Lewiston Planning Board approves Tree Street Youth building, 860 Lisbon St rezoning

[0:11] Shanna Cox: Oh Joey, okay, who wants to call Will tonight? Both Lucy and Zoe are out this evening. Do you want me to reprise my old role? How do you feel about that? Yeah, so do you have an active [0:26] Amy Smith: Yeah, give me a minute, I should have a look. Sorry, I just didn't have quick mapping [0:31] Speaker C (unidentified): Which I don't, I don't think from the archive tonight, reprise your role please. All right [1:13] Shanna Cox: Good evening, my name is Shanna Cox, I'm calling our planning board meeting together for this evening, Monday April 13th. We do have a number of agenda items today and so we'll get underway with our initial roll call. We will notice a couple of excused and planned absences. Zoe and Lucy could be with us today, so filling in as my secretary this evening will be Ms. Amy Smith who had the role [1:40] Amy Smith: Previously. Amy, will you please call the roll? Yes. Michael Marcotte. Present. [1:47] Shanna Cox: Penthea Burns. Here. Shanna Cox. Here. Amy Smith. Here. Alexander Pine. Here. Heidi Bartels here and Darren Gallant here. Please let the record reflect both of our associate board members will be full voting board members tonight, congratulations, welcome. Are there adjustments to the agenda? No there are not. Great, correspondence, the staff has provided us some additional information tonight related to some proposed changes to the no-name pond conservation overlay district, including a memo from the city environmental engineer John Kuchinski. How'd I do, thanks John, that was Provided on 4 9 20 26. I'd like to offer a little bit of context for our board as well as anyone listening at home and then ask us to make a decision about whether we do choose to act tonight. So the request essentially, at our last planning board meeting we took up an item, felt like we needed more information and we chose to table it on a date specific, that date was in May. Staff worked to bring us that information which they attest in their memo won't change between now and May. Us not hearing this item until May is Holding up the building permit and next steps for somebody's house and Main, summers are notoriously short, so we've been requested tonight to deal with this item. It is not currently on our agenda and so before we hear from the board I do want to ask, would we need, and I didn't see this expressly addressed in the staff correspondence, would we need to have a public hearing tonight and would that public hearing qualify in [3:27] Speaker C (unidentified): Terms of notification if we did take it? Yes you would need a public hearing and [3:33] Speaker D (unidentified): because it was legally noticed for the initial meeting and you tabled it you would basically be taking it off the table and opening up the [3:42] Shanna Cox: hearing once again okay but and we would not see that in a future reconsideration of a vote taken tonight for the public comment tonight because the notices did go out in advance and the last time is enough due process without a butter's notices going out again for tonight [4:00] Speaker E (unidentified): Is that right? It's not an item that requires an abutter's notice, it's so it had a legal [4:06] Speaker D (unidentified): go add in the paper, and for transparency we contacted those that were interested on the first go-round just to let them know, just in case the board did decide to take it up the table tonight. I believe summer in the audience, and so we tried to make it as transparent as possible and let everybody that showed an interest on the original agenda item know of the possibility of tonight. [4:32] Shanna Cox: Before we move into public hearings, I would like to hear from the board briefly on this matter, maybe a couple of sentences and a general like yes, I'd love to take it off the table or no, so that we can determine how we might [4:45] Speaker F (unidentified): adjust tonight's agenda, Mr. Markoff, I think John answered one of my questions. I was going to ask for a point of inquiry as to whether the people at the public hearing at the last meeting of two had been informed. When I saw the item as correspondence and not on the agenda, I did plenty of research this weekend, and I'll have to make sure the next time I make a motion to a date specific I use the phrase postpone, because I didn't know if that was part of the consideration to put it on tonight's agenda, so to speak, that yes it can be taken off the table tonight because it was tabled, it can't be date specific, a postpone can be. Next time I'll make sure that, because I'm not in favor of taking it off the table tonight. I think there's still much more work to be done on this. [5:37] Shanna Cox: We're going to go right around, thank [5:42] Speaker G (unidentified): you. So I understand that the delay in this is causing the delay of a for a building permit, is that correct? But if the if the core issue and this is not resolved, is the building moot anyway? The notion of moving the building forward moot anyway, if the core issue of [6:11] Shanna Cox: if we don't resolve this with a level of clarity, might it call into question whether there can be a permit yes provided at all? Yeah, question, yeah, it [6:19] Speaker G (unidentified): seems counterproductive to take it off the table if we can't get the information that we need to resolve the issue at hand. I think just for my own [6:34] Shanna Cox: Clarification for chairing the meeting, for us to hear the current information and determine whether we feel that it is enough to act on it, we would need to take it off the table to be able to have discussion and to discuss that which would have been provided in terms of informing whether we vote or not tonight. Well, if not tonight, then May. And I think what my concern is, particularly the way staff has framed the memo, is if you've reviewed what has been provided as an update and you find it insufficient, then we should tell them that, because if we wait until May to say okay, now we'll talk about it, and we still feel as though you've not provided us enough information, then we will be not acting until June. Thank you. So that's my, that's my, and I have just given my piece about how I feel about the discussion tonight. We'll come back to you after we go around, if that's okay. Amy, your thoughts? I've shared mine, so can we take it off the table in order to hear more and ask questions, and then if we still don't feel like it's enough information, can we put it back on the table? I don't see any, from a process, I don't see any issue taking it off the table, having discussion, and choosing not to act tonight, either by making a full motion, tabling it, postponing it, or directing staff to provide additional information for a future date. Is that correct? Yeah, so having discussion tonight doesn't prevent a course of action. [7:57] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah,, I'm definitely in favor of discussing this tonight. I was a little embarrassed last time. I sort of finally understood what the issue was after we had moved on from it, and I think, yeah, I think the information we need is all here, and we can have a really productive discussion tonight to talk about what we're going to do. Okay, thanks. Yeah, I agree about talking about it. [8:23] Amy Smith: I think that the dredging issue that was covered by the city, I think clarifies a lot [8:29] Speaker C (unidentified): and will help me make a decision, at least. Thank you. Similar, I think with, we have work to do, we should talk about it, and so let's bring it off the table. Thanks, Mr. Marcotte. Was there a change [8:42] Speaker F (unidentified): in your opinion in terms of discussion tonight not really a change i do have more of less a point of inquiry as well as a comment now the inquiry is not if it was to be if an action was taken tonight whether it passed unanimous or failed unanimous or it was a split vote it was either yes or no goes to the City Council does it not that's correct at that time the City Council will make the final decision my concern is that I have a lot of notes should this and come up tonight but I don't think no we need to have that discussion here to inform staff of concerns. I read the entire item as well. I can see where this is going and I'm not going to be pleased at the end of [9:31] Shanna Cox: tonight's meeting okay having heard the majority of the board wants to have a discussion tonight we are going to approach it and other business under item B just to give a heads up to folks we are going to also add and this is mostly so we all remember that we'll have other business see which will be a discussion about our email procedure for receiving emails at the planning board group email how we'll handle that how staff will handle that whether there's printing whether it's assumed that we've read it, so that'll be on the other business tonight, and that's not to prevent any additional other business. That's just to give everyone a heads up where we're headed. Okay, let's [10:14] Speaker C (unidentified): get underway. Point of order? Yes sir. Okay, I was waiting for [10:19] Speaker F (unidentified): this because i re like i said i researched it 's got to be officially taken off the table it cannot interrupt with anything else that's on the agenda so it would be at the end which you sufficiently pointed out under other business I don't know that it needs to be under other business necessarily because public hearings is a rather specific category at least for us not really addressed in Robert's rules that came up 150 years ago but since it is a public hearing item I would probably like to see it as E under public hearings, but it does have to go through the take-off-the-table process. Great. [10:58] Shanna Cox: Can we do that at the end of Item D before we move into E, or do you feel that 's necessary now? [11:06] Speaker F (unidentified): Kind of. That's sort of up in the air. Then make a motion. Let's do it. Well, I'm not making the motion on this particular matter. [11:15] Shanna Cox: Okay. Take it off the table? Correct. Okay. If anyone would like to make a motion to take it off the table now. If not, we'll do it at the end of public hearings as listed. [11:24] Speaker C (unidentified): okay I'll make a motion I'd like to make a motion to take the item concerning no name pond off or put it back on the table in public hearings as item e so this would be an adjustment to the agenda a [11:43] Shanna Cox: Second. Thank you. Any discussion? [11:47] Speaker F (unidentified): On the motion on the floor? What? No discussion. Taking off the table motions. [11:53] Shanna Cox: thank you then would you call the roll ma'am okay Michael Marcotte no Penthea Burns yes Shanna Cox yes Amy Smith yes Alex fine yes Heidi Bartels yes and Darren Galant yes so that motion passes we'll be adding no name pond as agenda item e under public hearing now we'll move into to a of public hearings okay a reconsideration on the chair's motion of the march 23rd 2026 planning board action to approve the tree street youth incorporated development review application for the construction of a new 7,250 square foot building with classroom space at 143, 145 House Street on a 0.33 acre parcel. If the motion passes, the board will hold a public hearing, deliberate, and vote on the application. Reconsideration is due to insufficient notion being provided, notice being provided previously, but not today, because there was sufficient notice provided tonight. Do we need to have a motion to reconsider before? Yes. Great. Is anyone on the board so inclined to make a motion to reconsider this agenda item? Motion. Is there a second? Great, any discussion on the motion on the floor? Call the roll. Michael Marcotte. No. Cynthia Burns. Yes. Janet Cox. Yes. Amy Smith. Yes. Alex Pine. Yes. Heidi Bartels. Yes. Darren Gallant. Yes. We have this item is from our friend, Mr. Tebow. Mr. Craig Tebow, would you like to cue this up? We have done this once before. I did have a question that I'm gonna ask you to address from the front end, which is why there is updated language and something [13:49] Speaker H (unidentified): that's being reconsidered. Yes, so there's updated language just because in the time between the prior meeting today staff did some more research specifically on the question of parking that has come up at the last meeting, and that updated language reflects what we researched. Is that sufficient? Do you want me to go into more detail on that? [14:16] Shanna Cox: I think we've brought folks back tonight. I'd love a high-level overview that doesn't include reading the memo for folks at home. Sure. [14:23] Speaker H (unidentified): So, yes, this is a reconsideration of the project at 143-145 Howe Street. This is the Tree Street Youth new classroom facility. That's essentially it is a one-story building approximately 7,200 square feet for classroom space and some sort of multi-purpose space as well. You want to [14:50] Shanna Cox: offer some details of the information you found in your research in between [14:53] Speaker H (unidentified): our first motion and this one? Yes, so the so the project as proposed needs three parking spaces. Those parking spaces can be provided off-site in this case across the street at the at the other Tree Street Youth facility. There are and this is basically coming from new language that was approved in the last few months or so about parking changes where facility that is located within 500 feet of an existing bus stop can have their can reduce their parking requirement by 50%. Both that location and across the street the other Tree Street Youth location are both within 500 feet of a bus stop that is right next to the Coliseum, and therefore both properties can reduce their parking requirement by 50%. There are 11 spaces parking spaces total on the property across the street, and just doing the math there's enough space to accommodate both parking requirements. Any [16:07] Speaker C (unidentified): questions from the board so just to make sure that I understand this is basically we in this revision we found additional parking spaces at their other facility because the parking requirement there also is reduced by the same law so basically they had overbuilt parking before the law was implemented now that the law is in place it allows them to have less of a parking requirement frees up spaces for this new facility that's exactly right okay just wanted to make it more [16:38] Shanna Cox: clear for folks watching. Any other discussion or questions for staff before we invite the [16:43] Speaker F (unidentified): applicant up? Yeah, Mr. Murphy specifically for staff, so when it was stated that is being brought back to us because of a butter notices, can you be more specific or what went wrong with [16:56] Shanna Cox: that? Can I ask that we limit the answer to that in light of the fact that we have an entire agenda item to hear about what did go wrong and how they're addressing it in other business, a in a memo, which is only to say I hope that we have a very detailed conversation after all of our folks [17:11] Speaker F (unidentified): Here for a moment that item will be robust, I'm sure, but I'd just like to know why this one's coming back. I have a hunch because of something that was discussed at the last meeting, but we're doing the same thing with the next agenda item, which I'm absolutely confused as to whether it would be the same as this one or different. [17:32] Speaker H (unidentified): Well the short answer is that the public notice which would require in a butter mailing to properties within a certain distance of the property in question and a notice in the paper, those were not, those were not done as they [17:46] Speaker F (unidentified): were needed to be, you know, those were not completed. They weren't in the paper on time. [17:51] Speaker E (unidentified): The one in the paper was done, but the notices to the abutters were not mailed. [17:57] Speaker F (unidentified): In both cases, okay, or at least this one. Great. [18:03] Shanna Cox: I'd like to invite the applicant up if they'd like to enumerate on anything said last time. We don't expect you to rehash everything, but if there's anything you'd like to name or address, this is your opportunity. You're welcome to pass too if you'd like. You're gonna have to say it into the mic, sorry, I know it seems silly, but just introduce yourself and say no thank you as for the record is fine. [18:31] Speaker C (unidentified): Julia Sleeper, founder director of Tree Street Youth, Mark Lee, architect with Harriman Associates. Welcome back to you both, thank you very much, appreciate it. We so yeah, the project itself has not changed since the submission and presentation, nor has it moved forward, it's more details but [18:51] Shanna Cox: No, it's, we're excited, thank you, thank you. Then we're going to open it up for public hearing on this agenda item. If there's anyone who would like to speak for, against, or make a comment on this agenda item, you'd bring yourself to the podium, you'd introduce yourself by name and address or ward in which you reside or have interest in Lewiston. You will get three minutes to speak. Please join us if you'd like. I'm going to last call this. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak on the agenda item that's open on the floor right now in public hearing for Tree Street Youth application? I'm going to close the public comment. Thank you. Any last discussion or questions from the boards, the applicant, or the staff before we reconsider [19:41] Speaker F (unidentified): consider this motion? Okay, I stated four reasons the last time, checking the minutes not to remind myself, so one of them the about a notice I suspect has been taken care of. I'd like to understand parking a little bit better than what we just heard. Does that mean that there is no need for parking at the [Speaker D (unidentified): multi correct] Okay so my concerns of parking and the last stated thing is the minutes reflected kind of a little different than I remember it, but concerns with the school department, can you read my handwriting, but something about the school department and just a simple letter from the superintendent not voted the school board in the fact that and I probably have to better understand fee and simple if that was the term that was used because my concern was perpetuity if something happened there then that [20:41] Speaker C (unidentified): parking wouldn't be available so the concern was the parking notice from the [20:46] Shanna Cox: school department or the youth at Longlea multipurpose yeah so it's [20:50] Speaker F (unidentified): convoluted but if it's gone away let's resolved a few items yeah all parking [20:55] Shanna Cox: required for both this location and the existing location is provided at the existing location which is the additional language that Mr. Tebow added to the memo and described yeah yep then I'd be looking for motion okay [21:11] Speaker C (unidentified): I'd like to make a motion that the application submitted by Julia Sleeper of the Tree Street Youth for the construction of a new 7 250 square foot single-story educational building on approximately 0.3 acre parcel at 143 145 House Street meets all the necessary criteria contained in the zoning and land use code including but not limited to Article 13, Section 4 approval criteria, and that the approval be granted with the following conditions. The applicant will coordinate with Public Works on sewer and water connections. Prior to the issuance of building permit, the applicant shall provide documentation demonstrating financial capacity. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant will provide staff with documentation from the Registry of Deeds verifying the granting of the 15-foot sewer easement. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant provides staff with documentation from the Registry of Deeds verifying the lots have been combined. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that continued availability for parking has been provided at meeting the standards of Article 13, Section 17. Prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy a professional engineer shall provide stamped statement indicating all site improvements have been completed in accordance with the approved plan before [22:33] Shanna Cox: I seek a second on that motion I'd like to clarify with staff is five still a condition given what we've heard with the updated it is and the reason is that [22:41] Speaker H (unidentified): even if the proposed parking is going to be located in a property owned you know in common ownership don't need language there still needs to be some the language on that and [22:55] Speaker G (unidentified): Can I just clarify that was article 12 and number five, article 12? [23:00] Shanna Cox: I'm sorry, I misread it from a new mouth on my right. Is there a second on the motion as offered? Second, thank you so much. Any discussion on the motion on the floor? Probably more of a [23:12] Speaker F (unidentified): point of inquiry than a point of order, but if the motion resign remains the same, I don't think we need a restatement to the motion because by take reconsidering, we're reconsidering the same motion. No, we apparently didn't change anything. My thinking was something was going to change and then it would make point of order move that it would need to have a re-reading, but just to point [23:37] Shanna Cox: that out, thanks Candy. For the next one, should there be no changes possibly? Okay, probable role, Michael Marcotte, no, Pentia Burns, yes, Shanna Cox, yes, Amy Smith, yes, Alexander Pine, yes, Heidi Bartels, yes, and Darren Gallant, yes. Thanks, motion passes. Thank you so much for your reprisal. Thank [24:01] Speaker G (unidentified): you for that, we appreciate it. [24:04] Shanna Cox: I will note that we had a copy of the abutter's notice and our [24:11] Speaker F (unidentified): I have a question before we move on. First of all, I didn't hear from none of the staff, no my reasons on this particular one, so I'd like to share that of the four concerns I had the last time it remains financial capacity note in terms of his in terms and it's long-standing, staff knows what I'm talking about, but it shouldn't be a condition of approval, should be in our packet finalized complete to our satisfaction. Thank you. Item [24:48] Shanna Cox: B is a reconsideration on the chair's motion of the March 23rd, 2026 planning board action to recommend the city council the rezoning of 860 Lisbon Street to a contract zone which would allow all the issues and dimensional standards of the community business zoning district to allow mixed use residential and commercial uses except with lesser setbacks, the front setback being reduced from 15 to 5 feet and the side and rear reduced from 10 feet to 5 feet. If the motion passes, the board will hold a public hearing, deliberate and vote on the application. Reconsideration is due to insufficient notice being provided. Be looking for someone on the board to make a motion to reconsider. Motion to reconsider, thank you. Is there a second? Any discussion on it? We don't do discussion [25:38] Speaker C (unidentified): right, Mr. Marcon lovely, shall we move forward with it? Well actually I'm [25:42] Speaker F (unidentified): Reconsiderations. I'm not 100% sure the take it taking off a table. Thank you. Is [25:48] Shanna Cox: there any discussion on the reconsideration? Great, will you please call the roll? The motion on the floor to reconsider this evening. Okay, it'll be a fun night. So Michael Marcotte, no. Cynthia Burns, yes. Shanna Cox, yes. Amy Smith, yes. Alex Pine, yes. Heidi Martel, yes. And Darren Galant, yes. Thanks Craig. This is your agenda item again, and I do not see any updated language. Is there anything that you would like to make note of as we [26:17] Speaker H (unidentified): reconsider this tonight? Okay, so this project was reviewed at the last Planning Board meeting and it was approved, but again we did not provide that sufficient public notice. So we're bringing it back just since as a sort of summary, it is a property 860 Lisman Street is located on the corner of East Avenue and Lisman Street. Currently it's in the neighborhood business zone, and they are looking as the agenda item sort of describes, looking to rezone the parcel to reduce the setback requirements and to increase the maximum allowed height in order to provide more flexibility for proposed buildings there and a proposed sort of drive-through, you know, situation drives through business [27:13] Speaker C (unidentified): as being proposed, the property as well ability to have a drive-through business [27:19] Speaker H (unidentified): which might be proposed at a future date. Yeah, exactly, it's still proposed, not in any way concrete. Thanks. [27:29] Shanna Cox: That's sufficient in my mind. Any questions from the board to staff before we invite the applicant and move to a public hearing on this item? Yeah, on the presumed public [27:41] Speaker F (unidentified): meeting notice, it's new and in the packet. Please learn how to spell Martel. I've seen it spelled with two L's in plenty of different places. This is I believe the municipal document. It looks like it's correctly spelled by Acorn Engineering and other places in the packet. I'm sure. Duly noted. [28:07] Shanna Cox: The applicant likes to come up and address anything before we open it up for public comment. Thanks for coming back for us. Good [28:17] Speaker D (unidentified): evening Penn Lindsay with Lewiston Housing. Nice to see you all again. I have nothing to update from our last meeting. Thank you so much. Any [28:26] Shanna Cox: Questions for the applicant before we open it up to public comment. Seeing none, I'm going to open it up to public comment. If you'd like to discuss this agenda item, you'd move to the podium, state your name, the location from which you have interest in this agenda item, and be limited to three minutes of public comment. Is there anyone here who'd like to speak on this item? Last call. I'm closing public comment on one. There's a whole room full of people. We have to guess which one you guys are here for. Thank you, I appreciate it. Any discussion from the board or desire to see last motion amended? Otherwise we'll open discussion and call. [29:10] Speaker C (unidentified): Roll. Well I have a discussion. Great, is there anyone who'd like to see the [29:15] Shanna Cox: motion change from that which was represented in the minutes and which was being reconsidered? Great, then we'll open it up to the board for discussion, Mr. [29:23] Speaker F (unidentified): Marcotte. As one of Lewiston's residents pointed out, apparently I didn't speak clearly into the mic the last time, so I'd like to restate a few things. No, whereas a lot of this began as far back as 2018, 2019 when I was on the City Council and we sought an RFP. None that asked for keeping the facade in my tell school and having green splicing and or recreational space for the neighborhood. Interestingly enough, over time, the neighborhood business became the nomenclature for a new zoning district that only has two or three in the entire municipality. Other items that occurred, and some of this is just trying to remember when, because I didn't go back and look at the planning board minutes and such after I left the city council, But I believe it was the following year that this particular parcel came up to be rezoned, and the rezoning was intensification. It may have been CB. One of the board members asked that evening whether this could include certain things happening on that parcel, at which point the individual said, no, we can't support that. And I believe the planning board may have been unanimous on that measure, and the city council did not override and it was at a later time that it became neighborhood business. Originally it was office residential or if I remember right whatever the school was, I get IO and or a little mixed up, institutional office or office residential. So, in that RFP, that RFP at the time, it was awarded based on that RFP because other bidders that were offering somewhat more lucrative proposals weren't responsive to those two conditions in the RFP. Time passed and different city council and deadlines passed, and it became a very hot button ticket because it came to this planning board. I was on the planning board at the time, and I think Shannon remembers that I worked the motion to make sure that those two conditions, that was what I had in mind, because council traditionally succinctly restate what those two conditions were, okay, keeping the facade of the Martell school building which is no longer there and providing for recreational space Green space within the perimeter of the full parcel which is being divvied up now, but so when it came to the planning board we weren't privy to certain things that were happening in closed doors with the city council. We're supposed to make a recommendation on disposition and acquisitions. This would have been a disposition. And since we were in the dark with respect to certain things that were happening, maybe the vote might have been different that night otherwise. But when I reworded it, was a seven to zero. It was worded in the affirmative. But it was worded in such a way that council The council barked, another bidder barked because of what transpired in conversation here. A board member was of concern. Of course, the public was not too pleasant towards the individual. And so it goes back to the council, and the council ended up, well, one bidder pulled the offer, and the council ended up re-awarding it to the Housing Authority. And when they did, of course, those two RFP items were not a condition anymore. So do I regret marshalling the motion that night? Sort of. But would I have done the same thing with the same lack of information? Yeah, most certainly. Because there's a lack of information being provided to us on a disposition that the council understood going on in closed doors. Closed doors and so I have some serious concerns here especially with the carving out a portion of it as CB which intensifies it right back to the most for the express purposes of a commercial business and I'm happy that the rest of it is still housing However, and it's a contract zone tonight because even CB actually extended the setback from 10 under neighborhood business, whatever OR might have been, to 15 because it's wanted to be 5, making CB even more intensified than CB. bb and this is a corner i'm very familiar with i've lived there for 63 years in that neighborhood i've witnessed news stories of people being killed crossing lisbon street we're adding senior housing presumably for the mobile challenged that's how i remember it back in 2018-19 I don't know if mobile challenge is part of 2018-2019 what did I say thank you welcome thank you 2018-2019 and I know a board member here tonight and I have shared a lot of concerns with people walking in any portion of the vicinity getting to Shah's on one end which didn't happen in the development review walking down and around the corner at East Avenue and Lisbon plenty of retail opportunities and grocery opportunities we're going to have another one in the Lewiston mall shortly I don't see any need to create more traffic congestion along Marston and East Avenue Lisbon Street particularly with a five-foot setback and DOT could come in and want to improve that none those roads because they're all DOT 196 all the way downtown and then when you take East Avenue to go to Russell and back to Maine either up Maine at 202 or across the river to my route for putting retail there it's totally unnecessary can only fathom as to why it's necessary it was never part of the mix initially and that's why I opposed this last time we will oppose it again tonight thank [36:32] Shanna Cox: you other discussion on this item even though we are reconsidering it I'm going to bring forward my discussion from last time as well which is simply that while this board noted a number of concerns both about the walkability of Marston Street the division of that third piece and what a drive-through use might look like we provided significant notes which are hopefully still part of the public record for which the applicant would consider before we see an application for the development of that third parcel thus i am in favor of tonight's motion so that we can consider the use case when brought before us given that the current phases of housing are going to be built as previously approved and are necessary and needed in our community any other discussion call the roll okay I do have a question so is this a deal breaker I mean if this parcel doesn't get rezoned for business I mean you're gonna not build [37:30] Speaker D (unidentified): the housing it is not a deal breaker for phase one and phase two it would affect [37:37] Shanna Cox: phase three okay could it be impactful but maybe not a deal breaker hard to [37:41] Speaker C (unidentified): Tell yet it would be, it's hard to tell. Sounds like a silver lining opportunity, Mr. Pine. I'll be really brief just to highlight it for the folks at home. One of the other things that was brought up with this change is, and it was mentioned the memo, there will be the possibility of having additional height for these for the phase three building, right? And some of the thought around that is that, you know, from a funding perspective, it might allow it to be more efficient, you know, get more, get more units. Get more building for less buck or something to that effect. I think that was the discussion last time, so just wanted to highlight that, you know, we are talking a lot about this potential retail parcel that hasn't come for consideration yet, but there is the other component of death. Thanks anyone. [38:33] Shanna Cox: Else for discussion? Can you call the roll? [38:38] Amy Smith: Yes, I was just going to mention that I did drive by and very like specifically look at this lot actually just tax weekend, and I'm very excited to see what you do with it, because that is a blight. Yeah, it's a big empty cracked pavement blight, so very happy. Like in May, right? We're breaking. [38:53] Speaker C (unidentified): Ground next month? Yeah, that's amazing. Great, that is the hope. Yes, knock on wood right now. Okay, we've. [39:00] Shanna Cox: Made great progress. Please, okay. Michael Marcotte, no. Cynthia Burns, yes. Shannon Cox, yes. Amy Smith, yes. Alexander Pine, yes. Heidi Bartels, yes. And Darren Gallant, yes. Thank you, motion passes. Good luck, no offense, I hope we don't see you again until it's time for whatever we need to review. [39:22] Speaker C (unidentified): You next. Good night, fully. [39:27] Shanna Cox: New agenda items. Agenda item C in public hearings is Mason Jeru. Mason in the room? Did I do that? How did I do? Would you like me to? Great, Mason Jeru has submitted an application for a subdivision amendment to adjust the location of an existing access easement at 13 Amos Court and to construct a frontage right-of-way over that easement to provide frontage for 77 Jenkins Street, a 7.84 acre vacant parcel. And who's the staff member presenting. [40:02] Speaker H (unidentified): This tonight? I'm sorry, it doesn't say. Oh,, Dawson, prepared it, but I'll be presenting, Mr. Tebow. Okay,, so 77 Jenkins Street is a 7.8 acre lot. We have a, sorry, do we have an updated visual to go with this agenda item? Yes, Shelly can bring that up for you. I'll, I'll wait a second, I. [40:29] Shanna Cox: Have to say the maps were ginormous and almost made it not fit into it. Thank. [40:59] Speaker H (unidentified): You thank you. Okay, carry on. So you're looking at two parcels there. The bottom parcel, that is 77 Jenkins Street, and parcel where the road, the proposed frontage right-of-way, goes through, that is 13 Amos Court. Both properties are located in the suburban residential zoning district. 77 Jenkins on the bottom is a vacant lot that otherwise has no street frontage. The proposal is to put a frontage right of way through 13 Amos Court reaching 77 Jacob Street for the purpose of access and also for the purpose of creating frontage that is necessary to allow 77 Jacob to be a buildable lot. And that's sort of what the frontage right-of-way standards come in the planning board. I mean, you've probably looked at, you know, I sort of looked at it previously. I believe you looked at one prior frontage right-of-way in the last few years, and that was for Stream Side Drives, which was really generally, frontage right-of-ways are reviewed by the staff review committee, but in certain cases when they are deemed to be creating a subdivision or, in this case, amending an existing subdivision, then we would bring them to you. [43:06] Shanna Cox: Specifically a subdivision this planning board heard 23 years ago. That's right, yeah. [43:13] Speaker H (unidentified): So, yeah, this was part of the Mountain View Estates subdivision. 13 Amos Corpus so but again as a result we'll bring this to the planning board. A waiver from Article 13 Section 4 stormwater management has been requested and has been granted by Public Works. The applicant has also applied for and received permission from United States Army Corps of Engineers for wetland filling, approximately 3,300 square feet of wetland filling, which does show up on the 13 Amos Court lot in addition to the amendment to the subdivisions through the change in the easement there's a clarification and flash change proposed to a prior condition of approval of the February 3rd 2003 subdivision. That original condition stated that the stone wall along the property line must remain undisturbed, and this note is also on the original subdivision plan looking and we don't have that visual exactly but for the full Amos Court, for the full, sorry, what was it called, the Mountain View Estate subdivision that basically goes around Amos Court, there is a stone wall that runs along The east side of the subdivision and approximately, you know, on the property line with Thor and Craig, the stone wall that's shown between the property line of 13 Amos Court and 77 Seven Jacob's, technically the way that, do you mind using the mouse to point out some of [45:13] Speaker C (unidentified): these locations? Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, sure. I think Shelly can, or Shelly, sorry, and thank you. Yeah. [45:20] Speaker E (unidentified): So this is up the stonewall he's talking about right now that we don't think was intended to be part of that original restriction that the planning board had. Is it a condition? Do you have [45:34] Shanna Cox: the information about the original condition of approval, the way that it was written? Yeah, the [45:38] Speaker H (unidentified): exact language is in the memo. That's right. The exact language is the stone wall along the property line must remain undisturbed. Can you show the where the location of the Thorn Craig wall is up and down? Right, actually it's even further, it's probably about 400 feet to the east. Okay. So it's not quite shown on the plan off of where the survey [46:07] Speaker E (unidentified): the [46:09] Shanna Cox: Stonewall that you were indicating that goes this way. You were making no essentially there's a stone wall that goes kind of down the side and around and we're looking at disrupting this portion of the stone wall, which we think is not a problem because this portion never delineated from Thorne Craig. Is that accurate? Yeah. That's accurate. Maybe a question for the applicant, too, when they're invited up. [46:36] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, and I'm curious if we have a plan that shows more context at all. [46:46] Speaker H (unidentified): Thanks, Craig. So anyway, we have provided some new language to amend that specific condition of approval to read the stone wall along the property line abutting Thorne Cragford Sanctuary must remain undisturbed. And that's on the second page, bottom of the third paragraph. [47:12] Shanna Cox: Because it's not in the motion conditions or recommendation language, it would be pulling from somewhere deeper in the memo. You said third? Yes, that and we would need to name that in, we'd be making a motion and then we'd be making [47:34] Speaker H (unidentified): that a condition or did it need to be a second motion? I recommend just making this a third condition of approval that language on the subdivision plan be amended to read the stone wall along the property line abutting Thorn Craig Bird Sanctuary must remain undisturbed. I hear [48:00] Speaker C (unidentified): you say that would be the third condition that I have a second there are [48:10] Speaker H (unidentified): Two in the staff recommendation there are two conditions. Oh sorry, moving on. So the again the frontage right-of-way, this is you know again since the Planning Board you only view this maybe once every few years or so, we provide some additional background information. Frontage right-of-ways are governed or regulated through article 12 performance standards section 10 frontage right-of-way provisions, and those go into certain dimensional requirements on the allowed width of the right-of-way and the allowed width of the travel surface, maximum grades, maximum length, and so there's some additional criteria that we reviewed during this process. And the you know it is within those parameters, but just sort of providing that background information. The wetland impacts we mentioned that there's they've received permission from the US Army Corps of Engineers. Moving on then, the Planning Board should review this development review application and take action using article 12 section 10 frontage right-of-way provisions, article 13 section 4 approval criteria. These are [49:35] Shanna Cox: all of the items that are before us in the action necessary. Yes, great, thank you, appreciate it. Any questions specifically for staff before we invite up the applicant? I wasn't sure if that was a yes or no. Yeah, I was trying to decide in [49:54] Speaker G (unidentified): my head if the question is for you. Can let me know if someone else needs to answer it, but the right-of-way road what exists there currently that [50:05] Speaker H (unidentified): would be constructed through? So right now there's no you know there's no existing drive, you know travel surface, it's really just an easement through 13 Amos Court extending to 77 Jenkins. So there is an easement there, but they need to in order to accommodate the proposal for the frontage right-of-way, they need to move the easement. And so you can sort of see in the dashed lines, the dashed lines closer to the you know West or you know West on the map at least, in the proposed location for the easement would be that planted, you know, [50:51] Shanna Cox: you know line to the right, and all parties with ownership interest in these parcels have moved this applicant forward enough to get to us. That's right, yeah, thank you. [51:06] Speaker F (unidentified): I'm tracking back on the rock wall, so you're saying that it's beyond the map up there, so those little circles that to the right of the former easement, because the request, where's the requested easement, which one of those two lines this [51:29] Speaker C (unidentified): is the existing easement, right? That's right. Okay, this is the new request. Okay, so the [51:35] Speaker F (unidentified): New requested one is closer to those little circles. Those little circles is not the thorns. [51:41] Speaker C (unidentified): Craig, rock wall, yeah, that's [51:53] Speaker F (unidentified): right. Yeah, I just wanted to know if those little circles were these circles, but if it's not on the map at all, but my other question is now that I know which road work proposed former easement proposed road is not ever going to be designed to go through to the other side of Jenkins? [52:16] Speaker H (unidentified): No, and we've looked through this property's been on our radar for a while, and we've looked, you know, just sort of some past research. It doesn't show up on the map, but 77 Jenkins has significant grades on it coming from south to north, and there's, I don't want to say never say never, but it would be significant cost. Yeah, it's very difficult to put a road and this particular [52:41] Speaker F (unidentified): parcel that's darker and the perimeter has quite a bit of wetland as you get closer to [52:47] Speaker H (unidentified): the downside of the map about 3,300 square feet, the wetland. Yeah, the wetland that's being impacted, my understanding is that is on the 13 Amos Court, which is the to the north or [53:04] Speaker F (unidentified): northeast portion of that, but if the previous easement had been built out, there have been plenty of marshland as you got closer to the bottom of that DACA perimeter. Correct, I think it was, I think that, I think that's right. Yeah, that's right. So that if ever an intent to extend that road through, there'd be a lot of hurdles. It would be very difficult to put a road as it sort of laid out, especially. Yeah, and which makes it even more complicated, although I see that the little, well, whatever you call those, I think we did it on Challenger Lane at the last meeting, no way, like a turnaround. I noticed that turnaround goes right up against the former easement. Yeah, [53:50] Speaker H (unidentified): the t-shaped turn should