Speakers labeled via automated voice-based diarization + AI name-matching against the city's official roster. Automated transcription can still mis-hear a name during fast speech (e.g. a rapid roll-call vote) -- clear near-misses are auto-corrected, but this is not manually verified line-by-line. Treat names as a strong best guess, not an official record.
Unfinished Business
[1:58] Jonathan Boucher: Good evening and welcome to the applicants, staff, and board members, and members of the public. This is the May 19, 2026 meeting of the City of Bangor's Planning Board. It is seven o'clock. My name is Jonathan Boucher. I'm the chair of the board. Members are volunteers in the Bangor community, and other board members in attendance this evening include Ted Brush, Trisha Hayes, Greg Hobson, Ken Hewn, vice president, vice president, vice chair Janet Jonas, Ross, Russ Whitford, and alternate member Justin Cartier is not here tonight. City staff members in attendance this evening include Planning Officer Anya Colette, outside counsel John Hamer, City Engineer Jefferson Davis, and Planning Analyst Matthew Altiero. We thank them all for their help in preparation for this meeting. We'll start with our old business, which includes a review of the meeting minutes from May 5th, 2026. Is there any modifications or comments on the minutes?
[2:57] Janet Sanborn Jonas: Yes. Member Jonas? Chair, I would like to clarify the comment that I made regarding the change in ordinance for the food trucks to include the fact that the reason I supported it was more not to make it necessarily easier to have food trucks, but to promote the development from food truck to brick and mortar business here in this here in the city. So this section
[3:24] Jonathan Boucher: so the section where it says member Jonas expressed interest in extension right here, you want to make a correction or so just take a correction. I want to amp or amplify or augment
[3:35] Janet Sanborn Jonas: meant that statement to include that I promoted that mostly because I want, I'm very happy to see food trucks which can become brick and mortar businesses here in the city, which eventually get to the point where they get enough business and get enough interest
[3:51] Jonathan Boucher: and get enough experience to become brick and mortar. Any other, so any other comments on minutes or any clarification either from other members in the case that member Jonas is making a clarification, do we need to make a motion to amend the minutes or anything along those lines? Yeah, so I would look for a motion to amend the minutes and could you state what your
[4:17] Janet Sanborn Jonas: amendment is? My amendment would be to augment what was in the minutes to include the fact that the reason that I supported the ordinance change was to encourage food trucks to eventually become brick and mortar businesses in Bangor.
New Business
[4:38] Jonathan Boucher: I have a motion from member Huynh. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, member Woodford. And I'd look for a roll call vote, member Brush. No. So no to the amendment? No to the amendment. I don't see any reason to change the minutes. Okay, let's see. Member Hayes? Yes. Remember, member Hobson? Well, you can vote on the amendment to the minutes. Yes, I would assume. Do we need any clarification on that? He wasn't here at the meeting. Okay, so would you retract your vote, please? I will retract my vote. Thank you. Member Hobson? Yes. Remember Jonas? Yes. Member Whitford? Yes. And the chair votes yes. All right, so I do still need a motion to accept the minutes as amended. Move to approve. We have a motion from member Hewn. Okay, and a second for member Jonas. A roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Number Hobson, will skip over you because you weren't here for that. Member Hewn? Yes. Remember Jonas? Yes. Remember Whitford? Yes. Chair votes yes. That brings us down to the introduction of new business, and there's a bit of an introduction I have to read to just sort of walk us through what that's going to entail. The planning board has two main roles. First, we review amendments to the land development code, which typically include either changes to the zoning to zoning districts or changes to the text within the code. Secondly, the board serves as a regulatory authority on land development permits, commonly known as site plan review. Site plans are reviewed to ensure compliance with city code as to parking, driveways, storm water management, lighting, landscaping, and buffering, building location, environmental impacts, and shoreland zoning, as may be applicable. We also ensure the plan meets the dimensional requirements for the project's zoning district. We review larger site plans that trigger site location development for the main DEP as well under their requirements. Some uses are conditional uses that have specific conditions and requirements we use to review the project. State statute also outlines the requirements for subdivision review, and the city has additional standards as to roadway and utility specifications. The board ultimately endorses a plan that will go to the registry of deeds if the plan is approved. There are three items on the agenda that are land development permits, and further information on the city's codes and standards and the comprehensive plan may be found on the city's website. The way we will proceed with the presentation and public Comment and deliberation is as follows. Review of each item will be as follows. For land development and permits, we will first consider the vote and vote on the application's readiness for review and any concerns for conflict of interest. For all items, the applicant or their representative should then come forward to the podium and provide a brief introduction to the proposal. Then they should stay at the podium while we consider any questions from the staff and or board members. For code amendments, staff may make the presentation. We do have other items, they're not code amendments, but we have two items I believe that Anya you'll be presenting tonight. Once the item has been presented, the applicant may be seated and we will allow time for public comments. For public comment, the person should come to the podium, introduce themselves, state if they are a Bangor resident and or an abutter to the property, as applicable, and indicate if they are for or against the proposal. It's also helpful if you present your thoughts based upon the city's codes and standards and the comprehensive plan, as these are the primary documents used by the board to make our decision. All comments and discussion should remain respectful and considerate of others. Once public comments are completed, we will close the item to public comment. The board will then deliberate on the proposal using the applicable standards. For clarity, when considering land development proposals, the code standards are typically read and voted on separately. The final decision is then read and voted on, and if the applicant disagrees the land development permit decision that the board has made, they may appeal the decision to the Superior Court of Maine. Once a project you are interested in has been reviewed, you may leave the meeting, but please be respectfully quiet so as not to disturb the review of other agenda items. Our first item is going to be a land development permit application, a major site development for the demolition of an existing Bailey building and the construction of a 5,500 square foot addition in its place with the offices, classrooms, restrooms, new mechanical and new mechanical. The new footprint will be 2,750 square feet located at 10 Broadway, map lot 049-034 in the Downtown Development District, DDD. The applicant owner, All Souls Congregational Church. One second, we need a point of it's not a point of order, so he needs to correct the light. We're just going to take a pause for a second. It's fine, I made a mistake anyway. I read them out of order. We're going to be starting with a different, land development permit. I'm sorry, the order that we're going to be doing it in, our first item is going to be a minor site development for 1011 Union Street, Map Lot R24-011F and R24-017A, a land development permit application, minor site development for the expansion of 22 spaces the existing parking located at 1011 union street map lot r24-011f and r24-017-a in the shopping and personal service district smps the applicant golden touch tar lot LLC the owner minus properties incorporated 11 F and golden touch tar lot LLC which is 17a my mistake for reading the wrong one first but that's the one that we're going to be starting with so to start this off we'd like to we'd like to have a motion about the items readiness remember
[11:08] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): him? Yes, Chair, I move this, the application that was deemed complete on May 19th, 2026. The applicant paid all applicable fees and the proposed project was a minor site development. Thank you. Can I get a second?
