Bangor Planning Board approves flag lot, 26-unit development, and zoning change

[2:10] Good evening and welcome to the applicant, staff, board members, and members of the public. This is the March 17, 2026 meeting of the city of Bangor's planning board at 7 o'clock. [clears throat] My name is Jonathan Buchet. I'm the chair of the board. board members are volunteers from the Bangor community and other board members in attendance this evening are Ted Brush, Trisha Hayes, Greg Hopson, Ken Hune, Vice Chair Janet Jonas, Ross Witford, [2:39] [clears throat] I think that's everyone. We don't have Justin Cartier in attendance tonight. city staff members in attendance this evening include planning officer Ana Colette, assistant solicitor Grace, city engineer Jefferson Davis, and planning analyst Matthew. We thank them all for their help in preparation for this meeting. Can you guys just give me a nod if you hear me fine through the audio? [3:01] Okay. [3:05] So, tonight we're going to start with old business. We're going to go through the meeting minutes from March 3rd, 2026. I'd look to see if there's any modifications or comments on those minutes. Otherwise, I'd look for a motion to approve the minutes. [3:22] Move to approve. We have a motion from member Hun. Looking for a second from member Jonas. And we'll get a roll call vote. member Brush, [3:32] yes. [3:32] Member Hayes, [3:33] yes. [3:34] Member Hobson, [3:35] yes. [3:35] Member Hun, [3:36] yes. [3:36] Member Jonas, [3:37] yes. [3:37] Member Woodford, [3:38] yes. [3:38] Chair votes, yes. [3:41] The next item is the adoption of findings on the decision for 570 Stillwater Avenue. [3:46] First off, are there any discussions on the adoption of findings and decision If not, I'd look for a motion on the this item. Member Hume. [3:59] I move to approve. [4:00] Okay. And a second. [4:01] I'll second. [4:02] And a roll call vote. Member Brush? [4:04] Yes. [4:05] Member Hayes? [4:06] Yes. [4:06] Member Hobson? [4:07] Yes. [4:07] Member Hune? [4:08] Yes. [4:08] Member Jonas? [4:09] Yes. [4:10] Member Woodford? [4:11] Yes. [4:11] And the chair votes yes. All right. Is there any other old business we want to mention? If not, we'll move on to new business for tonight. tonight [clears throat] we're going to start with the public information sess session on city changes to the city land development code to comply with state laws [4:32] to consider whether this should be and so I have a whole introduction about how we handle these sort of discussions u as it pertains to the land amendments to land development code or site development review. What I'd like to jump to is just talking through what our typical item presentation, public comment, and deliberation looks like because it 'll weigh into this. [4:59] So, what we're going to be doing is we're going to have city staff present about the different state laws and what they're going to mean for the city of Bangor and then we're going to open it up for public comment, but I'll just read through this blurb so that I touch on everything. [clears throat] so for land development permits, we'll first consider and vote on the applicant's readiness for review and any concerns for conflict of interest. [5:20] but for all other items, the applicant or the representative should then come forward to the podium and provide a brief introduction to the proposal and then they should stay at the podium while we consider any questions the staff and or board members. [clears throat] But for code amendments, staff may make the presentation and in this case staff will give the presentation as well. And once the item has been presented, the applicant may then be seated. [5:43] We will allow time for public comment. For public comments, this p the person should come to the podium, introduce themselves, state if they're a Bangor resident and/or and a butter to the property as if it's applicable, and indicate if they are for or against the proposal. it's also helpful if you present your thoughts based upon the city codes and standards and the comprehensive plan as these are the primary documents used by the board to make our decision. [6:07] All comments and discussion should remain respectful and considerate of others. And once public comments are completed, we will close that item for public comment. [6:18] We have the option to put in like a three minute limit just keep the comments short, but I don't think we have a large enough audience for that. I think we can have enough back time to go back and forth if you guys [6:33] so it's not applicable to this at this time but the other items the board will then deliberate on the proposal using applicable standards for clarity when considering land development proposals. Code standards are typically read and voted on separately. Final decision is then read and voted on. And if the applicant disagrees the land development permit decision [6:55] at the board is made, then they may appeal the decision to the spirit court of Maine. Once a project you're interested in has been reviewed, you may leave the meeting, but please be respectfully quiet so as not to disturb the review of other agenda items. After this public discussion, we have a zone change request and we have two land development I mean [7:17] what's the word I'm looking for? land development permit applications, but we're going to do this one first just because you guys are here and in the interest of everyone's time, we're going to get started. So, I'd like to look to planning officer Ana Colette. [7:46] So, I'm going to just run through this presentation. and I just ask that if there are any questions that it, you wait till the end because I might, you know, answer that as I'm going through. but we are here to talk through some recent state laws that have passed that do affect the city of the English land development code. So, let me see if I can minimize this somehow. [8:12] That's a little better. so for some background, the state recently passed a few laws last year that require us to update our code and the biggest one is LD-1829. and we have to comply with that as well as LD427 by this July. [8:32] this law and I'll go through it, but this law basically requires us to update our density minimums or I'm sorry, our density maximums and our minimum lot size requirements. it changes subdivision, what triggers subdivision and it does a whole host of other things, you know, makes ADUs more flexible, [8:54] ADU requirements more flexible and things like that. And then LD427 basically required all municipalities to only require one space per dwelling unit. We already have that requirement, but the other major thing was that it requires you to allow offsite or the parking requirements for a project to be met off-site within 0.25 miles of a project. [9:20] and then LD997 requires us to allow residential uses in commercial districts. And that one we do have until next July to implement. [9:31] So just running through some of the key points of LD1829. first of all, for qualified affordable housing developments, and that means affordable housing that meets certain standards like 51% of the units have to be affordable to people making 80% of the area median income if they're a renter or 120% of the air medium income if they're a homeowner. [9:55] and this only is allowed in certain zones. So, URD2, MNSD, NSD, USD, HDR, S&PS, and GC GCNS. All that's urban residents 2 district, multif family service district, neighborhood service district, urban service district, high density residential, shopping and personal service, and general commercial and service district. And I'll show maps of all those zones later on, but basically [10:19] for these zones, if it qualifies as an affordable housing development, they are allowed to have up to 14 additional feet above their pre-existing maximum height. These zones have various maximum heights between 35 feet in URD or yes 35 ft in URD2 to 60 ft in S&PS. [10:40] So they could go above that by 14 ft. Then we also have to allow them to have a reduced minimum parking requirement of two spaces for every three units. those are the key changes for that. And then for accessory dwelling units, we now have to allow them on lots containing one to three dwelling units in a single structure. [11:01] So a single family home, duplex or triplex. Also, the minimum square footage for an ADU has been reduced to 160 ft. we still have and are allowed to keep our maximum square footage of 1,000 square ft or 50% of the primary dwelling, whichever is less. So we still have that. [11:22] And then for subdivision, it used to be that when you create three or more dwelling units on the lot, that triggered subdivision review, so it had to go to the planning board. That's now been changed to five or more dwelling units. also planning board review, we can't require planning board review anymore for creating four or fewer residential units within one structure. [11:43] Also, we have to require that all members of the planning board, new members have to attend training on land use planning within 180 days of their appointment. [11:54] And then additionally, we have to allow three units per lot, detached or attached, so separate or in a single structure on any residential lot in the city. Now, if it's in our growth area or on public water or sewer, we have to allow four units per lot. Then there's a bunch of different stipulations on the lot minimum lot size, but basically [12:17] if it's in the growth boundary and it's on public water and sewer, the minimum lot size is 5,000 ft for four units, including ADUs. So, you could have three units in an ADU or just four units, period. If it's outside the growth boundary, but has public water and sewer, minimum lot size is 5,000 ft² for the first two units, and then an additional 5,000 ft² per unit up to four. [12:40] So you'd have four units on a 15,000t block. Again, including ADUs. If it's in the growth boundary but doesn't have public sewer, the minimum lot size is dictated by the state law and septic. So minimum 20,000 ft for that first unit. And then additional lot area per unit based on the number of bedrooms in the unit. So that can be variable [13:01] again up to four on a lot. And then if it's outside the growth boundary and not served by public water and sewer, we can set whatever minimum lot size we want. We would keep the u minimum for our RNA rural residents in agriculture which is 1.5 acres and we have to allow the three units including ADUs. [13:21] So just to demonstrate what that looks like. So if you're in the growth boundary and you have public water and sewer, this is your 5,000t lot with four units. If you're outside that growth boundary, but