be about 25 feet extending our, any other questions [53:56] Shanna Cox: for staff before we hear from the applicant? Would invite the applicant or whoever is representing the applicant this evening up, please grab a seat and introduce yourself, stick right into the microphone. Thank you, Craig. Welcome. [54:12] Amy Smith: Hi, I'm Amy Siegel from Sabago Technics. I'm here representing Mr. Jeru and to board member Marcotte. I just wanted to answer a couple questions before looking, I'll answer any other questions, but just for a little bit more clarification. So you're right, the little circles here are the stone wall, and you'll see what's a little bit confusing, I think, is that you have, sorry, somebody else's computer here, so this is the property line over here, but there are on our survey, you know, these circles represent Different segments of stone walls around coming through there, so there are a segment, there's a segment along here, and there's a segment along this side of 77 Jenkins, and you can see, and there's some, not sure why it's asking for AI, but, and there's segments along here, and then it ends, there's a gap, and there's another little segment. Yeah, so you can see that it kind of surrounds different portions of the property. Can you offer some, not actual [55:26] Shanna Cox: actual surveying, but general idea of where the additional segment is that would show the demarcation with Thorne Craig, and if it's like way off the page, just go ahead and motion for [55:39] Amy Smith: that too. Yeah, I'll just show like, yeah, so this is part of the city's Reservoir parcel, and so this is the property lines over here, and we haven't surveyed those stone walls because it's off of our parcel. Does that make sense? But I don't know if there's, if there was confusion about any of these walls and how they might be served, so just pointing out that, you know, all of these will stay intact. It's just this portion here between 13 and 77 that would have the road come through it, and it would just it would just impact this small section of the wall. So that's question, and then I can show you some, scroll down here to your point about the amount of wetlands. Yeah, my question is more for staff than you. Okay, sorry. Yeah, I just wanted to point out to concur with what he is saying, so the wetland impact itself will occur on 13 Amos Court. It's written through here, and you'll note that the road per standard is 20 feet wide within the 40 foot wide right-of-way, and then as it crosses the wetlands it narrows down to 14 feet in the, and you know, with the idea here of trying to minimize wetland impact, and then it widens back out if it's a turnaround once it enters into 77 Jenkins Street lot. So but as you're noting, there is pretty significant wetland system through here with a stream, so we're not proposing to impact any more wetlands or the stream. The single-family house that will be built up in this area here would be set back as required, you know, 75 feet from the stream and the wetlands and such, so that's what these setbacks here are, so it would occur over in this area here. Thanks [57:25] Shanna Cox: so much. Questions for the applicant, Ms. Smith? So just to clarify, this is one new private road that the city will not be maintaining in order to service one new single family home, correct? Okay, great, other questions. [57:39] Speaker F (unidentified): From the board, Mr. Mercotte and then Mr. Pines. So the parcels as we see them on these maps were probably acquired prior to 2003. I'm not actually sure when they were acquired. Okay, I'm wondering if they were acquired from Thorns Craig, because a lot of properties further down Hogan Road I know that were acquired from Thorns Creek at one time or another. Just to point out, maybe it's not germane at this point, but it's nice to have minutes from 2003 that show intent. When I've reviewed 1990 minutes, they were quite detailed compared to recent years. [58:31] Speaker C (unidentified): Mr. Pine. I was wondering if you could describe sort of the nature of the wetland that the road is going through. Is that just like marshy ground, swampy forest, standing water? [58:43] Amy Smith: For a forested wetland, you know, kind of red maple swamp kind of area, that this driveway as it cuts through will be cutting through existing vegetation, you know, trees, vegetation, not scrubby marshland kind of areas. Okay, I don't, I have to get more detail I don't have. And the Army Corps of Engineers have signed off on it? Yes, on the wetland impact itself, that's 3,300 square feet of wetland impact. I think other discussion from the board or questions? [59:20] Shanna Cox: Okay, we're going to open this up for public comment. If you're here to discuss this item, you'd make your way to the podium, you'd introduce yourself and give your address, and we'll keep it to three minutes. The podium behind you. Thanks for asking. [59:40] Sherry Beck Poland: I'm Sherry Beck Poland and I live on, if you wanted to go back to that other picture, you'd see Tequid Knoll on the cul-de-sac right there. So that's where I live and several families. For 33 years, I've been walking through there with many Special Olympians and my foster children, and we go up to Thorn Crag and visit. I know it's private property, and the fellow that used to hunt there kind of gave us permission to go through. He said it was his uncle's land. And they put a board over the brook for us. There is a brook that runs right through there, and it doesn't show on that. there are as the rep discussed was other stone walls there 's one that comes right off well that's parallel to Amos Court that's not mentioned and I'd be curious why not what happens with that and there is another stone wall that goes from amos court to jenkins to the left of the easement that they're requesting i'm curious is that going to be dirt or tar do we know that we'll answer all questions after your three minutes thank you yep and yep and let's see and i did mention to the rep here That there are a lot of activity going on that I've worked with the police on at the end of East Avenue, similar to what used to happen at the Turner rest stop. The reason they closed the turn arrest up, men tend to seek other men there, and there's lots of activity, sexual activity through the woods there, and the police department knows about it and tries to make a presence, and you know, when we let them know. But I want, so I wanted to give that information as well, and how it, when you ask what kind of wetlands and what kind of area that is, that's a very nice flat spot there that goes across. I go across one, two, three stone walls to get to Thorncrag, the East Avenue entrance, so I just want to question why they're not discussed, because it looks like you're going through at least two of them, if not three, so that's my comments. Yeah. [1:02:52] Shanna Cox: That's your time, thank you so much. There are others who'd like to comment during any public comment on this agenda item. Looks like maybe a negotiation is happening. I'll leave this open for another moment while we decide if we're going to go up to the podium. Okay, you're going to be great, just say your name and I'll keep time for you. [1:03:19] Amy Smith: Nicole Smith, 13 Amos Court owners, so we're supporting the movement of the easement, and as you can see, it's so close to our house, they [1:03:35] Shanna Cox: literally come right off the court, so I don't know how we've never had a two for one, and I don't know that I have the rule for this. We'll stand in line, that sounds great. Anything she misses, you'll get your own three minutes, mostly because you have to speak directly in sure, so as you can see right [1:03:49] Amy Smith: now the existing easement is right off the corner of our house, so we have been working with Mason for almost a year now to shift that the best way we can, because it's literally right off the corner of our house, and I'm sure all of you can sympathize and understand why, so we're here to support that. Okay, great job. [1:04:23] Shanna Cox: Thanks, okay, and a ditto from the gentleman in the back, thank you. Know that we, it doesn't work that way, but we really appreciate it... Anyone out in the audience who'd like to speak during public comment, last call, we're gonna close the public hearing. Mr. Mark, I think that you may have a comment promotion. [1:04:48] Speaker F (unidentified): Make a motion that the application submitted by Mason Jeru or subdivision amendment in frontage right away at thirteen Amos Court and seventy seven Jenkins Street meets all of the necessary criteria contained in the zoning and land use code, including but not limited to Article 12, Section 10, frontage right-of-way, Article 13, Section 4, approval criteria, and Article 13, Section 5, coordination with the state subdivision law, and that approval be granted including any additional specific conditions raised by the Planning Board of Staff, which I believe there are. Condition of approval number one prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for any of the lots served by the frontage right-of-way the applicant's engineer shall certify to the city of Lewiston that the frontage right-of-way has been constructed in accordance with the requirements of article 12 section 10 and the approved plan number two prior to the issuance of a building permit the approved frontage right-of-way and subdivision plan shall be recorded IN THE ANDRES GARDEN COUNTY REGISTRY OF DEEDS. IF THE PLAN IS NOT RECORDED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL, THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND SUBDIVISION SHALL BE NULL AND VOID. [1:06:08] Shanna Cox: And if I may offer for you to reiterate or affirm number three, that the language on the original subdivision plan be amended to read in the stone wall along the property line abutting Thorn Craig Bird Sanctuary must remain undisturbed so the area as identified can be amended to accommodate this application accepted thank you is there a second on the motion second thank you discussion on this item call the roll Michael [1:06:38] Speaker C (unidentified): Marcotte yes Cynthia Burns yes [1:06:40] Shanna Cox: Shanna Cox yes Amy Smith yes Alex Pine yes Heidi Bartel yes Darren Gallant yes and just make one comment sure it's so nice to hear that you guys work together to figure this out thank you for that I was going to offer that and I wanted to follow up with I believe it was Sherry who spoke first during public comment I would I would encourage you to speak to the applicant's representative in the hallway I do think that they spoke to the two areas of the brook that you spoke about being undisturbed As well as the length of rock wall that you named being undisturbed during the previous discussion, which I think addresses a number but not all of your concerns. I would also say it seems like both the applicant and the neighbor are pretty agreeable and open to discussions, and you should talk to them about ensuring you can maybe still have some of the access that you've enjoyed. It is nice to see neighbors take interest in the land around their property and to have conversation with each other. And I really appreciated the civility with which we approached that entire agenda item. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay, next on our agenda is item D. Cadence Kitchen Food Pantry Inc has submitted a development review application for a conditional use permit for a homeless shelter at 70 Horton Street on a point seven nine acre parcel, and this is chilly Mr. Tebow will be your map man [1:08:03] Speaker E (unidentified): for this agenda item. Absolutely. Okay, this project involves the redevelopment of an existing building and impervious lot, primarily impervious lot at 70 Horton Street. It was the fort, previously the Fortin Group Funeral Home, currently Cadence Kitchen owns it, and they are operating a warming center that was temporary in nature, and they are looking for a conditional use permit for a large homeless shelter for adults at this facility. Just [1:08:45] Shanna Cox: for folks who are new, can you name that you're using large as a specific qualification as we've updated in ordinance and definition? Yes, [1:08:52] Speaker E (unidentified): arbitrary size reference, right? So because they're looking to host as many as 49 guests, it falls into the category of large instead of smaller medium under our definitions. That's right. And also I don't remember adults is also a term that we use versus a family or a youth homeless shelter. Because it's an existing building and an existing impervious, most, you know, there aren't that many things that are being changed, so I'll highlight what's changing. You can see on the plan on the left side that they are blocking off with some planters, There's an area for seating and outdoor enjoyment of the guests that used to be a parking lot. So some of the striping will be removed from the spaces. As I said, there'll be planters to keep cars from going in there. They have a shade canopy and picnic tables planned and a bike rack in that area. area. They're also adding some shrubs to three sides where there's planting existing but there are primarily trees so they're going to enhance that a little bit. As you may recall, when we were working on the standards for the conditional use permit for shelters, we treat a shelter as multi-family housing in terms of determining if a buffer is required. So because multi-family housing surrounds the area and it's considered, you know, that residential use, a buffer is not required. So there's no standard for how many shrubs, what size, anything like that. But we've asked them to increase planting a little bit just to improve the experience and provide a little more privacy for people. They are using existing water and sewer services. You can see just to the left, sorry, I don't know my rough left and right, to the right and upper corner of that seating area, there's a dumpster location. Initially their intent is to have trash be inside the garage, and they have a company that will come and pick up the trash once a week. But they have put on the plan a future dumpster location with screening for your approval as part of this review. They will not be adding any additional at additional impervious surfaces, so there's no storm water that was reviewed as part of this. In addition, homeless shelters do not have any parking requirements under our ordinance. So they have currently 57 parking spaces, and they will be using 27 for the homeless shelter, and then there's eight that they lease to a business next door that they'll continue to lease to them. So the conditional use permit requirements, there's section three of those which are for all conditional use permits, and section four which are specific to shelters. They have addressed that criteria in their narrative. I just want to hit a couple of items on here just to highlight those. The shelter outdoor space is a requirement as part of the conditional use permit. The ordinance doesn't have a required amount, it suggests 50 square feet per occupant, and they have provided a larger space than that, which would give 97 square feet per occupant with their max occupancy of 49 guests. They have noted what the users who are coming will be using for transportation. It's a combination of bike and car and on foot. They've provided the bike rack. They've also stated additional bike parking could be located within the garage, and they do have kind of a drop-off area. You can see on the bottom left of the building that they have two parking spaces. They're eliminating that. Will be their primary guest entrance, and then the staff entrance will be the traditional entrance above that was used for the funeral home. They have a good neighbor policy as well as, you know, a plan for how staff will be staffing the facility. One of the things they do is every 30 minutes people, some, someone from staff walks the site. Part of what they do is look for trash and pick up trash, so that is how they plan to keep exterior spaces clean in addition to obviously having appropriate trash facilities on site, and they are planning to be open 24 hours a day, which should also reduce congregating. But if people do want to congregate, there's certainly plenty of space on site for them to do that outside. So it's recommended with this that you would first act on the conditional use permit and then you would act on the development review. So there are two motions suggested, and I know usually there's a question as to what action the, can I'm sorry, the conditions of approval that we recommend go with. So I would say certainly the first two, which have to do with the shelter itself, would probably go with the conditional use permit. And then the last one could be part of development review, but it could also go with that. And it's not critical, like I mentioned, there's no requirement that they plant planting. But we do want to make sure that we see what species they're planting just to make sure they're not invasive or there's no issue with that. So we would like to have that as a condition before the final plan is [1:15:38] Amy Smith: approved and signs and that third one about the plant species is specific to [1:15:43] Shanna Cox: the second motion and not the conditional use. Yeah, I think so. For context and a little bit of history, some of us have been on the board through quite a long journey around zoning and ordinance that allows for shelters within our community, and we've taken some actions to create spaces that will allow for it. And so I think it's just helpful to be clear any shelter that was in the medium or large category and for adults specifically, so anything not family and not small, requires a conditional use pretty much regardless of where it is. And so there isn't something that's specifically different about this that's requiring a conditional use. Often when this board sees a conditional use, it's because there is something happening that is not routine, and any homeless shelter in Lewiston is considered not routine and requires a conditional use permit. Yeah, and I [1:16:40] Speaker E (unidentified): Guess I'll kind of add on to that. The way the language is written in the conditional use permit criteria, the intent is that you're looking at whether not whether a homeless shelter is appropriate in that location, because it's allowed in that location. You're looking at whether that type of facility and what you would normally expect with that type of facility is going to cause any sort of additional issues for neighbors because of, you know, site, the site itself, or something about how things are laid out, and then you're looking to mitigate those potentially. So that's, that's kind of the thrust of the conditional use permit. Thanks so much. Any questions for staff [1:17:29] Shanna Cox: before we invite up the applicant? Someone invite the applicant up. Mr. Tebow will vacate his space. There's more than two of you, just bring a chair. Introduce yourself when you get up here. You'd say your name and your affiliation with the application. So what's the generous group tonight? Extra chairs, lots of collaboration, I love it. Good [1:18:08] Speaker C (unidentified): evening. I'm Dan Moreno with Platts Associates. I'm representing Keyton. My name is Linda Scott. I am the administrative director for the Altar La Shelter. Thank you. Kevin Bollard. I am the executive director for the Altar La Shelter. Thanks. And that shelter is the shelter's name [1:18:26] Shanna Cox: by which the applicant is going to be operating under, correct? Great. Is there anything that you would like to present or share? Don't feel like you have to before the board brings questions to you. [1:18:35] Speaker C (unidentified): No, I thought Shelly and did an awesome job. They do a thorough job every time to answer questions and clarify. Okay. Thanks. Question, Darren, softball questions. Can you just [1:18:48] Speaker D (unidentified): go through the space with me a little bit, like why the green space on where it is compared to closer to the building? Just curious, like how you decided to lay out [1:18:58] Speaker G (unidentified): the layout of the, this. Yeah, right. Yeah, the overall site layout of the space, because we are a shelter and we are a low barrier shelter, we do have calls to EMT sometimes. We do have staff that needs to park close to the building. It was a lot, it made a lot more sense for us to have that availability and the easy access from the entrance there going up to the building as we currently have now, giving that other space over there to the [1:19:26] Shanna Cox: guests that they had their own space. Yeah, and then ensuring any issues that happen internally can have that ease of access and any kind of all of those green space uses happening on the other [1:19:40] Speaker J (unidentified): End of the property we also considered there's a back part behind the building to the top right that's the currently the other direction currently be careful currently the lease space that Community Credit Union uses for parking we considered that as the common area as well because it's directly off of the building but based off of the 50 square foot per guest we weren't sure if that was enough space so then we went to that alternative option at the end of the parking lot and also better [1:20:10] Speaker G (unidentified): Visibility for our staff in that area yeah then behind the building yeah thank [1:20:15] Speaker C (unidentified): You very helpful yeah Alex can you talk a little bit about the proposed planters sort of dividing the parking area from the you know green space how is that going to be managed in the winter how is the outdoor space going to be managed in the winter and then also could you talk a little bit about how that outdoor space will be demarcated from the sidewalk and the street I'm just sort of wondering you know generally about pedestrian flow you know people are walking across the parking lot and Then of course in the wintertime [1:20:50] Shanna Cox: That makes it more difficult so can I add to that question just you only have to answer it once that's okay specifically as we considered placements for the ability to have shelters one of the considerations particularly for adult shelters was the proximity to schoolchildren in schools and this is there's a lot of children in this in this downtown neighborhood specifically in this area I'm walking to three different schools maybe a fourth depending on how 287 Main Street ends up and so I would I would add my interest in Alex's question with what kind of separation from folks who might be smoking in the shelter the sheltered area in the green space how close or far