Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Okay, accurate. Yeah, I'll be polite. And then we got first phone call that we need to take care of and maybe late again. So, we'll be here. We're live. Just so you know, we are thumbs up. Oh, okay. I'll open the city of Elsa Planning Board meeting for October 1st, 2025. Uh, staff introductions, please. Or I mean board introductions. Lisa Laroo, board member. John Deleo, board chair. Rick Law, vice chair. Mike Hang, board member. Mark Bane, board member. Uh, staff introductions. Danielle G, director of room planning and development. Britney Merrill, city planner. Robert Grant, code enforcement officer.

Letterlo, deputy code enforcement officer. Sarah Develin, deputy city manager. Item number two, preliminary plan review of a major use site development entitled Hancock Judicial Center for Applicant State of Maine Judicial Branch and Owner State of Maine. The proposal is to construct a 28,500 plus square foot courthouse building to serve as the new Hancock County Courthouse. The subject property is approxim approximately 17.9 acre lot located at Merrell Lane Extension off Route 1 High Street. Tax Map.

Chairman, my name is Bill Garish. I'm with Sebago Technics and uh I am here representing the state of Maine Judicial Branch um for the U proposed Hancock Judicial Center. Um and if it's appropriate, I'll give you a brief presentation on the project. store it in.

Okay, thank you. So, initially the um just I guess in a summary, here's an overall site plan of the um project area. Um the state of Maine did acquire a 17.9 acre parcel of land. It's to the east of High Street um off Mel Lane. Um, so there is currently no roadway or access to the site. Um, there is a an agreement with the city of Ellsworth in the state of Maine um to develop that um access. Um, so the project site um would be easterly um of um the marrow furniture um facility. So, the 17.9 acre parcel starts at Card Card Brook along here um and extends up to the proposed um Maril Lane extension right ofway. Um it extends on the west side um from a wetland area um over um just behind the facilities off High Street and then continues into the undeveloped parcel um to the east. Um so, just a little bit on the resources. Um this is Cardbrook down here. It is a um designated as an urban impaired stream. Um this line here represents the 100red-year flood zone. Um the threat of the brook is actually down in this area. Um this hatched area is the 250 foot setback from the from the brook. Um it's also um identified as an inland waiting bird habitat. And then these areas that you see extending up into the site, um there's a few little upland pockets down here. Um but there is um a significant amount of

wetlands um surrounding the the site. Um I will look at the go right quickly to the existing conditions plan. Sorry about that. Um so you can see um by the contours there are some higher elevations up in this part of the site which is off the proposed road extension. Um so the development itself is proposed to go in this area. Um some of the parking will extend down here adjacent to the wetlands. Um and there's more parking out back adjacent to the wetlands. Um due to some of the grading, we just did touch a couple of the peaks of these wetland areas. This is kind of a wet meadow. Um this is more of a forested wetland on this side. Um there's a total of 1500 square ft plus or minus of of wetland impacts proposed. And um I'll just jump back, I guess, to the proposed development. So the building itself has a footprint of about uh 28,500 square ft. Um there are three floors. There is a ground level in the rear. Um that is at around elevation um 143 in change. Um that is um you know basically there the the areas there's five garage bays in the back where the judges come in and park. Um there's a sally port to to bring in the the the prisoners and so forth. Um employee parking around the rear. Um there is a ground floor um that's at about 12 ft higher in elevation that comes in through the front. Um and then

there's a second floor above. So in total there's around 64,000 square ft of floor area in the building. Um and then um as with um courouses like this, the areas are are very um specifically divided up between the areas for the prisoners, the areas for the judges, the areas for the public, and with no opportunity to those areas to to connect inside the building. Um so the area out and back is is a secure area with a fence and a gate um over here. Um and then this access road would be for the employees and and so forth. Um the public areas would be out in here. This would be all public parking. Um the accessible parking is right up here. There are some EV parking spaces here for um the public. Um there's also some in back here for the um staff. Um, and then the accessible parking spaces for the sta staff are back in this area. Um, there's also a few motor motorcycle parking spaces in here. Um, there's um anticipated about 25 full-time employees inside the the facility. Um, there's 30 parking spaces in the rear and um, with the motorcycle spaces, there's a total of 126 in the public area. And in total, the site will um create about 2.37 acres of new impervious area um and about 2.1 acres of landscaped areas which you see in green around here. And um the as I mentioned earlier um the toa slope will um extend slightly

into the wetlands in a couple areas here, here, and then just a little bit over in here. Storm water runoff um is um collected and treated by a series of three um under drain soil filters. Um there's one over in this area of the site. Um there is another one down in the corner. This parking lot does all slope downward in this direction. So um there's an inset here that shows the corner of the parking lot which would um drain into this one. And then there's another under drain soil filter in the rear um to collect runoff from the roof and part of the parking this way. Um there are curbs, granite curbing proposed around all the paved areas with a system of catch basins and storm drains to collect the runoff um to be treated by these facilities. Um the project um where it is over 20,000 square feet of new impervious in an urban impaired stream. Um it does trigger a storm water management permit with the D. Um it does not trigger a site location permit. Um, however, it does have to meet the full storm water standards along with the standards that the city of Ellsworth has. Um, so in addition to providing um 100% treatment for the paved areas and treatment for over 80% of the total developed areas, um, these under drain soil filters also provide storm water detention. Um, they were designed for the 2, 10, and 25ear storm. Um we also um did in in in in the application we did do the runoff numbers for two other events. Um we usually check um with the emergency spillways and the basins to make sure that they can if the outlet control

structures happen to get completely plugged up and and weren't functioning that the 25-year storm can pass through the spillway with still one foot of freeboard in the pond. Um and those calculations are in there showing to the positive of that. And then we also ran the 100red-year storm through the the the model um just to show that the um ponds do convey the 100redyear storm as well with um more than one foot of freeboard in each of the storm events in each of the three ponds. And then uh you can see landscaping um around the site. Um there is proposed to be a about a three three to four foot high um granite stone wall in the front. Um just to kind of transition from the lower elevations here. Um the back part of the building is about a foot or so above existing grade. Um that puts this area up here more like 10 feet above existing grade um just to get the entrance um in there above the ground floor. Um, so there is some, um, landscaping. Um, there's flag poles, benches, um, trash receptacles, and so forth in the entry area. Um, I'll just zoom in there a little bit. Um, and we're proposing um, lighted ballards, kind of wayfinding type lighting coming up in through there. Um, some bike racks in this area. Um, you can see the accessible parking, the EV parking down here, and motorcycle parking. Um and based on some staff comments, we are providing um sidewalks um throughout the parking areas that do extend out um to the um proposed roadway. Um right now we're showing a conceptual crosswalk. Um

uh the um road design plan and profiles and so forth are anticipated in I believe the end of the month. So once we get the road design done, which is being done by the city's engineer, um then we'll I guess kind of firm up this area um as as far as the design goes. But preliminary plan show a sidewalk on the opposite side of the Marilane extension. Traffic um will all access the site through the signalized intersection um out at um Maril Lane and High Street um right in here. And um that will be the the the single access point for the site. Um I believe there is an easement in place or in the works as a secondary access around the back of the site um through the LLBAN site. Um but basically the access point is through here. Um based on the projections, the the project um is requiring a traffic movement permit with the main DOT, which has already been submitted to the main DOT a few weeks ago. And um similar to the existing courthouse, um the regular daily traffic levels are relatively low during normal business. Um but they do have their jury selection days where the traffic spikes significantly. Um, and I believe um, John Adams and Jacob Soy from Barton and Legudas are on the somewhere here um, that um, can potentially answer some of your questions if you have some with regards to traffic um, and the process with the traffic movement permit and so forth. And then just utilities. Um, the Maril Lane extension is proposed to provide a 10-in sewer main along with an 8-in

water man and three-phase power. Um, the judicial center. Um, actually, I'll jump back to the utility plan. So, I'll start with the sanitary sewer. the um the the sewer comes out of the lower part of the building in the back in the fenced in area. There's a proposed uh pump station um with a valve vault um just beyond the pump station. Um the control panel for the pump station would be right on the back part of the building again in the fenced in area. Um, and then there's a 3-inch force main proposed up in uphill um to a sewer manhole and then gravity sewer um down into the future um sewer main in Maryland extension. Similarly with the water um there would be a water service um that comes in through the access road through the southerntherly part of the site 6-in main um which ties off to a 3-in domestic service and a 6-in fire service. Um there's a fire department connection proposed right here. A fire hydrant um right across the um access road over in here. And um electric and telcom is is proposed to come in underground from Maril Lane um in along the um employee access um to a padmounted transformer and then enter the building on this side. Um and then there is out in this area the dumpster enclosure. Um there's a generator proposed. Um propane tanks and there is an equipment pad um proposed back in in this area. Um so this would be an

automated gate um that would have a a pedestal over on this side um that would provide access to the back part of the building. And then um we've had some discussions on uh snow storage areas. We've identified three snow storage areas. Um we've kind of left out um you can see the site lighting. Um I should point out the site lighting will um have a lot of telecom cables running around as well. A lot of the light poles will have cameras on them. Um and the site lighting plan um uh a phototrics plan was provided in the application package. Um we did leave the light uh we left this area here fairly open um as well as the vac area down here and an area in here that would be um suitable for snow storage areas. Um we are um in discussions with the D as well as the owners. Um the owners would uh the the state will basically contract the snow removal um out once the the facility is done. Um but we are looking at um providing snow storage more scattered throughout the site. Um kind of getting some up in this area and then maybe in the back um just to keep the snow storage um areas a little further away from the wetland areas. the wetlands do feed Cardbrook. Um, and so we're working on some changes based on some staff comments there. And, uh, I believe that's, um, a brief summary or somewhat brief summary, I guess. So, uh, with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Knock yourself out. I got a couple small questions for you and Okay, the fire inspector is not here. Um uh dealing with um hydrants. Um the the road from High Street to the entrance to the facility is approximately 1100 ft. Is there any proposals for hydrants within that 1100 ft? Um I have not seen the the the design um the or at least the final design for the road. Um I do believe the answer is yes, but I can't say for sure. Okay. Yeah.

The the other question I had was I know that there is one um on the backside by where the sprinkler connection is etc. Um, has there been a proposal or any discussion, and you can answer this, Tom, um, as to whether there should be one just as you come in to go to the north at the Y. Um, if you have if they the fire department has trucks going into that direction, they have no way of water supply on the other side of that building. Has there been discussion concerning that?

Um, no, we haven't had any discussions um, specifically on that. Um we I guess considered um the location um as being uh um you know the best location with regards to the proposed service main and and so forth. Um I don't believe the owner would be um opposed to adding another fire hydrant at that location if that if that's uh what you know we're talking about. I think so. where you come in where you right in this area the entrance and then where it wise

so I so I do apologize being late um so I believe on the main road itself there's six hydrants on that main road and I think one of them is at that at the corner right there six hydrants on the 1100 ft somewhere from high street to the facility six you want to put six in there not six there's like I believe there's five from what I from what I saw in the Okay. But I believe there's one there is a hydrant there on the corner that that will be on the main road. Okay. I'd have to I'd have to There's nothing on the plan that I saw any right. It's not on these plans. It's on the road plans that you that you don't have. Okay. Because they're two separate projects. Okay.

So, I will get with you on that, Mike. As soon I'll get the other the plans and I will look at them. Can you have that by the final? Yeah. Yes. Okay. All right. Um, the only other thing I had, and I think you cleared it up, was the um the difference in the numbers as far as square feet. I was a little confused at first because it said tw it said 28,500 uh at the beginning and then the last page of section two, it said 64,000. I understand that now to be the aggregate square feet of the building. Correct. Yeah. Okay.

The the the ground floor level um would only go as far as this dashed line here. Um this would be an elevator over in this area that would bring them up. But the sec the the ground floor and the second floor would encompass the whole foot footprint. Okay. Um the other question Tom I have for you looking at the turning radiuses for your firet trucks. Um a couple of them I have a concern. Mhm. Um I think plate three of five shows the turning capability out back behind. Uh once you go through the automated gate, you'll be backing into parking spaces.

Uh I don't have the the that's plate. So yep. Um so from the end uh where the going in behind to coming out through the gate to the where the dumpsters are is less is less than 150 ft. So the plan was was to back out. Right. They are proposing a backing into where the dumpsters are. Yes, I understand that. But when you go past that around the back side, correct? We'll be we'll be backing out to the gate out to the tea. Okay, that's that's fine. I'm just cons I was just concerned that you were showing backing into parking spaces back there.

Yeah. No, no backing into parking spaces. No, I wouldn't think so. Um and I think there was one other that I was looking at. Um maybe it was the first. Hang on a second. That one I think is fine. That one was fine. Was this one? Okay. I guess that was the only one now that I look at it. Okay. All right. That's all I got, John.

Okay. I got some traffic questions. Um, first of all, this is just a matter of of of interest. You know, there in in at one point here at the very beginning of the thing, you talk about a meeting between Barton and someone met with MDOT regional planning person. Is there are there people from the city there at those kinds of meetings? Um, I mean, this is a fairly significant project, but

it is there there is a pre-application meeting um forthcoming. Um that's the first step. Um the traffic movement permit has been submitted and the city will definitely be invited to that meeting. So and they'll be part of that process. And I don't know if John and and Jacob are somewhere here that they can we're Yeah, we're here on the Zoom room.

Okay. So I'll let you guys handle the hard questions. But I would just add to what you said, Bill. Um the process that main DOT uses for the traffic move permit is very much inclusive of the of the community the project's in. And so the the document that has been submitted to main DOT has also been submitted to the city um and city staff and and and members and people from the public or whoever wants to attend the pre-lication meeting that Bill is mentioning that um that's allowed also. So, it's a very open process and the city will be very involved in it.

Okay. Um, you know, you talked or someone talked about the, you know, the peak hour of the, you know, traffic coming in and out of the uh of the of the facility and you talked about, you know, jury selection day, right? Now, that does that occur weekly or monthly or jury selection day? I think it's it's multiple days. I don't think it's um it won't it won't be weekly. Yeah, I don't think it's weekly, but it's not just one day a month. So, my question my question is when you do things like and I assume that you're doing like a level of service calculation for the v various intersections and so forth. Yeah. Which aren't here yet? Yeah, correct. Not at Yeah, that will be

But when you when you look at the peak hour, you know, you do have a table in here that has peak hour, am hour, PMP, peak hour and so forth. Does that take into account jury selection day as the peak or is the IT stuff just kind of a generic, you know, peak hour? You understand what I'm asking?

I do and and uh I I can answer um in general terms and then John can correct me. Uh I do know that um early on in the process um the state did provide um you know basically information on you know what they had for for you know traffic and and people coming in and out of the building which they monitor um not only in Ellsworth but at other um courthouse facilities that are similar to what this is and the IT manual seems to be a little more conservative than that based on their real numbers. the real numbers seem to be lower. So I think I think to answer your question, those numbers would probably be representative of a jury jury selection day and then some.

