Bangor Planning Board approves bank, housing, and zone change

[1:22] Jonathan Boucher: Good evening, and welcome to the applicants, staff, board members, and members of the public. This is the April 21, 2026 meeting of the City of Bangor's Planning Board. It's 7 o'clock. My name is Jonathan Boucher. I'm the chair of the board. Board members are volunteers from the Bangor community. Other board members in attendance this evening are Ted Brush, Greg Hobson, Ken Huynh, Vice Chair Janet Jonas, Ross Whitford. heard. We have Tricia Hayes absent and Justin Cartier is absent as well this evening. City staff members in attendance this evening include Planning Officer Anya Collette, City Solicitor David Szewczyk, and City Engineer Jefferson Davis, and I think Planning Analyst Matthew Altiero is here as well. Yeah. We thank them all for their help in preparation for this meeting. We're going to start this meeting with the old business, which includes the meeting minutes for April 7th, the April 7th, 2026 meeting. Questions, see if there's any modifications or comments on [2:30] Kenneth Huhn: the minute, on the minute. Jonathan, can you pause just one second? Just want to make sure, because we don't have Zoom up here, but also the microphone is not turning green, and I just want to make sure [2:39] Jonathan Boucher: so can you guys hear me? They can, but I want to make sure it's on. Yeah, when it's on it shows red. I just want to make sure it's coming through on Zoom. Now it's off, right? Usually it turns green though. Normally it's green. There seems to be a color issue. We'll have to be aware that for the microphones at the dais. Yeah, podium as well. Change the color to the fusion if you want to. Okay, would you guys try your mics too, just to see what color they come up as? They're all coming [3:10] Edwin Brush: up as red. This is red and it's on, so okay, all [3:15] Jonathan Boucher: right, we'll have to check with the audio people. Right, all right, so let's reconvene. We're talking about the meeting minutes for April 7, 2026. The question is whether there are any modifications or comments. If not, I'd like to see a motion, move to approve, and a second. It's a member Jonas, and so it's like I'll take a roll call vote with member Brush, remember Hobson, yes, remember Hyun, yes, remember Jonas, yes, number Whitford, yes, and the chair votes yes. That brings us to new business and the planning Board has two main roles. First, we review amendments to the 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. Our vote on these items is in the form of a recommendation to the City Council as to whether the item ought to pass or ought not to pass. The City Council makes the final decision on zoning and land development code changes. There is one item on the agenda that is a zone change. So 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 the parking, driveway, stormwater management, lighting, landscaping and buffering, building location, environmental impacts, and Shoreland zoning is may be applicable. We also ensure the plan meets the dimensional requirements for the project Zone 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 have specific conditions and requirements we use to review the project. The 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 two items on the agenda that are land development permits and any further information on city's codes and standards and the comprehensive plan may be found on the city's website. As to how the items are going to be presented and deliberated on for land development permits, we will first consider and vote on the application's readiness for review and any concerns for conflict of interest. For all items, the applicant or their representative should then come forward to the podium and provide a brief introduction to the proposal, and then they should stay at the podium while we consider any questions from the staff and or board members for code amendments. Staff may make the presentation once the item has been presented. In the applicant once the item has been presented, the applicant may be seated and we will allow them allow time for public comments. For public comments, the person should come to the podium, introduce themselves, state if they are a Bangor resident and or and a butter to the property as applicable, and indicate if they are for or against the proposal. It's also helpful if you present your thoughts based upon the city codes and standards and the comprehensive plan as these are the primary documents used by the board to make our decision. All comments and discussions should remain respectful and considerate to others, and once public comments are completed we will close the item to public comment. 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 with the land development permit decision that the board has made, then they may appeal the decision to the superior court of maine. Once a project you are interested in has been reviewed you may leave the meeting, but please be respectfully quiet as not to disturb the review of other agenda items. All right that brings us to our first item in new business which is zone change to amend the land development code by changing a portion of a parcel of land located at 335 main avenue from government and institutional service district g and isd to shopping and personal service district s and ps. Said area of land contains approximately 2.48 acres total and is more particularly indicated on the map attached here too and made part hereof. The applicant is totem 2.0 llc and the owner is university of maine systems. So first item here is to identify if there's any conflicts of interest among the board members to and i have one that i wanted to raise for myself. So we're not quite ready for you yet, we have to just confirm that. So University of Maine system is my current employer, so they are the owner of this parcel. Just wanted to put that out here. Have any discussion from staff about