Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Okay. [laughter] I will call to order the city of BSA planning board meeting for December 3rd, 2025. Board introductions, please. Uh Vince Messer, board member. John Deo, chair. Rick Liles, vice chair. Mike Haney, board member. Mark Bane, alternate. And you'll be voting tonight, Mark. Okay. Uh staff introductions. Daniel Gif, director of planning and community development. Britney Merrell, city planner. Robert Grant, code enforcement officer. Thomas Cam, fire inspector.

Okay. Uh before we get to item two, I'm going to stick in there uh as the board make a motion to insert acceptance of the planner board meeting minutes for November 5th, 2025. I want to add that to the agenda. I'll make that motion that we add that to the agenda. Second. All in favor of adding that to the agenda in October and October meeting. We don't have that. No, those were approved last month. [clears throat] I just forgot to give you a blank. Okay. Yeah. All right. November 5th. Any additions, deletions?

I don't believe so. I did see that. Is there a motion to accept the minutes from the Make a motion to accept the minutes from the Wednesday, November 5th meeting of the planning board. I second that.

All in favor? They're accepted. Item number two, preliminary plan review of a major use site development entitled Kingsland Storage Center for applicant owner Bowart Commercial Ellsworth LLC. The proposal is to construct a 29,200 ft² self-s storage building. The subject property is approximately 1.9 acre lot located at Kingsland Crossing Tax Map 16, lot 8 in the commercial zone district. Is there someone here representing Bark? Okay. Could you introduce yourself, Jib? Maybe

can you introduce I'm here also to support Rich. Okay, that's Jim Kaiser just in case the board wants to know and I'm Rich Trot with Bullark. Okay, floor is all yours.

Excellent. Well, thanks for having us tonight. I appreciate it. Um [snorts] uh the plan is to construct a uh interior access uh climate controlled building similar to the ones that we've already have in town. We've had two uh previously permitted sites on 116 Bangor Road and then uh adjacent to this subject parcel on Kingsland Crossing. Um this building uh we're not reinventing a wheel. It's similar to what we've done in the past in terms of interior access storage look and feel will be very similar to what we've done here in the past and and uh Jim has created a site plan um with all the requirements. So we're open to any questions that you might have regarding any of the specifics [clears throat] questions. This is one of the pre fan metal. Comes on a truck, right?

Yeah. All metal. Metal. Metal siding. Metal studs, metal roof, metal. What's it look like inside? I mean, just like cages or what? Yeah, they're individual units uh with rollup doors with jams and headers for partitions with aluminum or um galvanized metal partitioning in between the units. And they're all accessed via entry access doors with hallways um down the middle. Okay. Does that does the what he said about the walls and stuff, is that a fire issue of any sort? Okay, cool.

I would just make a comment about of course the traffic stuff. Uh you use the trip generation 10th edition. probably should be using the 11th edition uh because that's what we have now apparently. Um at the same time I have no problem with with what's going on here because the traffic generation is so small that it's not a big deal at all. Um I think that um and and in fact there probably is not much change between the 10th and 11th edition but going forward you might want to think about that. Um, note to the city, you may want to someday invest in the 11th edition because we can no longer check to see whether or not they're doing stuff right and whether the models are being used appropriately and blah blah blah. I think for this particular land use, it's probably zero change or if there's less than different than zero, it's just doesn't matter, right? Um, you do mention uh the idea of doing counts as opposed to using the trip generation software. I think that's a good idea whenever you can uh because it's presumably more reliable. Um and at the same time when you say make a statement like higher higher than the rates typically occurring in this region of Maine probably true. Okay. But you might really want to have some sort of documentation that says gee we did a count over here someplace and you know indeed it was different than the it troop generation stuff. But that's just kind of note note to note to the future, right? If you should ever build another one here. Um, but you know, basically I have no problem. Uh, yeah, I don't. So, I'm good. How many units is it going to be?

We haven't completely firmed up the interior layout. I have a rough version of what that will look like, but we want to make sure that we're crossing all the tees and dotting all the eyes on the life safety aspects as well. So, we have an approximate total and I can share with you the the rough sketch of the interior, but that's uh like I said, we're working hand inand with um the making sure we're we're compliant with all of the life safes, which might change things slightly. The egress points won't change and that's the door at either end, right? Yeah. Got main access points and then two auxiliary exits as well

for emergency purposes which more than meet the foot traffic to egress foot path to egress levels. [clears throat] And there's a I'm sorry, there's a driveway that connects the two, right? Or something. I mean the the old the existing building and the new one. Yeah. And you're okay with access around the buildings and all that. Okay. I'm got nothing. You're

good. Cool. Uh just a couple questions. Um, it looked on the drawings that the the driveway going into this is going to be pretty much right across the road from the driveway going into Jackson Lab. Is that correct? I believe so. It didn't really show, but it it looked like it was going to I think it depicts the current entrance on the other side of the road, which does mer.

Okay. Uh on [clears throat] a minor issue on on the application uh on page two under the proposed impervious surface area it specifies 53,535 square ft but in the storm water management uh right up uh it specifies 54,220 ft of impervious area. I don't know if that changes any calculations, Jim, or I mean, it's a minor minor amount. I think 700 700 square f feet.

Yeah, I'll look at that. That might have been just something that we I didn't get back on when we made some adjustments on the um access point or connection point between the two also. So, okay. Um we'll look on that. We'll get that updated so that they both are informed.

But then I do I was kind of hoping Matt was going to be here because I do have a question about the the storm water and I guess seems we have some members that might not be familiar with Kingsland Crossing and how it came about. I mean it was developed what 20 25 years or 25 years ago by the King family associated uh builders. They built the road. It ended up being accepted as a city street. And now in the diagram, in the site plans, there's a detention pond on the north side of of Jackson Lab, which originally was a Lowe's. Lowe's was built first. U the King family built the road, turned it over to the city. Uh but my one question and and in your storm water plan Jim I mean it's it's uh it talks about deed language u Hankai County registry deeds so on so forth and how much impervious area is allowed to drain into the detention pond and you know I just wonder I mean you you note several locations Puffin square approximately 2/3 of Stone Park. Uh this the new building I don't see any mention of of the old of the current Bmark building being included because because I believe uh I think someone here the maximum amount of waterhed to go into that is 3.65 acres. Is that correct Jim?

Yes. Okay. Because I just I mean you in your calculations you say it's approximately you add up those it's approximately 2.8 eight. But have you included the current building, the current BMAR building? the way that wershed if you were to look at those watershed maps that uh I believe we included in at least the supplemental package the watershed uh that I'm referring to is watershed 8 in the original study and the boundary line for that uh basically separates the original uh lot from the current lot uh in watershed so that that uh what was done previously on the abuing lot was in a different watershed originally and so no I have not accounted for that in there uh because that was a separate watershed

but I mean I looked at very quickly a little while ago the the previous the current building and I thought there was language in there that the storm motor ended up going into that Lowe's detention pond.

Yes, it does. the the overall uh review of that uh for the most part the original loting uh that was on uh with the Beachland Kings uh development including Kingsland Kingsland Crossing Road all goes into the the dry detection basin north of Jackson Lab when Lowe's was developed. out there goes they ended up having to create a second wet pond uh adjacent to that to carry some of the storm water quality requirements for at the time for loans uh and this water and the abuing lot and darlings and lands uh going up behind uh the property to route three all drained to a word uh that dry basin, they they actually have a water um uh piping system that differentiates and divides it into two different locations, a wet pond and a dry pond. So that um Lowe's was treated one way and then the rest of the lots were treated as the original subdivision was approved by DP. So what we're looking at is a differential on that uh storm or the imperous area that was in the original watershed 8 uh on the plans uh portion of the beachland crossing uh or beachland subdivision. There was multiple names so I apologize if we kind of get it crossed up here but

um [clears throat] that watershed 8 encompasses this lot only as far as the subdivision was concerned and then portions of the puffin uh lot on route three and the hotel lot directly behind us on route three. And on the total of that for allocation for this project was [clears throat]

that um total water or total impervious area. So it comes down that uh in a supplemental material I gave to Britney was um showed that we were allocated 1.2 acres of imperous area for this lot and we're only in incorporating 1.1 acres of imperous area. So that therefore the storm water detention portion of the ordinance was met by the original subdivision. So we should we wouldn't have to do any other detention on site to accommodate storm water runoff rates. We have incorporated treatment on it uh to uh provide for the storm water quality within the ordinance that you have.

