Bangor Planning Board approves parking expansion at 570 Stillwater Ave

[1:26] Speaker A (unidentified): Okay, does that work? Testing. [1:30] Speaker B (unidentified): We can hear you now, okay. [1:35] Speaker A (unidentified): Jordan says that he can't hear us. No, I can, I can hear now. Great, all right. Well, I think since audio is working, I think we can just go ahead and start the meeting in that case. Good. [1:59] Jonathan Boucher: evening and welcome to the applicant staff board members and members of the public this is the march 3rd 2026 meeting of the city of bangor planning board The time is 7 0 6. My name is Jonathan Boucher. I'm chair of the board this evening. We are going to be moving forward with without the video we have or having had some technical difficulties. We're going to be conducting the meeting on audio board members are volunteers from the Bangor community. Other board members in attendance this evening are Ted Brush, Trisha Hayes, Greg Hobson, Ken Huynh. Vice Chair Janet Jonas, Ross Whitford, and alternate member Justin Cartier, who is going to be a non-voting member in tonight's meeting. City staff members in attendance this evening include Planning Officer Anya Collette, Assistant Solicitor Grace Ennis, City Engineer Jefferson Davis, and Planning Analyst Matthew Altiero. We thank them all for their help in preparation for this meeting. Meeting this evening, we're going to start off with our old business, which includes the meeting minutes from February 17, and that's the full group here are eligible to vote on this one, so I'd look to see if there's any modifications or comments on the minutes from the February 17th. Not, I'd request move to approve. Okay, I hear member Hyun made a motion to approve. Do we have a second? I'll second. We have a second from member Hobson. We'll do a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Number Hewn? Yes. Number Jonas? Yes. Number Woodford? Yes. And the chair votes yes. Point of order here, does it look like the video has been restored? All right, so back to business as regular, moving forward to our new business for this evening. First, to introduce 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 the text within the code. Our review of these amendments includes Adherence to the comprehensive plan as well as considering any applicable concerns in 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 zone change item on the agenda for tonight. And secondly, the board serves as a regulatory authority for land development permits commonly known as site plan review. Site plans are reviewed to ensure compliance with the city's code as the parking, driveways, stormwater management, lighting, landscaping and buffering, as well as 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 the project. State statute also outlines the requirements for subdivision review and the city has additional standards as to roadway and utility specifications. The Board ultimately endorses a plan that will go to the Registry of Deeds if the plan is approved. There is one land development permit request on the agenda for tonight. Further information on the City's codes and standards and the comprehensive plan may be found at the City's website. For item presentation, public comment and deliberation for the land permit developments, we will first consider and vote on the applicant'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 or zoom 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 from board members. For code amendments the staff may make the presentation. Once the item has been presented the applicant may be seated and we will allow time for public comment. For public comments the person should come to the podium introduce themselves state if they are a Bangor resident and or an abutter 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 consider to others. Once public comments are completed, we will close that item to public comment. The board will then deliberate on the proposal using applicable standards and 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 to 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 so as not to disturb the review of other agenda items. So for our new business, we have, first we're going to start with the zone change, which is to amend the land development code by changing a parcel of land located at 26 Walter Street, Map Lot 025-143 from Urban Service District, USD to Urban Residence 2, District URD 2. to. Said area of land contains approximately 0.11 acres total and is more particularly indicated by the map attached here to and made part hereof. The applicant is NAHA LLC. We have the applicant on Zoom. If they are not here, would we like to table this and move on to then, would we like to make a motion to table this and move on to the second item on today's agenda well on the new business yeah sure move the table all right we have a motion to table is that to just table in case they come back and we can revisit it okay do we have [8:11] Speaker A (unidentified): a second you will need to move that to a date certain so next meeting for example would you [8:16] Jonathan Boucher: prefer to do it to the next meeting or we could do