Lewiston Planning Board votes on property dispositions, denies 38 Water Street sale

[0:09] Lucy Bisson: GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS LUCY BISSON AND I'LL BE THE CHAIR TONIGHT FOR OUR MEETING. AND ZOE, CALL THE ROLE, PLEASE. [0:24] Zoe Lidstrom: MICHAEL MARCOTT. PRESENT. PENTHIA BURNS. HERE. ZOE LITZSTROM. HERE. SHANNA COX. NOT HERE. [0:33] Lucy Bisson: LUCY BISSON. Yes I'm here. Alex Pine here and [0:41] Speaker C (unidentified): Heidi Burtels and Darren Glenn present. Okay and I just want to point out Amy Smith is also an excused absence. [0:54] Lucy Bisson: Yeah and for the record city staff in attendance is Shelley Norton deputy director and Linda Trip administrative assistant and for the record also both of our associate members Heidi Bertel and Darren Gallant will be voting members this evening and again I'd like to welcome you our new members. No there are not I believe there is one actually because we're not reading the minutes tonight. Oh but it says they'll be the next meeting. Okay got it okay no [1:36] Speaker C (unidentified): problem okay correspondence yes you all received a packet of correspondence that we've received okay [1:47] Lucy Bisson: and for the record there are no public hearings this evening and so this is just a workshop and our workshops we generally do not take public comment so this is information only and public comment would be on these issues would be next week okay because we're having a meeting again next week because February we had two snow storms and we didn't have any meetings at all just a [2:18] Speaker C (unidentified): clarification that the property acquisition and dispositions don't require public hearings so those won't be on the agenda next week it's just the ordinance change that would be having a public hearing next week. Thank you yes thank you for that because it helps [2:33] Alex Pine: me segue I think if plenty board member who would like to hear from the public with regards to these non-public hearing items to help us understand it would be in order as a matter of fact at the conclusion of tonight I had an item I want to see on next week's agenda which would be in a similar fashion it would be another business item no but I want to hear from some people in the public concerning that matter as well. Okay certainly okay [3:08] Lucy Bisson: so the first business for other business is the planning board sending a recommendation to the city council on the disposition of a portion of the end of Challenger Drive as part of a road alteration and development of 17 Challenger Drive Shelley [3:29] Speaker C (unidentified): this proposal is to reconfigure the end portion of Challenger Drive which would provide Additional land that could be utilized by 17 Challenger Drive I 'll pull up additional maps in a minute for you but essentially right now you can see on the plan that's on the wall and in the materials you have before you that there's a large cul-de-sac at the end of the road it is a dead-end road the proposal is to eliminate the cul-de-sac and have a tea turnaround that would provide access to all of the lots at the end of the road. That would create just under a half an acre of surplus plus land, which there is a discussion with tre llc about them acquiring it and merging it with 17 challenger drive. The this property is a non-tax acquired property, so the city has the opportunity to be in direct negotiations with an abutter. And I did have a correction to the staff review on page two. I had stated that the total assessed value of the point four acres was ten thousand dollars. That's actually the fair market value assigned by the Assessor is ten thousand dollars for that point four nine acres. Just pointing out that this particular area is in the SD for industrial village special district, which is envisioned as a industrial village with a mix of industrial uses. It requires special design to accommodate trucks and large building footprints, and its staff opinion that reducing the road area to create greater development opportunity is consistent with the goals of that portion of our comprehensive plan. I did also add a section here that talked about further actions by the city, because doing a road reconfiguration like this requires following state law. It's considered an adjustment under state law to the road, so we'll be following those state statute and what the city attorney has outlined. And if you're interested, that's the summary of the process right there for you. So we have here Noah Gendron, a representative from the butter who's interested in purchasing the property and I'll pull up a couple plans for you if you have questions about that. He also had provided a sort of schematic of how they intend to design the site. You'll see that again when it's time to actually go for development review, but they need to go through this process with the council first for the road adjustment. Okay. [6:37] Lucy Bisson: Thank you. Does anybody from the board have any questions for staff? I do. Okay. [6:46] Speaker E (unidentified): All right Derek, so you mentioned that the area was for industrial use in like trucks. Does this reduce the ability for truck turnaround? Is that a concern? [6:59] Speaker C (unidentified): It's not a concern. So the city engineer has reviewed the plan and this is the concept that we're looking at. Let me see if I can zoom in for you. So either a cul-de-sac or a T turnaround are perfectly acceptable under city road standards and this is a city road, so the city engineer will be involved with the design of it and approval of the final geometry. So you can see that the intent is that there would be kind of this double turnaround if you will. There's providing access to the lot to the south