you have public water and sewer, you could have two units on a 5,000 foot lot or four units on 15,000 ft². If it's inside the growth boundary, not on public sewer, [13:42] I just put, you know, greater than 20,000 ft because again, it depends on the number of bedrooms per unit. so, you know, whatever that would be. If you had four units, it would be much more than 20,000 ft. If you're outside the growth boundary again and not on public waters, you have a one and a half acre minimum lot size. [14:04] Just for demonstration, this is Bangor's growth boundary and this was determined in our 2022 comprehensive plan. and so this mainly follows water and sewer infrastructure. There's a few outliers, but pretty much everything in here for the most part is on public water and sewer. and then to protect the kandus egg, this part of the kandus egg was outlined and also the pinage over here. [14:29] And then LD427 again the main change for us would be that we have to allow any development to satisfy their minimum parking requirements through off-site parking located within a quarter mile away. they have to show that off-site parking facility does have adequate capacity to support the use. [14:49] So, and then for LD997, again, we have to allow residential uses in all commercial districts. we are allowed to set some limits on that. So, we can limit the number of units in a commercial development. We can require ground floors of buildings and commercial zones to be restricted. We do that a little bit in downtown development district here. [15:10] There's certain streets where you have to have commercial on the first floor and not residential. and then we can also set design standards but it's very vague but they're required to not discourage development through unreasonable cost or delays. and then other than those stipulations the same rules that I went through for LD1829 [15:30] apply to residential and commercial districts. So the minimum lot size requirements and number of units per lot. [15:38] So as far as how this applies to Bangor, we are splitting these changes into two different rounds. So round one, we're focusing on the urban zones like URD1, urban residence one, URD2, MNSD, NSD, and then USD. I'll show you those zones as well. and then we're also working on and I'll I'll go through that, but working on like the subdivision requirements and things like that. [16:02] round two, we will focus on those transitional and rural zones like LDR, RRNA and those since they're a little more complicated. and then also, as far as allowing residential and commercial zones, we'll be tackling that through our land development code update since we do have a little bit more time on that. [16:24] But as far as this round one, we will be updating the allowances for accessory dwelling units in accordance with the requirements. We're also we're basically just taking all the minimum state requirements and applying that to our zones. So for UD1 if you're in the growth boundary on public water sewer, you have the four units per 5,000 foot lot. [16:46] If you're outside the growth boundary, but on public water and sewer, you have that two units per 5,000t lot and then so on. what we did was we looked at, you know, where these zones are right now in relation to our growth boundary and public water and sewer and made those different stipulations that the state requires us to have. and so it varies based on the zone. [17:07] So for URD2, it's just simply four units on a 5,000t lot plus 2500 ft² per unit up to an additional or I'm sorry, up to six total. we did change the maximum number of units in UD2 to six. It used to be four but now that would make it just like URD1. So to differentiate it from URD1, we increased that a little bit to six. [17:31] The other key difference with UR2 is that it does allow that affordable housing density bonus. that density bonus was created by LD203. LD203 requires in multif family zones that you allow two and a half times the base density if somebody is creating affordable housing. And so that density bonus also applies to M and SD, NSD, and USD shown here. [17:56] MSD currently you can have two units on a 5,000t lot plus 250 ft per unit. there's no cap. Now, it would be four units on the 5,000 ft foot lot plus 250 ft per unit. Neighborhood service district. very similar to URD1. [18:17] We just created another cutout here for if it's outside the growth boundary and not on public water sewer because there are a few NSD lots that meet that. It would still be 10,000 ft for all other uses which are mainly commercial uses. In the urban service district, we are proposing to change mixed commercial residential to permitted by right instead of conditional. [18:38] since we do have to have residential and commercial zones have the same allowances as pure residential zones. And we're also currently in urban service district. There's this requirement that you have additional lot area on top of 10,000 square ft additional lot area per unit. [19:00] And so we're removing that because now the state says we have to allow that four units on 5,000 ft. We're also allowing standalone residential as a use. there is already standalone residential in USD. So that does make sense. [19:16] So just to demonstrate where these zones are, that would be changing sooner. URD1 is the bright orange and then that takes up, you know, most of the neighborhoods here. and then we do have some in the lighter orange URD2 kind of closer to the downtown core a little bit and scattered elsewhere. Bright purple is MNSD multif family and service that's scattered around and then also neighborhood service district looks a little similar. [19:43] It's bright pink that's mostly along our corridors with a little bit scattered in the neighborhoods. And then USD urban service district is in the teal and that's primarily also near the urban core and a few other places. We do also have some URD1 and neighborhood service district out here near the growth boundary. [20:03] just a few little pockets of NSD outside the growth boundary and one URD1 parcel. So [20:13] So then the other changes for round one would be changing those requirements for affordable housing developments. So allowing that height increase of 14 ft and the reduced parking minimum again only applies to those multif family zones. We would also be updating the land development permit requirements to directly refer to the state subdivision law since that's just simpler and there's a lot of exemptions in subdivision and it just makes sense to refer to that. [20:39] We would also be creating a staff review process for the creation of three to four separate dwelling units on a parcel. And then also we would be creating a staff review process for creating new parking lots between five and 19 spaces. Currently there's no permit required for parking lots that are fewer than 20 spaces. and we felt that you know these do have an impact. [21:02] So they should have some permitting requirement and these might be generated by multif family developments. We would also be updating the language around the off-site parking agreements to match state law. And that's pretty much the final change there. Then with round two, we would anticipate completing that later April through May potentially. [21:24] And that would be again focusing on those transitional and rural zones like lowdensity residential, highdensity residential our two main commercial districts and then our rural district. We would also add the requirement for the planning board member training. These are our transitional and rural zones that would be affected by these changes for now. [21:46] our RNA is rural residents and agricultural that's the teal makes up most of the area outside the growth boundary. high density residential is bright pink and then low density residential it's often next to HDR high density but that's in the bright purple. And then we have SNPS, shopping and personal service and GCNS, general commercial and service. [22:10] These are the two main zones that cover like the mall area, the Union Street Mall, Broadway, those areas. [22:20] And then just a few more pockets. GCNS, General Commercial Service covers a lot of the industrial zone over here as well. [22:28] if you do have more or want to find more information about the uses that are already allowed in the different zones, you can find them at this link. you can get here through the city's main web page. If you just go up to I think it's our government and you click the drop down, you can find our code there and you go to our land development code, you can get to our uses there. [22:49] and then when you go there, you'll see attachment A, B, and C. Those go through all the setbacks and height and things like that for each zone. And then you can also use our partial viewer. This is the link to our parcel viewer. You can also get there through the city's main page. It's right on the front page. you can see all the zoning there and you can also see the growth boundary there. [23:11] It's a different layer. [23:15] And just a key consideration, you know, even though there are all these changes to density, we still are allowed to have setbacks impervious surface ratio and things like that. And that does really control, you know, how much of the lot is buildable, and how many units would be able to be placed on a lot. and the other caveat is that we are in the middle of working on our land development code. [23:38] an overhaul essentially of that to align with our comprehensive plan and that new code will incorporate these laws but also try to align that with the vision that was established by the community in the comprehensive plan. and then we also will address the allowance for residential uses in all commercial zones with that update. [23:59] but once we do have a draft for public review, which we anticipate this year, there will be a really large outreach effort to reach as many people as possible. But in the meantime, you can go to blueprintbangor.com to see the work so far. There's a technical review report that kind of summarizes what the changes would look like. and you can also sign up to get email updates there. [24:23] And if there are questions or comments, you can always email us or call us too if you want. And we will also post this presentation online for people. So, [24:35] thank you, planning officer Klette. That was a lot of information. Yeah. [24:38] [24:40] can we start with questions from the board members? There any points of clarification needed? [24:49] I think that was a comprehensive run through. there's a lot of details as you know. Are so can are there any items that we were already meeting today that we didn't