Lewiston Planning Board approves Main Mill amendment, revisits No Name Pond rules

[0:06] Shanna Cox: Yeah. Good evening and welcome. My name is Shanna Cox, and I'm calling to order this evening's planning board meeting for Monday, June 22nd, 2026. Can we start with a roll call? Yes, and we'll start on that side again this time. Michael Marcotte. Present. Penthea Burns. Here. Zoe Lidstrom. Here. Shanna Cox. Here. Amy Smith. Here. Heidi Bertels. Here. Darren Gallant, here, and please let the record reflect that Alex Pine and Lucy Bisson are both absent, excused. Thanks. Let the record also reflect that both of our associate members will be full voting members for this evening. Are there any adjustments to the agenda? A couple throughout the day. Would you like [1:03] Speaker C (unidentified): to speak to any of them? Yes, we did make an adjustment last week to add the March 23rd minutes, two minutes, to be reviewed, and then there was an illness with our consultant teams, so that the Lisbon Street safety and mobility study presentation is postponed and not happening this evening. I [1:25] Shanna Cox: would like to encourage that we still take up another business item, a, related to said public input session, and have a brief discussion about what efforts to get the word out about that public information session there is, and how we can assist as planning board members. So we'll do that briefly. Mr. Land, did you have [1:42] Speaker D (unidentified): something else, potential new or return business? I want to bring up vacancy building registration. Was discussed in October. I looked at the minute, so I wanted to see if I could get a summary of the board as viewpoint on this idea, as I've seen it expanding to other cities and towns. Great, we make that item b, it's a vacancy review, basically vacant building registration. Thank [2:11] Shanna Cox: you. Anything else? Great. Is there any correspondence tonight? No, there is not. We do have two public hearings. The first item is item a, Main Mill, which has submitted an application to amend the site plan for the new museum at One Beach Street. We have that from Shelly, who's our only staff tonight anyway, so that'll be easy to. SHELLEY, DO YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE THIS ITEM? [2:40] Speaker C (unidentified): SURE. THIS PROJECT WAS APPROVED ON JULY 22, 2024. MOST OF YOU HAVE HOPEFULLY HAD A CHANCE TO SEE IT IN PROCESS BECAUSE IT IS NEARING COMPLETION. They took a little over 1,000 square foot building, sorry, 8,000 square foot building, refurbished it and put an addition on. The amendment that they're seeking this evening has to do with a couple of items. There is an existing parking lot that was along the Androscoggin River that originally they had planned to cover and landscape, you know, with lawn area. In the course of construction they decided to keep it as a parking area and not cover it. And then there's also they had proposed street trees and plantings along Beach Street and are proposing not to do that I did note in the staff review that they had asked for a waiver to planting along the street which was granted by the board back in 2004 and then they did make some additional changes that are a little more minor in nature as far as locations of artwork pedestals for artwork stone steps and that sort of thing so because of the you know that the changes seemed like they 're visually significant at least the parking lot staying there. And then also there was at that time a plan for the city to sell property and for the museum to acquire a sliver of land for their stormwater infrastructure. The way our or the approval was written, if that wasn't deeded over, then they would need to come in for a site plan amendment. An easement has happened so that it is taken care of legally, but we just want to make sure everything was above board as far as the prior approval questions [4:52] Shanna Cox: for staff. We invite the applicant up. Welcome, please grab yourself a seat and a microphone, introduce yourself. Three, yeah, an extra seat too if you need to, sorry, thanks [5:13] Speaker E (unidentified): for having us here I think everything Shelley said is correct the few things few changes we made probably the parking lot's most significant one reason we didn't cover it 's a v-rap site and that paving can't be penetrated without dp for approval will you share for some what that [5:37] Shanna Cox: acronym is, oh god, or what it means, it's fine as well, what it means is that it's capped. Well the [5:45] Speaker E (unidentified): The state looks at a site, and if there's contamination, this is minor under the soil, you do all the remediation you can, the building's been remediated, everything, and then the state stands behind it. In other words, you're no longer liable for anything that goes on further as long as you haven't added to it. So that's capped over with pavement. It's a lot of coal ash. I think there was a little bit of oil in there. There. These old mills and some lead. There used to be ten buildings on this site, and they were all demolished. So there's still remnants of the buildings under the site. The coal ash is pretty common. It's under almost every mill in town. But regardless, it's been capped. It can't escape. So we were thinking we were going to cover that with soil and put grass out there, but in talking with a civil engineer and every and actually the contractor, they said it would never hold, and it would just, you put it down and it would eventually wash away. The only way to hold it would be to penetrate the pavement in curbing or some type of ribbing in there to try to hold the soil back. We didn't want to penetrate and start going for DEP permit that, and the truth is it doesn't really add any impervious surface because just covering that with six inches alone, you still have pavement underneath. It's still, it's still pavement, so it didn't affect the drainage. We have a certified letter from our engineer says it still meets all the requirements, and it won't hurt to have the overflow parking. I mean, it's, it's, we have about 78 spaces. Yeah, 78 spaces on in the other parking lot, but you know, I think we'll probably use this overload, you know, at certain times, the pedestals. Yeah, sorry, school buses, if you're doing great places to park. Absolutely. Yeah, and so parking's at a premium down there, so it's, it's pretty tough. Yeah, so that's that item. I think the pedestals, I don't [8:01] Speaker F (unidentified): remember where what we showed on the original, right, the large one ended up [8:11] Speaker E (unidentified): actually we needed a 10 by 10. It's for one of the original brick making machines, so it's been weatherproofed, and it's out there sitting on that. Didn't move a lot from that, but it's, it's a little closer to the parking lot. None of the art or [8:28] Shanna Cox: sculptures that you offered on either plan or actually as exists are required or related to our design. It's not like the blank wall, for example, adding a blank wall that hadn't been there, and so they're all, I mean, in the future, additional things that weren't required, you had [8:44] Speaker E (unidentified): and have moved locations, right? I mean, in the future, certainly if the right sculpture or piece of equipment comes up, we probably want to add more, and we have a lot of landscape out there, so I think we have three pieces out there now. So that's two of the items. The landscaping along Beach Street, I think we've got a waiver on that, so we should be okay. [9:07] Speaker F (unidentified): With that I guess and then there was a big pile of grant mostly granite rocks that were kind of stockpiled to the side of the site and we looked at ways to just try to reuse them and not transport them off-site. Yeah there are some large rocks that are placed around. Yeah we used [9:28] Speaker E (unidentified): some of them we made some benches out of them and these are massive pieces of granite. I think we use two as steps. I mean they're big pieces of granite they're almost like landmines. This is pretty [9:41] Shanna Cox: noticeable in the last photo that we were provided. Yeah again they're [9:47] Speaker E (unidentified): kind of their landscaping the steps you can come up but they're not I don't think they lack in anything in terms of being able to use them. They're typical [10:01] Shanna Cox: old granite steps. Thanks if I might offer a little bit of context as well only because this relates to kind of an ongoing not related to your site but more to process for planning board. It is it is not uncommon I wouldn't say it's frequent but it is not uncommon for small changes from an approved development application that the board has approved to come to staff and staff sometimes approve that change independently based on good precedent and standards or to engage the planning board chair to see if it's a de minimis request or not and so in that conversation while most of these things probably would have been de minimis we wanted to make sure that we did have the wastewater piece both there on the record and so I just note that this is one of those chances where we brought it forward and made sure you guys got to see the whole thing. We know that you have a grand opening in four days so we're hopeful that this is largely a formality and good process but did want to acknowledge that in terms of how we got here. Thank you questions from the board for the applicant. I'd be looking for a motion and it a draft one has been provided for you and you would be including the condition up above number one. I [11:22] Speaker G (unidentified): make a motion that the application to amend the development approval for the main Museum of innovation learning and labor known as main mill for the refurbishment of an existing eight thousand one hundred and sixty seven square feet building and construction of a 3,153 square foot addition on a 1.89 acre parcel at One Beach Street meets all the necessary criteria contained in the zoning and land use code, including but not limited to Article 13, Section 4 approval criteria, and that approval be granted with the following conditions. Wait, sorry. [12:04] Shanna Cox: I'm gonna look for Mike Marcotte's feedback here as my local parliamentarian. I did not it up for public comment. Should we stop pantheon now before adding it? Yeah, sorry, can we revisit that language afterwards? Linda, you got it so she doesn't have to re-say it all. Okay, I'm going to open this up for public comment before we make a motion. Info, thanks Shanna, getting rusty on a Monday folks. If you'd like to speak on this item, please find your way to the podium, introduce yourself with your name and address or relationship to this project. You'll be limited to three minutes. [12:34] David B. Chittim: Sense welcome. Good evening, thank you for having me. My name is David Chittim, I'm a civil engineer licensed in the state of Maine for 40 plus years. I realized that the original application called for the parking lot to be lawn, which would have made it less pervious or less impervious than it currently is. I realize that there is no increase from what I'm hearing in the impervious surface on that site. However, there is an opportunity which has been lost if this is provided, if this waiver is provided to convert parking lot into grass. I'm just asking whether there is any opportunity in retaining the parking lot to mitigate runoff into the Anders Goggin River or the canal behind the mill. That's my only comment and request, thank you. Thank you. [13:26] Shanna Cox: Is there other public comment? Going once, about to close public comment. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak on this item? Boom, we don't usually do question and answer responses to public comment, but if you'd like to address the runoff, I think if I was to summarize the pervious nature or impervious nature of the law has not changed and the runoff now versus with the grass treatment is the question. I think we're being asked about, so perhaps the easiest way to say is how is this [14:04] Speaker E (unidentified): limiting or changing runoff tonight? Right, I mean, I think I think what's happening now he is clearly if we could have held grass and soil on there with no problem, you'd slow up the flow. I mean, eventually it's going to hit the pavement, there's no doubt about that. During that period some will evaporate, so it might help a little bit. Typically on a larger site than this, if asked, you might try to, you know, create some type of retention pot, not easy to do this close to the river as I think you found. Out as a city when you had to build all those pertaining tanks down behind Yvonne's, you had built concrete tanks because you just can't, you're already in the water table, so that would be difficult. We've created a rip rap and storm water system that everything flows into. Does slow up the flow, but it ultimately does go into the canal and [15:06] Speaker I (unidentified): that's really our only way to do it. Can I direct a question to staff which [15:11] Shanna Cox: is with the pending tie-in of the extended Riverwalk across this parcel to the continental mill and down to the bernard lone peace bridge as i'm looking at this image where 's the opportunity for the city's action on construction to be the actual final stop between any runoff and the river does the riverwalk go through that parking lot or does it go around the edge of the parking lot where the trees meet yeah so [15:46] Speaker J (unidentified): well it this is the version [15:49] Shanna Cox: I'm finding useful. Mm-hmm. Yeah, that's the current drone image right now. You [15:56] Speaker C (unidentified): can see on the drawing though, you can see the sort of intended location at the time of the Riverwalk. Since then we've talked to the applicant about having the Riverwalk go closer to the river just a little bit, so it wouldn't cross the parking lot, it would be adjacent to it. So it's very similar to that location, but probably further to the left of the page a little bit, but still at the top, closer to the river. So the river is like [16:27] Shanna Cox: you know off the page on left. So the opportunity for the pathway and its treatment to support stymieing any flow actually exists at the edge of the parking lot and before the river. [16:40] Speaker C (unidentified): I don't know is there's enough space. We have a, I mean we haven't finalized the easement, but I don't think there was an intent to have an easement wide enough [16:48] Speaker K (unidentified): to have a swale as well, but we could look into that. You can use the mouse to [16:59] Shanna Cox: indicate on that 's helpful you uniquely have that opportunity and we do [17:04] Speaker E (unidentified): not come up here. So this easement that runs along here, yeah, there's a property line right here. This is going to get switched to the other parcel, so it moves by 18 feet towards the river. It's still flat, it's still very usable, and it comes down and as the Shelly said, we haven't totally worked this out. It's probably going to come down about like this, and then it goes across in front of this is that old power station, goes in front of the power station, and then right about here the city's got, yes yeah the sewer clean out. Yeah, there's a sewer [17:44] Speaker C (unidentified): cleaner. Well, there's a pipe that goes across the canal that is a sewer pipe. [17:49] Shanna Cox: Yeah, massive high pressures. We love that connectivity though. That's great, so [17:55] Speaker K (unidentified): actually you're from what I understand, I believe that's the intent is to build a pedestrian bridge over the top of it, right over the top, across, which is right [18:03] Speaker E (unidentified): about here. It'll go across the canal, so that angle is not quite right, but it'll go, I think, about like that, and it just, yeah, I don't really know what you're doing on the other side, but going into the Continental Mill complex. Thank you. Questions [18:24] Shanna Cox: from the board? Mr. Murcock? Yes, this is the question [18:29] Speaker L (unidentified): I had coming in, and I guess Mr. Chittum and I kind of re-raised it, my mind, even though I was gearing up for a quick vote on this. I was trying to understand the written language about soil over the top of the parking lot and so forth. How does that create imperviousness if water soaks through the new soil and hits the pavement? It can't go further. [19:02] Speaker E (unidentified): Right, so it doesn't really get rid of the impervious surface at all. What it does do, right, it slows up the water getting there, and as I said, probably something will evaporate while it's getting there. I don't think a lot, but some, so it would have, maybe it would have slowed the process up, but the problem is we, you know, slide that whole thing is going to just slide into [19:34] Speaker I (unidentified): that up, pretty much a top soil, just slick in its way, just wash down eventually, unless you put in [19:46] Speaker E (unidentified): like I said, if you penetrated the cap and put, you can use those concrete curves that they used on the highway, just lower, and rib the whole thing, then you could keep the soil. You'd have to do [19:59] Speaker L (unidentified): something, and that's why then you might be leeching some of the lead into the enters Gargan. Well, that's another problem. Once you, I don't even know if [20:09] Speaker E (unidentified): you would have, let us, I'm trying to trade it because now you're right, now some stuff can come up and then go, so this would seem like the best way, and if [20:21] Speaker L (unidentified): I understand some of the calculations in another part of the document, if there was top soil on there, no, you'd have less of a impervious service surface commitment to the storm water only [20:38] Shanna Cox: if you removed the impervious surface below, but I think you're still going to [20:44] Speaker L (unidentified): have because i think with the amendment the numbers were suggesting that there would be more imperviousness than the previous authorization two years ago i let me double so that 's what made me think that adding the top soil was going to relieve that number but by not putting it in the number increases from what it was two years ago as [21:14] Shanna Cox: I tried to make sense of it in the conversations that we had. It was more like the impervious was never going to change because the removal of that tar was more like a treatment on top of the tar. So I found it easiest to make sense of this as a beautification effort. So it didn't change the impervious, it doesn't change the formula that we have to work with for nor did it for DEP, and that it is more like the grasses eye of the beholder, but the grass is prettier on top of the tar, right, then if the tar is available and visible, at least until the grass is not sliding into [21:51] Speaker I (unidentified): to the but that's not very pretty either. Way to do it would be to get a permit. [22:04] Speaker L (unidentified): Brownfields cost prohibitive, but I think I did see the numbers increase over two years ago. [22:12] Speaker F (unidentified): Was that related to the actual? I did talk to the civil engineer when we were recalculating everything and I asked that question and he had a term for what was on top of the capped area and I said that the EP looks at it differently. I can't remember the name of the term, but he did, he did acknowledge that there was a calculation [22:44] Shanna Cox: difference. Thanks, but not a one-to-one like square foot by square foot. No, we were still, now there's two civil engineers in the room tonight who are chomping at the bed on this one. Maybe close but no cigar. If you do it, you're going to have to go to the yes, and it's an exception that I'm hesitant to [23:09] Dean Bernier: make, so be careful. So my name is Dean Bernie, I'm award 6 on property. So, I hear what everybody's saying and I appreciate it, but if this does fail, is there a way for them to purchase a different piece of property somewhere else in the city and set that aside as green space in exchange for [23:28] Shanna Cox: drainage? I'm just suggesting, I love the way we do for wetlands, but this isn't a wetland issue. [23:32] Dean Bernier: Doesn't matter where it is, we're talking about taking impervious service and we're removing it from what's supposed to be impervious. You've asked for, you've asked for property to be impervious. This can't be done. But I'm just saying for a cost, I don't know what. Thank you. [23:45] Shanna Cox: You thank you, appreciate you. We had approved it as impervious in the first place, yeah, and I think [23:52] Speaker F (unidentified): we're still under, we are under what the maximum amount of impervious is for the lot, and then we're under what the previous, you know, the existing as of 2024. We've removed a significant portion. Thanks. Were there other questions from the board? Time. [24:19] Shanna Cox: Time to take another shot at it, please. Thanks for your patience in the interruption. Do we address the trees? The, we didn't discuss it, nor are we required to address it in tonight's motion, but if you'd like to bring it up, you can. I just didn't, I just didn't quite understand. It seemed like it was an optional. The short version is in the original application they displayed trees but also got a tree waiver, and the trees thus are somewhat optional, and they have opted not to, even though there were images that reflected trees in the earlier application. Yeah, I don't know if you've been down, but in addition to this project getting finished, there's been significant work by the city both on the parking lot, Beach Street, and the, that side of Summer Pain Park, which has changed some of the pieces there. [25:15] Speaker J (unidentified): Also where those trees were, we're going to be in between our property and the street, like the city's Beach Street land is now part of the I Love You Gardens that run from the station all the way over to Auburn, and so we've converted that strip into a part of the ongoing I Love You Garden, so there are plantings there that are being taken care of by the community. While Heidi was [25:45] Shanna Cox: getting that question asked and answered, thank you. Yeah, what I was trying to [25:54] Speaker L (unidentified): address, I've actually found the language, see if it continues to make sense. It's [25:58] Shanna Cox: okay that you were trying to address about the impervious and not about the [26:01] Speaker L (unidentified): trees, correct? Great, okay. So probably should start further out. So prior to the redevelopment, the site contained approximately 61,902 square feet of impervious surface. So three years ago, the site plan approved by the planning board 2024 reduced the impervious coverage to approximately 46,174 square feet. I presume that's with the topsoil, the word that describes the thing that we aren't sure of. Yeah, so then the memo from Platts Associates goes on to say the revised, the revised plan what we're looking at tonight increases impervious surface to approximately fifty six thousand eight hundred square feet due to the decision to leave the existing asphalt cap exposed. That's where I got the idea that the previous topsoil reduced it further, but by removing the topsoil from the equation, it now increases. So there must have been some consideration for the top soil decreasing impervious surface, correct? That's what I was trying to get [27:13] Amy Smith: my head around. There you are right. Okay, yeah, thank you. Were [27:19] Shanna Cox: there other questions or comments from [27:21] Amy Smith: The board, Amy Smith, it looks so awesome down there. No, it really looks great, and the fact that this, that the city and the Main Mill could coordinate and get all that stuff done so that it's ready at the same time is really admirable. I do love a good public pride. [27:41] Shanna Cox: Hoping for that on Central by Beats right now. The motion over, okay, I asked Linda, do you need it reread Robert's Rules of Orders version? Yeah, okay, I'll make you happy to, okay, I. [28:01] Speaker G (unidentified): Make a motion that the application to amend the development approval for the Main Museum of Innovation Learning and Labor known as Main Mill for the refurbishment of an existing 8167 square feet building and construction of a 3153 square foot addition on a 1.89 acre parcel at One Beach Street meets all the necessary criteria contained in the zoning and land use code, including but not limited to Article 13 Section 4 approval criteria, and that the approval be granted with the following conditions. One, that the prior, that prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a professional engineer must provide a stamp statement indicating all stormwater and site improvements have been completed in accordance with the approved plans, and that a note be placed on the site plan stating this condition. [29:02] Shanna Cox: Is there a second? Thank you. Any further discussion on this motion? Please. Call the roll. Michael Marco, yes. Pentia Burns, yes. Zoe Lidstrom, yes. Shanna Cox, yes. Amy Smith, yes. Heidi Bertels, yes. Darren Glant, yes. Thank you much, passes. Congratulations, good luck, hope we see you there this weekend. Yeah, it's a big exciting one for you guys. We're going to move to our second public hearing, which I vow to not forget on the front end, item B, the Planning Board making a recommendation to the City Council on amendments to the zoning and land use code Article 11 District Regulations for changes to the No Name Pond Conservation Overlay District. We have done this, we sent it to council, there were some comments, we're. Back at it today, right, and today's the one that's going to stick, I feel it in my bones. So shall we, Shelly, would you like to begin by bringing. [30:06] Speaker C (unidentified): us up to speed on this. Sure, so on June 2nd the city