here through a future driveway and then access over here as well as access to 17 Challenger which is the one at the end [7:50] Lucy Bisson: Does the current lot have like access to Challenger Drive currently? Is that the road access that it currently has? Yeah, so you can see in [8:08] Speaker C (unidentified): this picture the circular access. So essentially what's happening is this land from the circle portion here down to where this dark line is, that's being given back to 17 Challenger and taken away from the road. So you know the will go back a back an image here, sorry, give me a minute. So this one shows the conveyance. So currently the property line kind of follows the circular radius and instead it would be drawn down here. So this is where you get the half an acre of land that would be provided one more and [8:56] Lucy Bisson: the and the land is currently not developed right, it's currently used as this turnaround for the end [9:03] Speaker C (unidentified): of the road. It's currently city property that's really just eaten up by the road turnaround [9:11] Speaker F (unidentified): Michael and I suspect that the conveyance will be for remuneration. I'm not familiar with the terms [9:22] Speaker C (unidentified): Certainly there needs to be the road construction and that's part of the agreement as well. So I [9:28] Speaker F (unidentified): don't know those pieces. We haven't been given that information. Maybe the [9:43] Alex Pine: altering to a tee instead of the circular motion will be covered by the eventual owner of the property and that there's also some remuneration of the city for the acquisition of that 0.49 acre. I do see in the schematic the reason why the desire because it allows a larger build out and makes the usage of the property that much more viable. I'm curious that might be for when the I know there's not an applicant here but I am curious as to what kind of operation is going to be in this building. Would you like to [10:31] Noah Gendron: Hi my name's Noah Gendron representing TRE LLC. These uses are pretty similar in these buildings to a few of our other buildings on Gender and Drive, so you get a mix of, you know, quasi industrial retail use. More recently we just moved in Johnstone Supply, actually think today's they're they're opening, they're like a HVAC supply house, so you can see these units. This is kind of where the markets been leaning towards in these seven to ten thousand square foot range, so on the right hand side you have passenger vehicles and employee access, and on the left hand side is where you have the industrial loading for tractor trailers. This allows an additional 9 600 square feet of building footprint, so it's definitely helpful, you know, for the project to, you know, for this conveyance, and otherwise, you know, kind of just a green area, grassed area that wouldn't be [11:43] Alex Pine: utilized to its full potential, so there's going to be retail as well as just industrial storage. [11:51] Noah Gendron: Yeah, I would say it leans on the side of industrial, but you know, it's it's typically it's commercial users, commercial, I'd say it's more business to business than it is, you know, business to, you know, residential consumers, like receiving product a business would receive product to keep it there and then distribute it out. Yeah, that's sort of exactly right. Yep, anything else? [12:18] Speaker H (unidentified): Yeah, Alex. Yeah, so looking at the property map here, I'm wondering if any consideration was given to adjusting the road further so that property could also be given back to the neighboring parcel. I'm not sure what address that is, or if that wasn't feasible. I mean, that sort of feels like a, you know, problem for the future here, but you know, there's a chunk of that circle, and it seems like, you know, maybe that turnaround could be further [12:48] Speaker C (unidentified): back. I'm not sure if the city, I'm sorry, which neighbor are you talking about? [12:52] Lucy Bisson: Ox down here, up here, I don't [12:59] Speaker H (unidentified): know if the city engineer looked at that, just, you know, again, just thinking about ways that we can maximize space. If we're gonna to have a turnaround, you know, sort of imagine like maybe the turnaround could be even further up the existing neck of the existing cul-de-sac. Yeah. [13:18] Speaker C (unidentified): I don't know as they've explored or talked to [13:21] Speaker H (unidentified): The other property owners about that. Yeah, I guess, I guess in the spirit of, you know, we're changing the road, there's been investment in infrastructure. We're digging up that infrastructure. Like, just so we don't have to do this again, I'm not sure what the process is for that. If we include that as a condition within our approval, you can make it as a [13:43] Noah Gendron: recommendation. Yeah, I'd have to look at the earlier schematics of this, but I believe there's a sketch that shows a line going where those two butters are on bottom of page there, where that boundary line intersects the middle there. I think there is a plan that shows that with that intent that, you know, that bottom left portion would go to that a butter and the bottom right portion would go to [14:14] Speaker H (unidentified): that. Okay, perspective of butter. Yeah, I think I, you know, I don't know how the rest of the board feels, but I feel like that would be a great recommendation to make with this, that if there is a way to change this a little bit so that we can get even more prop, property back to, you know, tax paying usage, I think that would be great. And that way we don't have to look at this again in a couple of years when the other lot gets developed in [14:44] Lucy Bisson: that case, I would