Okay. Yeah. Okay. No, and I like the idea that you that that you look other pl at other courouses. I mean I that's when you when you have that kind of opportunity, you should always take advantage of it rather than depending on the on the models per se. Yeah.

Um You did a bunch of stuff with crash analysis to what end? I mean, I I got it. It was interesting. I read it, you know, and so what are you going to do with that information? And how does that inform, you know, some aspect of the design of the project? I mean, there doesn't seem to be anything done with that. I I uh um just to make sure we get the right answer, I'm going to turn that one over. That's fine, too. Or or give me multiple answers. You know, the right one must be in there somewhere, right?

No, that's an excellent question. And so, to step back for a second, the document that's been submitted is is not a full traffic study. It's really sort of a presentation of the project, of the trip generation. Um uh we we we've simply looked at crash data in the area of the project along High Street and other intersections nearby and it's more of a stating the facts of what we found. So what's going to happen at the scoping meeting um this pre-lication meeting that Bill was talking about is we're going to go through one of the major topics we'll talk about is is safety and crash data. Um, and generally what happens at the scoping meeting, we're going to be asked to look at all of those locations that we've identified that actually main DOT has already identified um that should be looked at. So that'll be a charge of ours coming out of the scoping meeting to to do an analysis of those high crash locations. And if there's some if there are some things that can be done to mitigate um crash patterns or the number of crashes, then we'll be proposing that um during the traffic movement permit process. The the the meeting Bill's talking about is sort of step one of the process. After that meeting, we're going to do a full traffic study and then resubmit that to both the city and DOT. And a major component of that will be looking at the crash data. So, there'll be more to it than what you're seeing right now. Right now it's just presenting here's the data

some of the data. Yeah. Okay. Um I would just make the point that normally we would have a draft of that analysis at this point as opposed to getting it when the final is presented to us as a beta complete. Right. Yeah. So I don't know. There's obviously no way around that at this point but Yeah. So be prepared. Okay. Yeah. Absolutely.

And and one the the one other point that I would make in terms of the of the you know the inter the signalized intersection as you come come away from that intersection onto the site. You know there is that driveway that goes over to LLBAN right and so I hope that you're going to be looking at that intersection as well. Now that may be okay because of the the differing in you know when the peak hour for the site is when the peak hour for Albanian is that sort of stuff. But that's basically an unsalized intersection. Yeah. and uh you know and and possibly a congestion point whatever. So okay you really noted

and given that there's no real honest to god traffic analysis to look at I'm done. Okay.

Well let me before we go on to somebody else I have some questions on the traffic while we're at it. Uh in section 8 uh the traffic analysis on page three uh it lists some pedestrian improvement recommendations. Uh now is that something that this is from your consultant. Is this something these recommendations includes high street at Marrow, High Street at Walgreens, High Street at Maine and Oak. Are are these suggestions something that the state is looking to do, will do? Uh

I think that all came from the initial on-site meeting with with the DOT. Is that correct, John? Yes. These are preliminary recommendations based on um the meeting we had with the main DOT's region traffic engineer who came out of the Bangor office, uh John Tero. Uh but again, this this this isn't set in stone either way. These are just some initial some initial um points we've made. So those things will be fine-tuned during this analysis phase. Yeah. This next phase. Yes.

Okay. And then in in section 1D, proposed uses in the general vicinity of the propos proposed development. Uh you list WL properties uh the 36 unit uh residential housing on Bees Avenue homes to suit they have to include not that it's a big generator but the Union farm equipment that just got approved not necessarily just because of location but we can have them included. I mean, I don't know how far pretty far downream and and and the relatively low generators, too. So, yeah.

Uh, in section three, um, on site distance, you have a chart that lists the main DOT site distance. It's a 35 mph zone, 305 ft. Uh we should point out that uh the city has their own sight distance standards for that zone to be 350 ft. I don't expect that there's a problem at that location, but it should reflect that.

We we think that's um that's also met, but we certainly will check that and ensure that during the process. Okay. Um I mean this is kind of a unique project because We're looking at a project where there's no road currently. Yeah.

For the most part. Uh and we and Rick briefly touched on the entrance that goes into LLBAN. In the further analysis on the traffic, especially the real busy days, I'd like to see, you know, what the queue would be, whether you know, the traffic going into the courthouse, especially, you know, late in the afternoon if court's getting out or on busy court days. You know, if that's going to affect Key Bank, the entrance to LLBAN, how it affects u barrel furniture because you have some business there right within feet of the traffic light.

Yeah. And if if you if that you know you've got a lot of people coming out of Melo Lane at the at a red light and cars coming in especially trying to get to Keybank uh and can't get into their parking lot that may create a backup into High Street. Yeah. Yeah. No, that'll set that particular intersect is already pretty complex. Yeah. Yeah. No, that'll be part of the traffic analysis for so but the C the queueing if they do it like a synchro analysis whatever you know all the queuing and stuff comes out of that or you know it's it's an output. Yep. I just wanted I got some other questions with other people.

I have in the traffic area. I just want a little followup. I understand that um in the proposal thing I was reading about how there's several things that are being proposed as you know problem areas that need to be looked at. My concern would be since the city is going to be responsible to build the Marilene extension and maybe if some proposals from the DOT come down and say you need to correct this, this and this in order to make this project work out. Um is the state going to participate in the costs of the corrective measures when this you know as this moves forward? That should when we when you get the details

I'm sure in the meeting that's going to be discussed. It will. Yeah. That's probably because that you know that would be a curious thing. Yeah. As to who's going to be responsible because that will affect you know the city in general. It will I the state does acknowledge that they're they are the the source of the traffic generation under this permit. So that's okay. Yeah. So that's the only other traffic question I have.

Yeah. So I I I can I go back to your traffic because one of the things in your um opening letter um it talks about the extension of Maril Lane will include water sewer um three-phase power new and it would be available for the courthouse facility in other future development along the new street. What have you considered about that? anything or

the only thing we're aware of is potentially a um access to the railroad sunrise trail and maybe a little parking area, but I know there are private um privately owned parcels that will be adjacent to me lane extension that could be suitable for other types of developments. So in the future that could impact the intersection there greatly as far as travel trips etc etc. That correct? Correct. But I mean at this point there's nothing we can do about plans to you know further development in that area but we're not at the point for that. Yeah I understand that it's just something just for the record. Yes we mentioned it. Yeah.

Yeah. Any subsequent development would have to go through a traffic analysis an additional traffic analysis. Yeah. So the actually when you actually turn into the courthouse which is a nothing intersection now for the next developer down the line it is a important intersection certainly or more important at least. Yeah. So it would be important for the city to plan ahead for the future development so that doesn't the city planners could plan. Whoa. So as long as we're building a new intersection and new road make it suitable for future. Planning is my middle name.

There you go. There are no bike lanes or anything. I don't know if this is your problem or not, but there are no bike lanes or anything on the road drive. Well, sorry. I know I can't if you play your cards right, you got a microphone.

Uh, so no, there are no bike lanes planned currently. um we really had to stay within a certain um width of the roadway to stay within under the threshold for the D permit to meet the time l time frame that um the courts were looking for us to do this in. So no, but there's nothing that's going to preclude us for adding one in the future or a multi-use path in the future or something. There is a sidewalk plan. Yes, there is a sidewalk and I will have to ask the engineer if it's on that side for any specific reason or if it would just be easier to not have pedestrians crossing over to have it be on that same side. I don't know the answer to that.

So, the sidewalk is designed to go in High Street to the courthouse. There is the road is proposing a sidewalk from High Street to the courthouse. Yes. Thank you. So the bikers would just use the sidewalk for now or the road. Or the road, right? Because they're giving bike places to park your bike. So that's good. Well, I I think he was talking about motorcycles. No, he had both. He's got both. There there are some bike racks as well. Bike racks. Y we addressed it. Ebikes, you know, right? I might ask a question about something else other than traffic. Am I allowed to do that? Sure.

I got a whole list. So, go ahead. There's a um there's a thing that comes in from Moyes Environmental Services talks about protected resources report blah blah and it goes on for nine pages which and it seems very thorough. My question is what's the bottom line for the city on that or for this development? what you know does it have something that needs to be taken care of or what's the deal or do we know because there was a trail shown on the plan and it shows a plan it was page 230 of 279

and I was wondering that was another thing I was wondering it shows this trail so and then it's and then somewhere else in the package it clearly states that this project will have no impact on the public's access to Card Brook and the natural resources. So, I just couldn't figure that out either. Is that a recognized trail? I don't know. It's marked on there. I believe it's existing. It exists, but only barely. I mean, it's sort like a deer track or something. Yeah, you you could you walk in there, but I wouldn't even try to take a vehicle through there. There there's a culvert here and then it's it you can't even really see. It's right out in the open field out in here. Yeah. So, it's a trail. It's really not a trail. Yeah. No, I think someday be a trail.

A real trail. Okay. Encampment trail. Okay. Because that's what when it said trail, I was like, is that a pedestrian trail? People walking around in there. So now No, they did do a an extensive uh um study on on, you know, potential vernal pools. And there were no vernal pools identified. They did the the the surveys in the spring, so there are no wetlands of special significance. um and uh so you know basically meet the urban impaired stream standards for Card Brook.

So along that line, one of my questions related to that is once the building is completed and it's in use and people walk around the parking lot because they're, you know, waiting in between and there's I saw two picnic bench, two benches. No, I didn't see any picnic tables on the plan, but maybe you're going to put them in. So, they're going to want to wander. They're going to meander around. Are they going to meander down to the brook? Is there going to be a a lake? Don't go to the brook, or is it is it elevated such that it's really not accessible to them? Or are they going to be hopping over the parking lot, you know, to try to get down to it kind of thing?

It it's accessible, but if there's as many ticks there as there were this past summer, you not a lot of people are probably going to be the grass, but it's not going to be like don't go. if they go, it's on their own and it's not going to be like here's a path. No, there's no uh no identified paths or anything like that. Um there are obviously, you know, I mean it's it's a bigger parcel than is being developed. I think the whole developed area is around five acres. Um but they don't plan to um you know, basically they're going to leave everything outside the development natural and and and you know, it'll continue to grow up. This is kind of a wet meadow and then everything around here will remain as woods.

Thomas, on the um uh north side of the building, you have the automatic gate, sliding gate. I notice on the checklist for your TRT, you mentioned NOX boxes or NOX box. There'll be multiple Knox boxes, one on the gate, one on the building or you know, so it's going to be on the It's going to be on the building for the door right there for the gate. Okay. And it'll be on the plan too. Pardon me. They did not note them on the plan I believe. Just double checking. So yeah, there'll be one on the front of the building as well. Yeah. Okay. What about the gate at the

front of the drive when they come in the swing gate? It says V proposed 28 foot vehicular swing gate. Yeah. And that's just something that they wanted to have. I'm not sure how much they'll actually use it, but if the the facility is shut down at night and they don't want vehicles going in there, it's just a manual swing gate that will be be something that, you know, it would keep a vehicle out. It's just a a visual barrier, but not really something that like the fire department can get in and Oh, no. They'll be putting a Nox lock, okay, on the gate. So,

all right. And if somebody pulls in, that's there's sufficient room for them to turn around. If they go pull in and go, "Oh, I can't get in here." They can. Correct. Yeah. The the gate would It's back far enough. Yep. How far do you think that is back there? Probably like 35, 40t, maybe. Yeah, this is uh this is 50 ft from center line to just before the gate. So, okay, they would have a little over 50 feet there into the road. Yeah, that's a good thing.

I did that on the dumpsters. It shows um Should I go now since Y? Yeah. Okay. on the dumpsters on this page. It shows that the dumpster and the concrete pad next to I guess you said is going to be a generator. And it says the proposed pad will have a chain link fence screening just chain link. Is it going to be and it has the uh the fence detail shows the the you know the vinyl privacy slats the HD.

It says C detail but I kept I gave up looking so I got I got out of there. Yeah. Um, and then the propane tanks are Yeah, they find the utility plan. Um, I think that was on the They're right next to it, right? Right next to it here. Yeah. And they're proposed to be underground. Okay. That's a good place for the person to park for for access to. Yeah. And we did extend this out um far enough for Okay. to be a better turnaround

and um your lighting plan. Um you have the big tall poles. Are are they going to remain on all all night? I I mean there was so much to read. I was trying to find stuff, but maybe you could tell me faster. Are they going to remain on all night for security purposes or after hours? Are they going to reduce?

Um I don't believe they're they're um going to remain fully lit um all night. Um, but I can double check on that. I am quite certain that came up on the last one we did and and uh um yeah, they did go up tonight. Okay. Um, let's see. And you said you think there probably going to be some picnic tables for people to sit and eat their lunches or whatever. And I'm just curious if they're going to go by those benches. Um, yeah. I mean at at least initially what we um have is a um for the employees there's a little outdoor use area with a picnic table here.

Okay. For the employees um for the public um there are um you know some benches. There's going to be some granite benches here and and uh then there's another area which would be okay. Um you know suitable for a smoking area back here um with a couple more benches. Okay. That's what I was going to ask about a smoking area for people. Okay. Yeah. Sarah, I'll ask you a question.

I know we don't have the road plan from High Street to the site. Is there street lights proposed for that road? Okay. All right. [Music] He was ready for you. Got a welloiled tea going. I'm done. Oh, okay. Anything down the other on the other day? Down here, Mark? No, we're set.

Okay. Uh one question uh on section 10 on easements and road agreements and you had mentioned in your introduction that the state is is looking to get a a rightway through the LLB property and uh and says if if Mel Lane and High Street intersection is blocked. I understand why you're doing that. Um I think luckily I can't remember that intersection ever being blocked. I hope it won't. Yeah. And it's probably Yeah. Hopefully never used but they'd like to have some sort of option.

Just maybe one thing to keep in mind city is if if that happens and you do use because right now LLBAN has the right in right out. Uh it was designed as right in right out. Over the years they they haven't done a very good job of keeping it properly signed because you have and if for some reason the courthouse had to use that intersection. I mean the southbound traffic on High Street is not supposed to be taking left turns into that. Yeah.

They often do because for one thing there's no signage saying no left turn. Yeah. And conversely, coming out, uh, they're not supposed to be taking a left turn and head south. Again, I mean, the intersection is kind of designed to discourage that, but there's no signage. Uh, like I say, luckily that signalized intersection I don't think has ever been blocked, so hopefully that never happens.