it? Does anyone else have any conflicts of interest they're aware of? Okay so question to staff, how would we like to proceed? We'd like me to present any other details about what I think my conflict could be considered and put it to a vote as to whether or not I should. Yes, Chair, may I have the floor? Yes, please, David Savchek, City [9:04] David Szewczyk: Solicitor. So what you've raised is a potential conflict and the board should discuss and ultimately take a vote on whether the board thinks you have an actual conflict. I think that you should, you know, if you have either a financial interest or a special interest, that would be an actual conflict. A financial interest would be a direct or indirect interest having monetary or pecuniary value. And a special interest would be a direct or indirect interest having value peculiar to you, whether economic or otherwise, which may accrue to you as a result of the approval or disapproval of the matter before the board and which interest is not shared by the general public. So I think if you could just give some details about the potential [10:10] Jonathan Boucher: conflict the board can then discuss and take a vote. So I don't see that I have a particular financial interest in this property discussion. I'm a staff employee at the University. I work at the in their IT department as a project manager over infrastructure projects. I'm not connected to this effort, but it's up to your discretion if you guys have any questions for me or if you see there being a conflict. Can I move that you have no conflict? Member, any discussion before we do that? Okay, yeah, I'd like to move that you have no conflict. So how would we phrase that? You're saying you move that there is no conflict? No conflict exists? Okay, and then we're looking for a second. Okay, and then it would be a roll call vote, but before we do that, do I vote on this? My assumption is no, you should not vote on it. Exactly. All right, so I'll still call the roll call vote. Yeah, it sounds like Member Jonas has a question. [11:21] Edwin Brush: So previously council voted that one of its members had a conflict in a matter are pertaining to a company that his spouse had worked for and they determined that it was a conflict. So I'm wondering if that is similarly enforced here for the planning board again in [11:45] David Szewczyk: That particular item, if the council member or spouse had a conflict, then that then that was a conflict. But that would again be an analysis of whether the person had a financial or special interest in the outcome of the item that's before the board, or in that case the council. In that case, it was decided that the because the spouse had either a special or financial interest, then that person was conflicted out. So it could be different in this case, or it could be the same. It depends on whether there's a financial or special interest that the board decides whether that exists. Any [12:32] Jonathan Boucher: other questions? We had a motion in a second. We'll do a roll call vote. Member Brush, yes. Member Hobson, yes. Remember Hyun, yes. Remember Jonas, yes. Remember Woodford, yes. All right, and point of order. So this was, they were voting yes that there was no conflict. So that's me not having a conflict of interest as deemed by the board. So everybody understood that when they made their vote, when they chose their vote. Okay, all right, well thank you for that. So that brings us back to the matter at hand, the zone change. So we've just determined the question about conflicts of interest. Now we're ready for the applicant to provide their presentation. Thanks for your patience. Thank [13:22] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the board, for allowing us to present our application for the zone change at 355 Main Avenue. And I'd like to correct Mr. Chairman that it is 355 and not 335. Thank you. Totem 2.0 LLC is here tonight as the applicant for the zone change. The owner of the building is the University of Maine Systems. My name is Susan Brooks. I'm a resident of Milford and a partner in Totem 2.0 LLC. The partnership also consists of my brother Andrew Brooks, a resident of Forest City Township, Maine, and our sister Mary Brooks, a resident of Bangor for over 60 years. We were born and raised here in Bangor and attended Bangor schools. We would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the board for your consideration in this matter, with an extra special thank you to the planning board staff, Anya and Matt, to the code enforcement officer, Brenda, and to the other representatives of Bangor's fire, city engineering and water departments for their participation in the pre-application meetings. Our plan is to use the building for an auction house with a small venue, event space, food service, and a marketplace with antique, artisan, and retail booths. The property is currently zoned for industrial and educational use. We are asking for a zone change to SMPS. In alignment with the City of Bangor's comprehensive plan, i.e. Goal 6, the now vacant building at 355 Main Avenue would house a diversified mix of businesses. It will be a place to gather and combine the best of both worlds, days gone by and good things to come, while reminiscing and sharing stories of times past with a few fishing stories in between, maybe a lot of fishing stories. On behalf of myself and my siblings, we thank you very much for this opportunity to present our presentation. Thank you. [15:43] Jonathan Boucher: Any comments from the board? From the, excuse me, any comments from staff? Any questions from the board members? All right. Any discussion or deliberation amongst the board? Oh, excuse me, I'm supposed to, at this point, I'd like to open public comment on this, on this item. Are there any members? Are there any individuals here who would like to come up to the podium to speak to this item? Then seeing no one, then we would look to close the public comment. Just want to check [16:24] Kenneth Huhn: with Matt. Do we have anybody on Zoom? Did [16:35] Jonathan Boucher: Matt indicate too? Thanks, Matt. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Thank you, Matt. So no comment in the room, no comment on Zoom. So at this point, we close public comment, and that brings us back to just board discussion and board questions before we move forward. Any comment, discussion on this item? All right, seeing as there's no, how about this comment? Yes, Brush. I'm in favor of this although [17:11] Speaker F (unidentified): I do see it as spot zoning, but I think looking at the layout of the land that this kind of change is probably fitting for that area, just to note that I do see it as spot solving. [17:26] Edwin Brush: Member Jonas and I would agree with Member Brush. I also have thought long and hard about this particular item because the future land use map for this particular area indicates that it would be medium level residential rather than shopping and personal service, and so I've been thinking long and hard about whether this is actually the best use for this particular property. So I agree with you that it is spot zoning. I also look to the future land use map as a guide that kind of precludes this particular use. Can I respond to that? Please. [18:04] Kenneth Huhn: On the spot zoning issue, I just want to go back to the training at the beginning of the year where kind of touched on spot zoning, and there's a difference between legal and illegal spot zoning. So illegal spot zoning is where, you know, you make a change and it doesn't align with the comprehensive plan, it doesn't have a public benefit, but the courts have determined that it can be legal to spot zone if it does align with the comprehensive plan and it does provide a benefit to the community and not just that one property owner. So that's something that the board needs to decide if it does align with the plan, that's your biggest consideration, and then if it does serve that public benefit, and you know it is of course up to the board to make that determination on the plan, but when we made this recommendation to the applicants, that area and the land use plan does say it can have some commercial and institutional uses that are complementary to residential uses. So we looked at that, and then also I believe the board has made some recent zone changes in the Broadway area to SMPs, and that was also in the neighborhood residential land use area, so we felt that this change would align with that practice. So were [19:20] Jonathan Boucher: there other zone chain, excuse me, were there other zones that you were considering there [19:26] Kenneth Huhn: weren't really, there weren't really any good zones that would allow for everything that they're wanting to do that we felt would also fit in with this land use area, and also kind of be, the other thing we were looking at was there's SMPs nearby on Union Street, and we felt like this kind of was in alignment with that area. So what [19:54] Jonathan Boucher: was your second comment, remember Jonas, that was, that was my only comment, you mentioned the spot zoning and then the second item, the [20:02] Edwin Brush: feature land use for medium residential, and based on what Planning Officer Collette said, I'm satisfied that this is a complementary use for this particular property [20:17] Jonathan Boucher: any other discussion [Speaker G (unidentified): then] we'd be looking for a motion, and a reminder that the motion should be stated as we typically want to say I move that it ought to pass, so that it's more clear when we say yes it ought to pass or no it ought not to pass. So we like to have the emotion to be made in the using the term ought to pass, we have anyone to make a motion, I'm Bertian, yes sure, I recommend that we, I make a motion [20:55] Speaker H (unidentified): That we recommend to the city council ought to pass for a zone change at 355 Main Avenue, map lot R25-001-B, government and institutional service district to shopping and personal [21:08] Jonathan Boucher: service district. Thank you. And is there a second? I'll second. Oh, all right, Member Hobson got it. Remember Hobson's a second. And a roll call vote. Remember Brush? Yes. Burr? Hobson? Yes. Remember Hewn? Yes. For Jonas? Yes. Number Woodford? Yes. The chair votes yes. All right, so at this point this item will go before the city council at their next meeting and be voted on there. Thank you very much. [David Szewczyk: Our] next item is a land development permit application for major final subdivision approval for development of 26 residential rental units, 13 duplex buildings, with associated parking and access and access drive at property located at 2645 Broadway, map lot R11-013, in the rural residence and agricultural district RRNA, and contrast shopping and personal, excuse me, and contract shopping and personal service district SNPS. The applicant owner is Steel Magnolia LLC. Staff has indicated completeness of the application and that it's ready for board review. You fees are documented and paid. Applicant standing is confirmed. Support of any concerns about this issue, otherwise we'd be looking for a motion and a second on its completeness. [22:32] Edwin Brush: Member Jonas? Chair, I move the board finds the application deemed complete today on April 21st, 2026. The applicant paid all applicable fees per exhibit three in our packets. The proposed project is a final major subdivision and the proposed project has been reviewed and approved by the city engineer. Second? Thank [22:55] Jonathan Boucher: you. That's it. All right, thank you. I'd like to do a roll call vote starting with Member Brush. Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Hewn? Yes. Remember Jonas? Yes. Remember Woodford? Yes. And the chair votes yes. Based off that, the applicant is invited to come to the podium and give their presentation on the project. [23:33] Amy Young: Amy Young, Plymouth Engineering, representing Steel Magnolia LLC. You guys reviewed this back in March, didn't really have any questions. I feel like we covered everything with that. We've had a couple of conversations with Miss Colette about few notes here and there. I'm pretty sure she got everything she was looking for. And also, when we submitted the report, we actually were able to acquire the public drinking water preliminary permit, and I just got handed these. The wells have both been drilled and They have enough water to fulfill the needs of the development several times over. So I don't, do you want this Anya, or have you seen this? Take it, I guess you can just pass it around. Do you guys want to look at it? Ted's going to submit those to Scott Whitney of the Maine DHHS for the public drinking water. And so the next step we'll have is to do the testing to meet the standards, but everything is flowing along smoothly for once. So if you have any other questions, thank [24:49] Jonathan Boucher: you are there any questions or comments from staff any questions from the board members great thank you thank you know before i regret not mentioning this until now you probably noticed if you mind coming back up as the applicant we only have six members today we should have put it forward that we had an option not to present at today's meeting and i only caught that this moment so i wanted to put that in front of you i know you've already done your presentation but if you'd like for us not to, if you'd like us to postpone until you have the full board, you have that option. As long as you have a quorum and you're willing to sign it, we have a quorum. It still requires, we would require four votes still out of the seven, but we don't have all seven here, we just have six. So if you're happy for us to proceed, we can. There haven't been any questions at the preliminary or the final, so I'm hoping we can proceed from here. Yeah, we just give that option. Okay, I appreciate it. Any points of clarification there? No, except all right. Well, that now we're really, so we're going to open that up for public comment at this point. Are there any individuals here who would like to speak to this project? If you would please come up to the podium. Anything on Zoom? I'm going to assume no at this point. So with that, we'll close public comment. Is there any discussion among the board members? Any additional comments or questions? So then it, if not, we would like to move on to our, items that we have. So the applicable provisions and findings, which include part one, the product that the project meets the requirements of section 165-128g. Do I have a motion on item one of part one? Member Brush. So chair, I move that the board finds [27:12] Speaker F (unidentified): that based on exhibit 2, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-128g1's requirements by providing a final plat for a major subdivision with the necessary contents. [27:30] Jonathan Boucher: of section 165-128 e4. Thank you. Do we have a second? I'll second. Remember Hobson. And let's do a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Number Hobson? Yes. Number Huynh? Yes. Number Jonas? Yes. Number Whitford? Yes. The chair votes yes. The item two. Oh. [27:54] Speaker H (unidentified): Remember Huynh? Yes. Sure. I move that the board finds that based on exhibits seven and nine, the applicant is satisfied land development code 165-128g3's requirement for the plan to be reviewed by the city engineer for compliance with health sanitation and engineering standards and for receiving written approval from the city engineer. Thank you. Do we have a second? [28:19] Jonathan Boucher: Member Jonas. And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Hune? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. And the chair votes yes. Item number three. Chair member Jonas. Chair. [28:34] Edwin Brush: I move the board finds that based on exhibits two and five, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-128 g4's requirement for meeting the standards for preliminary plat approval and section 165-128 g5's requirement that the plan not be substantively changed from the [28:52] Jonathan Boucher: preliminary subdivision plat. Thank you. In a second. I'll second. Oh, member Hobson. And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Number Hobson? Yes. For Jonas? Yes. Number Woodford? Yes. And the chair votes yes. That brings us down to part five, the decision. Someone like that. Member Hobson. Chair. I move that [29:12] Speaker J (unidentified): the board finds that the project meets the requirements for a final major subdivision and therefore the board grants a land development permit for the proposed project. Thank you. And do [29:21] Jonathan Boucher: we have a second? Member Brush. And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Remember Hobson? Yes. Remember Huynh? Yes. Remember Jonas? Yes. Remember Woodford? Yes. The chair votes yes. So with that in mind, your item is passed. The applicant can reach out to the Code Enforcement Office for more guidance. Any comments from staff? All right. Our next item is the Land Development Permit Application for Major Site Development and Conditional Use for the Demolition of Existing. Make sure I'm reading this right. Yep. Yes, the land development permit application for major site development and conditional use for the demolition of the existing building and construction of a 3647 square foot bank with a remote two-lane drive-through and a roof canopy and 18 parking spaces at a property located at 96 Stage Street, Map Lot 049-022, in Contract, in Contract Downtown Development District DDD and Urban Service District USD zones. The applicant owner is the County Federal Credit Union. Staff have indicated the completeness of this application and it's ready for board review. Fees are documented and paid. The applicant's standing is confirmed. Does the board have any concerns about this item? Any