Lewiston Planning Board approves Tree Street Youth building, contract zone

[0:03] Speaker A (unidentified): I don't think so. Yeah, if I want to see, I have to run good. [0:14] Shanna Cox: Evening, I'm Shanna Cox, chair of the Lewiston Planning Board, and I welcome all here this evening and call this meeting to order. Can I have the roll call please? [0:24] Speaker C (unidentified): Michael Marcotte, president. Panthea Burns here. Zoe Lidstrom here. Lucy Bison here. Shanna Cox here. Amy Smith here. Alex Pine here. Should I continue with the others? Well, please let the [0:39] Shanna Cox: record reflect that Darren Gallant, associate member, is currently absent, and Heidi Bertels is expected to be late arriving this evening. Thanks. We also are joined by city staff, Shelley Norton, our deputy director. We have Craig Tebow, our land use planner, and we have Linda Tripp, our administrative assistance, with us this evening. I think that's it for staff at the moment anyway. I'll remember to update the showing when we can. Are there any adjustments to the agenda? [1:13] Speaker D (unidentified): No, there are not. Thank you. Is there any correspondence? There is a email from Rick Kaye, who is the union president for the fire department. Thanks, and we were [1:27] Shanna Cox: provided that in reference to the other business item A that we have on our agenda tonight. Thank you. All right, let's jump into the beginning of our public hearings. Our first public hearing item this evening is Tree Street Youth Incorporated submitting a development review application for the construction of a new 7,250 square foot building at 143, 145 House Street on a 0.33 acre parcel. Shelly, is this one you? No, it's Craig. I do that to you far too often, and I apologize. That's okay. She was getting all ready to drive for you, and your stuff's at the very bottom of the packet, so [2:13] Speaker E (unidentified): right, so the parcel is currently vacant, 143, 145 Howe Street. The proposed project will include three elementary school classrooms and a resource room for assembly purposes, and then an outdoor play area along Howe Street. There's going to be landscaping, fencing, a paved walkway, and retaining wall along the rear of the property. So that's where the building and the site improvements around that property. It does currently show up on our GIS as two separate lots, but we've been told that they will be combining those slots. The property in question is in the industrial office, sorry, the institutional office, the zoning district. Academic institutions are in allowed use there, and there's really no further zoning issues with that. It's in the MS4 overlay, but because of the amount of impervious area that's being created, no further state approvals or city approvals are really needed for that. For the total project, there are five parking spaces required. That actually is going to be down to three due to the proximity of a nearby bus stop. So there are some very recent changes that we've implemented. They are within 500 feet of a bus stop, and so they can reduce their total parking requirement by 50%. They are proposing, while we're currently in discussions with them, the last proposal was to use spaces from Longley. There needs to be an agreement with that, and that's part of our conditions of approval that we're recommending. See, visual buffering and screening will be required along the back of the property, on the other side, along 156, 158, and 162 Horton Street. That will include a six foot high fence along that property line. Turn to the other page, you'll see there are six total staff recommendations for conditions of approval. One of them was that parking agreement as mentioned, and that's, that's it really. I'm happy to address any other sort of questions that you have, but no further comment from staff. Thanks. I'm gonna [4:55] Shanna Cox: start with just a quick clarifying point. The memo that we received very recently still says five total parking spaces. Yes, I had to correct that, so that's three now, three now, because it's the higher part of half. And then because of the wording you used in the staff recommendation, there is no change needed there, because you are just requesting sufficient, that's right, and not [5:15] Speaker E (unidentified): a particular number, that's right, no change in the recommendation needed. Great, thanks so much. [5:21] Shanna Cox: Questions for the staff from the board before we ask the applicant to speak? Great, would invite our applicant on up. It's probably you, sir. Julie is welcome to come, but usually get the technical questions. You'll make yourself comfortable in the seats. You'll introduce yourself and your role appropriate. [5:45] Mark Lee: Very good. Good evening. Mark Lee with Harriman architects engineers. So we've been assisting tree Street with the projects. [5:50] Shanna Cox: Julia Sleeper, founder and director of tree Street youth. Welcome. Is there anything that you would like to present or share? I think Craig covered cover [6:03] Mark Lee: most of it should be in the packet. I think that you know it's directly across from countries current locations. I think there's a great opportunity to sort of the synergies of having those two facilities next to each other and try to be respectful neighbors with a sighting of this and also try to provide a little bit of a play area. But I think it's gonna be a great addition to the tree street offerings. Nothing [6:36] Shanna Cox: More other than we're really excited about this project. It actually will expand our program offerings to be able to start serving families and young people birth all the way through age 24, which we're currently age four all the way up. Now so it'll sort of complete our canopy of care, and so we're just really excited about the project. And obviously as our programs have continued to grow, this opportunity of getting to work with youth and families and younger and in more on school readiness and more on just family support, we think will be a great benefit across the full community. Thanks for your consideration. Thanks. This might be as much for you as it is for staff, but did you say that the purchase and combination has already occurred of the two parcels? Right, we've purchased both thoughts, but we are working on the combination. Yeah, thanks. Yeah, I appreciate it. Questions for the applicant from the board? [7:47] Speaker G (unidentified): Mr. Markov, going back to parking and see that chapter 7 or section 7 has a letter from the Wilson Public Schools, probably before addressing the change in the required amount of spots, but has this gone before the school board, or does the superintendent have full authority to grant parking rights? [8:19] Mark Lee: Yeah, I don't know that we know that information. I think the superintendent probably drafted a letter of support for offering cooperation on that. I think we're working with staff to determine exactly. I think that's the condition is to work with staff to determine exactly what form of that Agreement needs to be in place. [8:40] Speaker G (unidentified): When I saw this weekend, Yes, I wasn't as cognizant of the condition, and I just assumed that this was, This letter was primarily Granting the requirement. My concerns were perpetuity because things can happen at the multi and that may not be month there next year. I don't know if the city can sell property or encumber its use independently of the school board, but obviously things are happening at the coliseum, and we've seen in the past that parking has been granted to the coliseum from that parcel, so don't want to over stack the offerings and then have conflict between two entities when events happen, so and so forth. So that was my concern there. Thank [9:36] Shanna Cox: you. Other questions for the applicant first? [9:41] Speaker A (unidentified): Of all, I just want to say congratulations for getting to this point and the giant stack of drawings. I know you guys have been at this for many years, so good on you. I also probably need to recuse myself from voting just because my daughter's property is in a butter to the proposed property. And just a note of order, she didn't receive any kind of notice about this meeting. When do, when are a butters supposed to receive notice? So notice will typically go out [10:14] Speaker E (unidentified): in the mail at least seven days prior to the meeting. We should have, we would have sent that out by Thursday. Let's see, we would have sent that out by the 12th I believe. Okay, anyway, just want [10:32] Speaker A (unidentified): to let you guys know that she never received anything. So but I have a couple quick questions and it's about the funding and the timing. So the congressionally directed spending, I know that there have been a lot of changes to that and what for the funds that are listed as committed, like do you have those funds in? What does that mean specifically, especially with the [10:54] Shanna Cox: CDS money? Yeah, absolutely. So the CDS funds are committed and are validated as ready to be spent at this stage of the game. We were in the 2024 cycle, okay, so we've gone through all of that, the environmental review, all the approvals, like they're, they're ready and committed and able to be accessed at this stage of the game. And then as you see, the rest of the project is sort of formulating together through some braiding of funds from private donors, various foundation support, as well as we are, we are currently seeking a few other grant [11:33] Speaker A (unidentified): opportunities. Yeah, that's awesome. And in the phasing, I'm just curious because sometimes that stuff falls through. So I see that we're doing the architecture, engineering, permits, utilities, grading, parking. So even if something went a little bit sideways, these are clean phases. So the lot would get sort of site prepped and then it would sit and then the construction. So it's phased, I imagine, to sort of line up with the eventualities of crazy funding madness. We have been quite strategic [12:10] Shanna Cox: excellent and so and we'll continue to be quite strategic with the phasing of the different [12:15] Speaker A (unidentified): components. Yeah, and so when would you be thinking that you'd be starting? I mean [12:22] Shanna Cox: pending all approval and once we move forward, we'll be able to start exploring through the phasing the various bidding processes that need to follow. All of them need to follow different things. My goal would be summarish as soon as [12:38] Speaker A (unidentified): possible, summarish of this year. Yes, wow, yeah, all right, saw that advance [12:45] Shanna Cox: Strategy there's a lot of stretch other questions from the board. [12:53] Speaker G (unidentified): I'm concerned because it is a criteria of Article 13 section 4 and it is the planning board's authority not staff's authority. I've brought that up plenty of times before. I'm not disappointed that the director Jonathan Connor is not here to hear the repeat comment on that matter. So that is a serious concern like that you're just simply routing this to a staff review process indirectly. Thanks. [13:34] Shanna Cox: A name number two of the conditions of which we would be offering approval under if we did requires them to demonstrate the financial capacity before [13:43] Speaker H (unidentified): for the permit would be issued. So there's a stock out there but it but it is something in article [13:49] Speaker G (unidentified): 13 section 4 it's really part of the planning board and maybe somebody should research look at the institutional memory with regards to how staff review came into existence about 30 years [14:01] Shanna Cox: ago. Thanks Linda were you able to capture that in the notes? Excellent. Are there any remaining questions? Okay then I'm gonna note before we take a vote that Miss Smith has recused herself from this in which case Heidi you would be called on to [14:17] Speaker I (unidentified): vote in this vote. I need to do anything since I was not present at the beginning [14:23] Shanna Cox: when we took roll? No we already noted that you were late in coming and you will definitely be noted as having arrived. I'm gonna open this to public comment. There is a three-minute public comment time frame. If you're here to comment on this issue you'll make your way to the podium. You'll announce your name and location in which you live or do business from in the city of Lewiston and then you'll have three minutes at the microphone. Public comment is now open. You would make some indication that you're moving to the podium. This is last call. Okay and I'm closing public comment. Great any final discussion from the board? Then I would be seeking a motion to be made. Okay [15:14] Speaker J (unidentified): Okay, I'll make a motion that the application submitted by Julia Sleeper of Tree Street Youth for the construction of a new 7,250 square foot single story educational building on an approximately.3 acre parcel at 143-145 House Street meets all the necessary criteria contained in the zoning and land use code including but not limited to article 13 section 4 approval criteria and that the approval be granted with the following conditions one the applicant will coordinate with Public Works on the Sewer and water connections to prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall provide documentation demonstrating financial capacity. Three prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall provide staff with documentation from the registry of deeds verifying the granting of the 15-foot sewer easement. For prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant provides staff with documentation from the registry of deeds verifying that the Lots have been combined. Five prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall demonstrate that sufficient off-street parking on-site or off-site through an agreement has been provided meeting the standards of article 12 section 417 e 6. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy a professional engineer shall provide a stamped statement indicating all site improvements have been completed in accordance with the approved plan. Thank you. Is there a [16:58] Shanna Cox: SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT. THANKS. Any further discussion on the motion? Call [17:05] Speaker C (unidentified): THE ROLL PLEASE. Michael Marcot no. Penthea Burns yes. Zoe Lidstrom yes. Lucy Bisson yes. Shanna Cox yes. Alex Pine yes. [17:15] Shanna Cox: Heidi Burtels yes. Would the no vote like to make a note of the rationale for their [17:21] Speaker G (unidentified): vote for the record? Just generally concerns with abutted notices arching financial capacity and school [17:31] Speaker H (unidentified): department. Thank you. Thank you to the applicant. Good luck. Thank you. [17:36] Speaker K (unidentified): Yes thank you. Thank you. Our [17:40] Shanna Cox: next agenda item is the planning board sending a recommendation to the city council for the creation of a contract zone at 860 Lisbon Street formerly the Martel School. Thanks. [17:53] Speaker E (unidentified): Thank you Craig. This one's you again. Okay so Martell School Senior Housing LP has submitted a proposed contract rezoning for the property at 860 Lisbon Street. Properties 3.2 acre parcel located in the neighborhood business zoning district bounded by Marston Street Lisbon Street and East Avenue. The applicant proposed a change to zoning from the neighborhood business zoning district to the community business zoning district. The land and sorry the land use and the space in bulk allowance for the CB zone, the community business zone, will apply, except for the front side and rear setback requirements, which will all be reduced to five feet. The contract rezoning will allow Martel School Senior Housing LP to create a new lot for the purpose of introducing a commercial use where they drive through on the south edge of the property adjacent to Lisbon Street. So, you know, the memo continues. In general, staff's position is favorable to the contract zone for the purpose of the surrounding area. The surrounding zoning districts are all already community business, and the change, sort of the core of the change, will be to reduce the setback requirements, these going down to five feet. These will still allow for, at the time when it comes to development review, these will still allow for all landscaping requirements to be met, any sort of buffering or visual buffering requirements to be met. Again, in general, referring to the Comprehensive Plan, Legacy Lewiston Comprehensive Plan, the contract zone will allow for more or different types, for broader range of commercial uses, and will make it more likely to maintain a consistent commercial corridor along Lisbon Street, which is one of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Lisbon Street and Sabata Street, those commercial corridors really is the city's goal, but it also is reflected in the Comprehensive Plan. Sorry, I started jumping around a little bit, but essentially staff is favorable to this contract zone and happy to address any sort of questions from the board. [20:42] Shanna Cox: Thanks so much. Are there questions from the board? [20:49] Speaker C (unidentified): You said that the front side and rear setbacks will be reduced to five feet. What from what was it? [20:55] Speaker E (unidentified): So the neighborhood business zone currently is a 10-foot, I can actually let me double check that. Okay, so the neighborhood business front setback and side and rear are both 10 feet. The, comparing it with the community business zone, the front setback would be, and I'll find that in a second, 15 feet. So the community business would be a 15 foot front setback and the side and rear would be 10 feet. So essentially if we're going from the community business zone and then reducing those requirements, it would be a reduction from 15 feet to 5 feet for the front setback and from 10 feet to five feet for the side and rear setback. Because that property, it's on three sides, it bounds, you know, Lisbon, east of and Morrison Street. Technically we would view all three of those sides as a front setback. Okay, thank you. Other [22:28] Shanna Cox: Questions I have a process question. If the board acts favorably today granting the contract rezone, it does not mean that we have approved a specific user application, which is forthcoming at a future date. [22:46] Speaker E (unidentified): That's accurate. Yeah, that's right. Any sort of proposal that comes from this contract zone would need to then come to you for development review. You would be reviewing any specific project proposals. Yeah, and that's true in part because it [23:04] Shanna Cox: is a contract rezone, contract zone proposed application, regardless of what's being proposed. [23:11] Speaker E (unidentified): I don't know if that's necessarily true, but it would be the introduction of a new commercial building would, which would automatically need to be reviewed by you. Okay, because we dealt with this [23:21] Shanna Cox: with, I'm just trying to be historically accurate for the members of the board. We had the suggestion for a contract rezone that was being suggested by the city and not the applicant, future applicant and owner of the property. And here we have a current owner of the property naming themselves as a future phase three applicant requesting a contract rezone. Accurate, it was Charles Street, if you'd like me to like narrow that down for you, with Charles Street, this is the Charles Street contract rezone that was proposed in multiple phases. Okay, yeah, certainly the only [24:02] Speaker D (unidentified): thing, I mean, with the change of the setbacks, you would be committed to that with a future design. So if you know that would be a limiting factor. Thank you, Mr. [24:17] Shanna Cox: Mercant, and then Mr. Pine. [24:18] Speaker G (unidentified): My initial question, Bill, I heard some of this discussion. What was the zoning prior to [24:27] Speaker E (unidentified): neighborhood business, prior to neighbor, oh, was it community business? Well, it's neighborhood business currently, and the property is surrounded by other properties that are in the community [24:40] Speaker D (unidentified): business zone. I don't know, but my recollection is that this board and the council a couple of years ago rezoned neighboring parcels and didn't rezone this one. You wanted to wait until an applicant and owner of this property came forward with a proposal. This one did get rezoned, that's [25:01] Speaker G (unidentified): why I'm trying to remember what it was prior to. I doubt it was community business because [25:07] Speaker E (unidentified): of what that would allow. The, so the neighborhood business is a new zone that was created a few years ago. It replaced a lot of the previous, I believe the office residential zone. So it might have been, or, and then the actual, the underlying space in bulk requirements of that zone didn't change. We just, we just changed the name for it. That is my, that's my recollection. I wasn't sure if it was [25:38] Speaker G (unidentified): io and i could remember or that's more likely what it was prior to there was an attempt i believe in 2020 to make this commercial business it was before the planning board and planning board said no i took community business at the time because of what the property could be used for under that zoning that would be the entire parcel which my understanding in this agenda item looking to go from neighborhood business to community business saying that right commercial business community business And then making some slight alterations in there for a contract zone. I might seem to be jumping around even in my own mind, but this parcel had once been considered for a fire station. And the rationale, not everybody agrees, some people believe it would be a good location for a fire station. My opinion at the time was that corner, busy corner, I wouldn't want a public safety building there. No way, you got emergency vehicles coming in and out. Now, likewise, I don't like the idea of what was suggested here, some sort of fast-proof drive-through on that corner. I can just imagine the congestion on that corner as a result of this. And I may be jumping ahead, but when phases were mentioned, I don't know if that was the Charles Street project specifically, but if we've approved and maybe re-approved phases 1 and 2, and I know that 3 was sort of the rest of the property, and I was wondering what was going to happen there when that wasn't part of the previous development reviews. But now I see how this has been mutated ever since my time on the city council when we were looking to keep the facade of the school and plenty of green space for public recreation. This is just mutated in so many ways, and I don't believe for the good of the community. Thanks. [27:58] Shanna Cox: Other comments from the board before I open it public comment. Alex. Sorry. Thank you. No problem. [28:07] Speaker L (unidentified): So you know, looking at this, my in reading the memo, it sounds like one of the primary motivators is creating this commercial lot, that's that's sort of the primary motive for the contract zone. It also sounds like there's also going to be some advantages for the housing development in terms of being able to maybe increase the number of units that are on site, not necessarily a bad thing. For staff, is there a procedural reason why we would do the contract zone before the lot is divided, or is this just sort of showing where the subset of the [28:44] Speaker D (unidentified): lot would be for the commercial use. Yes, the lot division doesn't require city review because it's a single lot that would be created. So they could do it in either order. I think for them, they want to know that the use and the setbacks are allowed before they would move forward with that. Got it. [29:09] Speaker L (unidentified): That makes sense. And then the commercial lot that could potentially be split out, how does that compare depth-wise to the other commercial lots on that section of Lisbon Street? It seems pretty shallow just looking at like Google Street View, but I'm wondering if that would, you know, thinking about this in terms of a structural thing, we're creating a lot, we're creating a space that will be developed and probably redeveloped over time. You know, I would hate for us to create a lot that is just like extremely limited and what it could be over the years. And I believe we even did do when we did Rezoning on this section of Lisbon Street, I think we did have sort of a discussion about like lot depth because there were a couple of like funny spots. So just don't want to. [30:01] Shanna Cox: While we were definitely rezoning and addressing some of the office and industrial like mixed uses and trying to streamline the number of clear zones that we had so that it was more business friendly and developer friendly, like that was the overarching goals of the work. And we were focused on a couple of commercial business alleys or through ways if you would, East Ave being one, Lisbon Street being one, Sabatis main. So this came up. Your recollection is as good as far as I can tell. [30:32] Speaker G (unidentified): the main motivation came from city council to increase the depths of these lots because they were like commercial alleys, thoroughfares would be a better word, thoroughfares. I don't know when east avenue came into the picture, but I know that it's been thrown in since one of the three major. [30:53] Shanna Cox: arterials were the original scheme. It was during our during our initial discussion and for the remaining discussions. We approached it because of its connectivity between those exact arterials, the way that it connected Lisbon out to Sabatus and then people would cut Russell over to Maine. So that we were the ones who pulled it. [31:14] Speaker G (unidentified): In my concern there is the whole effort was about creating more depth to think it was to at least 100. I think I don't know if 200 was part of the mathematics, but this seems to be going backwards. I don't know if the contract zone is for the entire original parcel or if it's just the piece in front. As far as more units, I don't know how you can get more units out of taking some of the [31:42] Shanna Cox: geography. It's the height, it's the going 30 feet to 50 feet to be able to get [31:47] Speaker G (unidentified): more up. Okay, so it was, so last week was 30, with this passage it'll be 50 I think [31:55] Shanna Cox: if I'm understanding it correctly. The last one we reviewed was phase two, which is a parcel that's already been approved, and any new construction that we would see at a future proposal that would be part of the phase three would have the additional 20-ish feet, which is even closer [32:11] Speaker G (unidentified): to the corner because the first two phases start at the boundary of the Shaw's. That's what I'm [32:17] Shanna Cox: trying to get a handle on, is that the last, I think you closed it all the way out the PDF, yeah, and where that contract rezone went up. I know that the applicant will get a chance to answer some of them. Yeah, so can you, can you zoom in like that much? This is naming, so the proposed contract rezone, can you over there, losing streets on the left, is that, is that block on the corner on the left? Great, I'm just, this is Shawn's cool, so I'm just going to name this box that says proposed contract zone five foot side and rear setback distance, and so is it indicating the [33:08] Speaker D (unidentified): entire thing? Yes, when the applicant had come to staff asking about the contract zone, we recommended instead of having a contract zone for just a portion of the lot, that it would be for the whole lot. At that time we weren't talking about a subdivision with them, but it made sense to us with the, instead of having a piece of it contract zoned, it would be all of it, and in this case having the extra height for the third phase of the housing is beneficial to them, so that's why they want the contract zone to be more than just the commercial parcel. [33:42] Shanna Cox: Right, so just to be really crystal clear about a question I think I'm asking, right, the, if approved today it will apply to the entire lot, of which we've already heard phase one and two developments, and those expanded opportunities could retroactively be placed on the phase one and two that we've already approved, because it comes an underlying condition of the lot and not the developments that we've reviewed. Is that accurate? Yeah, so once you make a referral. [34:14] Speaker D (unidentified): To Council, it takes two readings and it would take 30 days to be effective if passed by the council. But once that happens, they could come in for an amendment to phase one and two to utilize the extra height or the, you know, the difference in the setbacks. And would that trigger another review by the planning board? It depends on what the change is. You know, if it's like a sidewalk going into a setback, we probably wouldn't consider that significant enough change to come to you. If it's an additional height to the building, you know, another story, then we would probably bring that back to you as a significant change. Yeah, Mr. [34:51] Speaker G (unidentified): Murkoff, that changes my perspective a little bit, but just a perspective, because I was thinking that area between the shallow outline, which is phase one and two I believe, and the parcel on the corner, which I don't, you're saying it's all one parcel again, jumping ahead. Maybe I'm curious as to whether that commercial section would be owned by Lewis and Hounsing Authority or sold for the purposes of generating revenue for the rest of the property, and like Shannon just mentioned, if the 50-foot height allowance would encompass the entire rectangle there and not just a portion of the rectangle to what I originally