Hampden council backs dangerous building action, weighs data center moratorium

[0:28] Matthew LaChance: At this time I'd like to call the call to order the workshop of September 14th 2026 planning and CED status report no thank you new business council direction to staff regarding council direction to staff regarding a dangerous building located at 131 Old County Road public comment nobody's watching council discussion council discussion [1:06] Speaker B (unidentified): it's council direction to staff regarding a dangerous building located at 131 Old County Road and I know that you received some information in your packet miles is here to speak to any questions that you may have with regards to the building itself and our attorney is here to help everyone understand what the process for a dangerous building is and what would be required of the Town Council if we move forward with the dangerous building statute [1:38] Eric Jarvi: Is this the one that's kind of near the ball field road it kind of halfway burned [1:52] Miles: down about no that's another one that's another one that's passively on my radar [1:59] Eric Jarvi: Oh okay so I don't okay so you'll have to tell us for this puppy is or what it [2:06] Miles: looks like or something there were some photos in the packet I believe for this so I guess one of the one of the requests of the council is I have probably enough to bring this to you all the process and what we're hoping to kind of get the nod is to essentially enlist the help of our town attorney to do all the notices about three or four years ago they changed the notice requirements under dangerous building that's essentially the same notice and service of this hearing as you would if you were taking someone to court so it's multiple times in the paper if you can't find them it's attorneys trying to trying to find them there's a lot of nuance now to this that wasn't there before so that's that's one of the questions and just as an overall as you guys know my code enforcement side of stuff is very much complaint driven we know there are tons of buildings in town that probably fit all this and I could probably come to here every month with a new building for you all but this one I've received complaints on and continuous complaints about it so and I it does in my opinion meet those kind of things but that's where we're at with this before we really dive into that full process to have the hearing in front of the council under the dangerous building statute [3:35] Mark Cormier: Mark, yes, go ahead. Question from Miles. Based on what you just said about enlisting the attorney to try to track down a landowner, have we not contacted and we've made, have you made contact with this particular not? I have sent, I think I'm up to three [3:52] Miles: certified letters now. Since I was just looking at this date, the third, the March 25th of 24 was the first time I started working on this project for this particular building, and the last one I just got the letter back, but it just came back in the last three or four weeks, the last letter that I sent, and the Postal Service I sent it on 6 29 and I think I got it back at the end of July [4:30] Speaker F (unidentified): Perhaps Tim you're gonna address this anyway, but I just kind of want to know what the ultimate and what the end thing is, you know, do we tear down the building, this is the owners responsibility to do that and so forth, where's this, where is this all ultimately leading to, so that's that's a [4:53] Town Attorney: great question, and the reason that Miles mentioned that the process that this is a significant power that a municipality has, and because of that there's got a lot of due process protections for property owners, so it is like filing a complaint usually served by a sheriff, not just sent a letter and so forth, the notice has got to have specific requirements, you've got to have a public hearing, and the level of proof that you need is you've got to be convinced that the property itself is a dangerous life or property constitutes a hazard, health and safety and so forth, just kind of paraphrasing some parts of the statute, but ultimately you would ask the property owner to abate the issue, or if it's not abated the town will tear down the property itself, and you would have a lien against that property, and you would also be able to recover all of your costs and expenses associated with tearing down the building, all the legal process associated with it, so ultimately that's where you would go and so it's usually reserved for buildings that probably need to be torn down either by the property owner or by the town [6:14] Speaker B (unidentified): This is kind of a question for you, and I'm not exactly sure how this part of it plays into it, but it is our belief that the homeowner is incarcerated in another other state, and that is part of the reason why we're unable to get any response, and we believe it's the same property owner that abandoned a building through taxation a few years back that the town ended up foreclosing on. So I don't know how that works where he wouldn't be able to abate it if he is incarcerated, and we don't have a mechanism of finding out for sure even [6:56] Town Attorney: if somebody is not present in the structure, they