I mean the lot before us I mean you mentioned the imperies be one 1.1 if I understand you correct but in your in your second paragraph if you go by the 54,220 square feet and that comes out to 1.24 acres. So, I'm not I'm not understanding your math.

Uh because we've kind of gone back and forth. I'm probably going to have to confirm those those numbers. But I believe in the supplemental material um on the final submission that I or that information I gave Britney uh we had an explanation of it and it was um bear with me a second here where I'll look it up. Um wershed 8 was actually 1.3 acres uh 1.2 which is less than the uh and ours was 1.2 decimal I have one percentage one decimal place or one tenth difference there we were allocated 1.3 for the site in the original development and we have 1.2 two uh in our pro in our project.

And are there any other properties along Kingsland Crossing that that drain into the the wet pond? Does Duncan do

into the wet the wet pond was allocated if my understanding is correct on this is and review of the drainage plans that were created for out there. Uh the wet pond was created for Lowe's which is now Jackson Labs. the original development done uh in 2006 if I remember correctly. Uh at that point in time, they didn't have to create a wet pond. They used the dry pond immediately westerly of that wet pond that's uh out there. And they use that um detention basin dry pond as a means to control the peak runoffs. I hope that makes sense. It's very very convoluted because of the the activity that has gone on and the and uh the addition of Lowe's at the time uh and creating a second detention pond to accommodate things rather than just one detention bond.

U I'm going to throw out a a topic for discussion or request. Um, I was kind of hoping Matt be here cuz he he's kind of knows storm water, but I mean I I think it's a good idea from the city's point of view to have a peer review of this. I mean, this is complicated. I I I'm glad you're trying to explain it, Jim, but some of this is is beyond my understanding. And uh I don't know if any of this storm water that goes into this dry pond, wet pond, I mean it drains into Whitaker Brook. Uh and I know fairly recently there was problems with Whitaker Brook. Now, I don't know if that was just a culvert failure down on Bayside or if if if there's too much water going into Whitaker Brook, but I I to tell you the truth, I I just think it's in the city's best interest to to have somebody take a look at these wet pond, dry pond, you know, what was approved back when Lowe's came in and get a better understanding of just exactly what's draining into into the into these wet ponds and dry ponds to make sure we're not exceeding the uh what DP has said you're allowed to put in there. I'm going to um if I may sure bring in something that I hadn't thought of until now, but [clears throat] as as it's my understanding that Jax is not using that entire building and that it intends to be to expand into that building, which would mean more cars, more people, etc., etc. So is what was established for Lowe's sufficient for what would we anticipate

with JS and in addition to this development that I don't

I think what Jackson Lab or Lowe's has its own individual site location permit with D. So when they did a ownership transfer of that they would have had to uh know any improvements and if they're improvements with their engineers and I assume they came to the board I don't know that 100%. But assume [clears throat] if they made any changes to the site they came to the board and justified that they were not making enough impacts uh that would create any kind of changes to that wet pond that they were draining to. Uh but they have an independent uh site location permit associated with uh with that lot, the Lowe's/Jack uh Labs uh property. The rest of it being uh the abuing lot here uh owned by Bark. This lot owned by Bark. Darlings um Dunkin Donuts and I think maybe the accounting office across the street. Those all go to uh that dry pond that I've been referring to uh just below the wet pond. Um, so there that it's kind of almost two separate systems, but again, Jackson Labs, if they make any changes to their site, would have to make all remedial changes associated with their their requirements of that detention basin/wet pond uh to accommodate that. It wouldn't impact what we're doing. We've simply just complied with what was allocated to this property through the D permitting and city permitting back in 2006.

Uh so that the water shed and water runoff going to those that dry basin um was still within the tolerance of or the allocation for what was allotted to this property. Well, how I can [clears throat] say that um I know that the footprint of the building and the footprint of the parking lot did not change. Correct. Everything is still the same. Um and I don't believe there would have been any change to whatever was required for either or because it the same amount of parking spaces. Okay.

And um things of that nature. So, I guess I'm concerned about water flow and so on from Jax if it gets bigger. Are the ponds that we're talking about sufficient to handle a larger loop? Maybe that's just Jax's problem. Yeah. But it seems to me that we ought to consider [clears throat] that. Well, when when they built the the project, each of those lots like Jim's referring to had a certain allocation

for the storm water. Meaning Lowe's had a certain allocation. This subject lot had an allocation. Darlings, the Duncan, the lot behind Duncan's all had a max volume that was available to be put into that wet pond. We're we're not exceeding that level that was originally allocated. It's 1.3 and we're coming in at 1.2. So our allocation for for our subject lot. I think the other lot the existing buildings that were built two or three years ago is a totally different because Kingsland was done in different phases. Mhm.

And that the allocation for the wet pond accompanying Lowe'sJack Lab was just for those lots in question i.e. This law, this subject law has is segregated from the existing storage building that we do have. That was a different one that Jim mentioned is running off into the dry one that we made accommodation for, get the D approvals for, etc. So, they're two they're two separate as my understanding. So if we add Bill mark plus any potential expansion of Jackson Lab whatever there should be sufficient

well any expansion by Jackson would then need a further accommodation of their volume going into that pond. They couldn't they can't take away other people's other lots. I understand. I guess what I'm talking about is not expansion in the sense of new buildings, more people because we're not occupying that entire space right now. Well, right now the employees, if

I can interject on that, right now the um people are not the overriding factor. It's how many parking spaces, how much pavement, how much building they have on it. So, if they wanted to inc increase employment or lease out a part of that to some other entity, as long as they're not creating more parking areas, uh loaning zones, uh or building square footage, then they wouldn't have any impact to that uh storm water uh criteria. [clears throat]

Okay. If they go in and change that so that they are adding more imperous area or adding more to the building, then they would be responsible then for addressing those conditions as far as impacts to that detention basin and what the runoff criteria would be. So if as long as they stay within their guidelines like we're staying within our guidelines then there wouldn't be any impacts to th those ponds. Thank you.

Maybe just briefly gentlemen on that page two says the 1.2 the additional 1.2 would bring it up to 2.8 eight. But is any of the storm water from the current site going into this system into the system that you're going to tie the new building into that that has a maximum of 3.65.

The whole site goes the whole site goes into the system. Currently, we're just adding the new imperous area uh which is within that threshold limitations for that that had been allocated [laughter] to that site. We're just building that on top of what's out there. But the that whole lot currently flows to um the detention basin. It actually flows down the road ditch, crosses in a culvert into some of the subsurface drainage and then goes down and outlets through I believe like a fire access road or a detention pond access road around the the side of the retaining wall at at Jackson Labs and and then is outleted into the dry basin down in that location. Okay.

So, all of this water, including all of Darlings, all the water coming off of uh between Route Three and and this lot, all that water currently goes to um that detention basin.

It just seems to me that that's going over the 3.65 acres. I'll ask staff. I mean, are you comfortable with this as as presented? I I mean, I I I I'm still of the feeling that we need a peer review on it. I'll ask staff if what their opinion of

if you if you look at that 3.6 acres, that's just for one watershed within that drainage area. the abuing lot that uh is under BARK is in a different watershed and that would have a different imperous number associated with it along with the uh Darling's lot that's in a different watershed when I say wershed these are subwaterheds that drain to the same spot so all of those are different wersheds that were accounted for in the different um storm water evaluation originally done We're only dealing with one of those subwater sheds that had the 3.6 acres associated with it. We're not dealing with the other two at this point in time. They both flow to that drainage ditch and the piping that goes down to that the basin also. Uh but this project is only dealing with one subwaterhed within that entire evaluation. I was just going to say if if our guy who the drainage guy um feels comfortable in looking at this and making a determination, you know, like I look at the traffic. Um I think that would be see if see if that can be done before going to a peer review from the outside. Although I don't have any trouble actually with a peer review from the outside, but don't need to see it done if our guy can can review it.