council reviewed and held a public hearing on the language that had been sent by you with a positive recommendation. It was their second time having a first reading on that, and at that point in time they made the decision to refer different language back to you for your recommendation. I don't know as I need to get into the nitty-gritty here, but the amendment that they sent back removed the proposed language you had sent, retained the current language in the ordinance in its entirety and added a new subsection 7. And so the wording of that section 7 is, any work resulting in soil disturbance within the buffers shall comply with the requirements of the Maine stormwater best practices manual volume three BMP technical design manual published by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. I don't know if there's, I guess it's easier if you just ask questions as opposed to me stating anything additional at this time if [31:27] Shanna Cox: that's all right with the board. Sure is. Yeah, questions from the board. This might [31:35] Speaker D (unidentified): be more procedural thing, but so what happens when this manual is updated? It references a specific volume. Does it automatically use, we use the new volume? Yeah, so what we've been advised [31:47] Speaker C (unidentified): historically by our city attorney is not to add language or as amended that really it's supposed, we're supposed to know as a city when we adopt something what the language is. So yes, we're perpetually in the state of when we update things checking to see if it's the current thing and then making the update. So but in practice we would use the current document that DEP is using typically. I wondered if like it required [32:19] Speaker D (unidentified): us to add the appendix that included that language even for historical context, considering we're here because we didn't really understand how we got [32:27] Speaker C (unidentified): got here. Yeah, it's a good question. I [32:35] Speaker G (unidentified): have just a quick question. Please give [32:38] Shanna Cox: him a second. We'll wait until the person you're asking if you can hear me. Yeah, [32:41] Speaker G (unidentified): Shelly, does the minutes, do municipalities get notified when there's changes to regulations like this at the state level? We would find out, so our [32:51] Speaker C (unidentified): environmental engineer uses this manual regularly when he's doing reviews for the Planning Board, so he would be aware when changes are made and when they would make a substantive change to something like that there'd be a public comment period, there's a draft that goes out, there's a whole process they have to undertake before they make changes, so we would find out. And how does city track [33:16] Speaker G (unidentified): State level changes and how that trickles down in the myriad of ways that it could with municipal law and regulations, I don't know, is there's a, an overall tracking. [33:32] Speaker C (unidentified): But sort of from our department and engineering, if we know a change is happening, then we could, we would potentially check the ordinances that might apply, so there are a couple of our ordinances that it might, you know, reference it. Okay, thank you. My experience has been that [33:50] Shanna Cox: it's ad hoc. Yeah, with no disrespect for staff, there's a lot. Yeah, any other questions? I have some questions and comments that I'd like to reserve until after public comment, for what that's worth. [34:07] Speaker O (unidentified): Yeah, this is more relevant to what the two of you were just saying, so is there not a, if we did keep this specific reference to this manual, what is the need to specifically, I think what's what you guys were getting at, why are we calling out a specific volume? Will that volume number change over time, or will it always be volume three of that? Does that get updated? Yeah, I don't understand that part. I'm sorry, I don't know [34:39] Speaker C (unidentified): how they, I'm not familiar enough with how they update things to know. I would assume that they would just make updates to volume 3 and it wouldn't become volume 4 or volume 13, but I can't say that for a certainty, and that this [34:54] Shanna Cox: planning board and the City Council would have to go through the process that we did this time, which is staff identifying it as an issue, naming it for another business item, us initiating a change for staff to review and bring forward language, us to review that language, workshop that language, send it to public comment, send it to City Council for two public comments, and then for it to be ratified or returned to repeat portions or all of that process. [35:21] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, yes, yep, and oftentimes we would treat it as a housekeeping item where there'd be other items that were making changes to at the same time, so would be unusual that we would take it by itself and we wouldn't, you know, add it to other things as well to make it a better use of everyone's time, I guess. [35:41] Speaker O (unidentified): That's my only suggestion, is that if the city, if the staff could determine whether that is a volume that's based on updates, or if it's like a permanent like volume 3 is, oh, you know, always volume 3 whether there's updates or not. But if it's something that's updated and changed to a volume 4, there's no, it doesn't seem necessary to put that specific volume number in there. You could just say like striking volume 3, unless volume 3 indicates a section of that manual to which this references. And so if that's the case, then yes, of course we should keep it, but that part is not clear to me. It just, if we're being [36:19] Shanna Cox: nitty-gritty and don't want to come, oh, and I think we should, I mean, one of my goals has always been with anything that has come through this planning board and the time that I've served is that we make every language change as evergreen as possible, yeah, and anchor it to something that might change. And so I think this is a good opportunity and a good flag, and perhaps wasn't known as a, as a practice that City Council as they recommended it back to us. I'm gonna name this only because I feel like we might get the answer at an opportunity ahead in public comment, so I'm inviting that to be worked into somebody's three minutes should it arise. But is there something specific around volume three and how soil disturbance is res, is referenced within buffer zones that somehow is different to buffer zones and soil disturbance in other areas, the manual? I think I have an answer. I love that, thank you. So according to the state [37:13] Speaker C (unidentified): website, the stormwater BMP manual has three volumes. Volume one is the stormwater management manual, which provides general information. Volume 2 is the phosphorus control in lake watersheds, which is a technical guide for evaluating new development. And then volume 3 is the BMP technical design manual, providing assisting, you know, technicians and selecting which BMPs are appropriate in certain situations. And then there's a number of chapters within it. So my guess is that they would not change it to not be volume three, it's that those chapters inside would be amended as necessary. Well, I guess thank [37:57] Shanna Cox: you, and that answers part of my question, but the resulting rest of my question is simply, is there different treatments? Because is there something in volume one that says you're welcome to disturb a buffer within ten feet of the lake, the lake's edge, but volume two says actually no. I feel like the actual meaning and intent of this would be consistent throughout all volumes, and that it's unlikely that the main stormwater best practices manual is saying it's a best practice to do it this way here, and in the third volume we're going to contradict ourself. I'm sure the practice itself is consistent regardless of which manual or even chapter it's in. So I'm just wondering if main stormwater best practices manual is enough, and that it wouldn't somehow be different in one volume than another. Even if it changed over time, that change would be consistent across volumes and chapters within. And thus we could strike literally everything after manual. The first manual. Main stormwater best practices manual. And the volume three BMP technical design manual wouldn't matter. I just can't imagine them contradicting themselves and saying like volume one, the buffer's fine to mess with it. Volume three would rather you not. I'm sure it's consistent. [39:14] Speaker O (unidentified): Yeah, and if you specifically mentioned volume two being about phosphorus, that was a whole part of this conversation was about phosphorus. And you know, drainage retention pond, so it seems like even volume two would be relevant to, yeah, this specific situation. [39:27] Speaker C (unidentified): I think the, and the counselor who's present might be able to speak to this when I'm during public comment. I think the intent was so the best management practices are typically erosion and sedimentation control features. So you think silt fence or hay bales or other, you know, methods, check dams in a ditch. So my understanding was the addition of this was to ensure that during whatever work takes place that appropriate measures are taken to avoid any impacts. So there, I think, is a benefit in being somewhat specific instead of being very broad in how we reference this, especially for staff, so that we understand the intent of the legislative body of the city. But whatever recommendation you want to make is fine. [40:31] Speaker K (unidentified): Yes, other Mr. [40:37] Speaker L (unidentified): Mark, how I understand volume 3 is it's a certain category of topics that's being addressed by DP, whereas volume 2 is something specific and volume 1 is basic, and so there's no overlap. One, I don't think would necessarily contradict another. They're all guidelines, know that we must adhere to because it comes from the state, but there's nothing that says that we can't have an overlay district that has a more stringent regulation than what the state now provides. Now we must adhere to the state as a Minimum, and we can go further, which I believe was the original intent of the overlay district to begin with, when [41:36] Shanna Cox: I open it up for public comment. Great, please find your way to the podium. You have three minutes to speak. Introduce yourself and note that we won't respond to questions in your three minutes. Dan [41:53] Dean Bernier: Bernier, award six. I'm just going to go quickly over what I told the council. Basically, what we have here is a No Name Pond overlay district in place for over 25 years. I object to any change. I'd comment to them, but I guess after the comment there is no reduction in protections from the law itself. We're only changing when work happens, not the setbacks that actually exist currently in the ordinance. In no place in this case the city takes storm water and puts it across private property, so this is This isn't on land, it's a city, it's stormwater that's moved, and then there was a letter from the No-Name Pond president basically said that this is a simple technical issue confused and complicated by city staff, and that the best practices strengthen the district ordinance so it doesn't weaken it, and again he opposed any change in the ordinance that would reduce restrictions, and then eliminating the buffer zone to all of those will open up the door of mismanagement and drainageway facilities. I Did not see a per, he does not see a problem with the current buffer zone definition. The current buffer zone definition also does not imply that man-made waterways cannot be maintained. That's why the whole going by the city or going by the best management practices allows maintenance and usage of that zone when it's needed, but not to create roadways or something, driveways in that area. And again, it allows keeping the open stormwater drainage course in the ordinance as it stands. And then basically some of these other things, John Connor wrote that he originally opposed it, but then at the meeting he said he did not oppose it after getting the president of road associations message. Message Mr. Lund also talked about opposing it he talked about best management practice as being a John talked about fixing a sufficient flaw in the intent editorial but the BMP back into the ordinance will create an unnecessary administrative burden I've discussed that 's not really the case in this case because we're talking about directly referencing the ordinance of best management practices not including it additionally as Shelley mentioned they do bring that book with them already so it's not something they need additionally and i commented about mr marcotte but obviously you heard how he voted and what he just wanted to keep protecting the lake so i did want to not that i'm opposed to a person or an ownership but