would still be or could be held responsible for making arrangements to have the issue evaded they're [7:10] Matthew LaChance: all they're all caught up on their taxes and everything I'm asking [7:15] Speaker B (unidentified): Paul I guess they're not behind taxes, we do receive a check once a month for the taxes it [7:25] Miles: came it comes from the same address that we've been so if you're [7:40] Speaker H (unidentified): looking for direction, I'm sorry, if you're looking for direction from us to begin the process, my sense is our consensus is yes, agreed [7:52] Matthew LaChance: agreed if [7:57] Town Attorney: that's the case then I would work with Miles, we would, if that's the case I'd work with Miles, we present a package for you to vote on and say yes, we think this is the next step ought to be, send a notice to the property owner, get a hearing scheduled, have that hearing, and I would prepare appropriate documentation for that, and ultimately you'd have to make a decision one way or the other what to do next, right [8:23] Mark Cormier: Anybody else? I guess I'd like to weigh in just to, I guess I don't know, be that devil's advocate, asked the odd questions, so if he's paying his taxes, he or she, they, them, and it's just unsightly to the neighbors or surrounding residents who might be lodging the complaints, is it posing a public safety hazard other than the broken glass and the threshold or what [8:57] Miles: So for this particular property, the police department was called there and people were selling drugs, okay, out of the house, okay, and that's what prompted the last letter that I said saying all right, now we're beyond it's just unsightly, it's open now, it's being squatted in, and the people who go butted on the backside have small children, yep, so yes, great, that answers that question [9:23] Mark Cormier: thank you thank [9:27] Matthew LaChance: you item B emergency moratorium ordinance regarding data center operations I don't know who's I had originally brought this [9:37] Speaker H (unidentified): Up something like six weeks ago. Thank you, Miles. Thank you. It came to a workshop I believe I missed, and the direction out of that was for staff to look into this. I think the only thing I see tonight about this is agreeing that this would allow staff the time to do that review. I don't know sitting here if that'd be a lot of work. Thank you, Tim. We may have the means in it right now to, you know, lay any concerns or staff may report that. No, there's a couple changes that they're gonna propose but That's, that's all I'm at is saying. That's why I would be in favor. So I'll defer. Eric? No, sorry, that's good. I don't look that [10:39] Speaker F (unidentified): Direction very often. So probably about three weeks ago when this first came up, I was in correspondence with one of my constituents, and they were very curious where the council was moving on this, and I pretty much relayed what we talked about at our, at our last meeting, that we would probably make that decision depending on the circumstances, and that we were going to look in to what provisions were there, and they had additional questions. So I looked into it myself, and what I came up with seems Like it, our zoning ordinance already has a number of items, and this is Section 4.1, 6.2. It requires the board to find that the project complies with zoning requirements and meets nine state of objectives, and some of them are very pertinent to what an AI data center would be, such as minimizing scenic and visual intrusions, air and water quality, adequate fire service, ensuring that the development does not exceed the capacity of any public utility or overburdening of any public service. And in my reading of these, it addresses like all the major concerns that we would have with a Data center. So I don't know that this is really necessary. I think we're already, we're already set on this. [12:17] Speaker B (unidentified): I don't believe that there's anything in the use table that defines a data center. [12:27] Speaker F (unidentified): No but there is yeah and that is a point because I believe it refers to for the use section as offices and that the data center could probably be classified you know as an office so would be permitted as a use but with all these with all these other restrictions on it I think that the planning board could deny it based upon these other restrictions that 's my reading of it [13:04] Matthew LaChance: Councillor Jarvi, I [13:10] Speaker I (unidentified): Think what I would wish to see at our next council meeting is in fact a motion for a 180 day moratorium, and the reason is the documentation, supporting documentation we have on this issue. It's a recommendation of staff that they do need to in fact define some parameters, and so 180 day moratorium is simply giving the planning board that opportunity to define those parameters without any constraints. I think you're, you're right, the language is there, but staff says they still need to define some more parameters, and all the 180 day moratorium says is we're going to limit that and give them the time to do that. So I would suggest that in fact we do need to see this one recommendation for a 180 day moratorium in our next full council meeting. Yeah Dennis, I [14:00] Speaker H (unidentified): just when I think of roles, we all bring different skill sets to these discussions, different levels of ability to analyze and recommend, but I think in general we're just here to set general directions and priorities, and personally I rely on staff who are paid to bring specific recommendations about that content back to us, and that's, that would be my intent with this procedure. I know, don't want to be in the position of deciding this language will address this and this language won't, that's, that's not what I'm here to do. May I ask then [14:41] Speaker F (unidentified): what additional guidance the staff is looking for on this? The question is that [14:50] Speaker I (unidentified): they want 180 day moratorium as their recommendation so that in fact they have time to develop the definitions. That's what I saw in those two supporting document. Paula [15:04] Matthew LaChance: ladies before gentlemen, and then you're next, so Wally, I just [15:09] Speaker B (unidentified): would like to make it clear that this did not originate from staff. This was a directive of council, that, okay, so I just want you to be aware that I followed what this direction of council asked me to do. I researched data centers and moratoriums and other communities, and as per my, or my memo, I felt that the city of Bangor's was the most comprehensive of all of the moratoriums that I read. I didn't feel like we needed to take the steps that North Berwick took where they took it to referendum and their townspeople voted against data centers. I spoke with Amy, who is our direct link to the Planning Board, and asked them whether or not they felt that data centers were completely covered within our zoning ordinance, and they are planning on workshopping it in two days, okay, one day, so it's not whether or not staff necessarily feels one way or another, we're following the directions that were given to us. I [16:24] Mark Cormier: Guess I feel as though this is somehow stemmed from perhaps a few very forward-facing horror stories that we've seen around the country, whether they be excessive noise in a neighborhood or water pollution or taking up valuable farmlander. But I would also like to point out that there are hundreds if not thousands of data centers sprinkled all around the nation that have been there for years and nobody even knows that they're there. And I would, I would hate to put such a large roadblock onto the potential development of some sort of land use within Hamden that could offer a large tax break to the residents of Hamden through a large building, I'll say building, that might not be unsightly but might be a good use of some land that we have in some of our industrial or commercial areas that could benefit the people of Hamden without having a means of noise pollution or water pollution or unsightliness, some of the things that this is attempting to address. So I guess I would just implore the Planning Board to keep that in mind so that it's not just a complete shutdown. No, we don't want data centers carte blanche, that we can set and dictate what we don't want as a result of the data centers and make sure that they put mitigating resources into ensuring that they're not going to have negative effects on the people of Hamden but could possibly bring us a financial benefit. I would echo that, yeah. [18:39] Speaker F (unidentified): You know, I thought that, you know, our resolution when we first met on this was a very wise one, that we wanted, that we didn't have any eminent request for a data center, that we would evaluate the request, and you know, in the meantime we can be working on this. There's nothing to stop us or the planning board from looking at the definitions again and improving it, improving them. And so again, you know, I agree with you Matt, that there's examples on both sides of this table. There's examples where communities have extremely prospered by having the tax revenues from data centers. And there's examples of horror stories. And I think we don't need to rush into a moratorium unless we had something that was eminent. And we don't have that right now. And I think it'd be great, you know, if the staff wanted to refine our ordinances on this, go right ahead, but there's no rush. [19:54] Eric Jarvi: Yes, sir. Speak in favor of what Councillor Jarvi had a hundred eighty day moratorium for a very specific reason. The news yesterday and today is Sam Altman and a couple of these other tech folks who are the head of some of these AI companies is actually asking to slow down on AI at the current time because of how fast it's moving along and some of the attacks internally, one company on another, one company on itself, so on and so forth, and they're actually looking for some regulation now. I don't if that carries over directly to what we're considering here, but I don't think it's unreasonable to take a pause while the heads of the AI companies themselves are proposing a pause. And as I said, that's really within the past few days. There's been a big essay on this and one of the big tech journals that covers this subject and stuff. [21:03] Matthew LaChance: So it sounds like we're divided. Just a thought. Sounds like we're divided, so we'll have to have it as a question on the