Bangor Planning Board approves 30-unit supportive housing, farm stand code changes

[0:00] Dan Diffen: Okay there's [0:20] Jonathan Boucher: a third participant on the Zoom meeting, or is that the administrator that's on you? [0:27] Carollynn Lear: Okay, good. [1:06] Jonathan Boucher: Evening and welcome to the applicant staff board members and members of the public. This the June 16 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 are include Ted Brush, Tricia Hayes, joining remote, Greg Hobson, Ken Huynh, Vice Chair Janet Jonas, and we have Russ Whitford and Justin Cartier who are absent this evening. City staff members in attendance this evening include Planning Officer Anya Collette, joining remote, Director of Economic and Community Development Anne Krieg, Assistant Solicitor Grace Innes, City Engineer Jefferson Davis, Planning Analyst, as well as Planning Analyst Matthew Altiero. We thank them for their help in preparation for this meeting. We're gonna start with old business which includes the meeting minutes from June 2nd 2026. Board members should vote only if they were at the meeting so I would start by asking are there any modifications or comments to the minutes if not I'd like a motion on their passage yeah and a second member hobson with a second and a roll call vote member brush yes number hayes yes remember hobson yes remember hewn yes i remember woodford is absent and the chair votes yes okay moving down to new business 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 not to pass. The city council makes the final decision on zoning and land development code changes. There are two items on the agenda that are code amendments. The board secondly the board serves as a Regulatory authority for land development permits, and 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, as may be applicable. We also ensure the plan meets the dimensional requirements for the project zoning district. We review larger site plans that trigger site location development for the main DEP as well. Under their requirements, some uses are conditional uses that have specific conditions and requirements we use to review project, 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 as to that will go to the registry of deeds if the plan is approved. There's one item on the agenda that is land development permit. Further information on the City's codes and standards and the comprehensive plan may be found at the City's website. So for the land development permit, we'll first consider a vote on the applications readiness for review and any concerns for conflict of interest. And for all items, the applicant or their representative should then come forward to the podium and provide a brief introduction to the proposal. 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, the applicant may be seated and may be seated, and we will allow time for public comment. For public comment, the person should come to the podium, introduce himself, state if they are a Bangor resident and or in a butter to the project, and indicate if therefore against the proposal. It's also helpful if you present your thoughts based upon the city's codes and standards and the comprehensive plan, as these are the primary documents used by the board to make our decision. All comments and discussion should remain Respectful and considerate of others. Once public comment is completed, we will close this item to public comment. The board would then 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 a land development permit decision that the Board has made, then they may appeal the decision to the Superior Court of Maine. And once a project you are interested in 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 is going to be a land development permit application for a major site development conditional use and major SLOTA modification for the construction of a 30-unit permanent supportive housing building with a total floor area of 19,100 square feet at a property located at 205 Corporate Drive, Mappalot, R25-001-A, in the Government and Institutional Service District, GNISD, and the applicant is the Bangor Housing Development Corporation, and the owner is the City of Bangor. Staff have indicated the completeness of this application that it's ready for board review. Fees are documented and paid. The applicant standing is confirmed. Does the board have any concerns about these issues, and are there any conflicts of interest? If not, I'd like to see a motion and we'll get a second to accept the completeness [6:49] Janet Sanborn Jonas: of this application. Member Jonas. Chair, I move the board finds the application was deemed complete on June 16th, 2026. The applicant paid all applicable fees per exhibit 3, and the proposed project is a major site development conditional use and major [7:04] Jonathan Boucher: slow to modification. Thank you. Do we have a second? Member Brush. And a roll call vote. Member Brush, yes. Remember Hayes. Member Hayes, John, you, yes. Remember Hobson, yes. Every Hune, yes. Remember Jonas, yes. And the chair votes yes. All right, the applicant is invited to come to the podium and give a presentation on the project. Green [7:42] Dan Diffen: Is good with the green light, yeah, okay, thank you. My name is Dan Diffen, I'm with CVM HR engineers, representing the owner, Bangor Housing. We have a whole team back here that can chime in if needed for detail on, from an ownership perspective, but