Yeah. Uh the one thing I mean I guess more for information than anything on Oh, it's on a couple maps, but on appendix D, uh it it points out that there's I guess three paper streets, Gilly Street, Card Drive, and Bigfford. Uh, it's on I know it's on it's on C 100, but it's in uh section 10, the Hurricane Salsbury um little diagram. Yeah, except of the the

pending state. Yeah. Uh could you give me any information on that because I I really don't have any information on that. It does appear that um the um there there are utilities in that area. Um if anybody here can assist me. I know uh um you know that that was identified as part of the boundary survey that Herrick and Salsbury did. There certainly is no um apparent development through here. Although uh um I mean the the Gilly Street

actually you look on the bigger map and and piecing together going on the city website I actually comes out through the trailer park. It it does. Yeah. Yeah. Uh but I mean that's a street that the state's not thinking of using it at any point. That's correct. No, they don't have any they're keeping everything up above that. Um that goes right through that those wetland areas. So, I mean it it where they when they came in existence. I I've been here for 50 years and this is the first time I've ever known any of that. It looks like Bickford actually goes into resort way by the looks of it. But, uh just curious more than anything.

Yeah. Yeah. I I would guess if you transpose the the map that shows where the p where the trail is. Yeah. It's pretty close to where Gilly Street is. Yeah, I'm guessing I'm guessing what the remnants of that trail is what they're calling Gilly Street. Okay. And that's all in the property that's being the bigger property that's being developed, right? Correct. I mean, so all all that stuff is on. So So you have complete control. That's my point. Yeah. I mean the city and and you know would certainly have you know whatever rights there are to the right ofway for the utilities and so forth but yeah is going right through the state's property

I think that I'm saying the Gilly street would actually be on the state's property the other two are are off the property bigford may be a little on it but anyway thank you any other questions any comments from staff I will open the public hearing. If anybody has any questions about the courthouse, now's your time to ask. And I'll close the public hearing. Would somebody like to make a motion?

Sure. Make a motion to accept the preliminary plan. Accept the preliminary plan review of a major use site development entitled Hancock Judicial Center for Applicant State of Maine Judicial Branch and Owner, State of Maine. Second. All in favor? Are you voting that or are you I don't think I'm voting tonight, right? What's that? Am I voting tonight? Yes. Are you comfortable enough? I mean, you were a little late, but Yeah, I'm good. Okay. So, 5. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, folks. Thank you. Item number three, preliminary plan review. Just one comment. If if this traffic analysis thing that they're talking about comes in earlier than you would normally distribute it to us, can you distribute it earlier? I'll check. That'd be great. Okay, I'll make a note of because it's a chance. I anticipate it being large. Yeah. I can hardly wait. That makes one of us.

I mean, is the plan to come back next month or don't know enough about it at this point?

Well, no, that that's a good question. Um I I guess our our plan is to to kind of keep the ball rolling. um understanding that um you haven't really seen the road design yet and that there's still some um information forthcoming on the traffic um I don't know what your comfort level would be to to you know issue a final approval with some conditions um in that regard or um do we need to cool our heels a little bit and let things catch up or what are your I guess we we would accept any guidance I guess that you'd have. Well, I mean, we certainly don't want to delay the state's progress. Obviously, I mean, the traffic analysis and that part of it. I mean, there's always a lot of information in that and I if that can get to us

as soon as possible. I mean okay that'll be our focus and uh um understanding that there will be you know the city involvement and through the whole traffic permitting process as well but um as the board um John are you still there? Uh we are still here. Any ant? Yeah. Timeline on the traffic assessment.

Yeah. So I'm anticipating um that we'll have a scoping meeting sometime in the next couple weeks. And then once we have the scoping meeting, we'll we'll sort of get our marching orders on what needs to be studied. You know, what the traffic study will be and we'll get to work on that. um and probably get that back in hopefully within three, you know, three or four weeks, get that back in. So that section seven part of the traffic move permit, the study that you're all looking for, that's when we would submit that. So we have a scoping meeting in a couple weeks. After that, we submit the the actual traffic study probably three to four weeks after that.

Sooner if we can, but So it probably feels like December. I was just gonna say it sounds it probably um yeah and I know the the end um goal is to um you know have the final design finished up and have the project out to bid in in early February. So I think we can accommodate that time frame in between. So Okay. Yeah. Sounds good. Okay. Thank you guys. to do.

Item number three, preliminary plan review of a major use site development titled Elzer Tractor and Equipment for applicant owner Michael Sauier. The proposal is to construct a commercial tractor and power equipment sales and service facility. The subject property is approximately 10 acre lot located at 500 High Street, tax map 11, lot 7 in the commercial zoning district. There's someone here representing Eler Tractor and some equipment other than the person that just walked in the door. [Applause] [Music] Stand up.

And I'm Brian Foster. So, who's starting?

I think we'll let Jeff try and connect his computer real quick. All right, I'll take off. So, this project came last month to kind of an initial idea of the premise of the tractor supply and uh sales store and it's uh located off of Route Three um right past the Martins shopping plaza headed towards the island. Um so last month um we had a lot of updates to do to the plan putting more information on the site plan u making sure our utilities and um other details were called out and so we have updated the plans to reflect a lot of those comments from staff and TRT and the board. Um so site plan C uh 0.1 is the main site plan. Um you can see the updated storm water plan. So there's new storm water infrastructure that Jeff will describe. um in a minute. Um we've located the um snow uh removal spots um as requested. There is a propane tank um there or with ballards um on it and then or in front of it shown on the plan. And then we also um show where the um tractor display area is going to be. [Applause] up in the top right corner.

Yeah, it's shown on the screen. The shading along the street and then we numbered the parking spaces um just counting out how many there were. I believe there's 14 parking spaces um with two ADA accessible spots and then trying to think what else was requested. I'm going to show the grading and the contours. The wetlands are now on that plan too. They're also on the uh existing grading plan. And then believe that was it for the plan itself. But then within the narrative we also provided um updated um landscaping. So uh we provide more details on the signage um it the the total signage um size if you measure the sign faces itself um is 96 square feet to comply with the sign ordinance for the commercial zone. Um and then there is also um the height the sign is 20 ft which is less than the um maximum for that zone as well. Um provide a photo of what the Topson store looks like as an idea of what the um finished landscaping looks like. Again, there'll be less tractors in front of the store. They'll be located just to that area specified on the plan. um just to give you a feel of what the signs landscaping looks like and then what the front of the lot is. I got to let Jeff go into storm water in just a minute. And then we also provide updated traffic um information particularly looking at um trip like provide more detail on the accidents historical accidents have occurred right near the site um

detailing what kinds of accidents those were and um then also talking about the I just put the site distances actually in here and then we also provided um maybe I thought I did but just providing a more of an explanation on when the peak hour for this particular site is. It's not the same as the peak hour for the road. The peak hour for this use based on the tops and traffic counts was between noon and 1. Um well for route three it's typically between four and six somewhere in the peak hour range. Um there was a request for queuing information. Um, and I I can put it in the application for final, but it was just an interesting way of trying to do it where I just historically know in peak season the queueing from the Martin's light backs all the way up sometimes to the cheese house light um in Trenton. So, I stopped at Coastal Care and an average vehicle size through back stop all the way there would be somewhere between 90 and under 20 vehicles um during peak season queuing during peak hour. um you know it's not peak like backing up that far all the time but um I didn't know if there would be like an additional part to that that the board would like to see like we know that it's busy and backs up there but

it' be nice to write it up. Well, right, but like if they wanted an additional piece of that information or if you just want me to write it up and put it in Well, I don't Yeah, I mean I guess the question is you know you there's there's going to be an impact there. So identify the impact and then what can you do about it if anything? Okay. Yep. So I can write a little bit more about that. I mean that's always the question, right? You know, if there's an impact, how is it mitigated? Yep. All right. So I can write down if you can and maybe you can. Maybe it's just the way life is. I think I suspect that'll be what I say. But

um but yeah, I do believe that covered the top things that are on top of mind um that we updated from the last time. And then Jeff, would you like to go into the storm water explanation a little bit more thoroughly?

Sure. Um, for the storm water, um, it's all all the storm water from the site is going to feed to an underground storm water treatment system here. And that's brought in by u putting curbing all along the sides of the property except for the the end here will will not be curbed uh because so we can plow the snow out that way. But along this the outside here and along the outside here are curving so the water will flow down away from the building and up to the curb. And I've got a catch basin in here. Another one over on this side to catch the south side of the site. And then another one here to catch it before it comes into uh goes out onto the roadway. And this these two catch spacings here uh will lead directly to the underground detention system. Uh I looked at I took the hydroat a hydrocad model which is based on TR 55 the old army corps model and looked at uh the runoff before the site and the runoff after the site. Um I think it's a 2.7 and a 5.4 4 inch storm which is roughly equivalent to like a two-year storm and a 25-y year storm. What I found was uh the 25-year storm is easy to attenuate. Uh pre-development is like 2 and a half cfs going uh off the site. Post-development it's about uh 2.24 I think. So there's a little bit of a decrease during that that big storm event. Um during the smaller uh 2.7 in storm there's about little under one cfs going off and post development I had about a 1.3 I think. Uh so it's a small increase. Uh

because those are so different. Um I you know my goal was to try to have a decrease on both sides but this whole area downstream where this is outleting here is all wetland. So the increase of about half or 310 of a cfs is just going to discharge into that wetland and do nothing. It's you know it isn't going to increase any flooding because it's it's just a dimminimous increase in there. So, and the wetlands again, as you know, go all the way through property all the way down to the end here. So, there is a a small increase during the two-year storm. It you know, if that's okay, we'll we'll call that good.

U that are your figures in written form some place because I can find them. No, they were not in there. I I didn't get it uh written up to me time to get it to Matt uh to include that in there. So, we I will include that in the final. Um, we could look at the the HydroCAD model and I'll show you the the actual numbers in there, but it's it's I didn't get it summarized in time. Okay. Uh, I think Matt's our expert in that, but I I mean, you talked about, you know, a little bit of an increase in one area. I mean, I

during the smaller storms. Yes. Because when you're the outlet control structure, you you're you're tapering it down. I think the ordinance requires a minimum of 15inch culvert. So the only way I could slow the water down any is I put a cap on the end of the culvert with a a it'll have a B notch we are in it. And so at lower flows it's there's less water coming out but you can't taper it down too tight. Otherwise you get three blades of grass that go in and and block your V notch we so

such a small number anyway. It's not very big at all. three C.3 or 0.5 CFS is equivalent to um a couple garden hoses. It's not much. Yeah. And that would last for a couple hours. Doesn't bother. But yeah, in the final example, I certainly will get a a summary table in there. Okay. I mean I would guess I would ask pretty I mean if there is an increase I don't have to discuss it now but if there even a slight increase is that going to need a waiver just for something to think about for final I'll verify but

okay any other questions or any other questions on storm water's up there I just thought not for storm order really. But um we also put just the door locations on the site plan. Um the little inset piece on the I think it was the same C 01

uh has the building sort of backwards from what I had on the plan. And you can see the uh the main entrance, front entrance is here. And this uh there's another door on the side down here. And then uh into the service area in the back of the building, we've got a a garage door here and a man door there. And on the other end, there's a similar arrangement with a a garage door in the middle and a man door on the corner.

Is there anywhere on the plan that shows us again what we wanted to see was where are the sales and service areas? How what's the layout of the building interior? I I didn't happen to find it there. We do have architectural plans. If you want to wait, I can call that up. I didn't know the planning boards generally look at architectural. Well, we had said last time when we were talking that it it would be nice to know how the interior of the building is set up for people flow. You know, where they're coming in and out of, what's the areas that they're coming in and out of? And that's yeah, the front end of the store, this this part is sales. It is doesn't say that so we can't assume that. Well, I so I'm telling you. Yeah.

But it's this is sales and then the service is in back that the service needs the garage doors to get in. Um I can put a label on the plan if that would be helpful, I guess. But that's uh and so customers will come in and leave the front door primarily. There's a door on the side um that they could use, but primarily uh they'll look around the yard. We'll have some tractors on display in the yard and then um come into come into the sales area to speak with a salesperson and make up. So, how many how many employees are you proposing? I think there are eight. Six to eight. Six to eight.

Six to eight. So, that's how come your parking was limited to the the 12 if there's six, right? So, if you have eight employees, are you going to have more parking spaces? Right. We actually have, let me um said you had 14. I think we have 14 spaces. So, but not 16. Right. Right. But most employees will not bring two vehicles to work. No, I was just wondering because by using the the motor vehicles and boat sales and whatnot, it would be two per employee proposed. That's why I'm wondering if you have six that's fine. Seven is fine, but

eight you wouldn't have sufficient parking. We do have some additional area out here we could use as parking for overflow parking, but I'm hesitant to make it impervious because then I have to treat runoff from it. So if if that becomes an issue later on that we have don't have enough parking for our customers primarily then u we could do something like uh reinforced turf or something out there that would

I'm just I'll just add in the number that I was working for the application was just six but if eight is a possibility then what I'll add is a um deferment request for that parking the extra parking that would be needed for the eighth when you Talk about the number of employees. Are those employees on site all the time? I mean, or are there only five employees? Six. The six would be on site all the time. I mean, there would always be six people there. Six employees there. Sorry. Yeah. I was just wondering how it complies with the ordinance because it specifically requests to per unless you come up with some reason why or some extenduating circumstance.

Yeah. I think the reason we say eight is who knows in in you know five years maybe you know there's a need to add an employee now you have seven and that's why we have the sort of put an area for deferred parking in the event that employee goes up and there's not adequate parking with the with what was provided by the I think it would be useful to to say be specific and say you know six full-time equivalents you know or whatever or at all the time. Yeah. And if you expand, then you're going to have to That's what the Yeah. Yeah. Now's the time to plan big. You know, if you're planning bigger, then now's the time to do it and not wait till later and have to make some revisions. Yeah.

And and we've got them called the uh deferred parking spaces are is called out on the plan here pointing to this this area here. But that would not be paved. It would just be nothing. It would be retained. It would be retained for parking if we need it later. And if you had to pave it, you're saying that that would then kick in a a problem with the runoff?

We'd have we'd have to go through the numbers again, but uh you know, having a model built, it's it's not a big deal to change that. Again, it would be in the area that's that's being collected and being treated. And there is with with this hydrocad model, there's a plus or minus 20%, it's not accurate. None of them are. So, you know, I think we have uh yeah, it's a model. It's it's a best guess calculation. And so, we certainly by adding two or four spaces would not have to go back and redo the model, I guess.

Well, that's what I'm trying to get at that if you if you want it, it should be there so we don't have to rethink this in the future. You know what I mean?

Right. We so figure we're going to have it, but don't don't pave it. Or what if I say that we're going to put if we pave that, if we decide to use that, we'll do something like a grass pave, which is an a pvious mat that you put down and they park fire trucks on it. It, you know, when they when they need to. It's a reinforced turf, but grows grass, but it has gravel underneath. So, it's not impervious. So it would hydraulically it um it would act the same as a lawn which is what is there now. So I think that's probably the the solution we'd look at.

Then that would give us something to chew on. That would give us Yeah. And if it's if it's listed on there that's what it's going to be then that gives us a reason to consider it. So we'll just note that that is going to be grass paved if and will be developed if necessary. What would you have for parking? Would you have additional room on the south side of the showroom? I believe they want to use that in this area over here. Right. I mean, right next to the building there. They're using it for display area, I think. But I mean I mean there would be room for an employee to park there. It's just not going to be designated. Yes.