When you say your guy, who are you referring to? Another member of the board. Another member of the board who has that sort of expertise. Matt. Sure. I guess the only problem with that is for a living.

Exactly. I mean, if we do it that way, if we don't include it, like say in the motion, and if Matt is not comfortable doing it, then then if the board wants BMAR to do it, do we have to wait until the next meeting? You see what I mean? It it if depending on the wishes of the board, I mean, if if Matt can do it and he's comfortable doing it, fine. But if he says, "No, I don't want to do it." Then then if the board does want a peer review done, we've gi the opportunity I think to ask for it tonight and would have to wait until the final to ask for it, which is going to push your final back another month.

Seems to me they could be contingency somewhere in there. I say we could do a conditional approval and touch base with Matt because I know he has collected the the packet and I'm sure he's looked at the plans. and kind of get his input, but I'm not 100% sure of the procedure. So, I would suggest maybe a conditional approval. Yeah, I don't see why why we couldn't have a condition a contingent plan to, you know, have Matt look at it, see if I'm okay or not okay with doing that look.

And, you know, that takes a day or two. And if he says no for whatever reason, I he just doesn't have time to do it, you know? I mean, because it's really not his job in that sense. But then you go to I'm sorry. Do we have to make a motion to do that? Sure.

I mean, if you if you condition upon a consultant review and he wants to act as that consultant, then that's fine. And if he doesn't, then we would have to go out and get another review with Britney that basically has that capacity to to review it. And I I think if Rich is all right that that condition in that manner that we have to kind of have that outside look at it and maybe that's we refer to it as outside look at it, then um I'm fine with that. I don't have a problem in in working with Matt or with with a consultant outside uh from that standpoint.

Um but I if it conditional I think to keep this thing moving forward on this little on this aspect of it would be may be the appropriate as as mentioned. You good with that Mr. Trump? I'd be comfortable with that because I think that would give everybody the comfort level that they need and would keep us from having to spend money that may not be required. Absolutely. I was just going to interject that what we're saying is that someone needs to do the review. Whether it's our guy or their guy, somebody needs to do it. Period. And it's conditional upon review. It's not their guy. It's objective third party.

Well, I understand. Objective third party. I apologize. Yes. Well, I think if Matt confers with Jim and they can have a conversation or he can review it and everybody's on the same page, that makes the most sense. If not, then we can look at So, who would he get back to? He would get back to me and the chair. Yeah. I mean, Britney or Daniel is going to would have to get in touch with Matt to see if one he wants to do it. Mhm.

You know, how how long if he does want to do it, how long he figured it would take because obviously if he doesn't want to do it or that kind of drags out, that kind of gives you less time to get somebody else on board to get that peer review done for I'm just guessing you want to come in next next month for the final. for

I mean I would I mean we would like to do that but I think it's you know our our submission to get on your planning board is is you've got set submission time. So for us to be at the next one we have to submit and to get on to it. If if he doesn't feel comfortable doing it and we have to go out and get outside peer then you know we just won't be able to make that submission to come in in time for the next meeting. we'll have to we'll have to acknowledge it and just uh make submissions appropriately after the peer review or after his review. Um so I think we're we're we're um kind of subject to just availability from that standpoint either from his review or outside review to be able to make that submission in for the next board meeting. And I do want to flag that we've got holidays between now and that board meeting. So [clears throat] throwing it out there that availability might be really limited.

Mhm. But we'll do our best to find someone. Okay. Uh any other questions from the board? I I do just have one quick question going back. Um you know there's this line of boulders. Clearly an rock. Yeah. I'm not allowed to talk about boulders. No. My thing is that there a line of boulders on both sides of the building. Okay. And they're about they make it basically if you pull your fire truck or whatever up in the in the roadway, you're 30 feet from the building because of the boulders. Is that okay with you? I would assume it is, but I just want to make sure. Yeah, we won't be 30 feet. Um those areas also where the the detention the detention areas are as well.

Um yeah, being a single story building's going to be sprinkled with a fire alarm system in it. We Okay. So, so being that far back it has has no serious impact. Okay. I thought not, but you know, want to give me a chance to do something. Okay. Any other questions from the board? I'll open a public hearing. Anybody here? Any questions? I'll close the public hearing. Um, how do I want to do Oh, did you have a If you have a question, come up. I'll open the public hearing again. Come up to That was quick. Yeah. Yes. Please state your name and great

ask you a question.

Okay. Great. I'm Joanna Nadau. Um I live on um Graanby Road. Uh and I just wanted to share and I think there might be a question in here, but um hopefully we can figure out what it is. um the storm water standards that the state is updating um which are including climate change um changes for precipitation increasing in the future that might be something that would be included in peer reviews for kind of calculations for storm water. Um it's at this point obviously nothing has changed yet. This is a draft that I know the state is working on, but I wanted to bring that up in case that's relevant for looking at these kinds of, you know, calculations that were done before, um, we got some more information and have that coming out. So, um, would that be something the board would want to consider in a peer review or

No, I mean they would have to consider what the current law is, not what is may come about in six months or a year. Sure. Or next week. [laughter] Yeah, sounds good. So, we would have Yes, good question. But now we'd have to go on what's on the in the law books today. Thanks. Okay, I'll close the public hearing again. So, do we want to do this? How do you want to handle the motion? Um, it's a great question. Um, so basically I'm assuming approve.

I'll make a How about we do two motions? One to do a peer review involving that. Shouldn't it be all in one as a conditional approval? You don't on the condition that it is reviewed by um a peer and found sufficient. Okay, let's try this.

Something like that. I'll make a motion to to approve the preliminary plan review of a major use site development entitled Kingsland Storage Center for applicant owner Bark Commercial Ellsworth LLC. Proposal is to construct a 29,200 ft self-s storage building. The subject property is approximately 1.9 acre lot located at Kingsland Crossing tax map 16 lot 8 with condition that Matt uh

Oier if you're looking for his last name. Yeah. um consult with Jim Kaiser on the storm order on the Bullmark's storm water plan with a caveat if if Matt is not comfortable doing that then the city would go to a peer review. Is that does that sound good, Jim? Rick, pretty close. Yeah. Yes, it does. Okay. Second. All in favor?

Thank you.

Thank you. I know it. I'm so sorry. I Jeez, just a little more than what [clears throat] probably I'm just waiting for Rob to come back. Do we know if are all the state people on Zoom?

I think I just see there. Yeah. And then he disappeared. He popped up. I Okay. Item number three, final plan review of a major use site development entitled Hancock Judicial Center for Applicant State of Main 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 approximately 17.9 acre lot located at Maryland Lane extension off Route 1 High Street Tax Map 21, lot 15 in the urban zoning district. Uh, I guess I think one correction would be more comfortable saying that proposals construct a 64,200 square foot courthouse. I mean, the 28,05 is footprint.

It's really a 64,200 foot courthouse. Someone here representing the state of Maine. Yes. Um, my name is Bill Garish. I'm with Sbago Technics, um, representing the state here. And I hope we have John and Jacob from Barton and Lejudice. I don't see them on.