this lot is owned by a developer and he is developing it 's not for a single family home there was just a comment before that we wanted to get quick response so that a homeowner could build this is not the case it will be a property built i believe i have not seen the plans. I don't know what those exist as, but that was not the case. So thank you. Thank you. [45:01] Shanna Cox: I would just note for the board as well as listeners, and you can sit, is if it is more than a single family home, it's a subdivision or anything else that would trigger an application that we'd review. Welcome. [45:14] David B. Chittim: Again, good evening again. Thank you for having public comment. I am the author of the section 7 which is proposed tonight. When I first reviewed the changes to the no name pond overlay district, I was very concerned that any man-made waterway leading, directing water to no name pond would be exempted from the new, from the changed ordinance. The purpose of the ordinance is to protect no name pond, and to remove man-made waterways from that level of protection is to minimize and diminish the protection of the pond. So it's runs counter to the to the opening statement of the overlay district to begin with. [Shanna Cox: The] change that's before you tonight would retain the current language which creates 50-foot buffer zones around any natural or man-made waterway, but it would reinforce the environmental protections of those buffers by requiring that any soil disturbance within 50 feet of a waterway would comply with these best management practices. You've had an excellent discussion. Thank you, Miss Norton, for explaining volumes one, two, and three. It's a, it's a very straightforward thing. Volume three is a several hundred page technical manual on how to actually implement erosion sedimentation control during construction projects the other two manuals deal with design which you may want to consider on the planning board phosphorus control is manual to manual one or volume one is essentially an overview of stormwater protection throughout so volume three best management practices is the cookbook it's the one of the contractors go to say okay if I'm going to excavate this ditch these are the specific Things that I have to do to protect the downstream waterways. I encourage you to unanimously send this back to the council with a recommendation that the language before you tonight be adopted in the code. Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions if you have some. Thanks. We might call you [47:31] Shanna Cox: back up after public comment so that you can answer any specific questions related to being the author. Absolutely, I'll be here. That's great precedent for PROSTITUTES. DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE? USUALLY THE VIDEO DOESN'T PICK UP OUR AUDIENCE, BUT THERE'S ONLY ONE OTHER PUBLIC PERSON FOR ME TO QUESTION, UNLESS THERE'S SOMEONE IN THE HALLWAY. I'M GOING TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. LAST CALL, PUBLIC COMMENT. GREAT. COUNCILOR SHIDDUM, WOULD YOU MAKE YOUR WAY UP FOR A QUICK QUESTION OR TWO? SORRY TO HAVE GONE THROUGH THAT EXERCISE. I BELIEVE IF I'M TO UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY, there is no version of changes by DEP to the main stormwater best practices manual that would somehow change this reference to a different volume. It will always be volume 3 best practices share woman Cox as far as you can see into the [48:27] David B. Chittim: future with your crystal ball sir. My future vision is severely limited, I'm sure you realize that. The folks in Augusta can do pretty much anything they [48:36] Shanna Cox: want the chances. Have there been significant changes to that being the cookbook no volume [48:43] David B. Chittim: three for all intents and purposes will remain volume three for the foreseeable future but i [48:51] Shanna Cox: nobody can guarantee that. I'm i'm comfortable with that. I would be very uncomfortable with volume three chapter four subsection six three. That would make me very uncomfortable. Yes right but the likeliness of it of them suddenly saying well volume two should be technical design and volume three should be related to phosphorus seems highly unlikely. I'm not looking for a guarantee. Highly unlikely and I will [49:15] David B. Chittim: point out that these three volumes have remained unchanged for decades. Obviously new technology comes along and there will at some point be a revision to reflect that. We have a new material that's a magic absorber of short [49:31] Shanna Cox: something but this will always tie it to the best practices in the manual regardless of what it's changed to based on technology and my understanding is yes thank you. Before you sit did anyone else have a specific question? I have one which is related to process and not content. I believe that it was the second READING AT CITY COUNCIL WHERE THIS WAS REVISED? [49:56] Speaker C (unidentified): THEY DID TWO FIRST READINGS. [50:00] Shanna Cox: CAN YOU MATH THAT OUT FOR ME? [Speaker C (unidentified): NO, I'M SORRY.] Can anybody make the second first, not second? [50:07] David B. Chittim: I'm sorry, I'm having a difficult time hearing you. [50:11] Shanna Cox: I think fundamentally my question is if this was caught at the second first reading at Council, which I have questions about a second first anything from a process perspective. Part of what sticks a little bit for me is the significant amount of time and discussion we spent on this with public hearings, public notification, publicly posted agendas, three reviews, of which some folks came to every single one consistently, and it was at the second first reading at City Council that suggestions were made, and that those suggestions added new language and reversed all of our work. Is that an accurate summary of the process, not content? I'm going to take your word for it because [51:08] David B. Chittim: honestly I do not remember whether this was first or second reading. There's really no such thing as a first second reading. Thank you. I don't know if the [51:17] Shanna Cox: staff wants to clarify on that point while we're here. It may just be my [51:21] Speaker C (unidentified): confusion, I'm sorry. So it may have been a second reading that they referred things back to you. I believe it may. I may have stated a first reading. On it was an agenda item twice, it was an agenda item twice. What? And they got, and they got to it. Yeah, they held a public hearing and talked about it both [51:41] Shanna Cox: times. So just the second reading, we can agree, doesn't have to be the first [51:46] David B. Chittim: second. I think that's probably correct, although frankly I don't remember. That's one of the reasons that we have two readings is so that we'll have to set two opportunities to examine the intent of any ordinance or any rule. [52:02] Shanna Cox: Thank you. I believe that we might have a fact checker in the audience. I will repeat it back for the record. Did you have a quick summary of what it was? Review and discuss. So for the record, literally through the microphone, we have a member of the audience who's attended very consistently, I'm assuming also City Council meetings as well as our own, good consistency, and she is recollecting that the first time it came to City Council it was perhaps tabled and not open to public comment, so that it could be further discussed and then opened a public comment discussed and sent back to us at the second reading which is maybe how shelly you got to a first public comment at a second council yeah and that sounds familiar now that it's said but i do think there was public comment at both times yeah and we have we have our public comment record reflecting that there was to public comments i love good civic democracy thank you very much mr murkow anything else for [53:22] Speaker L (unidentified): Mr. Chittum before we allow him to sit? Well, on this same subject, and unless I'm thinking of a different agenda item of the last few months, did we not do a zero to seven recommendation initially to the council on this particular item? Because if I remember right, this particular item did originate here, so if we sent it to the council zero to seven, then council sent it back to us, and that's where I think it was six to one. Look, and at that time, none, it got pushed again, you know, because the second time it went to the council, I [54:04] Speaker I (unidentified): believe the council was, this the item you table to date certain? Yeah, [54:10] Speaker L (unidentified): and then we took it up quicker, more than the date certain, because we didn't do a date. So that was another wrinkle in the whole process. [54:20] Shanna Cox: I wonder if that's where the tableting recollection came in. [54:23] Speaker L (unidentified): We did propose tableting it. My understanding was it was supposed to be in May, but we ended up taking it up in April, and we sent it to the council, I believe, six to one on that [54:37] Shanna Cox: occasion. I believe we have three sets of minutes that we're reviewing as part of tonight's agenda that might be available for reference anyway, but I'm looking for any staff input on setting our record straight that might be helpful. Okay, thanks. April 14th, which is maybe the only one we're not reviewing today. [54:57] Speaker L (unidentified): No, we have April 13th on our agenda for the minute, so when it went to council April 14th, six to one. Yeah, I pretty much figured it was going to pass the council, but apparently council decided to rework the language at that time and send it back here for our deliberations. [55:20] Shanna Cox: Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chittum. Heidi, is this for him? Yes, okay, then nope, not thank you yet, sir. [55:28] Speaker O (unidentified): Let him sit up here. I think my question for you, since you seem pretty well versed on item seven, how do you see this changing any, the implications for anything going forward? Because I would assume that the city's code would always, regardless of whether it was explicitly stated in here, would always have to adhere to the state standards. So are we really just reiterating that we are required to adhere to state standards in this now? [56:02] David B. Chittim: My understanding is that the volume 3 applies specifically to site location projects approved by DEP. It is not a blanket statewide ordinance or rule. This would make it a rule effective within the No Name Pond watershed overlay for the city of Louiston. [56:22] Speaker O (unidentified): Okay. So it is a new, like, level of requirements. [56:29] David B. Chittim: Yes. Yes, in the sense that it calls out specific actions to be taken in the event soil is disturbed within these 100-foot strips around drainage ways. Okay. Great. [56:43] Shanna Cox: To that end, I do see that 4A references the methodology by the Department of Environmental Protection and that the proposed development will incorporate appropriate storm water best management practices based on standards to assure that development within the watershed will not increase the total phosphorus comfort does that not get at the soil disruption as well [57:06] David B. Chittim: For a in a way it does but this is for contractors it gives them very explicit this is how you stake a hay bale this is how you lay down sedimentation cloth this is how you mitigate erosion so it is a handbook in essence and it makes it very easy for our codes department to say okay these conditions have or have not been met during this particular construction project does that answer your question yeah the [57:38] Shanna Cox: Summary of what I hear you actually saying is yeah we're supposed to do it anyway but this is really specific and tells people where to look and that [57:45] David B. Chittim: Can't hurt right so I'm for that but if I could there was a construction project done on No Name Pond Road about three years ago, which flew in the face of any kind of protection of water quality. It was a roadside ditch that was simply maintained. Excavating equipment came in, opened up the ditch, no attempt at all at any kind of sedimentation or erosion control. That has now eroded down to bedrock and is contributing. Every time we get an intense rainstorm it contributes to sedimentation entering no-name pond this language would prohibit that was that a public project i'm sorry was that a city project yes [58:35] Shanna Cox: I would add that part of what surfaced for us to us maybe surfaced to us during the many sessions that we had is that the existing man-made water filtration and wastewater management stormwater management system in the development writ large had never been maintained by the HOA, and that was potentially a contributing factor and an item that code enforcement has now taken further review in action on. And I name that because I, again, I don't think that an added layer of protection or specificity hurts but I what I do fundamentally come