It's you know in order to keep the the tra the flow of traffic as needed for track the trailer to come in and out. But it's certainly if it was an area that we knew we didn't have any deliveries for a day that employee may park there, but it's not going to be or a sandwich delivery person or something. Yeah. Um but it but I I believe I I was under understanding in the ordinance that you know the amount of parking was based on the employees. But the reason we created the deferred parking is because that there was some sort of question as whether or not that would be the the right comparison to go based on a boat shop or at you know somebody came and said well this is different. We need to actually have more that deferred parking was created for

for that purpose. I get that. I just don't want you to have a situation where all of a sudden you have eight employees and now you're not in compliance. So, and I could just address it through the parking deferment request that's in the ordinance. I mean, I would ask staff to maybe give next meeting to give us information on how many parking places are required under the ordinance and what the alternatives are. They went with two. They went with two per employee. That's the whole point. Yes. Two per employee. So it's almost better if you pick a number, right? Just pick a number to go with and then if it expands in the future. Seven is good.

Yeah. So make sure just say seven and then if it expands in the future. Yeah. I just don't want it to be expensive and timeconuming for them in the future. Should they expand? Sometimes it's better to like I said think big and then if you don't get there you haven't as long as he can resolve the problem now. Definitely takes it away. Great advice. And they can take it or leave it. And where do delivery trucks turn around? I've got a diagram for that. Good. And it's actually on this one because you wanted everything on the fire department one. That's just crazy amount of stuff on there. So, um,

here's a truck coming down from elsewhere downtown. Um, and these two lines represent the front tires and the rear tires. So they swing wide to come AC around here. And the front of the vehicle will be you can see the representation of the the tractor trailer truck here. Uh be at one side over here and be uh the the rear tires on the tractor or on the trailer will be back here. Again, they pull in. They're real tight on this corner. They come up in here and then can back into uh where they would likely unload over in this area.

Is that where the big doors are? Yes. Okay. Yep. Um and then leaving uh is you know they would be hugging the outside corner here, hugging the inside corner here and then when they get back out. So do you have is that area that's paved is there like curbing or is it just flat in case they kind of go over because you looks like you're just tight in there. We're very close. But what's what what are they going to be driving over? Curbing or it'll be no there's no curbing out there. Yeah. The only curbing is back on the site itself just to direct my storm water to where and you couldn't make it a little wider so that they fit.

I don't want to make it any wider because that's more impervious area and more wetland impact. So, we're trying trying to do it. You know, there's um a lot of wetland impact here and every square foot that we can shave off saves saves money, saves headaches with with D permitting. Did you mention where the dumpster was going to be? Yeah. Because I think I'm not if I remember this correctly, last meeting you were planning on moving the dumpster around.

This it's in the corner right here. Let me got the dumpster showing right here. And we have a privacy fence in front of it. The privacy fence is almost illeible, but it's it's this lighter line right here. So, you're going to leave it in one place. Yes. Oh, that what it'll move behind the fence. So, like laterally, so you'll always It may get shifted to each time they dump it, it could shift. Okay. But that was one a little bit within that general corridor, but it'll be shielded off from Oh, yeah. I mean, last one, this sounded like you're going to move it around a lot.

No. Okay. No, I had just said that if they're going to have an area that should be hashed out like the like where you're going to have storage. Show us that that's where it's going to be within that area. Then you're consistent. Then you're not outside. You then you've defined where the possibilities are. I mean, we can put a hatch hatch in there. I mean, I think the the the discussion around the dumpster really was more not within an enclosure, which would be limiting it to moving being able to move it five feet one way or the other. Um, it could move it will the plan for will be in that general area but we put this the the screening there just to you know

Yeah. But if you like I'm saying if you just clarify that with that screening's great. I'm glad you're doing that because last time you didn't want anything. So now you have something but just show us just like you did with where your storage is going to be on the property. Just show us it's going to always stay in that area so that you don't get you know in a situation where oh it's over there. Well, we didn't know it was going to be over there because we may forget and it's supposed to be right there. So, give yourself some leeway if you need to have it. Yeah. The intent really was to be able to get to be able to move the dumpster to see from that area anywhere along the back of the building, but it would still be shielded. So, well, we need to know where. Okay. We'd like to know where

we we just definitely oversize the fence here because a lot of times you you just have a dumpster enclosure, but having an oversized fence would prevent that view from Right. That's great. I mean the fence is good from one and that what kind of fence is that? Um we just say privacy fence. Usually we use like a vinyl stockade. Okay. Privacy. Okay. Yeah, it was hard to see. I did not find that. There's a lot on this plan. Very busy. Uhhuh.

Whatever happened with the um I think last time we talked about this the overhangs whether they were going to have storage under them with vehicles with fuel and how did that affect like whether or not it ended up being is that sprinkled, not sprinkled. What was that whole discussion? How did that go? Where did we end up? I I know the building is is uh specifically the the intent is to be under 12,000 square feet. So, we didn't need to sprinkle it. Mhm. So, that's that's what we've done. So, the state uh does not recognize the overhangs as part of the building. Okay. So, that was addressed by and that's okay by the fire marshal. Is that what the note on your TRT report is that you're waiting for a letter from the fire marshall's office?

Yeah, that was what that was. I found because I was noticing that uh fire waiting for state fire marshall will submit letter for the final. Is that what you were waiting for? Okay. So, basically I I contacted them about their other property that they have that went through the state and they did not recognize the overhangs. Okay. Okay. [Music] So, I have a question. Um, last time we talked about some wording that was not applicable. Mhm.

Such as emergency vehicle access limited with existing conditions to existing entrance. It's still in your plan. Oh, I thought it was applicable because the ordinance asks for that detail. So, I left it in there. Is it something you're going to remove? It's a requested in the ordinance of what what emergency access looks like on the existing property and that's like what that describes is there's an existing drive and that's how an emergency vehicle would have to access the property. Okay. So I it because I asked the question last last time

and I believe it said it wasn't applicable. I believe that was the answer. When an emergency vehicle access is limited with existing conditions to the existing entrance suitable for access that you weren't going to use that entrance because of the um um we're not well it's going to become the driveway but like right now as the existing condition is if an emergency vehicle had to access the lot like it would have to go through what's the existing drive that's there. That's all that's saying. Okay. Yeah. So the wording is staying. I mean, I can make it sound better, but

that would be a good idea. I'm really confused with that wording. I'm really confused with that wording. Um, and then I have one other question for you. Um, I notice on, let's see, I think it's the site plan C 0.1, you have included a new sign and light. I see it. It's lit listed right there alongside the road. What I do not see and whether it's something you can produce or eventually is in your photometric there is nothing there for that sign. Now whether that sign and the light is going to impact route three or not probably ought to have some information on that.

I agree with the light. I don't think the sign is lit up. Is that it's just a It does light up. It doesn't produce light. It doesn't produce produce light like a light. It's just a it's got a lit up on the inside. So it it's internally dark. This this that the sign doesn't have a light in it at all. No, it does. It doesn't light. So we have to include that. Okay. Does it is it required to have a phototric calculation? If there were external lights, I believe, but I don't think it I don't think the internal light. Okay. So it's all internal light. Yeah.

Okay. All right. Thank you. That's all I got. Any more? I got I got more. You know me. I got more. Um question on your snow areas. You throw the word snow in three spots, but I don't think Do you mean that they the snow fits in those spots or does it go outside in that general area? I I don't know the size of the snow. It's going to depend on the snowfall during the year. Okay.

But what I what uh this is generally indicates is that when you're plowing the yard, the snow will be plowed out here beyond the the pavement. Uh so it'll drain down back here. uh the exact measurement of the snow. Oh, I'm not I'm not asking for that. My curiosity would be um as the snow is pushed into those three locations, how is that bulk of snow affecting the wetlands and your runoff and because now that snow is coming off a parking lot and how show me how that's going to be dealt with or or are you going to remove it or or what?

The the uh I can go through them individually. This one as it melts will go down this uh grading ditch here. Um again this one will go again down the ditch. I believe this is actually in an upland area here. Maybe if not it will be be back there. And this one is in an existing wetland area. But I I put them here simply because so they wouldn't block the culverts going through. This is another new thing that we have heard from Army Corps of Engineers that we may have to have multiple culverts in there because the little critters have to get from one side of the wetland to the other. This is not for hydraulic flow. This is for critter flow.

Uhhuh. I don't make this stuff up. It's the Army Corps of Engineers. They do a lot of it out west. I can tell you that. Yeah. Yeah. I was just curious because that does impact, you know, the the get those the amount of snow that's pushed into those locations where they are and where they flow to matters and I'm still not perfectly clear on that aspect. What what is your what is your Well, because you said that one you think it's high but you're not sure and is it going to the not that one? You said that's going into a ditch. This one is just going out onto the grass and which it's we've got a a level area out there and then as we go here you can see the contour lines kind of dip down a little bit. So it's a mild decrease there.

So does your stuck? They've got a tractor handy. Does your storm water flow show where those areas would drain to? They would drain down to the wetland. The back of the store is the is the only part of the store that uh is not treated in the storm water system. Because there's we can put a or this this small area back here. We can put gutters on the back of the store that's going to get the roof run off and then we run the roof run off off to the side to hit the carbon go down. But this paved area that's about two or three feet wide in the back of the store is not treated for storm water. And neither would either of the other two snow locations.

That's right. So, is there anywhere where you could push the snow that would be put into the treated area of storm water runoff if we left it on the on the yard here, but that would be difficult to do because you've got to access the the big garage doors at the end of the building because remember this there's a garage door here, there's a garage door here. So, we could pack some of it on here, but again, it's it's uh it's not an intensive rain event that would create the snow. I mean, the snow is going to melt gradually, but Yeah, but it's still going to melt and go into the wetlands.

Yeah. From a parking lot. Not You're pushing it from the lot and it's not getting treatment. Treatment. What I could do is put some sort of a uh a stone burm across here to create some ponding within the ditch and that would allow some uh settlement there that would remove the um sand salt, you know, put it a stone check dam in here. And again, I could put another stone check dam down here um in this area. So, I think that would And the one in the front by the front of the drive. You're tough. I know. Well, hey, it's my job.

We have equipment. We can put snow wherever we want to put snow. Yeah. Wherever you want us to put snow that you feel comfortable with, we'll put snow there. It's not like we plow and it's there for good. It's We have equipment. We have buckets. We have loaders. We have all the equipment to put it in the designated area where we're not going to have issues for sure. Well, that's up to you guys to find those places and ma and make a plan for that. Having all kinds of different obstacles to try to put, you know, water where it it just generally melts with nature, you know.

Well, it's not just water once it's in a parking lot. It that's where we usually have storm water runoff that goes into a storm water catch basin or something like that. So, that's what that's the question. So, whatever you can do to to to

Okay. Well, we can look at that. Um, one more question. Hate to ask it. You show that tree line real close all around, which is great. I'm glad you're leaving as many trees as you can. But, um, right. So, because that's the idea is to not disturb anything if possible. Keep the tree line there. um during during construction if you should um have to disturb that face to get your equipment through. You know, construction sometimes you have to dig things and move things around. What is there any um thought about what you would do to restore or would you restore because you've made the line nice and tight.

Is that really feasible? And what is the plan if if it's impacted? Right. We think I think it's quite feasible because that's the way the grading works and you know meaning we're tying our contours from the site into the some of the existing contours. So you know obviously we don't want to clear any more than we have to and um you know this area is just cleared for where the septic system is going to go in. I think that that's ample room to get in there and work because they're g going to do uh you know coming from the site to get in there and haul in materials for the septic system. Um

well, I'm just saying if by chance you had to back it out, do you have a plan for um corrective actions because you I mean your site plan shows it pretty snug. So, no, I mean we've got 10 feet either side here. As long as you're comfortable with that, it doesn't exceed it. I'll say the project's also going through permitting with D and Army Corps. Um, and so like if we remove more than they think the plan shows, then we would have to answer to them for Okay, good. Good. Yeah. Okay, good. That answers that real quick. Yeah, I'm done.

And this is actually a question for you, I suppose, staff people. the letter that they get from the ma in this isn't the main community bank saying that they got money to do this. Do does a dollar amount have to be in that letter? Yeah, I think it generally is. It probably should be, but it doesn't really Well, I mean, because it it says has the capacity. It's kind of like, you know, then it has the capacity to Yeah. I mean, you know, the page before that says it's a million whatever it said because construction prices do change. So, it's difficult to narrow. Well, everything changes. So, so it's hard to

would you check to see whether or not that we have to have that because I think in in some other ordinance that we might be considering I think that actually has dollar amounts that have to be invented. So, could that be submitted just to the board, not public? Because that is a kind of a proprietary number. No, I think what I mean we could get the bank to just say that if the construction cost is 1.1 million then you know the applicant has the ability to complete a project with 1.1 million. Not asking for like his actual bank records or how much money he's I was just thinking of redacting it from public documents. Well, tech it's already in there, but it's the 1.1 million that we estimate will be. He's in there already. Okay. Nice try.

I'm late to the game. I'm sorry. the um you talk about uh public store and public water and so forth and you kind of leave it up in the air so to speak is has that been resolved or will it be resolved before I think it's just a I mean it's really not necessary to be in there was just kind of in there already but the the project will be developed with private water and septic and then again if the opportunity ever came and that's something that's taken care of during the that's me you right okay uh lighting. Oh, above all private water. I guess one note, I forgot to bring that. We did try to contact a well driller. The one that

Yes, that was the next question. The well driller. No, I called the well drillers suggested by staff and they had not returned any of my four phone calls. So, you'll be digging. I'll continue to keep trying to find one. Hopefully, it's not real deep. Um just a question on hydroofracking, which was pretty exciting to me. Um does that and really this is a question for you. Does the fact that you use hydrorofracking does that does that impact a draw down cone or anything or you know I've never never seen that. Never experienced it. Yeah. Okay. I the only the only question I have is if you do hydroracking

and I don't know much about hydroracking other than free natural gas or whatever but um you know if it has an impact on adjacent wells well hydrofracturing what's that hydrorofaring I'm sorry hydro you're familiar with that mathuring it's just drilling welling it's how all wells are drilled well hydrofracking that that's the that's the method that all wells drilled Yeah. Oh, wow. I see. I go back to when they did it with shovels. I used a big reservoir of water.

Okay, that's it. Anything public hearing if anybody has any comments or questions from the public? See, I'll close the public hearing. Is there a motion? Make a motion to accept the preliminary the preliminary plan of a major use site development entitled Ellsworth factory equipment for African owner Michael Sauier. Is that going to be with um the followup of information that we've discussed? We're only approving Yep. saying the preliminary plan is complete. Yep. Right. That they've addressed the list.

I second. All available. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you.