thought, how does that compare to the Marsden Street apartments as far as height? Will it overshadow those apartments? Will they be similar in height? [35:49] Shanna Cox: And with a simple nod, because you haven't been called on yet and we do need to go to public comment and allow you up, is that a question you were positioned to answer, applicant? Thanks for the folks not near a microphone. He does not know the height of the Marston Street apartments. Okay, I'd like to give us an opportunity to engage the applicant as well and I know that there's further questions. Are there any other questions that are specifically [36:15] Speaker L (unidentified): just for staff? I just wanted to wrap up the question around lot depth because I don't think we finished that discussion. That's all I was asking for. I don't know that we're [36:25] Shanna Cox: going to get more answers either, so did you have another version of a question or a proposed answer? [36:31] Speaker L (unidentified): You can check for, check for accuracy. Yep, the question was, how does the lot depth that's proposed compare to surrounding lot depth on the street? And I think we pulled up the map and then we went in a different direction, so I was just hoping that we could answer that so we can say [36:49] Speaker E (unidentified): The current standards for the neighborhood business zone and the community business zone would be the same requirement for lot well lot depth. They could have the same lot size regardless of NB or CB. That's due to the required frontage, so it's basically a hundred feet of frontage is required, and it's required that you have in a long way of saying you have to have a circle equal to the with a diameter equal to the minimum required frontage, so if it's a hundred feet of frontage it has to be also be a hundred feet in depth at one point, and so you could have the same lot size for an NV zone as for the as for a [37:34] Speaker L (unidentified): CB so more or less, but let's keep going. Well cuz I'm just making sure you're [37:42] Shanna Cox: talking about lot debt not setback debt, talking about lot depth. Okay yeah, any other questions before I invite the applicant up for this conversation? I'd like to invite the applicant up for this conversation. Please find your way to the front, grab yourself a seat, and introduce yourself. Thank [38:12] Speaker M (unidentified): you, I'd [38:14] Penn Lindsay: like to introduce yourself. I am Penn Lindsay, nice to see you all again, development director with Lewiston Housing, and I'm Craig Burgess with [38:22] Shanna Cox: Acorn Engineering. Is there any proactive statements or presentation that you'd [38:29] Penn Lindsay: like to make? Sure, I can start. I mean, I think that Craig summary obviously was a great one, and I think I would just like to add to that to say that we are looking to create a parcel which is in keeping with the commercial corridor on Lisbon Street in that area. We are not actually looking to add additional units. The plan for this parcel was always three phases of development with 44 units each, and so we are looking to we actually already have phases one and to approved as you know, and we will be coming in front of this board with a phase 3 proposal later on this spring with the plan of eventually putting in our application to Main Housing for low-income housing tax credits in September, so that phase would also be 44 units, but as you've discussed the plan would be for that phase 3 building to go up by one story, slightly smaller footprint, same number of units that we'd always been planning, a slightly higher building by one story. That parcel as I'm sure you know has some grade change and The grade slopes down toward Lisbon Street, and so a four-story building down on the Lisbon Street side of that would actually be about the same total height. It'll be appear to be the same height as the buildings that we're proposing to build in phases one or planning to build in phases one and two. The other thing I would mention is that with respect to the contract zone being for the entire parcel, we are immanently about to start construction on phase one. It is a three-story building. Phase two is slightly behind phase one but attaches to it, so when all is said and done, phases one and two will appear to be one building. It will also be three stories. So we're not looking to create this contract zone in order to retroactively go back and make any changes to phases one or two, to the height or the setbacks or anything like that. All we are really looking to do is make a change to bring this parcel so that it is consistent with all of the parcels around it. What it will allow us to do is that phase three building to go up by one story, and what it will also allow us to do is to have a little bit more flexibility for a commercial parcel, excuse me, out on Lisbon Street, bringing those setbacks down. But as Craig mentioned, we would still have the room and ability to add all the required landscaping and make sure that the lot is in keeping with all the other commercial requirements of the zone. [41:32] Speaker H (unidentified): I do [41:36] Speaker J (unidentified): have a concern. Going back to the last meeting we had when you came for phase two and some changes to phase one, and you know we did some fiddling around with the lens, there was much discussion about pedestrian access along Marston Street going down from phases, all three phases at this point, to pick up the bus on Lisbon Street. My main concern is if there is a commercial entity, no matter whether it's a drive up or another kind, and our little old ladies and gentlemen are walking across that driveway to go get a bus on Lisbon Street, that is not safe. Either somehow or other, you're going to have to maybe get the bus route to be changed so that it comes up Marston Street into that, you know, the turnaround or whatever, but I have a big reservation because of the pedestrian access that way. Thank [42:58] Penn Lindsay: you other [43:01] Shanna Cox: Comments or questions from the board? Okay, I'm gonna open it up for public comment. Please make your way to the podium, say your name, location that connects you to this topic. I'll leave it open for a moment. Public comment on this agenda item. Camera close it. Final questions or comments from the board? I would like to name my concerns about walkability. We name that, you know, walkability for people who are living there in phase one during phase two's construction, let alone phase three's construction. Are already going to see some complications with the Marston Street sidewalk. We named that as an area and condition for you to be mindful of during the construction phase. I think introducing additional automobile traffic at the mouth of Marston Street to a potentially walkable development neighborhood, you look at the other apartments and the way that does or doesn't support that walkability goal is a concern. Did ask about the process because I think there's opportunity for you to address it. Before we review an actual application for an actual development that does or does not have actual increase in automobile traffic. And so I name that. I do appreciate hearing both that we would see any application for an update to phase one or phase two and your intent to not change that to get started with construction, which is exciting. But I am naming that concern. I know that it'll be a concern we'll address with a future phase three application, but I hope you're hearing it from a couple of us. And I think I see some nodding too, so I think there are some artful ways and that you might or might not require some public works input based on Marsden Street's design. Mr. Pine, so. [45:02] Speaker L (unidentified): Hypothetically, if this contract zone was not approved tonight, how would that affect phase three? Is this something that you're sort of viewing as sort of integral role to those plans to make it that project financially viable? Yes. [45:15] Penn Lindsay: We would like to, we have a lot of steps before we can get our main housing application put in. This is step number one. As soon as this gets approved, then we can move into step of designing the building. It would just be a conceptual design at this point, but those plans do have to go in as part of our application to main housing. We've also got to come back to the planning board to get approval, because without that planning board approval, our application to main housing it's not competitive. So the. short answer is if we if we don't get this step approved then it does create some challenges in terms of getting an application together for the [45:53] Speaker L (unidentified): september round and there's only one round a year yep and then one other question the so you know there's a dotted outline is that for is that just phase one and two that we've already approved and there's sort of no dotted line for, so three, I'm guessing, would be half the size of that dotted line someplace in between the commercial property and the dotted line? Correct. Okay, got it. Yeah, I still, sort of echoing my fellow board members here, just looking at the narrowness of that commercial lot, thinking about, well, where reasonably would you end up putting a driveway apron? It seems like, yeah, you're packing a lot of automotive traffic into a tight spot you're you know the main thoroughfare you're you're dumping out vehicles into sort of the intersection where there's already turn lanes and things like that [46:43] Shanna Cox: i mean maybe it comes in off lisbon street and exits off east and cuts through maybe right maybe [46:50] Speaker L (unidentified): right but like in any case just because of the location like no matter how you slice and dice it some you're either entering or exiting in a complex spot yeah and i guess i could [47:02] Shanna Cox: unless of course you're utilizing Marston Street which brings our concerns [47:05] Speaker L (unidentified): about the walkability well exactly that 's also complex spot in its own way right you know it's like complex because it's a small residential street complex because it's you know multi-lane turn lane situation complex because it's where you know you're you're turning on to a main thoroughfare and I think it you know my concern is maybe tangential to what we're talking about tonight we're really just talking about a contract zone but it's really in relation to how this lot will be subdivided in the future and i wonder if there's a better way to divide it that will make a more commercially viable lot i'm not sure what that is but just again looking at it where it's sort of interfacing with everything it seems like there could be challenges well and [47:50] Shanna Cox: what i come back to is it within our purview to help tell a property owner how to commercially subdivide and make the most of their property and I unfortunately do not [48:02] Speaker L (unidentified): Believe it's in our purview, yeah. And I understand that. I think, I think, just thinking about, you know, what our decision tonight is, sort of getting, you know, laying the groundwork for that decision to be made, even though that's not our purview. We're not, you know, just again, sort of like, what's the vision here? What are we, what are we thinking about? But I do hear what the applicant and saying about this is making it consistent with all the lots around it, and I think that generally is a good thing. because from my recollection the lot next to it is also a contract zone and that contract zone is to make it more similar to what 's on the rest of lisbon street am i remembering this correctly so the shaw's plaza it's a contract zone and it was set up to be you know more business intensive than the underlying zone that was there when it was originally done and that contract zone is congruent more congruent with what is on the Lisbon Street corridor if I was [49:04] Speaker D (unidentified): just gonna paraphrase that 's probably true although I haven't read the show's contract zone okay the commercial [49:15] Speaker M (unidentified): Use lot that shown on the plan, that is a hundred feet in total width, so that is compliant with the ordnance standards. We did take a look at that, and then commercial lots tend to have a high traffic yield, which if that was the case, it would be subject to a main dot traffic movement permit, which would be part of that future site plan or development review application. Yep, Ms. Burns, and then Mr. Murcock, yeah. [49:43] Speaker J (unidentified): I simply want to echo the concerns around the pedestrian walkability that, you know, first arose at the last meeting that we saw you all here for, and really hope that we see some good progress on that when we next see you again. Yeah, especially given the design of who the housing is for and safety issues. Thanks, Mr. Mercotte. When. [50:14] Speaker G (unidentified): It comes to when we're talking about zoning changes or contract zones, yes, we. [50:20] Shanna Cox: Do have, oh, just a point of clarity, I wasn't saying we don't have purview over the contract zone. We don't have purview over how to tell the landowner to best make use of their property. We can't give them total direction, no. [50:36] Speaker G (unidentified): I'm creating a commercial zone here, community business, to be specific, on a corner such as this, which does not compare to Shaw's, and Shaw's is not on a corner on either side of it. It's not on the corner of East Avenue and Lisbon, it's not on the corner of East Avenue and Pleasant. It that's why it has the multiple entrances and exits, two entrances and three exits, so when life safety is at play. And yeah, I wasn't thinking about the pedestrian, but the minute Lucy started talking, I knew what the issue was, all right, because I remember that too from the previous meeting, and that it would be a concern no matter how you're going to ingress and egress from that property, if it was built out in some sort of drive-thru. I mentioned the shawls. Future road designs. I mean, State Road, if DOT gets to deal with traffic. I mean, if there's ever need to widen East Avenue and or Lisbon Street better low traffic, it's a real handcuff with five foot setback, which would have been 15 under one situation and 10 under the other, forget which was which. Yeah, I can't support this, thanks. [52:09] Shanna Cox: Any other discussion from the board? I have a follow-up question for [52:13] Speaker G (unidentified): staff. Would you like to call that again? I just wanted to thank you for making it clear on the height, because that was my concern, we're going to go higher in phases one and two. I had forgotten about the change in elevation, but quite significant, so all three phases would probably be pretty close in height, that's right, which would probably be pretty close to Marston as well. [52:40] Penn Lindsay: That's right, that's right, there's three stories with a with a gable roof, so they their height actually goes higher than we would have a flat