Don't see them on. Okay. All right. Well, I'm in trouble tonight, I guess. But, [laughter] um, thank you for having us back. Um, I guess I will, uh, um, just I think you know the project. I'll be very brief with an overview and a little summary of where we are um since the last meeting if that that works. And then hopefully uh I can get we can get the rest of the I'm sure you'll have some questions on the traffic impact uh study that was done and uh hopefully I can get the rest of our team on for that. Um so yeah, just in in as as Mr. chairman pointed out it is a 28,000 square foot um footprint for the proposed courthouse. Um there is a ground level back in here um which is um the employee and the judge's entrances and so forth. Um there's a parking lot back here with 30 spaces. Um the overall um square footage of the building um with all three floors is a little over 64,000 square ft. Um the public entrance is up in the front at a higher elevation. It would be the ground uh the I guess the first floor, the ground floor being down here. And then there's a another full second floor um with 126 parking spaces for the public out in this area here. Um and the entrance is proposed on Maril Lane extension um which is um yet to be constructed. Um the design is um almost final or pretty close to final. Unfortunately, we didn't get the design documents in time for this submission. Um I know we talked about hydrant

locations um at the last meeting. Um our this is a a just a um a copy of the design drawings for the Maril Lane extension. And I would point out um our I guess our site is right here. Our driveway is here and then this would be um the hydrant location. So there's one right near the entrance and then in our site um we have one proposed right on the side of the building here. Um I know there was a question earlier too about site lighting. Um I did um check on that and the um state is proposing to light the site the full site lighting from from uh dusk to dawn. Um in the future if there's more development out there and more light um they could consider changing that. But at least for now where it's kind of isolated for security reasons, they do intend to light the site all night long. Uh we had a couple of other um minor questions from staff that I think we've addressed. Um and I know um at the last meeting we did not have the full traffic impact study complete. Um since that meeting we had the the scoping meeting with the main DOT and u following that meeting the traffic impact analysis has been completed and was included in your submission. Um and it looks like John Adams is here. So maybe at this point I'll turn it over to John and he can give you a brief um overview. And we can't hear you, John.

Um, first I want to say sorry I was having some technical difficulties with my laptop which I normally would log in on and I'm still having those problems. But um, so I've logged in on my iPhone. So anyways, um yes, I can give a brief overview and then um open it up to some questions if there's questions. Um so yes, to date we've we put together a scoping document, a main DOT traffic mover permit scoping document. Um we have had the scoping meeting with main DOT and city staff. Um during the scoping meeting, um it was determined that we needed to study four intersections. Um the four intersections included the proposed site entrance on Maril Lane for the new courthouse. Um the intersection of Maril Lane at High Street, which is our main intersection and main access point to and from the court. Um and then to the north we were asked to study um High Street at Main Street and then one intersection to the south which was um the Walgreens signalized intersection at High Street. Um so um in addition to that um we were asked so we were asked to study those intersections from a traffic capacity and delay and level of service standpoint. Um, we were also asked to look at a few other things. Um, and I have once once I can get my computer going again, I can probably show you some of these things, but I'll I'll just go over them at this point. Um so the the first item was we were asked to look at the intersection of Maril Lane and High Street and propose or develop a plan which would improve pedestrian infrastructure and pedestrian elements

at the intersection which are lacking today. Um main DOT has tasked us with developing um these improvements and putting a cost estimate to those improvements. And then the applicant will give that money to main DOT which is in the middle of doing a major traffic signal and intersections improvement project which runs down this section of High Street um in Ellsworth. And um so we have developed that concept plan. We've developed a um cost estimate that goes with it. Um the other thing that was brought up at the scoping meeting and it was also brought up at the last planning board meeting was to take a look at how Maril Lane as it intersects High Street. also how that interacts and intersects with the two adjacent sites on either side of it that the key bank um the key bank site and the furniture store site. Um so we have another concept plan where we were proposing some improvements to there to sort of clean up that intersection and I think um make it function a little bit better. Um and if you give me a moment I'm wondering if I can Let me see if I can try if I can log back in on my computer, I can share the plans or or Bill, sorry to throw this at you or I don't know if you can bring up those plans that were in the that were in the um section 7 traffic study that we submitted to main DOT. It's the last three sheets in the in the appendix. Yeah, I don't know that I have those right here, John

and they are in the I wonder if they are in the planning board's package where they can look at them.

Yes. Um there's there's the last three sheets in the appendix. Sheet one uh the sheet one of three which shows the intersection of Maril Lane at High Street. And you can see looking at that plan. We're proposing to redo some of the sidewalk and the ramps at the four corners of the intersection. Um put in new detectable warning fields on all the ramps. Add new crosswalks on all four approaches to the intersection. um do a little bit of restriping at the intersection and for this plan we put a construction cost estimate together um of $32,000. Um now we haven't received any comments back from main DOT yet, nor have we received any comments back from from city staff yet. So that's still pending. Um but that's one of the improvements we were doing. Um, if you go to sheet two, and I know this was a concern of the planning board at the last meeting, um, we're proposing to make some changes to the accesses uh, for Key Bank and for the furniture store. So, as far as the keybang goes, their their entrance closest to High Street, we're going to turn that into an out only entrance and then vehicles entering the site will [clears throat] enter further up Maril Lane away from the intersection of High Street. Um, and then on the furniture store side, vehicles will be able to enter only that entrance closest to High Street. However, they will not be allowed out there. they'll have to travel along the side of the furniture furniture store building and they will exit further away from High Street um away from the congestion and the cues where it will be more safe. Um on top of that, we've shown some potential to revise the the entrance way over to the LLBAN

store and plaza on this plan. Now, this is a concept plan. Um, and you know, it's not a final plan yet, but we were asked by main DOT to put together a plan, and that's what we've done here. And then [clears throat] the third item is is sheet three of three. And based on um some safety concerns up at the intersection of Main Street and High Street and the long the long left turn lane that's on High Street today as you approach uh Main Street as you're traveling northbound on [clears throat] High Street. Um today, as you know, you have a left a long left turn lane, dedicated left turn lane, and High Street northbound, and then you have a shared through and right lane. Um so the plan on sheet three shows in a couple places. We're going to put some advanced lane use sign um way in advance of the of the intersection, approximately 550 ft and 750 ft away from the intersection. So that we're giving people a chance um to get in the right lane as they're as they're approaching the intersection from several hundred feet away as opposed to, you know, moving up close to the intersection and then at the last minute trying to jockey to either get in that left turn lane or stay in the through right turn lane. Um the other thing we're we proposing for some changes is based on our traffic analysis. Um we basically kept all of the existing signal programming at the intersections that we analyzed as part of the traffic movement permit. And again we analyzed High Street at Main Street which has a signal at it, Maril Marrow Lane at High Street that has a signal um and the Walgreens signal on High Street. Um, and all of those intersections still function satisfactory from an overall standpoint, which means they all have a level of service of D or better. Um, some of them

are even better than that. However, um, in the post development condition, High Street at Main Street is the one intersection I believe that's functioning at level of service D. and we want to look at look at that intersection and the signal programming and potentially make some improvements to the programming to optimize traffic flow. Um, however, we do want to work with the city. The city has an on call traffic consultant that manages their traffic signals. So, rather than us just make trying to make some changes, we felt it would be best to work with the city's consultant. And if we do make some minor changes to the signal program, we want to work it out with the city's um traffic engineer as they know, you know, how they're trying to move traffic up and down High Street. So that that's just a quick snapshot of, you know, what we've done today. Again, we had the scoping meeting. We submitted the section 7 study and we're waiting to hear back from both the state and also get city staff comments. Um, but that was really brief, but um, I would open it up to some questions or whatever, however direction you'd like to go.

Well, John, let me just ask you a quick question. You're talking [clears throat] about on on these maps on these diagram sheet two or three, you talked about um, in and out at the furniture store. Could is is the plan that if they want to exit Merrills that they would have to take a right at the end of the Marrow property and go up around the island. Yes, they if you see those arrows Yes.

that are going up up along the short side of the building. Okay. Anybody exiting, we want them to go up there and then at the end of that median take a left and come down Marrow lane and then exit via the signal. But we are going to allow them to come in um right near the intersection because generally that's just a right in so you can make that move generally pretty smoothly. Um as opposed to say the key bank where we don't want folks going in there and especially left turns. We don't want a left turner stopping there and waiting potentially to go left into that existing entrance and then block block access to Maril Lane.