[11:26] Jonathan Boucher: And I'll do a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Number Huynh? Yes. Number Jonas? Yes. Number Woodford? Yes. The Chair votes yes. That brings us to the presentation. Can the applicant, yeah, please come up to the podium, the presenter, project. Good
[12:24] Justine Drake: evening thank you for the introduction my name is justine drake i'm a civil engineer with hinkley hill designs and i'm presenting on behalf of the owner i have nathan woodard with me the owner of the property and as mentioned my the project is to propose 22 new parking spaces at midas at 101 1 union street in bangor it's directly adjacent just east of the new encompass health facility just for your reference for the location so we aren't making any modifications to the existing site other than to accommodate the new parking spaces. So last year Nathan had purchased a second parcel bus behind the existing store from Encompass Health in order to allow this expansion, and the reason he's doing so is to improve operations of his business, because currently he has a very tight parking area and he didn't own the land previously. So that's the purpose and the work limited to the existing property owned by Midas will just be to install 188 parking space because now that we're expanding the number of parking spaces he has to has to accommodate a second handicapped parking space there is an encroachment on the Western property line. It's mentioned in the staff notes and the owner is working with the abutting property owner to get an easement and that's noted on the site plan. Do you have any questions or is there anything that you wanted to add?
[14:04] Jonathan Boucher: Any questions from the board? Any questions from staff? I think not at this time. Any questions to staff before we open it up for public comment? Thank you. We'll open up the public comment at this time. Any public comment? Anyone here want to speak to this item? Anyone on Zoom? No public comment? We will close public comment on this. One more time, back to the board members. Any questions or discussion? Just a quick question. Yeah, Member Jones.
[14:47] Janet Sanborn Jonas: So we approved the acquisition of this particular piece of property not so long ago right with the intention for them to expand their parking as a way to get an encompass to get what they needed and get Midas the parking that they needed so I'm not exactly clear why this
[15:11] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Is here before us now I think the only thing that came before you was a zone change for this
[15:16] Janet Sanborn Jonas: Back parcel oh okay yeah okay thank you okay yeah I didn't have a chance to go back and dig that deep on that one so thanks
[15:25] Jonathan Boucher: Any other questions or comments if not we'll move on to the applicable provisions and findings we'll start with part one that the project meets the requirements of article 2 and article 12. Look for a motion on the first item Member Hobson Chair I
[15:42] Greg Hobson: Move that the board finds that based on exhibit 2 the applicant satisfied section 165-33.1 of the land development code regarding best management practices of erosion and sediment
[15:53] Jonathan Boucher: Control thank you do I have a second Whitford and a roll call vote Member Brush yes Number Hayes yes Number Hobson yes Number Hewn yes Number Jonas yes Number Whitford yes Chair votes yes Item number two yes Member number Brush Mr Chair I move the board finds
[16:16] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): That based on exhibit 2 10 and 12 the applicant satisfied section 165-72 of the land development code regarding the required number of parking spaces in section 165-73 requirements regarding parking area location in Section 164's requirements regarding parking area design, construction, and maintenance.
[16:43] Jonathan Boucher: Thank you, and is there a second? Member Jonas?
[16:45] Janet Sanborn Jonas: Second with a clarification that the final section is 165-74.
[16:50] Jonathan Boucher: Oh, thank you. And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. Chair votes yes. That completes part one. We're on to part two, that the project meets the district site development standards under article 19. Member Jonas? Chair, I move the board finds that
[17:10] Janet Sanborn Jonas: based on exhibit 2 and 12, the applicant satisfied section 165-135 of the land development code
[17:16] Jonathan Boucher: regarding impervious surface ratio thank you is there a second i'll second thank you member hobson and a roll call about member brush yes remember hayes yes member hobson yes remember hyun yes number jonas yes number whitford yes chair votes yes that completes part two run to part three that the project meets the requirements for section 165-101 shopping and personal service district snps number brush mr chair i move the board finds
[17:45] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): that based on the findings made in parts one and two of this document, the project meets the requirements of section 165-101b for uses within the shopping and personal service district. Thank
[18:02] Jonathan Boucher: you and is there a second i'll second member whitford i'm member hobson i'm sorry member hobson thank you for your second and a roll call vote member brush yes number hayes yes number hobson yes number hewn yes for jonas yes for whitford yes chair votes yes that completes part three we're on to part four that the project meets the requirements of section 165-114 land development approval standards the first item member hayes i move the board finds that based on
[18:32] Patricia Hayes: exhibits 2, 12, and 15, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114b's requirement that the proposed parking and loading layout are arranged in a reasonable and safe configuration.
[18:48] Jonathan Boucher: Thank you. And is there a second? Member Jonas. And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. The chair votes yes. That completes part four. That brings us to the decision. Member Huynh?
[19:06] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Chair, I move that the board finds that the project meets the requirements for a land development permit for a minor site development, and therefore the board grants the land development permit for the proposed project.
[19:16] Jonathan Boucher: Out and a second. Remember Jonas? And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Remember Hayes? Yes. Number Hobson? Yes. Number Hewn? Yes. Number Jonas? Yes. Number Woodford? Yes. The chair votes yes. Congratulations, all items passed. The application is approved. Let's [Janet Sanborn Jonas: see. We] would expect you to reach out the code enforcement for more guidance, any additional clarification. No, there's
[19:44] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): typically no building permit for parking. I know that's pretty much it. That's the script.
[19:51] Jonathan Boucher: Thank you. All right, our next item will be a minor site development for the, oh, that's wrong. One second, I wrote these out of order by accident, and so I have to go back to the original to correct it. Our next item will be a land development permit application for a major preliminary subdivision and site location of development act SLOTA permit for the creation of a cluster subdivision of 22 two lots located at 375 Push Our Road, Map Lot R30-006-D in the Rural Residence and Agricultural District RRNA. The applicant, TNT Property Management LLC. Oh, one second. Staff have indicated the completeness of this application and that it's ready for board review. Fees are documented and paid. The applicant's standing is confirmed. Does the board have any concerns about these issues? And are there any concerns or conflicts of interest? If not, we'd look for a motion in a second on the acceptance of completeness. Member Jonas? Chair, I move that
[21:23] Janet Sanborn Jonas: the board finds the application was deemed complete on May 19th, 2026. Today the applicant paid all applicable fees per documentation on our packet, and the proposed project is a preliminary major subdivision and site location of development act permit. Thank you. And is
[21:40] Jonathan Boucher: Is there a second? I'll second. There we go. Member Hobson? And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. And the chair votes yes. The applicant or representative should come up to the podium to present the project.