agenda. [21:10] Mark Cormier: I guess I just want to be clear. I'm not against the 180-day moratorium. I was more or less offering advice to hopefully anybody on the Planning Board that might be watching or would follow up with the minutes of this, just to be mindful. It, but yeah, putting the hundred and eighty day pause, let's do that, because we don't have to redo it after 180 days, right? If 180 days expires and the Planning Board has something in place, then the moratorium goes away. It's not [21:42] Speaker B (unidentified): like a permanent. By our charter, we can only go 60 days at a time. So each, every, if you vote on the October 5th to approve this moratorium, it would be good for 60 days, and prior to the 61st day, we would put it back on an agenda if we didn't have a resolution yet, and it, we would vote to extend it for another 60 days. If we have a resolution, we have wording into our ordinance, then the moratorium would go away. We wouldn't need to renew it for [22:14] Mark Cormier: that third time. We would just amend the ordinance with the new, we would amend the zoning ordinance. [22:21] Speaker I (unidentified): Right, that's the answer, I guess. Yeah, Mr. Vice Chair, just a question of Paula. You keep referring to the fifth. There's a reason that we can't address some of these at the council meeting on the 21st. Is it the lead time for public comment [22:40] Speaker B (unidentified): or we, yeah, we had advertised, we had advertised for a public hearing on [22:46] Speaker I (unidentified): October 5th. Okay, so we're already committed to the fifth on these issues. It went into the paper. [22:52] Speaker B (unidentified): That doesn't mean we can't, we wouldn't be able to make it any sooner, I don't believe, but we could [22:56] Speaker I (unidentified): Extend it later, okay, into the month of October. And I was just confused because we do have, right, okay, so the fifth would make perfect sense to address anything that's already gone out. [23:07] Speaker B (unidentified): Right, public notice, right, thank you, and Chief Bailey will be handling that meeting that night so. [23:17] Matthew LaChance: So what do you have a clear direction on? Okay, thank you, because I. [23:22] Speaker F (unidentified): Don't, what, excuse me, what was the length of the moratorium again that we're proposing? Because I've heard 180 and I heard 60, so which, so by state law all. [23:35] Speaker B (unidentified): Communities are limited to 180 days for a moratorium. Our charter, we happen to have a charter that dictates to us that we can only do a moratorium in the town of Hamden for 60 days at a time, three times. Okay, well, that's, yeah, that's a lot. [23:53] Speaker I (unidentified): Lot less onerous, right, okay, so thank you for pointing that out because it is a little less onerous in those increments. We ended up going to a full 180 days, I think. [24:12] Speaker F (unidentified): Right, I mean, it'd be, you know, I don't think anything's gonna happen in 60 days. Right. Good. [24:22] Matthew LaChance: Item C, proposed amendments to the outdoor facilities ordinance. I think, I don't know, there's quite a bit to digest there too. We have any public comment on that? [24:45] Speaker H (unidentified): Isn't this mostly just making consistency throughout the. [24:48] Speaker B (unidentified): Document, correct, we, it was brought to our attention that there were places in there that we referred to a park opening at dawn, but dawn may be different at different times a year, so we, Jill and I sat down and we actually put, we put times in there, 6 a.m. For instance, instead of just half an hour before dawn, seemed like Dorothea Dix Park, the Paper Mill Park, all of those, we actually defined an actual time. We also on the VFW recreation area, we brought that back in for shutting the facility down instead of at 11 o'clock at night to 10 o'clock at night, and that was mostly as a result of neighborhood complaints for the lights being on so late at night that because of their angle and even though we've had our electrician out there climbing the pole. Trying to angle the light just so, the lights are still shining in house windows, and so we're trying to just give people the grace of an hour earlier. [26:10] Matthew LaChance: Closure, I have a question for you or Miles or whoever or Amy or 5.13, hunting within any park, our sports field, is prohibited, that makes sense to me, but at the end of this we've struck the, map and the, I'm just curious, is anybody's proposing no hunting in on any town on land or is that just, or is it just a, we're just not going to give the information anymore? [26:43] Speaker B (unidentified): That I think is we may have pulled a version to make these edits on that should not have bed redlined because that had already been addressed at a prior meeting. We had discussed that back I think when Victor was here. We discussed the hunting in the town parks right and it looks like that just never got taken off of red line. I didn't realize I was on there but nobody's trying to thank you that's what I'm that's what I'm getting at so I think that I think you know we had decided that we didn't want you know guns that you know you don't want anybody [27:24] Matthew LaChance: hunting in Dorothy Dix Park either I