I'm looking forward to seeing Matt out there. I'll take pictures. Yeah. Try to keep me unconfused. If you could

item number four, revision to approve major use site plan and major subdivision plan entitled WL Properties LLC for applicant owner WL Properties LLC. Proposal is to revise the previously approved plans to allow subdivision of the existing parcels into 10 lots to be developed in phases. The subject properties approximately 121.8 8 acre crustle located at the end of eastward lane tax map 22 lot 13 in the commercial limited residential and resource protection zoning district here representing WL you

hello um Shelley Lazot um artifacts um architects and engineers representing um WL properties pellet um can you hear me okay um as you know we get this approval final approval last year, probably in November. I think it was November, about a year ago,

about a year ago. And um after quite a while of design work and changing things and coming back and um um ultimately the purpose of this was just to separate the property into smaller pieces to allow for uh varied financing options in instead of just putting all of the financing into one bank. um he was looking to perhaps spread it out into other to different banks and move in phases so that the entire thing wasn't that he didn't have to come up with the entire uh funding financing all at once because it will take a bit of time to to construct also. Uh so a as you know um the property um was already you know we already had approval for the 150 units. None of the design of the actual development has changed at all. The only thing that has changed is the land beneath these individual phases. Um, I did some uh kind of creative shape in order to make sure that each phase was still able to stand on its own so that infrastructure, um, storm water treatment, all of those things would not be impacted. um that that everything that they did would would have those provisions while he was progressing through the different phases. Um the um we had a surveyor, you know, uh provide the meats and bounds of these. I mean, they're obviously not set in

there's no pins or anything at this point. I'm not sure what that will look like in the future. I don't know that there's any intention for him to ever sell these off. It's just to make the financing easier and smoother um over the time frame when he starts when he wants to construct. Um I happy to answer any questions that you have. Um like I said before, none of the actual design features have changed at all. Okay. Uh I just before we get to questions, uh Tim Peas is in attendance. Uh you there Tim maybe. Good evening. Okay.

Okay. Good. If you don't know, you've seen Tim before. Tim is our attorney. Uh Tim and I had discussion on this project last week and Okay. I thought it was important to for him to attend. I think there's more I think legal issues and maybe board issues. Uh maybe Timmy, you could give us a little guidance on how to go about this because it

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I appreciate the u the presentation just now. It it sheds a little bit of light on the letter that um was submitted on September 10th, which uh explains the the reason for the change. And I and I think that one of the concerns that the city has is that you normally when you approve a project and especially a subdivision project, it's one of the requirements in the statute that there's financial and technical capacity. It's item 10 and section 4404 and title 38. And that financial capacity is for the overall project. And so here you're indicating that the the changes are designed to be able to allow different lenders and different financing options. So I think that what the board would want to see is some financial capacity for the overall project even even if it's going to be broken out into different lenders and so forth that there would need to be some kind of letter from a financial institution or multiple finance financial institutions about how this is going to play out. um otherwise I think the board is is going to struggle with that particular um item on the financial capacity. So I I understand that the concept but in the work that I do um with banks it is I think unusual for multiple lenders to be uh stepping in in a project like this. They're the reason they finance projects is for collateral. So if phase one or or lot one is financed by bank A uh is is bank B merely going to step in and and finance uh phase two or or project two or aspect two. So I I think the I understand the representation but

I think we need to see it from a financial institution um saying that they are willing to back the entire project overall. And normally what we would see is is if a a developer wanted to um do it incrementally lot by lot then you would have individual approvals. You'd have law one would get an approval and then you'd come back and get lot two approved. And so I think you know in this case that is a a fundamental issue that the planning board would be concerned about. I agree 100%.

Thank you. Um, I mean that was that was a big part of our discussion, my discussion with Tim is I mean now now we're going to break it into 10 lots. Uh, and I mean each lot would would have its own deed and I mean in your paperwork I mean the the plan is not to to sell one of these lots to somebody else but theoretically it could be. I I know that's not the the plan, but the possibility exists. And so my question, you know, in developing each one of these lots and and if we're going to go that way, I think we have to get away from labeling phase and just I I know this, but just refer to them as lots, but I mean it if somebody else buys a lot, how are they going to abide by, you know, if somebody buys lot seven, let's say, is the wording in the deed going to cover, you know, phases lots one through six and all the roads and and the and the storm water and p I I I I completely understand where you're coming from. This is very complicated in my mind and it took me a lot of time to try and figure out how this would work and I still haven't really I still don't know that this is 100% the answer. Um but I do know that um the pretty much the driving factor behind it is he had approached many banks, a lot of very local banks and um they they were at their limit of funding for this type of project and because they they didn't have the ability to loan as much as he needed for the entire project all at once is what really drove this. So, I'm not sure he's looking to spread it around different banks, but I do know that the option what his option was is

he's I think at this point he doesn't have a commitment from any single bank at this point. Um, so in order to make it um more they wouldn't be as much risk if they were only doing one phase at a time incrementally. And so once that one phase is complete then I mean I would think that that phase could be I don't know how this would work either but if that phase were um like there was equity in that phase that could also be added to the next phase to make it so that that would be part of the other phase. I I really I just I'm not sure and I don't have the legal background or you know you know the real estate type of background to understand how that fully works. I mean Tim in your letter you you talk about a letter of credit. I mean and also instead of breaking I understand the financing problems issues. Uh it would be more acceptable to leave it as one lot in phases and as they get funding for a particular phase to re to reapprove that or how does a letter of credit, you know, instead of breaking it into 10 different lots, which you you know, they're going to have you're going to have to have one heck of a lawyer to draft all that up to to say, you know, each One of these phases has to contribute to the maintenance of the the main road coming in and lot 10 has to contribute to the maintenance of lot seven and six, you know.

Well, I mean that that does make sense if you're looking if there is I know you're saying, you know, legally they could sell these lots to others. Um but I mean I don't that there's absolutely no intention to do that. I know you can't intent doesn't necessarily um hold any legal standing there, but um so I may I'm open to suggestions other than this if there's something that makes sense. Um, I just, you know, this was the only thing that we could come up with. And I know when Scott had approached some of these banks that they were not willing to do it in phases. And I'm not really sure if it has to do with like they wanted a certain amount of money upfront in order to even lend him the whole amount in phases. So, I think that was a big part of it because, you know, if you don't I think we had a $28 million price tag and I think they they wanted 25% or something like that just in equity there in order to even start the funding. And so, that was kind of unexpected. I I don't quote me on those numbers. I'm not sure, but but I know that was part of it. Um,

so is Shelley, is it the bank that is saying we want this broken up into lots? Is it mainly the bank that is saying that? I think that's kind of what drove the decision. I mean, I wasn't part of those conversations, so I'm not sure if that was the very specific wording that they had. Um, but the a lot of the local banks just don't um, you know, unless you're a a big-time developer with a lot of cash up front, I'm not sure that they're willing to to do the whole thing in one big chunk. and and I and I know that's just hard to I don't know I don't have the ability any

suggestions Tim

yeah and I' I've seen some situations like this where where banks will agree to lend on a phase basis so three or four different phases and what they will require is uh some certification from municipalities saying okay phase one is on to the satisfaction of the town. There is a certificate of occupancy that's been issued. Therefore, that gives the lender the confidence that they can lend more money for the next phase. Um if if the if if there isn't a financial institution that feels comfortable with all 10 phases, this might be a situation where the developer might have to um cut it back to five phases, for example. So put the half of the project, put that on pause and see if you can get financing for the first five phases, for example. So I I think from the city's perspective, they're obviously interested in in more housing. That's super super important. But uh also important is making sure that developers have the financial ability and technical ability to u fulfill uh the obligations of a permit that they've been given. So I think in this case the ordinance allows for a 5year development period. And if the developer looks at it and says, "Well, that seems ambitious." Um, here we are a year from the approval or so, that, uh, maybe the best course is to dial that back a little bit. um and and see if you can get the financial backing for a smaller project and and then keep the other project in uh uh in on ice a little bit until the it gets going and there's a proven track record.

Yeah, I I do know that just is my own observation is that that lenders are tightening their belts um in the last few months and just across the board that is something that's happening. So, I'm not surprised that from an approval last fall to now that um that there's a bell tightening.

Yeah. And I think I think that was originally how we wanted to go about this. And I'm not I think I'm not really sure what kind of prompted us to when I first started discussing this and I'm not sure if it was Britney or if it was Matt at the time, but um we were talking about like what are our options for phasing because there really isn't anything built into your ordinances that has any kind of phasing. I mean they got approval for the whole thing is a big lump. So there's really no phasing. And I think he was concerned that that 5-year time frame was not going to be enough, especially five years from the time that it was approved, let alone, you know, now. Um, so, you know, I I I'm sure I would I would be happy and I'm sure Scott would be happy if we didn't have to separate this into into individual lots and just could face it as phases, but that's not how the planning board approved it. So, I'm not sure if that if there would be a way we could separate into phases and that could be officially labeled on a plan as phases and then we could approach the um

so I don't know how I don't know how that would it's currently I mean when we approved it it was labeled in phases uh I think remember correctly you had like maybe a three or four year estimate of of completion uh do you have any sense from the bank on like how many phases they would finance. I I like I said, I I wasn't part of those conversations, so I'm not really sure. Um, didn't you say that you don't have a commitment yet from any single financial? I I believe that is correct. I'm not sure. I mean, we provided something from

Well, the the original one was from First National Bank.

Yes. And um at over the winter the discussions they had and when they were looking at it I think they realized that they were already extended beyond their ability to finance the whole thing. And I'm not sure what the um the remaining like uh what they what else they would have needed. And I know after that he approached a bunch of different banks and pretty much the general consensus was they they they wouldn't be able to do this project as a whole unless he had a fair amount of capital ahead of that to give them um or to I'm not I'm not sure what other options there there is as far as financing goes.

I have a question about since the plan was I wasn't involved in that plan. I'm just going with what was there. Um, if the planning board approved the site plan with conditions as a whole project, if it's going to be split into phases, whether it be three, four, five, or 10, wouldn't we have to reook at that whole project to make sure that those phases did encompass storm water, traffic flow, fire department safety, all the things, you know, that there's a laundromat, that there's the public areas, that there's the common areas. Wouldn't we have to look at it in phased portions in order to I mean are you asking me? No, I'm asking too. I don't think that's how the ordinance

No, I mean I think their original timeline was three or four years if I remember correctly which would fit within the required timeline for substantial completion. I mean, so but if she's only going to get since since the original project said they had enough funding to do the whole project and now if they only have enough funding to do a portion of that, this part the second portion may never happen. So wouldn't we need to look at the portion that was being approved in a nutshell if that's all the only funding we have approved for? That's why we have that's that's my question

and that's why Tim is in attendance. Yeah, I think the the concern is that if the overall project is approved and it's improved in phases, which is typical and it's in the ordinance that that talks about that, that's one thing. But if you split up the lots into 10 lots or or two lots, it doesn't really matter. Then you the the planning board should be thinking, okay, well, in in that case, what if one lot gets sold off? So, what if you have development in one lot and then it gets the other lot gets sold and there's no development. And then if you've got 10, then you can have a patchwork situation out there. And you'd want to try to figure out how can you protect against that situation where some lots get sold off and not developed so that people don't get uh put in a situation that they didn't expect. The subdivision rules are there to try to provide some assurance that the buyers of those lots are going to have things like access uh road access. They're going to have public utility access and so forth. So, it just opens up another uh group of concerns um if you're going to be dividing into particular lots.

And and we did discuss that too. And as and as um I I don't remember when the conversation h happened, but um the um we did consider the trying to make the road something that was like a a right away so that that would be its own particular like phase. And so that was done ahead of time. But um they don't have um they don't have access other than through a right of way. So, I'm not sure how that would work in in that sense. So, I mean, so you would be creating another right of way. Um, couldn't become a public street um because it doesn't have access to a public street. So, I don't I'm not sure how that work.

And the you couldn't get the bank to approve like you putting in all the infrastructure and then only building like one. That's an option. We just didn't look at you put in all the infrastructure. That's the part that affects the site overall whether or not you build one unit or 100 units. That's the infrastructure would be there,

right? And that is an option and that's kind of how we were going when we had it broken down into three phases because they were broken down so that those those phases um could be done um and the infrastructure was not the infrastructure for for the first phase was not dependent on anything that was happening in the second phase and then subsequently on the third phase. So there was no um it wasn't it wasn't like in the same way when I broke these up too it it was intended to be a sequential thing so that by the time you know you got done with the first four phases if the rest of them didn't happen beyond that it would not impact the development up to the first four phases but I don't know how that works if it's

capacities and so forth at phase one would be high enough that they would take into account phase two, three, four, five, whatever. Right. And and I'm sure not sure what we were just what in what respect that let's say you have a sword pipe. Right. Right. So if you had if you size it for only for phase one, then that would be a problem. But if you sized it so that it could really accommodate all the other phases as well, even though you're only building phase one, you know, you're still good to go, right? And and my original comment was that none of the design has changed. So it's designed to handle the full buildout and and and if it never gets built out ever, right? You know, basically in phase one, you have a then it's over

bigger store pipe than you needed forever, right? That's pretty much the idea. That's the kind of the risk that I mean and obviously that's extra cost or whatever. But it sounds to me like I think I mean what what you guys are discussing as far as like the the legality of this I think it might be worth um some additional research with the bank specifically to be able to provide specific information so that you guys understand what the banks are asking for and can we and can we get our lawyer involved in that I I would love conversation which yeah seems like it would be needed because I think we just need a little bit of guidance in order to know how to you know how to approach this

especially I mean you mentioned that you wasn't sure I mean if if at this point first national bank is going to provide any funding uh so I mean what you just said I think I think that's probably what you got to do first is see finally a bank that is going to say we're going to commit to one two three four phases yeah and I think they could I think they had a commitment for a certain amount of money but it because they had a lot of money already lent out to the same types of developments that it wasn't they were not able to go beyond whatever cap that they had. Yeah. Yeah.

I mean I mean the whole project's been approved. I mean there is time frames for substantial completion we've talked about but I mean I think ideally the it would be best to keep this as one lot. I think to break it up into 10 lots is I think would be just adds more complexity to it. There's always a chance that they'll sold off randomly or whatever. I'm I'm looking at the way you've got your phases and uh as far as phase one um it's just the housing unit. You realize phase one doesn't include the mail building or the dumpsters?

Yes, I did. I did. Um I I did that. probably should be included in phase one if it's going to be done. Yeah. I mean, I thought in in if there is if there is a phase one and that one only happens, then a single dumpster and an individual male for that group would have been enough. So, I think that's that's why that was my logic with that. Um, but I mean it's in phase two obviously, so once you get beyond those first few buildings, um, they most definitely would need it. But you know I if I need to change that into the next ph into the first phase that's I that's no problem changing that but I agree it should take one long. I think that's the route that we go.

I guess my suggestion would be is to work with staff work to to come back with it next month. I mean we certainly don't want to see this project go away. Uh but it you know and it's I think you know you're getting into legal aspects we're not good to no I I have no experience with any of that aside from you know doing subdivisions and making sure that we have you know question for for for her to consider what I'm not familiar with what is the building in that's marked phase three at the end of the like a maintenance equipment builder. It's equipment.