roof. [52:50] Speaker G (unidentified): Thank you. [52:54] Shanna Cox: Thanks, I'm gonna ask Shelly to pull up the contract zone layer of the GIS so that we can look at the area corner parcels of the four intersections of East and Lisbon and review how they're currently zoned and light of Mr. [53:09] Speaker H (unidentified): are caught concerns, I'm also intrigued at the zoning around, you may find more contract zones [53:17] Speaker G (unidentified): than I gave credit for, another one that was discussed with Shaw's, but I'm wondering if [53:23] Shanna Cox: they're contract zoned or if they're commercial business all the way around, so let's stick it to [53:28] Speaker G (unidentified): the map, I think the promenade mall might very well be a contract, that's not a good view. [53:45] Shanna Cox: Yeah, so for our own naming rights, Gendron Drive is directly across from where East dead ends into Lisbon, and as part of that intersection, because it's now a road essentially, it goes into a couple of businesses, and I think it's Dave's Way is the name, thank you, I know we got to name it in this planning board, and so we would see this intersection, this intersection and that intersection are already CB, yes, and it would be identified if it was contract rezoned, yeah, the red stripes is the contract. Zones. Okay, so we see that back here then, that's the Shaw's that cuts between the NCAA and the Envy. Yes, so the remaining three sides of that four-way intersection are already CV. That's right, and not contract re-zoned. Thanks for making room, but that's what [54:50] Speaker G (unidentified): makes an entire intersection very intensive. Yeah, all right, any other questions? If not, I'm gonna [55:00] Shanna Cox: seek a motion. Okay. [55:03] Speaker J (unidentified): A motion, is there one? Sure, I'll make a motion pursuant to Article 7 Section 4 and Article 17, Section 5 of the Zoning and Land Use Code to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the request by Martel School Senior Housing LP for a contract zone amendment for the property located at 860 Lisbon Street to utilize the land use and space and bulk allowances of the Community Business Zoning District with the exception of reduced front side and rear setback requirements to five feet. So [55:42] Shanna Cox: moved. Is there a second? A second, thank you. Discussion? That's [55:49] Speaker L (unidentified): fine. Yeah, I would just like to state for the record I did look on Google Maps and compared sort of proposed lots I, which again, we're not really debating tonight, but I think overall it's great that we're going to make this more congruent from a zoning perspective, and I'm really in support of this from that point. I am concerned with how this lot is going to be developed in the future. We have the space constraints needed for the housing plus the commercial. It seems like it's going to result in a lot that is pretty small compared to the other sort of comparable use lots on that corner, so I have some concerns there, but I like the fact that we are actually going forward with cleaning up the zoning in the area. Thanks Mr. [56:40] Speaker G (unidentified): Marcotte. Cleaning up the zoning. This was always supposed to be housing. That's why I supported what I did back several years ago when that particular evening got rather intense. And senior housing, mobility challenge brings up the issue of pedestrian walkability and bus stops. Really, Days Away may be considered a four-way intersection, really a three-way intersection. That drive goes into a great big complex once known as the Promenade Mall. Being something that went from probably office residential with a school on it, what was supposed to be senior housing is now going to have a component of it that is community business intensifying commercial in that area when there's plenty of commercial opportunity that's under utilized in the promenade mall the lewiston mall and other sections because the lewiston mall is subdivided now into different little geographies which are owned by different entities. So, that's my view on that whole thing. We need to create some neighborhood, and that's why it was called Neighborhood Business at one time, a neighborhood feel, because I live in that area, and everybody there and some older people that are there on Rosedale and Arcadia and Summit on the other side, alongside side the promenade mall they don't need to feel as though they're boxed in by even more traffic more congestion we had we've had plenty of fatalities from the right along that section. I remember one particularly early morning someone's not trying to walk across from the opposite side of Burger King towards Burger King and yeah this started out as a housing project that's what it was supposed to be not something mutated it could be considered bait and switch thanks. [59:09] Shanna Cox: i have a i have a question for staff about the lot sizes when we look at the reduced front side and rear can you reiterate craig what you said about what's considered front and in these lots and where the depth loss really is happening versus what it would have been just for my own sake. [59:31] Speaker E (unidentified): well because I think I understand your question so because that lot is has three sides that are facing a public street each of those would be viewed as a front setback and instead of the 15 feet front setback that would otherwise be in place with a community business zone that would be a previous numbers [59:55] Shanna Cox: numbers, you said were front numbers all along, right? You weren't giving us rear setbacks, comparing them to front setbacks, because essentially they're all fronts. I'm just double checking. Yes. Linda's nodding very encouragingly, and I appreciate that. Thank you, Linda. [1:00:11] Speaker E (unidentified): I agree with Linda. [1:00:12] Shanna Cox: I just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly in your question. Okay. I'm going to put in my two cents, which is I believe that the housing that we want to see is partially achieved by this contract rezone, and that's why I'm going to vote in favor of it, because of the steps that you named and the concerns that we've almost universally shared around walkability. Highly encourage the application that we come forward to proactively address those, because I think you all struggle with this board approving something that intensifies activity and commercial use that does not address some of those pedestrian challenges. And given the timeline you said, I don't know that you're going to want to do that twice. Okay, any final, can we call the roll? Please call the roll. Michael Marcotte? No. Penthea Burns? Yes. Zoe Lidstrom? [1:01:04] Speaker C (unidentified): Yes. Lucy Bisson? Yes. Shanna Cox? Yes. Amy Smith? Yes. Alex Pine? Yes. Heidi Bertels? No, don't need it. All right. [1:01:13] Mark Lee: Not voting, not this one. [1:01:15] Shanna Cox: Great job not voting, yeah, well done. [1:01:17] Speaker C (unidentified): Just keeping you on your toes, you know. Exactly. [1:01:19] Shanna Cox: Mr. Marcotte, you made a couple of comments, both in discussion and before the motion was made, about why you were going to vote no. Is that satisfactory for the record? Thank you. All right, we're going to move to item C, the planning board. [1:01:31] Speaker J (unidentified): Thank you all, thank you, looking forward to seeing you again. [1:01:35] Shanna Cox: The planning board sending a recommendation to the city council for amendments to the zoning and land use code article 11, for changes to daycare, mobile home into allowed uses, and dimensional space and bulk requirements. [1:01:49] Speaker D (unidentified): So these changes are something that you saw a few months back, and you had sent to the council for review with a number of other ordinance changes. You'll recall that at their meeting when they looked at article 11, they were concerned about adding a minimum building height in the NCB zoning district. They passed the other ordinance changes, and then on February 9th we had a discussion about this, and the board determined that you wanted to send back the changes proposed and take out a minimum building height for the NCB district, to get those other changes passed quickly, and then we would revisit whether an NCB minimum height made sense and in what fashion you wanted to put that forward in the future. So that's what this ordinance changes, it's pretty straightforward, it's it's stuff you've seen before. Thank [1:02:55] Shanna Cox: you so much. Questions from the board? Can you bring us up speed, any conversation council had, have they discussed this in the meantime? I know [1:03:09] Speaker D (unidentified): No, not since they didn't pass it on January 20th or, sorry, what was it you said, February 9th? But that was our me February 3rd is when they passed the other changes and didn't pass this change. Yeah, questions? [1:03:30] Shanna Cox: From the board? [1:03:32] Speaker C (unidentified): Comments welcome to Joey. So we're just doing what we had discussed doing, which was removing that 20 foot so that we could pass all the other ones and then send it back to council. [1:03:43] Shanna Cox: And this shows that which we discussed and recommended that day, and now it is a way that we can hold a public hearing on it. So I'm going to get to that then, if that's okay. Question? No? All right, then I'm going to open public comment on this agenda item related to definitions and the land use table. If you have a comment on this item, you would make your way to the podium where you'd be given three minutes to speak. I'll give you one more option. No? Looked like some. Okay. All right, then I'm going to close public comment, bring it back to the board. Any final thoughts or discussion before we seek a motion? Seeing none, I would seek a motion. I'll make a motion. Thanks. [1:04:37] Speaker C (unidentified): PURSUANT TO ARTICLE SEVEN SECTION FOUR AND ARTICLE SEVENTEEN SECTION FIVE OF THE ZONING AND LAND USE CODE TO SEND A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR AMENDMENTS TO APPENDIX A ZONING AND LAND USE CODE ARTICLE 11 DISTRICT REGULATIONS INCLUDING REPEALING AND REPLACING THE LAND USE TABLE AND SPACE AND BULK TABLE. SECOND. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. [1:05:02] Shanna Cox: Any further discussion from the board? Call [1:05:07] Speaker C (unidentified): the roll. Michael Marcotte, no. Panthea Burns, yes. Zoe Lidstrom, yes. Lucy Bisson, yes. Shanna Cox, yes. Amy Smith, yes. Alex Pine, yes. Would you like to record [1:05:21] Speaker G (unidentified): a rationale for your noble? We worked really hard on this and settled on the 24th minimum height restriction. It is NCB and I'm not looking to pave the way for LV, whatever number that was, so that we can put very little tiny houses in the middle of NCB under utilizing, I forget the word right now, but we're trying to create infill and make the best use of our limited land. This does quite the opposite just to satisfy at least five members of the council. Great. [1:06:07] Shanna Cox: So we're gonna move on to public hearing D, the Planning Board sending a recommendation to the City Council for amendments to the zoning and land use code article 11 for a change to the no name pond overlay district. Shelly? So [1:06:23] Speaker D (unidentified): On March 9th, the board initiated a change to the zoning land use code article 11 section 24 for the no-name pond conservation overlay district, and then last week at the March 16th meeting, the board discussed potential language and also just became familiar with that, because we really didn't talk about it on March 9th. So staff has gone back and attempted to address concerns and questions that were raised and has revised to the recommended language. Essentially the way the change stands now it would there would be a required 50-foot buffer to development and land use activities around water courses that are natural or are exiting a stormwater treatment area, so treated water from a stormwater facility, but there would not be that buffer around stormwater conveyance leading to stormwater treatment areas, yes. [1:07:38] Shanna Cox: Mr. Pine, I just felt like Shelly and ended abruptly, was there anything, like it just felt like we were maybe headed somewhere else and I didn't get there. No, not really, no, you're done. Yeah, I'm done. Okay, great, Mr. Pine. [1:07:50] Speaker L (unidentified): Sorry, this has changed pretty significantly from our last meeting, right, the proposed text change, the text change is quite as quite a bit, yeah. [1:08:02] Speaker D (unidentified): I think it gets at what the intent was, but with further discussion with our stormwater engineer, the clarification came that really we're looking to have the buffer around natural streams that are headed down to the lake and areas where the clean water is going to the lake, but not like your ditches along the road that are going to the stormwater pond. Okay, well reading [1:08:32] Speaker L (unidentified): this, the proposed language that we had the last meeting seemed a little closer to making sure there was buffers around, or to me read making sure there is a buffer around any man-made or natural ditch that's heading directly into the body of water. This reads like anything that's a natural stream heading into the body of water will have a buffer, but anything that's man-made doesn't is not included in, but like if you have a man-made thing that is heading into the body of water, functionally how is that different between the natural stream and that seems different than the intent we talked about last time. So yeah, I'm wondering did something change from our city engineer in terms of how he was thinking about it, or no, I think it was more of a clarification. [1:09:24] Speaker D (unidentified): For me, understanding so we don't build swales that go to the lake, right? So when the water leaves the pond, there's an overflow and the water then naturally goes over the landscape. We don't channelize it to get it to the lake. So it, we wouldn't really consider the outlet of the pond to be a swale. It's the outlet and the water would flow over the land the way it would if it was going down a hillside or something like that naturally. So that was the clarification as far as like what's typically like engineering practice for what's built for stormwater. [1:10:03] Shanna Cox: I'm just acknowledging so that they know that I see Ms. Lindstrom and then so I think what I heard was the question is this seems significantly different and excludes man-made anything and what I think I heard you say was the outlet doesn't count. I'm still not sure and maybe there's a map that describes to us where there are other man-made drainage areas that might be in proximity of the pond, not from but to the pond, of which this would be excluding and that's a question that I'm just sitting with, Ms. Lindstrom. [1:10:42] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, kind of building on that, I