understand that but right this is a lot of open space in Hampton that's owned right that wasn't the intent thank you yeah anybody [27:36] Mark Cormier: Yeah I think the last time when we discussed the outdoor facility was in there as verbiage and the definition of outdoor facility included the parks and stuff that's owned by the town. I guess my question on the 6 a.m. thing does that mean it would be unlawful for somebody to be in Dorothea Dix Park prior to 6 a.m. if there was somebody there walking resting laying in the shade well we have people [28:18] Speaker B (unidentified): in our parks at various times now so it's not like we're out hunting people down and throwing them out if they're sleeping there you know outside of the this is a guide it's our best effort if it became a chronic problem with unhoused people or something like that then we would have an ordinance at which we could you know have a little bit of teeth but we don't do that now okay it's not really a problem further [28:54] Matthew LaChance: discussion so everybody's happy with this okay let's move on then proposed amendments to the fees ordinance annual review I think that's where I got ahead of myself here with it you understood I meant though you've we had a hunting on town owned authorization and map book that's read that struck [29:26] Speaker B (unidentified): out I think I think I think you knew what I was so and that kind of is it's similar but different to the outdoors facilities ordinance. This particular fee is coming out of the fees ordinance because we were informed by a game warden that we could not charge people to hunt on public property because it's public property and so we are taking the those fees out. Is it for a map or is it 's just for a map isn't it well the maps are online so they can print it off what they used to get in the past When I first came here in 2016, they would get a packet and it had all the maps printed out in it, and they would actually get a permission slip signed by the town manager to allow them to hunt on that property. But we've already designated those as hunting areas and it's on our website, so they don't, I can't charge somebody a fee and sign a permission slip giving them authority that they're already granted because it's public [30:34] Matthew LaChance: property. Thank you. I was getting, I was mixing the, putting the two together. [30:38] Speaker B (unidentified): Right, you caught it. No, anybody [30:44] Matthew LaChance: have any questions on any of the [30:45] Speaker F (unidentified): fees? Yes, go ahead please. Several, I believe, I believe this is in that section, so on, I say page 11, there was an earth moving fee being dropped and I was wondering why that was. I [31:08] Speaker B (unidentified): believe it's because it's covered under statute and we didn't want to be redundant with something that was already covered. Is that correct? No, close, back in before [31:21] Miles: I came in November of 2022, the council removed all the earth moving permits from the zoning, so we don't even have earth moving permits anymore. So that's really just a housekeeping to remove that from the fees ordinance because we don't have earth moving permits anymore. So what, yeah, what [31:37] Speaker F (unidentified): does that all mean? I mean, people can bring in as much, they [31:42] Miles: don't need a permit from the town now. Whether they need a permit from DEP, Army Corps, inland fisheries and wildlife, those are all other things, but we don't have any local regulations. So they can bring in as many truckloads of fill as they want on their land, then as far as the town is concerned, yes, but that was removed from zoning [32:02] Speaker B (unidentified): like I said. Yeah, so we just didn't update the fees ordinance to go along with the amendment. It was just an oversight in amending the fees ordinance. [32:16] Speaker F (unidentified): Okay, thank you. And the other requests I guess I would have is for the, for the pool fees, and I believe I brought this up before, if we could just have an explanation of what the current increases are based on again, you know, looking at national averages, it was, if we were to try to achieve around the 35 percent cost recovery through our, through our pool fees, that would be in line with small communities that have pools and what they're, what they've been bringing in, and I think having a goal like that 's based on firm figures is it's it's probably a good idea but I have no way of evaluating these pool fees at this time you know you know less that other information is provided so it's it's you know what is the expected use and word and how does that line up with the actual cost for the pool what type of cost recovery we have we're near 35 percent or higher I think it's great you know when we looked at this before it was quite a bit below it was like 23 percent so i [33:54] Mark Cormier: I think, you know, we went into thorough discussion at that time that I don't think we're ever going to get to that goal of recovery, a certain number. That's always going to be a quote-unquote cost. Well, there is, and I'm [34:14] Speaker F (unidentified): only talking about 35% recovery, 35%, and that's the national average, is not arbitrary, right? It's not arbitrary at all. It's exact