop it to three years, to be the chair or vice chair. Because your chair or vice chair needs to have six to ten years of experience in order to be able to adequately perform the duties i hate to see two term limits and we lose anybody with any long-term history to help run the board well wouldn't that be why you would want to try to stagger them and give a chance for your board members that have been there through the people that have been there for two terms a chance to be the chair well that's what i mean i think if you've been there i want to make sure that the wording is such that If you've served as a regular member, you can still then serve another term as the elected chair or vice chair.

So you're saying three terms?

No, at least three, maybe unlimited.

Is that what I'm understanding? You want them to be able to do three years, six years, and then nine years as a chair?

I'm thinking, yeah. After they've served as a regular member, they can still serve as a chair or vice chair for another term. Only because we have somebody that's got five to six years of experience or even ten years and then they're gone. We've lost all that continuity of process.

Or at least gone for a year because they could decide to come back after a year.

I don't like that idea. Seeing as there's five full members, I think it's more important to stick with a five-year term. Because if you go to a three-year term, then you may very well have two people coming off the same. And granted, everybody doesn't serve their full five-year term. I mean, probably the odds are they do. I don't know what the percentage is. But if you're doing three-year terms, then you're staggering the five. And then you've got the two alternates. Are they doing three-year terms, two-year terms? whether it's five full members or you serve five term, I mean, five years.

I mean, one person is... Well, curious, John, how long have you been on the board and how long has Rick been on the board?

Well, when I get to, if I make it to 28, it'll be a little over 10 years because I started a shortened term, so it was a brief... Okay.

And Rick?

Less.

About a year or two. Okay.

I can tell you right now, chances are after 28...

10 years is a long time. So maybe historically 10 years is enough and during that time you've already moved up if you're interested. So maybe it's not even worth discussing.

Well, yeah, but that's why I think the threes give you a nice easy way to get out or turnover as long as there's no upper limit.

Yeah, you may be right. Everyone's point about how experience... is valid and maybe because you have 9,000 people that you need that experience more than you need freshness. You may be 100% right about that. Because your pool of who you want on this board isn't big enough to pull in. So maybe you need no term limits.

I think there's a big difference between planning board and council. I mean, council deals with a lot of decisions. But for the most part, they're not dealing with this. They're not dealing with topics, decisions that are as technical in nature as we are. I don't believe that. I mean, they're reviewing contracts, stuff like that, but we can't deviate from what these standards say, basically. And we need to know what the standards say.

To the letter of the law, we can't put a project before you that doesn't hit all those points. Whether or not that's been done in the past, I'm not debating that. But trying to go forward, that's not the goal is not to put a project before you that you can't just accept as word. Because that's our job. Our job is to put these projects before you that check off all those boxes so you don't have to do that much work. And you're there to make sure that we are adhering to that process. Which clearly wasn't going the right way before. Which we're trying to prove and

hey you can't build trust in a day there's no way once you lose trust it's the hardest thing to get back so it's going to be a long road but we're trying to work together to make that a reality i mean i've been of the mindset for years with the planters that if and it's you know developers don't like it but if if their application is not complete or you know obviously there's going to be some permission But if it doesn't worth the time of day, don't bring it to the board. And I've had that battle with planners in the past. And I'm getting pressure from higher up in city hall. I'm getting pressure from developers.

Well, John, it's a new era, and I love my rules.

I promoted that for years.

We're vested by the state, not necessarily by the... I mean, we're mandated by the state to do it the way we're supposed to do it. I mean, there's rules in MUVEC that Ellsworth hasn't even touched, probably, that Portland does, that we're required to do. It's just, you've got to start somewhere, as Brittany says. You've got to start somewhere, and we've got to start building that... bylaws were just an attempt to, one, staff know what you expect, and two, public and developers know what you expect as well. Not necessarily to control or fix a problem.

Well, let's give them a little guidance. I have no problem having, obviously we've got to have Chapter 18, but I have no problem having a set of bylaws to Supplement Chapter 18, I guess. What do you guys want?

Give them some direction. Well, I said before, I think having the bylaws is probably a pretty good idea.