have to that we don't need to change to meet the state standards. [25:06] The main one is really just the minimum dwelling units per I'm sorry minimum parking spaces per dwelling unit. [25:14] We're already in compliance with that almost totally right. [25:17] But other than that [25:19] or is it down to zero? It's one. It's one now. But other than that, there's really not a lot a lot of what we have now would have to change. the only other thing I can think of is that we do already allow multif family residential in shopping and personal service and general commercial and service. but we have to change, you know, the minimum lot size. [25:41] and things like that. So [25:44] are there any areas where we're exceeding the state mandate? It sounded like for URD2 there was one space where the mandate was five and we're going to six. [25:54] it was the mandate was four per lot and we're going to six. and that just because again just to differentiate it from URD1. I mean [26:06] otherwise there'd be no difference in the use for URD1 versus two. [26:10] Yeah. And the only and the only other difference with URD2 is that they can do the affordable housing density bonus currently. So, [26:19] member Hun, [26:20] does this count as our training on land use planning? [26:24] Sure. [laughter] [26:24] I did have some questions about land use training, too. I was going to maybe say that to the end, but it'd be great to talk about that some more, too. [26:31] Yeah. so what I would envision that as is, MMA, the main municipal association, every year they create a training specific to planning boards and boards of appeals. that would be the training I think would qualify. unfortunately they do only have that like one or two times a year. So you may have to wait a while to get it. [26:52] I know Greg here and Ross had some issues I think accessing that. So [26:59] is there any explanation about if you have to do it every term or if you have to do it just once? [27:04] I think it's just one I have to check the state law. I'm not sure they clarified that. But I would imagine I mean it would be a good refresher if you did it every year. I would see a benefit there, too. Yeah. But I just wanted to know if it was stipulated. [27:17] I don't So, [27:18] that was the question I was going to ask at the end. [27:20] Yeah. [27:22] Any other questions? [27:25] Well, we'd like to open up for public debate debate discussion and feedback debate, but and we 'd like to hear from you all. so, just a reminder to keep the discussion on topic and when you come up, make sure that the button shows as green. so that people can hear you on the on the recording and then to state your name and [clears throat] whether you're a Bangor resident and [27:51] then go from there. Do we have do we have anyone who'd like to come up to the podium to get started? [27:58] Please, [28:07] Mr. Chair and members of the board, good to be with you again. It's been a while. My name is Jeff Gray. I live on Lancaster Avenue. thank you for the opportunity and happy paint St. Patrick's Day. I'll try to be brief. [28:29] I'm not here to question the specifics of the impending state mandates regarding density, height, parking, or zoning. the state of Maine has decided to annihilate local control and we're going to have to live with that, learn to live with it. [28:50] my question is more general in nature and it regards design. My question is how much control does our planning board have over the design of structures built under these new mandates? [29:07] And can our planning board set minimum standards of design or do they just have to blindly follow the new mandates no matter what it looks like? [29:20] So I can answer that. the planning board can you know recommend adoption of an ordinance that would set design standards that has to be approved by council. I will note that the land development code update we do anticipate having design standards for the different zones. So, [29:39] okay. just want to remind you, please don't sell us short. [29:47] good design is worth the time and effort. what we leave be behind, what we build today should you know, it's it's what we're going to leave behind and we should try to leave it better than we found it. I'm going to introduce my next door neighbor. [30:09] really smart guy. 50 years of experience in engineering and architecture. He's been in front of this board many times and let him follow up on what I'm talking about. [30:24] Thanks, Jeff. [30:27] Board members, staff, good evening. Happy St. Patrick's Day. My name is Brian Ames. I'm a longtime president of Bangor, previously a retired consulting engineer, having done many projects and appearing before this board many times in a variety of capacities. But, I'm here tonight to try to give you some insights in terms of what I think is going on here and how it really is going to affect this city in a in [30:57] a very difficult way. For instance, if you are if you've gone up into a mobile home park recently, you'll notice that the mobile homes are parked probably about 50 ft center to center. And it gives a the nice density and for many years, this was regarded as a high density development in the city of Bangor. [31:17] Mobile homes, they were also the affordable housing 50 years ago. Today we're talking about something with a density four times more dense than a mobile home park. That's that's going to have a huge impact on the downtown on the URD1 or UD2. these [31:38] residential areas have been developed with the existing infrastructure and if you're going to add more units into those existing lots, it's just going to put a heavy burden on traffic, on resources, on sewer, on trash collection, the whole nine yards. It's going to be very difficult. So one of the issues that we all have to deal with is how do we mitigate [32:02] that encroachment into the into these various zones. The other thing is when we talk about the parameters of the of the state mandates you look at parking which is 2/3 of a unit a parking space per unit. That's incredibly small. I mean, I don't know who [32:23] lives in Bangor that doesn't have a car for one thing. So whether it's one person, two person, or three persons in that in that unit, they're going to have that many cars. And that's going to generate a lot of on street parking no matter where they're put. So on street parking is going to be a huge problem. And then you talk about u the idea that you can walk a quarter of a mile to your car. [32:46] you know, good luck with that in the middle of the winter when it's snow and icy and you're carrying a bag of groceries. that's not that's too long a distance. So, that's a that's going to be a problem. So, I have a couple questions and that is really coming down to how is the planning board or the code enforcement office going to deal with [33:07] regulating the construction of very tiny lots packed with a lot of a lot of dense usage. And how is it going to allow the movement of vehicles, pedestrians, and whatnot in these lots? And how are they going to be arranged? And I guess what I'm saying is I can't visualize it from where I sit, not without scale models and some 3D effects that give me a an idea of the compactness of all these units and how they're going to really work. [33:36] I mean, the height change is going to be significant when it's put next to a existing residential unit. So these are going to be all problems and I noticed that the conditional usage has been taken away. So u an existing property unit property owner isn't going to have the right to argue that his property is being [33:59] downgraded or infringed upon with these various things. and there are no standards for which to keep these up to his level, thus possibly degrading his financial or a living situation with the cars and the trash and everything else. So, these are real problems that need to be faced going forward. [34:21] So in all of this I guess I would recommend that the attachments ABC giving the setback limits, the impervious limits, the screening requirements not be diminished in an effort to cram all these things in that we they probably are going to be our only tool to regulate how many units are really put into the backyard of an existing property. [34:46] And without these, you can envision that a person with a halfacre lot can dump in three or four units in his backyard and make the neighbor suffer the consequences of all that. It's it's not right that those things could happen. So I think having sufficient safeguards in the terms of the various specific [35:08] limits of development are going to be very important to maintain and there are some problems. There are some examples that could be done in terms of setback requirements. Could have a an increasing height requirement as it goes back from the setback line. That might help a little bit to keep the visual appearance of high-rise buildings next to low-rise buildings and things like that. [35:32] So, there's a lot to think about and I look forward to this ongoing discussion and if I can help in any way, I'd be more than happy to. Any questions? I have a few responses. I'm glad you reminded me of a few things. So, there is a stipulation. The state requires us to ensure that there's adequate water and sewer capacity for every new unit that's brought online. [35:56] so that's evaluated at the well, if it's a larger development, it's evaluated here at the planning board level, but if it's just a simple building permit, then code enforcement reviews that. but we did specifically insert language. we have draft language. the we anticipate that going to council for first reading on the 23rd and then April 7th per year. [36:17] That's the round one changes I discussed. but that language includes those state requirements on water and sewer capacity. then also the building envelope standards. you talked about having the height increase as you go in towards the lot. So we already have that requirement under our building envelope standards. none of that is changing. [36:38] so that does control you know how tall buildings are at the lot line and then we're not changing the existing setbacks and impervious surface ratio and again those will be analyzed more with the land development code update to see you know those will probably be the defining factors that differentiate between the different zones and how they feel. [36:58] and then as far as parking, I will say, you know, even though we've gradually reduced parking minimums over the years, we always find that developers put in more than we require, like almost 99% of the time, because they want to get customers, they want to get tenants and if they anticipate their tenants