Bangor Planning Board approves 41-unit housing project and code amendments

[1:09] Jonathan Boucher: Good evening and welcome to the applicant staff board members and members of the public. This is July 7, 2026 meeting of the city of Bangor's Planning Board. It's seven o'clock. My name is John Boucher. I'm the chair of the board. Members are volunteers from the Bangor community and other board members in attendance this evening include Ted Brush, Trisha Hayes, Greg Hobson, Ken Hewn, Vice Chair Janet Jonas, Russ Whitford, and we have Justin Cartier is absent this evening. City staff members in attendance this evening include the Director of Community and Economic Development, Ann Krieg, Assistant Solicitor Grace Innes, City Engineer Jefferson Davis, Planning Analyst Matthew Altiero, and Kaylee Reines, the Community and Economic Development Assistant. We thank them all for their help in preparation for this evening's meeting. We're going to start with Old Business, which includes the meeting minutes for June 16, 2026. Are there any modifications or comments? Otherwise, I'd look for a motion. Second, Ken? I mean, Member Huynh? And a second? Member Bruch? And a reminder to Member Whitford, you won't be voting on this one, on the minutes for this one because you weren't you weren't at the last meeting. So roll call vote. Member Brush, yes. Remember Hayes, yes. Number Hobson, yes. Remember Huynh, yes. Remember Jonas, yes. And the chair votes yes. Next we have the adoption of findings for the 205 Corporate Drive. Do we have, we have a motion or any Member Brush, I move we approve the bindings and decisions board project on 205 Corporate Drive. Thank you. And a second, remember Hayes. And again a reminder, remember Whitford will not be voting on this one. So a roll call vote. Member Brush, yes. Member Hayes, yes. Member Hobson, yes. Member Huynh, yes. Member Jonas, yes. The chair votes yes. That brings us to our new business. So the Planning Board has two main roles. First, we review amendments for land development code, which typically include either changes to zoning districts or changes to text within the code. Our review of these amendments includes adherence to the Comprehensive plan as well as considering any applicable concerns from the public vote on these items is in the form of a recommendation to the city council as to whether the item ought to pass or not to pass. The city council makes the final decision on zoning and land development code changes. There is one amendment on the agenda for this evening. And secondly, the board serves as a regulatory authority for land development permits, commonly known as site plan review. Site plans are reviewed to ensure compliance with the city code as to parking, driveways, storm water management, lighting, landscaping and buffering, building location, environmental impacts, and shoreland and zoning as may be applicable. We also ensure the plan meets the dimensional requirements for the project's zoning district. We review larger site plans that trigger site location development for the main dep as well under their requirements. Some uses are conditional uses that are specific conditions and requirements. We use to review the project. State statute also outlines the requirements for subdivision review, and the city has additional standards as to roadway and utility specifications. The board ultimately endorses a plan that will go to the registry of deeds if the plan is approved. There are three items on the agenda that are land development permits, and further information on the city's codes and standards and the comprehensive plan may be found at the city's website. So for our items that we're going to be presenting for land development permits, will first consider the vote, consider and vote on the application's readiness for review and any concerns for a conflict of interest. For all items, the applicant or their representative should then come forward to the podium and provide a brief introduction to the proposal, and then they should stay at the podium while we consider any questions that the staff and or board, any questions from the staff and or from board members. For code amendments, the staff will probably make the presentation, and once the item has been presented, the applicant may be seated, and we will allow time for public comment. For public comment, the person should come to the podium, introduce themselves, state if they are a banger resident and or an abutter to the property, and indicate if they are for or against the proposal. It's also helpful if you present your thoughts based upon the city codes and standards and the comprehensive plan as they're the primary documents used by The board to make our decision. All comments and discussion should remain respectful and considerate to others. And once public comments are completed, we will close the item to public comment, and the board will then deliberate on the proposal using the applicable standards. For clarity, when considering land development proposals, the code standards are typically read and voted on separately. The final decision is then read and voted on. If the applicant disagrees the land development permit decision the board has made, they may appeal the decision to the superior court of Maine. And once a project that you're interested has been reviewed, you may leave the meeting, but please be respectfully quiet so as not to disturb the review of other agenda items. Our first item, new business, is amending the land development code section 165-121 to add flexibility for manufactured home parks existing as of January 1st of 2026. Yeah, I can speak to that. Thank you. [7:12] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): Yeah, all right, thank you. This is an amendment to sort of give a level playing field, if you will, for mobile home parks. Right now there's an alternative requirements for mobile home parks that are prior to 1971, and that kind of flexibility that wasn't available to newer mobile home parks was, which has become problematic for our newer mobile home parks. So this is to kind of give a level playing field for everyone, you know, no matter when the mobile home park was created. [7:56] Jonathan Boucher: Any questions from the board? I remember Brush. Yeah, I'm wondering about establishing this [8:03] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): date, January 1st, 2026. What if we just struck that date from there? How would that change the and just had just say any mobile home must meet the I'm not sure if that was a specific language. Do you know, Grace? Okay, I'm not sure if that was a purposeful date that was chosen as part of this. So hmm, because you do have a section for mobile home parks that follows the current state statute. Yeah, I'm not sure. I'd have to look that up. I maybe we should table this and to consider that what the prudence of having such a date in there. [9:05] Jonathan Boucher: Number brushes, you're concerned that we would just be doing this again in like five or ten years, doing it, changing the date, moving it again. There was a recent update to the ordinance. I can't remember the date now. I want to say it was in the past year where we did a amendment to the tiny homes to include tiny homes in the mobile home section, and I think the date was as of then, which would have been some date last year, right? Is this just to make it inclusive, or do we know offhand? Yeah, that was to the same thing was [9:42] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): to make sure that we were, we don't, treating those uses the same whether it was a tiny [9:49] Jonathan Boucher: home or tiny home park or mobile home park. Do we know if it's a, there's a requirement to have a date for, like legal reasons or for regulatory reasons or something? No, I think [10:02] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): this was chosen just to kind of capture the mobile home parks that have been created, you know, prior to January 1 of this year. [10:15] Jonathan Boucher: Well, does anyone agree with member Brush about wanting to consider tabling this item to the next meeting, give us a chance to get an answer, or do we feel like we have enough information to vote on this? Remember [10:33] Kenneth Huhn: here, this is the downside to have the date. [10:39] Jonathan Boucher: So rather than delay it, why not do it? Yeah, if it helps with city business, like moving it forward. [10:45] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): We do have, I mean, we do have a pending application that's waiting, you