So, okay, so we said bylaws are a good idea.

That's what I said. But they should be drawn based on or written based on Chapter 18.

Oh, for sure. Bylaws based on Chapter 18.

They legally have to be, so yes.

Of course.

I have another thought about the term limit idea. Another thought just popped in my crazy head.

Can we get this done first, and you can jump in later on? Because we're talking about this now, and then you can jump in out on your thing. We're talking about the bylaws now. Can we finish that, please?

That's part of the bylaws.

Well, I guess so. Well, no, we're talking. We went through all that enough times. I don't think we... Okay, go ahead. Talk about your own terms again.

So how do you feel about the bylaws, Lisa? Do you like the bylaws?

I think bylaws are a good idea, but they have to reflect. And by talking about all these different things, we're learning about things as to whether or not we like specific points in the bylaws or leave it more open and vague. And I think without looking at the details, some of these things have just been presumed. And we haven't thought about the impacts of things like term limits and minutes for talking and stuff. But the thought about term limits, I do like bylaws, I really do. Because continuity after city planners leave or board members leave or staff changes, it's important to have a clear set of rules to follow. And I was just thinking about this term limit business and I go back and forth. But interestingly enough, if we have Never had term lits in the past. And part of the luxury of that is that the council does change year after year. So each year when one of our positions expires, it's a different set of councilmen that are actually approving the appointment. So we're not just picking like a same, same, same through us. The council rotating through new people is also having a fresh new effect on who they're supporting to be the new members.

What about you, Matt? You still there?

I am here and it's a riveting discussion. What was the question?

You say you're riveted? What do you think about keeping it? We've got to keep Chapter 18, but also have a set of bylaws?

I think bylaws are a great idea.

Okay, short and sweet.

Yep. So who's for bylaws? Everybody, everybody. Everyone is for bylaws? Yes. Term limits?

I just have one thing to say about term limits, and it's a personal theory. I think after years of working with management and leadership, that was the kind of consulting and business work I did. that there was, Terminus came about because somebody somewhere was afraid to tell Joe Schmo, you're not performing anymore, you need to get off the board. You need to leave the organization. So we're going to say, everybody's got three years or five years or whatever. It is one of those things that has driven me crazy. I do not see what the problem is It's not get fresh eyes and fresh ears and that kind of stuff, because if a council or board is doing its job, then why do we need fresh eyes? What if it's not? Well, if it's not, then there are two things that need to happen. You have the chair and you have the council.

And if you have short terms, you have more options to move those people. Well, we're going to say.

Yeah, so I'm just, I'm not one way or the other. I'm just trying to gauge the room right now. Term limits. No.

No.

No. No. No.

I'm thinking no.

Yes. You're yes. Okay, so we have Lisa.

I'm thinking no. I've changed my mind.

No. Matt. Or Moe. Yes, but. more discussion on what they are. Definitely more discussion. Not saying that we're doing it one way or the other right now. We have two guesses, Mark and Matt.

And then both names start with an S.

Well, I don't know if we are the ones that set our own limits, though, like you were saying. Shouldn't the council tell us we should have a limit, and maybe we could set a limit on their type of bail?

They ultimately have the authority to approve or deny, but they need a suggestion. Okay. That makes sense.

Otherwise, we're governing ourselves.

And it's scary, as I'm sitting here thinking that I'm the one at the table with the institutional knowledge of the three staff members here, but when I started it, we had a hard time filling the board seats.

Oh, yeah. Yeah, again, you may be right. There's not enough people here. There's not a big enough pool.

Have we had anyone, even though I know we haven't advertised, has anybody applied?

It's feast or famine because we had three at once and then nothing since, so.

Yeah, so.

We weren't quite a while without any alternates.

Yeah, no, there weren't anyone I got here.

Yeah, I remember meetings were weak. went out and went to some guy's house and brought him back because there were no alternates and we needed, you know.

Not term limits, we have that. Okay, what about term? Are we wanting to shorten it? Do we like it the way it is?

I think five's good.