it later this meeting if say they attend if [8:20] Speaker A (unidentified): they join late i mean i guess it's up to you i don't know that it'll be a super long meeting but i mean you can if you'd rather otherwise i would suggest just mark the march 17th meeting so well [8:34] Jonathan Boucher: i think it's our prerogative we can take we can we can take these out of order can't we yeah so maybe we just not review this one and give the applicant a chance to if they join the meeting late i'll withdraw my motion is that fine we're good to move on okay so if they join we'll come back to that one. But if we don't have their attendance here this evening, we'll just table it to our next meeting. Let's see. Our second item is for the land development permit application land development. So this is for a major site development for proposed demolition of the front of the building and expansion of a parking lot located to 570 Stillwater Ave Avenue map lot R 62-001 in the shopping and personal service district SMPS. The applicant owner is the Bangor Retail Management LLC. And do we have the applicant on Zoom? [9:35] Giovanni Caesar: Yes, good evening, Joe. Giovanni Caesar? Yes, I'm with Stonefield Engineering Design, a civil engineer for the application. With me tonight is Jordan Chapman from the ownership group. [9:50] Jonathan Boucher: Before we get started, we have to first do the... We have to review and approve the completeness of the application. So we'll just do that now, and then we'll we'll turn to you for the presentation sounds good so staff has indicated the completeness of this application and that it's ready for board review fees are documented and paid the applicant's standing is confirmed does the board have any concerns about these issues or are there any conflicts of interest if not I'd look for a motion and a second to [10:22] Janet Sanborn Jonas: accept completeness remember Jonas chair I move the board finds the application was deemed complete on March 3rd 2026 the applicant paid all applicable fees per exhibit 3 in our packet and the proposed project is a major site development thank you do we have a second okay [10:38] Jonathan Boucher: oh remember member Brush I saw your hand you second can I get a roll call vote member Brush yes number Hayes yes number Hobson yes remember Hewn remember Jonas yes for Woodford yes and the chair votes yes so thank you I think we're ready for you to give your presentation [11:00] Giovanni Caesar: thank you so I'll start from the top my name is Giovanni Caesar with Stonefield Engineering here with me tonight is Jordan Chapman with the ownership group and we're here tonight to speak to the proposed improvements located at 570 Stillwater Avenue as previously mentioned the application proposes to raise a portion of the existing building which is historically operated rated as a Bangor braces commercial development and introduce additional parking as well as landscaping improvements throughout the site. If I can share screen briefly just to pull the site plan up. Under existing conditions, the vacant building fronting Stillwater Ave here will be removed with additional parking improvements throughout the site provided. We've worked diligently over the last several months with anya staff as well as the respective departments throughout the city to assure that the improvements are up to the land development standards as outlined in the zoning ordinance. As part of this application, we do propose the introduction of a bioretention area located just beyond this end cap right here to adhere to the water quality and stormwater requirements per local and state standards, and we're actively kind of coordinating with Maine DEP. We had a meeting with them a few weeks ago to discuss the scope of improvements, and they confirmed with us last week that we only need to go for a modification to the existing stormwater permit. So we will be preparing that package and submitting that, assuming that no significant changes arise from this meeting. So really want to keep it brief and provide the board an opportunity to speak to the application and get their thoughts. [13:12] Jonathan Boucher: Well, look for any staff comments. [13:15] Speaker A (unidentified): The only one is what I wrote in your memo, that we request you condition approval on them getting an approved Maine DEP stormwater permit amendment. [13:24] Jonathan Boucher: And that's read off in the decision? Yes. Any other board member questions for the applicant or for the staff? Looking, looks like none. Okay. At this point, we're going to open it up for public comment. So looking for any public comment on this project. I'm looking at an empty room, but do we have any, anyone know? So at this point we'll close public comment before going to the motions or standards. As the board member, to board members, have any issues or questions they'd like to bring up before we move forward to the boats? Then we look for page three of six on that, on the form that we have for part one. We're looking to see if the project meets the requirements of articles 2 and 12. We're looking for a motion on item 1 of part 1. [14:36] Speaker F (unidentified): Remember, yes, chair. I