back to when I look at staff for this there's two pieces to this and what we heard consistently and why we spent so much time on it is that the existing language was not clear enough and that 's why it was being brought to us and that's why we were having discussion and i named that because in a couple of comments it was about strengthening the watershed ordinance whereas really the undertaking we were always endeavoring to do and were being asked to do was about clarifying. Strengthening is a different activity, and I do think this does strengthen it, but that wasn't the original intent, and that there is two sides to that. One is, and where it comes up most common and where we were being, I think, you know, spoken to about a sense of urgency, is that the first piece is about how we re use this language to review development and how staff reviews development, and candidly I'm not sure that seven speaks to that fully, only partially. I think it does speak to it partially, but it essentially says if you're going to develop, make sure you're managing the soil and erosion, whereas I think what we heard, and this is so, I'm coming to a question here, but what we heard originally is this language is not clear enough for staff alone to identify if the development can occur, not the remediation for the development itself, but if it can occur related to buffers and buffers, whether it's an inflow into a stormwater management versus a treated water leaving stormwater management, and that was what we were doing for work. And so I say that, and I am not trying to make this more steps and more public hearings, though we love seeing your faces so regularly, but realistically I am concerned. I have no concern about approving your language. I am not sure that it meets the original issue. What I am curious about, maybe it's because we're all just really tired of having this conversation over and over again, is that there has been nothing that further clarifies Whether development can or can't occur, this speaks to how we address treating the land while development is occurring, but the original question was can it and where, as it relates to buffers. And what I'm hearing through secondhand commentary is that Director Connor feels better about it now, and that everyone's clearer about it now, but that's because you all have been through 15 of these conversations and multiple public hearings. Fast forward ten years from now and none of you are in the same roles. Does the language give that clarity, and is that, or is that not, what we were intended to do? That's my question, which is part of why it's a process question. Love your language, happy to adopt it. I'm not sure it meets the original intent, and I'm not sure that we are aligned on what the original intent was, because we heard that it was to clarify and empower staff about what development can happen where and when, and when it comes to us or not, and not to strengthen the protections of the watershed. Our goal was to ensure that the clarity was there without weakening or substantively changing, literally don't change the intention of the ordinance language, but instead clarify it. And it sounds like council maybe wanted to see it strengthened, which is great, and I'm still not sure that any of us have addressed the clarify, because it wasn't we like the language of the Planning Board and we want to reference this specific manual, it was no, we are not, we're rejecting all the work done by the Planning Board and here is the new language, which is good language. Again, this isn't about not appreciating the language or addition, but it became a substitution, and with two driving purposes and intents that don't feel fully aligned for me. So that's fundamentally my question, and because we are working on recollections of many individuals, I'm gonna ask staff first, and then I would like to do a quick understanding from the board. Does the language provide clarity, or just how we've talked about it? Because if it's just how we've talked about it, we haven't done when we came here to do. Future Ms. Norton, whomever that might be, we'll still have this problem for a future Planning Board and council, hopefully also, you know, a future council, and that's part of my concern in terms of like doing good work that creates a change that lasts. Yeah, good question. So we, I do agree with [1:03:52] Speaker C (unidentified): You that the original question has not been addressed in language as far as providing written clarification in the course of this as staff has looked at this more deeply and has had various input there were essentially in this particular situation if we're talking about Waters Edge Drive subdivision there were two different instances of buffer so there was a 50-foot buffer that the Planning Board adopted as part of the approval where there was no nothing was allowed to happen they actually had To come back for a subdivision amendment to be able to put a well within a 50-foot buffer and that was around the perimeter of the subdivision itself the portion of this language that we've been looking at now for a couple of months that talks about the 50-foot buffer I appreciate it go from the audit yes thank you that reference would be you know we would refer to the definition of buffer in Article 2, which is a more generic definition because it's meant to describe buffer for all the Articles of the Zoning and Land Use Code. When we looked at that definition more closely, there is some vagueness in how that would be applied. And so staff is comfortable that we could apply that and that we could move forward potentially with the development at 18 Mars Edge Drive that and then in that case that you know any disturbance would now if this language is adopted would require that these additional standards would take place so that's where staff is at this point in time but yes it doesn't provide the crystal clarity for future staff that we had originally come and been seeking thank [1:06:00] Shanna Cox: You that's my understanding that's to my understanding okay a few a few things Firstly Shanna I do really appreciate what you just said because that was sort of my main concern was that I don't have an issue with strengthening anything by adding the reference to the stormwater best management practices from the DEP however I do think we still lack the clarity fundamentally that we were looking for initially so my suggestion regarding that would be to keep our language change and to add this section subsection 7 so that it both clarifies what can be done where and make Sure that we don't get sedimentation going into anything, be it a manmade drainage course or a stream. The other point, though, that is kind of brought up by what Shelley was just saying is that I don't actually think that the definition of buffer is vague. I think it's specific, and it's specifically about property boundaries. So it's weird to have a definition of buffer referring only to property boundaries, but then use the word buffer to refer to an area around a water body that either can or can't be developed depending on whether it's manmade or not. So I'm also seeing, frankly, a problem in the way we define buffer and then reference it in ways that don't have to do with our definition. Well said. Comment on that. Mr. Chittum, thank you. If you'd like to sit, I don't know that we won't have you come back up, so you might want to sit close, quite frankly. Yeah, I do agree. [1:08:04] Speaker C (unidentified): That when I have read the definition of buffer, it seems to have been written specific for visual issues, like a visual buffer was seemingly how the trees between you and the solar farm, yes, door, and it doesn't address the type of buffer we're talking about in that it doesn't prohibit necessarily certain activities. So that's, that's where I see the vagueness. It doesn't say that you [1:08:28] Shanna Cox: can't build something in a buffer. The way that it's referenced in article two, section two, and the way that we traditionally apply it is a noun. It is a thing that is buffering, right? And I think buffer, the way we have used it in the no-name pond conversations, is a metric. We are talking about a space of which has a particular distance, of which we have debated, yeah, we've debated how you will interact with the thing in that space. But buffer, the way that we've used it in these conversations, is to describe a distance, right? And I'd, for what that is worthwhile to you, I offer it. One of my questions is just like a clerical question, technical question, is it correct that we were provided with everything except that which we proposed to City Council? And so we have been provided with the original language and the proposed language that City Council has provided, but no reference today, in today's packet, to the work we had done. I'm sorry, no reference to what, to the work that we had done. So the language that we proposed to City Council is not available in our packet today Oh accurate can you give me a piece of paper that says and here's the language we proposed to City Council because I believe what we were provided today is the full article 9 and the proposed language as updated from City Council but not is that true would it be helpful for me to read it for folks okay get our bearings so that I'm not skipping anything for you so if you look at the item that we were provided today doesn't have a page number, but on the first page of section 24 2 through app, right, so your F is where our last language starts, and F would read, instead, space and bulk standards. Any building, structure, or use of land within the no name pond conservation overlay district shall comply with the following requirements in addition to the space and bulk regulations of the underlying zoning district. However, or article 12, section 2, shoreland areas, subsection 8, non-conformance, would allow the expansion, alteration, reconstruction, or replacement of the structure. That section will be used to regulate the replacement of a legally non-conforming structure within 100 feet of no-name pond, notwithstanding the below minimum setback from Shoreline requirement. This gets to measurements. Minimum setback from Shoreline, all structures other than permitted piers, docks, marinas, and similar water dependent uses, 100 feet. Minimum shoreline buffer retained in natural vegetated state, 50 feet. Minimum shoreline frontage for any abutting on the pond, 100 feet. Minimum buffer from perennial or intermittent streams, natural drainage ways, and the treated outflow from storm learner treatment infrastructure, 50 feet. And this is where the change is, we chose to delete or open storm water drainage course. Maximum impervious surface ratio, 0.1. So that's the language that we sent, and essentially the real change here on the one that you're looking at would be the first minimum, second minimum, third minimum stayed the same. The fourth minimum that starts with minimum buffer from perennial or intermittent stream, we added streams, comma, natural drainage ways, comma, and the treated outflow from stormwater treatment infrastructure. Can you read that one more time? Yep. In its final state as we proposed it, minimum buffer from perennial or intermittent streams, comma, natural drainage ways, comma, and the treated outflow from stormwater treatment infrastructure. Period. Period essentially we suggested deleting or open the storm water drainage course so that was the clarification that we put in this language refers to buffer I think both as a distance and a reference to the fact that within that distance which varies by item you can't essentially it gets a buffer of restriction where you must not and it is of a certain this is very helpful that's the language we pulled to city council and I am wondering just a quick like go around straw poll give me a thumbs up Not a motion if there is anything from preventing us from adopting the language from council in tonight's motion to send back as well as retaining our language from council and I'm looking to the board to see if that addresses the original intent issue as well as the strengthening and suggestion I will then come to Mr Chittum to see if there's anything that might prevent him supporting that when it came to council but the board first if we will so this is a both and option how do we feel about Adopting the recommendation from council while also proposing that our language is retained which was workshopped to give the original intent of clarity to staff I think my question is the [1:14:12] Speaker D (unidentified): One you're gonna ask counselor I'm okay with added seven and I prefer our language [1:14:21] Shanna Cox: As long as it doesn't come back to us again because he doesn't like it when it comes that's [1:14:25] Speaker D (unidentified): That's the question I have is why it was removed yeah so we'll come back to that yeah I think the [1:14:29] Speaker O (unidentified): Question about us was removed