What are they allowed to do now there? They can go right in this way. Uh and back out. I think they both go they're both full access or you know today they're both full access and it's kind of a

you know it's probably not so bad today because the traffic volumes are lower but although these these uses here cause enough traffic themselves but I think with the the courthouse project coming in and and higher volumes now going to be in Maryland we want to we want to um clean this up if you will. John, just a quick note on the along High Street in front of Merrills, [clears throat] the there's still a couple of curb cuts, although the curb cuts are somewhat blocked by big flower planters, but I know at least one Yes.

Uh, actually, I just saw a car doing it the other day, came in off a high street, passed that planter, uh, and into the M parking lot. Uh, and I just wonder if if part of this plan is to shut off those curb cuts.

Um, I certainly think it could be in terms of us, you know, the property owners being approached about doing it. Whether or not we could, you know, we're not I don't think we're in a position to tell they have to do it, but I we certainly would would welcome the opportunity to talk to them um perhaps with city staff and and talk to them about the benefits and the safety benefits to their own site. I think some of those per cuts today are somewhat blocked. Although I think one of them, as you said, you can still get in and out of it. Yeah. So, we're we're fine with looking into that and seeing if that's something that could become part of the project. Okay. Thank you.

On that same map though, um if you exit Key Bank, uh there's an arrow that is pointing towards Merill Lane there. Um and there's no in now. There's just I mean in the proposed uh plan, but there is an out. So if a car comes down there, a vehicle comes down there and wants to turn left on the high street. How does that work? A car comes down. You mean they're in the site? They're in that parking area. Yeah, they're in the they're in the parking area in the Key Bank and they're coming out towards Mel Lane and they want to turn left on to High Street. So they are allowed to come out,

cross a lane, and then get into what amounts to a left turn lane. Is that right? Pretty much what they're doing, right? Right. No, I know. Yeah. Which is pretty which can be pretty messy. I mean, that's controlled by because Well, yeah. But but the but the stop bar both now and later is, you know, kind of upstream from that driveway. So that someone who comes out by key bank is literally beyond the stop bar for the cars that are coming down Merill lane

or will be coming down and I guess that's that's still a very messy movement is my point and it will really affect queuing and so forth on Maril Lane I would think if there's sufficient traffic coming in and out of T Bank to do that. Does that make sense to you? I mean,

it does. It does. And And potentially, you know, we I mean, what we're trying to do is make it better than it is, which I think this plan does. You do bring up a um I think a good point. Um like I say, this is a concept plan. It might need a little further developing. The other thing we might be able to do is that parking area we're just talking about, if that stays two-way, you know, perhaps we can figure out a way that if somebody doesn't want to come out there, they could go back the other way and come out the other entrance. Or alternatively, and come back out on me lane further away from High Street. Alternatively, shut off the driveway exit onto Maril Lane on the High Street side.

Yeah. I and I you know that did it is something we considered. Um I think what we're also thinking about is what can we get these property owners to agree with. I don't know you know what they're going to feel about if that was say shut off completely.

Yeah I was thinking the same thing. I mean, probably Key Bank won't want it, but you know, I guess my suggestion would be like, Rick, that all the traffic to Key Bank goes to the driveway on the east side of Key Bank, uh, kind of at the back side of the building. I'm you that's where you're directing people in now, uh, on this current plan. And I mean, totally shut off that that access right close to High Street. Let them let them have them go in on the back side, the east side of the Key Bank and exit back out on the east side of Key Bank. I mean, that would be the ideal thing.

Well, yeah, I think we could develop planning concept and then perhaps work with the city staff and approach the property owners to see what they're willing to do. The and the other thing is that when you do when you did all your capacity runs and level service and all that, you really didn't consider vehicles coming in out of the Key Bank lot in any way, did you? No, that's not that's not in our model, but generally they're going to they're be the ones that are going to have to wait for people exiting Maril Lane,

right? But somehow that should feed into the overall delay that you have on that approach and that intersection, right? you know, because well, we could look at that and and and put that in there and see what the delay is coming out of that entrance. Yeah. I mean, I just I I don't even know how you can, you know, take Synchro or whatever and model that intersection because it's so weird, right, in so many ways. I mean, it's a

Yeah. What we're what we're figuring there is during lighter times of the day, folks will be able to come out of the bank and get out to go left or right onto High Street. During busier times, after after the phase goes for Merrell Lane and clears out Maril Lane, then they can enter and either go at the end of that phase or they'll they'll enter the lane and have to wait for the green the next time through the cycle. Yeah. Well, I mean the the AM shouldn't be any problem at all really because the bank won't be open during the AM peak. I mean, or if it is, it's just agreed onesie twoosy, right?

But it's really at what happens at, you know, kind of 4:00 or 3:30 or whatever. And the other thing is how did the LLBAN driveway slash entrance there to Maril Lane extended, how was that? Did you model that at all? like how that left turn to, you know, to that the LLBAN patrons come in and then turn left. I mean, have you what did you do with that intersection in terms of when you did all your modeling that said the level of service wasn't all that bad?

Yeah, I we did not model those internal intersections, but that I don't believe the volumes are that high and so I don't believe there's going to be big issues there. And the fact that we'd have them exiting the furniture site further away from High Street and further away from potential cues, I think it'll make it easier for them to then turn left out of the furniture site and and then go go in either lane to exit Mar Lane. That's probably true, but that doesn't answer the LLBAN issue.

What's your what's your question? Well, what happens at what happens at that LLB if if that entrance is is being used at all? And maybe it's not. Um, you know, there's part of me that says, "Oh, you should have analyze that as an unsalized intersection because it's because it's a big enough roadway." So, you're talking about the the proposed LLB drive we're showing intersecting Maryland lane. Yes. Right here. I mean, yeah. I don't I honestly based on the volumes that would likely be in that intersection. Did you do a counter? I don't believe there'd be

I can I can I can understand why you say that, but did you do a count or anything there? No, we kind of the intersection of High Street, but I'm just looking at the uses that are there and things I've seen when I've been out there. Now, obviously I haven't been out there like you've been out there for sure. You're out there every day. Actually, I'm not, but that's all right. Um, well, what I mean is you live up there. I don't. Yeah. Oh, right. Got you there. Anyway, there being issues. I'm sorry.

We don't we wouldn't anticipate there being issues with the LLBAN driveway because we're actually we're pushing it further away from High Street and further away from any of the potential congestion that might be there as folks are waiting on the red light at Merrill to enter High Street. Well, you know, I I think I think you should have some numbers to back up your intuition. You know, I mean, I I don't necessarily disagree with you in terms of, you know, you don't see a whole hell of a lot of cars going using that, even though there's a big LLB sign out there says use this entrance. And I don't I don't know that they they do that, right? But the but that the one thing I the one

the other thing is that you know coming out of the furniture store to go up along that island and in essence make a Uturn and with opposing traffic in the middle of the U-turn you know if there's any kind of traffic at all out there and there and there may not be much interaction but that's I mean that's a it's a terrible turn. Yeah. And this, you know, the terrible situation, it's the perfect plan, but we're we're trying to improve on what's there, right? And the other thing with your I think you were asking me before, if somebody was taking a left turn from me lane into this LLBAN driveway that we're showing. Yeah.

There's not going to be that much traffic opposing them coming down Maril Lane. So they're generally speaking, you're not going to be sitting there very long to go left into the yellow beam. That's probably true. But again, having counts that actually support that, I mean, if you really wanted to do the analysis should should be there. Now, whether or not you're going to have to do them or not is beyond my pay grade. But yeah, we also talked about further I understand where you're coming from. I don't I don't believe that's necessary to show that that would would work satisfactory based on the volumes that we we know are going to be coming down from the courthouse project. And the other thing is

it's just very low compared to like the other intersections. My colleague there just brought up the idea that, you know, the idea of having the courthouse out there in the weeds. Uh is going to engender all kinds of development and so forth. Uh and what that suggests is there's a whole bunch of cars that are going to be coming down Maril Lane from other uses in the future. And we can't really I mean I understand that for a future. What what what else do planners do other than look ahead and try to plan? [laughter] A discussion for another time and place. Yes. What's that? A discussion for another time and place. Okay. Come visit.