moved that the board finds that based on exhibit 2, the applicant satisfied 165-33.1 of the land development code regarding the best management practices of erosion and sediment control. Thank you. Do I have [14:53] Jonathan Boucher: a second? Hobson. I'll second. Thank you. A roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Number Hayes? Yes. Number Hobson? Yes. Number Huynh? Yes. Number Jonas? Yes. Number Whitford? Yes. The chair votes yes. Look for a motion [15:06] Greg Hobson: On item two, number Hobson, Chair, I move that the board finds that based on exhibit two, the applicant satisfied section 165-68 of the land development code regarding minimum lot frontage. Thank you. Do [15:18] Jonathan Boucher: we have a second? Remember here, roll call vote. Remember Brush? Yes. Remember Hayes? Yes. Number Hobson? Yes. Number Yoon? Yes. For Jonas? Yes. Number Woodford? Yes. And the chair votes yes. Looking for a motion, item three. Remember [15:35] Janet Sanborn Jonas: Jonas, Chair, I move the board finds that based on exhibit two, the applicant satisfied section 165-72 of the land development code regarding the required number of parking spaces, section 165-73's requirements regarding parking area location and screening, and section 165-74's requirements regarding parking area design, [15:57] Jonathan Boucher: construction, and maintenance. Thank you. Do we have a second? Member Hayes. Then for a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Remember Hayes? Yes. Remember Hobson? Yes. Remember Huon? Yes. Remember Jonas? Yes. Member Whitford? Yes. The chair votes yes. Motion on item four. Member Hugh? Sure. I move that the [16:20] Speaker F (unidentified): board finds it based on exhibits 2, 22, 23, and 27, the applicant satisfied 165-79 of the land development code regarding providing the necessary utility services required, 165-80's requirements REGARDING PROVIDING ADEQUATE WATER AND SEWER SERVICES, AND 165-83'S REQUIREMENT [16:42] Jonathan Boucher: REGARDING PROVIDING ADEQUATE ELECTRICAL SERVICE. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? MEMBER, UH, MEMBER, OH JEEZ, MEMBER BRUSH. LOOKING AT A BUNCH OF NAMES. ALL RIGHT, ROLL CALL VOTE. MEMBER BRUSH? YES. MEMBER HAYES? YES. MEMBER HOBSON? YES. MEMBER HUEN? YES. MEMBER JONAS? YES. MEMBER WOODFORD? yes. Chair votes yes. On to number five. [17:07] Edwin Brush: Member Brush? Mr. Chair, I move the board finds that based on exhibit 2, the applicant satisfied section 165-81 of the land development code regarding providing adequate lighting and preventing pollution and trespass. Thank you. Do we have [17:27] Jonathan Boucher: a second? Member Hobson. And a roll call vote. Member Brush? yes. Member Hayes? yes. Member Hobson? yes. For Yun? yes. Remember Jonas? yes. Number Woodford? yes. The chair votes yes. Item six. [17:39] Patricia Hayes: Remember Hayes? I move the board finds that based on exhibits 2 and 22, the applicant satisfied section 165-82's requirements regarding having adequate fire protection. Thank you. And a second, [17:55] Jonathan Boucher: remember Jonas. And a roll call vote. Remember Brush? yes. Remember Hayes? yes. Member Hobson? yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. And the Chair votes yes. Item number seven. Member Brush? [18:11] Edwin Brush: Mr. Chair, I move the Board finds that based on Exhibits 2, 4, 7, 9 through 13, 23, and 26, the applicant satisfied Section 165-84 of the Land Development Code regarding adequate storm drainage and stormwater offset. Thank you. In a second. [18:32] Jonathan Boucher: Member Hayes and a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. And please? Yes. Perhaps? And yes. Remember he? Yes. For Jonas? Yes. Remember Whitford? Yes. The chair votes yes. That concludes part one, that the project meets the requirements of articles 2 and 12. We're moving on to part 2, that the project needs district site development standards under article 19. The sole item on this. Member. [18:58] Janet Sanborn Jonas: Jones? Chair, I move the board finds that based on exhibit 2, the applicant satisfied section 165-135 of the land development code regarding impervious surface ratio and buffer yards. Thank you. Do we. [19:10] Jonathan Boucher: Have a second? Remember here in a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Remember Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. And the Chair votes yes. That concludes Part 2. On to Part 3, that the project meets the requirements of Section 165-101, Shopping and Personal Service District, SNPS. There's one item for this. Do we have Member Hobson? The motion? [19:34] Greg Hobson: Chair, I move that the Board finds that based on the findings made in Parts 1 and 2 of this document, the project meets the requirements of Section 165-101 for uses within the shopping and personal services district S and PS. Thank you. Do we have a second? [19:50] Jonathan Boucher: Member Brush and a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Remember Huynh? Yes. Remember Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. And the chair votes yes. That concludes part three. We're on to part four, that the project needs to requirements of sec of section 165-114, the land development approval standards. We're on to item one. [20:11] Speaker F (unidentified): Member Yoon? Here I move that the Board finds that, based on Exhibits 2 and 23, the applicant satisfied Land Development Code 165-114b, the requirement that the proposed parking and loading layout are arranged in a reasonable and safe configuration, and 165-114c's requirement that all proposed access drives are reasonably necessary and safe. [20:36] Jonathan Boucher: And do we have a second? Member Jonas? Roll call vote. Vote? Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. The chair votes yes. On to item two. Member Jonas? Chair. [20:52] Janet Sanborn Jonas: I move the board finds that based on exhibits 2, 4, 7, 9 through 13, 23, and 26, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114d's requirement 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, with the condition that the main department of environmental protection stormwater permit [21:27] Jonathan Boucher: amendment is approved. Thank you. And do we have a second? Member Hobson. And we'll do a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Heughan? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. And the chair votes yes. Item number three, Member [21:47] Speaker F (unidentified): Heughan? Chair, I move that the board finds that based on Exhibit 2, the applicant satisfied Land Development Code 165-114 E's requirements that all outdoor lighting shall be designed,, installed, and maintained to avoid unreasonable adverse effects from light pollution. [22:05] Jonathan Boucher: Thank you. In a second, I'm ever Haze. And a roll call vote. We have Member Brush, yes. Remember Haze, yes. Remember Hobson, yes. Remember Hewn, yes. Remember Jonas, yes. Remember Whitford, yes. Chair votes yes. [22:19] Patricia Hayes: Item four, Member Hayes. I move the board finds that based on exhibits 2 and 20, the applicant and satisfied land development code section 165-114 F's requirements for landscaping. Thank [22:37] Jonathan Boucher: you. And a second. I'll second, Member Hobson. And a roll call vote. Member Brush, yes. Member Hayes, yes. Remember Hobson, yes. Member Hewn, yes. Remember Jonas, yes. Number Woodford, yes. And the chair votes yes. Now that brings us to the decision, and we'd like to have someone, remember Hewn, to read [22:55] Speaker F (unidentified): the decision. Sure. I move that the board finds that the project meets the requirements for a land development permit for a major site development, and therefore the board grants the land development permit for the proposed project with the condition that the main department of environmental protection stormwater permit amendment is approved. Thank you. In a second. [23:17] Jonathan Boucher: Member Brush? And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. And the Chair votes yes. Now, so that, your item is passed, it's been approved, and the applicant can reach out to the Code Enforcement Office for more guidance. Any final statements from staff? No. All right. Thank you so much for your presentation. Appreciate the time. Yes. Thank you, guys. It doesn't look like our like our applicant has arrived for the zone change so I'll continue to move down to the climate migration panel discussion at this point and let's see that'll be Matt Altiero is going to be presenting okay [24:37] Speaker J (unidentified): So this is just about a panel I went to about climate migration a few weeks ago so I'm just going to go over some slides that they brought up into some statistics and kind of contextualize stuff. So this is the FEMA National Risk Index map. It just shows stuff related to climate and social vulnerability, and it puts it on a map to showing some counties that are more at risk. So you'll see a lot of the coastal counties are a lot more at risk than some of the central and northern counties. So Penobscot County is relatively low risk. One of the major factors that raises Penobscot County in particular is the community resilience. So again, just another map showing generally the same stuff. A lot of the coastal counties are more at risk for climate than some northern counties. So this shows the estimated economic damages from climate. So you'll see Maine actually does show economic benefits from climate change, but that's things like global warming causing heating prices to go down, and it's relatively small over here. It's between 0.03 and 0%. [Speaker F (unidentified): So] Climate migration is just anyone who moves from their permanent home due to climate-related issues. The main factor in this that causes some issues in measurement is the type of climate migration it is. It can be sudden onset. So that'd be things like hurricanes or fires causing people to move because their houses are destroyed. And then there's things like slow onset that are from increased droughts or sea level rise where that's a little bit harder to track because there's usually some other factors that go into causing these people to move. So this is a graph showing internal displacement in the U.S. You'll see a spike in 2024. There was a pretty bad hurricane season that year. There are a lot of wildfires. That's why there is such a major spike