know, for this to go forward so that they can move forward with making some improvements to their mobile home park. That's what precipitated this was to, that's in existence, that's sort of in that, in between date of a current mobile home park and one before 1971. So this kind of captures, you know, mobile home parks that were kind of caught in the middle that were done after 1971 but before today, and so now thinking about it, that's why the state was chosen because you had sort of that whole of mobile home parks that we do have a couple of them that were done after 71 that weren't captured in the newer [11:37] Jonathan Boucher: requirements. Do you see what I'm saying? I'd agree with member Hewn that I don't see a downside in voting on it today, but I do agree, I agree with both you guys, but does anyone else want to have a, make a comment on this one? I'm comfortable moving forward as it's ready. Ever Brush, do you want to make a motion to table it, just make a comment that, oh go ahead, you know, or a question? [12:01] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): If we remove the date, or if you remove the date from that, how would it affect this pending Application. Well, we'd have to restart the, we'd have to restart the process, because you can't, if you make an amendment, then we have to start over and, you know, go back to, you know, first reading for city council, advertising for this hearing, and then having a hearing, so it's just time. [12:30] Janet Sanborn Jonas: So a couple of months and some advertising. Yeah, six weeks. Yeah, weeks. Yeah, that's, that's a long time. [12:40] Jonathan Boucher: Any other discussion? Is any interest to move forward with that motion to table it, or any interest in making the motion to approve the amendment as written? We, well, actually I'm sorry, I, we skipped a, we skipped a bit of a step. We have to put this out for public comment, so we've had our discussion here. I'd open it up for public comment at this point, see if there's anyone who'd like to discuss. Yes, so a reminder, when you come up, just make sure that the button is green on the microphone. You come up to. the podium well all right will someone please assist there 's a button on the podium that lets it be green yeah hi my name [13:27] Ronnie Pinkham: Is Ronnie Pinkham. I'm the former president of the Cedar Falls Cooperative. The word flexibility can mean a lot of things. That is a big concern for me, for even corporate developers and private owners of parks and the co-op. I also bring the concern of lot lines and on site maps. They should have diameters, because what's happening in our park is residents are getting screenshots of their lot lines that are not even approved yet, and they're attacking other residents. I actually have it on camera where. A resident attacked me over it. So I'm very concerned when I saw the site map piece, it did not have the dimensions, exact dimensions of the lot lines or the setbacks. This is a concern. Residents are very nasty in our park about that. So just drawing, oops, sorry, just drawing lot lines is not efficient. It's not efficient. They need to actually have measurements so that residents don't start screaming at other residents. It's because I believe flexibility is a very broad term. It needs to be brought in closer to have certain stipulations and stuff like that, or you're going to have people taking advantage. That's just human life. They just take advantage of things that they think they can do. But I'm more concerned that site maps should have the dimensions, because the resident lives next to me isn't the only one that's attacked me. But there's other residents that have attacked other residents, like the Vice President. She gets attacked by her neighbor who thinks that her lot line is right up to the neighbor's back step. And if you're just drawing lines, it's not going to be efficient. It needs to have dimensions. It's important, and flexibility needs to be addressed. It's a broad word. I learned that when I was in school when I wrote a paper. The teacher told me you can be flexible. Then when I wrote the paper of what I thought it was about, she told me oh no, it's about suicide. Now you need to go write it over. Okay, you have to have guidelines. You have to have, so there's no room for assumption or presuming or anything like that. So that's all I have to say. Thank you for listening. And thank you for your time, chairman. Yeah, thank you. [16:26] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): Director Creek. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to clarify that the speaker is talking about a pending application that you know staff is reviewing right now for an expansion at a mobile home park. [16:46] Jonathan Boucher: Yeah, and not about this, not about the, it sounded like there was a potential that it was. [16:50] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): Yeah, because that, it would be a requirement with this change to have so mentions. [16:56] Jonathan Boucher: If I'm so directly. Yeah, I didn't know. I didn't want to speak directly. [17:02] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): But that's, you know, that is going to be dealt with separately with the site plan that has been submitted to the city. This is just an ordinance amendment, so if passed, the same requirements that have been allowed for older mobile home parks would apply to your mobile home park as well. So we haven't started reviewing that site plan until this gets passed. So it's two separate things. I know it's confusing. [17:37] Jonathan Boucher: So it's a standardization effort. This amendment then we would commence review of an expansion at Cedar, but it wouldn't remove any sort of requirements that have lot lines. Yeah, no, on any current or anything that's required already, that's a standard. Okay, thank you. I hope that was able to address the concern you raised. Are there any other public comment? Then we will close public comment here, and I look for a motion, a motion on the amendment, unless there's any other discussion. Do have anyone who'd like to make a motion on the on the amendment, a reminder that amendments to code should be phrased as ought to pass, and then we vote yes or no on whether they [18:35] Janet Sanborn Jonas: ought to pass. I'll do it. Remember Jonas, chair, I move that the planning board recommend to city council the ordinance amending chapter 165 of the land development code by adding flexibility for manufactured home parks existing as of January 1st, 2026, ought to pass. Thank you. [18:55] Jonathan Boucher: In a second, member Hobson with a second and a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Remember Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. Chair votes yes. We will now go to the City Council for its next City Council's next meeting for review. This brings us to our land development permit application. Our first one for permit applications and our first one for this evening is for a planned, is a land development permit application for a planned group development to create integrated shopping center to add additional signage for a potential fourth building, a property located at 557 Stillwater Avenue, map lot on R62-006 in the Shopping and Personal Service District, S&PS, the applicant owner, ERG Realty, LLC. Before we move forward, staff has indicated the completeness of this application is ready [Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): for board review.] Fees are documented and paid. The applicant standing is confirmed. Does the board have any concerns about these issues? Are there any conflicts of interest or concerns about conflicts of interest? And if not, I'd like to see a motion on the completeness [20:15] Kenneth Huhn: this application. Member Hyun? Yeah, Chair, I move that the application was deemed to be complete on July, 7, 2026. The applicant paid all appropriate applicable fees and the proposed project is a planned group development. Thank you. And a second, number Hobson with a second [20:34] Jonathan Boucher: roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Whitford? Yes. The chair votes yes. With that, I'd like to see the applicant who would come to the podium to provide their presentation. [20:56] Fred Marshall: Good evening members of the board, Mr. Chair, staff. My name is Fred Marshall. I'm from Engineering representing ERG Realty. This is kind of a little bit of an oddball application. The site, there's a potential client that's interested in putting a fourth building on this property. Well, I