my question relating to that is did they understand what the intentions of what we added in there were and to be fair if they didn't understand what our intentions were then a future staff member reading this may not understand either I don't know how to make it more clear but that's my only guess as to why that was removed because it seemed like a good compromise between all the you know discussions we had I do agree that the section 7 is helpful it's good to have That reference to that specific document but and I appreciate your input Shelly that didn't help clarify for me at all whether it was more clear for the city staff that I got lost somewhere in there and I'm not sure [1:15:14] Shanna Cox: It felt like a really political answer that candidly that stopped short of saying it was we liked it too and we know how to deal with number 18 but future us very didn't through these conversations would still not be sure because we haven't actually addressed yeah sorry I'm not putting words in your mouth but is that roughly what you were saying we're good with the applications in front of us and we our existing staff have a sense of it but no we did not clarify the language yeah [1:15:42] Speaker C (unidentified): I think that's true and I think the point that was raised by Zoe is accurate that the definition of buffer doesn't apply to all the instances in our zoning and land use code where buffer is used and this is an example where it's not a good match I would say [1:16:04] Amy Smith: I agree that we should ask them to use the language that we proposed and you're okay [1:16:11] Shanna Cox: with number seven and I'm okay thank you same ditto same for me thanks Mr. Mercon I was opposed [1:16:21] Speaker L (unidentified): to the previous leg which I remain opposed and that's why when I saw the new language and it address my phosphorus concerns I support what's before us tonight I am not in support of altering the motion as it's been presented by staff thank you I [1:16:44] Shanna Cox: don't think i can sir mr chittum sorry you're welcome to have whispered to him but that's the best i could do mr chittum is there any reason that a proposal for seven and a recommendation of our original language if it came to you with admittedly a 6-1 vote would not be considered i 'd like to think that the council [1:17:07] David B. Chittim: will consider anything I would like to rebut the statement that six five of the of the planning board members have made I think including in or excluding from the definition of waterway anything that leads into a treatment facility and when we say treatment facility that's a euphemism for a retention pond or a detention pond if you exclude those inflows to the detention pond you are essentially assuming that detention pond and that retention pond are performing at a hundred percent that you are relying exclusively on them to prevent any damage to the inlet of that pond any material carried in the water any sedimentation any phosphorus nitrates whatever that those will be removed 100% in the detention slash retention pond. And I can tell you that is not the case. Providing this protection to all waterways is the strongest protection you can give to no-name pond. [1:18:27] Shanna Cox: Would you like to relay anything to us, Mr. Chittum? [1:18:33] David B. Chittim: I'm sorry, I didn't. [1:18:34] Shanna Cox: You're the only one who gets the podium at this point. It's largely because you are council president, because we have closed public hearing. And so if there's anything you would like to add to your comment, this is your opportunity to do so. [1:18:45] David B. Chittim: Well, I guess I'm asked if the planning board has a copy of the president of the No Name Pond Association's comments. Al Curran is also an engineer. It was my question, do we have that [1:18:58] Shanna Cox: letter from the association? I did write that down. No, I'm sorry. Okay, thank you. No, that was mail [1:19:08] David B. Chittim: to council. I'm sorry that it was not forwarded to you in our packet. Yep, Miss Lindstrom, I [1:19:15] Shanna Cox: thought, I think I saw your hand. Yeah, I do. I have a question. Just because I, my understanding is that is why you wanted to add the language about the stormwater best management practices, so that if somebody were doing work next to a ditch that they would prevent erosion into that ditch, but that they would like, I guess our thought was that if it's a just a ditch that you, that's why you don't need the buffer, is because it's a ditch, and this, your added protections would ideally prevent that sedimentation and phosphorus getting into that water. But your concern is that would not be the case, and therefore that's why we need to retain a 50-foot buffer around even like a man-made ditch. Yes. Thanks for your conciseness. That was lovely. Yes, I wish Alex was here, not gonna lie. Not that you all aren't lovely, you are, but Alex had strong feelings about this, and I, you didn't get any comment from Alex in his absence. I know it was planned absence of him. I think the language that we've added here, where we, it was not just perennial or intermittent streams or open stormwater drainage course, but we were specific about natural drainage ways and the treated outflow. I, the aim was for that to be more inclusive and specific, and if the argument against our language is the removal of open stormwater drainage course somehow weakened it and is expecting your sub section 7 to do the heavy lifting of treating water from disruption, and again, I think I'm hearing a desire to have a multi-layered solution, right, let's, if you're going to disrupt something, thing, let's do it according to volume three. Again, this language here was about where the disruption could occur and not just the treatment of the Disrupted area and so strikingly open stormwater drainage course allowed the original disruption to happen near a man-made spot for the purpose of the disruption, the creation of the thing, the development. That was the intent, because that is what we were asked to do. And I don't know that removing all of this so that it just reads again like we've been presented today, stream or open storm water drainage course, gets at it. And my understanding of the city's original concerns was that as it's written, this would preclude maintenance that was of open, how do we phrase it, storm water drainage courses. So it sounds like we might still potentially be precluding the city from maintaining open storm water drainage courses if we were to revert to the original language and HOA and HOA. Thank you. And I'm sorry that we can't do the back and forth that you desire and we might even benefit from, but the reality is even if that's not the intent, the lack of clarity is how the intent is questioned. And that the goal of being able to put a driveway within 50 feet of a man-made retention pond appropriately now with the right volume three treatment would allow the driveway to be established in part because it is not next to a stream, it is next to a man-made treatment area. I think if I'm to understand your yes still stands like fundamental disagreement and no the driveway shouldn't exist near there because that is the intention of this clarity. I'm using the exact case example that prompted this discussion in the beginning and is a development that to the best of my knowledge is still on pause awaiting permitting and clarity from both bodies. Yeah, I'm sorry the last part was not very loud. The development, I know it's it's the blower. Yeah, the development application has been on hold and a permit has not yet been issued due to the ongoing deliberation between both bodies. Is that correct? Yeah, for development for 18 waters there is no permit issued at this point. No, correct. I'm sure that's driving somebody crazy. Good job. Okay, I'm looking for suggestions from the board. I think what I'm hearing is there's consensus that we like the addition that council has offered. There's concern that the significant work we did with the intention of clarity was not the intention with which maybe city council reviewed it and so perhaps there is a dissonance between what we were trying to do and what city council was trying to do period and that maybe both are necessary though neither knew the other problem existed and needed to be solved there's desire today to still see clarity while adopting the language from council there's some intention shared in the room that proposing the language that we had might be rejected again in part because the language open stormwater drainage course being struck as we recommended would create concerns as voiced here. And I don't know that we're at an impasse, but it sure feels like we're at the likeliness of repeating this back and forth again to the detriment of somebody whose financing is on a table, for a lot homeowners association who feels strongly about increased strengthened protections, which is a different intention and a valiant one. Is there anyone who sees this differently or can offer an alternative path forward, Mr. Marca, as our dissenting one vote, do you see an area of compromise that I'm struggling to find? I'm sure if I find compromise [1:26:25] Speaker L (unidentified): I'm looking at the action necessary, which seems to be leaving out components to the amendment, which should probably be read along with it if that's the way the motion was to be made. Any ordinance that goes up to the City Council, and as we heard from Mr. Chittum earlier, he's looking for unanimous support of what we have in front of us, and that meant that is probably going to pass City Council without much to do. If the Council doesn't like putting back in the previously proposed language, it's only going to take three votes against to kill it, because it takes a super majority of the Council to pass an ordinance on recommendation from the Planning Board. They need five votes to pass it, they need five votes to [1:27:21] Speaker C (unidentified): do like if you recommend something, if you were to make a negative recommendation, they would need five votes, but if they're in concurrence, they don't need five votes, so [1:27:33] Shanna Cox: if they liked what we proposed, which is yes, we love Council's language for number seven and we would encourage you to keep our language, and that is what goes to Council, and they agreed with us, they just need a majority. And if they disagreed with us, they would also need a majority or a super majority, because that would be not concurrent, as I just understood you stating it. Let me, let me just review the work, don't want this to be one of those weird double negative things where we don't recommend And that's the way that it's super majority double negatives are bugger Mr. Chittum to the microphone and I apologize for the up and down and while he's going to the podium I [1:28:13] Speaker C (unidentified): I can answer the question so for vote requirements if the playing board approves a proposal the council needs at least four counselors to I'm sorry in this example we would be not council may amend the code only by the affirmative vote of at least five councillors so if you disapprove then they need five so be supermajority to go against your yeah but not to go in concurrence with [1:28:50] Shanna Cox: Yeah and there is no version of us recommending changes that recommends it in two motions so that seven could pass with a majority and our additional proposal being added back in would be a supermajority it's all or nothing are [1:29:11] Speaker C (unidentified): You asking if you can send two different recommendations I'm asking you if that [1:29:15] Shanna Cox: Would change the way City Council would act on them I imagine that it would be one no-name pronged it [1:29:24] Speaker C (unidentified): Seems like they've sent you they've [1:29:30] Shanna Cox: Sent you something to act on yes and it sounds like we're leaning towards acting on modifying the recommendation that they sent back to us yeah which sounds like they would need a superman correct yep Mr. Chittum thank you for making it back to the podium well thank you so [1:29:48] David B. Chittim: Much this has been a an exciting tennis match back and it's lovely isn't it the lobbing back and forth I would like to make one point and that is if the language that's presented to you tonight with no change or modification by the planning board is approved by the planning board as a recommendation of the council and the council approves that would not in any way impede the ability of the homeowner who desires to build a home within 50 feet of a natural drainage way leading into a retention Pond he could still do that absent the language that you're considering that would exempt influence to detention ponds so even if that language were to remain exactly as you have in front of you the homeowner would not be precluded from building a house he would only be required to maintain best management practices if he deserves soil within 