there. But this also takes into account if someone had to move more than once, so there could be someone on here a few times. But this includes temporary relocation and permanent relocation, so this is in the 2010s. It shows in-migration versus out-migration, so in-migration is orange and purple, or sorry, out-migration is orange and purple is in-migration. So you'll see Penobscot County was pretty much a net zero, there wasn't really a gain or a loss. And then you move in the future to now, to 2020 and 2024, you see a lot more of a presence of in-migration there. there. And again, just showing in New England, Maine has majority of the in-migration. This is a map showing the high-risk areas from climate change and growth areas. So all this hatched area is places where they see growth and climate change is predicted to cause some pretty serious damages there. Coastal challenge, this isn't really too relevant to Penobscot County, but it will cause some migration in the future to other more inland counties. So long-term climate migration patterns, right now you kind of see in the central to southern U.S., that's where the most suitable land is for any habitability. And then by 2070, you see a push upward, and Maine is right here, so it's also projected to see some more climate migrants just because it's in that area that isn't really affected too much by climate migration or climate change, and it's it's suitable just for any livability. So general main migration trends, you see an upward trend from the past, besides the few spike and dip years, but it's relatively an upward path, and most of the people who make up are younger, so that will support any workforce development and just increased taxes coming to cities, stuff like that. So 22% of people either said they were extremely, they had an extremely long, sorry, 22% of the people said they had a somewhat strong or extremely strong influence of climate change related to their move. But again, that number is pretty hard to track because of sudden and slow onset migrants. So there may have been other factors involved in these people's moves. So these are just some kind of what this means for me, main stats I'd say. The biggest thing is just Maine isn't really just going to see as much of the effects of climate change of some other areas and some coastal areas, and it's also attracting a lot more young people to the state, so it's going to help fuel some economic growth. And I'll leave just some key takeaways here, but if anyone has any questions, I could answer those. Yeah. [30:26] Speaker F (unidentified): I noticed, you know, I found this all very interesting and very positive, except that it didn't at all address the Gulf of Maine or even in the, I mean, our boundary goes out somewhat into the water, so you know, the fact that the Maine lobster is going to become the Canadian lobster and the and the credit kinetic Connecticut crabs are to become the main crabs, but I mean that whole judge, that whole thing is moving up north along with the change in climate. This didn't address any of that seafood stuff. Well, yeah, this is just climate migration. [31:09] Speaker J (unidentified): So it's just people moving because of climate related issues, so it's not necessarily tracking anything like that, but yeah, no, all that will move up with any temperature increases and sea level rise. [31:26] Jonathan Boucher: Member Brush and then and then what are the characteristics of community. [31:31] Speaker J (unidentified): Opportunity of resiliency, yeah, so a big factor in that is affordability, so just kind of main having a little bit higher of a cost of living than some other areas like in the Midwest, that's a big factor in it, but it's also places abilities kind of just to recover from any amount of increased storms and stuff like that. Member Cardi, thank. [31:59] Speaker B (unidentified): You chair, so you presented this as these are the reasons that people are moving to Maine, however your facts on the final page kind of contradict that. Sixty percent of the people questioned and the question they were asked is what level of influence do you think weather or climate related issues, more intense droughts, extreme storms, wildfires, Etc had on your decision to move to Maine from your previous location. 21 said minimal influence and 39 said no influence at all, so that's more the majority. Of the people influenced said there was minimal to no influence from climate, which kind of contradicts this presentation's title. And even on the page that had where the most people moved in and out, this one here, it shows even more people moving to the state of Florida than to Maine. Obviously, many more people. It looks like a huge exodus from Miami. Miami, but up and down both coasts, east and west coasts of Florida, a lot of people moving in. And there's no doubt that we're warming up. We've just left the Little Ice Age, what was that, 500 years ago? And I believe the numbers I saw from Joe's favorite AI were about three degrees cooler still than we were prior to that Little Ice Age. I guess my question is climate change what's driving these moves, or is there another factor? Because the only question it