opposite of arbitrary, so I [34:32] Mark Cormier: would caution against that. I feel like Darcy has a good feel of her client [34:40] Speaker F (unidentified): base. I'm just asking what's it based on. I can't speak to that at this point in [34:48] Speaker B (unidentified): time, but Darcy spoke to it once already at a workshop after you brought it up during the budget process. She knows her patrons. I don't, I can't sit here and tell you that she has a scientific formula that she used to determine what these costs are be are set at, but she knows her patrons, and she knows the people that are coming there, the elderly, she knows that the families with children, and she's done incremental increases over the years. She sat here throughout the entirety of that last meeting. She has to be at the pool at 5 30, and I sent her home, and I had told her, you already, you already brought this up at a prior meeting, so I don't have that information readily available, but I can bring it in if, you know, we're not, we're probably not ever going to get to [35:40] Speaker F (unidentified): 35 percent, but we don't know what percent we're at right now, and I'm just saying it would be useful to know that, right? [35:50] Speaker B (unidentified): and i think she did explain that to you and to all of us at a prior meeting i didn't i didn't expect to have to have that tonight because i felt that we had already gone over that at a prior meeting but i 'm clearly mistaken and i can get that information for you at the public hearing Mr. [36:30] Speaker I (unidentified): Vice Chair, unfortunately I've turned in my budget book, most of us have, but I would think if we go back and revert review that cost center from last year, there's going to be an income statement for the pool versus total expense, which would give us some idea about how we how we are coming, and it would be an easy thing if you still have your budget book to go back and look at that. I too think achieving 35 percent, yes, that's the national average, and while that may be a goal, I don't think that's attainable in our particular situation, but anyway way that to me is I think what you're looking for, what income are they bringing in versus what their total expenses, and your target should be 35 percent of that, right, and your desired target [37:20] Speaker F (unidentified): and last time I believe it was 23 percent and we only needed a slight increase, and the conclusion of that conversation with Darcy was that the proposed fees might bring us very well close to or above that 35%, so you know Paula can bring back some figures or just let [37:41] Speaker I (unidentified): you know let me know how Darcy's coming up with. Okay, I understand what you're asking for and I think Paula appreciates that, but I don't know how you generate that without knowing what the end number is applied to these fees. This is only a suggested fee structure. If zero people show up at 131 dollars, there's zero. Right, but you have past data from last year has bass past data best on based on the last fee structure [38:05] Speaker F (unidentified): Yeah, right. Yeah, right should be a little predicted. Yeah, [38:12] Matthew LaChance: yep. Thank you. Council discussion regarding the appeal process in the town of Hamden subdivision ordinance. Requested by councillor Jacobus. Yes, take it away. Okay. Thank you [38:27] Speaker F (unidentified): So this my request is coming from the [38:35] Matthew LaChance: Summer Street. Wait just a minute. Pardon? I could ask for public comment. Oh, okay, sorry. I'm sorry, it's my fault. Okay. Do we have any public comment on this subject? Thank you, thank you. Sorry to interrupt you, go ahead please. [38:49] Speaker F (unidentified): Okay, yeah, this request is in response to the 8082 Summer Street proposal and this was a major subdivision that was going in and you know I attended one of the planning board meetings and it was evident to me that there was quite a bit of frustration after that meeting among the residents and what I was disappointed in, well maybe that's not the right word. What I was hoping for was that there should be an easier mechanism for the residents to either appeal or get a second hearing on the decision by the planning board at the time. And the way that our current subdivision ordinance is worded, that there is no administrative appeal process, that the appeal has to go within a certain time limit to the circuit court and be decided that way. The problem with that is that, first of all, it's expensive, and there's quite a lag time to get on the docket of the court, and there's really nothing to prevent the developer from developing the project while the appellant is seeking a resolution from the court. So my suggestion, and I wanted to see if council was interested in this, was to actually amend our ordinances so that we could have an administrative appeal process set up on very specific things. You know, we would set out in the ordinance, you know, what can you know, what constitutes a valid appeal? Prior to residents having to go to court, and it's cutting down on the amount of litigation that would have to have to occur and reducing the expenses for the residents, and there's many other towns and in Maine that already do this. So I [41:26] Mark