I'm happy to walk you through kind of an overview of the project, hopefully not too long, and then happy to answer any questions. As you are aware, this project's yellow and pines, if we can go to the next slide please, this kind of gives you an over, this map was prepared to give you an overview of where this site falls. It's a little bit hard to see, but Main Ave runs to the west and north of the project site, highlighted in yellow, and is abutted to the southwest by Corporate Drive and Texas have to the, to the east. There, next slide please. Existing site is 205 Corporate Drive, it's about a five acre parcel, it's generally undeveloped now except that it is sloping lawn and maintained as lawn with some tree buffer that still exists on a vegetated swale that has some vegetation in it along the south portion of the lot. It does sit within the Birch Stream watershed, which is an urban impaired stream, which added a nice wrinkle to the Slota permit that we had to amend while we were able to tackle that. Next slide please. Project overview, it's a 30 unit, it's a one-story permanently supportive housing development, it is about 19,100 square feet, it will be accessed off a Corporate Drive with a 24 foot wide driveway. We did settle on 11 parking spaces with the 30 units and you need a parking space for six units that was about five and there will be about four permanent staff on site during peak staffing hours so it's around nine spaces but we needed we thought a couple extra might be beneficial for the project we can provide a patio and outdoor space and connection to public utilities next slide switch i'll get into this is a very zoomed in version of the site plan i don't know if we can zoom that out visually oh perfect maybe not that one will serve too, yeah, if you want to stay right there. So as you can see to the left of this, of the plan here, is Corporate Drive, or access, or 24 foot wide access comes in. We do need a nice wide entrance off a Corporate Drive to accommodate the fire truck maneuvers, which I'll show in a minute. That access comes in up behind the building. So the building will face Main Ave and Corporate Drive to some extent. extent, and then the parking will be back behind, and that turnaround there was sized for the fire truck based on the fire department's recommendations, and we will have a nice landscape Island in the middle there that will be vegetated probably with grass or low shrubs to maintain visibility along the front of the building. Sidewalk access along the building adjacent to our parking, we do at the city's request have a sidewalk connection that goes up to the right side of the building there, or the north side, that ties into the new city sidewalk project along Main Ave, which I believe is either under construction or mostly built at this point. Utility connect, I'm sorry, you can see the patio down to the left there, that's just an outdoor gathering space, nothing too formal in that space. To the upper left of the building there is some outdoor equipment, transformer and a generator pad for servicing the building. Those will then tie into, or this transformer will tie into the overhead power on Corporate Drive. Just beside that to the left are the water connections, domestic and sprinkler. We've worked with the Angora Water District to confirm that's the right connection point, and then up to the top right of the building is the sewer connection out into Main Ave, which we adjusted based on some city comments to get deeper and below some of those storm drain improvements that have been made. Dumpster pad does sit to the bottom of the page, kind of in the corner of the parking and the drive there, it's angled for a maneuver in and a backup maneuver out. We did look at that with auto turn, and access is provided even with that dumpster being serviced. I think that covers the majority of the utilities and the site plan improvements that we're proposing. I think we can go down to the next one. Stormwater treatment, as part of the SLOTA amendment and being within the urban impaired stream, we were required to meet the redevelopment standard, which meant we had to capture and treat 60% of the area that we touch basically and convert from something what exists today to a new either land cover or topography. So we did meet that with 60.1%. We did that through some roof trip line filters to capture the roof runoff and a grassed underdrained soil filter which captures the drainage that has been eroded around the building. We then drain to the city system that goes under Main Ave. I'll cover that in a minute. As part of the urban and prairie stream standard for the area that was changed as part of this project we are required to pay an in lieu fee payment so you'll see that in the application materials as part of our comment response. Next slide please. So this is the detailed grading plan here. You can see our site was a bit of a challenge and if you're familiar with the site, it does slope pretty significantly from the tree line down to the down to Main Ave. So we are cutting into the hill a little bit, as you can see, with the grading to the south, creating a three to one vegetated slope there and then we're filling a little bit at the building face on Main Ave. The grade will sit about five feet down along Main Ave from the building finish floor, which is 164. The grade along that front will be 159. And that's where our stormwater treatment is