should say the owners would do the, then lease it like as it is the case with the three buildings. And during the course of negotiations with the prospective tenant, they were adamant that they wanted a pylon sign and according to the land use ordinance they're not allowed to have one. However, with further discussions with Brendan in code She said, well, if you do a integrated shopping center plan unit group development, you could put a second pylon sign and the distances all work. So I know planning was kind of struggling with this basis. Usually it's done when with the building, but unfortunately the project will not move forward unless this the group development which allows the second sign is approved, and then they'll sign the agreement and we'll come back with a site plan and site location amendment and all those wonderful things. There really isn't anything more than that. It's it's kind of a and on you very nicely said, would you be willing to delay it so we could kind of work on changing the language, and I'm like there's not there just isn't the time that if we can't get this approved. So i hopefully you'll be supportive of designated a planned group development. It was never an issue before. I mean way back when the cinema center was approved and then when chipotle and vitamin the two buildings up front were approved It was never a need to do plan group development. Hindsight we should have, but we didn't. So I look forward to your support of the request or application. [23:08] Jonathan Boucher: Thank you. Any questions from staff or comments. [23:12] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): Just that you know should the board approve the application, we just request that there's a condition of approval that the set that there a second sign with the fourth building, and also we should note in the record that the proposal for the fourth building [23:34] Jonathan Boucher: building would have to come back to the board. Yeah, so to reiterate a condition for second sign for the fourth building and that the plan for that fourth building would have to come back. Yep correct. Okay any questions from the board to the applicant or to City staff I'm [23:59] Janet Sanborn Jonas: not sure I understand the condition of the second sign part of that. I'm not sure how to word that just that just [24:09] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): as a reminder that they need to get a sign permit for that second sign permit. Yeah okay for the [24:14] Fred Marshall: second okay just the word permit there sorry yes it's not part of the motion no it [24:24] Jonathan Boucher: it would be during the decision I would I believe, but we still need to go to public comment before we get into that. But are there any other questions at this point to the city staff or otherwise, then we'll open it up to public comment. Is there anyone in the room or on the zoom that would like to speak to this project? If not we will close public comment. Did we want to have some more discussion about this one? Thank you member brush yes the where would we put that [24:57] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): Those conditions, and would you repeat them? What would we put them in, just at the end, typically? At the end of your decision, you have, you know, conditions of approval. They're not in there. [25:10] Jonathan Boucher: Right now, so if we, under the procedural background, we have the applicable provisions and findings. There's only a part one, and then a part five. Well, I guess it's not part five, it's a section five, but it's list decision, and then at the end of that section you'd say with the condition for a second signed permit for the fourth building, and that building, you know, needs to return to [25:34] Kenneth Huhn: the board for approval in the general permit requirements for review. Okay, if we need to [25:46] Jonathan Boucher: discuss that some more as a, as a group, are there any concerns with how this is being handled? Are we happy with this process? Do we feel like there's any discussion we need to have, any questions to Sam? Not if we're ready for a motion, or if there's any other questions. Actually, we'd first start with the applicable provisions, and that's, that starts with part one, that the project meets the requirements of section 165-69 planned group development. I'd look for a motion on item one. [26:25] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): Member Brush. Mr. Chairman, the board finds that based on exhibit two, the epic unsatisfied section 165-69 of the land development code regarding the requirements [26:39] Jonathan Boucher: for planned group development. Thank you. In a second, number Hobson, and a roll call vote. Member Brush, yes. Remember Hayes, yes. Number Hobson, yes. Number Yun, yes. For Jonas, yes. For Whitford, yes. And the chair votes yes. We did do the procedural backs, yeah. Good, thank you for looking out for me, but we're all set on that one. This brings us to the decision and a reminder about those two conditions. The first one being that a second signed permit is needed for the fourth building, and that the site plan for the fourth building come before the planning board. Do we have a motion on the, on the decision? Remember, [27:25] Kenneth Huhn: here, I'll give it a shot here. Sure, I move that the board finds that the project meets the requirements for a planned group development, and therefore the board grants the land development permit for the proposed project on the conditions that the second sign permit for the fourth building is applied for [27:54] Jonathan Boucher: and what was the second one? The second item that was mentioned was that the site plan for the fourth building would come before the planning board. The second creed, am I putting that forward correctly? That's correct. Yeah, the fourth that [28:09] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): The fourth building would need site plan approval from the planning board. Isn't that what I just [28:14] Kenneth Huhn: said? But the first one was that the permit, the permit, okay. And then, and the second condition is that they have to apply for the, receive permission from the planning board for the second sign. Is that correct? You [28:36] Greg Hobson: double it, same thing twice. Yeah. [28:38] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): So I [28:45] Jonathan Boucher: think we still need the condition that the fourth building would come before the site plan review, for the fourth building would come before the planning board for [28:54] Kenneth Huhn: review. Okay. And the condition that the fourth building will come before the planning board [28:59] Jonathan Boucher: for approval. Correct. Did we meet the need with that? So Assistant Solicitor, Innis? Yes. Are we all set on this? Yes. Okay, thank you. Just want to make sure we met the letter of the language required. And then a second from, thank you, Member Hobson. That brings us to a roll call vote. Remember Brush? Yes. Remember Hayes? Yes. Remember Hobson? Yes. Remember Hewn? Yes. Number Jonas? Yes. Or Woodford? Yes. The chair votes yes. Thank you, Mr. Marshall. We're all set on that one. So this one is different. Normally I would read at the end that this is going to be going to the, I would normally read that this is going forward to code enforcement, but is there, is there a statement or any sort of comment to Mr. Marshall about what's going on with this? Next is that [29:57] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): they're going to be with this project, it just goes, it just needs to get recorded at the registry. [30:04] Jonathan Boucher: Yeah, it's going to read, there we go. And then, yeah, thank you. We're moving on to our second item, which is a minor subdivision modification to create a mixed use development with 10 dwelling units and one commercial space. The site was previously approved for eight dwelling units and three commercial spaces, and it's located at 200 and 210 State Street, Map Lot 048-256 and 048-256-A in the Urban Service District, USD. The owner applicant, Brett Susie. Do we have staff have indicated the completeness of the application and that it's ready for board review? The fees are documented paid. The applicant standing is confirmed. Support of any concerns about the completeness of the application? Are there any concerns about conflicts of interest? If not, I'd look for a motion to accept the completeness. Member, remember Jonas, chair. [31:04] Janet Sanborn Jonas: I move the application was deemed complete on July 7th, 