So, is that something that is needed if she's going to do was that on the original like first phase? Well, no. I mean, it was a building for them to use her equipment and Well, wouldn't they still need that if they're going to do phase? So, I'm just trying to figure out what she needs to consider to put in that. So I think that's mostly mostly um well because it was a far farther away from the from the first phase. It was like do we need to build a along the extra road all the way to that building? I mean a lot of it was for staging for equipment and for materials.

Yeah. I'm just just putting it out there for you to think about when you're doing your splitting up just to make sure whatever you need. There there is no other I mean that was also you know the best location for that because it wasn't once you build it it's not going to come down so it it will remain there and so having it in the front just didn't make sense but I you know I I'll take that instead of well just if you needed it as a part of the construction then you want to include that in your financing yeah right I mean unless unless it doesn't unless that's something that he doesn't need financing for. we could make it into a staging area and that doesn't that doesn't um require any real money up front.

Okay. I mean, the other question I had as far as as far as the the work that goes into this, if if he has the ability to do a lot of the groundwork and grading and clearing and stuff ahead of, you know, the the money that he needs to put up for um for the construction materials for the for the rest of the the pro project. Um he doesn't have to approach that in any way as far as a permit goes. like is there any reason he can't start doing that over the winter while we figure out the rest of it? I got to ask. I think that would be Yeah, we have that we'd have that discussion.

Okay. because I I think that there would be some value to that, you know, added value to to the existing, you know, the whole development as a whole if if he had it cleared and grubbed and prepped for, you know, some of the utilities. Um there there'd be some, you know, value to that just like pink. I mean, projects do that ahead of planning, but on other projects. Yeah. I mean that the the short answer is yes, right? We could have that, you know. Yeah. Well, I mean, we've approved this all. I mean, they if they hadn't come back, they could be out there day out, right? Right. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, Tinker Hill was like that. They put all the underground infrastructure up there.

Yeah. So, I don't really see why it would be a big problem. Any thoughts from you, Sarah? and I will open it up public hearing if anybody here has any comments or questions to confuse us even more. See, I'll close it. Uh I mean my suggestion would be to to table it to allow Shelley, Jim, and staff to to work together to bring us back something that works. Yes. I have a question.

Certainly. Um if we don't just if we decide not to separate it into lots or for this purpose, what type of approval is is going to be required or would it just be like um you know just permits for building permits? Like what do we need to come back to the board? If nothing if we decide not to do the splits and it's just the same as what was approved, then we can withdraw this application and you can continue and pull your permits. Okay. And would you be able to provide me with a contact information so I can have Scott um reach out to you guys? Yeah. Thank you.

So you're saying we should just with have item four withdrawn if there's um you know if they decide not to go forward with the splits and it's the same project then they just want to table it or No, but I mean for tonight. Oh, for tonight. Um, yeah, we can table it until we make that determination. Okay. Would we have to come back? If we did separate it, would I have to come back for another preliminary?

Because it's tabled. So technically, we would not make a decision. They would have to come back to another prelim to make that decision. But not you wouldn't have to resubmit anything. No, but I mean it's just two extra meetings and we already had this one. So yeah. So, but yet there's no decision being made. So, we can't this can't count as a meeting. I mean, it kind of can't count. [Music] Those are your choices. Or they can can they just withdraw it? I'm sorry. Which doesn't right. But I'm just saying can can you make a decision in in

because it because this is technically treated it's a revision but it's treated as a preliminary. So this you know the decision would be determining completeness and if we don't find it complete but I think what she's asking and I guess the clarity would be in my mind is that if she decides to do it in actual phases um and possibly do like maybe this much road this portions does she need to come back for a site plan review because it's not consistent with what she got approved for that's what I'm wondering I mean a project would normally be you know phased out in normally because financial you'd only build these and you build these and you build these but if she's actually only going to get financing for a portion of it

but the approved project there were phases there were yes I don't know that so then if it's but so as long as she's consistent with that it she don't need anything further exactly but I mean I think that the key to going to keep it in 10 phases is not lots and to go forward for all 10 lots is going to depend a lot on what their financial capability is going to be. Yeah. Y but as far as the application that was presented tonight so it can be tabled or we could just make a motion to not approve it and then that idea of phasing it into 10 lots is

we table it. I mean, it's going to have to if it comes back, it's going to have to come back for two whether we table it or or vote the revision down. Yeah. We're going to have to have the financial information. So, my suggestion is just a motion to table it. I second. You made a motion? Yes. All in favor? Sure. Whatever. She could potentially get Thank you, Tim. Uh, I guess I'll leave it in in Britney and your hand and Shel to find us a way forward. Thank you, Ken. Let us know how that works out.

This is good. Yeah. No, you can just quickly This is one about Oh, yeah. Maybe

I missed somewhere. There's a piece of paper about folders, right? It's that one right there. Yeah. Oh, let's see. Item number five. No, that's not that's not it. Provision to an approved major use site development plan at Main Street LLC for applicant owner Dustin Lawrence. The proposal to revise a plan previously approved by the planning board to change out the previously approved buffer trees with boulders. The subject property is approximately 3.6 acre parcel located on Route 1A Bango Road tax 143 lots, two, and four in the urban zoning district. Someone here representing Main Street LLC instead of

how's it going? I mean, I think it's pretty basic. Are you Dustin? Yeah, I'm Dustin. Okay, thank you. Um, so the boulder guy. What's that? The boulder guy.

Yeah. Yeah, basically. Um, so originally we were supposed to put trees as a property barrier basically between me and Judy, um, and her husband. And unfortunately, they had to put a swale there. Um, so from my understanding, nothing would survive there for trees. So, I had mentioned a like a picket fence or something. Um, and that wasn't going to work. So, we agreed upon boulders. Um, I didn't actually at the time realized I was going to have to come to the planning board to do it. Um, from my understanding, I just had to have agreements between the two of us and we'd be good. So, I wrote up a document. We signed it and went forward with it. But, I guess you guys don't have like an ordinance for that. So, um, here I am. Well, the basically what you did is violate the conditions of of approval by doing away with landscaping and putting in boulders, you know, without coming to the plan board for revision,

right? I mean, I talked to code and said, "Do I need to do anything or should I?" And I was told that I just need to that it would be fine. I just need to make sure that both of us were okay with it. Um, fill out a docu like create a document. both of us sign it and I'd be good to go. Um but that was not the case. Correct. So, but um talking I mean when RF Jordan started finishing up the ground work, they I guess they were digging in and found a bunch of like concrete that had been buried there and as soon as they dug that up, water was just flowing everywhere. So they wound up having to do a swale

um and it diverted the water and right where the and the only option based on the the property was to do it where the trees would be. Um so now there's a swale there. Was there a code thing that I mean was was was there a reason something maybe that fit this particular in code that they he was think thought that's what was

well we had there was already kind of the start of a barrier there um that had three stones there that kind of were on the property line and we thought that would look good. Um, I guess I I spoke to my engineer too and he didn't think it was going to be a problem, but I guess he didn't look at the ordinances either. Um, and like I said, I I had reached out and it seemed like it was going to be fine. But once I submitted the actual signed document, I was then told that no, I I need to come to plan.

So, I mean, I think it looks good. I just don't obviously you guys don't have have an ordinance for it, so I don't know. I mean, from my point of view, it was it was approved with landscaping as as the buffer. Uh I mean, the ordinance allows us to to grant a waiver for that, right? Uh personally, I'm I'm not in favor of boulders versus landscaping, right? Uh I mean, depending on the I mean, trees, shrubs, whatever, grow in a myriad of of different climate conditions, soil conditions. I guess I'm a little hesitant to believe that something can't grow there.

That's just what I was told by the the uh by RF Jordan. They're like, I know it's planned to put trees here and shrubs, but there's they're like nothing's going to survive based on the water that's going to come through here because every time they dug is just water was pouring out. Um so I mean I'm no expert on it. That's just neither am I, but I mean I would So I don't I would rather an opinion from a horiculturist or landscaper.

Yeah. I mean I spoke the guy that I'm having do the uh trees out front hopefully soon. Um he had basically said the same thing that if it's in a swale then chances are it's not going to make it. I mean he he wasn't there to see what kind of water was flowing and stuff but I mean I know from my view cuz I showed up there when they called me um there was a lot of water at the time. I mean, obviously right now there's not because we haven't had much water, but

but in in the end though, you know, Tim said basically, well, here's what he said. In short, it would be consistent with the ordinance if the planning board concluded the use of boulders in this context was an appropriate buffer. And you and you basically both agreed that boulders were okay with y'all, right? Yeah. So, Seems like a done deal to me. Notwithstanding your aversion boulders. Well, what about if the per current homeowner no longer owns the home and sells it to somebody else? Now they've got something that's like, of course, they're buying it the way it is. The boulders are are okay.

So, I take it in our family for 200 years. Oh, good. What was that? Keep it that way. Did you say you said 200 years? She's had it for 200 years in her family. That's great. So I'm in looking at this picture. So this the swale you mean is where the there's a photograph like right next to the boulders basically or where the boulders are. So there's a little tree there. It looks like a apple tree that's on the other side. Yeah. So the swale goes on like the pretty much where the rocks are there. So, I mean, my hope would be that it I mean, based on the swale, it shouldn't affect that tree because it's like a little bit of like almost a ditch. So, the swale is where the gravel is. I'm just trying to figure out

it's right basically where the rocks are. I mean, right between the gravel and and the rocks, I guess. I mean, it's right there. But notwithstanding swelles and water and swailes, the question really is, is this the acceptable buffer? And legal guy says it is an acceptable buffer. It's within, you know, the purview of whatever whatever rules and everybody agrees. So, we're talking landscape buffers. What are we buffering building from other things? I mean, are we are we talking sight? Are we talking light? Are we talking dust? I mean, we're just talking buffer because it none of Because it's not defined, I don't think.

Right. Probably property line. But if we're going down, maybe that's what we're up that's the buffer is the property line. I think basically it is kind of a setback more than a buffer. So So yeah, it was like a this was a dirt was it a dirt gravel lot? I mean it was it was dirt. It's like dirt gravel up front and then the back part where the building actually is now was like grass. Leave the picture in front. Oh, there is now. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I noticed coming by today though, there's still two curb cuts that are still present beside Well, three. Yeah. Two that were

I know. I just spoke with my engineer about that, too, because I was like, I think that we were supposed to have those fixed closed. Yeah. So, I have to get that. Well, I have to get the trees put in still. They were supposed to do that weeks ago and they still haven't. So, I just spoke with him yesterday, but that's that's those are code issues at this point. Yeah. Buffers are supposed to support visual screening and creation of privacy. I'd rather see nothing there than boulders, but that's so if you build a new

new structure, then you're supposed to protect natural resources and support visual screening to protect privacy. So that's what our think is. Well, reality is if you planted some trees there, it would be some years before they did any of that. Did you say you had a landscape individual tell you that it wouldn't sustain tree life right there? Yeah. Can you get a letter from him stating that to us? Yeah. I think you want that letter before you make a decision though. Well, I agree. But I mean I mean he comes down after the fact.

Yeah. You can make a condition of approval. Yeah. Make that letter cuz this says we can wave it. It says it can be waved if there's an existing trees or something already there that you don't want to tear that down and put in something else. Um and or require fence, wall, or burm or any combination thereof if there's no adverse impacts upon the neighboring properties. So that's what the ordinance calls for. Well, do we It doesn't say boulders. It says fence, wall, burm, or tree. Do we not have a We have a committee that

fence, wall, fence, wall, or burm or trees? Yeah. So, in Dustin's defense, he came to us wanting to put up a privacy fence. Okay. But a private like how big a privacy fence would you need to hide a building that's right massive. So we just and and then it gets windy and plastic. We haven't got to a public hearing yet. I mean you you' be more than happy to come up. But my question for Britney I mean we have a council member that's has a horiculture background if I'm not mistaken. And isn't there now a committee or we do have the arbit commission? Yes. Arbit commission.

Yes. So, I mean, if if somebody's going to present a recommendation or suggest, you know, I would rather have it come from an independent person than someone the applicant's going to hire. Okay. We can have the Arbor Commission take a look if we're legally allowed. Is that a city commission? Does he require any other applicant to do that? I don't know. I mean is do we require other applicants to do that to go to the Arbor Commission to get any sort of recommendation? Well, no. Mrs. Lawrence is saying that somebody from RF Jordan says nothing will grow there.

And you asked him to get a letter from um an arborist or someone some professional that says I mean that's his that's what you're asking him to do to grant this condition. Correct. Well, I'm not asking for it. like somebody asked. Well, if the planning board asks for that, I'm just saying to ask for additional information.

Yeah. I know we I know in the past we have for condition of approval, we've asked this was way back when you weren't even around here at the time that I have asked that long ago for a letter for a letter from a professional or some on the condition of approval. Not necessarily an arborist. it may have been somebody else for fire protection issue or something else that that they would give us that letter on the condition and then the approval would be based upon that. Um as well as a letter from the owner stating that it would be maintained you know accordingly. So the whole thing was you know

I think all of those things are fair and that if that's the road we want to go down that's the appropriate um way to handle that. I don't know that it's necessary to get a counselor and or the arbor commission involved. The property owner can provide that information and then make a decision based on that information opinion from the counselor. I just knew that she was a horiculturist botist or whatever and had some connection to the she's a certified arborist. Yeah.

Yeah. But this still seems to be a thing where the law guy has come and said, you know, you should just go ahead and do this. And I think that should be That's also true. That should be it whether we like it or not. I'll open up the public hearing if you want to say something. Now you can come to the podium.

Okay. So, in in Dustin's defense, um he came to us and wanted to put up a privacy fence. We did not want a privacy fence because we could not have a fence large enough to make it actually privacy. And plastic fences always get mildewed and they fall down and they look like they look horrible. So, it's our backyard. So, we said, "Hey, um let's talk." and we talked about the fact that when the um when the town allowed the community building to be torn down, they placed boulders um along that lot line. And so uh we just continued the boulders along through the backyard. And I said, "That sounds better to me. I'm planning to put in variegated willows in between the boulders, but you don't know that." and um and uh so like we're we're fine with it but we are not part of the board. So there you go.

Thank you. Make a pay back or did you have a comment? Yeah, I'm uh Patrick Ward.

Uh my name is Patrick Ward. I own 71 Fieldstone Road. Um, and uh, it's kind of caddyy corner

to the property there. And my concern is with the boulders going in that it would affect the water runoff. And the reason I'm concerned about that is because this happened uh my parents own the property to the east of me and there was um a burm that was pushed up uh on the property to the north of them which caused pooling off of their property but behind them is stagnant water and it attracts a lot of mosquitoes there. So the concern would be with that you know the stones could would cause a situation similar to that. Um I just want to know what you know that the water runoff is um not going

problems are you talked about creative as a result of this not this one but it was the same type of thing. um they pushed a burm for a property and that channeled the water in behind them and it sits stagnant there. Well, I mean this year it didn't because of the drought, but um it's usually stagnant water in there as breeding ground for mosquitoes. Those boulders are in the swale, right? I Rob, if it impacted his property, his father's property, that would be it would be code issue regardless. Yeah. Yeah. holders. So if something does arise, this would be the guy that you talk to.