Cormier: guess the first question that comes to mind is, what is the timeline to be heard by a court? It needed to go before a judge for an appeal like as you're as you're speaking, is it gonna be a year? Like it would be usually four to six months, four to six months before a judge, before you get a hearing. Yeah, and then that's quite a lot of land work can be done in that time then. Okay, yes it could. And then I guess my other question is, who would be sitting on the Board of Appeals that would have their head fully wrapped around the laws and statutes more than a judge would? Well [42:26] Speaker F (unidentified): I think the laws and statutes we're looking at specific, this would be subdivision ordinances, and I would think that the Board of Appeals might actually be better informed than a district judge. So this is a local [42:43] Mark Cormier: ordinance, not a law, right? Okay, and it goes before the judge to interpret, right? [42:48] Speaker F (unidentified): So ordinance, right? If there was a difference of opinion between the planning board and let's say the citizens that wanted to appeal this, the appellants, okay, that's what the planning, that's that's what the appeal board would hear and make a decision whether the proper information was given, whether there was something left out, whether the right decision was made, yes. [43:22] Speaker B (unidentified): Ma'am, so in an effort to save money on an extremely tight budget whose legal fees are quickly being eaten up, I reached out to MMA legal and asked the question about this idea, and attorney Alex Pringle contacted me. He called me and said that there are areas that boards of appeal typically don't do and subdivisions are typically don't do. He said yes, there are a few towns and cities in the state that will have that intermediary process for a board of appeal to hear something prior to it going to Superior Court, but it's really not, it's the exception and not the norm. He said they appeal CEO decisions, they do variances, those types of things, but subdivisions are a different set of rules. Subdivision is steeped in law and not just local ordinance. He says that the Board of Appeals is usually not considered an endpoint to a judgment in court, and that in a lot of situations having that intermediary step slows the process down because now you've got the intermediary step and if they don't agree or if they uphold the planning board's decision it's going to court anyways, so if you can just go to the court then you've you've saved time. He's also said that we have to think about whether or not the Board of Appealed appeals members are qualified for it. Oftentimes they have made in other communities, they've made mistakes that actually end up having the community in court anyways because they don't do this every week or every month. Planning boards do. They have a greater depth of training than boards of appeals do. And at the end of the day, the board of appeals is bound by exactly the same criteria as a planning board is. So he strongly urges not to do that. He's looked at our process. He thinks our process is fine. And that oftentimes, you know, local planning boards can be swayed by relationships, whereas a court is completely neutral. So that's what he relayed to me. And as I've told you before, MMA will call. So I've had to take these notes down, but it's attorney Pringle at MMA. May yes [46:37] Speaker F (unidentified): Please, thank you. That's, that's interesting. You know, I guess my main concern though is, do citizens actually have an effective recourse then if they have a legitimate complaint and the developer can proceed with the project? You know, do they have, you know, any type of recourse? And I, you know, when I was putting this together, I thought about the consequences that this could slow down the action, but this is both, I guess, for the developer and let's say citizens that were opposed to a planning board decision for whatever reason. And we already allow this for our zoning ordinance for certain things, yeah. And this would be also for certain things too depending on how the ordinance is crafted, so I just want to make sure that citizens have a recourse on this and it doesn't seem like much of a recourse if the developer can go ahead and proceed with the project while they're waiting to get [47:52] Speaker B (unidentified): a court date. Typically what would happen is they would go to court and get an emergency injunction to stop the development until such time as they could get a court date. Yeah, that does not, those aren't granted very often though. I've seen them granted here for other situations, so [48:16] Mark Cormier: go ahead, please go ahead, please go ahead. Okay, I guess I haven't been as deep into this Summer Street project as you have been. And I guess for me being out in the sticks, if I, don't know, what's the politically correct way to frame this statement or question, or if I'm looking across the street at what my neighbor is doing with his property, what business is it of mine? So then with, unless that neighbor is doing something that goes against something that Miles could be called in for, like we spoke on earlier with the dangerous building, where they could go in and actually put forth action backed by