understand that you said that you don't construct ditches or swales or put culverts that drain directly to the pond or to other natural water bodies. Is that a matter of practice or is that like there never could be a manmade drainage infrastructure SUCH AS DITCHES, SWALES, CULVERTS, STORMWATER PONDS DUE TO ORDINANCE OR LAW? IS THAT BASE COVERED? IF WE DON'T CLARIFY THIS STATEMENT HERE, ARE WE SAFE? OR COULD THERE BE AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF SOMETHING DRAINING WITHOUT A BUFFER? OR INTENDED, PERHAPS, WITHOUT A BUFFER THAT SHOULD HAVE HAD A buffer because of where it was draining to particularly this language changes [1:11:39] Shanna Cox: clarification from the engineer. [1:11:42] Speaker J (unidentified): This has muddied the waters considerably in my opinion, okay? Last time it was not specific enough I think, but this doesn't, this is not clarifying what we wanted to say. What we're supposed to be saying is that there's got to be a buffer for any natural, man-made or whatever water source going into the pond. We don't have to have a buffer if that water's directional, whatever you want to call it, is going into a treatment pond, but that's not what this is saying, not to me, and I do not like this language at all. I don't think it's clarifying, I think it's muddied the waters and if that's the language I won't vote for it is [1:12:47] Shanna Cox: there anyone we haven't heard from yet? I'd like to speak what you're discussing. [1:12:54] Speaker I (unidentified): covers pretty much all of it but I did want to point out the use of etc in a document that could be used in some kind of legal matter if somebody's coming before this board or takes the city to court over a storm water ponds really big rivers etc yeah so i think that specifically was a poor choice but i think in general yeah it's very confusing and i'm really looking forward to some of the public comments on this to see what they [1:13:18] Speaker G (unidentified): think about this yeah mr murcock well i was looking for more clarification like i said last week, understanding the science a little bit more. I went away for the weekend and came back to all kinds of interesting news while I was away. One, a water main break. Which reminded me that No Name Pond is our emergency backup should something fail. From Lake Auburn to here or even something that's on this side of the river but interconnected and we had an emergency and needed to go find some so i'm not looking forward to having phosphorus run into the lake so i want to understand more about like the soil cleaning certain chemicals i'm not getting clarification on this retention pond a swale or whatever it is on a parcel that yeah somebody wants to develop it so we're going to jump through hoops for one developed property but we're not really addressing the potential for I was looking back at last week's map and it looks like a dotted with pretty heavy arrows what goes along a ditch goes into that pond then this flow out of the pond none whether it's on the surface or if it gets to be enough volume you find its way down into the other little brook stream river none of which does eventually go into the pond that pond has been cleaned up considerably over the last 30 years under management and don't want to go backwards just to develop one parcel out there thank [1:14:59] Shanna Cox: you ms lundstrom did you have something else [1:15:02] Speaker C (unidentified): yeah i did i think what i had hit on in last week's discussion that what this is really getting at is not the important part is not what type of drainage way it is but it's where it drains to and so the first underlying portion of this where it says retained in a natural vegetated state that discharges directly to a river stream like or wetland does retain that part but the second sentence neglects to mention it and I think that is where some of the confusion is coming in it's like it's a red Herring to think of it about, think about whether it's a natural or a not like a man-made drainage way. It's really where it's going that's of the of importance, Mr. [1:15:52] Speaker L (unidentified): Pine, I am going to open it up to public comment too. It's just a very specific question for staff. Would there be a problem with us revising the language to minimum buffer from perennial or intermittent stream or open stormwater drainage course that discharges directly into a river, stream, lake, or wetland period, and we remove all the other underlying text? So we remove retained in a natural vegetated state and excludes man-made drainage infrastructure such as dishes, swales, culverts, stormwater ponds etc. Is it what's like the exact technical problem with removing those? I know you just explained that a little bit, but like I'm trying to get at like what's what's the specific reason we added all that as [1:16:39] Shanna Cox: somebody who missed last week's meeting. Candidly, it seems like you've ended up with a definition that was supported by the city engineer and carves out the places in which the city engineer would need to have future construction ability to manage drainage in this area. And so like I don't know if you can say that, but for me it's it seems with I mean I've received some emails in advance but I don't need to have been to last meet. There is a carve out for ways in which we would man make drainage leading to the pond and this language does that. Intentionally, unintentionally, engineer driven or no. And so I would like to focus potentially Shelly's response to if we change the tax procedurally do we make recommendations, you promote it, goes in an agenda and it comes out for a future public hearing you're [1:17:37] Speaker D (unidentified): asking about process going forward. Yeah okay yeah so a couple options. You could edit the language this evening and say that's the language you want to go forward with, have the public hearing and move forward tonight. You could ask for staff to come back with changes. So you can either move it forward tonight or ask for staff to come back. Yeah or we [1:17:58] Shanna Cox: could vote on it and vote it down that too. Then you guys could figure out what you're doing with it. Yeah no matter what we're gonna hear from the public. Yeah I [1:18:05] Speaker D (unidentified): mean I suppose if you vote it down it is a referral, it could it would go potentially to a council agenda. Yeah okay so if you wanted to do that I'm [1:18:13] Shanna Cox: just saying like we also have the opportunity to vote on it. Yeah I don't [1:18:17] Speaker G (unidentified): want to remove that from the choices ahead of us. Yes also another action [1:18:28] Shanna Cox: I'M GOING TO OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AFTER MS. LINDSTROM. [1:18:33] Speaker C (unidentified): THE OTHER OPTION THAT I SEE FOR LANGUAGE RATHER THAN TAKING ANYTHING OUT, ALTHOUGH THAT'S PERHAPS THE MOST STREAMLINED WAY TO DO IT, BUT YOU COULD ALSO JUST ADD, YOU KNOW, CULVERT SOILS, STORM WATER PONDS, ET CETERA, THAT DISCHARGE TO A STORM WATER POND AND PUT THAT BACK IN THERE AND I THINK THAT WOULD ALSO CLEAR IT UP. [1:18:51] Speaker J (unidentified): I THINK WE MIGHT WANT TO REMOVE ET CETERA. AGREED. Because Heidi made a good valid point that et cetera, you know, has a lot of meetings and we want to make it as clean as possible, but I like the addition of the language that you have other [1:19:07] Speaker C (unidentified): than the et cetera, just putting the focus back on where it drains to, right? But I'm definitely looking forward to public comment as well, so I'm not trying to hold it up, so I'm going to open it [1:19:15] Shanna Cox: to public comment. And when I do so, can't wait to hear from everybody in the, in the public. What I will say is if we don't love that which we've seen here as written procedurally, we will make some recommendations and it will have to come back to us again, and we would not make a motion on it. If we tabled it, we would not see it again unless we chose to bring it up. Great, I'm going to open it for public comment. You're going to walk to the podium, you're going to say your name, relationship to address and you'll be limited to three minutes. You're both welcome to do it. You are, you've both [1:19:51] Speaker K (unidentified): been here all along. Please do. Okay, my name is Diane Chassis and I'm a neighbor on No-Name Pond Road, and if you look at the subdivision from the pond, my property sits to the left of Waters Edge entrance. My land is very close to pond level and for many years I have struggled with standing water and flooding in parts of my yard. There are times I cannot even mow the grass because the water collects there, it has no way to go. I am here tonight because I'm afraid that any increase in stormwater runoff, even a small one, will make these conditions worse, and I want you to hear that from someone who lives with this every day. I know there is a proposal to change the language of the ordinance and I want to respectfully say that I oppose that change, not for any one lot, but because this, because this entire watershed is sensitive. When water comes downhill quickly, it does not disappear, it ends up in our yards, in the swale, and eventually in the pond. The 20-foot strip on Water's Edge Drive has always acted as drainage. I have watched it for years. It fills with water during rains and snow melt, and it slows that water down before it reaches the pond. That naturally vegetated area is doing the work it was meant to do. It is not an access road. It has never had vehicles on it, and no one has ever used it for maintenance in the decades it has been there. It functions as part of the stormwater system, and I depend on it working. I also want to say that this is not a city lot. This is a lake impact lot in a delicate watershed. The protections is in the No Name Pond overlay are there for a reason. When parts of the map get simplified or reinterpreted, it may look minor on paper, but has real effects on people who live at lower elevations. People like me whose property always floods. I'm not against development. I'm simply asking that the board to please consider the people who already live here and the conditions we already manage it. If changes are made that allow water to move faster or without the buffers that used it used to slow it down then my yard will flood even more and once storm water gets it's past the natural areas that filter it goes straight to the pond i hope the board will support the purpose of the overlay and keep the protection strong the watershed needs consistency my property needs consistency and no name pond needs consistency sorry i'm very nervous you're doing great thank you for listening well done thank you thank you for your comments thank you [1:22:52] Daniel Bernier: Good evening, my name is Daniel Bernier. I own lots 25 and 26 on Waters Edge Drive. I want to begin be clearly and respectful. I oppose the requested language change, not only for the lot in question, but for the protection of the entire watershed and No Name Pond overlay, whose purpose I fully support. What I've seen factually in the initial Waters Edge subdivision plan is the final plan the city now chooses to follow, and those two plans differ widely from one another, especially in terms of environmental intent. WaterJet began as an environmentally guided subdivision. It is laid out around drainage patterns, topology, topography, water buffers, groundwater flow, and the need to protect No Name Pond. The final plan in use today is flattened and simplified to the point where environmental systems and the original shape this development are no longer visible in the plan. On today's current map, in the area beside my property is shown as a simple 20 foot strip. Yet historically that strip functioned and was depicted as part of the broader drainage system. Earlier plan shows contours lines indicating the natural flow of water. Contours are not access corridors, they are hydrology. There is no label, no easement, no right-of-way, and no maintenance path shown on any version of any plan that I have been able to review. It has also been stated that the 20 foot swale is for access to clean the retention pond. But the pond has never been cleaned, not once in more than 20 years. And the entirety consistency with the retention pond that was intended to naturalize the vegetated buffer is not an obstacle, it is the system. Vegetation slows the flow, filters sediment, and protects the lake. It has it has been designed as an access corridor, we would have been we would have seen equipment there at least once, and there never has been equipment in that buffer strip. I also wanted to be direct about something respectfully. The way this issue has been interpreted makes it feel as though this lot is being treated like a city infill parcel that should be developed rather than a rural lake impact lot inside a protected watershed. When the plans are consolidated in the way that flattens environmental detail, and when the interpretations lean toward flexibility in a building but not flexibility protection, the subdivision drifts further from the intent it began with. This matter because no name pond watershed contains many similar lots. If protections can be relaxed there and can be changed how drainage is labeled or simplified maps, then they can be relaxed everywhere along the pond. Maine has a clear rule for environmental interpretation. When there is doubt, ambiguity, and more restrictive more protective standard must apply. The rule exists because once the buffers are compromised, once the drainage is redirected or minimized, the impact of the groundwater and habitat cannot easily be undone. [1:25:57] Shanna Cox: I'm sorry sir that's it. I couldn't make it any faster than the truck did a great job in the running for those matchbox commercials. Anyone else for public comment before I close it seeing [1:26:11] Speaker A (unidentified): none I'm closing public comment. Final [1:26:15] Speaker G (unidentified): questions or comments from the board. Mr. Marcotte I'm just curious if I can ask Mr. Brown your question so the language if you do I'm gonna ask him [1:26:25] Shanna Cox: to go to the podium we try to limit this but you 're it's just that the record needs to reflect your answer to the question which will not be picked up by a mic if you're standing in the audience at the request of mr murcott my [1:26:47] Speaker G (unidentified): question is, the current language prior to this attempted change, is that satisfactory in your eyes? No. So no, you're referring to something that existed prior [1:26:59] Daniel Bernier: to that oh i'm sorry the existing the you mean there's been two changes that's i 'm sorry the one that was just before this changed the way the law always was written okay what would YOU LIKE TO SEE WATER'S WATER WHERE WE'RE HEADED WATER'S WATER IT LAST THE RULES BEEN IN PLACE FOR 20 YEARS I'M NOT SURE AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT THEY STATED LAST BEATING IT'S