Five's good. So let's go just five. Let's do five. Who wants five? Who thinks five is good? John? Ben? John and Ben, okay.

I'm okay with five.

Who likes three? I like three. Lisa. Lisa likes three. Rick likes three.

I like three.

Mark likes three. What about you, Matt? Three is good. That's with the three game.

Yeah, so three returns with no limits on the number of turns.

John, it's you and me against the rest of them, right? We can take them.

Well, you're trying to push us along here, aren't you?

No, I'm just trying to keep the information so the next one we can bring back and discuss more in-depth what we want to do.

I am also glad that we brought up the completeness aspect of reviewing the projects. That's something that's driven me crazy, too.

I've had that discussion with several planners.

We'll see this thing at the final. Well, then why are we here if they're not ready? It's supposed to be complete.

Can I ask a question? What do we need for a preliminary?

Everything is supposed to be in the packet. If you're missing anything, it's not supposed to move on.

And the ordinance update has fixed that. So now instead of two checklists and two different sets of application materials, it's all in the prelim.

So until that's all checked off, it doesn't come here.

And that was the way it was supposed to be before, and it was never followed. So when is that going to go into effect?

July 1.

It has gone into effect. Last month. So the RV park was the last project that we got that was on the old rules.

Well, we kicked them to the next one because he was a day late. So, I mean, we're just going to try to do the best we can to stay above board and keep them, and I mean, I guess to an extent there's a couple things in the ordinance that they could argue they don't need to do, and that would be for you to say no or yes. Like an argument about maybe septic flow or water flow, something like that, if they want to argue that they don't need to show that, You need it, but I guess it's their purview to argue that with you to an extent. Now, whether you want a bylaw, say no. If the number doesn't match, kick it back. We can do that.

Well, simply, if they want to go before the board and let you all decide whether or not they're complete or not, they can still ask to go before you. But in the past, the board has also just said, you know, you've got it 90% complete. Close enough. Yeah.

Or, like, needing the lumens at that final. Like, do you want us to make sure that they have all that stuff beforehand? Like, or getting it to the final is good enough.

I mean, I don't think we're ever going to be at a point where on a preliminary you're able to say 100% of what's required is there.

Well, but we need to be able to say more than, okay, you said traffic in there somewhere, so you must be okay. You know, that's complete. That's not complete. That's just... Or water, you know, or whatever.

Whatever it is. I mean, there's definitely main points that there's no wiggle room.

I mean, Brittany and I have discussed it, and I don't know if you're still on the thought. You know, you have that checklist, and, okay, you know, big stuff like stormwater or or traffic, okay, that takes a higher precedent than if a long-eared bat is on the endangered list for this piece of property or something simple like that. I mean, there's some stuff that is, you know, you get the letters from half a dozen different places that check, yep, you're fine, you're fine, you know, from all the state agencies. You know, we never really have any discussion on it. You know, it's just they've got to get that letter from Inland Fish and Wildlife, from Historic Society, you know, from all those. Check the boxes.

And for a prelim, if they showed, here, we submitted our request, we hopefully will have it by final. That's fine.

But we're no longer requiring those letters. They have to pull the information themselves from the state websites.

Really? So if...

they've gone through all the hoops on the checklist and really done a good job why are they coming here so you exactly it's almost as someone stated in a prior meeting a rubber stamp it's it's your guys's expertise making sure that staff is following the ordinance and not giving you incomplete projects or letting someone slip through that's not following the rules

Although there could be also valid arguments and discussion about things that are presented at the preliminary stage. You know, like, it's really, they've done a lot of work, but, you know, it's still, there's something to discuss.

You need something else, or you think... Clarification.

So that can still happen.

Yeah, but everything should be there in front of you that...

come before you for the final but there's the checks of making sure that we're not just pushing anything through and another reason for coming twice before the board is to give ample public hearing opportunity well what does that do you know this is just I'm just talking out loud now obviously talking out loud it's anyway I know if you have if you have the the you know, still have the public, I mean, you should have a public hearing for the last step. And, you know, what you're kind of saying is there's nothing the public can say that's going to change our mind because, you know, right? What does that, what's the opposite of that?