[22:00] Jim Kaiser: Evening members of the board. My name is Jim Kaiser. I'm here representing TNT. This project is located on the Pushaw Road. It's in the large fields that are just prior to the old church and Church Road. The applicant owns 100 acres of remaining land that came out of Churchwood subdivision and a few other lot divisions within that major parcel. The current project is to develop 46 and a half acres of that land into the 22 lot subdivision, which is a cluster provisions under the cluster provisions of the ordinance. The project is has a 22 lots at front on approximately a 2150 foot road, which is proposed to be a city road. As mentioned in your packets, it has been reviewed and found that the design is in compliance with the city's ordinances. The lots total 27.9 acres and they all exceed the one acre minimum threshold in size. And the project proposes an additional 15.5 acres of open space that is proposed to be dedicated or deeded over to the City of Bangor. And that puts us about 33%, which are 30% minimum open space based requirement for cluster subdivisions. The road itself creates approximately 1.3 acres of impervious area. The lots will be served both by both private water wells and subsurface disposal systems for wastewater. water. We have taken extra setbacks on Pushaw Road for lots one and two at the request of both the staff, city staff, and the Maine Historic Preservation Commission to allow for the visual effect not to be detrimental to the church, the existing church in the adjacent property. IF&W and natural areas gave us no issues no comments with issues that we had to address. The project requires a land development permit from the city and also a slota which has been delegated to the city. As a board knows, the stormwater complies with city requirements and DEP stormwater law requirements. Septic systems are located in accordance with slow to rules and exemptions such that nitrate plumes will be directed away from wells and property lines. Thus and those rules and exemptions were developed by DEP staff their geologists in augusta and other staff members. We didn't do it, we're just following their regulations, and we worked with staff through their questions and be more than happy to answer any questions that the board or public may have at this point in time. Thank you. Any questions from
[25:24] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): the staff? No questions. All
[25:30] Jonathan Boucher: right, any questions from the board members for the applicant? If not, we'll move, I'll open public comment on this item. Is there anyone like to speak to it? Anyone on the zoom? So just a reminder and make sure that the light is green, you have to introduce yourself and
[25:51] Tom Donio: Been here before. Oh good. My name's Tom Donio. I actually join up to this development and with the traffic on Church Road and Pushaw Road, has anybody done an analysis on the intersection of Pushaw and Broadway because it's getting overwhelming on that end and with 22 house units that's going to add at least what everybody has two vehicles now right additional traffic. Has that ever been addressed or looked at? Thank you. Thank you. I look to city staff.
[26:22] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Let's see the engineering. I think that you might want to ask the applicant first because
[26:27] Jonathan Boucher: they did have it. Oh very good system there. Yeah thank you. If you'd like to speak to that any
[27:29] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Official): staff comment and that's what I was going to repeat. I mean they did a traffic study. It's am peak hour 16 trips, pm peak hours 22 trips. That's a little blip in that intersection. Yes we all know Broadway is busy but we have no concerns with that this is gonna cause major problems in that intersection roadway. Thank you. Any other public comment is
[27:58] Jonathan Boucher: there anything on the zoom? Looks like no. Okay I will close public comment. Any further discussion among the board members? Yeah
[28:13] Janet Sanborn Jonas: remember Jonas. Yeah I'm I know I've said this before many times and I concur with engineering director Davis that we know Broadway is a problem and we know that the 22 trips are probably all going to be headed in town and we know there's nothing we can do about changing Broadway with a project like this because where the choke points are well beyond the scope of this project. So I just want to make it known that we all understand what traffic is like on Broadway and we know that we need housing and so we know that we've got to eventually find a
[28:52] Jonathan Boucher: solution for Broadway but I'm in support of this project. Any other comments or discussion before we move on? Thank you. So with that we'll look to proceed with the applicable provisions and findings. We'll start with part one that the project meets the requirements of section 165-127 approval under site location and development act. Look for a motion on the first item. Member Hyun. Sure I move that the board finds
[29:23] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): that based on exhibits 2-35 41 and 43 to 45 the applicant is in compliance with 38 MRSA 484 is amended and applicable department of environmental protection regulations which includes chapters 371 372 373 so 375 376 377 and 500. Thank you and do we have a second
[29:52] Jonathan Boucher: Number Hobson and a roll call vote. Member Brush yes. Number Hayes yes. For Hobson yes. For Huon? Yes. For Jonas? Yes. For Whitford? Yes. Chair votes yes. That completes Part 1 and brings us to Part 2, which is that the project meets the requirements of Section 165-128, Major Subdivision. For a motion, Member Brush?
[30:16] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Mr. Chair, I move that the Board finds that, based on Exhibits 2, 5, 9, 10, 12-17, 19-25, 22, 33, and 35, the Hopkins satisfied land development code sections 165-128C1's requirement that the subdivision shall meet the state of Maine guidelines for subdivision approval contained in 30A MRSA section 4404. 404.
[30:50] Jonathan Boucher: Thank you. Do we have a second? Member Hayes. And a roll call vote. Member Brush yes. Number Hayes yes. Number Hobson yes. Number Hewn yes. Number Jonas. Member Whitford yes. Chair votes yes.
[31:02] Greg Hobson: item number two member hobson mr chair i've moved that the board finds that based on exhibit two the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-128c2's requirement that the flat shall conform to existing zoning regulation regarding dimensions and areas thank you in a
[31:21] Jonathan Boucher: second, look, Ember Brush. And a roll call vote. Number Brush yes. Number Hayes yes. Number Hobson yes. Number Hewn yes. Over Jonas yes. Over Whitford yes. The chair votes yes. Item number three.