BEEN IN PLACE I'M NOT SURE IT EVER CHANGED WHY ARE WE CHANGING IT NOW I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE CHANGING IT [1:27:26] Speaker H (unidentified): Thanks, I appreciate that. I can't answer that question. His definition of what preceded maybe [1:27:31] Speaker G (unidentified): be different than mine so we had made a change not long ago a year or two ago right yes and so that 's what I'm referring to as what's in effect now no we saw one piece of language last week that may have been one change in your mind and it got altered for this week that may be a second yes I'm wondering and neither one of those have been approved so what I'm asking is what was in effect prior to last week is that satisfactory yes and to further answer [1:28:07] Daniel Bernier: specifically that question the whole entire neighborhood is in no name pond overlay protection it makes no sense to have an overlay that really doesn't affect anything I even move the windows in there I didn't realize that I talked to a neighbor they moved the buffers the phosphorus buffers you can put it wherever you want I thought it was the square because that's that's what it shows on the map i would just i'm blown away by this whole situation i 've talked to all the [1:28:30] Speaker H (unidentified): engineers, I've talked to the state, Mr. Marquette, we are setting a precedent I'm uncomfortable with [1:28:36] Speaker G (unidentified): letting go further. Okay, fine, I'm okay, thanks. I'll bring it back to conversation on the board. Thank [Speaker J (unidentified): you. Anything] else further from you? Yeah, that was quite edifying, following that quite legal language, all the right terms, from an environmental science perspective, and the overlays, and what's been done there before. And I remember, not as a participant, but I do remember 30 years ago when some of this stuff was put in place to clean up that pond. Like I said at the last meeting, my friend is now deceased, that had a farmhouse on the left side as you're going out to the turn, meant to go across the top, and that was back in the late 70s, early 80s, that we were out there from a canoeing and doing other scouting activities, and ponds been managed quite well by the people responsible, and if there were measures put in place then, we shouldn't be playing with them again. Like I think I heard here, treating one parcel as an infill like it was downtown Lewiston somewhere. I'm not sure. I was probably here when the last change was made. I don't recollect what those changes were, but if those changes didn't categorically affect anything, I think we should stay right there. But I would be more than happy to entertain motion to my table so that staff has a chance to rethink and work the language so that if something goes up to eventually goes up to the council, it'll be better than just a yes or no today, because even a no can turn into the council approving the language as we see it today, and I surely don't want that. [1:30:45] Shanna Cox: Can that occur without public hearings? I'm sorry, can what occur? Could city council, if we saw a motion with the proposed language as written today and we voted on it and voted no, could that language then go to city council without a second public hearing? [1:31:04] Speaker D (unidentified): I mean, they would have two public hearings. They would have a first reading [1:31:08] Shanna Cox: and a second reading if they chose to. It could, and so procedurally we would be required to table it so that we can seek a new proposed language from you if we wanted to see it, or could we just, I mean, you could propose different language [1:31:25] Speaker D (unidentified): tonight as well. That's an alternative to, so you could table it, you could propose different language and path, and prefer that. If we propose new language, would we [1:31:34] Shanna Cox: have to hear that as public hearing again here at planning board, or could it go as suggested and approved to City Council? You've done that many times. I [1:31:43] Speaker D (unidentified): mean, you could reopen the public hearing on it this evening if you wanted to after discussing the different language. You've are, I mean, you've already discussed some language changes, so you might choose one of those options. I'm [1:31:56] Speaker G (unidentified): Not comfortable in doing this quickly tonight. I think we need a little more time to think about it. I wasn't sure if you're referring to another public hearing here. Yes, it would go up to council and council would have two public hearings, which I believe they can waive under certain conditions, if I'm not mistaken, maybe with the super majority of the council. But and even if they just listen, you know, we could have 50 people out here in the audience sharing the same views as we heard it tonight and the council simply go with the language that's been pitched in disregard of the public input. That's why I thought tabling might be better so that we can actually discuss, come up with a better idea than what's currently on the plate, because sometimes when you rush too fast you really don't get the best product so [1:32:49] Shanna Cox: if the board's goal is to I do hear and then we could take a motion or even a straw poll on it, but I hear a pretty universal displeasure with the language that we see proposed tonight. Is there anyone who has no issue with this language and would vote yes if we motioned on it right now? Okay, so that's not feeling so popular. I hear some language options that we could propose tonight and then I hear a second piece around perhaps proposing those language options, tabling the agenda item, and asking staff to bring it back to us with new language. Would tabling the agenda item require the language to come back as is though? If we I don't know the answer to that procedurally. I do get concerned that if we table it we're bringing this back and what we really want is to not see this again. We'd like to see [1:33:39] Speaker L (unidentified): something different. What Mr Pine just really quick, I think if we were to table it, even if we were to get the language back that exists today, I think the important thing for me would be having greater insight into what the desired outcome of the language should be, because I think what I'm seeing here and what I'm hearing from my fellow board members is that this doesn't reflect the understanding that was given to us last time. The understanding that I'm working off of is that staff found that it Was overly restrictive because it was putting buffers around things that did not drain directly into the pond and did not affect water quality, and that was causing undue hardship for potential development. Now the one that we've seen that the butters have brought up, one of the maps does show that there is direct drainage into the lake. So even with that change, it still may result in this lot not being developable. I don't know, we didn't get further information on that, but and I can provide further. Yeah, I think my main concern is that we just really understand, because there's a stormwater professional who's weighing in on this, that's helping to develop this text, that we can understand what the science is. That's what I would be looking for. So even if this language comes back, if we can get additional information as to what are the specific things that we're trying to craft here in the language, that's what I would see being helpful. [1:35:09] Speaker D (unidentified): And I guess I could use a little more guidance because I thought I had, I thought I had made it clear that water that's been treated we want to keep clean, water that's dirty that's coming from the road we don't want to have a buffer around because we have to get equipment in to, you know, maintain that. And to the neighbors question, we are certainly going to be following up with the HOA and their stormwater ponds and swales that haven't been maintained are going to get maintained, so we will be. Making sure we get action on that front. So for them to go in and do that work, there shouldn't be a buffer. How can they go in and maintain, you know, they have to dig out the sediment, they have to reconstruct if things have been filled in over time. So you don't have a buffer around those facilities because you need to be able to maintain them. Yeah. [1:36:08] Shanna Cox: No, I'm sorry, I just don't know that. Does that not clarify? Okay, it doesn't compute well even if it's clear as day. So but I'm going to stick to this, which gives me Mr. Marquardt, Heidi, and then Zoe. Is that a yes? So Mr. Marquardt, you had something. Okay, yeah. [1:36:31] Speaker G (unidentified): What you, what you were suggesting chair earlier, those tabling bring it back in the same state it is now, would there be a public continuance of a public hearing at that meeting or not? Those are two separate. [1:36:48] Shanna Cox: Ones, I've already closed the public hearing. Yeah, we could choose, right, but. [1:36:51] Speaker G (unidentified): well my understanding is that until you gave some other concepts to it we would to table it with the direction to staff to provide us better language that 's no what i was looking for whatever better language is in each of our particular minds you could table something difficult thing to say indefinitely i don't know that we can do that but who initiated the ordinance an applicant or the city council the planning board brought [1:37:28] Speaker D (unidentified): it to I brought it to you and you initiated on that, so that was the third [1:37:35] Speaker G (unidentified): Probably yeah I mean with the divergent opinions on this and we have a couple of people who have a better understanding than I do, we could even have a subcommittee of the planning board. If we were to do that, I would suggest as Zoe and Alex to come up with the idea language. Again I don't know if that means coming back and just simply continuing from where we picked stopped in tabling or whether it would require public hearing for that new language. I don't know, okay thank you Heidi yeah [1:38:13] Speaker I (unidentified): As part of the general confusion I'm also very confused about really the true intention of this. I know we've spoken about you know some landowners have issues, but it seems like it's also coming from the city and the city engineering staff. I don't know if they're, if my understanding is that there's at least some part of this that the city engineering staff got involved and suggested this change, and can we request that they come to us and talk about what their intention is for this [1:38:45] Shanna Cox: Indeed I think I heard Mr Pine request that moments ago. I mean I think I whether they come in person or whether they provide some additional information and background behind this, I did hear that as a no. I think it's good to if more than one board member prefers to reiterate that request, I think it's drinking okay idea yeah Zoe thanks for your patience absolutely [1:39:14] Speaker C (unidentified): Just to get it out of the way I would not be opposed to tabling this to get a little bit more information. For me, the clarification around where the water is draining to would be enough. However, I was confused why there was still disagreement. And I think that it also lies in the idea of this particular stormwater retention basin, that it sounds like I may be understanding now that the folks who are here tonight and provided public comment would not actually, they would disagree that maintaining that stormwater basin by redredging it out is a good idea, and that is where the conflict is, in terms of like, Shelly, I do think that what you had written here was very clear about the distinction about, you know, man-made versus not man-made, and things that need to be maintained, but yeah, it sounds like because this stormwater basin has been vegetated, there is concern that it should no longer be considered man-made in the way that it would continue to be maintained. And so maybe getting, yeah, taking some time to get some more information about the pros and cons of that, is there a way to, I don't know, to deal with that aspect of it? Because that seems to actually now be the, what I'm understanding as the crux [1:40:42] Speaker D (unidentified): of the issue, I mean, I think with that, it's pretty clear it's an approved stormwater plan on the subdivision plan that was as proved as part of the engineering for the project, and based on that and whether it was DEP that gave them a stormwater permit or whether we were doing delegated review at the time and the city gave the stormwater permit, it needs to be, it needs to have the volume and capacity to hold water that a pond would have, not be filled into the top with, you know, leaves and debris and vegetation, so we will be working with HOA to make sure that they get proper maintenance of their facilities going forward, and so that is just going to happen regardless, that's not something the board has control over, that's something our department is going to be working with the HOA to ensure happens. [1:41:39] Speaker L (unidentified): So putting a finer point on the point that Zoe made earlier about, because after hearing you reiterate what you said in response to me, and then sort of synthesizing that with what Zoe said earlier, I think my pause is, there any chance that we could have a man-made drainage system put in that drains directly to the lake? So that means it will no longer have a buffer around it, so you know water is gonna flow into it quicker, and it does not have the benefit of a retention pond where it can pollute the lake. And I think Zoe was sort of getting to that, saying is there something else in the ordinance that says all man-made things must flow into a retention pond, and I'm then away from, and then, and then eventually, you know, percolate through the ground or through whatever pathway. I don't know if we covered that or at least I'm, I didn't get into my brain. So if we could revisit that point, is there something else in the ordinance that says all man-made structures, all man-made drainage ways flow into a retention pond, and so we're covered there. I don't know, is there's [1:42:49] Speaker D (unidentified): anything that talks about that specifically, because it's usually main DEPs chapter 500 that the stormwater engineers are designing to. I think we could easily add a tiny bit of language like Zoe had suggested, that you know exception that we had put in was for clarification for staff, but if it is unclear, happy to add a little language to the end of that. And I, so if we took out the etc and said something like leading to stormwater treatment facilities, and so that includes ponds, underground chambers, whatever the design is. So we could easily do something like that. And I think it would have the meaning that staff was intending. [1:43:39] Speaker L (unidentified): I would be comfortable with that. [1:43:43] Speaker J (unidentified): I think we need to table