entertain a motion. [14:47] Speaker H (unidentified): Someone want to make a motion? Either of you want to motion? Yeah, just read it off there. Thank [14:53] Speaker E (unidentified): you. Pursuant to article 7 section 4h of the zoning and land use code to send a favorable recommendation to the city council for the disposition of a 0.49 acre portion of the terminus of challenger drive, including a recommendation that the city [15:12] Speaker H (unidentified): yeah, investigate moving the turnaround for additional land to private owners. I don't know. [15:21] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, including a recommendation that city consider the other owners giving land back to them, okay. [15:27] Lucy Bisson: Do I have a second? Okay, and further discussion? [15:36] Alex Pine: Two things. I suspect nobody's here interested in this particular agenda item from the audience. This is not the agenda item you're here for. I didn't think so. I just wanted to make another observation. I had wondered why I saw a clear cut every time I got on the highway in the morning. [15:57] Speaker F (unidentified): This must be it, the trees have been cleared. Yeah, okay, that's all I had. Okay, in that case, [16:05] Lucy Bisson: Ms. Lidstrom, would you call the roll? Michael Marcotte? Yes. Penthea Burns? Yes. Zoe Lidstrom? Yes. Lucy Bisson? Yes. Alex Pine? Yes. Heidi Bartels? Yes. Darren Gallant? Yes. Okay. Well, thank you so much. I thought I recognized you. [16:25] Noah Gendron: I'll be back, I'm sure. [16:27] Lucy Bisson: Oh, I'm sure we will see you soon. All right. Take care. Okay. OK. The second item in other business is the planning board making a recommendation to the city council on the disposition of 85 Park Street. Shelly? [16:45] Speaker C (unidentified): So administration has made a request for this recommendation and determined that the property is surplus. In 2025, the police station relocated to Bates Mill number 7, and the Lewiston-Auburn 911 one relocated to Auburn due to that the building is vacant now the property was reviewed at the Finance Committee last week they made a positive recommendation and there was comment just to share this that the two counselors on the Finance Committee recommended selling for to a taxpaying entity so that was the recommend to a taxpaying entity so the property is a non tax-acquired property so the city has some flexibility for how we market it and as far as this property itself the it was purchased in 1975 the building was built in 1977 the lot meets the minimum lot size and frontage requirements for the zone the only thing non-conforming about it is the height of the building because it is a one-story building and the design standards require a minimum 20 foot tall building but it can continue to be used as uses that are allowed in that zoning district include daycare business and professional offices restaurants drinking establishments hotels motels in places of assembly fitness and recreation centers art studios personal services retail stores and marijuana stores the total assessed value of the property is five hundred thousand five hundred dollars it is located in the infill growth sector g5 in our comprehensive plan which is listed as mostly or fully built out parcels in the city's historic development pattern and it's staff's belief that the sale of this property to allow reuse or replacement of the building for commercial or residential uses would be consistent with the stated goals of the comprehensive plan. [19:09] Lucy Bisson: Okay. Any comments and questions from the board? Michael? [19:18] Alex Pine: No? Yeah, I hear the note about the desire to go tax on taxable property being offered at the Finance Committee and a reason for the affirmative recommendation, but I hear housing has become concerned, and this is probably the property that's affecting our 20-foot high ordinance change that we've been discussing in a separate matter because it's non-conforming at this point right but it's grandfathered so the [19:54] Speaker C (unidentified): ordinance change you're referring to was the NCB district this is the Sontraville district so it's not really that we're changing in that other discussion that's right Sontraville has this minimum height requirement already you were looking at adding that minimum height requirement to the NCB [20:12] Speaker F (unidentified): district. Okay, so is the 85 Park Street conforming? It's not, it's one story, it's [20:20] Speaker C (unidentified): lower than the 20 feet, but it can continue to be used as is. [20:29] Alex Pine: 500,000 if it becomes housing. I can see that's giving it away. Nowhere near 500,000, it probably would go up because obviously if it's housing, you'd need more units to make it viable. However this turns out, I hope some of that discussion makes it into the, even if it's an unofficial, not part of the motion, the verbiage that goes up to the council on this recommendation. That is my serious concern here. I mean, if somebody comes in and pays a decent figure and turns it into a restaurant or something, that'd be awesome, but we don't see that very often. [21:15] Speaker I (unidentified): Yes ma'am, I have a couple. So first one, as far as the height requirements goes, it seems like there's a consideration that if this was eventually remodeled in some way, we would require them to meet that 20 foot, or is there any consideration of that? It would only be if they built a [21:36] Speaker C (unidentified): new building or they built an addition. As far as reuse of the existing building, we wouldn't require them to put another story on it. Okay, great. My second [21:46] Speaker I (unidentified): question was about whether we were able to send our recommendation with restrictions on the purpose and use of this, if it was. My understanding is that if it's sold, even on the open market, we can still put a deed restriction on the building even when it's sold to a private individual, and whether it would be possible, or something the board would want to consider, about restricting the [22:09] Speaker C (unidentified): the use from marijuana shops. So I'll just let you know that your recommendation is non-binding for the council, so you can make recommendations. The council does not have to, yeah, by those. Okay, I [22:26] Alex Pine: just wanted to note that we have put restrictions in the past, but I acknowledge that council, it's only a recommendation to them, they get to make. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, I think getting [22:41] Speaker H (unidentified): This redeveloped would be great. I think, you know, I don't know how the rest of the board feels. I think sending encouragement that it's, you know, that this lot that's in our downtown, that's in sort of a really central space, gets turned into a building that has more utility than the current one. I don't know how familiar folks are with it. I mean, it's just a, it's a windowless office building, and you know, I think when you look at the commercial real estate market right now, office space is in surplus. And so going to some use, you know, mixed use, something more than a one-story building in the heart of our downtown would be really beneficial. I think more in alignment with the comp plan than what's there. I don't know if that resonates with other folks. [23:32] Alex Pine: think Michael has something to say absolutely I mean you're right it's gonna be a hard sell for office space no or a lawyer's office or something mixed use would be great I look at that building particularly from the outside I've only been in it a few times over the last nearly 50 years and I was gonna to say is there a story here that we need to know but when i look at the outside and the facade of it resembles some of the upscale eateries on main street in springfield like the italian Restaurants and stuff, it sort of has that look, a few more windows, and I think that would be a great use. I don't want to see housing, no, and I know that some of the other items are probably not viable, but if it's too big for a restaurant, that a restaurant was in there and it had some other uses at the same time, separate entrances and such, that would be awesome. Yeah, because there's. [24:40] Lucy Bisson: There's parking underneath it too. Yeah, just under that, for your information. Yeah, I mean, I don't how many parking spots, but I mean, when the place was built, it was built for the district court. Yeah, so that's a long time ago. [24:58] Speaker H (unidentified): Yes, wondering if I could ask Michael a clarifying question. Are you concerned about housing because of concerns around its effect on the tax base and that you think it's likely to be, you know, given away, but like if it was market rate or the land was sold at market value, you'd be okay with it? I just want to make sure I'm understanding your position. Well, the difference. [25:21] Alex Pine: That we learned tonight, difference between market value and assessed. I mean, I guess if we sold it for the assessed value, I'd be okay with it almost in any case, but yes, the housing does have, and the more that we're receiving as of late is making an impact on the local economic climate. Trying to envision housing in there at the current height makes no sense, and obviously if it became housing and you'd have to build up to make it viable to the builders, then we wouldn't have the ordinance issue anymore because then it would be conforming. Mm-hmm, but some of these other opportunities seem exciting, like [26:10] Speaker H (unidentified): the rest of them. So basically just to make sure that I'm understanding, so you know if it's going towards a taxpaying use, that's either adapting the existing building or demolishing it and making a larger building, that seems good to you. Demolishing [26:32] Alex Pine: and putting it up, putting up another one of the ones that we see here on the edge of City Park, not really a fan of that, but I guess if we were able to get five hundred thousand for it, because we don't know, we typically don't, we give these properties away, then my opinion may change a little bit. But if there were restrictions and I built right into the action, non-binding of course, suggesting that we don't want another marijuana store, you'll win me over on that all the time. I wasn't a fan of the ones that we have, but that's here for those and on the council for some of those as well, so restricting that in this community, I would have [27:15] Speaker F (unidentified): no problem adding that as an addendum to the motion. Okay, yeah, as far as we know there's [27:23] Lucy Bisson: no inquiries about this particular property to the city. I [27:31] Speaker C (unidentified): don't recall. I believe that there has been somebody that's asked, but I don't remember what they wanted to do with it. Was a, I don't think we have an actual offer in front of us. I think the intent was to market it [27:47] Speaker H (unidentified): and put it out and see what happens thank you yeah sure i just want a voice that i think in the past I've heard frustration from board members the public everyone who talks to me about planning things around how the process works and I think it's difficult because often we want to like release property sort of knowing what it will go to but given how the negotiation structure and I think this applies to a lot of the agenda items tonight given how the negotiation structure works we're not really Able to approve or deny a project as the Planning Board