I disagree with that because, I mean, what we're saying is, like we've had in the past, if somebody comes in and provides you information that you weren't aware of, The applicant didn't include, might have checked the box, but maybe it's not based on reality. So if somebody comes in and says, you know, I got my letter about my bats, I don't have any bats, and then the public comes and says, well, there's a bat cave with 100 bats in it, here's a picture of it. I mean, even though they have the letter, doesn't mean it's... Sure, that's... So that's our job is then to identify, is that something that we need to then rethink and reconsider?

Yeah, but the way the public hearings operationally have worked, it's like a rehash of the prior public hearing. We have rarely had, I think, rarely had times when that second public hearing has unearthed something like, you know...

Normally the applicant very much listens to... We've had applicants that have come in and they've listened to what we had to say, and if it was something that was you know, dealt with, like, the number of cars or the width of a road or the location of a particular item, they fix it on their plan. And we see that and go, okay, you understood what we were saying, what our concerns are, and you fixed it. Sometimes they say, I understand your concern, but I'm not required to fix it, so I don't have to. You know, the road's wide enough and whatever. But, I mean, I think that the input that we get from the public definitely the applicant has the opportunity to address it for the final. And if they don't, then that's our job to say, well, you didn't answer how much stormwater there was. You didn't answer how many lumens you're putting out. You know, that's our job.

And I think, I mean, to some extent, I mean, especially when you get to the final, I mean, there's a little bit You know, some projects more than others of a negotiation, a give and take, that developer isn't necessarily required to do, but the board, you know, encourages them to do something, that they decide, yeah, in the interest of being a good neighbor to where I'm building my project, I'll go a little bit further than what the ordinance said. And that has happened many times.

Well, that's what we want. We want them to be neighborly. I think everyone wants that type of thing, you know? If they want to come up next month, maybe there's something they want. If you did this, then everyone would be happy for it. Why not? I mean, unless the guy hears about it, he might not know that, oh, this oak tree's really important to us, keep this oak tree, or this is something else. Okay, we'll work around that type of thing. I think it's in everyone's best interest to listen to the public, too, and have them

And oftentimes, members of the public have brought things up, and a developer said, yeah, okay, we'll do that.

But is it at the final? My question was, are these things happening? I mean, I get that you do that early on in the process, and you should have a lot more of that than we've seen. But, you know, they've either done it or not done it at the final. I mean, it's like, I don't know.

I mean, again, it could be bylaws to an extent. I know we're going back to that. So I don't know the rules up here necessarily strictly on whether or not you can answer questions to the public, which I don't think you can. You're not supposed to. You're not supposed to answer the public. But now if you sat there in that first meeting and heard a question that you were like, that's a valid question, could you... ask the developer and then say hey i need more information on this at the final yeah why not so i mean that's something you could put in bylaws on how on hey we don't answer the public but if we have a valid question that makes me think this packet is fishy there's yeah

I have a real issue with not answering questions that are raised and so forth. I mean, that's just so wrong to me.

You're supposed to discuss as a group or not answer them directly, but after the public hearing is closed, you...

But there's lots of things that the public bring up which is like, okay, that's just wrong, and it should be addressed that it's just wrong, right? And other things are just right, and they should be addressed.

Yeah, well, that's why you address the ones that are valid, and you ignore the ones that aren't.

And then they don't feel heard.

What's the optic there, though? I mean, the optic is that I didn't get heard. Not only didn't I lose, I didn't get heard. Or didn't I win, rather. But I didn't get heard.

And part of that is education, like lack of education on what public hearings are and how they proceed and what are the proper channels to go to to get more specific questions answered.

What you can and cannot do.

And I actually didn't see here in these different things, something that says that you're not supposed to answer questions in public, like you were saying. You know, if that's what you mean, really, and we have to operate that way, then that really needs to be in here, clearly. To some extent, though, you have to...

maybe not necessarily answer a question, but point out that the question that the public is answering doesn't have anything to do with this project. It's not under our purview to take that statement that you're making or question. You see it. I mean, that they're going to bring up something that it's not in here. We can't consider it.

