Bangor Planning Board approves new Broadway office building and tiny home park subdivision

[1:34] Jonathan Boucher: Good evening and welcome to the applicant staff board members and members of the public. This is January 20 2026. This is the meeting of the city of Bangor's planning board. Time is seven o'clock. My name is Jonathan Boucher chair of the board. Other board members in attendance this evening include Ted Brush Greg Hobson Ken Hewn vice chair Janet Jonas Ross Whitford. See city staff members in attendance this evening include assistant solicitor Grace Ennis city engineer Jefferson Davis and planning analyst Matthew Altiero. We thank them for their help in preparation for this meeting. Starting with old business We're gonna start on the meeting minutes for January 6 2026. I just want to know if there's any modifications or comments on the minutes. If not we can get a second. It's a roll call vote. A member Brush yes number Hobson yes Eun yes Jonas yes Woodford yes the chair votes yes. All right moving on to new business. The Planning Board has two main roles. First we review amendments the land development code which typically include either changes to zoning districts or changes to the text within the code but there are no code or zone changes change items on tonight's agenda. 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 the city code as the parking driveway stormwater management lighting landscaping and buffering building location environmental impacts and shoreline zoning as may be applicable. We also ensure the plan meets the dimensional requirements for the project zoning district. We review larger site plans that trigger site location development for Maine DEP as well under their requirements. Some uses are con some uses are conditional uses that have specific conditions and requirements we use to review the project. State statute also outlines the requirements for 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 and there are two land development items on tonight's agenda and further information on the city's codes and standards and the comprehensive plan may be found on the city's website. The review of tonight's items will be as follows. For the land development permits, we will first consider and vote on the applications readiness for review and any concerns for conflict of interest. For all items, the applicant or their 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 from the staff and or board members. members. Once the item has been presented and the applicant may be seated, we will allow time for public comments. For public comments, the person should come to the podium, introduce themselves, state if they are a Bangor resident or an abutter to the property as applicable, and indicate if they are for or against the proposal. It is also helpful if you present your thoughts based upon the City codes and standards in the comprehensive plan as they are the primary documents used by the board to make our decision. All comments and discussions should remain respectful and considerate of others, and once public comments are completed we will close that item to the public. The board will then deliberate on the proposed on the proposal using the applicable standards. For clarity, when considering land development proposals, the code standards are typically read and voted on separately. The final decision is then read and voted on. If the applicant disagrees the land development permit decision the board has made, then they may appeal the decision to the superior court of Maine. Once a project you are interested it's been reviewed, you may leave the meeting, but please be respectfully quiet as not to disturb the review of other agenda items. All right, on to our first item of new business. This we have the land development permit application. See, so before we really get started here, we have six members today, and so applicants have the option to come back at a later date without any penalty if they prefer, because no matter what you need four votes for affirmative votes for passage of your proposal. Yeah, so by code you're allowed to postpone your application to a later meeting when we have fewer than seven board members in attendance, and what I'd like is if you guys would just indicate whether you'd like to proceed. We'll start first with the representative applicant or representative from 861 Broadway LLC. Good [6:57] Andy Johnston: evening guys, we're comfortable proceeding. [6:58] Jonathan Boucher: Thank you, and then our other one, I don't have it right, you know, second, let's see, representative or applicant John Karnas. [7:13] Unidentified speaker (likely Lizotte from Artifacts Architecture): Yes, I believe we're comfortable with proceeding. [7:15] Jonathan Boucher: Okay, thank you guys. In that case, we'll move forward with both items here today. The first one on our list is the land development permit application for major site development plan for development of a new office building with a total floor area of 8900 square feet, additional parking, and the removal of one-way exit onto Broadway at property located 861 Broadway at map lot R41-005 and the shopping and personal service district SNPS and the applicant 860 for 861 Broadway