until it comes for our review, if it comes for our review, and again, like Shelly pointed out, this is a non-binding recommendation. So at least in my experience, you know, the being able to talk about it from a planning perspective, how does it fit in with the plan, what are the uses we want to see, that's really what we can do tonight, and that's like the most powerful thing I think. In the past it's been challenging to get details if people are thinking of one thing or another, but Michael, it sounds like you probably have some history here you want to bring up. Thanks. [28:56] Alex Pine: Alex, I'll segue what you just said because it was on my mind this afternoon when I saw the emails going back and forth, and yes, we've had that issue in the past, and yes, we've actually had an executive session or two during the time that I've been on the Planning Board intermittently since 2009. So there is precedent for an executive session, and it's interesting that we have the set three, if I'm not mistaken, maybe four dispositions tonight, that one of them smacks of executive session conversation and with, I guess we're privy to what the City Council saw, which is rare, and all the one that came up before this, I mean, if we didn't have the courtesy of someone showing up and discussing it with us, we probably wouldn't know we're talking about this one, and we don't know there may be something out there, and we're asked to make a decision without knowing. That's not fair. I can remember a particular Martel School property, and would my opinion have been different had we had an executive session that night? Probably not categorically, but it could have been. I suspect it might have actually swayed other members of the board, because I struggled with a direction when I went home that night thinking I got a seven nothing vote. I wondered what did I do, and then over the next two weeks and I saw what the repercussions were, and I think that had we had more information on that disposition, it wouldn't have turned out the way it did. Right, so I would recommend that anytime that something does actually have a buyer in mind, because the city can directly negotiate, like we heard on the previous one, we should be privy to that. We're not going to discuss it in public, but it can change our opinion on a recommendation and ease some of the negative feelings that go back and forth, frustrations. Yeah, that better word, yeah, I think a [31:14] Speaker E (unidentified): Technical newbie question, so I noticed that there is a for sale sign on this property already. Does that, my mistaken feeling, I think I have, I think I have [31:26] Speaker C (unidentified): seen that as well. Is that common of this process? I don't know. Yeah, all right, any [31:35] Alex Pine: other? It is common, unfortunately. It's it's a culture that should change. One [31:43] Speaker I (unidentified): last thing as far as like making these recommendations, so this is a working session today, right? So we are not making a final determination on, we're making a [31:51] Lucy Bisson: recommendation to the City Council. Okay, perfect. So right, yeah, so our [32:01] Speaker I (unidentified): recommendations may not carry much weight, but whatever we put forward, you know, they may take into serious consideration. I know I mentioned marijuana shops and like that was part of the zoning area that probably wouldn't fit into the intention of the zoning area, which there are already plenty and like whether the, you know, concentration, but when it comes in general to putting those restrictions, obviously we're not putting them or recommending them, but if we're recommending too many restrictions, I could see a case where developers were saying this is too much, like this is too much work, here's too much like hurdles to overcome, so like because it sounds like this is a place that does need a lot of work to make it something that's like a retail or housing space, it will be a significant amount of work for whoever builds things there, so obviously some recommendations are good, but also like restraining ourselves from putting too many caveats on it because right, it may keep people from sure being interested. Sure, that's all. Sure, okay, in that case [33:01] Speaker H (unidentified): entertain a motion. So I'd like to make a motion pursuant to article 7 section 4 H of the zoning and land use code to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the disposition of 85 Park Street with the intention that the board would like to see it redeveloped in accordance with some of the uses is outlined in here in alignment with the general plan with a request that it doesn't include [33:34] Lucy Bisson: marijuana retail. Thank you. Okay, do i have a second? Okay, all right, any further discussion? [33:43] Alex Pine: Okay, and could you, i'm just curious if anybody's here on this for this item. No, i didn't [33:50] Zoe Lidstrom: think so, that's why i didn't mind it. Okay, could you call the roll please? Michael Marcotte, yes. Panthea Burns, yes. Zoe Lidstrom, yes. Lucy Bison, yes. Alex Pine, yes. Heidi Bertels, yes. Aaron Gallant, yes. [34:06] Lucy Bisson: Okay, all right, moving on to the planning board making a recommendation to the city council on the disposition of 38 Water Street. Are you guys here for 38 Water Street? No, okay, all right, that's the red shot. No name, yeah, okay, Shelley, okay, so we've [34:33] Speaker C (unidentified): been directed by administration to request a recommendation for the disposition of the 38 Water Street parcel, also known as the red shop. This was also reviewed by the Finance Committee last week, and they had the same recommendation that I'd stated previously, that they wanted to see it go to a tax paying