Well, it's like when someone brought up the DEP, investigation in the last meeting.

We're not supposed to talk about projects outside of...

In a hypothetical meeting, if I was running a project and I pulled a permit for this DEP thing, and lo and behold, there's an investigation somehow, you guys asked him about that in that meeting.

Hypothetically.

Hypothetically, in my meeting, you asked me about whether or not I do anything about that. And I said, no, I didn't, but I will find it out. And I think that was a valid way to handle my hypothetical question of whether or not I had an investigation into the DEP or I had applied for a permit.

And hypothetically, you did a good job. I have a couple comments. One thing that I've been watching a procedure recently for a few years, and I go back past times in my life, I think the people who are here who are opposing a project have a right at the public hearing time, or maybe even when the, even though the presentation by the applicant, the way things are set up now isn't during public hearing, but anyone who has questions or opposes it should have the right to ask questions directly of the applicant. I think that's a right that they should have.

This all says that that question needs to go through the chair.

Because the board is quasi-judicial, it's more set up to be more formal. So the public hearing is supposed to be, this is my evidence, this is for the record. and then you close it and you take all that information, that's when you discuss it, ask for clarification if you need it from the applicant or staff, and then it informs your decision. It's not supposed to be a Q&A, according to my research.

Yeah? And I want to add to that when you're done.

I'm done.

In the past, we've had applicants that have come in and we've had public comment and we've had engineering testimony and we've had board questions. And typically what we've done is we've said, you know, your application looks complete, but we really need more on your traffic study because of this. We need more stormwater because of that. We've clarified where they need to go. And sometimes the applicants answer questions direct, but I can look at it from their point. They may not want to be put on you know, like, on the spot when they may not have the answer direct. They may say, I don't know, I'll look into it. And we say, good, for the next meeting, have that information, have that traffic study modified to meet the criteria, and they do that. But when you have, like, a ton of questions and there's so many things, I think what happens is that then everything just shuts down. It's like there's too many questions, there's too many things, the applicant's not answering, they don't have the engineering questions, ready to go, like they're not prepared for the onslaught of a lot of information on a project, on any given project. So then, to me, it seems like that it's up to the board, prior to the close of the meeting, to establish, look, there was a lot of things here. You need to address, you know, and we talk amongst them, we go, okay, I really think they need to address, you know, the lumens, they need to address the sidewalks, they need to address the, like, tell them what they need so that when they come back, they can be prepared and we know what we're looking for. But to leave it just, okay, you check the boxes and you're good to go, they don't even know that some of these things may have been a concern to the board. You know, the DEP things and things like that, yes, or how many frogs there are on the project, we can specify that, but I think with public comment and with questions that are raised by the board, we need to clarify for them what are we asking of them.

There has to be a clear punch list.

Yes.

What we're working on is a clear punch list. Well, you know, even if you get the punch list, there's another piece of this that has bothered me and it's come up lately, and that is, okay, so the developer checks every box and there's a community that's opposed to what the developer wants to do. How do we deal with that? I mean, should we deal with that? It seems to me that, I'm not going to reference anything, but you guys know what I'm talking about. What you got to do is drive down Bayside Drive, and you know what I'm talking about. There's... Let's not talk about that.

We're not allowed to talk about it.

Okay, so there can be lots of ways of the public protesting something where every box has been checked off by the developer. And where does the public voice come into our considerations?

Well, their voice is dependent on what's in the ordinance. There's been projects that have come before this board that I just assume vote no for. But I have no legal, no justified reason to vote no. Because if they meet our ordinance, if they meet the guidance, if they meet the law, then our personal opinion really doesn't

I wasn't talking about our personal opinion. I was talking about what seems at times to be the clear opinions of the general public.

The general public. But it's clear. Right. Yeah.

The general public mean 40 people or 9,000.

And it's clear here that, you know, you've made clear a couple times, which I think is appropriate, you know, that it's not a vote. Right. You know, on the part of the public. It's... It's unfortunate sometimes, but it's not a lot.