having cars, then they put in the parking for those tenants. [37:21] so that's been our experience. And then also I will say that one of the main barriers currently for developing multi-units at least for renovation of multi-units in our especially our urban zones is sprinkler requirements. So when you're creating three or more units, you have to add sprinklers and that's a huge cost. [37:43] so I don't and that's not going away. So, I don't anticipate I don't anticipate a huge like change happening tomorrow because there still are these other barriers currently. So, [37:58] my nightmare scenario was a very small subdivision of four very small lots filled with multiple houses and creating traffic jams and tight packed buildings and a nightmare scenario. So without again without seeing a 3D model, it's hard to see how this would really work in the real world. [38:21] So I appreciate that. Thank you. [38:26] Thank you. Do we have any other people who'd like to come up and make a comment? [38:36] I know we have someone who is there. If there's no one else in the room at this moment, I'd like to turn to Zoom. I think there was someone who pre-registered. Is it Deborah Garcia? Do we see them on? [38:53] so, Deborah, if [38:57] Yes. Can you can you hear us fine? [38:59] All right. Yes. [39:01] Okay, we hear you. [39:04] well, you know, I'm opposed to this land use change. some of the reasons include what the gentleman said previously and actually the one before that. seems like nobody is for it, but it's reassuring to know that [39:25] some of the requirements that Bangor has for setbacks and so forth will mitigate any, you know, huge change because it is very concerning. you know you buy your house in a single family zone and then all of a sudden you know decades later or whatever [39:45] depending on how long you've been in the in Bangor some people you know for as I say decades and then all of a sudden you know your property is devalued because it's become a multifamily zone in fact I don't think single families are zoned anymore more [40:07] well not single family, single family housing. and I you know and I did a little research to determine like is there a need for all this housing in Bangalore and the state put out a [40:28] population outlook 2020 to 2030 and they have Ponobscot County growing at 0.9% less than 1% over that 10 year period and you know that doesn't account for the deaths during that time. [40:48] So I believe that would be stagnant growth for Ponobskot County considering you know the deaths and the growth and some of that growth is going to be babies and they obviously won't need housing. so you know, I just think that as one of the gentlemen said, we're [41:10] this is being imposed on Bangalore and we don't even, in my opinion, based on what I've been able to uncover, we don't even, you know, need to do this. it just feels it feels wrong and it feels unnecessary and I'm you know [41:32] I'm really opposed to it basically. I'm worried about the effect on our taxes because you know there'll be greater if this growth comes to fruition. you know, maybe if we the developers come and build all these housings, maybe, you know, it'll be an incentive for people to come here because we have all this housing. [41:57] and if that happens, we have more traffic, we have more you know, demand on our all of our emergency services, our schools, etc., etc. and our taxes are already pretty burdensome. So yeah, you know, and I looked at Zillow today, this last point I want to make. [42:19] And we currently in Bangor, according to Zillow, we have 101 houses for sale and 129 rentals. So, you know, where's the housing shortage? where's the necess necessity for all of this, you know, planned growth? [42:40] this I mean the state doesn't even see us growing at least through 2030 and beyond that who knows I anyway those are my thoughts thank you very much oh and I am a resident of Bangor by the way [42:57] thank you Deborah any other comments from the room [43:09] two other people Well, I was going to ask the other two people there, those are applicants or are they [43:16] are they registered for this or is it an applicant? [43:20] That is the applicant. [43:22] Citizen. [43:25] Hello. [43:26] One second. before you get started there, we good to take this meeting? [43:34] Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Please go ahead. Please. You ready to make a comment? Sorry. [43:40] Oh, hi. [43:42] Go ahead. [43:42] Yeah, we hear you. [43:43] Hi. [43:44] Could you say your name for us, please? [43:45] My name is Gel T. I'm a resident for Waterville, Maine. we recently purchased a property in Bangalore and thank you for the members for approving the code for that area. I just had some questions regarding on how the permit works in Bengal. [44:07] If like on the heating, plumbing and any other type of work in Bengal, do we have to have a permit for plumbing and heating or just the plumbing, please? [44:21] so that'll be handled through our code enforcement department. you can reach out to us after this meeting and we can get you in touch with them. [44:28] Okay. Thank you very much. [44:30] During business hours if you Yeah. [44:34] Thank you very much. [44:35] Yeah. If you call the city of Bangor, they'll direct you to the department that'll help you with that. [44:40] Okay. [44:40] Anything about the proposed code changes based on these different [44:48] state laws that are that have been passed? No, questions at all. My question was already you already passed the proposal. So, thank you. That's that's really what I was waiting for. But yeah, thank you. [45:03] Unless there's any other comments, we're going to close the public comment [clears throat] on this item and I'd like to open it back up in case there is any additional discussion for city staff around what was presented or about the comments that were made. [45:21] So to recap, we heard concerns about design [45:24] and how that would play into future city plans about there was concerns about density. There was concerns about parking and impact on infrastructure. We talked about buffers and setbacks. setbacks you commented on. but what about buffers? [45:46] Is there is there any change to buffers being proposed with the denser [45:57] the increase in density? [45:58] No, all the existing buffer requirements would remain the same. Those are mainly applicable to like off- streetet parking from residential and then also there's certain buffer requirements for residential and the shopping and personal service and general commercial and service zones. So, [46:16] are there any final comments you wanted to make, planning officer Colette, based off the comments you heard? [46:21] Nope, there's not. [46:23] Then that would complete this item at this point because this was just an open public discussion of the item, not something that required a vote. [46:33] So, to return to our agenda, [46:42] I'm going to start with a comment. [46:46] so we're going to be touching back on new business and the planning board has two main roles. First, we review amendments to land development code which typically include either changes to zoning districts or changes to text within the code. Our review on these amendments includes adherence to comprehensive plan as well as considering any applicable concerns from the public. Our vote on these items is in the form of a recommendation to the city council as to whether the item ought to pass or ought not to pass. [47:11] The city council makes the final decision on zoning and land development code changes. There's one zone change item on tonight's agenda. But secondly, the board serves as the regulatory authority for land development permits, commonly known as site plan review. Site plans are reviewed to ensure compliance with city code as to parking, driveways, storm water management, lighting, landscaping, buffering, [47:33] building location, environmental impacts, and shoreland zoning as may be applicable. We also ensure the plan meets the dimensional requirements for the project zoning district. We review large site plans that trigger site location development for the main D as well under their requirements. Some uses are conditional uses that have specific conditions and requirements we use to review the project. [47:56] State statute also outlines the requirements for the subdivision review and the city has additional standards as to roadway and utility specifications. The board ultimately endorses a plan that will go to the registry of deeds if the plan is approved. There are two items on the agenda tonight that are land development permits. Further information on the city's codes and standards and the comprehensive plan may be found on the city's website. [48:19] I already talked through the protocol we're going to follow for the presentation of these items. But just as a reminder, the applicant will come forward and present the change and then we'll have an opportunity to ask questions to city staff. And [clears throat] after that's completed, we'll go to public comment and we're going to come back for additional discussion and then a vote on either the standards or on the zoning request. [48:47] So, the next item we're going to be talking about is to amend the land development code by changing a parcel of land located at 26 Walter Street, map lot 025-143, from urban service urban service district, USD to urban residence [49:06] 2 district or URD2 said area of land contains approximately 111 acres total and is more particularly ly indicated on the map attached year two and made part hereof. Applicant owner is NHA LLC. [49:24] Do we have the applicant here? [49:26] They misunderstood and left. They were on Zoom there and I'm I'm just emailing them. So, I'm hoping [49:31] Oh, thank you. Can we table this one to if they if they rejoin? [49:36] Yeah, [49:36] that makes more sense now. Okay. Can I get a motion to or do I need a motion to move this at this point? [49:46] If it's within the same meeting, you can just [49:49] I'm going to put I'm going to suggest we postpone this one until after we get the applicant back. And in that case, we're going to move forward. And it sounds like I don't need to get a motion. [49:58] might as well just move it. Yeah. Let's So we have a motion to table this item until the applicant returns. Can I get a second? [50:06] I'll second. We'll do a roll call vote. Member Brush, [50:10] yes. [50:10] Member Hayes, [50:11] yes. [50:11] Member Hobson, [50:12] yes. [50:13] Member Hun, [50:14] yes. [50:14] Member Jonas, [50:15] yes. [50:15] Member Woodford, [50:16] yes. [50:17] The chair votes yes. So, we will come back to that one. Our next item [50:24] is land