focused. We have our under-drained soil filter there to the top center of the page, which captures runoff and drains around each side of the building. And then we connect into, if you can scroll just down a little bit. Oops, sorry, other way. Right and then that all drains to the connection or the existing culvert under main out that remains after the city project, which is to the upper left of the soil filter. The there were two culverts and existing conditions, but one of them had been abandoned or removed as part of the most recent city project. The vegetated swale out there will be regraded. You can see just to the upper left of the transformer and generator pad we realign that scale that will be allowed to re-vegetate over time. It turns out based on the city review that it's it's going to be a good thing because there's some invasives in there that should be removed and we're going to be able to replace them with a native species. You could pan down. Yeah, perfect. We do have two culvert crossings on the existing access road one at the entrance and then one that conveys the flow and that swell that's a we're putting two 24-inch culverts there that will pass the storm water. So we met all the stormwater requirements. We got a great review from the city and we're able to address those comments and make the grading out there function. Next slide please. Yeah environmental permitting nothing there are no wetland streams or sensitive lands identified. We did have a wetland lineation or investigation done and they didn't find anything. And then we did need to amend the existing slow to permit so that's the real quick overview of the project details. Happy to get into anything in more depth if the board is curious. Thank [15:21] Jonathan Boucher: you. Any staff comments any questions from the board members number brush? Yeah i'm so sorry for my ignorance but would you let what is [15:35] Dan Diffen: supportive housing? So permanently supportive housing is housing that is provided for unhoused individuals with disabilities. Get that right not necessarily no i'm sorry unhoused individuals not necessarily with disabilities. How [15:55] Speaker E (unidentified): did you determine the parking allotment or [15:58] Dan Diffen: the number of parking places? Yeah based on city code which requires one space per six units or six residents, and we have 30 units, which are all one bedroom. And so 30 folks at the facility at any given point, and the one to six ratio would be five parking spaces there. And then the code requires one space for every staff member during peak staffing, which will be about four people. So that five people for the residents and the four people for staff came out to about nine parking spaces. But, and we added a couple of extra to accommodate any visitors or other folks who might come. Other [16:42] Jonathan Boucher: questions remember you? Yeah i [16:44] Speaker E (unidentified): just saw i saw there was a difference between matt and daniel different about whether there should be 11 or 12 spaces maybe one of them has to do with the number of staff or something [16:56] Dan Diffen: yeah i think that was the comment that we addressed. So we did address that comment and i looked and we heard it was okay. So i looked to city staff to tell us [17:06] Speaker E (unidentified): did see that difference yep yeah [17:12] Speaker F (unidentified): i looked at the calculation and their responses and it seemed fine. So thanks [17:21] Jonathan Boucher: anya any other questions from board members? Any comment you'd like to give about the access? Was there a sidewalk access component down to the like leaving the property? Was that something that we needed to hear from you about? Well city staff and [17:39] Dan Diffen: Staff did request a sidewalk connection to Main Ave, which we did accommodate in our comment response off the south or northeast side of the building. I just thought maybe you hadn't mentioned [17:51] Jonathan Boucher: in the in the review, so thank you. Okay, any other questions? That's good for now. We're going to open up, we're going to open a public comment on this and see if there's any discussion we'd like to have. Is there any, anyone from the public to like to come up and speak to this? I don't think there's anyone on the Zoom, so if there's no one in the room, then we'll close public comment and then I'll put it out to the board members. Is there any discussion we'd like to have? I think it looks like a great project. Yeah, I think so too. There is one item, so our next, our next thing is we're going to be, we're going to be going into the standards and we're going to be doing the review of the standards. There was one standard that we're going to be adding for review and to be voted on and it has to do, I'll read it out here and if you guys would like the second to look at the language, but it just came in before the meeting. It has to do with needing to delineate how this project is super, is not in fact a subdivision, and it says what we'll be reading is that the board member, the board finds that pursuant to exhibits two, five and nine, that the use of this property is institutional in nature and so subdivision approval is not required. Before we get into that, 's a new item for everyone here, so I wanted to see if there was any discussion we'd like to have about that. You guys would like to take a look at the text or ask any question to city staff about what that