issues? Are there any comp... are there any conflicts? Yes, are there any conflicts of interest on this one? Similarly, I'd like to put it to the applicant that there's six of us, and if you'd like us not to proceed with this applicant application review today, we can postpone it to a future meeting, but otherwise we can proceed. It would still require the same four votes, but there's six of us. Do we have the applicant here to confirm? [31:23] Dave Woodward: Yeah. Can you hear me? [31:26] Jonathan Boucher: Can you hear me? Yes. David Woodward? [31:28] Dave Woodward: Yeah. This is Dave Woodward. Yeah. I don't have a problem. I think we have a very complete application. I believe there's possibly someone from the County FCU or Lamache that may want to concur or not concur, agree with me, but I feel we should proceed. We [31:50] Jonathan Boucher: had agreeance from Mark Trommel. Thank you. All right, sounds good. So at that point then I would like to, and we noted there were no conflicts of interest, we would look to have a motion, a second on the completeness of the application. Remember Brush? Yes, I move that the [32:15] Speaker F (unidentified): board finds the application was deemed complete on April 21st, 2026, the applicant paid all applicable fees per Exhibit Three, and the proposed project is a major site development and conditional use. [32:34] Jonathan Boucher: Thank you. Do we have a second? Okay, Remember Jonas. And then a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Remember Hobson? Yes. Number Hewn? Yes. Number Jonas? Yes. Number Woodford? Yes. The chair votes yes. With that, we would look to have the applicant or the representative either come to the podium or, if they're ready to present on the Zoom, move ahead with your presentation of the project. [32:57] Dave Woodward: I'll take the lead. Can you see my screen that I'm sharing? Yeah, we can see it in the room and in front of us. Yeah, all right. So, well, good evening. I'm Dave Woodward. I work at WBRC. I'm a landscape architect and a planner, and also the agent for this project. Glad to be here, appreciate your time. The site is 0.72 acres, northeast corner of State Street and Broadway northbound. It's owned USD and DDD, with a contract zone condition on the DDD portion. And as you stated, drive-through facilities are a conditional use in both zoning categories. The applicant wants to construct a 3,647 square foot, one-story federal credit union with a 567 square foot remote drive-through that has two lanes. Access to the property will be a right in, right out, left in off of State Street, and a right in, right out off Broadway. The buildings placed at the corner per the contract zone conditions, it's also good urban planning to have buildings pushed up towards the street. I think everybody will appreciate that. All the buildings, the main building and the remote drive-through, meet the required setbacks, and the site plan meets all bulk regulations. There is a pedestrian sidewalk connections both from State Street and from Broadway to the main entrance of the building, and also an employee entrance. There are 18 parking spaces provided, code requires a minimum of 13. 13, so there's adequate parking. Each drive-through lane has five queuing spaces, and a 12-foot wide bypass lane has been provided as well. I would like to note that the applicant is actually going to improve the entire public sidewalk system along State Street and Broadway roadway on their side of the street. If you've been by that site, it's kind of in a rundown condition, a lot of broken sidewalk and asphalt pieces all over the place, so this is going to clean up this whole frontage and re-establish the landscape and verge that used to be there. As far as landscaping projects, well landscaped with the parking lots, landscape the buffers are, and there's foundation plantings, and the other good news is that from the existing uses with used to be a gas station convenience store with a big sea of asphalt and the two-story office building, at the end of the day we have a 26 reduction of impervious area on this site from what the condition has been before. There's, there's no monument sign, the signs on the building, and we have site lighting that we've provided that's, you know, meet, meets city ordinance, and that's about it, if you Have any questions? I'd be more than happy to answer them, and if anybody in my group wants to add anything, they can do that as well. [36:44] Jonathan Boucher: Any comments from city staff? No. Any questions from board members? Are there any recommendations provided about how to avoid traffic that might try to pass through the parking lot to avoid the light? [37:13] Kenneth Huhn: Recommendations from staff? City staff. [37:16] Jonathan Boucher: Staff like traffic calming or anything like that, or I just want to know if there's any suggestions that we've run into when we have these corner lots. [37:28] Speaker G (unidentified): You know, we typically just don't like to see wide open parking lots where it's easy to do that. This site, the way this site is developed, it kind of, you know, goes against that, so it's going to make it harder to get in, get out. So I mean, every corner lot, that's an issue everywhere. There's no stopping if somebody really wants to do it, but we just try to avoid the wide open parking lots where it's easy, you know, across the river, Brewer, the Midas, that's that's like the most no, best known, well, cut through in this area, but it's it's a simple straight shot. You take a right, you're right into the other street. So will it happen? Maybe, but I know I don't see any concern for this in this spot for sure, so that's kind of a long-winded no, it [38:21] Jonathan Boucher: looks like, and I don't know if the applicant would like to comment, it does look like it would be challenging to cut through because of the way that the island bumps out, or I don't know what the proper term is for this, it's a