this, get the better language, get some more information. Perhaps have staff speak to these people to find out what it is that their concerns about the water going into the pond, and also perhaps it's they don't under, they're not understanding the overlay district, or you know, or we're not understanding it. But I think we need to table this and we need to come back, and maybe table it for a month giving you enough time to get all your facts together. I think we need to give a specific time frame to bring it back, because if we just table it 's going to get lost in the shuffle and it's never going to be addressed. I [1:44:42] Speaker D (unidentified): can say that our stormwater engineer and Mr Bernier had a long conversation about stormwater ponds and their function and purpose, and that I've spoken with, you know, Mrs Chassis and I've looked at the drainage and how it would impact or would not impact her property, so Steph is pretty aware of their [1:45:01] Shanna Cox: Neighborhood situation. Okay, so I think what I'm hearing, and I did see a couple other hands, I'd like for us to continue to move through our evening as well. And so here's what, here's what I'm seeking. I would be seeking a motion that indicates tabling for no more than three planning board meetings, which gives us more, six weeks and some flexibility. God only knows what's on the upcoming agendas, with the desire to see some additional new language as maybe even proposed tonight as well as some additional scientific information and backdrop on the rationale. And it sounds like Shelley, you guys have already provided some of that to property owners, and so it should be easy [1:45:42] Speaker J (unidentified): to come by and share with the board. I would gladly make that motion. I was going to make motion to [1:45:50] Speaker G (unidentified): table to date specific, the third regular meeting from tonight, which is six weeks, presumably. Yes. [1:45:57] Speaker D (unidentified): It's, it wouldn't be six weeks. We have one meeting in April and one meeting in May, so you'd be [1:46:03] Speaker J (unidentified): pushing it to June. So to the next two meetings, two meetings, two meetings. Yeah, get it, bring it back in May, to our meeting in May. Is there anything you want to round out your motion [1:46:13] Shanna Cox: with about what we'd like to see two meetings from now, if there's only one? Okay, if there's [1:46:18] Speaker G (unidentified): only one meeting in May, so date specific, the May meeting, May 11th, May 11th, with the direction that staff and playing board members and engineering department and the HOA neighbors all participate in coming to a consensus on what would be good language. Thanks. Is there a second for that motion? [1:46:43] Speaker K (unidentified): I'll second that. Any final discussion? Okay. Call the roll. Michael Marcotte. Yes. Penthea Burns. Yes. Zoe Lidstrom. Yes. Lucy Bisson. Yes. [1:46:55] Shanna Cox: Shannon Cox. Yes. Amy Smith. Yes. Alex Pine. Yes. Okay. Yeah. We're going to move on to other business. Keep our train running tonight. Yep. So other business item A, discussion on the Lisbon Road fire station and LCIP. We do not, planning board members, have a memo or anything on that. We were provided correspondence on that. This was another business item as suggested by board member Marcotte. I would look to see if it's Mr. Barcott or staff that is introducing any contact. Okay, Mr. Marcotte. [1:47:35] Speaker G (unidentified): As recommended, this item is yours. Well, I asked for this to be on the other business agenda for tonight because of a memo that guests came to staff originally and that was passed to the planning board members from Rick Kai, the union president I believe is his title, and firefighter, and my understanding is he's working tonight so that's why he's not here. But it was the concern I had was in that memo there was a million dollar grant that I wasn't aware of when we deliberated this finally on February 9th, and I understand from last week when Shelly or actually I think it was your response to Mr. Kaye that the recommendation was due in February and there was no method to reconsider especially if we had a meeting in between. Robert's Rules state that you cannot reconsider, however I'm trying to debate whether I should read this, but so the recommendation for the LCIP as an entire package was a unanimous vote by this board and all three of the big things that I wanted to see cut agreed to and there's some other little caveats in the final motion. I think that's what Mr. Kelly was reacting to especially in light of a million dollar contract that I'll be interested in finding out how far back that went, whether it's in jeopardy, whether any of it's been drawn down. I believe I've come to the understanding that a property has been purchased for this, but there's other rumors floating around town which will probably be addressed during this discussion as to alternative uses for that property that was originally designed for the replacement of substation or engine three. My particular neighborhood and I came home this morning early hours to watch him go up, watch engine three go up Pleasant Street Hill to address something, so we do definitely need to replace that station sooner rather than later, and I thought one-year extension would be an issue back on February 9th, but I'd like to hear Mr. Caius and anybody who's representing him views on this matter. We can always send an unsolicited recommendation or guidance, would probably be a better word, to council on any topic at any time that we wish to. They do with it as they please, as we know. [1:50:21] Shanna Cox: even the official ones. Thanks. Thank you. Please let the record show we have another member of city staff joining us which is Chief Karen. Thank you for joining us tonight. Thank you. I am Mark [1:50:32] Speaker P (unidentified): karen i am the lucifer chief and i am not here representing richard kai he is a city employee he is the firefighters union president he sent you some correspondence i don't know exactly what it was I think I have if it's I think I have a copy of it okay the package that he sent but he sent that as a as the union president he did not send that as a representative of the fire department I'm here to clarify any questions you have about the grant was [1:51:09] Shanna Cox: there any proactive statement you wanted to make or are you just here to answer any no well I came really to answer your [1:51:15] Speaker P (unidentified): your questions. As I, as I had a conversation with the director of code and planning and he said that you had some questions about the grant. I guess after you received that communication for Mystic I, that you said that you may have voted differently if you had more information. I'm on, I don't know what you have for information when you make that recommendation. I don't know what information you're looking at, same with the Finance Committee. I don't know what they have for information when they make their recommendation. I know tomorrow night the City Council is going to consider the fire department budget [1:51:51] Shanna Cox: and I suspect that it's here just so you know it's not a significant amount of information and it's only for the capital improvement. Okay, so then that is the entirety, other than the additional communication that the union president gave us, just to answer your question, that's the entirety of the information. [1:52:13] Speaker P (unidentified): Okay, so I can understand how you could have questions, but which is a bigger discussion, is how can you make recommendations with scarce [1:52:22] Shanna Cox: information, right? It's a conversation we have every single year, the capital improvement plan. Yeah, were you finished? Yes, I'm prepared to answer any questions [1:52:32] Speaker L (unidentified): you have about the grant. I'm gonna start with Mr. Pine. So I believe last meeting when this item came up, the main concern I heard from the rest of the members on the board is, oh, we didn't know about the grant, and I'm really glad that you remembered to bring your book. I forgot, is the grant, is not mentioned on that. So it actually is, and I'm going to read it out loud. [1:52:52] Shanna Cox: For you, it is not nearly as descriptive as a multi-page memo, nor can I imagine what any of us would be logging around come budget or capital improvement season if we were given multi-page memos. But here is just written, read into the record, if you will, quote, we also received a congressional earmark in the amount of one million dollars, of which seven hundred thirty five thousand seven hundred and six dollars remains for use on this project. Funds from the main street fire station of seven hundred eight thousand three hundred twenty five and an estimated two hundred and fifty thousand dollars from the sale of the old main street fire station. The prior funding sources total one, essentially 1.9 million, one million nine hundred forty four thousand thirty one dollars, and that is represented, a portion of that is represented in the kind of chart that's provided where it shows the city bond issue at seven million forty one thousand and some change, federal and state funding, the 735 706 of the remaining dollars unspent from the one million dollar is noted here, and that's, that is the math and the information that would have been [1:54:00] Speaker L (unidentified): provided. I think my other question around that, because it's happened in years previous, is did that not get reflected in the table, or do we just have poor memory collectively as the planning board? Because yeah, well, I think, I think that was sort of like the big issue that I saw come up from my vantage point listening to the rest of the some conversation that was had prior [1:54:22] Shanna Cox: prior to our meeting beginning and knowing that you were going to arrive, but frankly before you were in the room, was around this question of like what was known, how much of a, the grant did we know about, and one of the fundamental points was also our risk at losing that grant if not improved in this 27 year. So it's not just how much do we have on hand, your match, which is usually a pretty important feature that this board waits pretty heavily, but also what is our risk of losing that money if not approved for 27. So let me just give [1:54:52] Speaker P (unidentified): Some grant information, so this was a, it came from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. We were notified from Senator Collins' office about this. We did apply the one of the projects, it was for the federal FY23 funding round. One of the projects was for the Lisbon Street fire station. At the time of the application, we had considered you applying for funding for the Main Street fire station, which has been completed since, but because we had already appropriated funding for that, we could not supplant the funding with federal funds, so we had to have it applied to a new project. So we applied it to the Lisbon Street fire station replacement, which was always in the works, wasn't like forever we dreamed it up because we had to find a project for this money. The project was already in the planning stages. That the city also applied for several other projects, I think that the Riverwalk and maybe Bates Mill number five or some of the other projects that were also awarded funding in that round. So the date of the award is March 2nd, 2023. It is, well, I was going to say it's a 10-year runoff period, but I can tell you right now that the language I have in the contract says it is a hard date that the grantee is advised to make its final request for payment under the grant no later than September 15th, 2031. That would be the drop dead date for us to submit for reimbursement. The way the grant works is they don't give us money, we spend the money and they reimburse us. So I authored the grant for the fire station project. I made a budget, I allocated the money, there was a, you know, certain portions for land acquisition, construction, engineering, and so the amounts that you have that were listed, the two hundred and seventy seven thousand dollars, that's money we've already spent and re and been reimbursed by the grant. That was for land acquisition, and we've been doing, we did some wetland surveys, we've done some survey work, so we 've already, we're working on it, we're working on it. We're, you know, 25 to 30 percent into this grant. If we don't complete that project by September of 2031, we'll have to repay the federal government all the money we've spent from that grant. [1:57:33] Shanna Cox: Is it differently but accurate to say that if you don't complete $735,000 worth of project by 2031, does the whole project have to be completed, or do you have to have progress made with reimbursable expense approval? [1:57:52] Speaker P (unidentified): The project must be completed. Okay. So, yes, that fire station would have to be built and operating by 2031. Or we would have to pay that money back to the federal government. [1:58:08] Shanna Cox: To Mr. Pine's question, the numbers are accurately reflected in the table as it is on the page. Good. Yeah. [1:58:14] Speaker P (unidentified): So on that page, again, you know, I used the best numbers I could in speaking with, you know, construction professionals about what their best estimate was and what it would cost to build this project, you know, two years in the future. That's based on recent bids for other similar projects. Just so you know, there was no balking [1:58:38] Shanna Cox: at the value of a fire station the value of the firefighters to our community or even the dollar amount it was the recent approval of additional bonds from other fire stations that have happened at a pretty successive rate and the scale of the request that we see there was no there was no manner of from this discussion that led to us suggesting which things would have to cut if our if we were up against a wall that was a reflection of the needlessness because no one thinks it's not necessary or important. It was as Mr. Marcotte said, an approach to say there is a really significant budget request. We are asked to make a recommendation of what we would cut, and with that, the recommendation was if it could wait a year, this is the thing that we would recommend. And so please hear that, because I hear you thoughtfully not being defensive but defending your proposal, and it is a strong proposal that makes good sense to us, and that was not the sense of the recommendation that we made, and I just hear that from us directly. You know, I understand. [1:59:40] Speaker P (unidentified): And you know, I hear it, I hear it every, well, I hear frequently as a department head for the city of Lewis, and that, you know, times are tough, and we certainly understand that, you know, it's going to be another tough budget cycle. You know, tomorrow night I'll be sitting in the seat, you know, defending my budget proposals for the council. I expect