law, what injunction would a court do in this case for residents who have a concern with what might be going on in a subdivision if it's something that Miles could go and shut down because it doesn't meet code? Where's [49:51] Speaker F (unidentified): the, let me give you a couple examples, okay, on Summer Street, you know, right now there's road going to be, is your mic on? Yes it is, okay, I can get closer, okay, right now the proposed multi-purpose driveway that's going to be multi-family driveway that's going to be put in, okay, in order for it to meet grade, it that driveway has to be lowered, that's going to create a four foot drop, okay, 18 inches from an abutting property owners property line, okay, and also only 11 feet from his house. We talked about making people whole. That obviously could affect the property owner's value of that house. So that's one way that it affects it. In the wintertime, the slope of that property can also affect the drainage that goes onto the street. The residents brought up a number of things. Like I said in the document, there was 35 or more residents that felt very strongly that this was affecting their neighborhood. You have, I believe it's four abutters whose properties are going to be affected. So it can affect, you know, you can be, it can be your neighbor, but what they're, what they're doing can, it can really, you know, affect the material value of your property and also the aesthetics of it. Yeah. Yes, it's [51:46] Speaker I (unidentified): nice. Chair, I think what's being asked for is council consideration at a town council meeting of a proposed amendment to section 3.5 of the subdivision ordinance that's in your document. I think if that comes before council and it's adopted, it's clear what council's direction is. If it's vetoed, or I shouldn't say vetoed, if the vote is no, that puts it to rest at this particular point too, right? And at that time we can again entertain the debates that you have brought up relative to the debates that we've heard from MMA and council can make their decision. But what you're asking for is some kind of resolution as to whether council wants to consider an amendment to section 3.5. Let's see it on the next council and put this issue to bed or move it forward and don't continue to debate the issue. That's correct. Thank you very much. [52:39] Matthew LaChance: Anybody else? Well said. You're all good. Item F, court of the, court of the county commissioner's letter advising, start over, what, of the county commission's letter advising the upcoming caucuses to elect municipal officers to the Penobscot County Budget Committee. Information only. Have a comment? I don't know how you counsel discussion. Yeah. [53:20] Mark Cormier: Go ahead, Matt, please. I'll just say I've represented Hamden in the last two years and I will not be available to do it again this year, Mr. [53:36] Speaker I (unidentified): vice chair point of information for paula the caucuses are being discussed at 5 30 p.m this coming wednesday yes yep okay and are we pretty certain of that time given the spirit of america presentation at 11 a.m or 10 30 a.m the penobsco county spirit of america recognition of our hamden residence is as at 10 30 in the morning correct and this is at 5 okay i'm just i just wanted to make sure the time because that's that's an awful long time for our county commissioners to be in session oh i see What you're saying, I was going to say this letter from them, but okay. Well, I'm just, I'm just saying, I right, they'll probably take [54:23] Speaker F (unidentified): a long one. It's longer than our meetings, right? Yeah, they've got a lot of work. [54:30] Speaker I (unidentified): What's, so you were actually looking for an election of one of our members to serve? [54:38] Mark Cormier: I think this was just a point of information, but names of the elected [54:43] Speaker I (unidentified): members will be recorded and approved by the county commissioners next. Yeah, I [54:47] Mark Cormier: think anybody, anyone sitting up here right now that's interested in participating could go. This just seems different than how it's been the last two years. I don't know if this is something different that Blair is doing. [55:03] Speaker B (unidentified): I think so. It is different than the way they normally do it. And unfortunately, it's, I mean, fortunately, I think they're trying to start a little bit earlier. But unfortunately, you know, Matt's going to decline because he didn't run for council again. We won't have a new council impaneled by the time this caucus takes place, so, and you know, it's totally up to the will of any one of you whether or not you wish to serve or wish to have representation from Hamden on the budget committee. So we, there have been years that we didn't have anybody on the Budget Committee, and then there's been several years that we did, so I think [55:45] Speaker I (unidentified): it's, I served prior to Matt and I'd be willing, I'd be willing to serve in that capacity again. There were no objections from council. That would be great. I would not object to that. None [55:59] Speaker H (unidentified): of us heard an objection. [56:10] Matthew LaChance: Okay, time to go home. Meeting adjourned. Thank you for staying with us, Dennis.