LLC. The staff has indicated the completeness of this application and is ready for board review. Fees are documented and paid. The applicant standing is confirmed. Do we have any concerns or questions? Witness, are there any conflicts of interest or concerns there? Then if not, we take a motion. Remember Jonas Cheaper, C I moved that the application was deemed [8:17] Edwin Brush: complete on January 20th, 2026. The applicant paid all applicable fees per exhibit 5 in our packet. It and the proposed project is a major site development. We have a second member Brush. [8:31] Jonathan Boucher: All right, then we have approval on that. So could the applicant or representative please come forward to the podium and present their project? Good evening. I'm sorry, before we move forward we got a motion in a second. I didn't do the roll call vote. I knew something was missing. It seemed too fast. All right, roll call vote. Member Brush, yes. Up Hobson, yes. Eun, yes. Jonas, yes. Whitford, yes. And the chair votes yes. All right, thank you again. Yeah, good evening Mr. Chair, members of the [9:10] Andy Johnston: board. My name is Andy Johnston. I'm principal and civil engineer at Atlantic Resource Consultants, and we're happy to be providing assistance to the applicant on this project for site engineering and permitting. With me this evening as well, just so you know, the other members of the team who are here are Zach Means and Aaron Barry representing the ownership of the parcel and Dan Miller, who's the architect, who you're probably familiar with already. So what I'll do is I'll give a very brief overview. And leave plenty of time for questions. As you'll see on the on the existing conditions plan, this is a site of the former zone radio station right at the top of Broadway where the big antenna used to be, which is now gone. The office building is still there, the existing office building, and you'll see that there are various parts of the site infrastructure that are shaded on this plan in the purple color that will be removed as part of this project. That includes the garage building at the back and the small accessory structure just off the back of the existing building. Also the existing pavement, if you've taken a look up there, is not in great shape. It's it's seen its life and it's done pretty well over its life, but its life has now ended. And so although we're retaining a lot of the footprint of that pavement, all that pavement is actually coming out. The other thing to point out on this is the two existing driveways, the southern driveway and the northern driveway on this, as you'll see on the proposed plan, we intend to retain the southern driveway. The northern driveway will be abandoned. So the new site layout, you see the existing building that will remain there. The right hand driveway is at the same location as the existing southern driveway, but you'll see the geometry is a little straightened up there, so we've got good perpendicular access onto the road. And then the second driveway comes in off Chapin Street off the south side and serves the northern portion of the property, but then allows circulation all the way through the site. When we originally presented this, the applicant really wanted to retain that second northern driveway onto Broadway, but after discussion with the staff, it became apparent that there are some safety issues associated with that second driveway, and engineering was good enough to forward the safety information on that. And so in the interests of that and maintaining the safety on Broadway, we reconfigured the plan to eliminate that northern driveway. So we now we just have the two -way driveways coming through the site. The key element of the new plan is on plan left, which is the new office building, which will be occupied by Means Wealth Management. That's an 8 900 square foot building. You'll see some architectural elevations in your package. It's obviously it's going to be an attractive building because that's, you know, part of the business promotions to make a nice attractive building. Dan's done a nice job on fronting the building up. To Broadway and presenting the building nicely from that direction, the other side elements, obviously the circulation I've explained, to parking is just really an expansion of the existing parking, but a more regular parking arrangement and a more regular arrangement of the sidewalks as well. Particularly when you look at the existing building, there's rather an awkward sidewalk in there now that has a big steep section to it. What we've done is we've just shifted the parking a little bit plan left there and raised it to get rid of that steep walkway and make the parking that's essentially next to the front entrance of the of the existing building ADA accessible through that winding sidewalk. There's additional ADA parking to the rear entrance of that building, and then of course ADA parking out front of the new building, or the rear of the new building, but where the main entrance is going to be with the patio. The other features to talk about on the plan, we have several stormwater management features dotted around. As you've probably heard when I've been here before, we favor those planted bioretention