2026. The applicant paid all applicable fees per exhibit three. The proposed project is a minor subdivision. The city engineer reviewed the final subdivision plat and provided a written report on June 30th, 2026. Thank you in [31:21] Jonathan Boucher: A second member brush and a roll call vote. Member Brush yes, member Hayes yes, member Hobson yes, member Hune yes, number Jonas yes, number Woodford yes, and the chair votes yes. With that I'd ask if there's if the applicant would come to the podium to make their presentation. Good [31:44] John Stewart: evening, I'm John Stewart with Pelican Day Land Surveyors. I'm representing Brett Soucy. I'm a land surveyor. I have no question there. This looks familiar because you've seen it before about a year ago. A lot of you drive past this site, your former Miller Drug site right on State Street. The applicant has done some remodeling, done some resurfacing of the parking lots, trim some trees, and as part of the ongoing improvements on the inside they found out in working when Mr. Susie's worked with the code department found out that they could put another two units residential units in this particular property in the main building. So that there will be four units on the upstairs and four units on the downstairs, and then still have one commercial space. He was a little less interested, I guess, business-wise, just the talk of apartments. He had a lot of feedback from folks saying, wow, that'd be great if we could live there. And really, it's a wow factor if you've gone by there. The cleanup, the siding has all been redone. Windows have been redone. The inside is just beautiful. I know Mr. Susi has some folks lined up, so that's kind of part of this is to try to get this going so that code can get through their final approvals. And so really what we're looking for tonight is to go from eight apartments to ten apartments and from several commercial spaces just to one commercial space. The parking requirements have stayed generally the same. The parking has been striped on the, I'm going to say the left side of the plan, but really it's the west side of the plan. The east side of the plan was waiting for good weather. It was one week it was too hot, one week it was rainy, and it just didn't work out for the guy that was doing the striping. There's also been some significant changes to the bushes and the shrubbery in the area. The buffer yards are quite different than what they were originally, at least on State Street and Forest Avenue. The applicant is going for an e-buffer yard, and he has received, well, I should say his wife has received the shopping list of plants that are allowed in that area for deciduous trees, and they're going to work on that. I think they're deficient two in the front on State Street and two on the western side, and so that those have are shown on this on this on the subdivision plan that you have in front of you, and I will be quiet and stand by if there's [34:14] Jonathan Boucher: any questions, let me know. Any comments or questions from staff? None? No? Any questions from board members? All [34:27] Janet Sanborn Jonas: right, thank you. Oh, excuse me, member Jonas. Sorry, there was a lot of chatter about the divider in the parking lot, and I wondered where that finally wound up, because we don't always get everything in order in our packets, so I wasn't sure where that finally good [34:44] John Stewart: Good question. So there were some comments from staff. They were concerned about the concrete barriers that were currently there. I didn't check today to see if they had been removed. Mr. Soucy is part of his being there for the last year. I mean, he's right across the street at Frank's, but he's at that site every day doing with his fingers in it. I don't know if he's got paintbrushes or what, but he's over there all the time. He's almost gotten run down a couple of times from folks doing yahoo maneuvers looping up into Palm Street, zipping through that parking lot, and going out Forest Avenue. I don't know what the appeal is to, you know, somebody's turning into Frank's or something, and they just decide they're going to go Palm Street and go the back route. So he's had at least two different instances where cars have just sped through that parking lot, and he was concerned about the speed and felt like, you know, I got to do something to kind of block this. He did need an additional 200 square feet to get the impervious surface ratio balance, I'm sorry, and that kind of lend itself to doing some creative landscaping right there in the middle rather than the Jersey barriers with a big fence on it, which is his original, because he had the Jersey barrier. So I was like, well, now I gotta get rid of the Jersey barriers, but he's gonna make that work, and so there's an idea to put a big planner there like a 20 by 10 kind of Planner there, and there's still going to be room on the sides for folks to access, you know, the two different parking lots, just for foot traffic. And the idea is that the parking lot on the right, the easterly parking lot, is really going to be for the residents, and the parking lot on the west is really going to be for the commercial space, and then guests are the residents that may be visiting or something. So he's, he's got some ideas on how that, why he wants to have that segregated one for traffic and safety, and then the other is just kind of separate the residents from the business folks. So that's, that's where that came from. I asked, you know, you know, can you want to just remove it, we'll do some landscaping somewhere else, and he's like, no, this is like a safe, he was concerned about it, and so we [36:48] Janet Sanborn Jonas: left it on there. But we had a case not too long ago just down the street where we also looked at the site plan to be sure that corner wasn't going to get cut, it was constructed so that it wouldn't. So understand, so thank you. So it, and that was okay with all of the staff, okay [37:08] Jonathan Boucher: Thank you. 're welcome. Thank you. Any other comments from or questions from board members? We'll look for to open up public comment at this time. Are there any comments from the zoom or from the room? Not. We will close public comment. Any final discussion before we look to the, before we look to the standards? All right, then we will start with the applicable provisions and findings. We have part one that the project meets the requirements of articles 2 and 12. I would look for a motion on item one. Oh, member Brush. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move the board finds [37:57] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): that articles 6a, 7, 8, and 11 are not applicable to the project. Thank you. In a [38:05] Jonathan Boucher: second, remember Hayes, and roll call vote. Member Brush, yes. Number Hayes, yes. Number Hobson, yes. Remember Hune, yes. For Jonas, yes. For Whitford, yes. The chair votes yes. [38:16] Kenneth Huhn: Item number two. Member Hune. Chair, I move that the board finds that based on exhibit 2, the applicant satisfied section 165-62 of the land development code regarding providing adequate visual clearance on the corner lots, section 165-64 is requirements for side yard width, and section 165 68 requirements of minimum of frontage. Thank you. In a second, number [38:46] Jonathan Boucher: Hobson, and a roll call vote. Number Brush, yes. Number Hayes, yes. Number Hobson, yes. Number Hewn, yes. Number Jonas, yes. For Whitford, yes. The chair votes yes. Item number three. [38:56] Janet Sanborn Jonas: sure remember jonas chairman of the board finds that based on exhibit 2 12 14 and 15 the applicant satisfied section 165-72 of the land development code regarding the required number of parking spaces section 165-73's requirements regarding parking area location and screening and section 165-74 is requirements regarding parking area design construction and maintenance thank you [39:23] Jonathan Boucher: in a second member hayes and a roll call vote member brush yes number hayes yes number hobson yes number hewn yes or jonas yes for whitford yes chair votes yes item number four sure oh member [39:37] Greg Hobson: hobson sure i move that the board finds that based on exhibits 2 and 13 the applicant satisfied section 165-79 of the land development code regarding providing the necessary utility services required section 165-80 requirements require regarding providing adequate water and sewage services and section 165-83's requirements regarding providing adequate electrical service [40:02] Jonathan Boucher: thank you in a second over brush and a roll call vote member brush yes number Hayes yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Hewitt? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. The Chair votes yes. Item number five, Member Brush? [40:16] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): Mr. Chair, I move the Board finds that based on Exhibits 2 and 11, the applicant satisfied Section 165-82's requirements regarding having adequate fire protection. And a second? Second. Member Hobson? [40:33] Jonathan Boucher: And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. member hyun yes remember jonas yes number woodford yes chair votes yes that completes part one we're moving on to part two that the project needs to district site development standards under article 19. there's one item here look for a motion remember hayes the board finds that based [40:55] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): on exhibits two eight and nine the applicant satisfied section 165-135 of the land development [41:03] Jonathan Boucher: development code regarding buffer yards thank you and a second okay member Jonas and a roll call vote member brush yes number Hayes yes number Hobson yes number Huynh yes number Jonas yes or Woodford yes chair votes yes that completes part two and brings us to part three that the project meets the requirements for section 165-92 Urban Service District gnisd there's yeah member [41:27] Janet Sanborn Jonas: Jonas? Chair, I move the Board finds that based on the findings made in parts one and two of this document, the project meets the requirements of Section 165-92b for uses within the urban [41:38] Jonathan Boucher: service district or GNISD. Thank you. In a second, number Hobson, and roll call vote. Member Brush, yes. Number Hayes, yes. Number Hobson, yes. Number Hewn, yes. Jonas, yes. Number Whitford, yes. Chair votes yes. That completes part three and brings us to part four, that the project meets the requirements of section 165-114 land development approval standards, item one. Look [42:02] Kenneth Huhn: for a motion. Member Hugh. Sure, I move that the board finds that based on exhibits 2, 12, 14, and 15, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114 B's requirement that the proposed parking and loading layout are arranged in a reasonable and safe configuration, including the provision for safe pedestrian travel to and on-site uses, and 165-114 C's requirements that all proposed access drives are reasonably necessary and safe. Thank you. In a second [42:39] Jonathan Boucher: member Brush, and a roll call vote. Member Brush, yes. Remember Hayes, yes. Number Hobson, yes. Number Hewn, yes. Jonas, yes. Number Woodford, yes. And the chair votes yes. Item two, chair, member Hobson. [42:51] Greg Hobson: chair i move that the board finds that based on exhibits two and eight the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114 f's requirements for landscaping thank you in a [43:03] Jonathan Boucher: second, member Hayes, and a roll call vote. Member Brush, yes. Member Hayes, yes. Member Hobson, yes. Member Hewn, yes. Member Jonas, yes. Member Woodford, yes. Chair votes yes. That brings us to item three. [43:17] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): Member Brush. Mr. Chair, I move the board finds that based on exhibit two, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114 G regarding buildings to be situated to avoid unreasonable adverse effects on adjacent properties or public rights of way. Thank you. And [43:43] Jonathan Boucher: a second, member Jonas, and a roll call vote. Member Brush, yes. Number Hayes, yes. Number Hobson, yes. Remember Hewn, yes. Number Jonas, yes. Number Woodford, yes. The chair votes yes. That completes part four and brings us to part five, that the project meets the requirements of section 165-126, the minor subdivision, item one. I look for a motion. Remember Hugh. Yeah, chair, I [44:07] Kenneth Huhn: move that the board finds it based on exhibits 2 and 15, the project meets the requirements of land development code section 165-126 F1 regarding compliance with state of Maine guidelines for subdivision approval contained in 30-A MRSA section 4404. [44:28] Jonathan Boucher: Thank you. And a second, Hobson, and a roll call vote. Number Brush, yes. Member Hayes, yes. Member Hobson, yes. Number Hugh, yes. Number Jonas, yes. Number Whitford, yes. And chair votes yeah. That brings us to item two. Remember Jonas. Chair, I move the board finds [44:47] Janet Sanborn Jonas: That based on exhibits 2, 9, and 15, the project meets the requirements of land development code section 165-126f part 2 regarding conforming to the existing lot dimension and area regulations of the zoning district, section 165-126f part 3's requirement of abutting an existing improved approved public road, and section 165-126 F part 4's requirement on the angle of side lot lines. [45:16] Jonathan Boucher: To street lines, thank you. In a second, member Hayes, and a roll call vote. Member Brush, yes. Member Hayes, yes. Number Hobson, yes. For Hune, yes. Number Jonas, yes. Number Whitford, yes. Chair votes yes. That brings us to item three. Oh. [45:33] Greg Hobson: Member Hobson, chair, I move that the board finds that based on exhibit two, the project meets the requirements of land development code section 165-126f6 regarding the plaque containing all information required in 165-126d one through eight. Thank you. [45:51] Jonathan Boucher: In a second, remember Jonas, and a roll call vote. Member Brush, yes. Number Hayes, yes. Number Hobson, yes. Remember Hewn, yes. Jonas, yes. Number Whitford, yes. The chair votes yes. Before we get to the decision, there's a condition here that an affordable housing agreement be executed with the city according to the requirements of article 21 of land development, etc. Is there any comments or discussion that we need to have about this item? It didn't, I didn't see it come up in our discussion with the applicant. Or with our review of the standards. If not, then I would look for a motion to read the decision. Remember Brush, so chair, I move the board. [46:36] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): The board finds that the project meets the requirements for a major subdivision, a minor subdivision, and therefore the board grants the land development permit for the proposed project with the condition that an affordable housing agreement be executed with the city according to the requirements of articles 21 of the land development code, that the agreement is recorded awarded with the registered deeds prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Thank. [47:15] Jonathan Boucher: You, and a second, I'll second, member Hobson, with the second, and roll call vote. Member Brush, yes. Number Hayes, yes. Number Hobson, yes. Number Hune, yes. For Jonas, yes. Number Woodford, yes. And the chair votes yes. Let's see any final discussion of this. Are we all satisfied with this one, director Greek? Yeah, okay, thank you all. Items passed, the application is approved, and the applicant may reach out to code enforcement office for more guidance. Thank you. Brings us to our last land development permit for the. Evening, it's a major site development and minor subdivision for the construction of a 41 unit multi-story building with associated parking and property located at Milford Street extension, map lot zero four six dash zero three two, and the multifamily and service district M and SD. The applicant owner Penquist cap incorporated. Staff has indicated the completeness of the application and its readiness for board review. The fees are documented and pay. The applicant standing is confirmed. Does the board have any concerns about the about the application's readiness? Any concerns about conflict of interest? If not, I'd look for a motion to accept its completeness. Oh [48:43] Kenneth Huhn: member Hugh? Yeah, chair, I moved that the application was deemed complete on July 7th 2026. The applicant paid all applicable fees in exhibit three. The proposed project is a major site development in a minor subdivision. The City Engineer reviewed the final subdivision Platte and provided a written report on June 30th, 2026. Thank you. And is there a second? [49:12] Jonathan Boucher: I'll second. Member Hobson with a second and a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. The chair votes yes. Sure yes is it Hobson listed in here 2025. Oh is there a typo? Yes but it says the application was deemed complete as a July 7 2025 is in our notes but you read 2026. Isn't it