entity. It's intended to be sold through direct negotiation following section 5.5 of the property disposition policy, which we've noticed noted in the staff review. This property was the former canal workshop building it was acquired in 2018 when the city acquired the canals from Brookfield it was part of that holding since that time the city has secured the structure and flooring and the bridge catwalk and the canal gates it's if hopefully you've seen the picture but it straddles the canal this building there has been discussion in the last couple years with City Council administration economic development looking at different opportunities for the property and potential sale has been one of the discussions. This particular lot is undersized, although while it is non-conforming, the zoning and land use code does allow a property that is currently developed to be used as if it were conforming. Engineering wanted to point out that in any agreement for a purchase and sale of the property, the city would be working into that agreement retaining ownership of the canal structures below the building, and then there would be an easement provided for access to the building because the land on both sides is owned by the city. There's no legal frontage for the parcel. Total assessed value of the property is fifty five thousand one hundred dollars, and the riverfront district allows a number of uses, including daycare, office, restaurant, drinking place, places of assembly and amusement, hotel, studio, you know, art and craft studio, personal service, retail cannabis, and residential use. This is also located in the infill growth sector G, which we talked about in the last one, and utilizing this property for any number of uses, I think, would be consistent with the stated goals of the comprehensive plan. [37:20] Speaker H (unidentified): Yeah, I don't think I would necessarily say questions, more statements. Yeah, so you know when I first saw this come up as an agenda item, the thing that popped him to my head is if we're disposing of a property that is it basically is surrounded by city-owned property, right, like there is no street frontage. And you know as someone who's done larger events in the park, you know that side of the park is a little quieter just because it hasn't had as much sort of activation energy put into it. I think it is a little weird to have sort of this potential private entity in the middle of a public space like that. I think also to you know we don't have any details on what this could be sold for. It's a little puzzling to me, like who would want to buy it. But because it is such an important resource to the park, it is one of the few remaining buildings from the original use of that park, which was a lumberyard. I think there 's definitely value in sort of looking at this a little bit beyond just simple property disposition. You know full disclosure, I've done volunteer work when people have held events in there, I've strung lights and things like that. But, you know, I think this is a case where we have a building that is very unique. This isn't like most other property dispositions. It's in a really unique location. It's really vital, I think, to the success of the park, considering it's one of the few sort of sources of infrastructure where you could have bathrooms, where you could have electricity outside of, you know, a box on a post. So I think for me I'd really want to think long and hard about what the deal is here if we wanted to you know recommend sale. And I think I agree with Michael that this, I'm assuming this was what he was alluding to, but this is one of the agenda items where an executive session I think would be really helpful, just because this board has put so much time and effort into the Riverfront Island master plan and Smart Paint Park is really a key part of making that successful. So i'll get off my soapbox. Okay yeah i would agree with basically [39:48] Zoe Lidstrom: Everything that Alex just said, particularly around the fact that it's surrounded by city-owned property, and I was really excited to see this particular building included with the proposed improvements to Samar Pain Park, and it seems that there's been a lot of excitement drummed up recently around, you know, visioning for this particular building that community members have participated in, and I guess a lot of the correspondence that we've received on this item addresses this, but it seems sort of odd to go through all of that drumming up the excitement and getting community input to turn around and say, actually, we're gonna recommend that we, you know, sell this, sell this property, just seems a little, a little strange to me, and I would be disappointed to lose that aspect of Smart Pain Park. I [40:41] Lucy Bisson: just fully agree with what my colleagues have said here. I looked at this first and thought, all the development that's happening down there, this would be like, why would we take this out of that and take that out as a resource, especially given the value and the likely income that would come from it, seems trivial, so just in full agreement. To answer [41:13] Alex Pine: Alex's question, my reference to executive session sounded more, I mean, you were correct, but more specifically around the fact that we received PDFs that were only seen in an executive session of the City Council in our emails today. I don't know if that's some of the material that I'm seeing here, but we're being made privy of what was formally not, I don't know if that was appropriate by the sender, but there's something else I saw today that's not in here, and it's a certain letter. I might as well just say who sent it, because it was in our emails, therefore it's public information, but it's not