The only things we can really get around with the ordinance, if the ordinance says you shall have a street 30 feet wide if you have 50 cars, if they meet that, they meet that. We can't budge on those things. Pretty much planning board, the only thing we can have wiggle room on is things that are more intent, like words in our ordinance that talk about you know, to the benefit of the community, to, you know, better the environment, you know, not harm the environment. Those vague concepts are the only things we can really modify our thoughts about. If they meet the specific criteria, our hands are tied.

I mean, I don't like to allow too much that the public to have direct questioning of the applicant. There's been times that I've asked him, do you want to answer? If he doesn't want to answer, they don't necessarily have to. They may want to, to answer the question. But then again, some of the questions that get asked by the public really have nothing to do, I mean, have something to do in their minds, but not by our standards. I mean, it's something that we can't judge. Are you going to paint this building pink? Well, I don't like pink buildings. You know, it sounds stupid like that, but I mean...

So we've got a planning board. We're a review and approval board.

Yeah. Yeah, planning boards have changed over time. Planning boards before had a lot of control over what was going on in every project, like Le Moyne Bay or Harbor. smaller scale I think that's not under move back and not under has a planner and doesn't have mandated code and doesn't have all these positions to help assist the planning board there was a there was a change in how planning boards operated from how much input and influence and more hey we're checking and balancing and making sure that everything is well orderedly

Well, where the planning board does do its planning is in things that we're going to be doing later on in the summer or fall or winter, spring, whatever, is rewriting the ordinances. Exactly. And saying, gee, this land use doesn't go with this one in this zone. Don't do that anymore. That's the plan. That's the way.

should you know I'm just saying that that's that's where legally and whatever where it does the planning and then it says these conversations right here or what the value you guys bring of how long you've sat there what you've seen what doesn't work what needs to change what you guys would like to see but that's it anyway but that's those are changes of the ordinance Yeah, that's where we need your help. And then it's making sure that we're not making mistakes. It's a relationship where we both benefit off of your guys' brains and are making sure that what's coming to you is ready to go.

Well, I can count on one hand the number of things that have come in that are really ready to go.

It's going to change.

A lot of that is just, well, never mind.

It's also to keep us out of hot water legally by making sure we've done all the checks and balances.

So we can be fair to everybody.

So we having fun yet?

Yeah, this is actually a lot of fun. I told you. I don't mind. It's good to have these conversations.

Better than some, isn't it? It's better than We're done.

So if you want to be done.

You can gavel out any time you want.

Yeah, it's up to you guys.

I'll make sure you've addressed everything.

There's plenty more to address.

Looks like Ray wants to say something.

Closing an argument. And I don't know if this is in your draft or whether it's in the main municipal thing or whether it's in one of the other things, but Somewhere I saw things that... I think you've gotten into more trouble in terms of the Beals-Avatar thing on waivers. The procedure on handling waivers, because I think you do them, and what I saw in your draft or in one of the other things, waiver was something that was set up sort of to be handled beforehand, earlier in the procedure before you ever get to doing the public hearing. And I think that waivers are important things and that there should be public input on them if there is. So I don't know if I'm making myself clear, but I think that the waivers, where I saw this and the way that I think I've seen when I've been watching you in the past, the way you handle those is that it's done It's done early on in the initial, not in the first time around, but it's done early on in the second and final time, but before anyone has an input. So I think there has to be maybe some way for the public to have an input, because these waivers sometimes can be possible, be imparted, because that's the issue on the Beals Avenue thing. was whether you were correct in granting a couple of waivers for the site. I think to a big extent, Ray.

I think now, I mean, at the preliminary stage, those issues come up, and we identify what may need a waiver, because now, I mean, Brittany's gone so far as to make our job easier. I mean, it gives us, you know, possible wording on a motion, and we pretty much, the paper we have for the final has... the waivers we've already kind of identified at the preliminary that, you know, maybe we need to include these at the final and are down in the writing. I mean, so we can include it in the motion. I mean, not all the time. I mean, sometimes in the finals, something will pop up that says, oh, we need a waiver on this.

Waivers are typically, it's on the application as a section for applicants to fill out and request waivers when they apply.