correct? Did I say I said 25? No you said 27. Yes I was curious about that [49:45] Kenneth Huhn: Okay yeah it's just the original application probably was in 20 no it couldn't be it must be 26. If it was a typo so my motion was corrected. Yeah correct. Yeah sorry about that [50:00] Jonathan Boucher: So I think we're satisfied with that. The motion is what matters I think for our for our purposes right? So we're good on that. Thank you for the for bringing that up though. So we moved and approved the completeness. At this point we look for the applicant to come up to the podium [50:16] Larry Rogers: to make their presentation. Good evening my name is Larry Rogers I'm the housing development director for campus. I'm here with Randy Bragg from Cooperative Associates. We're seeking site plan approval for a as you mentioned a 41 unit housing development complex primarily for older Mainers. It's located on a plot of land that we own it between Milford Street extension and Broadway across the street from a project we currently have on a construction on the street extension. We've put in an Application pre-application with Main Housing for the project where we need to get the site plan approved so that we can move forward with that application. [50:57] Jonathan Boucher: And no more questions, thank you. Any comments from the staff? Yep, the applicant has been [51:05] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): been working diligently with our water department, so we're requesting that should the board approve this application, that you condition it that they get their final sign off from water. There's been a lot of technical back and forth on that. So is there any special [51:25] Jonathan Boucher: wording that you'd like to make sure that we, it would be prior to the issuance of a building [51:31] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): permit, that the, that there is a final sign off from the water company. So with [51:39] Jonathan Boucher: the condition that final sign off we received from water company in the Bangor Water prior to the issuance of a building permit, to the issuance of a building, is it, and I missed it, I was reading through here just one more time to make sure, then we're happy with it. Perfect. Any other comments from staff? [52:03] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): Staff, nope. You have a question? Yes, there's quite a bit of discussion about a pedestrian connection, and is engineering approved that, the plan for that? We need a condition on that as well. [52:19] Larry Rogers: No, the applicant revised their site plan and included a connection to Broadway. Can [52:28] Jonathan Boucher: you indicate that here on the site plan that's being presented? Yeah, it's, it's that walkway right there. Thank you. Yeah, do you see where it was just moused over on the, yes, in the bottom left hand a little bit? [52:43] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): Okay, good, thank you, Matt. Thank [52:49] Jonathan Boucher: you any other comments from board members yeah i 'm curious [52:53] Kenneth Huhn: and perhaps it's because of the entrance from Broadway, but the last time we visited this project there was a room full of neighbors, and that's because I think they were coming from Milford, it's down and another, they can enter and exit through the street extension, so now they can go through Broadway as well. No, yeah, just a walkway, okay. [53:21] Jonathan Boucher: You've seen how on the map this gray that, yeah, I just remember the walk, the road is [53:28] Kenneth Huhn: coming in from the conversation parking lot, it's about the, what's that, I said the last time we had quite a bit of conversation with the neighbors with the previous development surprises, yeah. [53:39] Jonathan Boucher: I remember that as well, yeah. Any other comments from board members? Thank you. We'd look for, at this point I'd like to open it up for a public comment if there's any comment from Zoom or from the room. Just look to see if there's any discussion there. It looks like no, and we'll close public comment. Any additional discussion from board members? [54:06] Kenneth Huhn: Entrance over there, I guess, the [54:09] Jonathan Boucher: final questions or concerns. This is Broadway here, then we would, I'd like to move to the applicable provisions and findings. We have part one that the project meets the requirements of Articles 2 through 12, and it's item one of part one. Yeah, Member Brush. Mr. Chair, I move the board finds that based on the difference [54:32] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): to 14 and 36, applicant satisfied land development code section 165-33's requirements regarding [54:42] Jonathan Boucher: erosion and sediment control. Thank you. And is there a second? Good second. And the roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. The chair votes yes. Item number two. [55:00] Greg Hobson: Chair, Member Hobson. Chair, I move the board finds that based on exhibits 2, 25, 30, 32, 35, and 36, the applicant satisfied section 165-72 of the land development code regarding the required number of parking spaces, section 165-73's requirements regarding parking area location and screening, and section 165-74's requirements regarding parking area design, construction, and [55:28] Jonathan Boucher: maintenance. Thank you. And is there a second? Number Jonas. And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Number Hayes? Yes. For Hobson? Yes. For Jonas? Yes. Number Whitford? Yes. And the chair votes yes. Item three. [55:40] Janet Sanborn Jonas: Chair, remember Jonas. Chair, I move the board finds that based on exhibits 2, 25, 30, 32, 35, and 36, the applicant satisfied section 165-76 of the land development code regarding the required number of loading spaces, section 165-77's requirements regarding loading space sizes, and section 165-78 general requirements for loading spaces. Thank you. And is there a second? I'll second. Number [56:07] Jonathan Boucher: hobson and a roll call vote member brush yes hobson yes number hewn yes jonas yes for whitford yes chair votes yes item four member [56:19] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): Brush. Mr. Chair, I move the board finds that based on exhibits 2, 15, 17, 22, 23, 25, 27, and 33, the applicant satisfied section 165-79 of the land development code regarding providing the necessary utility services required in section 165-80's requirements regarding providing adequate water and sewerage services, and 165-83's requirements regarding providing adequate electrical service. [57:01] Jonathan Boucher: Is there a second? Second. Member Hobson in a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. The chair votes yes. Item number five. Member Hayes. I move the board finds that based on [57:22] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): Exhibits 2 and 18, the applicant satisfied Section 165-81 of the land development code regarding providing adequate lighting and preventing light pollution and trespass. Thank you. And a second. [57:38] Jonathan Boucher: Second. Second. Member Huynh. And a roll call vote. Member Brush. Yes. Member Hayes. Yes. Member Hobson. Yes. Member Huynh. Yes. Member Jonas. Yes. Member Woodford. [57:47] Greg Hobson: Yes. And the Chair votes yes. Item 6. Chair. Member Hobson. Chair, I move that the Board finds that based on Exhibits 2, 25, and 28, the applicant satisfied Section 165-82's requirements regarding having adequate fire protection. And a second. [58:05] Jonathan Boucher: Second. Member Woodford. roll call vote remember brush yes number hayes yes number hobson yes remember hewn yes number jonas yes number whitford yes the chair votes yes item seven remember brush mr chair i move [58:20] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): the board finds that based on exhibits 2 14 25 20 25 30 31 32 35 and 36 the applicant app satisfied section 165-84 of the land development code regarding providing adequate storms [58:39] Jonathan Boucher: drainage and stormwater offset thank you in a second member Woodford and a roll call vote number brush yes we're Hayes yes for Hobson yes number Hune yes for Jonas yes for Woodford yes chair votes yes item [58:55] Kenneth Huhn: number eight number here yes chair I move that the board finds it based on exhibits 215 25 35 and 36 the applicant satisfied section 165-85 and section 165-86 of the land development code regarding providing information on sanitary flows and compliance with sewer [59:16] Jonathan Boucher: regulations thank you in a second member hobson and a roll