50 feet of that inlet drainage way to the detention [1:30:48] Shanna Cox: Pond, yeah, I think we all understand that. I think just to put it in a really plain way for the documentation that we do have in front of us all collectively, what Mr. Chittum is saying is that if we make no changes to 2F and it appeared the way it was presented tonight, which is the original with no changes from Planning Board, and instead we add item seven all the way at the end in your last page, then the development could move forward and I think we're all feeling pretty good about that and have been at least majority. I'm not sure where you stand in the actual development, generally speaking. I think the issue that we have is great, 18 Water's Edge gets its clarity and great, we have a manual that we're referencing for when we disrupt. What we have not done is solve the original intent and problem of clarity. [1:31:41] Speaker D (unidentified): I wonder if we, in order to help others move forward, we move forward with the council's recommendation and we have to bring this up again later to clarify and in doing so we also ask for [1:31:53] Shanna Cox: changes to the buffer recommendations for the changer to the buffer definition. That is what I'm thinking as well. Yeah, we could do that. Great, could [1:32:04] Speaker D (unidentified): you repeat what you said, Darren? My, I guess my suggestion is that we approve council's version and that we at another date take up No Name Pond overlay to clarify the buffer and the language in the fourth item of minimum buffer. Thank you, to provide the clarity that we were originally asked to provide. Yeah, and perhaps even make a [1:32:29] Shanna Cox: recommendation to city council to have a discussion about whether our request as originally made was for strengthening as well as clarify. So if we're going to clarify, are we doing it with the intent of strengthening or maintaining with clarity, or is that up to the board? No, I, yeah, I mean, I think it's up to council and a recommendation that we make to them. They can choose to sit with or not. They can say thanks, we're not going to discuss it, have a great day. They've done that plenty. So what I would love to see from this board is a motion word for word of the action necessary provided in the staff memo and then a second motion that would vote on separately. Let's tackle the first motion as we can. I didn't quite the second half of that. Sure, the first motion would be the motion as presented would approve the language as responded by council and which I imagine based on the conversation here would pass unanimously, which would be the adoption of seven and the phosphorus concerns being addressed. Then I would like to see a second motion proposed and acted on by the board for requesting staff to bring up this issue again with proposed changes or suggestions for the definition of buffer as well as the ability to review language in 2f. So two motions and that gets us past the whole enacting the staff to do something in the first place with the second motion. Yep, yeah, willing to make. [1:34:05] Speaker L (unidentified): The first motion, that sounds great. Make a motion pursuant to article 7 section 4 and Article 17, Section 5 of the Zoning and Land Use Code, to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council for amendments to Appendix A, Zoning and Land Use Code, Article 11, District Regulations, Section 24-2, No Name Pond Conservation Overlay District, NNP, with the three components, one, to remove the proposed language, two, to retain the current language and three Addie section 7 the wording for the. Recommended section 7 was provided by council chittum and is both attached and below thanks. [1:34:48] Amy Smith: Second thanks discretion. [1:34:53] Shanna Cox: On the motion on the floor yeah I was just checking if that action necessary was one and two helpful not necessary but still there yeah but that motion sounded good great any discussion on the motion. On the floor call the roll michael marcotte yes panthea burns yes zoe lidstrom yes shanna cox yes amy smith yes heidi bertels yes darren gallant yes thank you i'm happy to take a stab at a second. Motion unless darren is excited to do so it looked like he was leaning in try and remember what you okay i'm gonna i'm gonna yeah thanks i'd like to make a motion that initiates a staff review and bringing forward at a future agenda item review of the language for definition of buffer in zoning and land use code article two as it might relate to the no name pond watershed as well as a review of the language in section 24 article 2 F and that discussion would support our ability to clarify for. Future use and staff review buffers zones and distances and give us some intent around both clarifying and WHAT STRENGTHENING IN THAT CLARITY MIGHT LOOK LIKE. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR? CALL THE ROLL. OH, JUST KIDDING. HEIDI DOES HAVE A COMMENT. [1:36:36] Speaker O (unidentified): NO, I'M SORRY. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE TIME TO ASK THIS, BUT AS PART OF THIS ITEM, TOO, I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO HEAR, YOU KNOW, WE HAD SOME ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE THAT YOU SAID SOME OF THE STAFF WAS ACCEPTING OF THIS EXISTING LANGUAGE. So if we come back to this item, it would be nice to hear from the staff that were impacted by this change, whether you know if it was accurately reflected their intentions of clarity, more than anecdotally, maybe once it's an action, how it works for them. I don't know if there's a [1:37:07] Speaker C (unidentified): way to include this, or it was just, you know, sorry. When you say once it's an action, it sounds like you're asking for a staff to report back after you've enacted it. That's sorry, the first item [1:37:23] Shanna Cox: the motion on the floor right now, and the question she's asking is, when we see this come back to us for further review, could you include in your commentary and memo something beyond anadotal second-hand hearsay of other staff's understanding of clarity? She said it much better than I [1:37:42] Speaker O (unidentified): did. If there's any other staff that can back up the acceptance that section 7 was enough for them, [1:37:49] Shanna Cox: I would like to hear that. The short version is, Shelly, we heard extensively that staff did not find the standard language clarity. It was not clarifying. We're hearing today that with no changes to that language, it's suddenly clear. Okay, we'd like to understand that better. [1:38:04] Speaker C (unidentified): Thank you. Yep. Sounds good. Great. [1:38:07] Shanna Cox: Yes, thanks. Call the roll. Michael Marcotte. Yes, Penthea Burns. Yes, Zoe Lidstrom. Yes, Shanna Cox. Yes, Amy Smith. Yes. Heidi Bertels. Yes. Darren Gallant. Yes. Would you please ensure that when that comes back to us, the reference material includes a letter from the HOA? Sure. And any recommendations, letters, that might come from council or council president be helpful in our pocket as well. Okay. Thanks for your ongoing engagement. We look forward to seeing you all in the future because we're not done with this one. Hopefully it's enough to address some court concerns as we go forward. Word, you can, we might not respond. Oh, that's a great question. The question for the record is, if there's further discussions about the no-name pond overlay, will members of the public and the butters, or those impacted, be of being notified? I would offer that if it goes to public hearing, yes, definitely. If it does not go to public hearing, which means the first time we discuss it might be a workshop item that does not go to public hearing, you would not be a butters, and residents would not be notified. Because there's nothing to speak publicly on, so either tune in from home, watch the recording, sign up for the text alerts from the city to get all agendas, which I'm always big fan of, but you would not be personally notified unless it was going to a public comment. Mr. Mercado, did I hit on the right point? Can I actually saw you nodding, I like that, if I if [1:39:43] Speaker C (unidentified): I might clarify, so this is this is a change that is for the whole No Name Pond watershed overlay, so we don't consider there to be a butters, there's no application before us for 18 Waters Edge Drive, so there's no requirement that we would notify a butters of 18 Waters Edge Drive because we're not acting on an application, so we have been notifying you as a courtesy and we will continue to do so knowing that you have an interest in this, so [1:40:16] Shanna Cox: That's a great clarifying point then for our own understanding, people who live within the watershed would not get a notification because it's not an [1:40:23] Speaker C (unidentified): application we are not notifying the entire watershed that you're looking at [1:40:27] Shanna Cox: making this change, that's right, so tell your friends and put it out through the HOA to sign up for the text alerts, we have typically been calling them, we [1:40:39] Speaker C (unidentified): didn't have an email for that individual, so and whether they choose to notify the rest of the people and the development is up to them, so yeah [1:40:53] Shanna Cox: I would just summarize what Shelly is doing a great job saying is what we're doing out of courtesy versus what we're required to do, which could be cumbersome and hard, great, yeah, and should continue to do so, but also things happen like Shelly could be sick and someone else not have the list, in which case don't sue us, we're still doing what's required, there's a lawyer somewhere who appreciated me saying that, Mr. Marquardt, is a requirement for [1:41:18] Speaker L (unidentified): the planning board agendas to be out seven days, 14 days ahead of a meeting, yes they are required [1:41:24] Speaker C (unidentified): to be posted in city hall seven days in advance, seven days, yes they go downstairs on the [1:41:30] Speaker K (unidentified): board next to the city clerk's office in the hallway, so if you we were signed up with civic [1:41:35] Speaker L (unidentified): Plus as I have been for 17 years, I get an email, the chair said something about tax, but I get text, you get tax and I get emails, so if someone wants to sign up for that they'd be aware of every planning board meeting and could skim the agenda, well nothing there for me this time, next time [1:41:56] Shanna Cox: MAYBE THERE'S SOME INTERESTING WHERE THE ACTION IS AT, SO I CAN'T IMAGINE SOMEBODY NOT WANTING TO know what's on every planning board agenda because fabulous activities finance committee Shelley, there's no answer that you would say except I love planning board and all agendas [1:42:12] Speaker C (unidentified): are amazing and all the agendas do go on the website, but usually it's the Wednesday before the seven day requirement is posting in city hall, so that is what we're required to do seven days in advance is post in city hall, but as far as posting to the website it doesn't happen seven days in advance, so you're notifying me might be five days in advance the text [1:42:33] Speaker K (unidentified): and emails would be five days, that's right, typically, yep, thanks, okay, onward [1:42:41] Shanna Cox: other business, which you thought we didn't have any of because it was postponed, but we did add to one, I requested that other business actually speak to, and this is an item that I brought up electronically as well, the Lisbon Street safety and mobility study, which is a presentation and public input session that we were going to have tonight and was cancelled only due to sickness and you know fate, right, I'd like to know specifically about the public input session, I believe this survey has been done as well and there's been other forms of public, so I guess I would ask and frame it this way, what public notification was put out beyond the agenda about this opportunity to have public input at this session, and what will we be providing for marketing messaging, public sharing, an invitation to the future session is what I'd like for us to discuss, I had hoped, and when we saw that this was being added, asked what is being done through messaging channels of the city to make this a public input session, and I feel like it was added to an agenda with a word public input session next to it, and I've been looking pretty intently, I do believe I saw an actual survey being promoted in some great ways, but in terms of a in-person opportunity to discuss and to hear firsthand, this feels like the one, and I didn't really see it promoted, and that might have been me living under a rock, and so I'm just asking if you can share a little bit more about what has been done, so I did [1:44:37] Speaker C (unidentified): I DID REACH OUT TO OUR MARKETING STAFF TO ASK THEM TO PUT IT ON SOCIAL MEDIA. I HAVEN'T FOLLOWED UP TO KNOW. I DON'T GET SOCIAL MEDIA FOR THE CITY, JUST TO BE HONEST. I'M NOT SURE HOW IT WAS