[31:36] Patricia Hayes: Remember Hayes. I move the board finds that based on Exhibit 2 the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-128c3's requirement that at least one side of every lot shall abut an improved public street, a planning board approved private street, or a proposed public road. Section 165-128c4's requirements on the angle of the side lot lines to the street lines and section 165-128c5's requirements that corner lots have adequate width to permit required building setbacks from both streets. Thank you. In a second I'll
[32:22] Jonathan Boucher: second, member Hobson. A roll call vote. Member Brush yes. Member Hayes yes. Member Hobson yes. Member Huynh yes. Remember Jonas yes. Member Woodford yes. The chair votes yes. Item number five. Excuse me, item number four. Member Jonas. Chair, I move the board finds that based on
[32:39] Janet Sanborn Jonas: exhibits 2 and 45 the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-128c6's requirement that all proposed streets shall provide connection with existing streets, section 165-128c7's requirement regarding the angle of street intersections, section 165-128c10's requirements regarding street grades, and section 165-128 c 11's requirements regarding street
[33:06] Jonathan Boucher: Right-of-way widths. Thank you. And is there a second? Brush. Oops, member Brush. And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Hayes? Excuse me, member Hayes? Sounds like a yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Hewn? Yes. Number Jonas? Yes. Number Whitford? Yes. The chair votes yes. Item number five. Number
[33:25] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Brush. Mr. Chair, I move the board finds that based on exhibits 2, 43, and 45, the applicant satisfied the development code section 165-128 c 8 requirements regarding a paved turnaround on dead end streets with a minimum outside diameter of 100 feet. Thank you. In a second
[33:50] Jonathan Boucher: I'll second. Number Hobson. And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Number Hayes? Yes. Number Hobson? Yes. Number Hewn? Yes. Remember Jonas? Yes. For Woodford? Yes. The chair votes yes. Item number six
[34:01] Greg Hobson: Number Hobson. Chair, I move that the board finds it based on exhibit two, the applicant satisfied land development code 165-128c nines requirements for land to be set aside in the subdivision for right-of-way purposes with the intent on being deeded to the city. Thank you. And a second
[34:20] Jonathan Boucher: Member Jonas. And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Number Hayes? Yes. Number Hobson? Yes. Number Hewn? Yes. Number Jonas? Yes. Number Whitford? Yes. And the chair votes yes. Item number seven
[34:34] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Remember Hewn? Sure. I moved that the board finds it based on exhibits 2 and 41, the applicant good satisfied land development code section 165-128c 14's requirement to provide for connectivity with other potential subdivisions on bordering parcels through the establishment of reservations for street rights-of-way to adjacent parcels. Thank you. In a second. Member Brush. And a roll call vote
[35:03] Jonathan Boucher: Remember Brush? Yes. Remember Hayes? Yes. Remember Hobson? Yes. Remember Hewn? Yes. Remember Jonas? Yes. Member Whitford? Yes. And the chair votes yes. Item number eight. Member Hayes. I move the board finds
[35:16] Patricia Hayes: That based on the findings made in subsections one through seven of this part two of section four of this document, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-128 c-15's requirement to provide information required in subsections c1 through c14 of section 165-128
[35:41] Jonathan Boucher: Of the land development code. Thank you. And a second for member Jonas. And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Number Hayes? Yes. Number Hobson? Yes. Number Hewn? Yes. Number Jonas? Yes. Number Whitford? Yes. The chair votes yes. That completes item part two and brings us to part three. The project meets the requirements of section 165-114 land development approval standards. Can I get a motion on item one? Remember Jonas. Chair, I move the board finds that based on the
[36:11] Janet Sanborn Jonas: findings made in parts one and two of section four of this document the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114 a's requirement that the project meets the subdivision criteria established under 30 a mrsa section 4404 as it shall be amended and the requirements of article 18 of the land development code thank you in a second number brush and a
[36:37] Jonathan Boucher: roll call vote. Remember Brush? Yes. Remember Hayes? Yes. Number Hobson? Yes. Number Hewn? Yes. Number Member Jonas? Member Woodford? Yes. The chair votes yes. Item two, Member Brush.
[36:51] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): So, Chair, I move the board finds that based on Exhibits 217, 19, and 45, the applicant satisfied Land Development Code Section 165-114D requirements that the proposed development will not have unreasonable adverse effects on abutting or downstream properties or protected resources such as wetlands, lakes, streams, or brooks, and that all downstream channels or municipal stormwater collection systems have adequate capacity to carry the flow
[37:25] Jonathan Boucher: without significant negative effects. Thank you. And a second? I'll second. Member Hobson, and a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Whitford? Yes. Chair votes yes. Item number three, Member Hobson?
[37:41] Greg Hobson: Chair, I move that the board finds that based on Exhibits 2, 39, and 41, the applicant satisfied Land Development Code Section 165-114E's requirement that all outdoor lighting shall be designed, installed, and maintained to avoid unreasonable adverse effects from light pollution. Thank you. And a second? Second. Member Hayes? And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes.
[38:03] Jonathan Boucher: Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Hewn? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Whitford? Yes. The chair votes yes. Item number four?
[38:12] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Member brush chair. I move the board finds that based on exhibits to 13 through 15 and 41, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165114 H's requirement that the proposed development site does not negatively impact historic sites, significant wildlife habitat or rare and irreplaceable natural areas within 250.
[38:41] Jonathan Boucher: 50 feet. And a second? Member Jonas? Second. And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. And the Chair votes yes. Item number five? Member Jonas?
[38:56] Janet Sanborn Jonas: Chair, I move the Board finds that based on the findings in Part 1 of Section 4 of this document, the applicant is in compliance with 38 MRSA Section 484 and applicable Department of Environmental Protection Regulations, which includes chapters 371, 372, 373, 375, 376, 377, and 500. Thank you. And a second?
[39:18] Jonathan Boucher: Member Huynh, is that a second? Yes. And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Whitford? Yes. Chair votes yes. That concludes part three and brings us to the decision. Member Huynh.
[39:34] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Chair, I move that the board finds that the project meets the requirements for the land development permit for a preliminary major subdivision and site location of development act permit, and therefore the board grants the land development permit for the proposed project. Thank you, and a second.
[39:49] Jonathan Boucher: Member Hobson, and a roll call vote. Member Brush. Yes. Member Hayes. Yes. Member Hobson. Yes. Member Huynh. Yes. Member Jonas. Member Woodford. Yes. The chair votes yes. All items have passed and the application has been approved. The applicant can reach out to the code enforcement office for more guidance. Thank you. We thank the board
[40:12] Jim Kaiser: very much. Have a nice evening. Well, thank you. That
[40:18] Jonathan Boucher: brings us to our third item of the night, which is next we'll review the land development permit application for major site development for the demolition of the existing Bailey building and the construction of a 5,500 square foot addition in its place with offices, classrooms, restrooms, and new mechanical. The new footprint will be 2,750 square feet located at 10 Broadway, map lot 049-034 in the downtown development district, DDD. The applicant owner, All Sale, All Souls Congregational Church. Remember here, oh, I have to read one more section, please. If the staff has indicated the completeness of this application and its readiness for board review, the fees are documented and paid, the applicant's standing is confirmed, does the board have any concerns about these issues or any concerns about conflicts of interest? If not, I look for a motion and second on the acceptance of the completeness. Sure. Yeah.
[41:27] Greg Hobson: Member Hobson. Chair, I move that the board finds that the application was deemed complete on May 19th, 2026. The applicant paid all applicable fees and that the proposed project is a major
[41:38] Jonathan Boucher: Site development. Thank you. In a second, Member Brush. And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. And the chair votes yes. The applicant or representative can come up to the podium and give the presentation on this project.