Come visit. Right. The other thing I have I have a question about the um as you go in on Maril Lane now to the feed store and you come in and you go off a relatively abrupt uh grade uh and I think it's something like 11% is that about right up existing is that going to what happens to that what happens to that grade there is there and is there a sight distance problem coming in up up and down that over that grade to the LLBAN driveway slashinsection

that that grade does get softened in the in the new design. Um yeah, I just couldn't find it a percentage. Yeah, I think that's something that just has to be looked at as this road, this new road is completed and then we figure out exactly what we're going to do here at these two sight accesses. So, you can just push that vertical curve down. Yeah, the the the profile does go, you know, there are some cuts and fills to to reduce the grade. Yeah. So, that's on but that's on your agenda is to make that sight distance. Okay. I mean, actually, yeah. I mean, it's it's, you know, working with the city's engineer on the on the road design. Yep.

Yeah. It's sometimes trying hard to tell who's responsible for what here. Yeah. So, just as a point of interest,

um, this going back to the idea, I understand the idea of potential use from other development going on up there. This was a point that was brought up in October. It's right in the minutes. We discussed that. I brought that point up in fact specifically what potential future development would happen on the site beyond the courthouse because this could impact future traffic. That was right in the minutes and was discussed in October. So it is a point that needs to be for later date I understand but it needs to be in the record that it we have discussed it or put it out there as a concern. It's in the minutes. Okay.

It's in the minutes. It's also being discussed right now. Yeah, I agree. But the fact that the record shows that we've talked about it or mentioned it twice is something that we need to make sure. Yep. Absolutely on the record. Is there a PL for the development which is on the table and I can actually talk to you about apparently. Uh my question is wayfinding signs. I mean, if I'm coming down High Street, is are there signs that say courthouse over here or anything like that?

There may be, but should there be part of is it part of the project? And is it conditional on your approval of the final? Do you you see what I'm getting at? Yeah. like do you need that to h like well you know I think I think it's I think it's the planning board's responsibility to look at a development and say is this going to operate okay and if you don't do that then you know you may have something over here that's like ah maybe so and then the next maybe so and the next maybe so are you suggesting that be part of our ordinance part of the ordinance right

well any development we look I mean, there's a sign ordinance and and part of the planning board process is is what they're planning for a sign. The tractor place showed us what they're going to have. Just to jump in the um you know, I imagine my conversations with the courthouse, they'd like a sign that would say the court will be this year, wherever they'd be at. And um to that point, when we get to that that level, we'll we'll bring that sign presentation in and make sure it conforms with the ordinance. Um absolutely. just about the sign ordinance and like DOT wayfinding signs are exempt from the sign ordinance. So we have no say over that.

So we don't have that. Robert, is there nothing about like traffic signs? That's all kind of the state standards.

Yeah, it's all it's all state. Yeah, it's all it's all state purview. Well, we can still probably let the planning board know, I guess, but um that'll probably be up to the state and then main DOT on if they're okay with assigning that location. Yes. When you looked at the peak hour for AM and PM and for the for the courthouse, did you we know we talked before about

jury selection day and whatever, which was supposedly the the one that generates most traffic in the city lot and all that the the current courthouse. Um, how was that kind of unique peak hour traffic considered when you did the peak hour analysis? I'm just so what? Yeah. I mean, what we did is we tried to be Say again.

I'm sorry. you you were kind of cutting out there. Um, but what I was going to say is what we did is we took a very conservative approach. Um, we did look at some real counts from other facilities that were during their busiest times when there was jury selection going on, that kind of stuff. Um, we also looked at what the Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation manual suggests for trip rates for these types of um, uses. And what we ended up doing was going with the higher rates, which was the rates from the IT uh chip generation um manual. So then what we did is we took the the peak rates that the manual was telling us and then we overlaid them during over the highest times uh the peak hours on the roadway say approximately say 7:30 to 8:30 in the morning and then in the evening at uh you know 4:30 to 5:30 something like that. So we were taking the worst case scenarios with this analysis.

So you sort of took the peak hour of the generator and the peak hour of the roadway and even though those might not have coincided in time, you pretended that that they that they did for a worst case scenario. Yeah. Basically because we take Okay. So the IT trip generation manual gives us gives us trip rates for that use during say the the commuter time of the street, right? Both in the AM and the PM peak hours. And so we took those um and ran with those with the the commuter the background volumes on the road during the AM and PM commuter times to evaluate a worst case scenario.

So what did your count when you look at counts elsewhere? What did the how did how did the jury selection days, if that's a if that's a real thing, how did they line up with what might be kind of standard peak hours for a government building?

Well, what we received and I think I think Bill maybe you I don't know if you you have them. I don't have them at my fingertips, but we had looked at them during the process and they were just lower. they were lower than what we were predicting. So after that, we really didn't look at them. If if some of those peak times are actually spilling into the non- peak times of the roadway, we weren't as concerned with that cuz we were looking at trying to line up the worst case scenario. Okay. The numbers would have I think suggested something less than 200. I think the numbers are

yes 200. Why don't you go ahead to the next person if there is an extend Oh, while we're talking about traffic, might as well throw this out. Um, on the 907.1.K level of service. Well, that's in it's in our man. Oh, that's ar

but it references the your tables for level of service. uh on page 21 section your section 7 uh page 21 actually 20 and 21

and I'll direct this to the city too because no development shall cause a reduction in level of service by more than one grade level and in no case shall the level of services be reduced to a level of D or below. Now, uh, Merill Lane, High Street, that looks to be okay. But on High Street, Oak Street, and Maine, uh, there's one level of service that goes from E to F. U, another one that goes from D to E, and another one that goes from D to E. Um, yes, there's there's a few individual movements that did drop um from the pre-development condition and this this is the intersection that we're actually talking about working with the city's on call traffic consultant to come up with more optimal signal programming um to reduce those delays. But I I direct to the city though. Uh and I'll ask another question too and and I don't mean to sound this negative but I mean does and I'll direct this one to the state. Does the state actually need planning board approval for their project which I've led to believe is no. Am I understand that correct? That is my understanding

that the state does not really technically need planning board approval for your courthouse for the courthouse to be built. Am I understanding that correct? I believe so. I believe that's the case, but I I know they always try to work with Abs and Absolutely. I'm I'm glad you're here

flushing us all out, but I I just want to make sure I get that through the head because I guess I would ask the the the city, how do you propose taking care of that 907-1K that if the level of service is being reduced too low that no development shall cause that reduction? I think they have a plan in place to correct those things. Um plus with the thriving communities partnership analysis um there are in the uh upgrade of the traffic lights there are things going in place that will potentially what make that not an issue.

Yes. But now now you're getting into an area too and and I totally understand that and it'll probably be better. But just like there's a potential for development on the back side of this property that you know is really not to be discussed. But you know we're dealing with what's before us today. Correct. Correct. It's not that we don't want to discuss it. It's that for the purposes of this and so to get by that what do you want to do? As Britney said, there are projects that are are currently happening that are looking at these things. And so within our power, we're making sure that this, you know, that we are within Yeah.

to jump in here, but um the uh to what John's point to work, there's an adaptive signaling program. Like this this intersection is not great. It's currently constructed. This is not as it currently is a fantastic intersection. You can't even walk across um under current conditions. And this all needs to be looked at. We have the RCAP solutions looking at some engineering pieces. Um this is already a lot better, John. I think um continuing to work with our traffic engineers, the adaptive signaling program. There's a lot of pieces here. There's a whole like I mean possible tens of millions of dollars

um over the next 5 to 10 years um for the thriving communities. That could be a a pretty massive transformation of this whole area, not just this one intersection. Um you know, looking at those other pieces as a whole on how they connect to this piece is extremely important. and you know will be will be considered and um it's a great time it's obviously a great collaboration between Main DOT the city u you know and not just this piece either we have uh anybody who's been to Main Street and Water Street it is not a pleasant backup um during many times of the year and and getting worse not through developments like this in many ways but through the extra two million people that are coming to Acadia um and through a lot of the other developmental pieces so these things are all connected uh we have a village partnership initiative I think that's a almost $30 million initiative that's going to potentially transform a lot of the intersections and throughways um in the main street kind of water street corridor area the thriving communities initiative uh we'll have a lot of you know and currently under engineering and and look into it's kind of the perfect time actually to um blend together these state federal um city initiatives to not just look at this one intersection but how they all connect to each other. So, um, really excited about it and we'll keep bringing these to planning board for input, um, and guidance. And, you know, that's kind of where we're at.