call vote member brush yes number hayes yes number hobson yes number hewn yes for jonas yes number whitford yes chairman yes that completes part one we're on to part two that the project meets the district site development standards under article 19. we have one item here look for a motion member brush [59:41] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): Mr. Chair, I move the Board finds that based on Exhibit 2 and 25, the applicant satisfied Section 165-135 of the land development code regarding height limit, floor area ratio, [59:57] Jonathan Boucher: impervious surface ratio and buffer yards thank you and a second member Jonas and a roll call vote member brush yes number Hayes yes number Hobson yes number Jonas yes number Woodford yes chair votes yes that completes part two and brings us to part three that the project meets the requirements of section 165-90 multi-family and service district m and sd [1:00:23] Janet Sanborn Jonas: There's one item here. Remember Jonas? Chair, I move the board finds that based on the findings made in parts one and two of this document, the project meets the requirements of Section 165-90B for uses [1:00:34] Jonathan Boucher: within the multi-family and service district for MNSD. Thank you. And a second? Remember Hayes? And yes or Whitford? Yes. The chair votes yes. That completes part three and brings us to part four. Now the project meets the requirements of Section 165-126, the minor subdivision, for item one. [1:00:58] Greg Hobson: We have a member Hobson. Chair, I move the board finds that based on Exhibits 2, 11-13, 15, 16, 20, 25-27, 33, 35, 36, and 40, the project meets the requirements of the Land Development Code Section 165 5-126F1 regarding compliance with State of Maine guidelines for subdivision approval contained in 30A MRSA Section 4404. Thank you. In a second, member Hayes. And a roll call vote. [1:01:32] Jonathan Boucher: Member Brush? Yes. Number Hayes? Yes. For Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Whitford? Yes. Chair votes yes. That brings us to item two. Member Huynh? Yeah, sure. [1:01:47] Kenneth Huhn: Chair, I move that the Board finds that based on Exhibits 2, 26, and 36, the project meets the requirements of Land Development Code Section 165-126F2 regarding conforming to existing lot dimensions and area regulations of the zoning district. Section 165-126F3's requirements of abutting an existing improved public road and 165-126F4's requirement on the angle of side lot lines to street lines. Thank you. Is there a second? [1:02:23] Jonathan Boucher: Second. Member Hobson and a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Yoon? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. Chair votes yes. That brings us to item three, [1:02:37] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): I move the board finds that, based on Exhibit 2, the project meets the requirements of Land Development Code Section 165-126F6 regarding the plat containing all information required in 165-126D1-8. And a second? Member Brush? And a roll call vote. [1:03:01] Jonathan Boucher: Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Right here. Yes. For Jonas? Yes. Whitford? Yes. Chair votes yes. That completes part four and brings us to part five. That the project meets the requirements of Section 165-114 land development approval standards. So I'd like a motion on item one. Number Brush? Mr. Chair, I move the board [1:03:23] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): Finds that based on exhibits 2, 21, 25, 29, 30, 32, and 35, the applicant satisfied the end of them code section 165-114 b regarding the proposed parking and loading layout are arranged in a reasonable and safe configuration, including the provision for safe pedestrian travel to all on-site uses, and section 165-114 c's requirements that all proposed access drives are reasonably [1:04:00] Jonathan Boucher: and necessary be safe. Thank you. In a second, a second, member, Hobson, and a roll call vote. Member Brush, yes. Number Hayes, yes. Number Hobson, yes. Number Hewn, yes. Jonas, yes. Member Whitford, yes. Chair votes yes. This is the item two. [1:04:22] Kenneth Huhn: Member Hewn, yeah. Chair, I move that the board finds it based on exhibits 2, 9, 14, 25, 30, 31, 32, and 35, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114d's requirement that the proposed development will not have unreasonable adverse effects on a budding of downstream properties or protected resources such as wetlands, lakes, streams, or brooks, and that all downstream channels or municipal stormwater collection systems have adequate capacity to carry the flow without significant negative effects. Thank you. In a second. [1:05:02] Jonathan Boucher: I'll second. Number Hobson, and a roll call vote. Member Brush, yes. Number Hayes, yes. Number Hobson, yes. Jonas, yes. Woodford, yes. The chair votes yes. Item three. Chair, member Hobson. Chair, I move [1:05:15] Greg Hobson: the board finds that based on exhibits 2 and 18, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114 e's requirements that all outdoor lighting shall be designed, installed, and maintained to avoid unreasonable adverse effects from light pollution. Thank you. In a second, member, [1:05:33] Jonathan Boucher: Jonas, and a roll call vote. Member Brush, yes. Number Hayes, yes. Hobson, yes. Number Hewn, yes. Number Jonas [1:05:40] Janet Sanborn Jonas: Yes. Member Woodford. Yes. And the chair votes yes. Item four. Yes. Member Jonas. Chairman of the board finds that based on exhibits 225, 32, and 34, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114F's requirements for landscaping. Thank you. And a second. Member Hayes. And a roll call vote. Member Brush. Yes. Member Hayes. Yes. Member Huynh. Oh, I jumped one. Member Hobson. Yes. Member Huynh. Yes. Member Jonas. Yes. [1:06:10] Jonathan Boucher: Number Woodford, yes. And the chair votes yes. Item five. Number Brush. Mr. Chairman of the board finds [1:06:18] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): that based on exhibits 2, 21, 25, 29, 30, 32, and 35 and 36 of the land development code and 36, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114g requiring buildings to be situated to avoid unreasonable adverse effects on adjacent properties and public [1:06:49] Jonathan Boucher: rights away thank you in a second number Hobson and a roll call vote member brush yes remember Hayes yes number Hobson yes number Hune yes number Jonas yes number Woodford yes the chair votes yes this brings us that can that completes part five and brings us to the decision can I [1:07:08] Kenneth Huhn: I move that the Board finds that the project meets the requirements for a land development permit for a major site development in a minor subdivision, and therefore the Board grants the land development permit for the proposed project with the condition that the 35 Milford Street Extension water line from Penquist Cap Incorporated's previous land development permit meets the Bangor Water District standards prior to issuance of a of a road opening permit thank you in a second number Hobson and a roll [1:07:43] Jonathan Boucher: call vote number brush yes number Hayes yes number Hobson yes number Hune yes remember Jonas yes number Woodford yes and the chair votes yes all items have passed the application is approved and the applicant could reach out to code enforcement office for more guidance congratulations thank you that brings us to other business this evening are there any thoughts comments or news about land development code updates or land use planning anything coming up nothing coming up we're still doing internal [1:08:16] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): reviews on it yep getting it ready any [1:08:22] Jonathan Boucher: comments from the board any discussion yes mr chair [1:08:27] Speaker K (unidentified): something that i've been thinking of for some time bringing up and i'm not sure of the process for this so this would be something to potentially discuss we do have or we are supposed to have an associate member on this committee that i do believe has gotten to a point where we may be needing to consider asking the city council to remove the associate member from the committee for cause based on excessive absences. That is something allowed by the Maine Municipal Association. It's just something I think should at least be discussed. I know being an associate member at a meeting like tonight where all the members are present, there wouldn't be much to do. But at the previous meeting where I was absent, for example, the