[42:10] John Stewart: Good evening. I'm John Stewart from Plissken day land surveyors super excited to be here tonight as a representative of all souls church on the corner of state street and broadway the church is also surrounded by french street and york street which are a little lesser known but it's a pretty prominent church in town it's exciting because this has been a years in the making so to speak the current arlen bailey building was built in the 50s it was designed by Eaton Tarbell you may remember the auditorium in Its existence we've faced some similar problems over the last few years let's say heating and just water retention inside the building not such a good thing better if it's outside the building and just can't keep putting enough fingers in the dike and finally decided as a group that it's time to it's time to upgrade and to fix this building and so we reached out to a local we built up a local team to do that so we have ray shelley from artifacts ray shelley lazotte from artifacts and her Business partner ellen angel have designed a beautiful building for us that hopefully will be for this church has been on its on this site well there's been a church on this site for probably over 200 years and i think this particular church is over 100 years old so we want to do it justice we want to make sure that it's it's it's places is in its prominent place that it's well represented and that we're well represented in that site there are several challenges to the site i think they've been They've been overcome with the design team it's fairly elevated there's some steeper slopes in the back nothing that a few good engineering minds can put together and fix. It's a fairly tight site to work in, but you'll notice from the plan and also from the documentation you have in front of you that we're shrinking the footprint. This building is only going to take up on the face of the earth about half, a little less than half of what the square footage was of the existing building. Internally, it's going to do wonders for the church community because it's going to put the educational floor wing and the administrative floor wing on the same floors as the floors of the meeting house. If you've ever been in that church now, there's about three lifts that I think you have to go, and you have to go around a couple corners and different sets of stairs, and I think there's five or six different ways to get from one part of the building to the other. Hopefully, that's going to be shrunk down a little bit and a little bit easier for folks to get around and get to where they need to go so we're very excited about that as well as the energy efficiency hope the a roof that doesn't leak and some of the flat roof versus a slightly slanted roof and there's there's basically the church has worked on this we have a well-represented group of folks here tonight from all souls part of the building committee parts of the leadership team over the last few years, finance teams over the last few years. It's been a lot of effort to get to this point. So we're just really excited to be here tonight. I'll stick around and answer any land surveying type questions that I can answer. Ray Shelley, Ms. Lizotte is ready to answer any questions. There's one particular detail that was being worked on that's still kind of in motion. And I'll point that out in your packet, at the water system is still being discussed with Bangor Water. We actually have two water entrances and I don't I know it's going to get resolved but the question is can the existing one and a half inch line that comes in from French Street support of the structure I've been told by the engineering team absolutely we can we can well if it will absolutely support what we're proposing to do if it is some kind of wrinkle for the for the for the folks at the water district we actually have a second service on York Street that could be could be re-implemented if we needed it to be so I believe that's been addressed and with that I'll introduce Miss Lazotte if she has any other things to add to that nothing to add okay well I'll be quiet and we'll we'll be right here if you have any questions and thank you for your support
[46:38] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): thank you any staff comments I would just recommend keeping that condition there just to you know just to have the water district give that documentation when you're at the building
[46:50] Jonathan Boucher: Permit stage, that condition is already listed in the decision that I saw, so there's no additional condition that we have to note here at this point, right? Yeah, okay, thank you. Any questions from the board members? Oh.
[47:11] Janet Sanborn Jonas: Member Jonas. Hi, sorry, this is not really a planning board question, it's a general question. I'm really familiar with this site, I've been up and down these streets all around this particular property. I know it's steep in places, I know that this is very much needed. I'm just curious about constructability and how it's going to impact traffic in this area, because this is an extremely steep site. So where are you going to do lay down, how are you going to ensure that local traffic isn't impacted more than it's already ready in the area while you're constructing this?
[47:52] John Stewart: We've built a local team for the construction project. We're using Dunbar and Braun. One of the advantages of Dunbar and Braun, you mentioned the lay down area. We're very concerned about that too as our site, cause we're gonna continue to be using the major part of the building, why this is all going on as well. They've already established a perimeter fence around. The idea is that the construction will be on the top half acre where the Bailey where the Bailey wing is now and that you know basically those slopes will be somewhat untouched they will be eventually capped with some stormwater protection to make sure that whatever is getting dug up and trenched and erosion controlled is going to be controlled at the top of the hill not the bottom of the hill and the other thing is that as far as access goes I think the city was going to temporarily shut down some of the parking spaces on broadway there is a there is an entrance they're hoping to get vehicles over onto the right into the site in existing workers we've already talked to some of the neighbors and i think some of the parking most of the parking adjacent to the property is on street and usually vacant during the during the week so it shouldn't be too it shouldn't be too big of an issue i don't want to say it's not an issue because i absolutely agree it's a you start getting a dump truck Or a cement truck backing up onto Broadway, and we all know Broadway, it's been mentioned here tonight. Great, another impediment to Broadway. So hopefully, but hopefully it will be very temporary. Construction is set to begin fairly soon. Well, it's already started, right? The demolition has already begun. Removal of baby wing on the inside has already started. The area is fenced off, and I'm sure that the, that the church and Dunbar and Braun are willing to work with the city for any temporary parking needs that they may have, or traffic control as it, as it may be, as it may come up. I'm sure they're going to be a few wrinkles on the site just because it's so tight. But again, the advantage of working with Dunbar and Braun, they have a lay down yard and a lot of the materials as they come in. There's stone coming from Canada for the outside that will match the existing stone, that's gonna be sequestered offsite. We've had one of the members of the church has offered to take some of these existing plants, and the plants are going somewhere. The stone that's gonna get reused is going somewhere. People have offered their driveways and their own places nearby to stick things. So I hope it's not too big of a problem. I hope that answers your question.
[50:34] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Official): I'll just add Jeff Davis, director of engineering. You know, these type of construction projects are somewhat normal in Bangor, and the contractors and the design team work closely with us for, you know, temporary closures. You know, if we have, if we have any concerns that, you know, they provide us with a traffic control plan, we approve that, we work with them constantly throughout the job and watch it closely. So it really is a team effort, and you know, we certainly don't have too many issues. I don't think they're going to be entering off State Street, so that would be my only concern. But we, you know, these are normal, and we work with them closely throughout the whole project. So I think we'll do the same with this one, so
[51:22] Janet Sanborn Jonas: Just a quick chance. Yeah, thank you, because I will say this, you know, I drive them down Union Street by the Encompass project almost every day, and the traffic control there has been outstanding for the sidewalk work that they're doing and the driveway that they've been building. And so I just wanted to give a big shout out to thinking ahead, and thank you for your response
[51:47] Jonathan Boucher: Any other comments from board members? Any other questions? We will open this item for public for public comment. Is there anyone who'd like to speak? Just a reminder to make sure the green light is on, and if you'll just introduce yourself again for the microphone. I am Risha Lilazad, I'm a
[52:11] Justine Drake: civil engineer. The artifacts we've been working with the church for a couple of years now. I just wanted to point out that this isn't this a historic building, it is not located in the historic district of the city of Bangor, but working with MHPC we've decided as a you know voluntary measure to document the historic nature of the presence of the Bailey building in the in the within the church you know footprint. So that documentation has already taken place and we have sent the information to Main Historic Preservation so they have that. We'll be producing copies of the report and photographs of that documentation if anybody's interested, and that will be provided to the church as well. So just wanted to add that it didn't have to be come before the historic preservation in the city of Bangor, but we are fully aware of the significance of this church in this site. So thank
[53:21] Jonathan Boucher: you. Any other public comment? Any commenters on the zoom? If not, we will close public comment. Any final discussion before we move on to the standards? If not, we'll start with the applicable provisions and findings part one, that the project meets the requirements of articles 2 and 12. Can I get a motion on item one? Member Hugh. Sure, I move that the application
[53:57] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): was deemed complete on May 19th 2026. The applicant paid all applicable. Ken, we're doing we're
[54:05] Jonathan Boucher: doing if you move up to the just lower this section here part two. Excuse me, part one, item
[54:11] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): one. Okay, never mind. Yeah, sure, I move that the board finds it based on exhibits two and three, the applicant satisfied section 165-33.1 of the land development code regarding best management practices of erosion and sediment control. Thank you. And a second? I'll second. Oh,
[54:30] Jonathan Boucher: member Hobson. And roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Hewn? Yes. For Jonas? Yes. Whitford? Yes. Chair votes yes. Item two, for Brush.