I think, however, that it doesn't, it might not be too difficult to anticipate what would be happening with future development in the properties beyond uh, this the the courthouse. And [clears throat] it's, you know, it's going to happen. You might not know the volume. They might not put a huge box store in there or something like that. But why not try to anticipate in our planning what it's going to look like if with in increased traffic in that area because I totally agree with what you're saying, but we can't we can't

it's not that we're not the city. It's not that the city is not looking at that. Like this is on our radar. We are do we are actively engaged in projects that are going to make things better. So I'll still I'll still give you my question. Do [clears throat] do we offer a waiver for these or just totally ignore it because it doesn't matter. If you look at 901c state owned roads are exempt from this art. 901 what? But Maril Lane is a is a city road. Correct. So I mean it's kind of half and half, right? But it's main dot signals although we control the signals, right?

I believe I believe it the city road is exempt and is really up to council but kind of the similar to the state judiciary. We want to follow the chapter 56 our city road standards as much as possible and we want to get a ton of planning board input and guidance on those those pieces. But I believe both are um there's a an exemption in the uh the ordinance as well here for this. [clears throat] What was the section number? It's 901.2C page two. Somebody else can ask a question. Go ahead.

Going back to the idea that that this is all all this these intersections are all good because they're none of them are D. You know, really some approaches are just absolutely terrible as you know if you've ever driven up high street. So they're operating at F or whatever is below F. The other thing is that even with the Mirrol Lane U analysis on page 20, which is table B1, uh you note that the postdevelopment AM peak hour um is 34.7 on average. Well, the cut is for level of service D is 35 seconds. And what we're saying is, oh, because it's 34.7 seconds, you know, we don't have to worry about that being a declining level of service, whereas if it were the average was.3 seconds more, it would be bad. Okay? And I'm sitting here to tell you that that 34.7 is not as accurate. That number is really not as accurate as it's made out to be. And it never and they never are. Okay. So, you know, the idea that we don't have to worry about it because it hasn't dropped from C to D,

you know, do you really want to, you know, base your life on the fact that the average really is.3 seconds below? I mean, come on. Anyway, my point is that these intersections are really not working all that well and they're only going to get worse. you know, whether it's safety or whether it's delay or whether it's queuing, it's going to get worse with or without this develop. Well, not with or without this development. Without the development, it wouldn't, I guess. But, but, you know, I think it's a serious concern. I think it's fair game independent of what may be legal or not legal or whatever within our jurisdiction sometimes. That's it. Oh, there and the same the same argument applies to several other sectors as well. That's it. I'm all done.

So, I got a couple things I'd like to bring up. Um, first of all, um, last time we met, I asked if we could get a set of plans on the road for the hydrants. And I understand we actually do. Um, Andrew McCulla submitted a plate C-1.11, but I can't I can't read that. [laughter] It would have been nice if that had been a little bit bigger. Um, I struggled. I even had my magnifying glass out trying to figure out what was going on.

I know. I can zoom way in. You can zoom in. It makes it easier. But what's that? You have a digital link to the file. Yeah. Well,

yeah. So, anyway, um it's fine. Okay. Cuz through the through through looking and going back and forth through the different um plates that he's he's he's I and I've heard you mention several times that you're willing to work with the people that are around you and trying to do best you can to be good neighbors. Um, and Tom, you can you can chime in here for just a second. Looking at the um the profiles of these hydrants. Um, the first hydrant comes in at around 300 ft off the intersection. The second one comes in at about 650 ft. 640 ft.

Yep. And the third one comes in at 1,50.

Yep. So working backwards from the,50 to the 6 uh50 is about 400 ft which is fine and I'm sure you're okay with that. Um uh one of the things that I'm looking at is you're you're moving the LLBAN entrance um to to to accommodate LLBAN and traffic etc etc. Wouldn't it be and it would be appropriate for them as well as Ellsworth Feed and Seed if the hydrant, the first hydrant located at 300 was moved back to about 250. It would accommodate and protect your LLBAN store as well as the Ellsworth Feed and Seed store. That way, you're not beyond those two. And if you put it on that side of the road, you wouldn't be blocking traffic if you have to grab that hydrant. I'm I'm not I I don't know whether I can propose it, but I can ask you to take a look at moving the hydrant back to 250 ft instead of 350. Then you're you're still going to be within the 400 ft. If it's at 250 and you go to six feet, you're still 400 ft. Is that something that you would think about doing or something that would accommodate? I mean, you're going to be benefiting everybody by doing something like that.

Yep. the the road is actually the city's project. So I I believe Andrew would move that back. No problem. Tom, your comment. I I've not been part of the road. What's that? I have not been part of the road road talk in the buildout of the roads. Okay. I will get back with you. Okay. But it's just a thought um looking because if you put that 300 ft, you're going to be beyond that and then Oh, no. I agree with what you're saying. I think that makes perfect sense. Move it back to the 250 and it meets all the still meets all the requirements and it's a better service for the buildings and for what we're trying to do and then put it on the other side of the road. So you I don't I don't disagree with you.

Okay. Um I think you know they they all look like it's it's fine. They're coming off a 12 inch line. Um, and um, but I just I was just thinking, you know, it might not be a bad idea if you're trying to help the people around you. That's going to give them even a little bit better protection from the fire department. Yep. That seems like a fairly change.

That's a great idea. I know we've um, you know, has been mentioned here, we'll definitely want to have a further conversation. Andrew is really working on the kind of electric right now. That's the next piece of the developer agreement. we want to get kind of spaced out where the boxes should be and all those pieces. Um but uh hydrants I know like um a special expertise of yours and might just want to bring you in for uh you know not just look at little dots but the full plans and u make sure they're satisfactory to you and obviously to um Thomas as well. Yep. Okay. Like I say suggestion I can't tell you what to do but I can suggest. Thank you. What?

U got a question also on uh section seven uh be on page three and this is both to the city and state uh B&L under pedestrian improvement recommendations. They list several at those three intersections. I mean, is that something that I got suggestions or is the city and or state going to hope to do those?

It's a collaboration. We're also with the thriving communities partnership. They'll be looking at some of those intersections, too. So, between all of us, you know, we'll be able to use the technical assistant and potentially get some grants and some funding, make some of those improvements, but not all of them. Um, once it's been, you know, designed discussed in public outreach and final wise. What kind of improvements could those be for bed crossings like pedestrian safety? Whatever options make sense in the space that we have. Do we have an example? I'm not yet. We will. We will. Actually, we have another check in. Okay. Developer coming up next week.

Well, that reminds me. in in the redesign of of the keep of the Maril Lane High Street intersection with the striping that the states plan on doing putting in crosswalks and stuff. Is is it anticipated that the pedestrian crossing movements would be made on the dedicated red all the like at the at the high school when kids are crossing from the high school all movements are red uh which is the safest way to do it but it adds to your backups. So, I'm just wondering if if anybody has thought, you know, I mean, you had that out on a plan. I'm just wondering if you've gotten that far to what the thought is on

Don't believe so. Yeah, we haven't looked into how the PET phase are going to happen, but I can tell you that generally main DOT has moved towards concurrent PE phases instead of exclusive PE phases to try to balance safety and capacity. Um, in addition, they are putting up these biodal heads that sit there. They're blank. But if somebody hits the right PED button, as a driver, you may see a sign that comes on flashing that warns you either not to turn right on red because you could be turning into a ped or as you're turning, just be be on the look for a pedestrian crossing in the other crosswalk.