means and just if you need any additional clarification. We were thinking the way that it was presented to me is that this should be under Part 5. It would be under Part 5. It would be the fifth item in Part 5 under the section for conditional use under Section 165-9A. [20:09] Speaker E (unidentified): Is there a particular wording you'd like there? Well, this is the wording. [20:12] Jonathan Boucher: And I was going to ask Vice Chair Janet to read it for us. Someone else would like to, I'm going to open it up for discussion here. You guys want any comment from city staff about it, how it came in? Is everyone comfortable with proceeding with that? Okay, just make sure. All right. So with that in mind, going back to my notes. So now we're ready to move on to the motions and standards, which is going to bring us to, I'm trying to pull up my part one, which I had earlier. Oh, I had it here. It is one second. All right, so now we're going to review the applicable provisions and findings, which starts us with part one. The project meets the requirements of articles 2 and 12. I'd like a motion on item one of part one. For you? Yeah, chair, I move that [21:35] Speaker E (unidentified): the board finds that based on exhibits 2, 11, 16, and 24, the applicant satisfied section 165-33.1 of the land development code regarding best management practices of erosion and sediment [21:49] Jonathan Boucher: control. Thank you. Do we have a second? Member Brush. And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. And the chair votes yes. Item two, Member Brush. The chair, I move that the board finds that based on exhibit two, the [22:13] Speaker E (unidentified): applicant satisfied section 165-62 of the land development code regarding providing adequate visual clearance on corner Lots, section 165-64's requirements for side yard width in [22:31] Jonathan Boucher: section 165-68's requirements for minimum of frontage. Thank you. In a second, Member Jonas. And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. For Hobson? Yes. For Jonas? Yes. And the chair votes yes. Item three, chair, Member Jonas. Chair, I move the board finds that based on exhibit two, [22:54] Janet Sanborn Jonas: the applicant satisfied section 165-72 of the land development code required 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 [23:14] Jonathan Boucher: maintenance. Thank you. And a second? I'll second. Number Hobson. And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Remember Hayes? Yes. Hobson? Yes. Remember? Yes. Remember Jonas? Yes. And the chair votes yes. [23:27] Greg Hobson: Item four, chair, remember Hobson. Chair, I move that the board finds that based on exhibit two, the applicant satisfied section 165-76 of the land development code regarding the required number of loading spaces, section 165-77 requirements regarding loading space size, and section 165-78 general requirements for loading spaces. Thank you. In a second, Member Brush. And a [23:54] Jonathan Boucher: roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. For Hayes? Yes. Remember Hobson? Yes. Number Huon? Yes. Over Jonas? Yes. And the chair votes yes. Item five, remember you? Yeah, sure. I move that the board finds it [24:09] Speaker E (unidentified): based on exhibits 2, 29, 33, and 40, 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 sewage services, and 165-83's requirements regarding [24:31] Jonathan Boucher: Providing adequate electrical service. Thank you. In a second, Member Brush, and a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Chair votes yes. Item six. Member Brush. [24:48] Speaker E (unidentified): Mr. Chair, I move the board finds that based on Exhibits 2 and 17, the applicant satisfied Section 165-81 of the Land Development Code regarding providing adequate lighting and preventing light pollution and trespass. [25:05] Jonathan Boucher: Thank you, and a second, remember Jonas, and a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Remember Hayes? Yes. Robson? Yes. Remember Jonas? Yes. And the chair votes yes. Item 7. Yes, Member Jonas. Chairman of the board finds that based [25:26] Janet Sanborn Jonas: on exhibits 2 and 37, the applicant satisfied section 165 dash 82 s requirements regarding having adequate fire protection. Thank you. In a second, I [25:35] Jonathan Boucher: member Hobson, and a roll call vote. Remember Brush? Yes. Number Hayes? Yes. Number Hobson? Yes. Number Hugh? Yes. For Jonas? Yes. Chair votes yes. Item number eight. Chair, I'm ever Hobson, [25:48] Greg Hobson: sure I move that the board finds that based on exhibits 2, 19-21, 24, 32, 39 and 40, the applicant satisfied section 165-84 of the land development code regarding providing adequate storm drainage [26:02] Jonathan Boucher: and stormwater offset. Thank you. In a second, remember Hyun. Roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Number Hobson? Yes. Remember Hyun? Yes. Remember Jonas? Yes. And the chair votes yes. Item number nine. Member Brush. Mr. Chair, I move the board finds that based on exhibits [26:21] Speaker E (unidentified): if it's 22 and 33, the applicant satisfied section 165-85, section 165-86 of the land development code regarding providing information on sanitary flows and compliance with sewer regulations. Thank you [26:41] Jonathan Boucher: in a second. I'll second, remember Hobson, and a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Remember Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. The Chair votes yes. That concludes Part 1. We are on to Part 2, that the project meets the district site development standards under Article 19. There's one item. Can I get a motion for Item 1? Member Huynh? [27:03] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, Chair, I move that the Board finds that based on Exhibits 2 and 36, the applicant satisfied Section 165-135 of the Land Development Code regarding height limit, floor area, [27:16] Jonathan Boucher: area ratio impervious service ratio in buffer yards. Thank you. In a second, member Jonas. And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Number Hayes? Yes. Number Hobson? Yes. Number? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Chair votes yes. Excuse me, that concludes part two. We're on to part three, that the project meets the requirements of section 165-97 government and institutional service district G and ISD. There's one item, member Jonas, with the motion. Chair, I move the board finds that based on the findings made [27:51] Janet Sanborn Jonas: in parts one and two of this document the project meets the requirements of section 165-97b for uses within the government and institutional service district or gnisd thank you remember brush with [28:03] Jonathan Boucher: a second. Okay, and roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Number Hayes? Yes. Number Hobson? Yes. Number Hewn? Yes. Number Jonas? Yes. Chair votes yes. That concludes part three and brings us on to part four, that the project meets the requirements of section 165-114 land development approval standards. Member Brush? Mr. Chair, I move the board finds that based on exhibits 2, 35, and 40, the [28:31] Speaker E (unidentified): applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114b's requirement that the project, that the proposed parking and loading layout are arranged in a reasonable and safe configuration, including the provision for safe pedestrian travel to all on-site uses, and section 165-114c's requirement [28:56] Jonathan Boucher: that all proposed access drives are reasonably necessary and safe. Thank you. In a second, member. You're gonna roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. And the chair votes yes. Item number two, chair, member Hobson. Chair, [29:16] Greg Hobson: I move the board finds that based on exhibits 2, 15, 21, 24, 25, 27, 32, and 40, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114 D's requirements that the proposed development will not have unreasonable adverse effects on abutting or downstream properties or protected resources such as wetlands, lakes, streams, or brooks, and that all downstream channels or municipal stormwater collection systems have adequate capacity to carry the flow without significant negative effects. Thank you. In a second, Member Jonas and a roll call vote. [29:52] Jonathan Boucher: Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Hewn? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. And the chair votes yes. Item number three, chair, number Jonas. Chair, I move the board finds that [30:04] Janet Sanborn Jonas: based on exhibits 2 and 17 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 hobson and a roll [30:21] Jonathan Boucher: call vote member brush yes number hayes yes member hobson yes for jonas yes chair votes yes item number four member brush mr chair i move the board finds it based on exhibits 2 and 35 the [30:37] Speaker E (unidentified): applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114 f's requirements for landscaping thank you [30:45] Jonathan Boucher: you in a second and roll call vote member brush yes member hayes yes number hobson yes number hewn yes number jonas yes chair votes yes item number five sure remember hobson chair i move [31:00] Greg Hobson: that the board finds it based on exhibit two the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114g requiring buildings to be situated to avoid unreasonable adverse effect on adjacent properties or public right-of-way thank you in a second member Jonas roll call vote member [31:17] Jonathan Boucher: brush yes member Hayes yes member Hobson yes member Huynh yes member Jonas yes the chair votes yes last item in this section number six is member Jonas chair I move the board finds that based [31:33] Janet Sanborn Jonas: on exhibits two six through 27 29 33 35 and 40 the applicant is in compliance with 38 MRSA section 484, and applicable Department of Environmental Protection regulations, which includes Chapters 371 through 373, 375 through 377, and 500 through 502. And a second? Second. Member Hobson. [31:58] Jonathan Boucher: And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Hewn? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. And the Chair votes yes. That concludes Part 4. we're on to part 5 that the project meets the criteria that the project meets the criteria for a conditional use under section 165 dash 9a can I get a motion on the first item member brush here I move the board finds that based [32:26] Speaker E (unidentified): on the findings made in parts 1 through 4 of section 4 of this document they have been satisfied land development code section 165-9a1 requirements regarding not requiring a [32:41] Jonathan Boucher: variance of development or other standards thank you and a second remember him a roll call vote member brush yes remember hayes yes member hobson yes number hewn yes number jonas yes chair votes [32:55] Greg Hobson: Yes, item two. Chair? Remember Hobson? Sure. I move the board finds that based on exhibits two and five, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-9a 2s requirements regarding not creating unreasonable traffic congestion or hazardous conditions or on contiguous or [33:13] Jonathan Boucher: adjacent streets thank you in a second member hewn and a roll call vote member brush yes member hayes yes member hobson yes member hewn yes remember jonas yes the chair votes yes us item three [33:28] Speaker E (unidentified): Members? Yeah. Chair, I moved that the board finds it based on the findings made in parts one to four of section four of this document, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-983's requirements for providing and maintaining adequate and appropriate utilities, fire protection, drainage, parking and loading, and other necessary site improvements. Thank you. In a [33:57] Jonathan Boucher: second yes member brush and a roll call vote member brush yes member hayes yes member hobson yes member hewn yes member jonas yes and the chair votes yes item four member brush mr [34:15] Speaker E (unidentified): Chair, I move the board finds that based on exhibits two, five, and nine, the applicant satisfied certified land development code section 165-984's requirements regarding the proposed use being appropriate for the location in which it is sought, because it conforms to the general physical development pattern of the immediate area. [34:38] Jonathan Boucher: And a second? Member Jonas, and a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Chair votes yes. So this brings us to item 5 of part 5, which is the one that I mentioned at the beginning. Everything or the decision or no? Well no, it well that's bad. We have to amend this with an additional item. He's got that and I wanted to see before she goes forward if there's any questions about it. Again, this is about the subdivision versus institutional. Yeah, pretty clear. Okay, we're all happy with that. Go ahead. Yeah, so member Jonas with item five. [35:22] Janet Sanborn Jonas: Chair, I move the board finds that pursuant to exhibits two, five, and nine, the use of this property is an institutional in nature. So subdivision approval is not required. [35:32] Jonathan Boucher: All right, and a second. Member Huynh, and a roll call. Oh, excuse me, member Brush, it was, with a second. Roll call vote, member Brush. Yes. Member Hayes. Yes. Member Hobson. Yes. Member Huynh. Yes. Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Chair votes yes. Member Hayes, since you haven't been able to read off anything, would you like to read the decision for us? Do you have it there handy? I'm muted. The decision. Oh, you are? I'm mute. Sorry, Tricia. [36:04] Edwin Brush: That's okay. Took me a second to find it. I move the board finds that the project meets the requirements for a land development permit for a major site development conditional use and a make in major slow-to-modification and therefore the board grants the land development permit for the proposed project thank you in a second [36:27] Jonathan Boucher: remember you and a roll call vote number brush yes remember Hayes yes member Hobson yes number Hune yes number Jonas yes and the chair votes yes so since all items passed and the decision has been read the application is approved and the applicant can reach out to the code enforcement for any more guidance i had any questions from any comments from the city staff all right no thank you we're going to move on to our code amendment items that are coming next our first one is to amend the land development code section 165-30 to add a new accessory use for farm stands and to exempt agricultural and outdoor recreational uses from paving requirements will that be planning officer Colette or will it be you'll be presenting all right thank you yeah I can go over that I know you know we [37:41] Speaker F (unidentified): all reviewed this not too long ago so it's not really anything new but just for the public like anybody watching this would basically allow small very small farm stands less than 200 square feet in the rrna neighborhood service district and urban service district and would exempt those from land development permitting and it would also exempt agriculture and outdoor recreational uses from having to pave their parking areas or things like that and just some follow-up items after we did discuss, you know, the intersection of this with food sovereignty laws and things like that with legal public health and code. And we did determine that it would probably be best to leave in the ability to sell animal products and value added products, but that we just, you know, added in the provision that any applicant would still have to meet city food sovereignty Ordinances, zoning restrictions on animal agriculture, and any state laws on licensing for certain agricultural products just to be safe. So happy to answer any questions. Thank [39:00] Jonathan Boucher: you, planning officer. Collette. Any questions from the board member brush? [39:03] Speaker E (unidentified): How do you determine the size of a farm stand? And does it include the parking? And it seems like 200 square feet is quite small, that would just [39:20] Speaker F (unidentified): be for the structure or table itself where you would sell things, it wouldn't include the parking [39:25] Jonathan Boucher: or anything like that. Thank you. Yeah, any