looks like that was asked is was a climate change, and 60% said no. But people weren't asked, well, why did you move? That might have indicated a little better to help us predict what areas we need to grow on and could embrace as people are coming here for the reason they're coming here, because we don't really have much of a reason here. Yeah, and just I'm a little baffled by this presentation. Well, the in and out migration that [34:03] Speaker J (unidentified): isn't necessarily climate immigration is showing where people are moving. Also, when you look at this graph, even though people are moving into Florida, it's still relatively high at risk for climate [34:14] Speaker B (unidentified): change for something, sea level rises. Well, that's, let me, let me touch on that as well. So what are they predicting sea levels to rise by, 0.3 inches a year, about three inches a year, so 23 inches a year? 0.3, oh 0.3, so a third of an inch per year, so an inch every few years, every three years, is that, no, my math's not very good, inch every four years. My question is the, so the banks lend on properties throughout the state of Florida and throughout the country along the coasts. I have not seen a single addendum or question or anybody having trouble getting 30 or even 50 year loans for some of these properties that are right on the coast at right at sea level. And if the oceans were really going to rise by even a few feet, it would render many of these properties uninhabitable and the banks would be losing money. We've all seen the videos of the homes on stilts on the Outer Banks of the Carolinas, which are very awe-inspiring and very scary. It does a really good job of selling this climate farce, but I really have trouble seeing how this, how this is going to affect us. [35:44] Speaker A (unidentified): So I'd really like this to not devolve into a debate on whether climate change is real or not, because first of all, this presentation, first of all, I want to clarify it wasn't created by Matt, it was created by the state economist and a couple other people who are experts in science. Is never done by consensus, it's [36:02] Speaker B (unidentified): It's always done by questioning the science. Actually, she interrupted me to start speaking, so I had the floor. Again, you're interrupting me. [36:12] Jonathan Boucher: If you want to finish your comment. And then we'll see if there are any other questions for Matthew. What you were saying? [36:21] Speaker B (unidentified): I guess I'm being silenced here. Nobody likes what I have to say. I want to question the science. I want to hear more about it. You know, if we really think that the sea levels are going to rise by that many feet, I think the banks disagree with you, and I think we should be questioning this, and it's a shame that this isn't the forum that we can do it in, because where can we? This is a public forum, and I'd love to get the public, I'd love to have this gallery filled up for people looking to discuss this and other things that are influencing what's going on in this world today. I think by not being able to question these Things is really the problem, can [37:04] Jonathan Boucher: I respond? Yeah, go ahead, Anya. Okay. [37:10] Speaker A (unidentified): I would love to bring the ample research behind climate change, and I will do that at the next meeting. I would like to also point out that many insurers are backing out of California and Florida and high-risk states, and people aren't able to get home insurance in those states. And again, I would like to reiterate that Matt did not create this presentation, and those statistics were pulled by other people, and that they were listing the reasons that people have given for moving here. And yes, you're right, there were many other reasons that people have given for moving here. As he said, climate is not the only reason that people are given for moving here. Here, but it is a factor, and that is why we brought this presentation forward, was just to show that it is factoring into some people's decisions. And I think yes, it's true that people are still moving to Texas and Florida. However, in the future we may see that change. We may see more people move here because of this factor. We're, it's literally just stating that some people are using this in their decision-making to move here, and we may want to use that as context for how we plan for the future. Because regardless of what we believe, other people are making these decisions to come here. [38:27] Jonathan Boucher: And so we can use that in our planning efforts. Any other questions for Matthew about the meeting he attended? [38:39] Speaker B (unidentified): presentation may i apologize to matt i didn't mean that to seem as a an attack on you it's more an attack on the presentation i saw some of the seemingly [38:51] Jonathan Boucher: contradictory, but then I realized that there was some of the graphics weren't necessarily showing causation at all. They were just, here's a, here's a map showing where people are moving in the past 20 years, and here's a graph showing the, or a map showing the areas that are going to be most at risk in the next 60 years, and saying Maine