Yeah. I mean, that has always been a problem at the traffic light at Maine and Water when cars are making a right turn on red and pedestrians got the right away and the car the cars don't see them. I live on that corner. So, yeah. Yeah. And that's the that's the village partnership initiative. Yep. That's the other one that's being looked at, too. So, we and we can add this in staff comments to a future meeting to give you an update about both of these projects. I think that would be a good idea.

I'm just curious on also in section seven on page 22 uh on the level of service summary uh talks about the the queue and fee. I'm just curious how H High Street South uh there's two southbound lanes the the PM the pre-development is going from 508 ft and 527 ft to 282 and 296 which is great but um is there a simple answer to how you're reducing that cube so much and Um, some of it has to do with the different traffic volumes, the different demands we're making now on the signal. Um, and some of it has to do, I believe, with just some minor timing changes at this intersection. Uh, because of our traffic coming out of Merill Lane. Um, but again, I think at the end of the day, we want to look at all three of the intersections we've looked at here and work with the town's traffic consultant on what's the best way to revise the signal programming. I just thought those figures were interesting because there's a huge reduction southbound, but also a huge reduction northbound in the in the queue. Just

no need to dwell on it. Just caught my attention. Yep. Uh, one question I guess for uh the storm water lines that are going to be installed, do they empty into the storm water lines on the high street in the in the road construction to the courthouse? Does anybody know?

Um, I believe that some of them do. Um, but then some of them end up, you know, coming down into the, you know, to this wetland and eventually to Card Brook. But I do believe some back in this part of the road do come back into High Street. And these [clears throat] there's a number of storm water filters along the road that collect the storm water and not only treat it but detain it. So Okay. Yeah. I know I know there was a lot of on-site Yeah. storm water mitigation. I just didn't know how much got out to the public main.

Yeah. Um and maybe it's in here. I didn't see it. But are there letters from the water company and and sewer treatment plant in this application? cuz I didn't see them. Maybe they're in there, but it might have been in with the preliminary and maybe didn't get think it went in with the preliminary. Yeah. Yeah. That's all I got. Open a public hearing. I'll close the public hearing or not. [laughter] They're

not hungry. Any other comments, questions, staff, board members? Somebody want to make a motion? I'll make a motion. Make a motion to approve the final plan review of the major used site development entitled Hancock Judicial Center for Applicant, State of Maine Judicial Branch and Owner, State of Maine. The proposal is construct a 64,200 foot courthouse building to serve as the new Hancock County Courthouse. The subject property is approximately 17.9 acre lot located at Maryland Extension off Route 1 High Street, tax map 21, lot 15 in the urban zoning district. Is there a second?

Second. All in favor? Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, John.

And you said we got Yes, we have to sign from alpha 4 draft. Okay. Before you leave, this is actually the first anniversary of the comprehensive plan being conducted. Stop. Really? Yeah. Really? That's awesome. So, I was wondering I was wondering how we're doing. Well, [laughter] I knew it because in point of fact, the plan documents and so forth said that there would be standard reviews and this and that other thing and we're going to be, you know, data driven and all that good stuff. I was wondering how we're doing.

Yeah. So, yeah, we're moving along. We're actually there are quite a few things in the comp plan that we've already started or can already check off as being complete. And for the the ones that we're currently working on and about to um is there going to be a report to the council for example? Yeah, that is the plan first of all because there are new council. Yes, exactly. Exactly. We're we're actually starting to we're talking about strategic implementation. Are we adjourned? [laughter] No, these are staff comments.

Yes. Okay. Staff comments. Yeah. So um we are working on a strategic implementation for the plan. We have plenty of plans. We don't need strategic planning for it. So we're doing strategic imple implementation and right now we're in the data gathering phase of what's been completed so far and what is in progress. Okay. Yeah. Good. Yeah.

I I I beed breath [laughter] that if you'd ever like to join us for one of our project management team meetings. Uh, you know, we we did print out the comp plan, the business attraction plan, the housing needs assessment for the city councilors in a big new briefing binder. You know, I think as Robert Grant, our code officer, kind of calls that our kind of um the econ that we need to live by, Robert. And um yeah, you know, I we all teams are aligning each project the priority tier one, tier two, tier three,

I think. to comp plan. It looks like kind of a a giant math equation with how many of these we have labeled on each project. Um and love to have you a little more briefing on there. And um I would say about 75 to 80% of the priority action items that are in each individual section are covered by those projects. Um and you know within the next three years and we'll probably get we'll probably get pretty close to 100% by year 7 to 10 here. Um, and really appreciated that work. It It was great to have. So, we might need a new comp plan in like 5 years. We might need a new comp plan. No, this is supposed to take us to

comp plans are living documents. Why is it any time? That is true. That is true. Yeah, I I picked that up in planning school. Thank you. [laughter] Well, I I'll ask Rob for an update because we spent so much time. We love doing it on the uh recreational marijuana. Speaking about planning.

Yes. So, this was actually one of the staff comments that I wanted to bring up. Um so, uh we are at the point now where we've incorporated that standalone chapter into our existing licensing chapter of our ordinance. A lot of the feedback from the board was procedural things about how this license is going to be issued and all of that kind of thing. And so we want to align it with our existing licensing policies and procedures. So that is what we're doing incorporating this the design standards the operating standards etc. So Robert and I are actually meeting tomorrow to go through it and make sure I didn't miss anything. Um, and the plan is for this to be included in the January council agenda for adoption. The zoning overlay, we need to talk a little bit more about how that process is going to work because that does require

But that's really ours. I mean, that's where we would have the input.

Yeah, exactly. And it also requires a city-wide mailer, which we have to do as part of the comprehensive ordinance rewrite because there are some zoning changes there as well. So, we're just trying to figure out the best way that we can be efficient with that citywide mailer. So, that's more to come. Um, and then the comprehensive um ordinance review. We are getting close to finishing phase one, which are those musthaves, making sure that we're in alignment or um compliant with the recent state updates. And so, we're looking at a February cycle for bringing before planning board for your review and recommendation to city council. We'll bring it to the workshop there as well which is in the same week and then city council um meeting in February for adoption.

Married on the recreational marijuana did did you eliminate the requirement that at some point they come to the planning board for approval? Yes. Yeah. For the license we don't do that for any other license. Yeah. Good. You don't want to see them? [laughter] [snorts] Not if we can't say anything about it's Yeah, it's not in there anymore. Yeah, good. [laughter] Um, so that's all all we have from the world of ordinances. Um, and then Britney, if you wanted to mention training.

Um, yes, we're still working on training, more to come. U planning board bites are kind of your in between where we finalize details on that big training we are going to do in the coming month. Um, yeah, you'll be giving us a few weeks at least notice on Oh, yeah. what you settle on. We'll give you enough notice, especially and probably have a snow date as well. So, at least warm. Um, speaking of snow, this weekend, Saturday is the Christmas parade and tree lighting. So, I saw there was going to be a bonfire. Where is that going to be? There are going to be two bonfire pits and [snorts] two more pits out in the parking lot. There will be porta potties. Um there will also be some

Will the fire engines be there too? I just thought they're pretty close enough, but [laughter] So they will be um managed and staffed by our lovely train, newly trained volunteers. Thank you to Thomas for the training. Um yeah, so it should be a good time. Which day is it? Friday. Saturday. Saturday. Saturday parade starts at 4. I think the lighting is going to be at 5:30 and there'll be some vendor or participants um setting up at 3. So, if you want some hot chocolate and cookies and arts and crafts stuff, uh they'll they will be in the cooking. Will there be oatmeal raisin cookies? We can We'll see. We'll see. Have to put your order in now.

Get there early now. If I have enough time to bake them between now, I will. [laughter] Anything else? Motion to adjurnn. I'll second all in favor of a motion to adjurnn. Okay. Oh, we have something to sign, right? Yeah.