associate member would have been able to vote had they been here if there's a reason for the you know plentiful absences I don't know of it but that just might be that I don't know of it so it's something I at least have thought about for a little while at least bringing up to this committee any other discussion [1:09:45] Kenneth Huhn: Of the comment member here, yeah, I 've long thought that associate members should be present because they then have the privilege of listening to the material and being familiar with what's going on. But I believe that our rules of the committee say that associate members aren't required to attend. [1:10:03] Jonathan Boucher: I was going to make a similar comment that we should review the bylaws to see how it's stated because my understanding, my recollection of the bylaws is that it's not required. It's not a requirement that they attend unless they're provided notice. I mean, I don't even think it's a requirement for them to attend if they are provided notice of an upcoming absence. Yeah, I'm reading it right now. Oh, thank you, isn't a requirement, so it might be an opportunity to try and update our bylaws in the future for that if that's then if that would be the intention of the board, but it might just be a place for you know some outreach to the associate member or the alternate member, what's the term, alternate member, to ask if they'd be able to if they think they'd be able to join for meetings even when they don't when they won't be a voting member, so any comments on that. Does you think we should just ask staff to reach out to them or I mean as the chair I'm happy to do that as well to do outreach. Any comments from Director Krieg or anyone else on staff on that? No. When's our next chance to look at the bylaws? We do that on annual. Yes. Yeah, annual. Yeah. [1:11:21] Speaker L (unidentified): You can, we can look at them whenever you want to look at them, so if you want to look at them [1:11:26] Speaker K (unidentified): again we can do that. Okay, and just the one last comment from myself, looking at the main municipal association's planning board manual, it does say it's advisable to create one or more alternate or associate member positions by ordinance to help with attendance problems, so again it's really just a reflection of when we have a member not able to be present and the chair has to advise you know the people that are here to present hey we don't have everyone present tonight do you want to wait till the next meeting or do you want to are you comfortable moving forward if we have an associate member that's actually coming to meetings. Yeah, I hear you know that's just something I wanted to mention, it would be it would be their best interest to be [1:12:13] Kenneth Huhn: knowledgeable what's going on, but our rules don't follow those rules also, so it's not just when [1:12:20] Jonathan Boucher: there's a planned absence it's in the event of a conflict of interest they'd be able to step in and that can happen on a more frequent and unexpected way although i think we all do our part to do some outreach if we anticipate a conflict of interest i know that 's i think would be typically encouraged just to give assistance our solicitors a heads up about it all right any other discussion on that item a suggestion maybe that we take a look at the bylaw pro suggest an amendment to our bylaws That it's not that it's encouraged, I don't know if we can say it's required, and that it's considered part of the role that they should attend. I believe there [1:13:10] Speaker L (unidentified): are some requirements for the city council, so we could maybe mirror some of those attendance requirements in the bylaws and then within your ordinance as well. [1:13:22] Jonathan Boucher: Do we think, do we think that, oh I'm sorry, please, no, I'm sorry, I was just saying [1:13:26] Speaker L (unidentified): or at least require like excused absences or something like, oh sure, do we want to take a look [1:13:33] Jonathan Boucher: at that bylaw in general for all members? Is there some language there that's fuzzy that we should try and firm up? Any concerns about joining remotely, anything like that? Well there is [1:13:48] Kenneth Huhn: requirements for the merger of members. Yeah, I don't know if there is there, I'm just, I haven't [1:13:54] Jonathan Boucher: read the bylaws recently. There is an expectation that we join, but is there a comment that says if [1:13:59] Kenneth Huhn: you are absent you have to make contact or ask for, make people notice that you're not there after over so many, I mean, I'm doing this for three consecutive meetings, you're gonna miss more than three meetings or something like that, you've got to make somebody aware of that. Yeah, I might [1:14:18] Jonathan Boucher: suggest we just circulate the bylaws via email just so everyone has a chance to see them because [1:14:23] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): I know that they're, yeah, we can give you in your next easily visible. Yeah, and I'll talk to Grace on it, because I mean, since the council's the appointing authority, I'm not sure you can put an attendance requirement in a bylaw, because you enforce the bylaws, that might be a code change. [1:14:42] Jonathan Boucher: Yeah, it might be better to put it in the code also. We even have to review it, but if it's okay, if someone could please just circulate it so that it'd be, yeah, we might get an outreach to our associate member just to let them, let them know that it might be nice if, they would join more frequently in the event of the conflict of interest or unexpected absence or just for familiarity and fluency and what's been, what's been happening in the previous meetings, things like that. I think there's a value in having the full, the full group here when [1:15:16] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): possible. Yeah, typically members do, you know, email staff. Yeah, most of the time it's good practice. Yeah. Oh, member Brush, what's the purpose of having an associate member he doesn't attend? [1:15:32] Jonathan Boucher: Yeah, I would, I hear you. Any other discussion? Member Yet, she doesn't [1:15:39] Kenneth Huhn: No, I was going to comment on whether we could rewrite them or the regulations or not, and certainly boards can vary, but I was on the board of ethics for six years and we rewrote the rules twice, so, and I chaired it four times. [1:16:00] Jonathan Boucher: Well, maybe some informal discussion first, but yeah, circulating the dialogue, familiar with it before we suggest moving forward and figuring out how best to handle it, whether it's a matter we can handle internally or if it goes to the, if it goes to the city council or not. [1:16:19] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): Put that on your next agenda. Remember Hayes? Oh, well, I just kind of feel like there should be some communication with the, you know, if that person, whoever it is, I think it's a great idea to [1:16:35] Kenneth Huhn: do it if we have the power to change it. Where is that? I mean, I don't know whether our current [1:16:43] Jonathan Boucher: member is communicating well. They may not understand that it's that we would expect them to because it's not like defined clearly in the, because it would seem logical to me that [1:16:55] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): that person would step in when someone's term expired or if there was that commitment, so [1:17:03] Jonathan Boucher: that's also not the case that I don't think we promote the associate to full member. They [1:17:09] Unidentified speaker (likely Staff or Applicant): have to apply for separately. Yeah, I know, but one would think if you applied for the position to begin with that you would have some interest in it when an opening occurred, so [1:17:24] Jonathan Boucher: Nick, my understanding, these next steps would be to circulate the bylaws for us to get familiar with it. We'll have a discussion at the next meeting. We'll have some sort of informal outreach to our associate member, remember, just to include them in our, on our feelings about it, and we'll discuss it again in our other business next meeting. Does that sound good? Next meeting should be, is it the 21st? Wow, okay, it's in two weeks, but you know for sure. That's funny, that's funny. Any other items or comments? Yeah, there is something to sign this evening, so we have to stick around for signatures. Any final discussion before we wind down? All right, thank you again to City staff. This meeting is adjourned. It's 8 17. Thank you.