[54:44] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): So chair, I move the board finds it based on exhibits two, six through eight, and 14 through 15, The applicant satisfied Land Development Code section 165-79 regarding providing the necessary utility services required. Section 165-80's requirements regarding providing adequate water and sewerage services. Services and Section 165, that's 83's requirements regarding providing adequate electrical service, with the condition that the applicant receives approval from the Bangor Water District on water line sizing and satisfies any other requirements of the district.
[55:37] Jonathan Boucher: Thank you, and just to call out, this is where we first mentioned the condition that we're going to be reading in the decision later on. Second, please. Second, a second from member, Jonas, and a roll call vote. Number Brush? Yes. Number Hayes? Yes. Number Hobson? Yes. Number Hewn? Yes. Number Jonas? Yes. Number Woodford? Yes. And the chair votes yes. Item three, chair, member Jonas.
[56:00] Janet Sanborn Jonas: Chair, I move the board finds that based on exhibits two and three, the applicant satisfied Section 165-81 of the Land Development Code regarding providing adequate lighting and preventing light pollution and trespass.
[56:11] Jonathan Boucher: And a second? A second. Member Hobson, and a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes.
[56:19] Greg Hobson: Member Woodford? Yes. And the chair votes yes. Item number four? Chair. Member Hobson? Chair, I move that the board finds it based on exhibit two, the applicant satisfied Section 165-82's requirements regarding having adequate fire protection. And a second? Member Brush? And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas?
[56:43] Patricia Hayes: Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. The Chair votes yes. Item number five. Member Hayes? I move the Board finds that based on Exhibits 2 and 3, the applicant satisfied Section 165-84 of the Land Development Code regarding providing adequate storm drainage and storm water offset.
[57:04] Jonathan Boucher: And a second? Member Brush? And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Number Hayes? Yes. Number Hobson? Yes. Number Hune? Yes. Number Jonas? Yes. Number Woodford? Yes. The chair votes yes. That completes part 1. We're on to part 2, that the project meets the district site development standards under Article 19. May I get a motion on this one and only item under part 2? Number Brush? Mr. Chair, I move the board finds that based on
[57:30] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): on exhibits two and three, they have been satisfied Section 165-135 of the Land Development Code regarding floor area ratio.
[57:41] Jonathan Boucher: Thank you. And a second. You guys want to try again? Member Jonas, thank you for your second. And a roll call vote. Member Bruch? Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. And the chair votes yes. That completes part two and brings us to part three, that the project meets the requirements of section 165-93 downtown development district DDD. And motion on the one item here? Yeah, please remember Jonas. Chair, I move the board
[58:12] Janet Sanborn Jonas: finds that based on the findings made in part one and part two of this document, the project meets the requirements of section 165-93 B for uses within the
[58:21] Jonathan Boucher: downtown development district. Thank you. In a second, like a number Hobson, and a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Hewn? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Whitford? Yes. And the chair votes yes. That completes part three and brings us to part four, that the project meets the requirements of section 165-114 land development approval standards. Can I get a motion on the first item? Number Brush. Mr. Chair, I move the board
[58:48] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): finds that based on exhibits two and three, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114D's requirement that the proposed development will not have unreasonable adverse effects on abutting or downstream properties or protected resources such as wetlands, lakes, streams, and brooks, or brooks, and that all downstream channels or municipal stormwater water collection systems have adequate capacity to carry the flow without significant negative
[59:22] Jonathan Boucher: effects. Thank you. In a second, member Hayes, and a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Hune? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Whitford? Yes. And the chair votes yes. That brings us to the second item. Member Hobson. Chair, I move that the board finds that based on
[59:43] Greg Hobson: On exhibits two and three, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114E's requirements that all outdoor lighting shall be designed, installed, and maintained to avoid unreasonable adverse effects from light pollution. And a second? Member Jonas. And a roll call vote.
[1:00:01] Janet Sanborn Jonas: Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Hewn? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. And the chair votes yes. Item three? Chair. Member Jonas? Chair, I move the board finds that based on exhibits two and three, applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114 f's requirements for landscaping. Thank
[1:00:20] Jonathan Boucher: You in a second, member Brush? And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Remember Hayes? Yes. Remember Hobson? Yes. Remember Hewn? Yes. Remember Jonas? Yes. Remember Whitford? Yes. The chair votes yes. That brings us to part the fourth, part of the fourth item. Excuse me, can I get a motion, member Hewn?
[1:00:38] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Chair, I move that the board finds it based on exhibit two, the applicant satisfied land development code once section 165-114g requiring buildings to be situated to avoid unreasonable adverse effects on adjacent properties or public rights plans. Thank you. In a second, I'll second.
[1:00:56] Jonathan Boucher: Number Hobson with a second and a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Remember Hayes? Yes. Number Hobson? Yes. For Hewn? Yes. Number Jonas? Yes. Number Woodford? Yes. The chair votes yes. That completes part four and brings us to the decision. Can I get a motion, member? Yeah, sure. I move that the board
[1:01:13] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): finds that the project meets the requirements for a land development permit for a major site development and therefore the board grants the land development permit for the proposed project with the condition that the applicant receives approval from the bar, the Bangor Water District on the water line sizing and satisfies any other requirements of the district. Thank you. In a second,
[1:01:34] Jonathan Boucher: member Brush. And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Number Hayes? Yes. Number Hobson? Yes. Number Hewn? Yes. Number Jonas? Yes. Number Whitford? Yes. The chair votes yes. All items pass and the application is approved and the applicant can reach out to the code enforcement office for more guidance as needed. Thank you. Yeah, thank you very much. That completes our site development review for tonight, night, and brings us to a workshop on the proposed changes to the temporary storage ordinance.