that there's going to be some items that may be in question. I'm not the only department, you know, I don't represent the only department in the city. There's Other departments, we all, we all want funding. There's only so much money that can go around, and we're all competing for the same piece of the pie. I get that. I just want to be clear that million dollars comes with strings attached, and it does have a born on date and an end date. And you know, I think I understand, you know, wanting to put it, put it off for you, off one year. But the problem with putting it off one year is the next year might get put off another year, and then the project will not get completed in time. It takes, it takes time, you know, to get the plants up to bid, receive the bids, evaluate the bids, mobilize the, you know, the construction. It takes time to build a fire station. I would offer to you [2:01:10] Shanna Cox: only because I actually think heard you asking for some portion of feedback, which is if there was information about the end date, born date, but definitely the end date and the committal date for it to be in a capital improvement plan, we weigh that. And so even in this, like, short summary page, if it simply said, you know, committing to the capital improvement budget for this item any later than 20 27 risks the return because of construction time of the 737 or million dollars, that would stick out to us, and we do pay attention to that, for what it's worth. And feel free to, like, bold that and put it up top, because we do, we do look for that. We're always looking for where our dollar is matched, and recommending something being cut would actually have kind of an outsized or disproportionate overall impact. We look for that, and then we try to make sure that we're recommending everything that's going to leverage money in our projects that we prioritize. But specifically, if there's a timeline and there are, let's just say there are other departments that we regularly see from that are arbitrary year to year with what they're requesting, and what their five or four year out plan looks like from year to year changes drastically. And how you're planning for five years from now and next year, those five years look completely different. You're always consistent, and one of the things that I would vote, I would name that we really appreciate from the fire department is that you've been thoughtful about Planning in advance, using your blueprints and plans in advance to save money and to be thoughtful about planning in advance, and that you've done that in my entire time on the board in terms of the concession and sequencing of planning the replacements of your stations. And so that's all it was, the hope of one year, and to hear that the one year puts it at great risk is like, yeah, it's something that's important for us to hear. [2:03:09] Speaker P (unidentified): I know sometimes I forget that the planning board makes recommendations. I don't go to the finance committee unless I have a specific item on the agenda. Usually it's the finance department that is my representative or the department has representative to the boards. The code department is the other represents the other three departments you know to this board, so maybe partially, you know, I'll accept some responsibility that I was not in tune enough that, you know, that to realize that I had an important item on the agenda that maybe I should have appeared to answer questions if you had any. But I'm here today and just to explain that is that is the reasoning behind that and it is, it is somewhat time sensitive. Yeah, thank you Mr. Pine and Mr. [2:04:08] Speaker L (unidentified): Marquardt, in that spirit I wonder if there are any other process improvements that we'd want to propose, just because like I think that's what I see being the main benefit out of this meeting is like, okay, we realized we had a little bit of a misstep here, things got a little crossed up, what could we do next year that, you know, because you have a lot to do, you know, asking you to be at every single meeting is going to be tough, you know what, how do how do we, you know, and you've already proposed one change that I think is great, but I'm wondering if there's anything else. I think collectively a couple. Yeah, well, yeah, is there? Yeah, and are there any other changes? [2:04:44] Shanna Cox: I did speak at a city council meeting where are they talking about the capital improvement of some process improvements that we've recommended before we move to that, because I think that takes it away from this particular topic, and I appreciate that. I see Mr. Clement in the audience and I'm wondering if he's looking for a public comment. Yeah, if so, can I direct you to the podium, good sir? Please take the time that it requires. There's a number of us up here who really feel [2:05:17] Lee Clement: That like in our bones, all of you on the dais, that you have nothing to look forward to. Thanks so much. Okay, my name is Lee Clement. I'm a resident Ward six, former counselor here in Lewiston, two terms council president. Prior to that, many years ago, I retired as deputy director of public safety in the city of Augusta. Okay, I've been on both sides of the pub, all three sides actually, of the public safety business, police, fire and EMS. When I was on the council, we picked up where the original study back in 2017 for the needs assessment of fire stations was made. We committed in 2020 to a plan to replace the three substations, and we are right now, I believe, a little over two years beyond the original plan. Of course, cost goes up every year. I was chair of the finance committee for three out of the four years I served on it. You order a fire truck today, it's going to be over two years before you get that truck. I would say to you that the construction of Lisbon Street substation will probably take from the day you say okay and pull the trigger, you'll be looking at least three years before you occupy that station. These funds were requested from the federal government as congressionally directed spending. They are frozen into that project. If that project is not completed, you will owe the federal government the full million dollars. Okay, I would just ask respectfully that you revisit your recommendation to the Planning Board and say hey, we didn't have a full bunch of information on this, and we've heard things now that cause us to revisit this and suggest that maybe the Lisbon Street fire station be funded in this fiscal year cycle. You put it off a year, I'm afraid you're going to be playing dangerously with the completion date. You're going to lose that money, and then you're going to come up with a million dollars. Now, a million dollars, if you remember a gentleman by the name of Everett Dirksen, Senator from Illinois, a million dollars here, a million dollars there, pretty soon you're talking real money. That's what I would suggest. Respectfully, that you consider revisiting your recommendation and fund the Lisbon Street fire station, and this would be FY 27. So I think that would be a good move on the part of the city. The whole thing was pitched to the federal government as an emergency. We need this, it's something we have to have. Anything less than progressing at a reasonable rate, I mean, delaying a year kind of says that's not such a big deal after all. And how is this going to play out the next time we go after one of these very competitive projects? I remember them, they don't really have any big urgency. I would hate to see that happen. We don't have, as I'm sure you're aware, money growing on trees everywhere here [2:08:22] Speaker H (unidentified): in Lewiston. We have not found that tree yet. Correct, exactly, I mean, we searched [2:08:25] Lee Clement: when I was there and we never found anything. I don't know what's happened since I left, but I would suggest to you that it is an urgent matter and it bears reconsideration and hopefully a positive comment from the Planning Board. Thank [2:08:40] Shanna Cox: you very much for your time. I hope you've heard that already from us, that we are actively reconsidering. So thank you. I'm gonna just jump in here because it's another business item and we've allowed two forms of extra comment, and so for the sake of all I'd like to propose, it's not a motion so we'll do a straw poll, I'd like to propose that this board offer updated recommendations to City Council that with the additional information provided about the timeliness of the 2023 CDS congressionally delegated spending for Lisbon Street would like to encourage it be strongly considered in this year's approval for the 27 capital improvement plan. And I'd look for a straw poll of support from my peers on the Planning Board with that recommendation to City council. I see that the universe, yes, you get to thumbs up in a on an informal vote, so I see that be that is universally supported. And so we'd ask that you provide that and sir as you speak in front of council budget who might not have seen this recommendation or stayed up late and watched us whenever it gets posted, feel free to bring it up tomorrow. I will, yeah, thank you, thank you for your time tonight. I appreciate any last comments from you [2:09:56] Speaker G (unidentified): Mr. Mercado, as you put it on the agenda, is that a memo that can be offered as correspondence tomorrow night? Yes [2:10:05] Speaker D (unidentified): once the video is available tomorrow morning, staff will get Shanna's exact wording and write a two sentence memo and send it to council. Thank you, thank you, thank you [2:10:17] Speaker G (unidentified): Yeah, I had a bunch of stuff and I think Mr. Clement stole some of my thunder, but as far as the timeline and such, because I remember being on the finance committee when it first came up, and yeah, it is starting to drag. We should have been done all three by now. And there was a template too on the first one, of course it was modified for Main Street, and I assume that we'd probably use the same design for this one as Main Street. [2:10:48] Shanna Cox: Thank you for understanding our recording needs. [2:10:53] Speaker P (unidentified): Yeah, so the fire substations are substantially similar, we are using the same template, but because although the lots of different they require some minor modifications. I know the difference between four and five is we the apparatus and the living quarters were reversed to accommodate the site, so we'll have to make the same accommodations when for this lot that we have on Alfred Pord. [2:11:23] Speaker G (unidentified): I did have a question from earlier and I'm looking at those numbers, thank you for pointing those out that they were in the LCIP. I guess there's some leftover money from the previous stations, is that available for this one? Yeah, so that account for. [2:11:39] Speaker P (unidentified): The station five build is still open, I don't know the exact balance of it today, but we're also applying the sale proceeds from the old Main Street station, which I think we're getting more than what we had advertised it for, we're getting a little bit more so that I can't commit to the number, I don't know what it is, but we're getting what we wanted for it, market value, and we're going to apply those funds to the station to rebuild as well, so that. [2:12:15] Speaker G (unidentified): Would assist with the funding sources, and if the commitment is made in fiscal 27, some of the borrowing may not be necessary until fiscal 928 because there'll be some pre-construction things that'll have to take place first, but the sooner and like with the recommendation, the sooner the. [2:12:39] Speaker P (unidentified): Better. Yeah, I don't know how the, I don't know how the finance department does the bonding, I. [2:12:44] Shanna Cox: Whether they're a year flexes year to year based on rates and need. Yeah, there you go, that's the answer. Yeah, it's because that's the one we've been given when we've asked that question. [2:12:53] Speaker P (unidentified): From time to time, yep, but we are actively spending that earmark right now, you know, so we've already spent about, you know, close to 300,000 of it on, we've been doing, we had, there are some wetlands, we do wetland surveys, we're gonna have to pay some wetland impact fee to the state over this, so that's part of, you know, modifying the design to minimize that fee, you know, there's engineering costs, where we are actively working on this project because we do have funding, but at some point without city commitment, you know, that funding will not be enough to complete the project, and the current location is [2:13:38] Speaker G (unidentified): ideal for capturing Pleasant Street with Webster Street if it needs to go downtown and support in the downtown area, Lisbon Street, the industrial parks, right across to Alfred ploid, it's ideal, and we have sunk costs that we shouldn't be abandoning, that message across to the council as well, so that location was [2:14:00] Speaker P (unidentified): specifically identified in that 2009 policy one study that our response times to South Lewiston are too great, so they did recommend, they actually recommended that we move the station to that corner of Pleasant and Alfred Port, and that we also built an additional substation further out in south lewiston, which I'm not asking for that, I'll take it if you want to give me the money for it, but I'm not asking for that right now, but you know, this is a step in the right direction to reduce those response times to south lewiston, yeah, thank you again, and out of [2:14:40] Shanna Cox: respect for your time and our time, I'm going to move us on our agenda, but thank you so much for adding this for other businesses, thank you both for making time, we appreciate it, thank you, yeah, have a nice night, our next item is the reading of the minutes with a motion to adopt the march 9th 2026 draft minutes, we did receive some correspondence in advance of the meeting from someone not on the planning board about the march 9th minutes, I believe that they were accurate just in terms of capturing the meeting, yes, were there any adjustments that anyone wanted to see, I say looking at our regular editorial crew, I think she made a few [2:15:27] Speaker C (unidentified): I just made like typographical stuff, I didn't notice anything content-wise that struck me as [2:15:32] Speaker J (unidentified): inaccurate except the minutes as amended by miss Lindstrom, thank you [2:15:43] Shanna Cox: second, I'll second, any final discussion on the minutes, Michael Marcotte, no [2:15:50] Speaker C (unidentified): Pentia burns yes, Zoe Lidstrom yes, Lucy Bisson yes, Shanna Cox yes, Amy Smith yes [2:15:57] Speaker J (unidentified): Yes. Alex Pine. Yes. Motion to adjourn. [2:16:02] Shanna Cox: Motion made, is there a second? So moved. All in favor? [2:16:06] Speaker J (unidentified): Hey. See you on the 13th. Happy Easter, in that case, since we all see you before Easter.