development permit application for proposed creation of a flag lot at 141 Kit Kitridge Road. Oh, it looks like is this the person in question? [50:37] That's the person there. [50:38] Gail, Daddy, I see you rejoined. There seemed to have been some confusion. We had we're ready to discuss the zoning change request that I think you're the applicant on. Is that correct? [50:56] Can you hear us? You might have to unmute. [51:00] I can hear you now. [51:01] Okay, great. We hear you as well. So, I just introduced your zone change request. I can reread it for you, but it's the 26 Walter Street map lot 025-143 going from urban service district USD to urban residence 2 district or URD2 and it contains 11.11 acres total and is more particularly indicated on the map attached. [51:25] At this point, we'd look to you to present the change, the zoning change request. [51:35] Are you prepared to talk about the zone change request? [51:39] Yes, sir. [51:41] Okay. [51:42] Let me just pull up what we draw here. [51:53] is there something you need to present? you need to be set as a presenter. [51:57] yeah, I just wanted I like to see it on my side here so I that way I have an idea of how I can explain it. Since English is my second language, I want to make sure I can better represent it to you guys. Sorry. [52:11] Oh, no problem. [52:13] Yeah. So the property was one family unit and we are our project is to make it to two units and that's why we applied for the zoning change and to see how this plan can be approved on your hand so that way we can go with that. [52:38] place. [52:45] Any comments from staff? [52:48] I guess my only suggestion would just be to discuss, you know, whether you feel like this aligns with the comprehensive plan as you're making a decision. [52:58] Any questions to staff about this request or to the applicant? [53:07] Oh, member Jonas, [53:08] I just have one really quick question about the size of this lot because if when I do the math,1 acres is shy of 5,000 square feet. [53:16] Yeah, that's right. We have a stipulation in the code that says that I don't remember the exact percentage, but if you're within a certain percentage off from the minimum, the code enforcement officer can allow them to they'll treat it like it's 5,000 ft is [53:30] Okay. Thank you. Any [53:38] other questions for the applicant or for staff? [53:48] If not, we'd open it up for public comment [53:55] and I'd like to see if there's any public comment in the room about the zone proposed zone change. [54:04] We have do we still have Deb? I forget Deborah's last name. [54:11] Deborah Garcia on the line about this. [54:14] Okay. So, I'll close public comment. Oh, I'm sorry. Before I do that, did we have a raised hand? Would someone like to come up and speak? Okay. yes. The applicant, Gail Tatty, would you have a additional comment you want to make? [54:28] Yes, please. just about the garage. [clears throat] The garage is really in bad shape and we probably will try to take it down. I don't know if there's something I have to come to the office again to talk to the court enforcement, please. [54:43] That would be a separate matter because this is just for the zone change as far as I'm aware. [54:47] Okay, no problem. Thank you, sir. [54:51] You're welcome. if there's no other so I will be closing public comment then unless there's anything else there and no further review if not look for a motion and reminder that the lang it should be worded as ought to pass and then we vote yes or no on the question of whether it ought to pass. [55:16] Yes, chair. I recommend that we recommend to the city council ought to pass through or zone change at 26 Walder Street, map lot 025-143, [55:27] urban surf ser urban service district to urban service residence 2 district URD2. [55:36] Thank you. do we have a second? [55:38] I'll second. [55:40] Yep. M member Hopson. Thank you. And a roll call vote. Member Brush, [55:45] yes. [55:45] Member Hayes, [55:46] yes. [55:47] Member Hopson, [55:47] yes. [55:48] Member Hun, [55:48] yes. [55:49] Member Jonas, [55:49] yes. [55:50] Member Woodford, [55:51] yes. [55:51] The chair votes yes. [55:53] All right. so this will go to the city council for this next meeting to be reviewed. [56:02] that's so that's the that's it for this item. Any comments, Anya? [56:06] I was just going to say that's next Monday on [56:09] which is next Monday. Thank you. next item on our agenda is land development permit application for proposed creation of a flag lot at 141Q or Kitridge Road map lot R61-011-C [56:24] in the rural residence and agriculture agricultural district RRNA. The applicant owner Jesse Nicholson. [56:32] Hello, I'm Jesse Nicholson. I'm a resident at the 141 road looking for approval of a flag style lot. [56:42] that for later development of a new residential property. [56:52] Thanks. Is there is there any other [56:54] you want to present? [56:56] Well, it I currently own about 3.8 acres. [57:01] The subdivision will create a 1.5 acre lot with a dwelling on it now and then a second lot that will have a 50-foot road frontage back to open up to a the flag style lot in the back. And that lot will be about 2.3 acres. [57:23] Like I said, for further development, I've had soil testing done to make sure I could do a septic tank there which is suitable for septic tank and well journaling as well. and like I said, my intent to is to build another dwelling on that property in the future. [57:43] I don't know. I have the the plot. I don't know if I should present that or [57:51] Yeah, I made an oversight though. I have to back us up a little bit, but I if you do have it handy to present it, I do have to discuss the procedural background, the application, that whole item. I skipped over that, so I need to re return to that. Feel free to stand at the podium. We're just going to read through the procedural background. [clears throat] [58:12] so staff has indicated the completeness of this application and that it's ready for board review. The fees are documented and paid. The applicant standing is confirmed. Does the board have any concerns about these issues? [58:24] are there any concerns about conflicts of interest? [58:28] If not, I look for a motion and second on the acceptance to accepted completeness. Go ahead, member Jonas. [58:34] Chair, I move the board finds the application is deemed complete on March 17th, 2026 that the applicant paid all applicable fees per exhibit 3 in our packet. The proposal proposed project is the creation of a flag lot and the plat was reviewed by the engineering department and a written report was received from the city engineer on March 10th, 2026 per exhibit 15. [58:57] Thank you. Do we have a second? [58:58] Second. [59:00] Okay. Member Woodford. And a roll call vote. Member Brush. [59:03] Yes. [59:03] Member Hayes. [59:04] Yes. [59:05] Member Hopson. [59:05] Yes. [59:06] Member Hune. [59:06] Yes. [59:07] Member Jonas? [59:07] Yes. [59:08] Member Woodford? [59:08] Yes. [59:09] And the chair votes yes. Okay, that's taken care of. Sorry about that. we had to do that first. You don't have to repeat everything you just said in my mind. but if you did have a plat you wanted to present or anything like that, this would be the time. [59:34] I apologize. I'm new to this whole [59:36] Yeah, we've seen it already. It's just if it helps you just indicate anything that you want to share with us. [59:43] No, there's I mean I covered it when I verbally said I don't think there's anything I miss. [59:53] That's great. Any comments from the staff? [59:55] No comments. [59:56] Any questions for the applicant or for staff? [1:00:02] I would then we'd invite you to sit down. We're going to open it for public comment and then we're going to move forward with with public comment at the point. [1:00:14] See this is done. [1:00:19] So at this point we'd like to open up for public comment. Is there anyone in the room who'd like to speak about this item? [1:00:27] If not, we'll close this item for public comment. And then before going to the motions on the standards, do any board members have any issues that they'd like to bring up before we get started? Then we'd move over to the applicable provisions and findings. part one, that the project meets the requirements of section 165-68B [1:00:49] flag lots. I'd like to look for I'd like to hear a motion for item number one. Member Brush. [1:00:57] Mr. Chair, I move the board finds it based on exhibit 2, the project meets the requirements of land development code section 165-68B1 [1:01:08] and section 165-68B [1:01:12] 6 regarding minimum street frontage and minimum access strip width. [1:01:19] Thank you. Do we have a second? [1:01:21] I'll second. [1:01:22] Oh, member Hobson and a roll call vote. Member Brush. [1:01:25] Yes. [1:01:25] Member Hayes. [1:01:26] Yes. Member Hopson. [1:01:27] Yes. [1:01:27] Member Hinn, [1:01:28] yes. [1:01:28] Member Jonas, [1:01:29] yes. [1:01:30] Member Woodford, [1:01:30] yes. [1:01:31] And the chair votes yes. Item number two. [1:01:35] Member Hayes. I move the board finds that based on exhibit 2, the project meets the requirements of land development code section 165-68B3 [1:01:50] and section 165-68B4 [1:01:54] regarding the access strip not being used in the computation of the minimum area and dimensional requirements for the rear lot and regarding the rear lot meeting the requirements of the district in which it lies. [1:02:08] Thank you. Do we have a second? [1:02:12] Member Han. And a roll call vote. Member Brush, [1:02:14] yes. [1:02:15] Member Hayes, [1:02:16] yes. [1:02:16] Member Hopson, [1:02:17] yes. [1:02:17] Member Hun, [1:02:18] yes. [1:02:18] Member Jonas, [1:02:19] yes. [1:02:19] Member Woodford, [1:02:20] yes. [1:02:20] The chair votes yes. [1:02:22] item number three. [1:02:25] Member Hopson. [1:02:26] Chair, I find the board finds that based on exhibit two, the project meets the requirements of the land development code section 165-68B5. [1:02:35] Regarding the requirements that only one tier of rear lots shall be permitted behind the tier of lots fronting on the street. [1:02:43] Thank you. Do we have a second to the motion? Member Jonas. And a roll call vote. Member Brush. [1:02:49] Yes. [1:02:49] Member Hayes. [1:02:50] Yes. [1:02:50] Member Hobson? [1:02:51] Yes. [clears throat] [1:02:51] Member Hun? [1:02:52] Yes. [1:02:52] Member Jonas? [1:02:53] Yes. [1:02:53] Member Woodford? [1:02:54] Yes. [1:02:55] And the chair votes yes. Item number four. Member Brush. [1:03:02] Mr. Mr. Chair, I move the board finds that based on exhibits 2 and 10, the project meets the requirements for land development code section 165-68B7 [1:03:14] regarding the requirements for lots in