in this packet, and it was, and I'm not sure if I get its first name right or its profession right, but I'll say Dr. Walworth Edward, yeah, it was Edward. No, there was an email this afternoon, I don't know if it came directly from him or not, but I don't see it in this packet, because when I read these in and skim these, they were skim this afternoon, I'm skimming them now trying to find where somebody categorically gave my thumbs up or thumbs down, and a lot of these are written in such a way where you don't know which side they're on, however Dr. Walworth categorically stated that he was hoping that it would fail tonight and I'm encouraged and inclined to vote in that direction. Last time I did that was Mattel school and I got myself in trouble but that one was a little more unique than I think this one would be. Even if it was a unanimous sentiment sent up to the council I'm not sure if the council would honor a unanimous sentiment this time around. I would hope that they would especially if the entire board joins in the same sentiment. Because well and I think Alex said something that had caught my attention earlier so it kind of refreshed my perspective when I'm looking at one of these designs that probably in one of our very expensive books that sit on a shelf and collects dust on the third floor absolutely right. When I look at this and the red shop is right there in the middle of the entire Samad pain Park it may not have a specific number but it's something that really fits within what we've been trying to do and that is. To invest annually in something whether it's the amphitheater whether it's the benches along the Riverwalk or any cleaning out the canals underbrush I mean this fits right in and to put that in the hands of a private entity I think would become problematic if not out of the gate down the road when they're looking to do things and how would it kind of connect with what we're trying to do in the rest of the property so my vote would be to deny this recommendation. I have some. [44:34] Speaker H (unidentified): Follow-up things but I'd like other folks to speak so not to complicate matters I realized I forgot to bring this up one thing that could be in sort of in support of actually selling this to a private entity, as they can often take advantage of historic tax credits and other funding mechanisms that the city can't. But I think even with that, the concern of future use, right? How is this going to benefit the community? I think, you know, looking at it just purely from a, you know, oh, a private entity is going to have the money to do the renovation or they will have access to funding that's all fine and good but I think that in my mind only makes sense if there's really clear expectations around it being integral to the park not a private entity that floats in the middle of public land and you know isn't tied in and doesn't support the goals of the park and that if we were to go down that path that we would. Want to have a lot of conditions around how quickly that gets done, because there's no sense in, you know, putting this on the tax rolls and then having a private developer whose plans change, or they're unable to access the funding they thought they were going to be able to access, or, you know, any number of things can come up there. But we've already lost our control over the property, and so I think if we were to provide any favorable recommendation on this, I think there would have to be a lot of conditions around how the property gets used and how that partnership with a private entity would work, and there would have to be some really clear expectations around it, because again, I don't think this is a property where, oh, we got rid of the red shop but we can just find another one, right? Its location is unique, its status in the community is unique. It's a very humble building, but still, like, there's nothing [46:36] Lucy Bisson: else like this. We're not gonna get another one. So she says that, I think in one of her emails, I think she did. Yeah, it is a 501 C 3. My only, in addition to [47:14] Speaker I (unidentified): kind of obviously agree with everything everyone's saying, and I do appreciate that you took the time to, like, okay, well, if we did say yes, but my caveat would also be that why, you know, talking back to Michael's executive session, who are these individuals? Why are they giving, being given preferential treatment to submit this bid without it being offered to the open market? Who are they? Why are we, like, basically giving them favoritism over this property? So if we were going to sell it, then it should at least be on the open market. But I also agree that I don't think that it should be sold. I think it should be leased. I think that the requirements that the red shop had laid out as far as, like, the city's responsibilities to the property, as well as, like, the leases, if it was the, you know, that organization, are very appropriate, and it puts a lot of the onus for the improvements back on the leasy, but then, like, if they ever left, the city would, like, benefit from those improvements that were made to the building. So I'm [48:16] Alex Pine: not sure if I read in here that the city has leased it in the past. It's currently [48:21] Speaker F (unidentified): being leased to the rowing club. Okay, so there is a history of leasing it, which [48:26] Alex Pine: Which is income to the city. Now, yes, if it's in private hands, tax credits are a possibility, but as a municipality, we have the ability to seek grants, either from the state or federal governments. We can seek grants from private foundations, and there's no reason why we can't partner with certain nonprofits or colleges in this community that would have a shared