that might be from the sidewalk where kids are walking to the middle schools but that's a high middle school pedestrian [1:21:44] Amy Smith: Highway if you will part of my question was about smoking areas and where that kind of fit into this as well so you can take one crack with all those crazy I [1:21:53] Speaker G (unidentified): Can so, the smoking area is under the canopied area right there that you see directly in the middle with the two picnic tables. That is currently the size of our smoking area right now, and we do have children that come through our building and their parents through the parking lot every day. They come, their pickup is right over there on Horton Street and Ash Street, across the street. The bus stops right there at that intersection, and so we're very cognizant of the families and the children that are in the area and make sure that we have staff outside and we're maintaining separation from our guests with the children and the parents that are coming through. We do not want to block that area because we welcome the children and the parents walking through. We've had children with their little bikes coming off of their porches in the most recent days with nice weather, riding their little bikes in our parking area are out there, and we welcome that because we want to be part of the neighborhood to speak to some of the plantings and that. So I have a master gardener as well as a executive director of the shelter, and so I have many ideas and plans of what we want to do for planting as well as building a community garden in that area so that we can encourage our neighbors to come and have vegetables out of our garden as well. There's ample space there to do all of those pieces. We have a contract already with Clearance for the winter time. We've used it this winter, so we have somebody that comes and plows our drive, our parking area, and we also have staff as well as I will tell you, I cannot tell you how many guests in the middle of the night go clear the cars off of the staff and shovel our parking lot when we have a snowstorm. Our guests are very happy to be part of it. It's their home as well. They call it their home, and they are there to help shovel when we need it. They're there to help clean up and pick up trash. Last Friday, there was a large trash bag that was opened up across the street in front of the Fry School apartment, and two guests from our shelter went over there with gloves and a trash bag and cleaned the whole area up. They consider this their home as well, and we encourage them to be part of that team with us to making sure that we're going to keep it nice. They're already excited, and they say, Ms. Linda, we can't wait to plant a vegetable garden with you. I'm not sure how we're going to get it all done exactly, but in some of those planters that's getting done. [1:24:28] Shanna Cox: Well, and I just I want to clarify the question that Alex asked is, Do you, are you aiming to use physical structures of planters? Yes, the market? Yeah, as well as plantings. Yes. So the actual thing I want to go just checking on like the physicality. [1:24:43] Speaker G (unidentified): Cars going into that area. We're actually going to have like very large planters, concrete planters to dissent to. [1:24:52] Speaker C (unidentified): Differentiate between the two areas. Awesome. And that's going to be year round. They're not going to be removed for the wintertime? Correct. Okay. And then it sounds like, you know, your guests, they're going to have plenty of opportunity to shovel out the outdoor space so that they can use it. So no problems there. Could you talk a little bit more about how you're sort of envisioning pedestrian flow between that space and across the parking lot, just sort of like people sort of trickling through the parking lot? I don't know how busy you're expecting vehicle traffic to be, but I know within the parcel, within the parcel, yeah, and you know, I just think about, you know, if there's kids, there's, you know, folks who are trying to move all their possessions, things like that, you know, I could see there being some interactions just because you have your travel lanes. [1:25:37] Speaker J (unidentified): Really close to the outdoor space. Yeah, so one of the challenges that we've kind of been juggling since we moved in there is it's a very large property, you know, with a lot of extra parking spaces. When you have parking bans and stuff like that during the winter time, you have them very limited parking spaces in those neighboring buildings, so a lot of times they just naturally use that funeral home parking, which was existent before, so obviously we've, we've tried to accommodate the balance between. Good neighbor and not kicking everybody out of their parking spots, and a lot of the neighbors use the back parking lot where Community Credit Union parks during the day. They use that during the evening as well, but at the same time, we are conscious of the fact that there's excessive traffic flow that does go through there. That was very hard for us to control during the warming center, but it's something that we're going to be more hyper focused on once we convert over to the shelter warming center is a little bit different concept. It's kind of like an open door concept, you know, so you have a lot more in and out and people coming in, and you potentially might have an individual who's staying a night in, you know, in their cars parked in the parking lot. Those type of normal things aren't necessarily as sporadic and, you know, as they are, you know, under a shelter setting. So we're definitely going to have more defined no parking spaces, staff parking spaces, whether we do designate a particular amount, say three to five parking spaces to neighboring properties, you know, we create some type of parking permit or some type of parking pass to where those vehicles would be able to be identified. But we also acknowledge and recognize that if a car is parked there and we want it moved, then we have to get it towed, which then becomes an expense. So we try not to create all kinds of additional expenses. So a lot of it is just communication, which is something we've done a great job with so far in regards to those conversations. But things will get tighter in regards to accessibility to the parking lot and the parking spaces in general once we convert to the full shelter. Can you help us understand the [1:27:42] Shanna Cox: difference in hours that you're open under the warming center now versus what [1:27:48] Speaker J (unidentified): the shelter would give you? Yeah, it's actually a great answer, the same. So originally when we started the winter warming center, this is our third year running warming centers in the community, originally was going to be from November 1st, which was going to be 12 hours a day, 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. And that was going to run until that the shelter was ready, you know, through some discussions with Maine Housing and the City of Auburn, the City of Lewiston, we decided that as of 12-1, of you know this prior winter, we basically opened the emergency warming center 24 hours a day. So we were the only facility in the state of Maine that was open 24 hours a day with a hundred person capacity, and we've been doing that since December 1st. So if some of you don't even realize we've been doing that, then that means we've been doing a really good job at it. So what we're now looking to do is go down about, you know, minimize our capacity by approximately 60 percent, you know, and have 40 individuals. We've had over 750 unique, 725 I apologize, unique individuals come through the warming center in the past five months. That's a lot of individuals, that's a lot of people that might be there for one night, two nights, three nights. A shelter setting is a much different dynamic, you know, these people are really kind of focused on the program component of it, you know, the transitional aspect, you know, being able to stay long enough to be able to get my ID, to be able to get my birth certificate, to take that next step, you know, those are the individuals that will [1:29:20] Speaker C (unidentified): be focused on in the shelter setting. Thank you. Other questions? Cynthia, what would be like [1:29:28] Speaker G (unidentified): a typical length of stay for someone in the shelter? It's a great question. I'm, you know, if [1:29:33] Speaker J (unidentified): you take 10 people, there's there's, you know, 30 different variables involved. There's going to be individuals that will be there for much longer stays, that there's individuals that we've had in the warming centers for the past three years. We've worked with case management, we've worked with adult protective services, we still can't find facilities that these people can be accepted into. So where do they stay? They just stay out on the streets, you know. So our responsibility is first, you know, shelter and safety, but ultimately the end goal is transitional, you know, that's what we take pride on, is the transitional component, you know. Lewisville and Auburn battles a huge challenge with chronic homelessness, you know, to where the individuals are experiencing homelessness for a year or longer because they have so many different variables that our current shelters just aren't meeting. You know, simple things, if my breath smells like alcohol, I can be refused entry into a shelter. If I take a particular medicine, if I don't have a particular religious belief. You know, all we're looking to do is get to the individuals that are facing all of those barriers and kind of remove those barriers and still help them get to that end goal, which is a self-sustainable lifestyle. [1:30:43] Shanna Cox: Thanks Ms. Smith. Yes, so Kevin, thanks guys for this proposal. It's very exciting. I just want to understand the capacity. So it's going to 49 beds, but you said that you often in the warming shelter have 100 people. So are you still going to be able to during the daytime have up to 100 people, but it's only at night that it goes down to 49? How will that work? No, the shelter capacity [1:31:07] Speaker J (unidentified): would ultimately be 49. You know, for the shelter capacity, we are in discussions and there are talks in regards to operational, program wise, funding wise, to revisit the warming center component. You know, come the winter months, usually Main Housing considers November 1st through the end of April, you know, kind of that winter warming center time frame. We're getting to the end of that now, so, but there are discussions because we do have another private room in the building which would be separate and isolated from the shelter on a separate floor that does have a, I believe, a 50 person capacity, which would allow us to potentially have a warming center component isolated separate from the shelter, because there are different dynamics as well. You know, you don't want to disrupt the flow, you know, of the shelter people who have kind of made that commitment and are working towards certain goals, to kind of that in and out impulsiveness that kind of comes with the average guests in a warming center setting. So if we did have a warming center component added to it, we would want to make sure that we didn't disrupt, you know, that the 49 people in the shelter [1:32:13] Shanna Cox: which are the primary focus. And for the sake of clarity and for the record, those potential plans aren't part of the occupancy or application that we're reviewing, correct? But just to piggyback off [1:32:25] Speaker G (unidentified): That a little bit when we did do our conditional use for the warming center, that bottom floor piece was inspected by the fire department and city and code to make sure that was feasible for warming shelter or possibly cooling center. It is ADA accessible as well as having its own bathrooms and a spot where we could put a small kitchenette and have, you know, refrigerator and service that in the future if we decide [1:32:49] Shanna Cox: to go that route. Yeah, so I'm just naming that what we're being, I'm sorry that I'm gonna interrupt you again, but I am, that just for the sake of clarity of what we're being asked to consider and what people might hear us take action on tonight, it is a 49 bed shelter which is different than its potential use or even occupancy limit. We've recently had much discussion about occupancy limits and institutional settings and I just want to be really clear but what we're acting on tonight versus what fire department might have named with an occupancy potential for a future use. Great, and just a quick follow on this outdoor space, I'm a neighbor just a block or two away and I can't emphasize how important it is to have a nice outdoor space that folks can go to because it's really hard as a neighbor to have people congregating who, you know, who were at the at the warming center and just have no place to go and so you're, you politely ask folks to move but they've got no place to go so this is this is going to be a huge advantage for the neighborhood and for [1:33:54] Speaker C (unidentified): the guests, so thank you for that. Mr. Pine, is the intention to have the outdoor space only for guests, are you going to allow for, okay, so just only guess we're pretty restrictive on who [1:34:09] Speaker J (unidentified): accesses the property or the internal components anyway where the guests are just due to, you know, certain confidentiality and security purposes, so yes ideally and the goal is even if it's some type of lattice or something, you know, that to where, you know, we don't want it to where it's like, oh, you can just go and hand something over the top of the fence and that kind of thing. We're going to be conscious of those type of realities and make sure that it's very secured and isolated for the guests only. [1:34:35] Speaker C (unidentified): Okay. Yeah. And I would encourage you, and it sounds like this is where you're headed anyway, but, you know, any barrier that you put there, you know, still allows, you know, you don't want it to become the walled fortress, right? And I hear you talking about having the neighbors come through a lot and schoolchildren getting dropped off by the bus. It sounds like you really have that under control. But, yeah, just want to highlight that, yeah, we don't want this to become the walled garden that people can't see into and still interact with from a street level on some level, right? Any other discussion? [1:35:06] Speaker F (unidentified): Mr. Marcotte. I really like the area for recreation or whatever you want to call it. Too bad the other site we discussed earlier didn't have something like that planned. I do have a question about some of the materials that we received. I believe a 101 shows 25 beds now. Where would the other 24 beds appear? I didn't see your bunk beds. Oh, okay, so from a top down you wouldn't see the other half, so that's 50. Okay, all on the first floor. I was wondering if there was, should have been a second floor. My plan in here, okay, so that answers that. That was really the only thing I had to share. [1:35:56] Shanna Cox: Great, so we're going to open this up to public comment. If you're here to speak on this issue, you'll make your way to the podium, you'll introduce yourself by name and the address of which you are affiliated with that brings interest in this agenda item, and you'll be limited to three minutes. That's okay. We are going to take a bio break right after this, which I apologize in advance for. Our item, no, go ahead if you need to, by all means. Is there anyone here who would like to speak on this agenda item? Last call. Okay, I'm going to close it. Any final discussion or [1:36:32] Speaker C (unidentified): comments from the board i think she was counting on us yeah mr marco there's something i wanted [1:36:42] Speaker F (unidentified): to bring up while we're waiting for one member to return staff reviewing comments fire no comments police no comments i think those two departments and public works maybe as well shirking responsibilities to at least put some sort of narrative not just no comments there's a comment to be made on everything positive or negative it just seems like something's it's like they don't want to answer on some of these things because there's maybe some reason that they would like to and they're afraid to I mean, some sort of narrative should be in all of these. It's not specifically this item, I just needed to get it out there while we were looking at that. [1:37:24] Shanna Cox: Stuff I'm going to take, I'm going to take an item from Mr. Murcott's playbook, if I might, on that particular one, which is two planning board meetings ago there was a request made by an applicant unrelated to this item but similarly about other departments making comments and essentially naming in email discussions that the planning board either had the authority or it was in our purview or we were required to act on something and that other departments had directed that verbally or in writing to the planning board but had not actually placed anything of that like at all in this section of the application and I asked for additional information from our department heads as well as the gentleman who suggested or threatened the FOIA request that he'd be doing that we would be interested in seeing the email exchanges between applicants and other departments naming it perhaps the applicant was mistaken or perhaps that FOIA hasn't gone through but I would name that is an area of open inquiry for me that has not been resolved or addressed though I did request it for [1:38:39] Speaker G (unidentified): clarity you're not referencing this project well I'm not [1:38:43] Shanna Cox: but for clarity's sake if in six months you come before us for and I don't know what additional use right and we hear at that time that a neighbor had a concern and they went to x y department head and x y department said well we said that in the beginning and we have on record right now that there were no comments from those departments it is why it's relevant in this moment to us and I'm seeing nodding from our director who [1:39:08] Speaker D (unidentified): understands my request yes I understand your request and we can reach out and talk to our other fellow department heads I know in certain circumstances like this you know there are inspections to be had, and usually that's when a lot of the comments will come out. Fire department is going to be scheduled. Code enforcement is going to be scheduled. Police is going to be scheduled to go out and do an inspection pending tonight's outcome. And my understanding is they'll have probably a lot of comments during that time. But I agree with you. We can probably coax a little bit of a little more information out of our fellow departments. [1:39:46] Shanna Cox: Well and should they have comments after this board has reviewed and acted on an application and those comments wouldn't be directed at the planning board that's authority to address them somehow precipitously before they come in front [1:39:56] Speaker D (unidentified): of us and I think she'll is going to talk about some of the emails that we [1:40:00] Speaker C (unidentified): do get but I'll let she'll explain well and I guess I was going to say the [1:40:04] Speaker E (unidentified): comments that they might have would be related to the licensing they're not related to your conditional use permit and development review so like fire [1:40:11] Shanna Cox: department I'm confident in that I'm just saying that 's not the way that has been presented to us previously and i don't i'd love to have that discussion another agenda item because i think we have some of that in other business that would be relevant and i don't want to confuse people with nor do i want to scare the applicant but that is that is related and comes up for me with what mr marcon is putting out as well we waited to act because [1:40:33] Speaker F (unidentified): yes something was said that reminded me something i thought of early and failed to ask so the conditional approval is one thing licensing is another now if something goes wrong month in the next year or so... conditional... approval is not something that can be revisited correct... assuming that 's the case might correct me if i'm wrong however the licensing would be something that the city council would probably hear testimony my and may not may or may not relight that's correct [1:41:10] Speaker C (unidentified): yeah the City Council is not the only licensing body either no can you had to [1:41:17] Shanna Cox: find me on that the City Council is only one licensing agency you have to deal with some other licensing agencies I suspect oh in this particular yeah [1:41:27] Speaker G (unidentified): like health licensing or we just through the main housing what we have through main housing yeah which is separate from the City Council's consideration [1:41:37] Shanna Cox: I'd be looking for a motion on this agenda item please do I make a motion [1:41:45] Speaker G (unidentified): that the application submitted by cadence kitchen food pantry Inc for a large homeless shelter on site with an on-site 24-hour programming at 70 Horton Street meets all the necessary standards for a conditional use permit contained in the zoning and land use code in article 10 section 3 standards for conditional use permits and section 4 additional standards for homeless shelters including the specific conditions that the capacity of the shelter shall be limited to 49 beds any expansion in the number of beds shall require board re-approval and that prior to commencing operations as a homeless shelter a homeless shelter license is required from the City Council thank you [1:42:38] Shanna Cox: Is there a second item? Three is going to come in the next motion in case anyone. Thank you. Thank you, Darren. Any discussion on the first motion? Can we hear the roll? Michael Marcotte? Yes. Cynthia Burns? Yes. Shanna Cox? Yes. Amy Smith? Yes. Alex Pine? Yes. Heidi Bartel? Yes. And Darren Gallant? Yes. Memphia, would you like to make a second motion? [1:43:05] Speaker G (unidentified): I would be happy to. I make a motion that the application submitted by Cadence Kitchen Food Pantry, Inc. for a large homeless shelter with on-site 24-hour programming at 70 Horton Street meets all the necessary criteria contained in the zoning and land use code including but not limited to article 13 section 4 approval criteria and that approval be granted with the following condition that the plant species be provided for staff review and approval prior to the signing of the [1:43:41] Shanna Cox: final drawings. Second. Thank you. Thank you. Any discussion on this agenda item? I mean on this motion. Call the roll. Michael Marcotte? Yes. Panthea Burns? Yes. Shanna Cox? Yes. Amy Smith? Yes. Alex Pine? Yes. Heidi Bartels? Yes. Darren Galant? Yes. I'm excited for the master gardener's rendition of the species that you're, it's going to be a list you are not prepared for. Good luck. Good luck and thank you for the service our community and the care with which you're doing it. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, we are gonna take a five-minute recess and my serious apologies to the folks in the back who I believe are on their next agenda item but we just have to five minutes. [1:44:50] Speaker F (unidentified): You made it a while. [1:45:17] Speaker D (unidentified): The electronic application for everything was sent over? Okay. [1:45:27] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, I was asking I was asking [1:45:29] Speaker D (unidentified): if we've seen anything. Did you see anything? [1:45:35] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, I don't think, I don't think, I don't think it's a wire transfer to pay the permit fee? [1:45:47] Speaker D (unidentified): No, you what? No, I didn't, oh no. No,, no,, no,. Is that fake? That's spam. [1:45:57] Amy Smith: Stop it. No, that's spam. It was sent to you. It was from you and everything. No. Come on. [1:46:03] Speaker G (unidentified): And I even responded to the email and said, John, we're going to take care of it today. No. No. [1:46:07] Speaker D (unidentified): That is not – you need to – you're going to need to contact your financier. They're doing that a lot later from now. You've got to look at the – did you look at – do you have the email? Do you have the email? [1:46:20] Speaker J (unidentified): Do you have your phone? Do you have the email on your phone? I should be sure this came from the city and I said yes. [1:46:25] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah. Did you look at – you've got to look at the email address. [1:46:28] Speaker C (unidentified): I said I'm ESU. You can phone me back. No. [1:46:31] Speaker D (unidentified): No, it didn't go to me because look at the email address that it came from. It'll be some weird address. We've been sending out a lot of folks there. They're sending, they're like, hey, Jason, look at that. We'll say, no, hey, where do I send it? And it's a complete spam. You're going to want to get in touch with your financial institution immediately and cancel that. Cancel that. We'll [1:51:13] Shanna Cox: make lots of room for that. We have everybody except Shelly. Does that feel important? Shelly is making printouts so it feels great that she's missing because she's doing us a big favor. Welcome back. Do I need to, hey Mr. Roberts rules, do I need to do anything special to come back for [1:51:31] Speaker C (unidentified): from a recess? Not really. Okay, great. It's not recess. The jury? [1:51:37] Shanna Cox: Welcome back. I appreciate our public who is being patient with us tonight, and I appreciate the board for making room for a quick bio break that is appreciated. Okay, so this is, we are considering this as a public hearing, so we'll be able to hear from the public. We have re brought forward an item that was previously tabled, which is the No Name Pond item. We were provided a memo with some information from staff today, clarification and recommended action for the No Name Pond overlay district buffer language. This was brought forward to us with an executive summary from our director of code and planning, Mr. Connor. Will you be presenting this updated item for us tonight? I think presenting [1:52:34] Speaker D (unidentified): is a very strong word. I'm going to try to, I'm going to try to make this as simple as I possibly can and try to clarify as much as I can on this. So the impetus behind this was, you know, obviously a landowner wanted to develop on a subdivision lot. We received some input from an of butter and highlighted the language in the ordinance that you guys have already seen that talked about the buffers. The ordinance language kind of confused us a little bit, to be honest with you, and as we started, you know, looking more into this and reading it as it's written at face value, we believe that there was an issue with the buffers. As we spoke with the environmental engineer, John Kaczynski, we started doing some, you know, some more research and looking into it and what exactly buffers are meant for, what these stormwater systems are designed to do. We realize that we may have been looking at it and reading it wrong. Maybe the language is correct, it just kind of a little convoluted, but we want to clarify it And that's what this whole ordinance is, you know, changes to do is to set in stone and clarify so that the director that comes after me and the planners that come after our current planters can look at the language and plainly see and read it and understand exactly what is meant by it, not try to have to play word wordsmith rules and games of trying to figure out exactly what is meant in the ordinance. So that's kind of the premise behind all of it, and if I was to boil it down into its simplest forms, the new language is meant to basically say that if it's a man-made stormwater structure device that the buffer design is not applied to, that the buffer is applied to any natural water that is flowing in a natural state, natural vegetated state. And so the easiest way to look at it, if you will, on this lovely map is this is all storm water, this is all man-made stormwater course of action. I'm sorry, you know, I get the flow that it's, it's flowing down the street ditches, and if you go further up onto the into the subdivision, you can see the arrows are pointing that it's, it's supposed to flow down these ditches, it goes through the piping across the street into this man-made pond that is meant to be filtering the dirty water. This is all dirty water, the man-made pond is supposed to be filtering that dirty water, and then as it flows out in a natural state, this is all man-made and now it is no longer man-made, it is flowing freely all the way down to the pond once it leaves the man-made pond and if you look at every single one of the revisions of the subdivision, it clearly states that there's a 50 foot buffer around the entire subdivision and the stream, and this is the only stream aside from this one and this one. Can you zoom out enough so we can see these parcels? Yeah, absolutely. So this is the entire subdivision, there's a stream that runs out of this man-made pond that requires a 50 foot buffer as in stated in the subdivision plan, there is another man-made pond here that captures all of the water coming down the hill, again this is, this side of the street is the low side, this side of the street is the high side, the water flows down, hits a, hits a storm water catch basin, runs across the street into a pipe into a man-made pond where the water is supposed to be collected, sediment sinks, it's cleaned, filtered, overflows, comes out of the man-made pond down through the stream to the water, to the to the no name pod, it does it on all three of these, this one up here, this one here and this one here and so as we read through this and we talked to the engineers they 're telling us in the easiest terms possible is the buffer is not meant for a swale or a man-made pond because this is all dirty water it makes no sense to have a buffer where dirty water is being cleaned and filtered as it goes through a swale as it enters into a stormwater pond by definition the or by rule the HOA is required to clean these they need to have access to these they need to clean out that sediment, otherwise the capacity of these stormwater ponds is decreased. The more the sediment builds up, the less water it can hold, the less water it can filter, and now you have the potential for more dirty water going all the way down to [1:57:27] Shanna Cox: no-name pond. At our last public hearing, we heard somebody speak during public comment about their understanding, which might have been accurate or not, of the, thank you Shelly, that one of the existing man-made ponds had not been excavated, and it even sound like in staff dialogue during that time that it was not clear or maybe then understood to be that it was public works responsibility to clean it out and not the HOA. And so it sounds like you might have some additional information. Can you just clarify anything for us that is different from [1:58:10] Speaker C (unidentified): that which we understood as we left last time? Yeah, absolutely, so and I did have [1:58:15] Speaker D (unidentified): conversations, I believe the two attendees in the audience tonight, I have had them in my office, we did speak and I explained all of this to them as well, and I completely understand their point of view, but the HOA is responsible for cleaning these pools. They are responsible for maintaining all of the storm water man-made structures, if you will. If it was man-made, they're responsible for the maintenance and cleaning of it. Our job as the city, as the engineers and code enforcement, is to ensure that they are doing that, and to date that has not been done. We, to be honest with you, it has never come up until this point in time. You know, there's never been an issue with, you know, with anybody trying to build up there for some years now, and it just hasn't come to our radar are, but we are, we are looking at, we've notified the hoa that they do need to maintain these. [1:59:07] Shanna Cox: Can you point out for us the parcel of which our quick action is going to support a timeline for [1:59:14] Speaker D (unidentified): Building correct, so this lot right here where the pink pipe is going down, this is the open area lot. This is where the, it looks pretty flat right now, but it's listed as a swale right here. There is some pooling water, and you can see a small, very small berm that looks like it's taking water and it's filtering it down into this man-made pond. [1:59:40] Speaker C (unidentified): But the lot that's getting developed is the lot. Yeah, I'm getting ready. [1:59:45] Shanna Cox: It's not that one. [1:59:46] Speaker D (unidentified): Setting the stage. This here is the lot. [1:59:51] Shanna Cox: This is his non-presentation. [1:59:52] Speaker D (unidentified): This is the lot in question. In and so it's got enough road frontage for a driveway, but according to the letter, if we, if we read the ordinance language that says a 50-foot buffer from natural vegetative state, if you, if you read that berm here to me, natural vegetated state, it's within the 50 foot, and so he could not, nobody could put a driveway here. So they're looking to put a driveway here, build their house somewhere in this region here. Our premise, our reading of or changing of the ordinance would state that this outflow of the stormwater would have to have a 50-foot buffer all the way around, so he would, so nobody would be able to build 50 feet or disturb 50 feet from here all the way up. Now there's already a 50-foot buffer here because this is the edge of the subdivision, the 250 foot mark from the [2:00:51] Shanna Cox: the pond I believe is somewhere on that neighborhood. Yeah, the 50 foot along No Name Pond Road, that buffer is not because of water management, but rather that's, that's part of the subdivision. [2:01:03] Speaker D (unidentified): That's, that's the rules that we'll put in with the subdivision. It goes, it goes all the way around [2:01:07] Speaker C (unidentified): the border of the subdivision, of the subdivision, correct, which does not include the road but comes [2:01:11] Speaker D (unidentified): up to it, correct, thank you. Yeah, and so this is, this is the lot in question. So again, as staff interprets, what we're trying to clarify is to clearly state that this does not need a 50-foot buffer. This pipe going under the street by PW does not need a buffer. These road ditches do not need a 50-foot buffer. What needs a 50-foot buffer is any of the clean water that is coming out of the ponds and flowing naturally to the No-Name Pond. [2:01:44] Speaker C (unidentified): So just to clarify, we have the confusion that's coming from the current language. You know, if you just sort of read it verbatim, a lot of the existing houses are within that, within a 50 foot box, so like if we didn't change it, this is all non-compliant, correct, every single one of these. [2:02:02] Speaker D (unidentified): These developed houses would be in technically violation because, yeah, these buffer, you're saying if you're reading it strictly, that there should be a buffer here and here and every one of these areas, no driveways, correct? That's the strict interpretation of it, you know, it clearly said the strict interpretation would be a minimum buffer of from perennial, I want to make sure I get the right one here, that perennial or go intermittent streams or open storm water drainage course retained in natural vegetated states, and what we are trying to do is clarify it going forward in perpetuity, if you will, that the new language should state that a minimum buffer from perennial or intermittent streams and natural drainage ways, and then the exemption, the exemption would be man-made drainage infrastructure such as ponds, ditches, swales, and other storm water control measures can [2:03:05] Speaker G (unidentified): You show me the implications for what can and where it can and cannot develop on that site. I mean, you showed me on the driveway, showed us on the driveway rather, so I assume the construction would have to be [2:03:21] Shanna Cox: It's 50 foot out, not that we can use this language in the 50 foot out from the blue but not the pink. [2:03:28] Speaker G (unidentified): I got that correct, I got that, but just like a, I mean, I don't know the distance is there just [2:03:36] Shanna Cox: To, oh, like what's the scale of 50 feet on this map? Yes, that's all. Let me see, hold on, hold [2:03:41] Speaker D (unidentified): On, let me, let me see if I can, that's a great call. Yeah, we did 60 feet, I've got it, I can do it [2:03:53] Speaker G (unidentified): Right here, this, yep, and Shelly's showing, so it sort of precludes this section here, but the [2:04:03] Shanna Cox: The legend is in gray on the very bottom. It gets to the boundary here. I got it right here. [2:04:07] Speaker G (unidentified): And then here. So that leaves this. [2:04:12] Speaker D (unidentified): So give or take, that's 50 feet right there on the screen. [2:04:16] Amy Smith: Can I ask another question? Wait, he just relaxed for you. Oh, yeah. Ooh. [2:04:21] Speaker D (unidentified): Ooh. Yeah. So basically he would have to build, or he or she would have to build over in this region here. Yes. [2:04:29] Speaker G (unidentified): What, how does the buffer interact with the construction process itself in terms of impact [2:04:37] Speaker D (unidentified): On that waterway? So the buffer is no activity, like ever, like zero activity, and again that goes back to it, we need activity, you need to have the ability to get to this, yeah, man-made pond because you have to do maintenance on it. If this, if this berm or, I'm sorry, this swale becomes flat and it's no longer directing water to this pond, you need to do maintenance to bring it up to the standard that it needs to be at, so a no activity buffer prevents you from doing that, and that's why we firmly, the way We read it is the intent has always been this natural state. [2:05:20] Speaker C (unidentified): After it has been cleaned, yeah, the water, I think my question is the construction process itself. [2:05:27] Speaker G (unidentified): And stuff gets disrupted, how does how does the buffer relate to that? Just I [2:05:35] Speaker D (unidentified): hear it as there's no activity, so they will not be able to do any construction activity within 50 feet of this, right? And so they'll also have to have, you know, sediment control, code enforcement, you know, as part of their building permit plans would have to go out there and ensure that they have proper silt [2:05:52] Speaker C (unidentified): sensing and whatnot. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, great question. I have a question, is that okay? Yeah. [2:06:00] Shanna Cox: I try to wait till the end, but if I understand the intent, the intent makes sense to me. I would like to support that intent becoming clarifying language. I'm not sure that this language does those things for me, if that makes sense. Specifically, I thought it was really helpful for you to name like that retention pond is dirty water, but then upon exiting it's clean, and like point to that one spot, right? Particularly when you have kind of like a not perfect cement circle intentionally because it's you know doing all of the natural ecosystem cleansing that we wanted to do. And so if we were to say a 50-foot buffer begins at the exit of the man-made structure, and that is the point at which the water becomes now natural and clean again, I can get on board with it conceptually. I think it's a little challenging to point at it, but you're probably gonna hit it within five or ten feet, you're not gonna be a football field away. I still don't think this language makes that clear, and that's the part that I'm struggling with, is being able, if we approve this as written, I think it would be easy for a really similar thing 20 years from now, when it's not fresh and we all knew what it meant, the person making the application, the code enforcement officer enforcing it, the person who's going out and making sure the HOA cleaned the pond, to say, well, that's a man-made pond, and thus there is no minimum buffer needed. At what point does the minimum buffer happen if there was no stream, Creek, whatever, until you Put in the man-made pond, does the thing that come from it become man-made as well and thus the 50 feet needed all the way down doesn't matter? So like you pointed, can you, so you pointed up here right where this stream stems from, this man-made pond, yep, that you've got here. Was that stream always there and we put a pond at the front of the stream and said this dirty water going into the pond will be clean as it enters this stream that's always lived there? And are there ever times that we, and I'm sure there are, create man-made ponds of which the outflow from the man-made pond wasn't there before and thus feels pretty man-made, and yet we're going to require a 50-foot buffer from it because it's [2:08:37] Speaker D (unidentified): clean, correct? So I guess I would, I want to say yes, this is all man-made, this would, this more than likely would not be here unless this was engineered and designed to do this. So the output, if you will, from the man-made pond, it comes from a man-made instrument, but then it begins, once it begins to flow through natural vegetation, this, none of this is touched, this is all virgin soil or it should be, and it's, and it's filtering its way all the way to the pond and this is where you want to keep it clean. So yes, it is a byproduct of a man-made, conceptually, so on [2:09:15] Shanna Cox: board, I'm just saying this language, yes, like you don't have this map and we can't say pink and blue plus it's not consistent on the whole map, right? And so 20 years from now into the future, how are we crystal clear that the intent is to maintain a buffer around clear vegetated state water sources even if as soon as they are 50 feet or at the point of outflow, even if the origination point is man-made structure, right, like that differentiation still seems like it's missing even though I understand so it's like the outflow piece is not named at all, which is the drainage way, okay, so the exemption is the drainage way, no, the minimum [2:10:08] Speaker D (unidentified): buffer from perennial or intermittent streams, so there's your, there's your natural streams, if you will, right, and then nothing to do with it, and then your natural drainage way, so after it's been, you know, you could look at that as the drainage way coming from the natural, from the man-made pond, yes, and [2:10:28] Shanna Cox: then we've provided a 50 foot buffer exemption, so the 50 foot buffer is not required, right, exempted when it is coming from a man-made drainage infrastructure such as pond, ditches, swales [2:10:41] Speaker G (unidentified): and other storm water control, so the storm and ditch is not coming from, when it's in those, when [2:10:47] Speaker C (unidentified): it's in them so those features themselves are exempted yeah so what i what i'm hearing here if i could just butt in is you're thinking about source right like that 's your main concern this text is addressing the actual physical feature that water regardless of source is going through right you know so maybe what you're looking for shanna is something that says minimum buffer from perennial intermediate intermittent streams and natural waterways regardless of you know natural or man-made source Is 50 feet? The exemption is for man-made drainage infrastructure that requires maintenance, and that's ponds, you know, ditches, swales, and so like including something in there that says, you know, these are exempted because they require maintenance, like spell that out. And did that sort of take care of that, takes care of the ambiguity in intention? Well, it definitely clarifies the intent and purpose of having this. [2:11:57] Shanna Cox: Language at all, right? And I think gives you an actual test, like a litmus test to apply, because I mean, if I'm, I don't know if our public folks here are the folks in the developable piece of land or not, but if you go to the parcel in question, 50 feet is pretty close. And if this map was just a, that natural driveway bit up by the road frontage was just like this much shorter, the 50 feet being around the pond or originating at the outflow of the pond would be like materially impactful to yes or no. And so, and I still don't think this really like. [2:12:44] Speaker C (unidentified): Helps with that. So if it's the maintenance, right? Yeah. Could I point out sort of what you're talking about just to make it? [2:12:50] Shanna Cox: I just don't want this to ever have to come in front of us. [2:12:53] Speaker C (unidentified): Are we gonna like offset, like where does, where does the natural water course start upon the end? [2:13:14] Shanna Cox: What you're going for here. Well, that's how I was interested, if I'm just to be clear about it, we've named, if you could plant banner, you're doing great. Yeah, so we've got 50 feet around the man-made spot because that feature needs to be maintained, right? So you don't have to, you don't have to, don't you. [2:13:30] Speaker D (unidentified): Know there's no buffer around the actual pond, around