other questions? Thank you. Then with that behind us, would go on to opening up public comment. Is there anyone here would like to come up to the podium and speak to the farm center? Please just a reminder to make sure it's green, introduce yourself, say whether or not you're a resident of Angor and so on. [39:55] Janet Sanborn Jonas: So I'm Lisa Clark, my husband is John Clark, and we've been at this since 2020. I started with Ann Craig and then covet hit, and so we live at 670 Ohio. The property has four acres. Two years ago, the Planning Board and the City Council approved to change it from low density residential to the other one, the one that allowed allows me to sell flowers because we planted hundreds and hundreds of types of flowers and some annuals. So what it comes down to is as I waited my way through and with Anya's patients trying to guide me as a person who didn't employ maybe a attorney or somebody that would help me understand all of these rules, it comes down to simply I have to if I my farm stand would be 10 feet by 12, that'd be 120 feet. I do have an accessory road that people would pull off. I did have a woman come from a firm over in Brewer to help me understand and guide, and that got very confusing with her well-intended suggestion. So what it comes down to is you do have parking, the paid parking, simply this. This. If I have paid parking, I have to have wheelchair space. If I wheelchair space that has certain diameters to it, square footage backing up. And then if then that means if I have, that would be my only parking space if I was to pay, then that means it's only that space. So then if I add a space, and then before we had these nice petroleum issues, the cost was going to run about seven thousand dollars to pave, okay, and that just is not within the nice scope of where my intention is to do to sell flowers seasonally. So it'd be, you know, it comes down to and then what the next thing is, if I added any more parking, of which I said I, you know, connected with Dania and said if I add more parking I just put gravel down, and the rules say that I can't do that either. I have to pay any more parking. So my well intention to provide, you know, local growing flowers is gonna put me in the hole quite a ways. I don't know if I'll ever, I'd ever get out of it. So at this point I just think that it's really great that this is under consideration. My biggest concern too is that I also when I came in to apply for my sign, which was a $60 fee, which, you know, it's okay. I understand after $2,250 for a zone change. And then what comes before that I missed was a site plan for 503 dollars to show where people are going to pull in and park. So we've got the site plan in between all of this too, and at this point if I could just get out of doing the paid parking I'll just pay the 500 bucks so that I can sell flowers for the next however many years I'm capable of selling them. So I just thank you all for your time. I hope I didn't bore you and have a nice evening [43:49] Jonathan Boucher: I'd like to turn to Planning Officer Colette just to, you know, ask her to talk about how this, change would relate to the specific instance [44:00] Speaker F (unidentified): Yeah, so if these changes were to pass she would not need site plan review because it would be exempt from land development permitting. So the only thing that it would need would be a building permit for a structure essentially, and she wouldn't need to pay the parking. Yeah. [44:21] Jonathan Boucher: Your audio is a little bit shaky, Anya, so it sounds like you're saying would not need to pay for the [44:27] Speaker F (unidentified): parking piece of it. Yeah, and she wouldn't need the site plan review because it would be exempt [44:33] Jonathan Boucher: from land development permitting. So just the building permit is what you're saying. Yeah, she [44:38] Speaker F (unidentified): would just need a building permit is [44:43] Jonathan Boucher: that clear? Does that sound like good news to you? [44:47] Janet Sanborn Jonas: It does sound like good news, but the building's already been there, it's a gazebo, if it was [44:52] Jonathan Boucher: imagined, if it was a new, I think I was that Anya, would you like to clarify? I'm sorry if I'm running [44:57] Speaker F (unidentified): The water, no, she should talk to code enforcement because I, that's more of a code enforcement question on plannings and if she wouldn't need the site plan review essentially. So did [45:11] Jonathan Boucher: you get that? Are you hearing her well? Are you hearing her well? I'm hearing her better. I do have a slight hearing problem. It sounds like you're in favor of this amendment to the land development code if I'm understanding you right. All right, but thank you Anya for your clarification. Any other public comment? Then we will close the public comment. I'm gonna open it back up for any board discussion before we move on to the motion on the proposal. Anything before we click? Okay, then I'd like to hear a motion and a reminder that it should be phrased as a recommendation to the City Council as ought to pass and then we vote yes or no on ought to pass wording. Remember Brush, do you have your hand up? Yes, yep, sure. I move that the board finds that the City Council ought to pass [46:13] Speaker E (unidentified): the amendment of the land development code section 165-30 to add a new accessory use of for farm stands and to exempt