bit of a secure [38:35] Dave Woodward: It's a bit of a circuitous route, and usually those cut-throughs at intersections is when you have curb cuts down near the intersection, and people just kind of cut through, but we have the building down there, so I don't think it's going to be a big cut-through, because it's not an easy route. [38:59] Jonathan Boucher: Thanks. Any other questions from the board members? Thank you. Any other comments from the applicant before we open things for public discussion? Any other comments from you? You all know. Then at this point we would like to open this topic to public comment. Is there anyone in the room who would like to come up to the podium to speak to it? Is there anyone on the Zoom who would like to speak to this project? And if there's no one, we'll look to close the public comment. Any final discussion among the board members before we move to the standards? Any questions about the standards before we proceed? All right, we will start with part one, that the project meets the requirements of articles 2 and 12. I'd like to, is there someone who would read item one of part one? Chair? Yes, remember Hobson, chair. [40:11] Speaker J (unidentified): I move that the board finds that based on exhibits 2 and 12, the applicant satisfied section 165-33.1 of the land development code regarding best management practices of erosion and sediment [40:24] Jonathan Boucher: control. Thank you. In a second, remember Jonas. On a roll call vote, member Brush? Yes. For Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? [40:33] Edwin Brush: Yes. And the Chair votes yes. Item 2? Chair? Member Jonas? Chair, I move the Board finds that based on Exhibit 2, the applicant satisfied Section 165-64's requirement for a side yard width and Section 165-68's requirements of minimum lot frontage. [40:50] Jonathan Boucher: And a second? Second. Member Brush? Sorry. Member Brush? And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. And the Chair votes yes. Item number three. Member Huynh? [41:05] Speaker H (unidentified): Chair, I move that the Board finds that based on Exhibits 2, 26, and 27, the applicant satisfied 165-72 of the Land Development Code regarding the required number of parking spaces, 165-73's requirements regarding parking area location and screening, and 165-74's requirements regarding parking area design construction and maintenance. Thank you. [41:31] Jonathan Boucher: And a second, member Brush. A roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. For Hobson? Yes. Every human? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Whitford? Yes. And the chair votes yes. Item number four, a member Brush. Mr. Chair, I move the board finds that based on [41:51] Speaker F (unidentified): on exhibits 2, 28, and 29, the applicant satisfied section 165-79 of the Land Development Code regarding providing the necessary utility services required, section 165-80's requirements regarding providing adequate water and sewerage services, and section 165-83's requirements [42:16] Jonathan Boucher: requirements regarding providing adequate electrical service. Thank you. Do we have a second? Member Huon. And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. For Hobson? Yes. Remember Huon? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. The chair votes yes. Item number five, chair. Member Hobson? Sure, I move [42:36] Speaker J (unidentified): The board finds that based on exhibits 2, 9, and 26, the applicant satisfied section 165-81 of the land development code regarding providing adequate lighting and preventing light pollution and [42:48] Jonathan Boucher: trespass. Thank you. In a second, member Jonas. And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Remember Hobson? Yes. Member Hewn? Yes. Remember Jonas? Yes. Member Whitford? Yes. Chair votes yes. Item number six and it goes on to the following page. Remember Jonas, chair, I move the board finds that based [43:06] Edwin Brush: on exhibits 2 and 30, the applicant satisfies section 165-82's requirements regarding having [43:12] Jonathan Boucher: having adequate fire protection. Thank you. In a second, member Brush. And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. For Hobson? Yes. For Hune? Yes. For Jonas? Yes. Member Whitford? Yes. The chair votes yes. Item number seven, member Brush. Board finds [43:29] Speaker F (unidentified): that based on exhibits 2, 11, 12, 28, that satisfied section was 84 of the land of Roman code regarding providing adequate storm drainage and storm water offset. Thank you and [43:45] Jonathan Boucher: a second, member Hobson. And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Remember Hobson? Yes. Remember Hewn? Yes. Remember Jonas? Yes. Remember Whitford? Yes. And the chair votes yes. Item number eight, [43:57] Speaker H (unidentified): member Hewn, chair, I move that the board finds it based on exhibits 226 and 28, the F1 satisfied 165 dash 85 and section 165 dash 86 of the land development code regarding providing information on anticipated sanitary flows and compliance of city [44:16] Jonathan Boucher: sewer regulations. Thank you. In a second, all right, remember Woodford. And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Remember Hobson? Yes. Remember Human? Yes. Remember Jonas? Yes. Remember Woodford? Yes. The chair votes yes. That concludes part one. We are moving on to part two, that the project meets the district site development standards under article 19. There is one item here. We have a motion, member Brush. Mr. Chair, I move [44:45] Speaker F (unidentified): the board finds that based on exhibits 2 and 20, the applicant satisfied section 165-135 of the land development code regarding height limits, floor area ratio, impervious surface [45:00] Jonathan Boucher: surface ratio, and buffer yards. Thank you. In a second, I'll second ever Hobson. And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Ever Hobson? Yes. We're Human? Yes. Over