[1:02:10] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Planning officer Colette? Yeah, just give me one second to get the right thing here. [John Stewart: So] the proposed changes here are twofold. The first thing that we're proposing is to create a new type of temporary storage use that would be seasonal in nature. So currently our ordinance has provisions for storage units like shipping containers that might be on a site for one year with the ability to extend that to two years and that can be for a variety of purposes. It could be for somebody, for business use, but for example, out at the mall there's actually a motorcycle school that is running out of Shipping containers, so that's one example. But currently in the code, that requires Board of Appeals approval for this type of use, which is pretty unusual. We don't really see that for any other use in the code. And there's also a couple provisions in there that are somewhat subjective, and that also don't really seem necessary, like the need to show hardship, and then also a requirement to avoid aesthetic impacts on the neighboring properties, which is the subjective piece. So the first thing we're proposing, and sorry, I started off with the seasonal use, now I've kind of gone into the other. The first thing we're proposing is to kind of remove some of those subjective provisions from temporary storage. And also the remove the provision to require screening, because that would be a permanent fixture for something that's supposed to be temporary. And then we change the approval process to be just a certificate of occupancy. We do that for other temporary uses, like we did with temporary sales that we brought to you. There's also a redundant requirement in there that they not circumvent building area limitations, but we already have another provision that they can't exceed the maximum lot coverage. So the, provisions that would be remaining on the use would be that lot coverage provision. They would have to show that they're not intended as a permanent or long term use. That's what the ordinance is meant to do, to prevent. They also wouldn't be able to be used for advertising or retail sales. And then, based on discussion with Council last night, they also wanted to see a setback from property lines, which we did put in for this new seasonal use. And so what we would be proposing for this would be a 10 foot setback from property lines. And then for the seasonal use that I mentioned, that would be for the same type of thing, a shipping container or something that would only be on a lot for 180 days maximum. But they could come back year after year. The temporary storage use, you know, they can only be there for 2 years maximum, but they could be there year round. So the seasonal use was just a need that was brought to our attention. And like, for the farmers market, for example, and so they would have to comply with all the same requirements as the temporary storage use. But also they would not be allowed in any residential zoning district or a floodplain or flood hazard area. And they would have to come back for re, approval every 2 years. For that seasonal use, so are there any questions? Yeah. I've got a couple of questions about existing temporary storage. Is that how do you handle that? Have well any existing temporary storage would have to still fall under they should be they're subject to our current temporary storage ordinance which has been in place for a while so I mean they're not they wouldn't be grandfathered if that's what you're asking I think that's it okay
[1:06:14] Jonathan Boucher: Any other comments or questions remember Jonas I just have a really quick question what
[1:06:20] Janet Sanborn Jonas: What, this is a building code question because I just don't know, what is involved with a certificate of occupancy for a storage unit?
[1:06:29] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): You have to go to the Code Enforcement Office the same way you do with a building permit. And the certificate of occupancy usually comes after you get a building permit, and it just allows you to occupy the space. And in some cases you know some of these temporary storage units may also need a building permit but at least them going to the code enforcement office would trigger them to say you also need this other permitting but basically it's I think it's like a 30 or 50 fee and then code enforcement will inspect it and then they get their certificate of occupancy
[1:07:02] Janet Sanborn Jonas: Yeah I guess I'm what I'm what I'm sidling up to is we're not intending for these to be residences of any type no okay because when we say occupancy to me that kind of means like
[1:07:13] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): People might be living there no so I just want to clarify that yeah no CEO's certificate occupancy is needed for commercial use too okay so yeah I mean I guess I'm trying to think if it's necessary to say cannot be used for residential use I feel like there's probably I'm sure that there's building code requirements where if they were to use a shipping container for residential use they have to jump through a lot of hoops probably certainly have to have a bathroom yeah and it might be Worthwhile you know I can actually I was going to talk to legal some more about things tomorrow I could ask them about including that in there excluding
[1:08:04] Janet Sanborn Jonas: Including residential uses from this, it might make sense. Well, I know, I know, I'm always on board for more housing, but this might be a can of worms we don't want to get into. Yeah, not temporary.
[1:08:16] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Potential residences. Yeah, well, it's it's the storage container itself that's occupying the space. Oh right, oh fair. I mean, that's that's my understanding. Is that how it's looked at or It would be looked at it like you're able to, well, yes, you're able to have this temporary storage unit on this space and, you know, store your goods in storage unit. That's what's being said. That's how I was viewing the occupancy. It's the storage or the unit itself is occupying the property or occupying on the property.
[1:08:54] Greg Hobson: I think it would be good, though, to have that provision there that's not residential. Right.
[1:08:59] Janet Sanborn Jonas: Just so this I don't want to shut us down from other creative housing solutions going forward, but I think that for this particular ordinance it probably would be better to clarify that it's not
[1:09:10] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): A residential right. Yeah, and you can have presidential and shipping containers. I've seen a few actually, but you know those would have to meet other sections of the code, so I think you're right, it probably would be good to exclude that specifically. I
[1:09:27] Jonathan Boucher: Have a question about if it's still on the back, if it's still on a trailer, it still has wheels under it and it's parked in a location, is it considered, would that fit into this? Right, well so code and legal did
[1:09:43] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Remove the portable or mobile trailers, vans and similar vehicles, which I think their intent was to preclude something like that, and then also code has said that shipping containers would need to be tied down to a site, so I don't know that they could have the wheels still. So if someone brought
[1:10:00] Jonathan Boucher: Had like a shipping container with a tractor trailer still on the back of a trailer and parked it somewhere, that wouldn't even, they wouldn't have to go and get this permitted, they could just keep it like that for a long period of time. No, I hmm, I don't think they would technically
[1:10:22] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Technically be allowed to do that. I would have to double check that with code and then about
[1:10:28] Jonathan Boucher: Advertisement, like what is constituted as ever, because these are all labeled with the brand
[1:10:33] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Whatever. No, that doesn't, that's not what we're talking about, like putting a billboard, other people, other businesses. Yeah, what about political advertisement? I think that's the same thing.