agriculture and outdoor recreational uses from paying [46:29] Jonathan Boucher: from paving requirements. Thank you, and a second, member Hobson, and I'll roll call vote. Member Brush, yes. Member Hayes, yes. Robson, yes. Member Hewn, yes. Rejonis, yes. And the chair votes yes. So this will go in front of the city council in their next meeting to be reviewed by the city council, but that was our review of that item. The next amendment is the amendment of the land development code section 165-26 to add a new seasonal storage use and to add flexibility for temporary storage uses. Is that planning officer Colette as well? Yeah, so this [47:14] Speaker F (unidentified): one would do a few different things. So first it would add a new seasonal storage use. Currently we just have temporary storage that's limited to being placed on a lot for two years, up to two years, and so this would let storage be there year after year, but it would be limited to 180 80 days on that lot. It would also make the approval process for either temporary or seasonal storage just to require a certificate of occupancy rather than going to board of appeals, and then it would remove some of The redundant or subjective requirements in there, like aesthetic impacts and things like that, we did talk with code enforcement about whether it was necessary to add a requirement that these not be used for residential, and they said that would pretty much already be prevented by the building code, and so it wasn't really necessary to add that into the wind development code, but I'm happy to answer any questions about that too. [48:16] Jonathan Boucher: Thank you. Any questions from board members? And I'd like to ask if there's any public comment on this. Looks like there is no public comment. Any final discussion before we go on to the motion? Do we have anyone who would like to present the motion? Remember, [48:46] Speaker E (unidentified): remember here, yeah. Cherry move that we recommend the City Council they ought to pass amending the land development code 165 dash 26 to add us new seasonal storage use and to add flexibility for temporary storage uses. Thank you. In a [49:05] Jonathan Boucher: second, remember Jonas and a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. And the chair votes yes. Okay. Those are our two amendment items. And so that brings us down to other business, which includes a workshop on proposed changes to manufactured home ordinance. [49:32] Speaker F (unidentified): And I'll present that one as well. It's a pretty simple change. It would just basically, right now currently we have an alternative set of development requirements that's a lot more flexible, and that applies to any mobile home park built before 1971. The ordinance has always had that date in there, and although we've made things more flexible over the years, we didn't really touch that, but some issues have come up with mobile home parks developed in the decades after 1971 but are still to us right now existing home parks, and they really could use these more flexible requirements to place homes on some of their vacant lots. And so what we're proposing is to have any park existing as of 2026, be able to use those requirements. That [50:26] Jonathan Boucher: make sense? Any questions from the board? Member Jonas. [50:34] Janet Sanborn Jonas: I just have a quick clarification question. Is the date that we're using June 1st of 2026 or January 1st of 2026? Because the ordinance says January, [50:44] Speaker F (unidentified): January but the memo says June. Functionally it wouldn't really matter because we haven't had any. Yeah, I think I may have just accidentally not changed that. Yeah, I mean it doesn't matter which one it is, we could stick with January one since that one is already in the in the proposed [51:07] Janet Sanborn Jonas: Those amendments that I have, I support that. Any [51:15] Jonathan Boucher: other questions from board members? All right, so we'll see that in a future meeting. Yes, it would go to first reading on the 22nd and then [51:32] Speaker F (unidentified): come to you on July 7th. So all [51:38] Jonathan Boucher: right, any other discussion? Is so there's a line here about thoughts on land development code update, land use planning. Is there anything to bring up there? [51:50] Speaker F (unidentified): I'm still working through a lot of that. We had a meeting with our consultants last week to talk through some questions and we have, I have a bunch of questions I've been bringing to other staff and I'll be doing that over the next two weeks. I am striving to get through my initial round of review by the end of next week. And then after we're done with that, we're going to go through with the consultants, you know, through each comment that we have. So it's going to be a pretty, heavy review process. So [52:30] Carollynn Lear: any questions? No, I just wanted one to add one thing before you and the meeting. I'm going to put Kaylee on the spot. Kaylee is here. She's your, our new development assistant. So the person that's helping us assemble your packets and doing the background work for a lot of the planning board is here this evening to say hi and so you can have a face to [52:59] Jonathan Boucher: the name. Welcome to Kaylee. Welcome. Thank you. Are there any documents out that need to be signed here this evening before we take off? No other updates? No? All right, that will conclude our meeting. It's 7.50.