Jonas? Yes. Woodford? Yes. The chair votes yes. That completes part two. We're on to part three, that the project meets the requirements of section 165-92 urban service district USD. The first item, member Jonas, chair, I move the [45:25] Edwin Brush: Board finds that based on the findings made in parts one and two of section 4 of this document, the project meets the requirements of Section 165-92 for uses within the Urban Service District or USD. And a second? [45:40] Jonathan Boucher: Second. Member Woodford? And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. And the Chair votes yes. Item number 2? Chair? Member Hobson? [45:55] Speaker J (unidentified): Chair I find the board that the board finds that based on exhibit two the applicant satisfied section 165-92d3 of the land development code requiring adequate queuing space for each service station at the drive-in bank and requiring adequate additional parking for vehicles where service away from drive-up stations is contemplated thank you in a second member brush [46:18] Jonathan Boucher: A roll call vote member brush yes for hobson yes over here yes number jonas yes number woodford yes the chair votes yes that completes part three we're on to part four that the project meets the requirements of section 165-93 contract downtown develop contract downtown development district ddd first item member brush mr chair i move the board finds that based on the findings [46:45] Speaker F (unidentified): Made in parts one and two of section four of this document the project meets the requirements of section 165-93b for use within the downtown development district thank you in a [47:00] Jonathan Boucher: Second I'll second member Hobson and a roll call vote member brush yes member Hobson yes member Jonas yes member Woodford yes chair votes yes item two oh [47:14] Speaker H (unidentified): Member here sure I move that the board finds it based on exhibit two the applicant satisfied 165 -93d three of the land development code requiring adequate queuing space for each service station thank [47:31] Jonathan Boucher: You and a second member brush roll call vote member brush yes number hobson yes member jonas yes member woodford yes the chair votes yes item number three chair member hobson i move that the board finds that [47:47] Speaker J (unidentified): Based on exhibit two the applicant satisfied the contract zoning requirements for the property outlined in council ordinance 16-125 or exhibit 35 in our packets thank you and a second sure [47:59] Jonathan Boucher: Remember jonas and a roll call vote member brush yes burr hobson yes number hyun yes number jonas yes number whitford yes the chair votes yes that completes part five we're on the part excuse me that completes part four we are on the part five that the project meesa requirements of section 165-114 land development approval standards [48:20] Edwin Brush: item one yep chair i move the board finds that based on exhibits 2 26 and 28 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 and section 165-114c's requirement that all proposed access drives are reasonably necessary and safe thank you in a [48:45] Jonathan Boucher: second. Number Hobson. Roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Number Hobson? Yes. Number Jonas? Yes. Number Whitford? Yes. The Chair votes yes. Item number two. Number Brush. Mr. Chair, I move the [48:58] Speaker F (unidentified): board finds that based on exhibits 2 11 and 12 and 28 the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114d's requirement that the proposed development will not have an unreasonable adverse effects on abutting downstream properties or protected resources such as wetlands lakes streams or brooks and that the downstream channels or municipal stormwater collection systems have adequate capacity to carry the flow without significant negative effects thank you in a second [49:38] Jonathan Boucher: I'll second. Hobson. And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Number Hobson? Yes. Number Hewn? Yes. Number Jonas? Yes. Number Whitford? Yes. The Chair votes yes. Item number three. Number Hewn. [49:49] Speaker H (unidentified): The board finds it based on exhibit C19, the applicant satisfied landed on code 165-114 team 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 Brush. [50:10] Jonathan Boucher: And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. For Hewn? Member Jonas? Yes. Number Whitford? Yes. Chair votes yes. Item number four. Chair, member, excuse me, member Hobson. Chair, I [50:23] Speaker J (unidentified): move that the board finds that based on exhibit two, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165 dash 114 F's requirements for landscaping. Thank you. In a second, [50:33] Jonathan Boucher: number Brush. And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Jonas? Yes. Woodford? Yes. Chair votes yes. Item number five. Member Jonas. Chair, [50:44] Edwin Brush: I move the board finds that based on exhibit to the applicant satisfied land development code section 165 dash 114 G's requirements for building location. [50:52] Jonathan Boucher: Thank you. In a second, Member Brush. And a roll call vote. Member Brush. Yes. Member Hobson. Yes. Member Huynh. Yes. Member Jonas. Yes. Member Woodford. Yes. And the Chair votes yes. Item number, excuse me, item number six. We have a motion. Member Brush. [51:12] Speaker F (unidentified): Mr. Chair, I move the Board finds that based on Exhibits 2, 16, 20, and 26, the applicant satisfied Land Development Code Section 165-114H's requirement that the proposed development site does not negatively impact historic sites within 250 feet. [51:35] Jonathan Boucher: And a second? Second. Member Hobson and the roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. member hobson yes number hewn yes over jonas yes but woodford yes chair votes yes that completes part five we are on to part six the project meets the criteria for a conditional use under section 165-9a first