cells that are kind of shallower. The ones particularly at the front of the new building and down to the right of the parking next to the old building, they'll be a little heavier planted, a little more shrubby plantings in those to pretty them up and give them a little more, a little more oomph to the landscaping. The ones around the back will be predominantly more grassy with some shrubs in them, but that's the overall feel of the of the landscaping. As far as utilities go, this is pretty simple. We have good utilities obviously running up Broadway, so there's a new connection to the sewer that's on the opposite side of Broadway, new connection to the water main on the building side of Broadway, and then power coming in from the three phase on the street. I'll just flip it over and talk through some of the landscaping stuff, because that's one other element that we talked to the staff about. Again, I think you'll see on this the good deal of effort has gone into the presentation of the building, the presentation around the new building. So in addition to the regulated buffers, which you'll see at the top of the plan there, and that is a buffer from the parking lot to allow for development to the rear or to buffer the properties to the rear, and also to the right, to the far right of the plan, actually past the vacant existing portion of the parcel, there's a buffer down there. We Did have some discussion with staff about that because we were reluctant to put the buffer in right next to the parking. Obviously that space down to the southern end of the site is potential future development, so we really didn't want to put the buffer in there and then see someone come along, have interest in that parcel, have to take it all out and put it somewhere else. And actually that there is a fairly substantial existing buffer right on Broadway between this site and the southern property. That little tree line that's down in the corner there, but there's then there's a big open gap, and so that buffer down the right-hand side of the plan is essentially filling in that gap and screen in the parking from the abutting property. Other than that on this plan, say you see the sidewalk circulation, I've been through the vehicular circulation, there are a couple of dumpster pads up at the back there. The main focus of this really is to provide a new building for the Means Wealth Management. Folks and hopefully tidy this site up and make it look a lot nicer from the street than it does now, so we'd be happy to answer any. [16:41] Jonathan Boucher: Questions you have about any elements of this plan. Thank you Mr. Johnson. Any comments from the staff? We know if Planning Officer Colette or anyone else had any comments that they wanted to have read off. No it doesn't. No. Any questions from the board either to staff or to the. [17:06] Speaker E (unidentified): Applicant? Remember here, yeah, and I'm just curious what did you do with that large tower back in the back? Was that part of the radio station or was that used still used by other people? [17:18] Andy Johnston: No, the large tower in the back was just the radio station is my understanding. I wish I'd seen that come down because they're about a week off every quiet all the time I. [17:30] Speaker E (unidentified): Didn't notice whether it was there or not. It's gone. Any. [17:36] Jonathan Boucher: Other questions to the applicant which is staff? Any information just out of curiosity about what the office building is, what type of clientele you're looking to support the new office building? It's going to be Means Wealth Management. Okay, well unless there's any other questions, I think we would open it up for public comment. Is there anyone who'd care to care to speak on it? I don't see any members here and we're not taking anyone on Zoom, so then I think at that point we'll close public comment. But before going to the motions of the standards, with any final discussion from the board members, so we're going to be moving on to the standards, and we're going to be voting through each one. Looks like it's page 36 on your packets, if you guys have those ready. We're going to be starting with part one, the pro regarding in relation to how the project meets the requirements of articles 2 and 12. For item one, and look for a motion over here. I move. Have a second, brush. All right, roll call vote. Member brush, yes. Number Hobson, yes. For Jonas, yes. Number Woodford, yes. The chair votes yes. Second item number [19:33] Speaker F (unidentified): brush, this is here. I move the board finds that based on exhibits 1, 2, 7, 8, 12, and 13, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-72 minimum parking requirements for office buildings, section 165-73 requirements regarding parking area locations, setbacks, and screening, and section 165-74 requirements of design, construction, and maintenance. Thank you. Do we have a second, member [20:10] Jonathan Boucher: Ken, second. We'll call vote. Remember brush, yes. Remember Hobson, yes. Over here, yes. For Jonas, yes. Number Woodford, yes. And the chair votes yes. Item number three. Number jumps chair. I move the board [20:25] Edwin Brush: finds that based on exhibits 1, 2, and 16 through 18, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-79 requiring adequate utility services and section 165-80 requiring adequate water and [20:38] Jonathan Boucher: sewer services. In a second. I'll second. Okay. Remember, I'm still getting you some names. You're Hobson, right? Thank you. Yeah, I can't see the sign, so I'm just doing my best. Remember Hops in seconds. Roll call vote. Remember brush, yes. Number Hobson, yes. Jonas, yes. Woodford, yes. Chair votes yes. That brings us to item number four. Do we have a motion? Remember here, yes. Chair [21:09] Speaker E (unidentified): I move that the board finds it based on exhibits one and two, they have good status by land development code 165-81 requiring appropriate outdoor lighting preventing light pollution and [21:20] Jonathan Boucher: trespass we have a second number brush roll call vote member brush yes number hobson yes number hewn yes remember jonas yes number woodford yes chair votes yes on to number five member brush [21:39] Speaker F (unidentified): Mr. Chair, I move that the board finds that based on exhibits 2 and 11, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-82 requiring adequate fire protection. [21:54] Jonathan Boucher: Thank you. Do we have a second, member Hune? Second. On a roll call, on a roll call vote. Member brush, yes. We're Hobson, yes. For Hune, yes. For Jonas, yes. Woodford, yes. And the chair votes yes. [22:09] Edwin Brush: On to number six. Member Jonas, Chair, I move the board finds that based on exhibits one and two, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-83 requiring adequate electrical [22:24] Jonathan Boucher: services. Thank you. In a second, Mr. Member Hobson, and then roll call vote on this item. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. For Jonas? Yes. For Woodford? Yes. And the chair votes yes. Process. All right, number seven. Member [22:45] Speaker F (unidentified): brush Mr Chiari moves that the board finds it based on exhibits 1 2 4 and 18 the applicant satisfied landed open code section 165-84 requiring [23:00] Jonathan Boucher: adequate storm drainage and storm water offset thank you and remember here look like you said yeah second all right enroll call vote member brush yes hobson yes whitford yes chairboards yes and that brings us to number eight [23:21] Speaker G (unidentified): Mr. Chair, I move that the board finds that based on exhibits 1 and 18, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-85 requiring submitting information of anticipated sanitary and section 165-86 requiring compliance with sewer regulations. Thank you. In a second, [23:42] Jonathan Boucher: member Jonas, a roll call vote. Number Brush? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. For Jonas? Yes. Whitford? Yes. The chair votes yes. We that completes part one. We're moving on to part two that the project meets the district site development standards under article, let's see, that's 19. [24:04] Edwin Brush: The one item, member Jonas, Chair, I move the board finds it based on exhibits 2, 8, and 12, the applicant satisfied section 165-135 of the land development code regarding height limits, floor area ratio, impervious surface ratio, and buffer yards. And remember he and I saw your hand [24:22] Jonathan Boucher: up, yep, so you second. And roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Number Hobson? Yes. For Hewn? Yes. Number member Jonas? Yes. For Woodford? Yes. The chair votes yes. That completes part two. We're on the part three, the project which discusses how the project meets the requirements of section 165-101 shopping and personal services district SNPS. There's one item. Remember, I mean, member Brush, Mr. Chair, [24:49] Speaker F (unidentified): I move the board finds that based on the findings made in part three in parts one and two of this document, the project meets the requirements of section 165-101C1 for uses within the shopping [25:09] Jonathan Boucher: And personal service district SPS, thank you. Do we have a second? Member Hobson seconded, and that brings us to the roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Hobson? Yes. Number Hune? Yes. For Jonas? Yes. For Woodford? Yes. And the chair votes yes. That gets passage of part three. We're on to part four, how the project meets the requirements of subsection 165-114, the land development approval standards. We have the first item. Do we have a two member here? Sure, I move that the board [25:44] Speaker E (unidentified): finds it based on exhibits 2, 15, and 18, the applicant satisfied land development code 165-114 b requirement that the proposed parking and loading layout are arranged in a reasonable and safe configuration, including the provision for safe pedestrian travel to all on-site uses. Thank [26:05] Jonathan Boucher: you. Do we have a second? Number Hyun? I mean member Brush. All right, we'll go for a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Number Hobson? Yes. For Jonas? Yes. For Whitford? Yes. Chair votes yes. We'll move on to the second item. Member [26:24] Edwin Brush: Jonas, chair, I move the board finds that based on exhibits 2, 9, and 18, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114 c's requirement that all proposed access drives from the site to any