[1:10:45] Jonathan Boucher: Really, it wouldn't be considered somehow special like free speech or something. I have no, I'm just
[1:10:52] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Just I'm trying to put out some, I mean, we just say advertising, yeah, and we don't differentiate, so I
[1:10:59] Jonathan Boucher: remember because I'm trying to think of contextual scenarios. I remember one case where I could track the trailer was had a like a political advertisement on it, was parked for a while, and what that, like what that scenario, how would that would serve as a case study for this? Or if there's other clear examples that help us kind of understand what we're doing. I know down on the waterfront sometimes there's a some food trucks that just leave their storage there long term. I'm thinking of the Mad Cow one year was there like all summer and they would just open on the weekends or something, and then there was a pizza shop I think it was Pompeii. Anyway, I'm not, those are some cases I can think of where that might fit into this sort of, well
[1:11:42] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): the food trucks are different, that's still, that falls in the temporary sales ordinance that we went out, right, and they're able to be at waterfront seasonally, so yeah, all right, but definitely you bring up good questions and I'll take that back to code, see what they think. Any
[1:12:02] Jonathan Boucher: other comments or questions? Would we like to move on to the next workshop item around changes to increase flexibility for farm and outdoor recreational uses? Or yeah, is that right? Yes, hang on one
[1:12:21] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): second, my stuff is kind of out of order here. Yeah, I can relate to that. All right, so another need that has been brought up to us is to have a farm stand use, so the ability to have a permanent structure that would be on a site, very small scale, for people to sell food crops grown on the site or non-food crops grown on the site, things like cut flowers or plants that you're growing for sale, and things of that nature. Since we do have our new draft code, we did take their definition of a farm stand and that's what we're using here. We are proposing to exempt them from land development permitting. They would still possibly need a building permit, but that's separate. We are proposing to allow them in the front setback, but they have to be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the street right of way, which is the same thing we did with the temporary sales ordinance, and then we're proposing to allow them in the RNA district, NSD and USD, and then also proposing to remove the requirement to pave driveways. And parking areas for agricultural and outdoor recreational uses, because they typically are going to be small in scale, and paving does present a pretty big cost barrier for people. Now, based on discussion, the discussion we had with Council last night, they did bring up some things that we need to talk about with legal and code around food sovereignty and how this interacts with the food sovereignty law, especially when it comes to selling like value-added products, because this doesn't explicitly talk about selling value-added products, things like jelly. And then also, so how does it impact selling animal products like raw milk potentially or chicken eggs? Because those all require state licensing and things like that. So we may look at excluding for now, just for this update, excluding value-added products and animal products until we can have a larger discussion about, you know, how we can make sure that this is in alignment with state law. And so it might be simpler to just limit it to like plants, excluding cannabis of course, but we do want to have that conversation with legal, which I'll be talking with them tomorrow. And then the other thing that was brought up was, I did want to have a larger discussion about for the larger land development code update, allowing these in residential zones and also institutional, in the situation potentially of having permanent supportive housing, maybe they have a garden and they want to sell their stuff on site. However, you know, even a small scale farm stand, I mean, I don't think it's going to have a huge traffic impact, but potentially, you know, there could be cars parking there and that might impact the neighborhood. And so I just, I did want to, you know, see what people thought about that, you know, before we kind of venture into the wholesale code update. I think for this particular change, we would just look to limit it to these three zones I mentioned. Though any
[1:15:51] Jonathan Boucher: comments or questions, members? So I do have a quick question. So baked
[1:15:59] Janet Sanborn Jonas: baked goods are considered value-added products? Yeah. Okay. And I 100 agree with the not paving anything more than we have to, a arrangement in this particular ordinance, because I ain't, you know, that's just me, the less asphalt we can put in the on the ground the better. I think we are. So
[1:16:22] Greg Hobson: so thanks. Any other
[1:16:27] Jonathan Boucher: Comments or questions on this? Thank you, Anya. Yeah, does anybody have thoughts on allowing these in residential zones? I think informally they're happening today, but you're saying codifying it is like an accepted... Does anyone have any comments on that? I have no issue about adding the idea of having these food stands, vegetables, just for now, even in residential areas, not just in the... or potentially like cut flowers or plants for sale or something like that. Yeah, the scenario she was, you were talking about was if there was like a... account, what was the, what was the term you used? You were talking about a housing situation where they grow farms and, oh, they grow vegetables in the back. Yeah, that was one scenario, but there could be others. What's that, 10 feet back from the road? Yeah, would you, would you suggest a setback from the road for the actual stand? Yeah, so we have that in here, 10 feet from the road.
[1:17:28] Janet Sanborn Jonas: Yeah, so how would that work in a residential situation? I mean, 10 feet back from my street is my front porch, so I mean, you would just have to find a space, put it on the porch, right, I guess. But no, I actually, you know, I drive up Route 15 all the time to Dover, and there are little farm stands everywhere, and I love it, because we can decide whether or not we want to pull over and get whatever it is that they have to offer, and we get fresh food that we know was grown with care. So I think I'm really in support of this, and in particular as we build more housing for folks of lower incomes that can spend some time tilling some soil and tending a plant or two, to have some fruit that they could potentially sell, I'm very much in support of that. So this is great. I agree.
[1:18:21] Jonathan Boucher: I agree. I don't see any problem with doing that. I especially, we can put some like structure around it. See if there's any concerns we can get in front of. Because it is just sort of happening organically out there. Yard sales that just stay yard sales year round. And they sell fiddleheads and other things like that.
[1:18:45] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Yeah, I mean, that was a concern brought up by one of the counselors was having year round yard sales. I do feel like this isn't the same thing, because year-round yard sales are typically things, and these are crops, so. Yeah, but there's people who sell honey, and then there's all kinds of different things you see it when you drive around, and I do think, you know, typically crops are going to, by nature, be a seasonal use, but at least this would let them have, you know, their little structure that might Stay on the site year round, but maybe they only sell out of it for part
[1:19:17] Jonathan Boucher: of the year. Can I ask you, firewood would be considered, I know it's obviously a plant, but if it would be considered, because it's not for consumption, and because there are certain requirements around, I don't think there is, it's more for if you're traveling between states or stuff like that, but is there any sort of a thought about firewood being, that's a tough one, I mean I
[1:19:39] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): think it could be seen either way. I did forget to mention that I was going to add in a provision here that they have to follow all other local and state regulations, so you know, whatever those state regulations may be, whether it's selling firewood or something else
[1:19:59] Jonathan Boucher: and then use vegetables, but what about actually selling plants and not cut flowers, but like live plants, that also
[1:20:05] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): require state licensing? Yeah, okay, very good, yep, thank
[1:20:10] Jonathan Boucher: you. Any final comments on that before we move on? Right, that brings us to just our end. Is there any updates on, find the exact wording that's supposed to use, any updates on code or thoughts on land development code updates for land use planning.
[1:20:34] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): We are, we are still working through the code update. We're trying to, so. So basically what the consultants have given us is, you know, the description of all the new districts and a use matrix of where all the uses would be allowed. And then, you know, all of the land development approval standards and subdivision, all that. And then once we've worked through the uses and everything, they'll develop the zoning map, which we would then review. What I'm trying to see about is if we can just go ahead and review all those uses first, get that to them. They can go ahead and start on the zoning map while we review all the other sections of the code. I think that'll make the most efficient use of time because we are behind schedule. So I'm trying to, trying to push things forward. But it is significant. I mean there's, we basically have this running list of items that we've wanted addressed or fixed in the code from years. And so it's very long list. So not only do we have to review what they've given us, we also have to look at this list and make sure that we're addressing all these issues that have come up over the years. So it's going to be a lot, you know, it's going to be probably a few months before we, you know, I don't want to say before we've reviewed everything, but we review and then they give us back the draft and we make sure it's good to go before then we send it out to the public. So because we want to make sure we have the best product to give to you all. So thank
[1:22:06] Jonathan Boucher: you. Any other comments or questions before we adjourn? If not, I see there's some documents that need to be signed today. Actually, I thought there was going to be, but you'd actually don't have anything to sign. Okay, great. I'd like to again thank City staff and our special guest outside Council John Hamer. Thank you for joining us this evening. We are adjourned. It is 820.