ADVERTISED, BUT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO GO OUT ON THOSE CHANNELS. WHEN WE WERE APPROACHED, THERE WAS A PUBLIC PRESENTATION AT THE COMPLETE STREETS COMMITTEE meeting a few months back which Alex was at and he asked that would then come to the planning board and be presented. When I was speaking about a week in advance to the consultant about what was going to be happening he suggested it was a good opportunity for public input and I said okay we can invite the public but it wasn't a planned thing that we were having a big public input session right it was more of a this is an opportunity for pub for input from the planning board and if public wants to come listen and also provide input they could so Now that we have potentially a month to plan this we can look at other ways to get that out. This is not a you know a study that I've been heavily involved with so I don't know what other things they've been doing As far as advertising the survey or what other public input they have planned, but I can find that out. Yeah, I mean [1:46:00] Shanna Cox: thank you while I do love some public accountability and the ability to know what have we done and was that enough or what it was every opportunity that was requested taken my real intention with this opportunity of it being postponed is ensuring that we do a more visible job than what I feel like has been done already and so not only would it be a request to the marketing professional to share it in those ways but I would say whatever graphic is created and it's going out on social media could very easily be emailed to this board and we could aid in that outreach which was literally what I asked for and so the ability to have the information to share and invite people is really useful and their allies whether it's the Complete Streets Committee I think of the very heavily public engaged process after a couple of the pedestrian deaths death that happened in a row, some on Lisbon Street, there are key stakeholders. And if this is a presentation that has benefited from three months more worth of work or more from when it was at Complete Streets, it's not a well, somebody already saw it. It's an advancement of what they might have already seen or engaged with, and so it does seem like an opportunity where there's former actions and groups of people who have been engaged on this. Like, even just saying, hey, can you guys help put it out, would be useful to us and to folks who maybe were chaired on that committee, sat on that committee, or excited to see kind of next steps. But we've had a number of people in our community die on this street, and this is a reoccurring issue for economic development, perception, and safety. And this is an opportunity for people to like care and get involved, and people are always asking about that, and I would love to say we did our best, and I'm not confident that we have, and we have a great opportunity to ensure we do, and that's all that I feel others who might want to. Mr. Murcott, I was curious when I saw Lisbon [1:47:59] Speaker L (unidentified): Street on in the title, what about the other thoroughfares, 126 and 202? Have those already been done, or is this one, this thoroughfare, the first up on the agenda? So [1:48:19] Speaker C (unidentified): there's a separate study that's underway, much farther along, that was looking at Sabbatus and Main Street. That was a DOT and city project. This Lisbon Street study is through ATRC, and so [1:48:39] Shanna Cox: can you help that acronym for viewers at home? Yeah, they're the Andrew Scoggins something [1:48:47] Speaker C (unidentified): Transportation Resource Center. Thank you, sir. Yes, so that out of Coggins, so there, I believe, the grantee of the grant and running the grant, and at this point the study is very early. WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE PRESENTING WAS NOT DESIGN IDEAS, BUT WHAT IS THE STUDY AREA, WHAT ARE THE ISSUES WE ARE LOOKING AT, AND THEN LOOKING FOR INPUT. IT WASN'T [1:49:16] Shanna Cox: I ACTUALLY THINK THAT IS THE MORE CRUCIAL STAGE. [1:49:19] Speaker C (unidentified): OF COURSE. IT IS PRETTY EARLY DAYS. ANYWAY, WE ARE JUST LOOKING AT THE MAJOR CORRIDORS IN DIFFERENT GRANT APPLICATIONS AND STUDIES. [1:49:34] Shanna Cox: So the short version of that is there was a committee and studies done after some of those deaths that prioritize these three thoroughfares, and Main Street was the first priority in that, and that has progressed further and faster than that which we were gonna see today, so like crosswalks and so forth that we're familiar with on Main Street. So well, there was a study done, and that's at various stages, and some pieces have been implemented, and they are parallel processes and not owned by the same folks. Yeah, it's so it's kind of so the repaving [1:50:05] Speaker C (unidentified): Of Main Street, I guess, is coincidental to the fact that we also have a study for future improvements to Main Street that are not what you're seeing implemented today. So the ADA upgrades and paving was already scheduled, and then last year we started a project with DOT to do more of like long-range transportation planning for like what will the road look like for 40, 50 years, you know, and looking to then build on that study with grant [1:50:44] Speaker K (unidentified): funding for implementation in the future. And what organization is that you're saying? It's not the [1:50:49] Speaker C (unidentified): ATRC. That was a direct grant that the city applied to DOT for, and it was a 50 grant, so DOT paid half and the city was paying half, and that is still ongoing, but it's at this point there's been, there are designs that are pretty close to finalized, conceptual designs, that then we would actually take and apply for other grant opportunity, federal if it was available, state if it's available, for implementation. So just to clarify that what you're seeing happen right now on Main Street isn't that planning process. It was a repaving that was already planned, and in that planning process there was also looking at Sabatis Street, I believe portions of, and then this is a separate grant so to look at outer Lisbon. I do feel like there's a piece [1:51:44] Shanna Cox: of history that predates you arriving at lewiston i'm sure there is maybe a couple right that's a bridge between the two there was like a safety committee after some of these very public deaths there was a safety committee that said we want to see some changes there was some early done work with I think the Complete Streets Committee and the bicycle coalition main a couple of others that essentially laid out some of the changes that you've seen so when you hear Shelley say some of what's happening isn't what was being called for in the plan, that doesn't mean that it hasn't been called for in plans, and some of that is some of that early work and suggestions has begun to be implemented. In fact, because there were some distinct grants sought to like, so some of the work that you see at the Fry Street intersection, the medians that were put in with the crosswalk, kind of like there's a word for it in the world of pedestrian, but like you can stand in a safe median before you finish Crossing the street that's out near the bank and towards Martin's on Main Street, those medians, those are changes that reflect the pedestrian and safety needs that came from earlier studies in that earlier committee work. And what you're hearing Shelly give voice to is, and part of the committee said Main Street needs a strategy, Sabata Street needs a strategy, Lisbon Street needs a strategy, and our city is having to essentially play the coordinator of the actions from the original committee which has been implemented, which got put into the capital improvement plan, which is getting a grant from where, and what is moving those each main thoroughfares along. And so there was some work done, as you've heard Shelly say, that's combining some of the Main Street and Sabata Street long range planning. Some of what you're seeing implemented are recommendations from earlier work that's being paid for through either grants, capital improvement plan and investments, and regular repaving. And what you're seeing here is the Lisbon Street one essentially being three years behind what we're seeing with Main Street on its own process, because it's the street that didn't get done yet. That helpful? Yeah, good degree, yeah. I know it's not, it's not the right, and it's not a good [1:53:53] Speaker L (unidentified): answer, but it's, it's the one stretch of road I'm most familiar with, yeah. Obviously feeds in and out on our exit 80, yeah. I think my [1:54:05] Shanna Cox: perspective, and so this is not historical knowledge, just more like the, just over the years, but Main Street and Sabata Street were prioritized because of youth and school zones, and with the removal of Martel and the changes that you saw on Bartlett Street with Connor's being added, I think that's why Lisbon was important but less important than the other two in terms of urgency. Would have [1:54:30] Speaker L (unidentified): might would have been nice to have that in place before the project at 860, yeah. [1:54:35] Shanna Cox: Well, I would say it's a good impetus for many conversations we've had about mobility for the Martel development to dovetail with our conversations here. So there was another, other business item. Well, please, yeah. So just to recap [1:54:52] Amy Smith: on the Lisbon Street, we are requesting the opportunity to help publicize this when it happens, right? Yeah, okay, great, bolded and underlined. Thank you, Miss [1:55:03] Shanna Cox: Mitchell. Our other business is a vacant building registry, yeah. So I was [1:55:10] Speaker D (unidentified): Curious about this, and just because I'd seen Auburn had moved this way and some other cities, and I wondered if the planning board had anything, and then did some looking. So before I was on planning board in October, you had a conversation with director Connor, and I was curious to hear how that went. And my actual ask is if he could return and bring that conversation forward again. I've seen lots of movement in this area. I think as housing concerns have come up, there's an interest in keeping track of what are unoccupied buildings, for safety concerns, but also for encouraging owners to use those spaces. And I see that in my neighborhood where there are homes that have been empty for years. And so I'm curious if someone gave me a brief summary of how that conversation went for the board. It seemed mostly negative, to be honest, from the notes, but that's kind of my ask. Yeah, before [1:56:06] Shanna Cox: we moved up. Good, did you get that request staff? [1:56:09] Speaker C (unidentified): Would be happy to provide a update on that. [1:56:15] Shanna Cox: Good, we'll wait for that. All [1:56:16] Speaker L (unidentified): right, great. On that same note, I've seen empties in my neighborhood for 17 years, and it was eight years ago that we had a rental registration committee that was supposed to be very promising. The software that was supposed to be implemented at the same time, I believe that it's somewhat in place. There are landlords that have to report annually, but not much is being done with it, and I don't think there's much integration between code enforcement and the fire department, and not having that interconnectivity, so that if the fire department rolls, they know that it's an empty or not. Yeah, so that should be [1:57:04] Speaker D (unidentified): incorporated in the discussion. Absolutely, and that complication might be why the city doesn't move forward with this. It's a challenge to manage. [1:57:15] Shanna Cox: Thanks. Before we move to reading of the minutes, because as soon as we do that, you guys jump to adjournment really quickly, I would like to just express my deep gratitude for each of you board members for what presumably could have been a very quick night. You all very kindly dug in to think about original intent and long-term work and the results of our efforts, and that would have been an easy thing to not do, and I'm just grateful to serve next to you guys consistently. Okay, reading of the minutes. I'm looking for a motion to adopt March 23rd, April 13th, and June 8th, 2026 draft minutes. So moved. Like that, they're second. Thank you. Any discussion on the minutes? Call The roll. Michael Marcotte, yes. Panthea Burns, yes. Zoe Lidstrom, yes. Shanna Cox, yes. Amy Smith, yes. Heidi Bertels, yes. Darren Gallant, yes. Is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second? Second. All in favor with an aye? Aye. Thanks, everybody. Can [1:58:25] Amy Smith: we shut that up? Are you going to shut it off? I can. Okay. I'll do the doors. [1:58:31] Speaker O (unidentified): All right. Two microwaved corn dogs. Good job. Okay. Yeah, I was trying to, like, immediately messed it up. [1:58:40] Shanna Cox: That. I almost stopped on my way. I've been in back two hours all day.