public right-of-way are reasonably necessary and safe. [26:40] Jonathan Boucher: Thank you, and do we have a second? Number here, for a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. For Jonas? Yes. Whitford? Yes. Chair votes yes. That brings us to item number [26:55] Speaker E (unidentified): three. Remember you sure I move that the board finds that based on exhibits 1, 2, 4, and 18, the applicant satisfied land development code 165-114d requirements that the proposed development will not have unreasonable adverse effects on the abutting or downstream properties or protected resources such as wetlands, lakes, streams, or brooks, and that all downstream channels or municipal stormwater collection systems have adequate capacity to carry the flow without significant negative effects. [27:31] Jonathan Boucher: Thank you. Do we have a second? Member Whitford? We'll do a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Yes. For Jonas? Yes. Number Whitford? Yes. Chair votes yes. That brings us to item number four. [27:48] Speaker F (unidentified): Oh, member Brush. Mr. Chair, I moved what board finds it based on exhibits one and two, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114e requirement that all outdoor lighting is situated and properly screened to avoid adverse effects on adjacent properties, and that the proposed outdoor lighting is designed to avoid unreasonable light pollution. [28:19] Jonathan Boucher: Thank you. Do we have a second for Hobson? And we'll go for a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. For Jonas? Yes. Woodford? Yes. Chair votes yes. That brings us to item number five, Mr. Hobson. [28:38] Speaker G (unidentified): Chair, I move that the board finds that based on Exhibits 2, 8, and 12 of the Applicant Satisfied Land Development Code, Section 165-114F's requirements for landscaping. [28:50] Jonathan Boucher: And do we have a second? Member Jonas, roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Heughan? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Whitford? [29:00] Edwin Brush: Yes. Chair votes yes. Item number six. remember jonas chair i move the board finds that based on exhibit two the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114 g's requirement that the location of the building meets all required setbacks it is situated to avoid unreasonable adverse effects on adjacent [29:21] Jonathan Boucher: properties or public rights of way. Thank you. Get a second. Thank you. All right we'll do a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Remember Hobson? Yes. Remember Hewan? Yes. For Jonas? Yes. Whitford? Yes. The chair votes yes. That brings us to item five the decision. Remember here [29:40] Speaker E (unidentified): chair I move that the board finds that the project meets the requirements for a land development permit for a major site development and therefore the board grants the land development permit for [29:49] Jonathan Boucher: the proposed project. And do we have a second? Number Brush. And we'll do a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. For Jonas? Yes. Whitford? Yes. Chair votes yes. Congratulations you have approval on this item. It will go we're looking for the exact verbiage on it but you can reach out the code enforcement office for guidance any additional information for them at this time. I think that's it this will just remember this [30:26] Speaker H (unidentified): will need a new sewer connection fee before we begin but thank you thank [30:34] Andy Johnston: you folks and thanks as [30:36] Jonathan Boucher: always to staff for helping guide us through the process. Yep thank you 're welcome we'll go in front of the planning board next week next week's item I'm the council we go in front of city council on next week's agenda no it's just going to be so you're all set you just go directly to the code enforcement office for next steps. Thank you guys our next item is the final major subdivision for the Pushaw Road map lot well let me read it this way the land development permit application the final Major subdivision for development of a tiny home park with 30 units and two additional single-family home lots at property located on Pushaw Road at map lot R21-009 in the low density residential district LDR and the resource protection District RP. The applicant owner John Carnes before you come up but thank you we just have to vote on the completeness of this item. Staff has indicated completeness of this application and its readiness for board review. Fees are documented and paid. The applicant standing is confirmed does the board have any concerns or need to make any comments about conflict of interest if not like a motion and a second to accept its completeness see if i can find that yes unless anyone else has it 'll read page 25 at the bottom i think okay if on the paper copy oh right so we're looking for a motion oh thank you remember jonas [32:31] Edwin Brush: The application was deemed complete on January 20th 2026. The applicant paid all applicable fees per exhibit three in our packet and the proposed project is a final major subdivision. Thank you do [32:42] Jonathan Boucher: we have a second thank you Mr member Hobson. So for this we'll do a roll call vote. Member