the Rural Residents and Agricultural District with access strips exceeding 200 feet in length. [1:03:24] Thank you. Do we have a second? [1:03:27] Member Hayes. And a roll call vote. Member Brush, [1:03:30] yes. [1:03:30] Member Hayes, [1:03:31] yes. Yes. Member Hopson. [1:03:32] Yes. [1:03:32] Member Hune. [1:03:33] Yes. [1:03:33] Member Jonas. [1:03:34] Yes. [1:03:34] Member Woodford. [1:03:35] Yes. [1:03:35] And the chair votes yes. Item number five. [1:03:39] Member Jonas. [1:03:40] Chair, I move the board finds that based on exhibit two, the project meets the requirements of land development code section 165-68B9 [1:03:49] regarding flag plans being stamped on a prof by a professional land surveyor. [1:03:54] Thank you. Do we have a second? [1:03:56] Second. [1:03:56] Member Hopson. And a roll call vote. Member Brush. [1:03:59] Yes. [1:03:59] Member Hayes. Yes. [1:04:01] Member Hobson. [1:04:01] Yes. [1:04:02] Member Hume. [1:04:02] Yes. [1:04:03] Member Jonas. [1:04:03] Yes. [1:04:04] Member Woodford. [1:04:04] Yes. [1:04:05] Chair votes yes. That completes part one. We're on to part two. That the project meets the requirements of section 165-126 for a minor subdivision. I'd like to Is there a motion on item number one? Member Hume. [1:04:23] Sure. I move that the board finds that based on exhibits 2, 4, and 10-11, the [clears throat] project meets the requirements of land development code 165-126F1 [1:04:34] regarding compliance with state of Maine G guidelines for subdivision approval contained in 30- MRSA 4404. [1:04:44] Thank you. Is there a second? member Brush and a roll call vote. Member Brush, [1:04:51] yes. [1:04:51] Member Hayes, [1:04:52] yes. Yes. Member Hodson. [1:04:53] Yes. [1:04:53] Member Hune, [1:04:54] yes. [1:04:55] Member Jonas, [1:04:55] yes. [1:04:56] Member Woodford, [1:04:57] yes. [1:04:57] The chair votes yes. [1:04:58] Exhibit two, the project meets the requirements of land development code section 165-126F2 [1:05:06] regarding the compliance with existing zoning regulations regarding lot dimensions and areas. [1:05:12] Thank you. Do we have a second? Member Brush. And a roll call vote. Member Brush, [1:05:17] yes. [1:05:18] Member Hayes, [1:05:19] yes. [1:05:20] Member Hopson, [1:05:21] yes. Member Hune. [1:05:22] Yes. [1:05:22] Member Jonas. [1:05:23] Yes. [1:05:23] Member Woodford. [1:05:24] Yes. [1:05:24] And the chair votes yes. Item number three. [1:05:28] Oh. Member Brush. [1:05:31] Mr. Chair, I move the board finds that based on exhibit 2, the project meets the requirements of land development code section 165-126F [1:05:42] 3 through 4 regarding the requirement [sighs] for at least one side of the lot to abut a street and regarding the angle of side lot lines. [1:05:53] Thank you. Do we have a second? [1:05:55] Second. [1:05:56] Oh, [1:05:58] member Whitford for the second. Can we get a roll call vote? Member Brush? [1:06:02] Yes. [1:06:03] Member Hayes? [1:06:04] Yes. [1:06:04] Member Hobson? [1:06:05] Yes. [1:06:05] Member Hun? [1:06:06] Yes. [1:06:06] Member Jonas? [1:06:07] Yes. [1:06:07] Member Woodford? [1:06:08] Yes. [1:06:08] The chair votes yes. [1:06:10] Item four. Remember Jonas? Chair, I move the board finds that based on exhibits 2 and 4, the project meets the requirements of land development code section 165-126F [1:06:22] six regarding the plat containing all information required in section 165-126D [1:06:29] parts 1 through 8. [1:06:30] Thank you. Do we have a second? [1:06:32] I'll second. [1:06:33] Member Hobson. And a roll call vote. Member Brush. [1:06:37] Yes. [1:06:37] Member Hayes. [1:06:38] Yes. [1:06:39] Member Hobson. [1:06:39] Yes. [1:06:40] Member Han. [1:06:40] Yes. [1:06:41] Member Jonas. [1:06:41] Yes. [1:06:42] Member Wford. Yes, [1:06:43] the chair votes yes. That completes part two and we're on to part three. That the project meets the requirements of section 165-114 land development approval standards. item one. Do we have a motion? Hobson. [1:06:58] Chair. I find the board finds that based on the findings made in parts one and part two of section four of the docu of this document the project satisfies the requirements of land development code section 165-114A [1:07:11] regarding subdivisions [1:07:13] and is there a second member Hayes with a second and a roll call vote member brush [1:07:19] yes [1:07:20] member Hayes [1:07:21] yes [1:07:21] member Hobson [1:07:22] yes [1:07:23] member Hun [1:07:23] yes [1:07:24] member Jonas [1:07:24] yes [1:07:25] member Woodford [1:07:26] yes [1:07:26] and the chair votes yes that completes Part three. And this brings us to the decision. member Hun. [1:07:32] Yeah. Chair, I move that the board finds that the project meets the requirements of a land development permit for a flag lot and therefore grants the land development permit for the proposed project. [1:07:43] Thank you. Do we have a second? [1:07:44] Second. [1:07:46] That's member Whitford. And a roll call vote. Member Brush. [1:07:50] Yes. [1:07:50] Member Hayes. [1:07:51] Yes. [1:07:51] Member Hobson? [1:07:52] Yes. [1:07:52] Member Hun? [1:07:53] Yes. [1:07:53] Member Jonas? [1:07:54] Yes. [1:07:54] Woodford? [1:07:55] Yes. [1:07:55] And the chair votes yes. Congratulations. Your item has been approved. The applicant can reach out to code enforcement office for more guidance. [clears throat] yep. That's the rest of it. Thank you. [1:08:09] if those are your plans, we do just need to keep them here for them to sign at the end of the meeting, but we'll give them to you after tomorrow. Yep. [1:08:17] I can I can come back. [1:08:20] Yes, that's right. Yep. [1:08:25] All right. That brings us to our next item, land development permit application for a major site development and major preliminary subdivision. approval for development of 26 residential rental units, 16 DU excuse me, 13 duplex buildings with associated parking and access drive at the property located 2 2645 [1:08:45] Broadway map lot R11-013 [1:08:49] in the Rural Residents and Agricultural District RRNA and contract shopping and personal service district SNPS. the applicant owner, Steel Magnolia [1:08:59] LL Steel Magnolia LLC staff has indicated the completeness of this application and that it's ready for board review. Fees are documented and paid. The applicant standing is confirmed. Does the board have any concerns about these issues? Are there any concerns with conflicts of interest? [1:09:18] If not, I'd request a motion to accept the completeness of this application. [1:09:28] Member Jonas. [1:09:29] Chair, I move the board finds that the application was deemed complete on March 17th, 2026. The applicant paid all applicable fees per exhibit 3 and the proposed project is a major site development in major preliminary subdivision. [1:09:42] Thank you. Do we have a second? [1:09:44] I'll second. Member Hopson with a second and a roll call vote. Member Brush, [1:09:48] yes. [1:09:48] Member Hayes, [1:09:49] yes. [1:09:49] Member Hopson, [1:09:50] yes. [1:09:51] Member Hun, [1:09:51] yes. [1:09:52] Member Jonas, [1:09:52] yes. [1:09:53] Member Woodford, [1:09:54] yes. [1:09:54] And the chair votes yes. [1:09:56] Okay, at this point, let's see. At this point, we'd like to invite the applicant or their representative up to the podium to give a presentation on the project. [1:10:10] Obviously, [1:10:26] you guys have all this stuff in front of you, too. But, good evening, members of the board and staff. Wow, that's really loud. we'd like to initially thank the staff for their efforts to assist us in the submittal and review of this application and efforts to get it on tonight's agenda. I, Amy Young, Plymouth Engineering, and with me tonight are also representatives of Steel Magnolia LLC, Emily and Mike. [1:10:49] I had to write most of the stuff down because there's a lot going on. the pro proposed project is developmental subdivision located between the North Bangor Road and Broadway. It's referred to by the city of Bangor as tax map R11 lot 13. It's 5.44 acres. as indicated by the staff's memo, the base zoning in the area is RRNA, but during a recently approved permitting process for the site, a contract zone was created for SNPS. [1:11:15] That past approved project was not constructed. The proposed project will consist of 13 residential duplexes. Each duplex will consist of two -bedroom units for a total of 26 units to be offered as rentals by the owner. The project will remain private with no request to the city acquisition of streets or utilities. and the site will be served by the following amenities. [1:11:36] A private drive designed to meet the city's minor street standards with two entrances and a partially closed storm water system with catch basins. Two parking spaces are providing for each unit. System of two wells that will deliver water to the central pump house where it will be pressurized and sent to the individual units. The system will be licensed as a community p community drinking water system with the state of main drinking water program. [1:11:59] That state application has been submitted and we are scheduled to meet with a state inspector tomorrow at 10:00 on site. And the well driller letter is in your in your packet that you have received. the site's wastewater will be treated by subsurface wastewater disposal units designed by Steve Howell, a licensed site evaluator. The system layouts will divide the wastewater into different collection and treatment areas as shown on a utility plan. [1:12:24] Final H200 forms for submitt and approval have been completed. Electric and communication systems will be provided off North Bangar Road. The intent is for the services to be the underground with the final transformer locations and number of units per transformer to be determined by the power company. Municipal solid waste will be contracted for collection. [1:12:45] Dumpsters will be provided at the site as shown on the plants. The proposed project will create enough developed in a pvious area that the main D chapter 500 storm water rules must be met for collection and treatment. The city of Bangor has delegated authority for those rules and the city engineering department has reviewed the storm water management design. The applicant is proposing a wet pond for storm water management on the site that will outlet the ground surface of upstream of an unnamed brook located on the east end of the parcel. [1:13:10] That brookke eventually drains silicon dusk eggstream. project will provide fire protection by using the permit pool volume of the water in the storm water wet pond piping and hydrant near the north Bangor road. The system has been reviewed and approved by the city's fire department. In summary, we believe the