If it becomes an issue, we'll we'll figure it out. Okay, that's that was the comment that I I had to make just Okay. Thank you. I'll close the public hearing. There a motion. Sure. make a motion to uh accept a revision of an approved major use site development plan entitled Main Street LLC for applicant owner Dustin Lawrence

second all in favor and I'm opposed I'm opposed if I'm voting today you are okay well Actually, can we recount that, please? All in favor? Well, we got uh Matt Matt is the first alternative. Yeah, Mark, you guys are still alternative, so your vote doesn't count. Sorry. Matt's vote counts. So, 32. Great. Wow, a split decision. Can you please vote? All in favor? All in favor? Yes. I'm going to go for it. All in favor? Okay. I wasn't opposed. Okay. Thank you. What is redo?

Oh, it's usually not an issue, but we knew rocks. That's why I asked for the recap. Who knew that we would do a three of rocks? You said it was going to be exciting.

It's common sense. People got together and did the right thing. But can we have a fiveinut? Should we do it official? We're taking a 5minute reset. I'm I figured. [Music]

I put in my memo before we start. The memo was helpful to find what we're looking at. Help us focus on the perview. Uh, please. Well, you can reiterate it. It's from you. We're back in session. Item number six, cannabis ordinance review. So, I mean, did you distribute this to everybody? Yes. Everyone has a copy. And just to like summarize the main point, it's in front of me. It's from you.

It is um basically that the focus of this ordinance review is to be on the pertinent zoning piece. I said that correctly. So, we're we're focused on the zoning aspects of this ordinance for this discussion tonight. But we're recommending or not the entire ordinance, right? Just the piece that pertains to the zoning. So, we're going to say we're we're approving or disapproving paragraphs 7, 8, and 10, but not five and four.

Basically, you you're not even really giving a recommendation. You just have to give a report to the council on what you think of it. It doesn't have to be an up or down yes or no. It's just okay. You you you the the board just has to prepare a report to the council. The board has to do that. Some whoever and and specific to the zoning overlay, specific to that, if you have additional comments about the ordinance itself, you can provide that. But what we're looking for is specific to the zoning overlay. So please anything that involves zoning. Correct. So you have two M or where it says planning board for this discussion or the you know planning board has this responsibility.

Sure. Or alternatively it should but doesn't say that because the planning board gets kicked in about page three or something and there's appear apparently planning board things that come earlier than that but they're not called out as being within the planning board perview. That can be in your report. Well, sure. Yes, you can comment on that. So, anything in this ordinance says shall be located, that's a zoning thing. Is that not correct? Pretty much. Okay, that's what I needed to know. Okay, go for it.

Tell me the difference. Wait a second. Tell me the difference between the current zoning for overlay combo versus a proposed cannabis overlay zone. seen a area in the north that's new and then an area in the southeast that's why do we have two maps

there's two different ways to show and it shows in it's a little better in color um because we did it in black and white the second map shows a a dark line around um the can what will be the proposed cannabis overlay zone it is the entire the darker area is the entire current commercial district and that the dark line extends across Card Brook to the north. Uh it basically encompasses what would be uh known as the Shaw's Plaza. Uh and then the across the street where the Keybang, Merryill Furniture, those properties. Um and so that's I I made that determination by by creating the overlay that that area of High Street was materially indifferent to the actual commercial zone. So, if we wanted to have a cannabis shop in that plaza or in that area, it makes no no material difference. No one would be able to tell you that you weren't in the commercial zone if you were in the Shaw Plaza as opposed to the main coast mall or anywhere else. Okay. Okay. So, when I'm looking at this these maps, it's it's this line that goes around like that.

The green area is your cannabis overlay zone. The second map shows it with the dark line around it. Okay. So, my my my question really is Oh, that's the city. That's the city limits. Well, my question is this one seems to show here's the green and here's this little area here that's not green. Correct. And over here I have the cannabis area in red. But Oh, you are correct. There's an inconsistency between those two things. I'll have to Yeah, you are correct. I'll have to fix that. Okay. I I've never caught that. All I You look at this too many times and you just don't I totally agree and I've looked at it too many times now.

I Yeah, you and I both. So that is It is supposed to be I will have to figure out which one of those is correct. I'm not I'm not positive on top of it, but thank you for catching that. I will I will find out and fix that before. That score is one for me and that Oh, it's in the minutes. Don't you worry, Rex. Don't you You want to call it there? It's one one nothing to you. Yeah, exactly. It's late, you know. Yeah, but you're still in negative numbers. I wasn't scored until this point. Good job.

So, I have a comment and a concern. Um, looking at page three when we're talking about locations, um, why was item five struck from the ordinance?

Under article four. Under article four. Oh, number five was struck. Yep. It says starting with adult use cannabis establishments. Yeah. Adult adult use cannabis establishment shall not be located within 300 ft of a school, dormatory, church, chapel, or parish house. The distance must be measured from the main entrance to the premise to the main entrance of the school, dormitory, church, chapel, or parish house by the ordinary course of travel. That was here. It's struck right out. Doesn't But doesn't number six supersede that? No. No. Because yeah,

main state title 30A MS section 3253 does not say anything about churches, chapels, or parish houses. I did not know that. It only mentions schools. Yes, that was I think that's a an earlier version of the ordinance that

So here's my concern and and I will tell you why. Because in our ordinance in section 817.6 six of of our ordinance. Okay. Item A four, we have a requirement. Now, it's for mar medical marijuana dispensaries. Okay. Now, I know this is not a dispensary, but a dispensary is more highly secure than just a regular store. Correct.

Okay. So in that item in 8:17, it specifically says places of worship. I would like to see that back in the ordinance as far as the distance from places of worship, churches, parish houses, etc., etc. Church, period. Isn't there wording in the state statute governing what's that? Isn't there a wording in the state statute governing how far away?

Not from places of worship. Um, it's only for schools. The reason that I that I determined trying to synthesize and everybody wanted uh between the planning board and the city council, the reason that I determined um that that that should have come out. I don't know why that's in that version. I'm not sure where it is. It's not in my I don't think it's in my version. I'm not sure what what happened there. I apologize, but that came out because uh the easiest way to to make everybody happy and what they wanted was to make that overlay zone. The the the the true and I get that. Yeah.

But we can still put wording in here that says that you can't have it within a certain distance to churches, parishes, or the problem with that was that they were putting a there's discuss and I'm talking about existing. I understand that. But there's discussion of a new church going in to the mall, the main coast mall. So that would take out all of that area. No, no, this is specifically for existing. If the if there is no church existing in the mall and they decide to move in afterwards, they just sign I'm pretty sure they're in talks of signing right now though.

Yeah. But I mean the point the point is that happens right now. I mean, if you have a bar, and I believe this issues in alcohol because I think that's in our ordinance as well. If you have a bar that's within certain feet of an existing church, we we have the option to deny it. Correct. It's not as shallow as a if the bar is there and a church decides to come into the place within 300 ft of the bar, that's on them. It's not on. You don't

But we're we're worried about the reverse. That's the reason I went with the overlay zone and the commercial zone. it taking over the commercial zone and up to the Shaw Plaza and not having any restrictions on being on setbacks from places of worship was because we're worried about the reverse where church goes in first in the commercial zone in in the main coach mall and then it becomes setbacks from the then that entire property line if it's if you use this if you use the property line setbacks you're almost into the Shaw Plaza with a setback. Mhm. So it it really it really limits where we could have one if if by the time we get this passed there's a church for instance hypothetically in that mall which

I I and I understand I understand your grief but I don't I I I'll say it right up front. I don't care. I think it needs to be in the ordinance. Can we put it in the ordinance with ex, you know, what you suggested with existing, but then date it to anything after like when the referendum was passed. Would that be? And it doesn't need to be I don't believe it's a,000 ft for alcohol and bar. I think it's 300 ft. 300 is the ordinance. U we wanted I don't u we wanted to match them, right? I think we're trying to match it up to so everything was uniform so you wouldn't have 300 feet for for for places of worship for that's fine

but then 500 feet for schools and then 1,000 feet for the for the drug-free zones. So I was trying to we're trying to at that point of the trying to make it all the same I believe um 30A says that the municipality can set the distance but no less than 500. Correct. But you could but the caveat there is that drug free zones were a thousand and those are not negotiable and we have four of them in town. So anyway that's my point. Are you done with him? Well the follow Mike I mean

off the top of my head I think I mean how many churches you've got St. shows. You got Pine Street Baptist Church. You got three up by Watch Street. There's a Seventh Day Adventist Church. You're talking about half a dozen? Yeah,

half a dozen churches. You're going to say that these could be right next door. Is that is that what the I mean the council kind of I think indicated that they didn't want recreational marijuana business to be right next to a church. So, I mean, that's the best way I could make it make everything work with they also wanted it to be on the high street corridor. And if you start putting those if you start putting down those setbacks, it extremely then you can't really have a there there's enough real estate left once you start putting those setbacks. I realize that because I mean originally the proposed cannabis overlays of the allowed area was quite a bit bigger than this green mat. I mean we were talking about Main Street, you know, pretty much all High Street. I'm not sure if we talked about going out State Street. I can't remember. But um

it the the reason we limited it to the to that area the commercial basically the commercial district is because the it's there there we don't we don't have the schools we have was one school in the area right on the edge. um and everything else that other places like downtown has has those has those restrictions because there there are daycare schools. Um and same thing with State Street that there's no until you get out into you know beyond and I think the river there's really no place to put one of these places. Somebody wants to open up a daycare

in that in that plaza, they can't do it because they'll be within 1,000 ft because 30A says pre kindergarten. Mhm. So I mean it's either a church or a pre some if somebody wants to open up something within that zone, what do you do? I think it all depends on who comes first. basically that and that's that's basic and I understand that the overlay zone not including churches that so that means that these places can't be anywhere else in the city so that therefore places of worship are are free of that burden of being too close to one of these locations you've got a church in the green zone now

we have a few yes but unfortunately they're they're operating in the commercial zone and I kind of the the the feeling that I got from talking to other staff members is like you you're operating in the commercial zone. You kind of know that's the comes from the territory of being in the in the commercial zone. Yeah, we're just adjacent to residential. So, I didn't realize we were commercial. So, but I guess if you take just to make things more complicated, if you take that tag, how long was this commercial zone commercial? When was it established? You know, these churches have been here for decades. Correct. They were here before the commercial zone. What was the land use plan say?

What does the map say? What is it projected to be? What was it in the past? Was it always commercial since zoning was adopted or? Well, they went through a really big reszoning a long time ago. I have to dig up that map. Yeah. No, well, the high street quarter has been the commercial zone for as long as I've been alive. So, I mean that that this is off the beachland. So, yes, I I had a I had a pretty good idea. Yeah, there's only two places your church could really be over there. Personally, I'm sympathetic, but I'm trying to make this work for everybody. Go ahead. Can I move along? You can do whatever you like. No, I can't actually. Well,

for good reason. But I I do want to say that like you were saying that you want to try to do you want to try to make it so that the um facility can come into the mill mall and make this work. And we shouldn't be looking at a project trying to make it compliant for a project. It should just be it it either meets the criteria that we want as a municipal as a city or we or doesn't. It shouldn't be bent to make something fit. That's that's that's that could be not the greatest way to to I I was just trying to see you also have an area for this to work

right. I mean I get that part and it and I remember talking at the council workshop and it was like some people wanted the churches, some people didn't, some people wanted schools, some people didn't. And then you said if we do that then nothing fits anywhere and that is a problem but we can't do it specifically to meet to to make it easier for something we think is coming and we can't do that. And Miris Academy is in your zone. Yeah. Well, I think they're they're they either I think they're actually technically in urban zone, but yes, they're right there on the border. Yeah. But either way. Okay. Okay. Well, they're not they're not in the overlay zone. I don't believe they're mirrors academyy's in

I think they Yeah, they're they're in they're in the area big lot. But it's But they would be within a th000 ft if you put something there. Correct. Is here. No, is this three here? Oh, right. Okay. Sorry. Amir's Academy is right across from They're They're in the white They're in the white zone. If somebody moved into the green zone, they'd be close. They could be well over it could be real close to a th00and ft. Pretty close. So,

article six, section two, uh, which is responsibilities and review authority. Okay. Planning board is not mentioned in there. It seems to me that for sake of clarity that it should be in there. So, why say free uh not to cut I didn't mean to cut you off but it's it's it would be uh handled under under the normal rules for uh for plan review. So if if it tripped if it tripped to planning board review, we would obviously send it to planning board. But if it if it

Right. But why don't you My point is, you know, you mentioned sometimes you mention planning board, sometimes you don't. Sometimes you mention code enforcement, sometimes you don't. Okay? So there needs to be consistency with how these things are addressed. And this imply I mean when I read the section responsibilities and review authority, okay, here's who has responsibilities and authority. Planning board is not mentioned. And it seems to me that it should be mentioned if they're going to have a role.

But I was brought up last meeting is further on if the license expires or gets suspended or revoked and the way I read it, if somebody subsequent wants to go into that location, it has to come to planning board. Exactly. Exactly. So that's where that's where the inconsistency is. But there's no performance standards in up in chapter 56 for this type of business like we did for solar farm. We develop performance standards for solar farm and I th those those will be coming before the end of the year. So, I can

So, if you're an applicant and you read this ordinance, like Rick said, you would you would presume that the city clerk has the authority to pretty much review and move forward with the application and put it in the lottery system. There is nothing that would tell the applicant that they potentially have a lot bigger hurdle to jump through. So even if it just said has to do this and comply with all local ordinances as far as site plan review, you know, major, minor, whatever, just so that it they they don't think this is all I got to do no matter what to avoid us from getting in a tangle. So I agree it should be clarified. Further in article what appears to be eight uh section two paragraph six um there's a bunch of stuff about land use approvals and stuff like that right site plan approval change of use permit whatever whatever anyway it seems to me again that the planning board should be called out in terms of that's what they now I understand that you're saying is well gee those words are there and that means the planning board would have responsibility for some

but it's to be to to be clear and to be consistent again I think the planning board should be called out in terms of having some responsibility there because later on it is called out like John just said right uh yeah that's article 9 section paragraph three that's the one that John was looking at um under cost component analysis I'm not even sure what that actually means, but that's okay. Um, but things like you have site I mean, well, there are other pieces that are not mentioned in the list. The list doesn't say, for example, or anything like that. It says here's the list. Okay? So, there's nothing about parking lots, for example. And it turns out that there are studies that have shown that, you know, cannabis places need lots more parking than other places do. So, so the point is that there are things that seem to be missing out of the cost component analysis that would be under the purview of the planning board. Yeah,

this this is supposed to be the licensing component as well of of that's not not necessarily all of it. That's under application. No, I know. I understand. But the the whole the whole ordinance is a is a is called a licensing ordinance. So, it doesn't it doesn't have everything that it should have for like 456 for land use. And that's that part of it. that component is coming before the end of the year before we actually start taking applications. So it just needs to say that they have to comply with chapter 56 in its entirety.