Brush yes member Hobson yes for Jonas yes remember Woodford yes chair votes yes. With that now we'd like you to come up and do your presentation please. Thank you Shelly [33:05] Unidentified speaker (likely Lizotte from Artifacts Architecture): Lizotte from Artifacts Architecture Engineers working as the agent for John Carnes who I think is watching on zoom as you know probably well some of you were here at the December meeting when we came for the preliminary subdivision meeting. The tiny home park as a site plan got its approval at that meeting and we are here to do the final subdivision application in front of use so that they can start the construction. The only thing we've worked on since then we haven't changed any of the property boundary lines or anything. The only thing that has been updated since then is a few easement language descriptions either notes on the plan or working with the surveyor and the attorney to try to get those formalized so that we can get them to you to the department that is looking for them engineering I think maybe and so those can be filed with the subdivision plan when it's finally approved. So I can answer any questions [34:17] Jonathan Boucher: if you have any. Thank you outstanding any questions from the staff? No just we do we are asking for three conditions for the decision so we want to just talk through those now so we're familiar with them as we come up on it pretty much what Shelley referred to we're [34:38] Speaker H (unidentified): Just asking that the proposed easement to the city for sewer access, snow storage, and plow truck turnaround is finalized, approved by the city engineering department, and executed before they [34:48] Jonathan Boucher: get there. That's the first one. Yeah, that's the first one, the deeds for lots one and two. Yep. [34:56] Speaker H (unidentified): All right, finalized and executed, and then that they have the application for the proposed well as approved by the state of Maine. Yeah, so in which they, the applicants already submitted [35:07] Unidentified speaker (likely Lizotte from Artifacts Architecture): or is working on submitting the application so. I had just something really quick. I was reading through this and I'm not sure if it's on the other one of this one, I think it's on the other, the order that you have to vote on a description on the back of the of the conditions. The first one states the list of items underneath the building permit and the second one and underneath that is a line that says occupancy permit. I just ask that you remove the one for lots, the deeds for lots one and two out of that because they will not be necessarily sold before the tiny home park wants to start construction on that portion of it, so I think that they can't have the deeds finalized before they're, they're sold or executed before they're [36:07] Jonathan Boucher: sold. So you don't think they'll be sold? Just to make, I'm just going to repeat what you said so that I, okay, so you don't think the lots one and two are going to be sold before you guys move [36:17] Unidentified speaker (likely Lizotte from Artifacts Architecture): forward with the with the tiny house? Well, right, I think as part of this the building permit would be one for any buildings constructed on the property where the tiny home park is and or the individual lots, and because the tiny home park is separate from the lots one and two, I feel that the condition that they have those deeds executed before they get a building permit for the buildings on the tiny home park would be sort of problematic. Reason being is that like [36:58] Jonathan Boucher: the deed language won't be updated until somebody actually buys the land. Well, we also don't know [37:03] Unidentified speaker (likely Lizotte from Artifacts Architecture): what the timing is going to be for the sale of those lots. They may, they may re, remain just vacant lots and not actually be sold until you know halfway through the project of the tiny home park, so we're not, I don't want, I don't want the construction of the homes on the tiny home park to be conditioned upon the deeds being executed for the individual lots, if that makes sense, so [37:32] Jonathan Boucher: We can't just go in and update the existing deeds. The deeds only get updated at the point of sale. If I understand, there's no existing deeds, these are new lots that were being created, right? How would you wish to handle that in terms of the conditions? I think on [37:50] Speaker H (unidentified): the final recorded subdivision plan that we had notes that if those lots are sold, then they will need to be finalized per that condition. I think that's probably pretty easy. I have a condition [38:05] Unidentified speaker (likely Lizotte from Artifacts Architecture): condition. I have the subdivision plan here ready for you tonight, and it has a note on it as requested to that says that those two Lots will have a permanent easement to that [38:20] Jonathan Boucher: sewer line. Yeah, I think that suffices. Oliver, what's the name of the plan just for so we can get the language in our conditions if we thought the read them off as a condition, or are you satisfied with the state outside of requesting it as a condition? It's already