project has been designed to meet all the requirements of a major subdivision approval and major site development approval. [1:13:32] Any questions? [1:13:34] There's a lot going on. [1:13:36] Thank you. any comments from staff? [1:13:38] No comments. Any questions from the board to the applicant or to to the representative or to the city staff? [1:13:48] Jonas, [1:13:49] I have just a quick question for staff. and this is just for my information. because I know that it I saw a note that USFs aren't required, but I don't know what that is. What's a USF? [1:14:02] Oh, yeah. Okay. I've heard that term before. [1:14:06] or [laughter] [1:14:11] under drain soil filter [1:14:12] which they originally proposed but now we're using a wet pond so they just needed to revise their statement that's all. [1:14:18] Okay. Thanks. Thanks. [1:14:21] Thank you. are there any provisions that we need to [1:14:30] or conditions I mean to say that we need to call out as we read through the as we look through the standards? No, the only one is at the end. just conditioning that they get final subdivision approval. They have to do that anyway. but I will say I accidentally left in some language. I think it was one of the last maybe the last standard where it says with the condition noted in item three of part 4. [1:14:53] I didn't mean to keep that in there. If people want [1:14:59] So what's that mess? [1:15:01] Break everything out. [1:15:07] Yes, I see what you're saying. So this is related to [1:15:12] se part four [1:15:16] item seven [1:15:19] line one two three four five where it starts at time to time. That's the line that starts amended from time to time. that would be a period and then everything after that where it starts with the condition, etc., etc., we want to remove that condition. Sounds like am I understanding that right? [1:15:40] I'm trying to write with a green pen on a green highlight. It's it's very [1:15:45] condition. We're we're city staff is suggesting that condition was put in in error or m kept in error. And so we want to remove it from our from our findings. [1:16:01] Okay. Any other questions to city staff or to the representative? [1:16:08] Thank you. We'll look for public comment on this. [1:16:13] Is there any public comment on this item? [1:16:19] If not, we will close public comment. And before we get started with the findings, are there any final thoughts or discussion among board members? [1:16:30] If not, we'll begin with the applicable provisions and findings. Part one, that the project meets the requirements of article 2 and article 12, item one. Do we have a motion? [1:16:43] Chair, [1:16:44] member Hopson. Sure. I move that the board finds that based on ex exhibits 2, 10, 11, and 35, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-331's [1:16:58] requirement surrounding erosion and sediment control. [1:17:01] Thank you. Do we have a second? [1:17:03] Second. [1:17:03] Member Hun with a second and a roll call vote. member Brush, [1:17:07] yes. [1:17:07] Member Hayes, [1:17:08] yes. [1:17:09] Member Hobson, [1:17:09] yes. [1:17:10] Member Hun, [1:17:10] yes. [1:17:11] Member Jonas, yes. [1:17:12] Member Woodford, [1:17:13] yes. [1:17:13] The chair votes yes. Item number two, member brush. [1:17:19] Mr. Chair, I move the board finds that based on exhibit two, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-65 [1:17:28] requirements regarding yard space and for group buildings. [1:17:35] Thank you. And a second. [1:17:36] I'll second Hobson. And a roll call vote. Member Brush. [1:17:40] Yes. [1:17:41] Member Hayes. [1:17:41] Yes. [1:17:42] Member Hobson. [1:17:42] Yes. [1:17:43] Member Hun. Yes. Member Jonas. Yes. Member Woodford. Yes. The chair votes yes. Item number three. [1:17:50] Member Hayes. [1:17:52] I move the board finds that based on exhibit 2, the applicant satisfied land development code 165-68's requirements for lot frontage. [1:18:03] Thank you. Do we have a second? Member Jonas. And a roll call vote. Member Brush. [1:18:08] Yes. [1:18:08] Member Hayes. Yes. [1:18:09] Member Hopson. Yes. [1:18:10] Member Hume. Yes. [1:18:11] Member Jonas. Yes. [1:18:11] Member Woodford. [1:18:12] Yes. The chair votes yes. Item number four, member Jonas. [1:18:16] Chair, I move the board finds that based on exhibit two, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-66 requiring a greater setback in a buffer yard between uses in the shopping and personal service district SNPS in any residential district. [1:18:31] Thank you. Do we have a second? [1:18:33] I'll second. [1:18:33] Member Hobson. A roll call vote. Member Brush. [1:18:36] Yes. [1:18:36] Member Hayes. [1:18:37] Yes. [1:18:37] Member Hobson? [1:18:38] Yes. [1:18:38] Member Hugh? [1:18:39] Yes. [1:18:39] Member Jonas? Yes. [1:18:40] Member Woodford? [1:18:41] Yes. Chair votes yes. Item number five. [1:18:46] Member Hun. [1:18:48] Yes. Chair. I move that the board finds that based on exhibit two, the applicant satisfied land development code 165-72 regarding the required number of parking spaces on section 165-73's requirements regarding parking space location and screening and section 165-74's [1:19:09] requirements regarding parking lot design, construction, and maintenance. [1:19:13] Thank you. Do we have a second? Member Hayes with a second and a roll call vote. Member Brush, [1:19:20] yes. [1:19:20] Member Hayes, yes. [1:19:21] Member Hopson, [1:19:22] yes. [1:19:22] Member Hun, [1:19:23] yes. [1:19:23] Member Jonas, yes. Member Woodford, [1:19:25] yes. [1:19:25] And the chair votes yes. Item number six, [1:19:30] member Hopson. [1:19:32] Chair, I move that the board finds that based on exhibits 2, 10, 11, 14, 16 through 18, 20 through, excuse me, 22 through 25, 31, 32, 33, and 35. The applicant satisfied land development code section 165-79 and section 165-80 [1:19:54] requiring adequate utility service including water, sewage disposal, electricity, fire protection provision for storm water runoff and lighting. [1:20:03] Thank you. Do we have a second? [1:20:04] Second. [1:20:05] Member Woodford with a second and roll call vote. Member Brush, [1:20:09] yes. [1:20:09] Member Hayes, [1:20:10] yes. [1:20:10] Member Hopson, [1:20:11] yes. [1:20:11] Member Hun, [1:20:12] yes. [1:20:12] Member Jonas, yes. [1:20:13] Member Woodford, [1:20:14] yes. [1:20:14] The chair votes yes. Item number seven, [1:20:18] member brush. [1:20:20] We have member brush. Thank you, [1:20:23] Mr. Chair. I move the board finds that based on exhibits 2 and 25, the applicant satisfied the land development code section 165-81 [1:20:33] requiring appropriate lighting and prevention of light trespass in accordance with regulation on intensity, direction, and height. [1:20:43] Thank you. Do we have a second? Al. Member Hayes. [1:20:46] And a roll call vote. Member Brush. Yes. Member Hayes. Yes. [1:20:49] Member Hopson. Yes. [1:20:50] Member Hun. [1:20:50] Yes. Member Jonas. Yes. Member Woodford. [1:20:52] Yes. [1:20:53] The chair votes yes. [1:20:54] Item number [clears throat] That brings us to item number eight. If I'm correct. Yes. Item number eight. can I get a motion? Member Hayes. I move the board finds that based on exhibit 2, the applicant satisfied the land development code section 165-83 requiring adequate electrical services. [1:21:15] Thank you. Do we have a second? [1:21:16] Member Jonas. A roll call vote. Member Brush. [1:21:19] Yes. [1:21:19] Member Hayes. [1:21:20] Yes. [1:21:20] Member Hobson. [1:21:21] Yes. [1:21:21] Member Hun. [1:21:22] Yes. [1:21:22] Member Jonas. [1:21:23] Yes. [1:21:23] Member Woodford. [1:21:24] Yes. [1:21:24] Chair votes yes. Item number nine. [1:21:28] member Brush. [1:21:30] Mr. Chair, I move the board finds that based on exhibits 2 9- 10, 26, 32, 33, and 36, the applicant satisfied and development code section 165-84 [1:21:44] requiring provisions for surface water and storm drainage. [1:21:49] Thank you. I think you meant to say item 3 exhibit 35. I think you made a [1:21:56] I [1:21:56] I think you said 36 by accident. [1:21:58] 35. Yeah, just a note. And then do we have a second? Second. Member Hobson. And a roll call vote. Member Brush. [1:22:05] Yes. [1:22:06] Member Hayes? [1:22:06] Yes. [1:22:07] Member Hobson? [1:22:08] Yes. [1:22:08] Member Hun? [1:22:08] Yes. [1:22:09] Member Jonas? [1:22:09] Yes. [1:22:10] Member Woodford? [1:22:11] Yes. [1:22:11] The chair votes yes. That and the chair votes yes. That completes part one. We're on to part two. That the project meets the district site development standards under article 19. [1:22:24] There's one item here. Could we get a motion for item one? Member Hobson. [1:22:29] Chair. I move that the board finds that based on exhibit 2, the applicant satisfied section 165-135 [1:22:36] of the land development code regarding height limits, floor area ratio, impervious surface ratio, and buffer yards. [1:22:43] Thank you. Do we have a second? [1:22:45] Member Hayes with a second. roll call vote. Member Brush, [1:22:49] yes. [1:22:49] Member Hayes, [1:22:50] yes. [1:22:51] Member Hobson, yes. [1:22:52] Member Hun, [1:22:52] yes. [1:22:53] Member Jonas, [1:22:53] yes. [1:22:54] Woodford, [1:22:54] yes. [1:22:55] And the chair votes yes. [1:22:56] That completes part two. We're on to part three that the project meets the requirements of section 165-128 major subdivision. Can I get a motion for item number one? Member Jonas. [1:23:08] Chair. I move the board finds that based on exhibits 2 47 10- 16 24 26 28 29 and 31 through 33. The applicant satisfied land development code section 165-128C part 1's requirement that the subdivision shall meet the state of Maine guidelines for subdivision approval [1:23:30] contained in the 30 MRSA 4404. [1:23:35] Thank you. Do we have a second? [1:23:38] Member Hume and a roll call vote. Second. Member Brush. [1:23:43] Yes. [1:23:43] Member Hayes. [1:23:44] Yes. [1:23:44] Member Hobson. [1:23:45] Yes. [1:23:45] Member Hugh. [1:23:46] Yes. [1:23:46] Member Jonas. [1:23:47] Yes. [1:23:47] Member Woodford. Yes, [1:23:48] the chair votes yes. Item number two, [1:23:53] member brush. [1:23:54] Mr. Chair, I move the board finds that based on exhibit 2, the applicant satisfied the development code section 165-128 [1:24:04] C2's requirements that the plat shall conform to existing zoning regulations regarding lot dimensions and areas. [1:24:15] Thank you. Do we have a second? Member Hayes. A roll call vote. Member Brush. [1:24:20] Yes. [1:24:21] Member Hayes. [1:24:21] Yes. [1:24:22] Member Hopson. [1:24:23] Yes. [1:24:23] Member Hune. [1:24:24] Yes. [1:24:24] Member Jonas. [1:24:24] Yes. [1:24:25] Member Woodford. [1:24:26] Yes. [1:24:26] The chair votes yes. Item number three. [1:24:31] Member