is not one of those. So we may, and giving us the context that we're not going to hopefully suffer the way some other areas are projected to. It'd be interesting to hear how you think it might inform planning, future planning, or marketing of the city as a destination that has more resilience on that front? Or if there's any thought into how that's factoring in today, or if it will in some sort of future initiative, or how you think this, what you learned here, or what you experience, if you think any of it will benefit you or your planning work that you're doing. [39:58] Speaker J (unidentified): Yeah, there are a lot of developers at this meeting. One good thing that people mentioned that Banger specifically was doing was our pre-approved plan, pre-approved plans for housing. So we have some for ADUs, a triplex, and a quadplex, I think. So people were talking about that a lot, and said it kind of eases some of the costs of building new units, putting that out there. Other things like this, with other people moving in, I think it does kind of just increase the need of affordable housing in general. Any [40:34] Jonathan Boucher: final thoughts before we move on? You know, I would just say, if we're looking at Member Woodford, sorry, I'm just saying your name for the yes for Sarah taking the minutes, if we're looking at the slide of [40:46] Speaker K (unidentified): what is up right now, the why move to Maine, I know I would fall under either that category three or category four, the moderate to somewhat strong influence, and I know from my time I'm living in the Midwest, that there was a number of towns and cities and universities from New England that were increasing their marketing campaigns and their recruitment campaigns throughout the Midwest. And I would regularly see ads and posters for universities, you know, all in the New England, mid-Atlantic states, in rural Kansas and Missouri. So I think there are definitely places that are already working on that kind of recruiting factor, even you know, small ag tech state schools in New York. I would see flyers and posters for them in Kansas City. So it's definitely something to consider in the years moving forward, thank [41:46] Jonathan Boucher: you member Woodford. Any final comments, Matt? Or no, that's it. Well, I appreciate you bringing that forward to us. Thank you for sharing it. Anything else like that coming up in other meetings like that? Oh, forgive me, I'm not, I was muted. I was just thanking Matthew Altiero and asking if there's any other meetings like this or courses he's attending that he'll be planning to share with us in the future. [42:11] Speaker J (unidentified): That I'm aware of right now, that we have a planning board, some for HPC, but not planning specifically. [42:18] Jonathan Boucher: Thank you. Our next item tonight is about the announcement of the public information session for the upcoming changes to land development code to comply with state laws [42:29] Speaker A (unidentified): yep so I just wanted to let you know that we are doing some outreach to let people know that these changes are happening, the first round of changes that we brought before you, and that they can get more information about those at the March 17th meeting. And so hopefully that will answer any questions that come up. So is there planning officer [42:52] Jonathan Boucher: Mr. Collette, is there going to be an announcement made for the public to attend, or is this [42:57] Speaker A (unidentified): okay? Yeah. We put out a social media post. I will double check that was done, and we'll do another one soon. And then we did do a press release on that as well. [43:06] Jonathan Boucher: And it included some of the language already so people can see what it looks like? [43:10] Speaker A (unidentified): We did an outline of what the changes would be. [43:15] Jonathan Boucher: Any questions for Anya? I'm going to roll us back to the, if there's nothing else, thank you, Anya, we'll look forward to the public discussion on that on those proposed changes. But I wanted to move back to the zone change and let's revisit that and see if we can get a no, I'm assuming nobody has joined the Zoom or anything. Okay, let's look to have that post a motion to propose a motion to postpone that item to our next meeting if we can. I'll move to postpone to the next meeting, which is March 17th, is that what we said Yeah, can I get a second? I'll second. Member Hobson, thank you. And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. And the chair votes yes. So that one's gonna be on our agenda. To remaining items, there is the follow-up thoughts on land use planet or land use plan updates. Is there any anything that came out of any of the workshops or meetings that we need to hear about? Oh, I don't know. Sometimes we used to use this to say if there was something. This was just a catch-all item where we if there's anything coming or anything any questions for Anya or for staff about. Remember? No. All right, any other comments or questions tonight? There is there anything to sign this evening? All right, those are our final items. Anything else before we adjourn? Well, thank you very much. It is 7.49.