item motion member here sure i move that the board finds that based on the findings [52:00] Speaker H (unidentified): made in parts one to five of Section four of the document, the applicant satisfied Land Development Code Section 165-9A1's requirements regarding not requiring a variance of development [52:12] Jonathan Boucher: or other standards thank you in a second I'll second member Hobson and a roll call vote member brush yes number Hobson yes member Jonas yes member Woodford yes chair votes yes item number [52:28] Speaker F (unidentified): two number brush mr chair i move the board finds that based on exhibits 2 17 and 28 the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-982's requirements regarding not creating unreasonable traffic congestion or hazardous conditions on contiguous adjacent streets thank you in a second [52:57] Jonathan Boucher: or adjacent streets contiguous or adjacent yeah thank you and a second member hewn and a roll call vote remember brush yes number hobson yes number hewn yes number jonas yes number whitford yes chair votes yes item number three and it continues on to the next page [53:17] Speaker H (unidentified): remember here chair the board finds that based on the findings of parts one to five of section four of this document the applicant satisfied the land development code 165-9a3's requirements for providing and maintaining adequate and adequate and appropriate utilities fire protection drainage parking and loading and other necessary site improvements [53:41] Jonathan Boucher: thank you in a second hobson and a roll call vote member brush yes super hobson yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. Chair votes yes. Item number four? Chair. Member Rush? [53:57] Speaker F (unidentified): Mr. Chair, I move the Board finds that based on Exhibits 2, 10, and 26, the applicant satisfied Land Aboliment Code Section 1659A4's requirements regarding the proposed uses being appropriate for the location in which it is sought because it conforms to the general physical development pattern of the immediate area. Excuse me, Chair. Yes. [54:25] David Szewczyk: One word, you said Exhibit 26, did you mean to say 20? I did. Thank [54:34] Jonathan Boucher: You for the clarification. So that's exhibits to 10 and 20. So I read it again. Did you did you finish that last sentence? Or you can back up where you. He did finish. Yeah. I think it's clear. I did finish. And we clarified. You're good. So, and a second, please. Second. All right, member Woodford. And a roll call vote. Member Brush. Yes. Member Hobson. Yes. Member Huynh. Yes. Member Jonas. Yes. Member Woodford. Yes. And the chair votes yes. And that concludes item six and brings us to the decision. [55:07] Edwin Brush: Member Jonas. Chair, I move the board finds that the project meets the requirements for a land development permit for a major site development and conditional use and therefore the board grants the land development permit and condition [55:18] Jonathan Boucher: use permit for the proposed project. Thank you. In a second. I can remember Hobson and a roll call vote. Member Brush. Yes. Remember Hobson. Yes. Number Hewn. Yes. For Jonas. Yes. Number Woodford. Yes. And the chair votes yes. So all items passed. The applicant is approved. The application is approved and the applicant can reach out to the code enforcement office for any guidance. Any final comments from city staff on this item? Thank you. Thank you very much everybody. Have a nice evening. Thank you. That brings us to other business. There was an item on the agenda for an update on the council action on recent tax amendments. Yep. I just wanted to provide a quick update that [56:06] Kenneth Huhn: But the round one of the ordinance changes for the state housing laws did pass council, in case you were curious. So that's all. [56:14] Jonathan Boucher: Do you foresee any changes to our function? Are there any updates to our internal? Is there any impact directly to us other than the type of projects that reach us so far based on the amendments that you've? No. [56:33] Kenneth Huhn: No. So currently, the biggest change for the projects that would reach you for this round would be anybody that is adding, say, a third or fourth unit to their building in one of the urban zones would not have to come to you for subdivision approval, but we still haven't changed the ordinance for the transitional and rural zones. Well, actually, never mind. We changed the land development permit requirements, period. So for any zone, if somebody wants to do three or four units, it wouldn't have to come to. So that's really the biggest change there. [57:09] Jonathan Boucher: So no change in the standards or anything like that? I think I have my answer. Yeah, I'm all set. Okay. Okay. All right. Any other questions for Anya? Another item is just a placeholder for thoughts on land development code updates or land use planning. Any discussion or items on that front? Just [57:34] Edwin Brush: a quick follow-up. Staff has received the [57:36] Kenneth Huhn: ordinance rewrites and you are slogging through them, I'm sure, starting to. Things are a little crazy right now, but I'm hoping to really dive into that next week and the following weeks. It's going to take a little while for us to get through, so we're probably not going to see them until June, I would say. Yeah, and I mean, once we give our comments to the consultants, then they have to incorporate it and give us a new draft, so I'm not sure what that timeline is going to look [58:01] Speaker H (unidentified): like at this point. Okay. Yikes. Yep. [58:06] Jonathan Boucher: Any other comments before we adjourn? Any documents we [58:11] Kenneth Huhn: need that need signing? Yes, you'll have to sign the two subdivision plan copies and I think [58:18] Jonathan Boucher: that's actually everything. Yeah, just those. So thank you then. Otherwise, this meeting of the City of Bangor Planning Board is adjourned at 7.57.