Hopson. [1:24:32] Chair. I move that the board finds that based on exhibits 2, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-128 C6's requirements that all proposed streets shall provide connection with existing streets. Section 165-128 C7's requirements regarding the angle street intersections [1:24:53] and section 165-128C [1:24:57] 10's requirements regarding street grades. Thank [1:25:00] you. Do we have a second? Member Hume with the second. roll call vote. Member Brush, [1:25:06] yes. [1:25:06] Member Hayes, yes. [1:25:07] Member Hobson, [1:25:08] yes. Member Hun, [1:25:09] yes. Member Jonas, [1:25:10] yes. [1:25:10] Member Woodford, [1:25:11] yes. [1:25:11] The chair votes yes. Item number four, member Hayes. [1:25:16] I move the board finds that based on exhibit 2, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-128C [1:25:26] 13's requirements regarding the number and spacing of access drives. Thank you. Do we have a second? [1:25:32] I'll second. [1:25:33] Member Hopson. A roll call vote. Member Brush. [1:25:35] Yes. [1:25:35] Member Hayes? [1:25:36] Yes. [1:25:36] Member Hopson? [1:25:37] Yes. [1:25:38] Member Hun? [1:25:38] Yes. [1:25:38] Member Jonas? [1:25:39] Yes. [1:25:39] Member Woodford? [1:25:40] Yes. [1:25:41] The chair votes yes. Item number five, [1:25:45] member Hun. [1:25:46] Chair, I move that the board finds that based on the findings made in subsection 1 through four above, the preliminary plant contains all required information in section 165-1 128 C. [1:25:59] Thank you. Do we have a second? Member Brush and a roll call vote. Member Brush, [1:26:05] yes. [1:26:05] Member Hayes, [1:26:06] yes. [1:26:06] Member Hopson, [1:26:07] yes. [1:26:07] Member Hune, [1:26:08] yes. [1:26:08] Member Jonas, [1:26:09] yes. [1:26:09] Woodford, [1:26:10] yes. [1:26:10] Chair votes yes. that completes part three. We're on to part four, that the project meets the requirements of section 165-114, land development approval standards. Is there a motion on item one? Member Brush. [1:26:25] Mr. Mr. Chair, I move the board finds that based on the findings made in part three of section four of this document, the applicant has satisfied land development code section 165-114A's [1:26:40] requirements that the project meets the subdivision criteria established under 30- MRSA section 4404 [1:26:52] as it shall be amended and the requirement of article 18 of the land development code. [1:27:01] Thank you. And a second. Member Jonas. And a roll call vote. Member Brush. [1:27:07] Yes. [1:27:07] Member Hayes. [1:27:08] Yes. [1:27:08] Member Hobson? [1:27:09] Yes. [1:27:09] Member Hun? [1:27:10] Yes. [1:27:10] Jonas? [1:27:11] Yes. [1:27:11] Member Woodford? [1:27:12] Yes. [1:27:12] The chair votes yes. Item number two. [1:27:16] Member Hayes. I move the board finds that based on exhibits 2 and 34, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114B's [1:27:28] requirement that the proposed parking and loading layout are arranged in a reasonable and safe configuration and section 165-114 C's requirement that all proposed access drives from the site to any public rightway are reasonably necessary and safe. Thank you. And is there a second? [1:27:49] I'll [1:27:49] second. [1:27:50] Member Hobson. And a roll call vote. Member Brush. [1:27:53] Yes. [1:27:54] Member Hayes. [1:27:54] Yes. [1:27:55] Member Hobson. [1:27:55] Yes. [1:27:56] Member Hune. [1:27:56] Yes. [1:27:56] Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? [1:27:58] Yes. [1:27:59] And the chair votes yes. Item number three. [1:28:03] Member Hobson. [1:28:04] Chair. I move that the board finds that based on exhibits 2 10- 11 and 32 through 36, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114D's [1:28:17] requirements regarding minim minimizing adverse effects from storm water runoff and ensuring adequate storm water collection capacity. [1:28:25] Thank you. Is there a second? [1:28:26] Second. [1:28:28] Member Woodford. And a roll call vote. Member Brush. [1:28:31] Yes. [1:28:31] Member Hayes. [1:28:32] Yes. [1:28:32] Member Hopson. [1:28:33] Yes. Member Hun. [1:28:34] Yes. [1:28:35] Member Jonas. [1:28:35] Yes. [1:28:36] Member Woodford. [1:28:36] Yes. [1:28:37] The chair votes yes. Item number four. [1:28:40] Member Brush. Excuse me. Member Brush. [1:28:43] Mr. Chair, I move the board finds that based on exhibits 2 and 25, the applicant satisfied land code section 165-114E [1:28:55] requirements that the proposed outdoor lighting is designed to avoid unreasonable light pollution. [1:29:02] Thank you. Is there a second? [1:29:04] Member Hun. And a roll call vote. Member Brush, [1:29:07] yes. [1:29:07] Member Hayes, [1:29:08] yes. [1:29:08] Member Hobson, [1:29:09] yes. [1:29:09] Member Hun, [1:29:10] yes. [1:29:10] Member Jonas, [1:29:11] yes. [1:29:11] Member Woodford, [1:29:12] yes. [1:29:12] And the chair votes yes. Item number five. Member Hopson. [1:29:18] Chair, I move that the board finds that based on exhibit number two, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114F's [1:29:26] requirements for screening, landscaping, and tree preservation. [1:29:30] Thank you. Is there a second? Member Jonas. And a roll call vote. Member Brush. [1:29:35] Yes. [1:29:35] Member Hayes. Yes. Member Hobson. Yes. Member Hun. Yes. Member Jonas. Yes. Member Woodford. [1:29:40] Yes. [1:29:40] And the chair votes yes. Item number six. [1:29:43] Is there a motion? Member Hayes. I move the board finds that based on exhibit 2, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114G's [1:29:56] requirements that the location of the buildings meet all required setbacks and are situated to avoid unreasonable adverse effects on adjacent properties or public rightaways. [1:30:07] Thank you. Is there a second? [1:30:08] Second. [1:30:09] Hopson. And a roll call vote. Member Brush. [1:30:13] Yes. [1:30:13] Member Hayes. [1:30:14] Yes. [1:30:14] Member Hobson. [1:30:15] Yes. [1:30:15] Member Hune. [1:30:16] Yes. Member Jonas. [1:30:17] Yes. [1:30:17] Member Woodford. [1:30:18] Yes. [1:30:18] And the chair votes. Yes. [1:30:20] Item number seven. And a reminder, this is the one that we had to remove the language at the very end of it. And it looked like member Jonas, you'd like to make the motion. [1:30:30] Chair, I move the board finds that based on exhibits 2 and 32 through35. The applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114K's [1:30:39] requirement that the development meets the standards of 38 MRSA section 420-d1 as amended and the standards of the department of environmental protection regulations chapters 500 5001 and 5002 as they may be amended from time to time. [1:30:58] Thank you. Is there a second? [1:31:00] Member Hayes with a second and the roll call vote. Member Brush, [1:31:04] yes. [1:31:04] Member Hayes, [1:31:06] yes. [1:31:06] Member Hopson, [1:31:07] yes. [1:31:08] Member Hume, [1:31:08] yes. [1:31:09] Member Jonas, [1:31:10] yes. [1:31:10] Member Woodford, [1:31:11] yes. [1:31:11] The chair votes yes. [1:31:13] This brings us to the decision and there's a note about the condition at the end. So, we'll read it. This one we will read as written. if there's a motion, member brush. Mr. Mr. Chair, I move the board finds that the project meets the requirements for a land development permit for a major site development and ma and major preliminary subdivision [1:31:38] and therefore the board grants the land development permit for the proposed project with the condition that the project receives final subdivision approval. [1:31:50] Thank you. Is there a second? [1:31:51] I'll second. [1:31:52] Member Hobson with the second and a roll call vote. Member Brush. Yes. [1:31:55] Member Hayes, [1:31:56] yes. [1:31:56] Member Hopson, [1:31:57] yes. [1:31:57] Member Hune, [1:31:58] yes. [1:31:58] Member Jonas, yes. [1:31:59] Member Woodford, [1:32:00] yes. [1:32:00] And the chair votes yes. Congratulations. The application is approved and the applicant can reach out to the code enforcement office on with more guidance. Any comment from city staff? [1:32:11] That concludes the new business. [clears throat] at this point, we're moving on to other business. There's a followup from last meeting is one item that's on the list for other business. I'm gonna Was that planning officer Colette? [1:32:27] Yes. [1:32:27] Did you have some an item you wanted to talk through there? [1:32:29] I won't rehash the whole memo just to say that you know the reason that we want to take into account you know the possibility of climate change is that it's our role as planners to anticipate you know multiple future scenarios and how that might impact the city. [1:32:50] and most future scenarios as of now point to and the current, you know, situation is that we do need more housing. We do have a housing study that says, you know, we're short 700 units primarily for people of lower incomes. And if we do anticipate, you know, an influx of people in the future, then we need to be planning for how we might accommodate that. [1:33:12] and we need to be looking at our infrastructure and you know does our infrastructure does it accommodate people now and does it accommodate you know a potential population influx in the future. and in addition to that you know just the severe weather that we're already experiencing droughts that we're already experiencing and you know heat waves and things like that you know we have to make sure that we're prepared for those and if they might increase in the future we need to be even more prepared. [1:33:40] So I just want to you know reiterate what we do here you know and why we have to take these things into account. So [1:33:50] thank you. Any discussion? [1:33:53] there's next item is the follow-up thoughts on land use plan updates. Are there any updates other than what we were discussing here today? the only thing I would say is that we do anticipate the draft for staff review at the end of this month and so we'll have a busy couple months ahead of us reviewing that and then after that will be the draft for everyone to review. [1:34:15] But our next meeting is in April, right? Is that what you're saying? We would review it in April or it would go out for first reading? [1:34:21] No, that was the round one updates for the state law changes. [1:34:25] Okay. [1:34:25] Would be at your April 7th meeting. [1:34:28] All right. [1:34:30] Any other comments or questions? [1:34:34] And any documents that need to be signed before we leave? [1:34:39] We'll need both subdivision plans signed and then the findings that you adopted at the beginning. [1:34:44] All right, [1:34:47] that concludes the meeting the planning board meeting for this evening, the 17th of March. The time is 8:32. Happy.