the house, okay, just once the water comes. [2:13:36] Speaker J (unidentified): Out, but once it becomes a natural feature. [2:13:39] Speaker C (unidentified): It will spill away at the end of the pond, yes. Then we have the 50 foot buffer, right, and it's going to just run perpendicular to the whole length, correct, all the way to the all the way to Noni Pond. Yeah, so that feels pretty clear to me. I think making sure that we specify intent in the language would help sort of avoid confusion around that in the future, but like, yeah, so 50 feet there, 50 feet there, and it comes out and that's that's what [2:14:07] Shanna Cox: It would be, so we don't need 50 feet around the man-made pond. We don't, we do not want a 50 [2:14:14] Speaker D (unidentified): foot buffer around the man-made pond because we want to be able to get in there to maintain it. [2:14:17] Shanna Cox: That's right, yes, which I'm sorry, I'm getting stuck here, bear with me. This parcel carves out 50 feet of access, not necessarily a maintained buffer, so I can see us not wanting 50 feet of trees that your cleaning excavator can't get through, but you also want a buffer of area, not a vegetated buffer, not a fence buffer, but you would like a buffer of which, i.e., you want, I don't know if it's 50 feet now, but around that pond you would like it to be not developed right up to your man-made, it's fine because it's dirty water, but you still need access, so you're looking, you're [2:14:58] Speaker C (unidentified): looking more at this from like there should be encouragement provided for access to the pond. [2:15:03] Speaker D (unidentified): this parcel shows that 's there here this parcel is open space designed by the subdivision to be able to go in here and access this so this is non-developable i'm sorry developable no yes [2:15:17] Shanna Cox: Which I fully appreciate, thank you. In a future one, whether it's a subdivision that we're being asked to approve, whether it's two houses on the back parcel land, will we always require a common area and for it to have parcel and for it to have a buffer zone of which is not developed but not a buffered area, and will that always be necessitated by whatever else is coming in front of us for [2:15:46] Speaker D (unidentified): considering it should be by design. If you look at this one up here, so this one is another open space that's not that cannot be developed, it's for the it's for the design of [2:15:57] Shanna Cox: the pawn, just for No Name Pond anyway, so we're looking at the entire universe of which this [2:16:01] Speaker D (unidentified): matters, basically, and just and again, this one down here was specifically designed by the engineers when they did the when they did the development that this is another open space and here's the other pond, you [2:16:21] Speaker C (unidentified): definitely have to maintain access. We shouldn't just rely on public [2:16:24] Shanna Cox: work because if it's about access it's about access. If it's about not developing it to keep the water clear it's about that. If it's about both it's about both. You're striking some of the natural vegetated straight language so like you're actually losing some of that original intent and person purpose even though we don't want it to be restrictive the way it was interpreted. And so i'm just i appreciate that we're trying to fix it. Please let this person build their home like i let's dear god let us not be the bureaucratic wheels that slow down all the things. But can we do this in a way that this is clear and meets the intent of what is being asked of us and that we're not as a hopefully it's not us revisiting it in 20 years and perhaps the [2:17:09] Speaker D (unidentified): easiest way is just to redefine what a open stormwater drainage course is because if you look at the original language if we were to just define what comes out of this right here as the open storm water drainage course and ensure that it's not the you know thought of as this right then that would then the original language would pretty much click if we could just use the [2:17:36] Shanna Cox: language of clean and dirty water in whatever way is you know treated and untreated it thanks. Is there can we like workshop some language so that we don't have to pump this down the road again. Could we define it tonight with some agreement that makes mr kaczynski happy [2:17:52] Speaker E (unidentified): i have at least an idea of language great yeah so minimum buffer from perennial or intermittent streams natural drainage ways and the treated outflow of stormwater treatment facilities and then keep the infrastructure yeah maybe stormwater treatment infrastructure yeah [2:18:16] Speaker C (unidentified): because it might not be a facility it might be a ditch okay and treated I mean treated is the technical term here okay yeah it means it went through the roots so every day everything [2:18:27] Speaker D (unidentified): everything coming along this whale is being treated and as you know that's the point is [2:18:32] Speaker C (unidentified): it's really the pond that's treating that whale is the conveyance generally the idea with storm Stormwater, like man-made stormwater features, the goal is usually to move water quickly and then you deal with the effluent problems at a later point. So if it's a sewer system, it's the stormwater plant. If it's this, it's the retention pond at the end. Natural drainage ways maintain their water quality by being slow. So that's why we have all the vegetation around them. The water slowly gets into the creek, and then the creek is meandering. So it slowly goes down towards the pond, and during that time everything's gonna settle out of it, right? So we're trying to just make sure that we have everything in place so that the slow things stay slow and the fast things can stay fast, right? That's basically the goal here. And then we're not [2:19:22] Shanna Cox: in any way thinking that the slow parts are the dirty parts and contributing to them. Yeah, the [2:19:29] Speaker C (unidentified): slow parts are going to do their job. Can you read that back again, please? Yeah, so minimum buffer from [2:19:36] Speaker E (unidentified): perennial or intermittent streams, natural drainage ways, and the treated outflow from, we'll say from, storm water treatment infrastructure. Perfect, [2:19:50] Speaker C (unidentified): such as pond and other control measures. [2:19:55] Amy Smith: We're cutting that entire exception part, exemption. [2:20:00] Speaker C (unidentified): I would not include your addition, Shanna, because I think that adds confusion back in. Okay, because like swales and ditches do not provide water, you know, they do not [2:20:11] Shanna Cox: upgrade the water quality water. We can remove the exemption, the exemption [2:20:14] Speaker C (unidentified): language altogether, and just have it be what shall we read. I think you, I think for clarity it is better to have that your man-made drainage infrastructure is [2:20:26] Shanna Cox: not that. My intention is to go to public comment momentarily after we have language that the board has somewhat agreement on, so that the public comment is of the most use. You say that one more time. Not that I'm going to ask her to before I do, because I want it to be the last thing we read a lot before I open public comment. That's my intention. So Mr. Marcot, we haven't heard from you [2:20:48] Speaker F (unidentified): much, but I'm just trying to digest conversation so far, language quite well. I think I understood the language in the packet quite well. I thought that it was sufficiently doing what somebody along the way wants to have done. However, it doesn't alleviate my concerns. Now we talked about the 15 foot poplar which got here to come out here, and we probably want to, does that circle back to here, you know, like a crescent [2:21:24] Speaker C (unidentified): around the box? No, I think the intention is just it's, it's a, it's perpendicular, just 50 feet straight out, 90 degrees out. [2:21:34] Speaker F (unidentified): So from the point it leaves, it's only perpendicular. It's not back into the pond itself. Exactly. My concern is, okay, this property here can develop up to a setback. This property could develop up to a setback, maybe not as close to the road, but not at this point. Where do you get the vehicles in and the equipment to service the pond? [2:21:57] Speaker C (unidentified): Yep, and that's what Shana was bringing up earlier. [2:22:05] Speaker D (unidentified): Open space. Yeah, so this is open space by design right here by the subdivision to be able to access that 1995 I think. [2:22:20] Speaker E (unidentified): 1992 I believe. [2:22:28] Shanna Cox: 30,, 25 feet, your open station width for maintenance, 20 feet, 20 feet for the room. [2:22:38] Speaker C (unidentified): 20 feet right there. So one thing I'd like to point out, though, is I think we don't want to get too prescriptive with the man-made drainage structures and requiring access to them because, like, you wouldn't want you know you don't want to have like this huge table of like if it's a six inch culvert then you'd need two feet if it's a two foot culvert you need you know in this district and. [2:23:03] Shanna Cox: In this subdivision and this overlay that we're considering isn't for the whole of lewiston it is. [2:23:08] Speaker C (unidentified): We don't have to worry about it well yeah so i was going to just say before we because it sort of sounded like we were going down that path again like in this particular case it is up to the engineer who's designed the system, city, staff, public works to say, yes, this is a good design. And then also, it goes to the HOA. You know, if you all want to put in, you know, something that is incredibly hard to maintain, you know, someone has to go in there with a little trowel and shovel it out because there's absolutely no access space. That's what it might end up being. But the thing will have to still be taken care of. So I just wanted to sort of highlight that, we don't want to, I don't think we need to focus too much on being too prescriptive around providing access to the man-made elements in the changes we're making tonight we don't we don't need to go there which i think we had agreed to before you still yes yep okay and it was coming up again so i just wanted to reiterate it no i'm just making sure that i'm following our consensus well i would also like to revisit. [2:24:05] Speaker F (unidentified): Now that i have some dates in mind and maybe somebody else can help me although I wish I could have a better memory of that era. This was the road to the old Bunting Yard Club. It was. So it was intensified at a certain point in time by adding the road, the homes, and so forth, the obvious reason for ditches, soils, and retention ponds, because they were trying to protect that body of water. Well, like I said at the last meeting, that is our alternative water supply. I mean, you think you can actually build something within a certain amount of feet and then from Lake Auburn. I try to get that by the Auburn Planning Board and City Council. Now I also asked when the, language in this ordinance was last changed. I think I got 96, 92 and 96. And what was the intent back then by the writers? Got the minutes of the Planning Board meetings back then. Some of these people are still alive, George Dicio, Myron Ames, who was the water superintendent for the City of Lewiston, and these people should be consulted as to what was the intent of this ordinance, because that matters a lot before we start changing wording and vocabulary around, because I don't want to see an unintended consequence that all of this extra a dirty water because of the development over the last 30 years contributes to jeopardizing that body of water, No Name Bond. So just for my own clarification [2:26:09] Shanna Cox: the desired then the items that you're naming were addressed both with the way the layout of the subdivision was proposed and approved by one of our predecessors, which addressed drainage and water maintenance within it, and what we've heard here was the concern for how intensification or additional use would contribute to the way untreated water might change the overall nature and which is your concern of No Name Pond, which is our secondary water source, with me so far, and so the fact that the subdivision that now there is a proposed building on a subdivision which was approved in the first place to be developed, and this house and this house exists already within this same watershed and water treatment grandfather, yeah, I mean plan for, I think it's more than grandfather, like plan for, we'll carve out these, we'll make this subdivision approve this, and thus the man-made ponds were also approved at the same time for the same intention [2:27:20] Speaker C (unidentified): Right, yeah, and I was just going to chime in really quick. You know, you were asking about intent. I don't know, I'd have to look at the records, but you know, if the ordinance that we're modifying was written in 92 and the subdivision was built in 96, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the original authors of the ordinance were the ones who actually approved this stormwater drainage. I think the intent to, you know, they put in that lot for development, so there's intent there. I think if we're really concerned about water quality here, at least, you know, from my real basic low-level environmental science background, you know, the biggest issue here is actually more likely the maintenance of the existing man-made structures more than intensification of use. Because if those man-made structures aren't maintained, which it sounds like, based on previous comment, they haven't been, you know, it doesn't matter if you intensify the use or not. There's just going to be dirty water coming out of them. You know, the water quality won't be good if those structures aren't being maintained. [2:28:25] Speaker D (unidentified): I think it's important to point out that, you know, these stormwater, I don't want to say structures, but these designs, infrastructure, structure the infrastructure was designed by the professional engineer to suit every single one of these lots as if every single one of these lots had a home on it and as you can see right now there's one two I think there was another one up here but there's at least one two three four five lots that are that are not developed yes in this subdivision and Obviously we don't know the intent of what it was written but we do know that the storm water infrastructure was designed to hold as if every single one of these lots were developed just to just a quick [2:29:18] Amy Smith: Point and then Mike sorry yeah I mean to your point exactly so who is ultimately responsible for this I know it sounded like it wasn't the city but so why did it get to this point if these were planned if they did such an amazing job planning this why wasn't it maintained and when it comes to enforcement who's checking up on it and what kind of penalties are there if they are not doing [2:29:40] Speaker D (unidentified): This maintenance yeah not doing this that's a good question and it just the only answer I have is that it slipped through the cracks and now that we know we're we're going to have to make sure that the HOA is doing what they're supposed to do out there [2:29:56] Speaker F (unidentified): And remember that the engineering was is 30 years old now presumably and needs to upkeep keep maybe it wasn't very wise at the time to make it the responsibility of the homeowners association on seeing as how the city had a an investment in this and it should probably have come under the auspices of public works all along for maintenance and expansion if needed increasing the size of the retention ponds if necessary because they got more intensive over the years that what it had to hold contain And filter, and that's why I mentioned mention these two names as to DCO was a former plan of the City of Lewiston, as well as Myra names being a water superintendent, and they're both still around, Shelly. [2:30:54] Shanna Cox: Would you please read the language again, and just for everybody's sake, and just clarity, we're going to hear this language from Shelly, we're going to move forward on the assumption that is the version of language that we are asking the public to comment on, and that we are considering taking a potential motion. [2:31:11] Speaker E (unidentified): On, okay, so there's two pieces, there's the language we were talking about, and then the exemption, and I don't know as we've, I think we landed on my vision of [2:31:24] Shanna Cox: the language you suggested, the exit should would be struck, so you would be reading your suggested language that would end with that and not include the [2:31:31] Speaker E (unidentified): exemption, okay, minimum buffer from perennial or intermittent streams, natural drainage ways, and the treated outflow from stormwater treatment infrastructure with [2:31:46] Shanna Cox: that I'd like to open it up to public comment, if you'd like to speak you'd find your way to the podium, you'd say your name and [2:31:55] Sherry Beck Poland: you'd get three minutes, you [2:32:05] Shanna Cox: can, we're gonna let her go first, I'll give her three minutes, and then I would say you should probably swing by on your way to the podium for us to view it before your three minutes start, you don't have to run, miss, if you give me just one second please, thank you, I'll [2:32:24] Speaker G (unidentified): set, yeah, okay, my name is Diane Chassis, I live at [address], which sits below the subdivision, and I want to talk about what happens downstream when protections upstream are reduced, not in theory but in real life, about 20 years ago I was able to improve my home and property, and at that time the drainage conditions were stable, today they are not, the ground is frequently saturated and even maintaining a simple lawn has become difficult, water did not disappear, it was redirected concentrated and burdened, stormwater ponds are not just infrastructure, they are nature-based systems, they rely on soil contact, vegetation and space to slow water down and allow it to recover, there is no such thing as dirty water, only water that needs time and space to heal, buffers provide that space, when protections are reduced the effects do not always appear immediately, they show up years later downstream on private property, we can, weakening protections shifts risk onto residents, blurring Responsibility does not fix problems, it moves them. And in a conversation I was told that my water issue at 56 No Name Pond is only maybe one percent of an issue that's regarding the water from Water's Edge, and I am here to say I disagree. I was also advised to reach out to Public Works, which I did, and I asked if someone could meet me and review the culverts in my driveway and on No Name Pond Road itself. And if you see that it's the blue line to the left of where his pointer is, yeah, nope, I'm sorry, to the right, there's a culvert there somewhere, and I don't believe it's working properly because my properties in that. I asked if someone could meet me and review the culverts there, and I'm concerned for my property and the amount of water that there that seems to be getting worse every year. Kevin did reach out to me, and he said he was gonna send a supervisor out. And there's a strip of property between my house right there where he's pointing, and I asked if maybe Public Works could do something there to help the water flowing down from the subdivision down to my property, because it does flow down there. I have pictures of it. I have a CMP pole that's leaning because it just sits in the water. You have about 20 seconds left. Okay, please keep the No-Name Pond overlay intact and enforce it as written. Do not create new problems by weakening protections, and I have not talked to a supervisor yet. I don't know if they're going to come see me or not. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Yeah, thank [2:35:33] Shanna Cox: Okay, yeah, no, come on up, start on the left and go that large either right [2:35:38] Speaker F (unidentified): we'll [2:35:45] Sherry Beck Poland: just do a drive-by. Can you give us a sense of what we're looking at right [2:35:55] Speaker D (unidentified): here? What you're looking at as if it was standing here taking a photo down this [2:36:02] Speaker F (unidentified): section right here. Okay, thank you. [2:36:10] Shanna Cox: So I'm going to see a pink spot on this right [2:36:20] Speaker D (unidentified): Who's doing the snow blowing? Can he be at the podium so that we can make sure it's on the record while they're doing that, because we won't be able to [2:36:26] Shanna Cox: hear anything? He'll start all over. [2:36:34] Speaker F (unidentified): So dirty water and pond water, 50 feet, it's it's water. We start with your name, sir. I'm sorry, Dan Bernier. I have that property in 32 and 28, I guess, or whatever it is, that hole from there, yep, there down to there, those two pieces, and out back all the way. Dirty water or pond water, 50 feet. I'm asking you protect open water because it's going to sit there. I expect a 50 foot buffer all the way around any open water, and I'm showing you open water in that pink swale. It's surface water, it's to be Protected if you don't, yeah, city and staff described only upon stormwater protection language is a flaw. Protecting stormwater is not a flaw, it's reality. Stormwater is water, not inconvenience. Environment policies existing of the water the time and the space to recover safely. Natural vegetated buffers 50 feet are functional. They slow the flow, they allow settling, supporting infiltration, and reduce downstream risk. Removing the minimizing buffers because development pressure exists reverses the purpose of the overlay. No name pond must remain special. No name pond exists to be more protective than minimum standards. No name pond should remain the city's model overlay. What we would do if we could start over with modern knowledge. No name pond should not be adjusted into nothing special and make development easier. Drinking water is purity, is worth time and costly improvement. Stormwater is not a subservient to development. Modern environmental thinking treats stormwater as part of the same water cycle that supports wells, ponds, streams, groundwater, recharging, eventually human use, pet use. Based on systems that are resilient, engineered shortcuts can fail. Buffers and naturalized features are not sentimental. They are reliable. Show me, don't tell me. No two retention ponds or drainage areas are the same. Staff had mentioned that man-made infrastructure designed to collect and treat dirty water, not natural areas that require human intervention, maintenance failing to maintain introduces nutrients and sediments. The response of pond is not a pipe. Retention detention ponds and vegetated swales are naturally based treatment systems that rely on soil contact, vegetation, infiltration, and edge stability. Calling them not natural and therefore exempt from natural buffers ignores how they actually work. Modern practices use is layered treatment, source control, and conveyance controls. Treatment and protective buffers are redundancy, especially for snowmelt and overflow events like shown in the picture. This matter did not begin with the crest to change this long-standing environmental ordinance. It was presented as clarification only. Later did it become clear that arose the connection with the specific pending waters that drive permit. Once the context is understood and the issue resolves before the Ordinance debate is necessary. Two city approved recorded plans show that the parcel has no lawful access from No Name Pond Road due to the 50 foot buffer and only 29.9 feet of opening on Water's Edge Drive. Together those facts mean there is no lawful point of entry for a new driveway and the threshold access failure independent of No Name Pond overlay. When access fails analysis stops because there is no need to amend reinterpret reclassify clarify No Name Pond ordinance and no basis to forward anything to the city council. Declining to recommend the ordinance and change tonight does not prevent maintenance and it does not leave the city without options. Routine maintenance can be handled sorry based least disturbance practices such as maps low impact equipment and restoration without weakening the watershed-wide protective ordinance. Turning into a single stalled permit into a permanent ordinance exemption is not clarification it's policy change that would outlive this project and should be no all providers should be notified. The board has a clean defensible path tonight confirm the access this fax and record decline recommend ordinance amendment and close the item. Thank you for the time and for taking No Name pardon the ordinance intends to do and has it for years thank you thank [2:40:27] Shanna Cox: you. Your cell phone's still up here you'd like to come grab it yeah or I can keep it. I'm gonna close public comment simply because there are no humans left in the room who haven't spoken it's coming in from the and from the hallway. I 'd like to offer what I think I understood interested from both public comments in the context of the conversation that we're having tonight and unfortunately it's not a back and forth dialogue so please bear with us but I really appreciate the way in which you've engaged in this and stayed tonight specifically and come back and so thank you very much. So the picture that I saw I think was standing water on top of essentially the pink line on the way to the man-made pond. What I heard from both parties was comments about ground saturation and water in the area and what one could summarize as claims that the existing man-made structure infrastructure is not working adequately enough to both pull in the water which might have been just because the ground was Frozen that you had taken a photo of, and that the lady is finding in her yard. What I believe that we're being asked to consider and to clarify based on what's been proposed and reviewed previously, and I am going to use the colors from the map in the most simple language for our ability to discuss this tonight, is that we are not applying the buffer to the pink areas because the pink areas are collecting that groundwater which you took a photo of, and in my neighborhood would probably we have Somebody's oil slick from a leaky car potentially in it, and so it is important that it is finding its way through the ground to the pink infrastructure, to the pond, whereas the lady so eloquently said it isn't dirty water, it's just not clean yet and needs time to heal. And so what we've been asked to and I think have reached some consensus around is to clarify that the buffers that should be enforced as well as noted and clarified with the language that we've gotten to tonight, and that Shelly Read right before public comment opened would enforce a 50 foot buffer on any output even if the output is new and a resulting of man-made infrastructure on the output from a man-made infrastructure that did exactly what you named is meant to collect protect, hold and clean the water that has found its way into it. None of this language is going to address whether the infrastructure is working accurately or not as designed 30 years ago or whether that was adequate or not. What we do know is it sounds likely that we are not seeing the results of the intention of the design if the manmade infrastructure has not been maintained. Maintained whether that was maintenance by the HOA of the man-made ponds or culverts that might need to be reviewed by a supervisor at a date pending, and so just in terms of the request that we're being asked to consider, we would be looking to make a motion on the language as read out loud most recently by Shelly to clarify the 50-foot buffer. Are there questions from the board before we hear that motion which we do have provided to us [2:43:55] Amy Smith: So I just wanted to do a final clarification. We're removing the whole exemption section, which I and I which I agree with, and I almost feel like the language that we were adding, if we remove that exemption, which is new language anyway, so it was never in there, so what were the language we're adding in here actually seems to make it more restrictive in a way. It makes it more clarifying and restrictive at the same time, because we're being more prescriptive about what we're talking about when we say what's allowed. So I think in addition to the what this is highlighted about the infrastructure in that area and the city's ongoing efforts to ensure that it's being maintained, I feel like this is a good middle ground. It's going to allow the homeowner to be able to build their home, it's going to improve the area, it's not going to make this too lax, so I'm I feel like it's a good compromise for all [2:44:54] Shanna Cox: parties on the front end, and there was a little bit of a question, which is yes, the exemption language has been removed, though it was new language, so maybe it's not being removed, it's just not being proposed in the second place, if you will. Other questions or comments? [2:45:11] Speaker G (unidentified): So we go ahead. I just want to say I appreciated Mr. Marcotte's comment about the city's interest in making sure the system works. So while there's some responsibility defined for the HOA in terms of the structures that are here, I would hope that we could have an active partnership in ensuring that the problems that are arising start to be remedied for the health of the pond as well as the well-being of the people who live around it. So I just want to express [2:45:48] Speaker D (unidentified): appreciation for that. Thanks. Let's second that and I've got if I may I'll reach out to Kevin or I'm sorry Director Gagne and speak with him and I was the one that spoke with Diane about you know about the one percent possibility, you know what we're talking about over here not affecting what is over here, but we sympathize. This is this is very wet, her lawn, her lot is very wet, it's a very low area, but we definitely need to discuss the culver here to help her out and I'll I'll reach out to Kevin about that. Thanks. Thank you. [2:46:26] Shanna Cox: Okay so I'm gonna ask that, can I just make a motion? There's no rule against chairs making motions. Nope. All right, I'm gonna give this a whirl. I'd like to make a motion pursuant to article 7 section 4 and article 17 section 5 of the zoning and land use code to send a favorable recommendation to the city council for amendments to appendix A zoning and land use code article 11 district regulation section 24 2 no name pond conservation overlay district NNP and I'm making up the rest and that it would reflect a change to the language in the space and bulk standards to read minimum buffer from perennial or intermittent streams, comma, natural drainage ways and Shelly's gonna pick it up for here and [2:47:21] Speaker E (unidentified): and the treated outflow from stormwater treatment infrastructure Cynthia had us all day long thank you so [2:47:28] Shanna Cox: much so moved is there a second for the motion second thank you discussion in the motion in front of us call the roll please Michael Marcotte no Cynthia Burns yes Shanna Cox yes Amy Smith yes Alex Pine yes Heidi Bartels yes Darren Gallant yes thanks Mr Marquardt did you want to put a short explanation for your no vote on the record I'm [2:48:02] Speaker F (unidentified): not confident that we're protecting my the pond in the same vein and intent as the original and language again I'd like to hear from one of the individuals that served the city years ago [2:48:19] Speaker C (unidentified): when this language was derived in the first place okay thank you do we know it just one more thing [2:48:28] Shanna Cox: in general with our ordinances there are literally no diagrams or pictures in any of our ordinances so it all boils down to all these words and it would be great if we could have some pictures signatures in our ordinances that define some of these terms so that when so you're not just juggling words you could actually see I would echo that but improve the accuracy by saying there is one the design district overlay that is a very thoughtfully designed ordinance with significant visual contributions to support deeper understanding and that's worked well said ma'am well said okay thank you very much thank you to the members of the public for your diligence and caretaking from Noni Pond and for your engagement it's appreciated I'm going to move us to other business now we're looking at item a discussion regarding staff procedures and notice we touched on this a little bit earlier it did affect our agenda in two areas tonight and we do have a memo from director Connor sure Laura's yours so [2:49:41] Speaker D (unidentified): I won't read the memo verbatim suffice to say that obviously as the director of the buck stops with me and when we when we miss notices when we miss postings it falls on me and my shoulders and my shoulders alone and so I apologize for that and there's no excuse for it given that we often learn the best from our mistakes and so we sat down with staff and we've we've brainstormed and tried to figure out how can we make this better how can we ensure that we don't miss anything again i don't believe it's from malice. It's just for whatever reason it happened. And so we've come, we've come up with our, checklists that are going to be used for every single development review. We've, we've added samples of those checklists in your packet along with the chart that shows the deadlines of when we need to have things posted, when we need to get notices to the, to the newspaper. So we wanted to let you know that this is how we're going to be operating moving forward. We, our goal is obviously zero missed notices, and we believe that this checklist will help us do that. So we should not be bringing anything forward to you until everybody has, you know, signed off on that checklist. It does two things. It shows us, a, that it's done, and also as accountability, so we know who to go to,, to find out what the status is on the items. So that's, that's the, memo in a nutshell. But again, from the, from the board's point of view, we are, from, sorry, from staff's point of view, we're always open to anything, any constructive criticism, any ideas, is suggestions from the board that can, a, make your lives easier, make it easier for the applicants, and be as efficient as possible for staff. Thank you, Ms. Smith. Yeah, so I really appreciate [2:51:45] Shanna Cox: your attention to this, and that you guys sat down and went through this in detail. But I will say that newspaper ads, U.S. mail, and physical postings at city hall are ridiculous in this day and age. I mean, why are we spending money with the Sun Journal to put ads in the newspaper that almost nobody reads? So this was designed long before the internet, these ordinances, and I think we need to take a hard look if our, if our goal is transparency and making sure that people affected get prompt communications about this. We just have to do it in a different way. I know [2:52:19] Speaker D (unidentified): there's like state regulations, fine, but it's like silly. And I couldn't agree with you more. I would love to use technology to our advantage, but we are somewhat constrained by state statute and [2:52:34] Shanna Cox: you know i'm happy to you're constrained by the minimum of which is required and so a facebook post on social media would be more than was required would allow you to stay compliant and would acknowledge the technological day and age that we're in I would I 'd like to pressure test something that Amy is saying which because I think that's very valuable and very accurate feedback I want to differentiate the feedback being applied at a future date to what could be possible to serve good process and good transparency and communication from this learning versus us waiting to use these checklists until a future date, which I didn't hear in your request, but I just want to parse those two out, that this is a great start on a process improvement and that 's separate from what the actual, because this is essentially creating a checklist and an internal operational process improvement that will meet the steps that already are done and ensure a higher level of accuracy and consistency, but doesn't change the process. Correct. It just documents it and supports it occurring. And what Amy is saying I think is both thanks and I'd like to see a change inherently in the actual process at a future date, is that right? First of all, did I understand you? Yes, no, you interpreted that correctly, and I think just the other note that I would make is that in some cases there's like three of butters, so just like pick up the phone, you know what I mean? I'm just trying to make this fast and easy and again transparent. I was going to ask, is it required to be like U.S. [2:54:13] Amy Smith: mail? Can we, it is, yeah, just go drop it off, like yeah, and it's also a newspaper in [2:54:20] Speaker E (unidentified): circulation in the locality, so it's, it's pretty prescribed as to what sources we use, and that's [2:54:28] Speaker C (unidentified): because it has to be a matter of public record, right? And so like that's the newspapers have been has been have been dictated as being that, so like same thing goes for like name changes, right? Exactly, that is part of the problem, right, in theory [2:54:45] Speaker D (unidentified): and in theory USPS you're sure to get notification if that's your actual address and you're there. We don't, if we put it on Facebook only, we don't, we can't be assured that the right people saw it. At least with USPS in theory, again I get it, there's, there's a lot of variables there, but in theory they should get it and they should be noticed. Would [2:55:11] Speaker F (unidentified): that include the physical address and the taxed address if it's an landlord that lives out of town? Correct, [2:55:19] Speaker D (unidentified): we said it to the owner of record. Correct, yes, yep, owner of record, because [2:55:26] Speaker E (unidentified): That's the address we have. We don't, you know, but is there any, okay, let me, let me [2:55:33] Shanna Cox: ask, is there any opportunity that the owner of record who lives in Nevada for 85 Bartlett Street, like we actually do know the address as being affected, it's 85 Bartlett Street, are we sending it to 85 Bartlett Street as well as the Nevada address of record, or are we just saying the only people who really need to know live in Nevada, it's the, in that example, yeah, right, it's the owner of [2:55:55] Speaker E (unidentified): record, yeah, it's the owner, so it would go to Nevada. Mr. Connor, I appreciate that you just took [2:56:00] Shanna Cox: a note on that. Yeah, so if you had 25 tenants in an eight unit building who have no understanding that it's happening unless their landlord gets the notice, and I know that we have an incredible landlord registry that would theoretically also include the property maintenance company of record, good chat and emergency contact, I'm going to bring it to Pensia and then others if they [2:56:24] Speaker G (unidentified): have questions too. So a simple question about the checklist, the initials and date, is the date the date that something happened or the date that something is supposed to happen, the date that [2:56:37] Speaker D (unidentified): they, the individual, the staff member initialed off on it completed, John Connor initial, I did [2:56:42] Speaker C (unidentified): I took care of this on this date. Okay, thank you. Other comments. I just, I would like to bring [2:56:51] Shanna Cox: forward a suggestion from both of these lovely checklists that echo what feels like perennial thread of conversation for our planning board, which is the way in which this city can find ways to do better at public service around process, particularly if the process creates economic development and or revenue for our city. So that's like an age-old conversation that we've rehashed that sentiment in a million different ways, and in this I would just say what a beautifully clear step-by-step description of what happens for your application to get on our agenda and be heard, and I don't know if that has ever been summarized in one document in a clear chronological place ever before, and I would hope that this lives somewhere in service of that being a better business partner goal on a website as a like if your application, if you're putting in an application, here's the list on when it would be staff review at the top, here's the list when those live somewhere, and if you come to me on Wednesday and say I see the planning board beats Monday why can't you do my application you have a beautiful answer that is accurate right and I just like this is good work let it serve all of the purposes that it could serve because it is good work [2:58:17] Speaker D (unidentified): So thank you it's all their work but yeah so they did they did a great job [2:58:22] Shanna Cox: And Mr Pillow who I don't believe I've met but as a contributor for tonight I think you have [2:58:26] Speaker E (unidentified): Met him when he was hired a year ago I believe we brought him to a meeting and introduced him [2:58:31] Shanna Cox: So it's been a year and then you just hide him in the back and occasionally get a memo out of him okay and see how you work our appreciation to the whole team truly any other items that you'd like to name related to the staff procedures and notice before I move on to I think two other items that we have tonight well we moved up no name pawn so the other item we want to talk about the recent introduction of a planning board email listserv that so just for the record it used to be that people Would I don't know email staff and staff would get stuff to the planning board, ironically, until rather recently, the majority of that still happened in a packet, in a physical delivery, and we appreciate the use of technology for communication. The listserv has resulted in a couple of things. I'm going to name some observations as I've heard them from others so that we can look to solve a problem knowing what the problem is. One is anyone can use the listserv, and there's no real filter for that. So, you know, Joe Citizen can find it on the website, and I don't like the way the planning board takes bio break recesses, and we could hear about it, right? So that's one thing that we've noticed. The second thing is because this is an IT and technical point, and so feel free to make a note of this and talk to the right folks in IT, but because of the way the Lister was set up and because of the way the communication flows from what could be an external email address from anyone in the public through the listserv and then the listserv delivers it to our inboxes it's delivering an unknown email addresses communication through a secondary listserv filter which gives it a high probability That's going to end up in our spam. So the concern being from us, that the intention of, I ordered the, put, I emailed the planning board from there. Maybe no one received it, maybe staff didn't even receive it because spam filters are really interesting that way. And so one question, one point that I would name is, as we make an agreement of how to ensure what is sent using the listserv from the public is received, and in a timely manner to inform our deliberations, I think that fundamentally is the baseline we're trying to set tonight. How can we be, how can Mr. Connor be sure that this email sent from John Q. Public got to everybody today, and that we saw it in time for tonight, and that he did or didn't need to print it and name it as additional correspondence for us or not, right? And so that I think is the items to be, I think wary of, is how is their communication from a known email address staff that's not from a digest or filter, how can we ensure that there's something from staff that increases the likelihood that we've seen it, or something that simply says we've seen three emails to this email digest this week, have you received these three from these senders labeled with this subject, and if not we can like, you know, diagnose the issue at that point. So there's the issue of how we're ensuring folks saw something that was received by planning board members through this listserv. The second item is, let's assume we resolve that problem and you're getting 100 percent of things sent to the listserv, how late prior to a planning board meeting is sufficient for us to have said yeah, I got that and read it, versus please print it, bring it to us and name it. That's the two pieces. So go ahead Heidi. I would certainly say, I just wanted specifically [3:02:17] Amy Smith: to that, because eight to five before this meeting I cannot read anything. Yeah, you're working, I'm working right, all day long on a Monday. Yeah, I can't, so it's going to be a weekday prior, [3:02:26] Shanna Cox: a business day prior, or Sunday is fine because staff's not working on Sunday. Yeah, so really would be a business day prior, and they're not working Friday, though occasionally I see stuff that indicates maybe otherwise, but so we're really talking about one business day of which city hall is open, so that knocks out holidays too, prior to a planning