And that's early on.

Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah, I never felt that the waivers that came up in general were things that were, I mean, we knew from the jump that they would be asking for a waiver. And it was, you know, and we had plenty of time to say, no, that's not going to work if we wanted to.

And I typically vet them when they, you know, they apply, they say we want this waiver, and then I'll dig into it and be like, can you get a waiver for that? And then, you know, adjust or tell them no or no. say yes, and then I'll do the proposal. We don't get many, so it's...

Now you've jinxed yourself. I know, right? So we have, like, two things that we've decided. We haven't decided anything. We've just got two points to talk about. Rick, this is just a preliminary. This is not a final. We've got two more of these. These are sketch ordinances.

Any other points you want us to look into besides term limits and years on the board? Like, do you want us to look into what we waver and...

Well, you know, when you start... This is jumping, sort of. But when you start looking at some of the stuff that's in the bylaws, rules, and procedures, you know, we have an order of business, for example. And I've never actually seen our agenda look like that order of business. And are you saying that this is what our agendas are going to look like in the past? In the future, rather?

This is... Help from AI. Damn AI. It's a starting point.

Absolute idiocy. That's what AI does.

Maybe. Sometimes. You're not wrong.

Anyway, my point is...

This is what it could be. It doesn't have to be this. We can definitely change it.

Well, I'm perfectly happy with what we've been doing in terms of agendas and the orders and stuff. All I'm saying is that it would be nice if there was a relationship between reality... And this thing here. And if this is like we need... Yeah, we need to change this and that's one discussion. And please don't ever use that in my presence.

I agree. I think Tim Pease has discussed this topic that at the final the approval process should be more formal. And we used to go right down through The checklist that you do now, does it meet this? And specifically hit each topic. I mean, I think helping appeals or whatever, but that part of it probably should be more formal than what we do.

Especially if we're rejecting something.

Yeah, because of rejecting it and why.

Yeah. Yeah. maybe and what and what is the recourse the recourse might be like take this development and go away you know or maybe this is kind of okay but you're still screwing up and so it's it's it's rejected at the moment and here's the deal you can come back next year next week whatever but if you deny it it's six months yeah in six months you can come back But you know what I'm saying, right?

I do. And I can definitely provide you an updated draft and go into a little more detail.

And we can provide you with other notes if the spirit moves it, right? Because I've got a lot of tags here that I never covered.

You never sent them to me.

I never did. That's because I put most of them on this afternoon. Feel free to continue after we leave.

Thanks.

So, if you're next up, send me any additional notes or things you'd like added. I will update this draft to focus more on, you know, approval process and that sort of order of business thing. And then we will put this on the agenda again to discuss further.

And I saw earlier, by the way, this is another topic, an email that we just got today from somebody I didn't recognize about... how to deal with the Bridge Street thing, the Bridge Hill thing, and whatever, and that the staff said something about in conjunction with the planning board, we're gonna be looking at stuff, and that was news to me. Look at what your upper links.

The Bridge Hill.

The VPI part of it, or something.

We're waiting on the final report from our consultant for the VPI, and then I think there'll be more discussion on Where do we go next? Do we pursue any of these projects in the next 10 years?

I mean, I can't remember the guy that sent that email. He lives up on, I think, Chapel, and he sent it to me, Rick, and Mike Henge.

Oh.

As well as Charlie, Sarah.

Gotcha.

Yeah, I know who you're talking about now.

Yeah, he's been coming along.

Well, but the interesting thing, though, was the response of the city folk and how we're going to, I mean, some of it was absolutely appropriate. Some of it was like, I didn't know that the planning board was going to get involved in that.

Well, you've kind of been already involved in the beginning. Sort of. But not in this round.

Well, surprise.

I guess.

I don't know. Oh, boy.

They've been doing their thing, and then.

I can only hope this consultant has started over from zero, which is where they should have served.

This is BPI, so that's the downtown one, not the high street.

Oh, that's right.

That's right.

I guess technically I'll close the public hearing. Is there a motion for adjournment? Sure. All in favor?