Right. So exactly. So there needs to be some clear statement that this overlays that other ordinance and that they you know satisfying this one doesn't satisfy the other one and and so forth. Okay. And along those lines, it would seem that you know the tables of permitted land uses in different zones and so forth that you might want to be listing cannabis whatever in that list or you already know that because you're shaking your head. I've already added it to my own personal version of of the ordinance. I could hardly get another version of this ordinance. No, no, not this one. It'll actually be 56. Oh, I see. I've already Yeah. Well, no, no. This engenders changes in 56.

Yeah, exactly. And I've already started making those. This is not it's not ready for this and it's not what this is about. This is to get the licensing ordinance ready for the council to say yay or nay to. Okay. But it's still has to be consistent and correct. I'll I'll make sure before the council says yay or nay that that stuff gets tightened up. And this when you start saying merit-based criteria assessment which is a wonderful buzzphrase but it doesn't really tell you much detail about No, I don't Yeah, I'm don't know that part got taken out. license the article 9 section three but those only we only worry about them for license renewals not for the initial license which

yep doesn't make a lot of sense either um you know it's that's actually you're right that is in there still there what a surprise no you must I don't know that's we we we did we had talked about merit based stuff before and I don't know no did and and that that came up. But but the point is that you've never defined that and you've never come up with how do you measure things which I don't know whether they need to be in the ordinance or not. If you if you're going to talk about them, I would suspect that they need to be in the ordinance. And unfortunately, I'm still waiting to get my version of this back from the lawyer with your with your recommendations from last time.

Okay. But while you're in that same paragraph and it's actually article 93 but also 103 you said must comply with then current requirements of this ordinance and the code. What is the code? The code is that that's the ordinance is a there it's not defined any place. I I'll be I I didn't put that line in there, but that that was that was Well, it's it's it's a nice word and it's a good word. It's an appropriate word, but it needs to be more defined. Okay. Noted.

Am I am I staying within the purview of the bonding board here pretty well? Because I wouldn't want to offend you. um in the very very beginning and and and I'm just asking this question uh you know the very title is adult adult use cannabis establishment licensing blah blah blah blah in the first sentence it says only cannabis establishment license the ordinance should that first sentence read adult use cannabis lic adult use is missing in the first sentence but it's in the title Yeah, we can add that.

Again, consistency. No, you're that's correct. Yeah, I will also say if you have any additional kind of like grammatical or consistency language things, an email to us would be really helpful. Yes, fantastic. Fantastic. These aren't up for discussion. They're more like suggestions for refining language. And so I just kind of want to make sure your discussion is kept tight. But the thing is like putting the planning board in there is is more than just

um Yeah. Do you need more references to the land use ordinance in here? I mean you so that one refers to the other or is this good enough the way it is. I I you know I was really I don't know. Yeah, that's that would be that would be a question for for the lawyer. That's what he's supposed to be working on right now for me. Unfortunately,

okay. And so and you're working on revisions to the existing land use ordinance that are consistent with that make this consistent. Okay. I'm going to get a rough draft of that done and then submit it to the lawyer and hopefully have it back sometime. Okay. Whenever you talk about performance standards, you need to be really clear how those things are measured. You know, I mean, for example, you say something about noise somewhere or odor or whatever. Well, we have existing ordinances about that. Those should probably be referenced. I'm done. Can I go home now?

Not until the gabble falls. Damn. I turned in all my comments before. I appreciate them. That's and pretty much Rick hit all the open areas. We appreciate it. This was all submitted to be fixed and I just haven't received that version back. Okay. Anything, Mike? I said my piece. All good. I would like to have some boulders around this throw at me. around around the cannabis establishments, right? That's what you want the buffer for.

You want a tree buffer to block the view of cannabis compatible uses. Is there a time limit on the public hearing for comments or just making it clear when the public hearing opens if there's a time limit for comments and it should be stuff that hasn't already been addressed before. Please. Yes. So, keep it short. Right.

Keep it five minutes. I'm objecting that for this public hearing on this I should not be held to three minutes and if that if you're going to hold me to three minutes I'm going to I'm going to I'm going to I'm not going to be very happy because there are two things the first thing I want to say listening to the questions from the members of the planning board and their comments tonight it raises to the the first issue that I have to raise is that it seems that there are several drafts of this thing floating ground. None of which are really ready to be considered by you tonight. Um, and and that comes from the questions and the things that are in these. I have here what I believe is the last draft that has been available. It's one that I picked up at city hall on September 9th and it has basically this new chapter. It has the uh appendix A for the uh overlay for the zoning map and then it has it has appendic B on the lottery and then it has three or four pages for chap section 400 of oh golly the

agreement the the latest one should have a draft revision 91025 in the upper right corner that's the latest revision if you got that on 99 you may not have the well I I think I I think it I think it is. I think it I think it probably is from some of the things that have been questioned. Does it say 9 1025 in the upper right corner? I don't know. I don't have that in the up No, I didn't get I don't know where that came from. I picked this up from that's Robert on 99. That's that's

okay. So that's that's the problem right there. The first problem I'm going to mention the notice for your meeting first was posted out here on the bulletin board for this meeting on uh heavens on on I believe the 18th. It appeared in the Ellsworth American on the 18th. So it meet the notice requirement for that and the next one appeared a week ago. The notice first thing about it is this notice requirement it doesn't really say very much. Cannabis Ordinance Review public hearing discussion and council recommendation and there's nothing other information about what's in the ordinance that's going to be considered. In fact, basically the ordinance that is talked about being considered wasn't even available on the 18th when this notice was published and put out and a week later when it was in fact this ordinance I have in this the the only ordinance avail. But that's not the ordinance that you should be considering tonight because there has been I've been trying and checking for the past 10 days or week. see whether the new ordinance latest thing which which uh Robert has talked about but he hasn't been able to get was going to be available because I knew that is really what she should be before you people tonight

it is Raymond we have the revision 91025 that is the revision we are talking about

well that is a revision that is not going to be going before the council or anything remotely resembling this. I suspect it's going to be going council on the 20th of this next month. Uh so I think that you should have this revision that has been talked about that's coming tonight rather than this one because this isn't what is going to see the light of day three weeks from uh or 20 days from now. Okay, I'm going to go on to the next thing and uh I think some very good points have been made and I think that based on the consideration of those and this point that I raised about notice, I don't think this is proper notice. This isn't enough information about what's being discussed so the public knows. I know because I'm interested, but I don't think anyone else really has any idea what's going on. Now, we've listened to Robert tonight talking about, and I'm glad to hear this, but I think that revisions to section chapter 56 of the ordinances should be ready to go. At the same time, this is because this has a lot of things that has is going to have an effect on section 56. Now, I just want to call your attention to what I have on this thing, which I think is the same thing you had is article 4. And this is really interesting. This is the only reference other than appendix A to the uh cannabis overlay zone in this whole proposed ordinance. And it says adult you and it's under in in this paragraph three of a section called prohibited activities.

And this says adult use cannabis establishments shall only be located in accordance with the city's zoning ordinance. Okay. Now, this makes reference to the zoning ordinance, including the cannabis overlay zone C, appendix A, which is all just consists of two maps. And uh I'll show you what I have for the two maps. And I don't know if this remotely because these since they came a copying machine, they're not they're not exactly have any coloration on them. And I'm not sure from looking at ones that were held up whether this is what really is what you're considering or not. It is same. It is

both. Okay. All right.

Now, let's get back here. and shall not be located within this talks about the 500 ft of of schools and and that and uh but my point on this is this is operating as an amendment of chapter 56 is that's my view and and that's what I see someone nodding his head but I have that right as an as an amendment of chapter 56 six, which then means which I think should also require if they're going to have this map, you've also got to and I think you should have it at this time as a separate amendment of 56 setting forth the various things that are allowed in the overlay zone. and you go into chapter 56 and I don't know which section it is three or four where you have the charts that show what's allowed. You should have all of this material now to be considered by the council as part of this and I don't think that's been in the works at all.

We have we haven't Are you going to have it for the meeting on the 20th? No, because this is only for licensing. the the only thing this is referencing the overlay zone that will be ready before we take licenses. I I think I think you need to have the overlay zone and the zoning changes that pertain to this ordinance ready to go. That's not under our purview. If the council wants to proceed the way it is and it's up to the council I mean it's not our responsibility to to make rules and regulations for them.

Well, you're not making rules and regulations for them. This is this is you that you have have you have to make under the uh amendments to chapter 56 the city zoning ordinance land use ordinance you have to make your report and in the past I think it's usually been recommendations of yes or no on the changes and I think that that is you have that authority and should say what is going on as far as your position on this amendment to 56 and I don't know that's as far as I'm going to say it because I agree. You you go through these this and there is all kinds of stuff that makes it isn't consistent. Basically, I'll just point out one other thing which which I I don't think is your purview at all, but the licensing authority the licensing authority definition has some amorphous language making it sound like that the licensing authority is the city clerk and or maybe the city council. Uh and then you go in here and you go to licensing authority. I think it should be made clear in this provision which I don't think you can do although you you are are authorized to make a report and if you want to make a report you I think it's in your power to say that you would recommend that the licensing authority be the city council and not the city clerk. the city clerk can be their agent to do the to do the job of getting the applications in, collecting it, making sure it's in order, and and holding the uh and holding the uh lottery and running the mechanics of the lottery. Although that could just as well be done by the code enforcement office.

That's outside of our per that's not what we're supposed to discuss. We're only supposed to discuss the aspects that affect zoning and the planning board. rest of it. That part is not for us to determine. Okay. But but I'm but I'm talking zoning 56 the overlay and whatever's allowed in the zone is zoning and is necessary for I would submit for this ordinance to be valid if it is adopted or if some variation of it's adopted. I don't think this is going to be adopted. I have no idea what I have no idea what's are going to be coming, but I don't think what you initially get is going to be adopted items. I think we're done. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. There's somebody online. I don't know is ZB. Yeah. I I um appeared before your last meeting represent Carol Leaf which is a medical tour in town. Just wanted to be monitoring the meeting to see what was discussed. I appreciate the board's comments and discussion tonight trying to get with um uh city staff to discuss our proposed revision to um the ordinance which does not implicate zoning issues. So, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. uh public hearing. So what actually are we voting on? Yeah. What what is the recommendation?

Just a recommendation. You can now give a recommendation to the council if you have one. If you want to this is based on you can say yay or nay. The zoning components of this are appropriate or not appropriate or all the things we talked about are tonight are things that need to be considered addressed and modified or changed. That sums it right up. Yep. So your recommendation is to recommendation I think in general is from from relative to the planning board seems to be it's not ready for prime time and for all the reasons that we mentioned. That's my view. Sorry.

Do we need a vote? No, I don't think so. Okay. Can we say make a motion to adjurnn? I'll agree with our wait comments. Staff comments. Um, thank you all for your patience tonight. Um, I sent out an email about annual trainings. I just wanted to get um, touch base for two minutes. Thoughts on annual trainings? I know they were a thing in the past. I don't know if there was a specific. Well, we used to go down to um I mean the main municipal association did the training at a X location or Y location and people got sent. That's that was the whole

that was the way we did it. Okay. for the last six years cuz I'd like to like do that but as a group but then make this an annual thing whether it's the training every year or we have our own training just to review the ordinance answer questions as a group I think it's a good idea and make it a separate workshop so an additional meeting and I want to make it like a standing every year in February or whatever month we choose winter winter so Yes. Snow date. Yes. Let's do it.

Yes. So, do you all have a preference for a month? And do you do you want to keep it on a Wednesday night is the question I have. If you don't have answers tonight, that's fine. We can do another email, but just February, March. Well, I think you were talking about I mean, you still talk about getting the video from MMA. So, I think you said that's like a three hour. The training session is four hours, but they meal break. So it could be anywhere between a 2 three hour video, probably closer to three. And I think the idea was to perhaps have 10 PS there to potentially. Yeah. At least for a little bit if there's questions. Absolutely. So So we'll look at it like a three-hour meeting. You mean like three? Like today? Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. That's a good idea. So closer to four. Let's do it. We'll make sure that their snacks. How come there are no snacks tonight? Yeah. Yeah. Seriously, this is not someone's angry over there. You're not allowed to eat during the planning board meeting. Sorry. Really? What? That's taking a lot of breaks. Um, but during training, that's different. So, we can have snacks at training. I would say I would say after have the training after the first of the year. Okay. Do you think January or February? Okay. I vote February. Start earlier than 5:30. I know some people work, some people don't. Well, that's to be decided. I mean, if you can do it earlier than that, I would prefer to have it.

Depends on when the government opens back up. But some people actually work for a living. Well, not Yeah, that's right. Can we get Can we get it before the uh before he has to come back to work? Yes, we can try. You got a crystal ball. Do it next week. Probably free next week. I'm sure the natural part is I will float out some dates and engagement is an important part of your job. February and that's that's it. That's it. Say what? February. Other than ordinance update. She'll float dates and times at a later time. Yeah. Yeah. If it's on the calendar, I can plan around it this far out. So, just throw something on the calendar. Perfect. Yay. Thank you. Anything else?

Do you want an update on the ordinance rewrite process? This? I can do a really quick No, no, no. Chapter 56. I'll do a really quick overview.

We're working with Mustin Group. They're our consultant to help us uh go through things. There are two phases. The first phase is going through December and right now they're focusing on making sure that 56 is brought to the standards that the state dictates. So, we're working on that and any really high priority things, things that are on fire that we need to address more immediately. There's a second phase that starts January and runs through June where we'll really be digging into adjusting a lot of things. We need your feedback um on this and and suggestions for changes in 56. And so we're looking to have those before the second phase begins. So we'll be following up with emails asking for your feedback um on revisions for 56 um sometime in December.

You know what might be useful is if when you officially I mean you're officially asking now. I get that. But, you know, if you had some probes that we should be be responding to, I mean, if there's things in there that like, wow, you know, we really need to be talking about this. Well, we may well know that, but it would be better if you said, you know, think about this, think about that. So, there's like half a dozen of those or whatever. So, yeah, you know, so that our AI can be put to work efficiently. Yeah. And we and we we do have some of that stuff. We've worked with the Musing Group for those they're they're deeper dive things that in broad stroke that they have looked at and they've addressed or they've identified rather.

Yeah, I'm not sure those are the best guys. I'm kidding. I know who you're talking to. So, well, it's more than just one. There's team team working on it. So, yeah. No, that's good. Okay, that's it about that one. Yep. We can go home now. Already made the motion. I made a motion. Second. Thank you.