board meeting, so as a bare minimum. So we got something at noon on Thursday, you don't have to print it. We got something at 5 p.m. on Thursday, we're probably still good, but only if you've verified that we [3:03:03] Speaker C (unidentified): received it by 5 p.m on thursday right i think the agenda only go out on thursday anyway goes out on wednesday goes out on wednesday the goal is wednesday yeah mr pine happy to have a longer discussion with you all about this I used to have to handle sort of customer inquiry public comment type stuff for a previous job there's a lot of ways to do it I think given the fact that we do you know at least for myself I do want public comment to be put into the record I want to make sure that everyone is getting access to it in the same way I'm not you know I was thinking through it during the meeting, like, how do we crack this nut? I'm not sure that the current, you know, I like the intention behind the current email. I don't think it's ever going to be able to really accomplish this without a whole lot of extra manual work, which in my mind defeats the purpose of having it. So I would be happy to sort of sketch out some possible avenues that have worked really well in my professional capacity so that we can make sure that public comment is public comment that general inquiries about the planning board or general inquiries and that those are getting to the right spots at the right time so they get incorporated into the public [3:04:23] Speaker D (unidentified): record yeah and to be honest we have talked internally with staff of that same that same you know logic of by the time we get ready to head home on thursday you know anything after that we know we'll probably have to print yeah and bring to you guys and the premise behind it all obviously was you know it we knew that it would probably not make our jobs easier it was mainly to give the public a means of you know feeling like they we want them to have direct support just like the council has public comment you know luckily theirs is a different email but you know we wanted them to have the ability to go directly to you guys but it just seems like lately there's a lot of complex agenda items that are being brought and people have a lot of comment that what that are going to spend more than three minutes at the podium and so we're happy if you guys are I'm gonna hopefully not make them all mad but you know by and a nameplate goes by exactly you know by 3 p.m. on Thursday if we whatever we have we're going to assume you guys have and after that we'll we'll print and bring a copy for everybody thank you and our folks [3:05:39] Shanna Cox: Okay, with that as a starting point, and I urge you to have a technological offline conversation with Alex that might help solve some of that. Shall we? I do have a follow-up question that [3:05:48] Speaker E (unidentified): because one of the challenges on a Monday is at what point is it too late for people to expect that we've printed it and brought it to the meeting for you, because getting something at like 3:30 or 4 o'clock starts to get difficult for staff to have kind of coordinated and printed that [3:06:05] Shanna Cox: I would offer that you would know the answers that question, not us, because you know your day on a Monday, right? I would also say wherever that email is listed, it should say that, right? Any emails received after noon on the day of a planning board agenda should be should be considered not received by staff or the planning board in a way to impact the agenda item [3:06:26] Speaker G (unidentified): I almost might suggest that you say any emails received by noon on Monday will be presented at the yeah, so that folks know where that can happen. Yeah, like the kind of positive versus [3:06:40] Speaker E (unidentified): negative is like, sure, either, right? Any comments submitted after noon should be presented by the in person at public comment, you know, there's no very good. Yeah, I think that'll be important. Yeah, [3:06:53] Shanna Cox: because even just receiving it by noon isn't really enough, like I this no name pond thing, this was multiple, so even if I get it, I can't read it, you can't read it, you know what I mean? So and I really do, to your point, to everybody's point, public comment is huge. We definitely want to get it. So any way we can collaborate to make it more effective. Yeah. [3:07:14] Speaker C (unidentified): You know, again, not going to try and get too far into the tech stuff, but we've just a little bit of extra, you know, maybe a form instead of an email address. I think we could have a much better resident experience and we could have, you know, just a much, you know, less work for you all, better experience for them. we get the information from one email, yeah, everything's consistent, we don't have the spam problem, and you know I think we also avoid, you know, one of the problems with email addresses is that then you end up with people who are just like I'm gonna I'm gonna send it to every city email address, right? And so we get stuck on it hasn't happened yet, but it will, give it time, you know, we'll get stuck on some thread about yeah nothing planning board related, so a couple of [3:08:00] Shanna Cox: Of the things that feel really important to name and are related, one is one of the folks who were here in public comment yesterday said very clearly, I'm sorry, I know that came late, I only got it on Thursday, right? And that's like their ability to put together materials and public comment referring to an agenda item going out is all like you start the clock at the time the public gets the notification that there's an agenda and to review it, and that is inherently always going to be an issue. Unless we're, and I'm not proposing that we elongate the timeline longer, I think that's always the issue, I just want to name that I think we can't solve all of the problems, so finding a tech solution that solves some of that timeliness inherently is because she, it worked all weekend to get us some public comment by 3 30 today and felt bad about it, and I don't know that she could have done any better than we could have to have not been able to read it after 3 30 today anyway, I would say the other. Thing that feels really important and I, it's been a while since we've promoted this on the board, I think that everybody has been registered for the main municipal association's emails as soon as you join the planning board, and so if you've started to receive those please do review them, it is a statewide association for municipalities and folks who serve municipalities and that's like us. And there is a good training on the Freedom of Information Act. But what I don't know that there is, and I think that we have not been trained on when not to respond. And luckily, members of this board have so far had good intuition about when not to take an action, meet a request, receive through. And so, for example, I've had a request to meet with somebody from the public who wanted to talk about it. And the inherent every fiber in my being wanted to be like, of course I'll take time to hear your concerns, which is not okay, right? And so I think it would be helpful to maybe have some agreements that the staff recommendations that the staff proposes that is a training, it can be a workshop. [3:10:05] Speaker C (unidentified): It can be outside of or not, you follow the law, has all of the board members been to the MMA. [3:10:11] Speaker D (unidentified): Planning board and Board of Appeals training, I have, and so if the board members would like to get that training again we can, we'll find out when the next one, I think the next one through zoom, right, yeah, I'm sorry, I feel bad, it's much better in person, yeah, so you can, you can really, I left out it. [3:10:34] Speaker C (unidentified): Was at the Green Ladle when I took it, so we'll, we'll look at the schedule from [3:10:39] Speaker D (unidentified): mma, we'll find out when they are scheduled and try to, yeah, and I'm not sure that deals [3:10:44] Speaker C (unidentified): with how to respond or not, or when to press. When I went, they'll, some people ask the question [3:10:51] Speaker D (unidentified): when I went, and so they'll, the attorney, yeah, with mma will kind of help guide that [3:10:57] Shanna Cox: discussion. That's so awesome. I'm still encouraging you to share an FAQ or outline for this board that doesn't rely, not just for our newbies, it sounds like you guys are in tune and getting your training, but just in general, like here's some agreements on how we will or won't use it, so that we're clear, and that you make that part of the introduction to the board for new folks. Now that you have this, like there are new technologies, there will be great ways to use it, and maybe we'll add some social media notifications or a social media group or tag, who knows where the future will take us, but now's the time to be thinking about how we manage those [3:11:37] Speaker C (unidentified): technologies as well. I hear a death by powerpoint in the wake in the making. Yeah, I think that's the thing to be aware of, Mr Pine. Yeah, just really quick, I feel like this is a really big opportunity for process improvement. Is there someone at the municipal association that we could contact to see if they have an FAQ, and if they don't, encourage them to make one, because I'm sure other planning boards are going to have this problem, so like, you know, let's, let's not just solve our problem, let's try to make this better for everyone. Here we'll check, we can, we can look into it. Yeah, because like if they haven't thought about this, they really ought to. Good. [3:12:18] Shanna Cox: Is there other business? Yes, and I'm sorry for the late hour, but I would love to figure out how and when we could have some sort of a workshop around property acquisition and disposition, and how we can be better informed to make better decisions when these things come before us, because we've had a couple instances lately where we're asked to make a recommendation with no data, and so I, again, I don't want to get into it right now, happy to write an email with some of my thoughts, but I'm not sure the right vehicle for us having a conversation that would [3:12:54] Speaker C (unidentified): would yield potential changes to the process and I would I would second that I'd like to see that as well and I think you know just to make it clear I would also I would want to see it about you know there are specific properties that have you know it's not like every property you know I think sometimes we receive perfectly fine information on probably it's it's a lot it was required through taxes it you know it's very clean-cut there's enough information there when it's you know higher value properties this is on a very you know visible street corner this is within city property this is a very unique building like figuring out a way to make sure that yeah we're getting the information we need that meets the higher standard of what those properties [3:13:38] Speaker D (unidentified): need for their decision who would have workshop prior to the actual meeting for [3:13:43] Speaker C (unidentified): disposition that could be one way to do it I hear I do things I think that I'm [3:13:49] Shanna Cox: hearing a desire to have this discussion about how to do it and that which you just proposed might be something to discuss in there that becomes part of how it's done but I think those are two separate things and what I'm hearing tonight seconded is that we put time aside in a future agenda to I think I heard a couple things and I'm throwing in my own where we understand better the nature of how the city educates the Planning Board on properties being held what purpose they're being held for and how we consider and we could have some dialogue and have some discussion about the criteria of which meets a higher standard and what additional information would be seeking when that criteria is met so I think that's part of what we're looking to co-create in a dialogue together what I think I heard I would add to that whether it's in preparation for that workshop yeah no I'm just gonna in preparation for that workshop I think it would be really handy and take your time to do this right and well because I think it'll be a tool that you would use regularly and that we might review annually or every two years what is the complete list of properties that the city is holding and is there like a basic coding system we don't need a book we don't need all the pictures This is our basic coding system where we received them because they were tax acquired and there's no plan. We're just sitting on the book. [3:15:15] Speaker G (unidentified): Are they developable? Yes or no. [3:15:18] Shanna Cox: Are they included in an area of high interest? I would use the Riverfront Island master plan as an example. I think there's a couple of economic development plans, recreational plans that maybe we're holding it because that's the next best park or the next best school or the next fire department like we've got a number and we talk about them every year when we're looking at the capital improvement plan with each of these different departments that there's parcels that we're intentionally holding because it's going to make the washing station for the public works or until like how can we discern what properties? I'm going to be honest, how can we discern that there is a process by which there are being considered and held, and how a board that's set entirely around planning might have some insights on that process and what's being held in that process. I think that's inherently what I'm looking for is like what are, what are we doing, what's the, what's the plan that the planning board is considering, and how can we see it outside of a 10-year comprehensive plan update when it's about the actual tangible properties which you're asking us to dispose of our choir? And I'm going to concur with that and just add one tiny thing, which is that the very first step is it says once the city administrator has determined a property to be surplus, then the planning board will be asked to review and make recommendation. So one person gets to decide what's surplus. What is the process by which the city says this is surplus? That's being read from a memo on February 17th, 2026, right? This is from the disposition of 85 Park. Yeah, it's the disposition policy, right? I mean, who, it's not more detailed than that, and what criteria are they using? So like, is there a dartboard? Having occasionally been that one person that has to apply this arbitrary criteria, like I, there's been times and I would have loved somebody to have asked the question or been more descriptive or for me to just say yes, I use criteria, thank you for being interested enough to ask. And if we're being asked to vote on something that the counselor others have gotten more detail in an executive session, we should get the same [3:17:39] Speaker D (unidentified): information. We've discussed that a staff that there may be a need for more executive sessions, a joint executive sessions. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. [3:17:50] Shanna Cox: Is there any other business? Great, then we're going to move to item number six, reading of the minutes, and I'm seeking a motion to adopt the March 16th and 23rd, 2026 draft minutes, Mr. [3:18:03] Speaker F (unidentified): Marco, I've got some issues in each one of them. The easier one is March 16th, I believe it's one, the spelling item on page four or five, e, fourth paragraph down, last sentence, I should say he spoke of as opposed to s-o-k-e. Yep, we've got that. That's all I had on the March 16th. Any other [3:18:39] Shanna Cox: corrections for the March 16th minutes, Mr. Time? Looks like you were gonna go [3:18:43] Speaker C (unidentified): ahead on March 23rd. There's quite a few issues. Are they grammatical and spelling in nature, or do you have any substantive ones? What, more so? Well, there may be some [3:18:57] Speaker F (unidentified): spelling, but none more substantive, of course. So on page two at the very bottom, know where it says voted six zero one passed, Michael Mark got opposed, that's supposed to be 6, 1, not 6, 0, 1, and that's repeated a few times throughout the remaining pages. On page for the voted twice at the bottom of page 4, might have been something to do with how it broke to the next page. Michael Marquardt stated his opposition was due to under utilizing limited land, comma, the board worked hard, sounds like there's maybe a missing a couple of words like and that the board worked hard, the work, the words may have disappeared and really pushed to the next page, I guess so, probably and that should sit in between. On page six, and just getting ahead of myself, page seven has another one of the six zero ones, but put the item under other business, the discussion on Lisbon Road fire station and LCIP. My understanding is that was a motion which got seconded and voted, and it's listed here as a straw poll, and I have to question whether any communications, correspondence ended up in the hands of the council the very next night, which we had discussed. I do think that it was a straw poll with a [3:20:32] Shanna Cox: recommendation because there was no motion required or necessitated for the recommendation to be made because it was just additional information being provided for us that night. I don't think it was an actual motion. Well, I think we did direct staff to make the recommendation and deliver it to city council and to do so in a timely manner though. Thank you. Like I said, [3:20:51] Speaker F (unidentified): that night that any, because I thought I was going to get pushed back, I just want to clarify it [3:20:58] Speaker E (unidentified): was a straw poll and staff did email administration the information that day, so my intent was not [3:21:06] Speaker F (unidentified): A straw poll, my intent was a recommendation, and like I said that night, if this board can give a recommendation to city council anytime on any subject that it wants, doesn't mean the council going to adhere to a recommendation. No, but that is something that is, no, we have the privilege and [3:21:24] Shanna Cox: the right to do. I think the straw poll was a straw poll on the recommendation made, and that the recommendation was being facilitated. Even though we didn't make a motion to make the recommendation, we requested the recommendation. And so going forward, if you'd like a formal motion to have a recommendation made, I can support that. But the intent and the delivery, as well as what I understand the follow-up to be, was that we were making a recommendation, we formed it by consensus, and that it was delivered to council in time and I understand that 's the action that did happen as a result so I can appreciate a formal motion next time but I think your intent of that recommendation being formed and delivered to council by the board did occur and was the intent that was shared [3:22:09] Speaker F (unidentified): that night, because the original pass along of emails was that the LC IP recommendation had already been made, and that there was a ordinance rather than a statutory, an ordinance related time deadline on that, and there was no mechanism for reconsideration. Well, rather true on both counts. No, we were not a position to reconsider that motion because of a time deadline, and I believe the meeting had not transpired in between as far as reconsiderations are concern, but at any time we can make a motion and a recommendation to council, which can be formed in a, an official motion, second, and a vote on a topic of interest to us, that did not actually become [3:23:01] Speaker C (unidentified): come as a request from council. I don't, I agree with you, I think we're all in agreement that we [3:23:07] Shanna Cox: understand that to be true, and then we could do that in the future. I think that night we didn't feel that it was necessary to ensure the actual result occurred, which was that the recommendation [3:23:18] Speaker C (unidentified): was heard by council in a timely manner, and so yeah, my memory, and I didn't go back to watching [3:23:25] Speaker F (unidentified): I can't stay on watching those tapes to begin with, but I remember you made the motion, which I was sitting there and thinking, wow, that's even stronger than I would have, so [3:23:37] Speaker C (unidentified): I just said okay, I'll go with it, and I think I used language, but I think it was we'd like to [3:23:42] Shanna Cox: Make a recommendation that Yada and can we take a straw poll in agreement and so we still did a role but I don't think it was a formal motion and not because we don't think we don't have the authority or that we need something prompted by council for us to make a formal recommendation by motion but simply because we had faith that staff would deliver it and that [3:24:01] Speaker F (unidentified): it would be heard in the future. I think it should be in the form of a an official recommendation and a vote and passed on to council in a communication that constitutes such. [3:24:15] Shanna Cox: And I hear you volunteering to make those formal motions in the future. [3:24:20] Speaker F (unidentified): Hopefully I won't have to make any more. [3:24:23] Shanna Cox: Agreed on both accounts. [3:24:24] Speaker F (unidentified): On that particular case, you know that I initially voted in the opposite, AND I'M STILL HAVING SERIOUS HEARTBURN OVER A $34 MILLION BORROWING WHERE 17 MILLION OF IT WAS THREE ITEMS, THAT BEING ONE OF, AND I THOUGHT WE COULD WAIT ANOTHER YEAR. WHO KNOWS? MAYBE THAT'S WHAT THE COUNCIL ENDS UP DOING ANYWAY AS FAR AS WHEN THE BORROWING ACTUALLY HAPPENS. BUT WE CAN'T BE CONTINUING TO BORROW ON THE SAME CLIP WE HAVE FOR THE LAST 17 YEARS THAT [3:24:54] Shanna Cox: I'M FAMILIAR WITH. FOR LINDA'S RECORD'S SAKE, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE DID CLARIFY AND WE WERE SURE THAT IT WAS a straw poll and so that is not one of the amendments that we'd be looking for as we approve the minutes. I can I can make revisions of those minutes we'll bring them back at the next meeting. Okay can we could do the 16th with the add the p and spoke as Lucy pointed out as well and we can take care of that if you want. Thanks are folks okay with that? Great so then we'll be looking for a motion to approve the March 16th minutes with the amendments that have been made. So motioned thank you is there a second? Great thanks all in favor aye yeah excellent that was a unanimous. We'll see the March 23rd minutes at our next meeting. Move to adjourn second yeah all in favor yeah don't [3:26:27] Speaker C (unidentified): worry Shelly yeah we got it