on the plan, so I think so. It's immune. Yeah, we don't. Yeah, it's on sheet c 100. So we're saying that number two under the decision can be stricken, that we don't need to, whoever ends up reading the decision, you don't have to read number two. You just have to read the decision board one item one, skip two, and read number three. Yes, am I saying that right? Yes. Yeah, sorry about that. I think [39:01] Speaker H (unidentified): I think staff thought that those were in the process of being sold. That's why they, I think [39:05] Unidentified speaker (likely Lizotte from Artifacts Architecture): that's why I only wanted it's not to my knowledge that I mean, I think I think those are being created as subdivision lots as part of this project, but I don't think they're, they can't actually officially offer them for sale until the subject is approved anyway. [39:21] Jonathan Boucher: Way, and the note indicates that the they're supposed to have proposed private perpetual rights to the proposed private sewer serving those lots. That's what it indicates. [39:33] Unidentified speaker (likely Lizotte from Artifacts Architecture): Yeah, that I will read it to you. It says lots one and two will have perpetual right to the to use the proposed private sewer system serving those lots. [39:44] Jonathan Boucher: Lot 22 or lot one and two? That's one and two. I just spoke fast. Okay, any questions on that or any other items? Thank you. Just to be clear that conditions one [40:00] Speaker F (unidentified): and three maintain, condition two is removed. All right, yes, any other [40:12] Jonathan Boucher: questions for the applicant for your staff? Okay. [Edwin Brush: Let's] See, so thank you. We'll move on to opening public comment. Is there anyone? I think we'll close public comment unless there's, I see there's an attendee on the zoom. Yeah, very good, so no public comment. We'll close public comment then. I believe, yeah, and then one more opportunity to ask any questions or discussion within the board before we move on to [40:50] Speaker I (unidentified): motions. Mr. Chair, I don't know if this is anything to be addressed tonight, but I just noticed a typo. Oh, under article four, part one, number three, the very last word appears to be plat instead of plot. Oh, sometimes it's plat though. Is it, is it meant to be plant? Okay, and that's, that's for the paperwork. Okay, perfect. That's never mind then. In my, yeah, okay, I was reading through it and was like, let me ask about that just in case. Okay, yeah, I see what it'd be. Never mind. Mr. Chair, any [41:30] Jonathan Boucher: other questions before we get started on the motion review? Then we will start with part one and how the project meets the requirements for subsection 165-128g. [41:45] Speaker E (unidentified): Look members, yeah, Chair, I find that the board finds that based on exhibits two, four to seven, and ten, the applicant satisfied land development code 165-128g one's requirements BY PROVIDING A FINAL PLANT FOR A MAJOR SUBDIVISION WITH THE NECESSARY CONTENTS OF 165-158E4. [42:09] Jonathan Boucher: NEW SPEAKER: THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? MEMBER JONES. AND ROLL CALL VOTE. MEMBER BRUSH. NEW SPEAKER: YES. NEW SPEAKER: MEMBER HOBSON. NEW SPEAKER: YES. NEW SPEAKER: MEMBER HUGHES. NEW SPEAKER: YES. NEW SPEAKER: MEMBER JONES. NEW SPEAKER: YES. NEW SPEAKER: MEMBER WOODFORD. NEW SPEAKER: YES. NEW SPEAKER: THE CHAIR VOTES YES. FOR ITEM NUMBER TWO. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? MEMBER BRUSH. [42:25] Speaker F (unidentified): Mr. Chair, I move, I find the, I move that the board finds that based on exhibits two and nine, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-128 g3s requirements for the plan to be reviewed by the city engineer for compliance with health, sanitation, and engineering standards and for receiving written approval from the city engineer. Thank you. Do we have a [43:02] Jonathan Boucher: second? Number Hobson. Thank you. We'll go to a roll call vote. Member Brush, yes. Number Hobson, yes. Remember Huon, yes. Remember Jonas, yes. Number Woodford, yes. Chair votes yes. On to item [43:15] Edwin Brush: number three for Jonas Mr chair I move the board finds that based on exhibits two and ten the applicant satisfied land development code subsection 165-128 g fours requirements for meeting the surf the standards for preliminary plat approval and section 165-128 g5's requirements that the plan not be substantively changed from the preliminary subdivision flat thank you do we [43:43] Jonathan Boucher: have a second? One second, Hobson. Little roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. There Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. Chair votes yes. That brings us to Item 5, or Section 5, the decision, and just a reminder to include in the decision language the two conditions, Condition 1 and Condition 3, but to exclude Condition 2, which we discussed. [44:09] Speaker E (unidentified): Are we skipping 2, or are we having it included? [44:11] Jonathan Boucher: We won't include it as a condition since it's being satisfied by the note that was on the plan, is my understanding. All right, do we have any volunteers? All right, member here. Yeah, sure, the board finds that I [44:23] Speaker E (unidentified): move that the board finds that the project meets the requirements for a final major subdivision and therefore the board grants the land development permit for the proposed project with the following conditions: one, the proposed easement and to the city for sewer access, snow storage, and plow truck turnaround is finalized and approved by the city engineering department and executed. 2. The Deeds for Lots 1 and 2 are finalized... [44:49] Jonathan Boucher: We have to skip that. I'm sorry to interject. It was just, we're looking to skip item 2 and just include... [44:55] Speaker E (unidentified): That's what I thought. That's what I asked, if we were skipping... [44:57] Jonathan Boucher: We are going to skip that one. I'm sorry for the confusion. [45:00] Speaker E (unidentified): 2. Now written as 3. The application for the proposed well system is approved by the State of Maine. [45:08] Jonathan Boucher: Yeah. And that, was that read fine? Are we good to move forward with that? Can you do it again just for clarity's sake? Which sections are you looking for, the whole thing? [45:19] Unidentified speaker (likely Lizotte from Artifacts Architecture): Just go ahead and do the whole thing just to amend your motion so it's clear. The board finds [45:24] Speaker E (unidentified): that the project meets the requirements for a final major subdivision and therefore the board grants that the land development permit for the proposed project in the following conditions one the proposed easement to the city for sewer access snow storage and plow truck turnaround is finalized approved by the city engineering department and executed to the application for the proposed wealth system is approved by the state of maine very good thank you so much [45:50] Jonathan Boucher: Do we have a second? Remember Jonas? That brings us to the roll call vote. Sorry for that. Remember Brush? Yes. Remember Hobson? Yes. Remember Hewan? Yes. Remember Jonas? Yes. Woodford? Yes. Chair votes yes. So let's see that completes our review of the of the different requirements. So at this point your project's approved to move forward. You'll work with the code enforcement office or any further guidance. Any final comment or discussion? Sorry for the confusion. No I think it's great. Are you all set [46:34] Unidentified speaker (likely Lizotte from Artifacts Architecture): with the you know original signatures on it for you? Oh for us to sign later this evening. [46:41] Jonathan Boucher: All right so we'll all remember someone bring a black pen okay thank you. That completes our matrix our site plan review. Other agenda topics to move on to for this evening include a recap on the comprehensive plan implementation update. Are we can are we prepared to talk to that in the absence of planning officer? Yeah all right can we postpone that? So I'd like a motion to postpone the review of the first item in the other business section the 2022 comprehensive plan review. Remember Jonas? I'll [47:27] Edwin Brush: second. Let me move first chair. I move we postpone the comprehensive plan implementation review to the next meeting which will be Tuesday February third I believe we think okay thank [47:48] Jonathan Boucher: you I will second that. Remember Hobson? We'll get a roll call vote on this. Member Brush? [47:53] Speaker E (unidentified): Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Heughan? Yes. [47:57] Jonathan Boucher: Member Jonas? Yes. Member Whitford? Yes. Chair votes yes. So we'll discuss that next time when we have our planning officers here. The other item is the thoughts on land development code update or land use planning. Is there anything, any prepared topics that we needed to cover? Any general discussion we wanted to have here? Any items? Here I saw that the item for the Ohio Street was postponed at City Council review so we don't have an update on how City Council handled that one but I think they're gonna be covering it this coming week. Is that the Ohio Street [48:37] Speaker H (unidentified): stage? Okay that is going to council committee economic development committee [48:45] Jonathan Boucher: tomorrow for discussion so be in front of the if we want to watch that on the youtube channel and then so no other items it sounds like there's one document to sign for this evening two documents to sign so we'll stick around for that. Any other comments or discussion? [49:04] Edwin Brush: Before we adjourn, sure, oh, I should have said this earlier, but I want to actually commend both of the presenters today on how well they have been listening to the things that we've been asking them to do and presenting with anticipation of what our expectations are regarding buffers and traffic and how we present things to the public. It's been really great to see the development during the year and a half I've been on the team board, thanks. [49:39] Jonathan Boucher: Thanks, do I have a second, no, that's very nice, I agree. So just a note that I think our next meeting is going to be on the 3rd of February, is what it looked like on the calendar, and we have some documents to sign. Unless there's anything else, we'll adjourn tonight's meeting is 7 48 and this meeting of the planning.