interest in this property. And then there would be no conflicts. We wouldn't have to worry about caveats down the road because the control would be with the city and it's right there, it may be on the peripheral, I was about to say in the middle of, but maybe the peripheral of the Samad Payne Park, but it would be an odd object to be in private hands down in that area just [49:32] Speaker H (unidentified): Just as a procedural thing so one of the things from my understanding how this process works entities can approach the city at any time asking about a property and so I would assume that's what's driving this if someone came with a plan and you know I was around when Amy was negotiating the lease for the red shop and that's what she did she came up she said well you know we've heard loud and clear that this needs to you know people want this on the tax rolls we'll pay a lease and that will give You income just like it would be on the tax roll so but yeah I think more information would make a lot of sense for this one this is a [50:13] Lucy Bisson: Very unique disposition okay in that case I will entertain a motion so if we're not in agreement then it this is to send a favorable so you would say no okay so before the motion is made [50:28] Alex Pine: Just another possibility because once the motion is made it's done we could actually table the item this has been done in the past which means the council cannot take action until the tabling it's taken back up there is a time limit no we don't have we can't do a table indefinitely to prevent the council they actually have rules stated into the rules know that you can't do that so many days if we tried it so many days later they could take action so I don't know if that's something that we Might want to entertain I don't know with the would you intend to table in order to get more information yeah it would be to get more information maybe give us an opportunity in an executive session to learn more information I mean I'm prepared to vote no on the affirmative wording of the motion anyway yeah I'd love to see it unanimous [51:23] Speaker H (unidentified): Yeah, well, I was just, I was trying to look at the calendar to see if that had the council, I have meetings on it. You have, you're a better member than I. Yeah, so if we were to table this and request that we could get some more information from council, we probably would have to get that in an executive session if there is an offer that's on the table, right? Yeah, and so that would be April 7th if I'm reading the calendar right. It would be the soonest, and that's assuming there would be space on the city council meeting next city [52:06] Lucy Bisson: council meeting is tomorrow. Yeah, but we couldn't get on the end. No, yeah, are you [52:11] Speaker C (unidentified): asking for an executive session with the council or what, an executive session at [52:16] Speaker H (unidentified): one of your meetings? I think, I was thinking, I think the one time we've talked about this before, it was an executive session with the council at their meeting, but I don't know, Michael, you have more historical detail on how [52:29] Alex Pine: to do this mechanically. My memory is that one time, probably when we've both been on the board together, right? Yeah, I think that one got canceled. It was going to happen and got canceled. I do specifically remember an executive session of this committee because we took an action that staff didn't like, so we got strong-armed in an executive session of just the planning. Yeah, I think you might have been there on that. Oh yeah, and so there are different mechanisms. We could have the executive session on our own with somebody there to educate it and explain it doesn't have to be with council so it could be with it doesn't necessarily have to be [53:10] Speaker F (unidentified): or we can just go with the motion and say no. I 'm not in, I'm not personally in favor of [53:19] Lucy Bisson: tabling it. I'm in favor of just saying yeah, just, and you know, going with the motion. I'm okay with that. I mean, that's up to, anybody else want to table it and go through that? I'm interested in [53:31] Speaker H (unidentified): getting more information. Like, I'm not opposed to any deal, it has to be a good deal. I mean, you know, holding on to it and doing nothing with it is not great either. I would appreciate having additional information, but if the rest of the board does just wants to vote it down, I understand that too. I think generally, I don't, I think we need more information to make a smart decision about this, so either we get the more information or we just say it's not a good idea until it, more information is [54:02] Alex Pine: provided. Either way is fine with me. Might be more effective just to turn it [54:06] Zoe Lidstrom: Down, I think, yeah. Well, presumably they could send it back to us if they wanted another recommendation on the disposition, right? So if they wanted to give us more information and wanted us to vote yes on it next time, so I don't know that tabling it is an is a necessary precursor to getting more in [54:24] Lucy Bisson: for them, correct me, they could, if we give them a unanimous no, they could still do exactly whatever, right? But they would need a supermajority no, not on this. [54:39] Speaker C (unidentified): Not on this? It's on. Ordinance changes, yeah. Ordinance changes, yeah. [54:45] Lucy Bisson: Could we provide a no and let them know that? Why? The lack of information that we could make a, the lack of information was a factor. [54:56] Alex Pine: At which time they could send it back to us, we can make a reconsideration, put it back on the table for discussion, and then have another vote that's more informed than we are now. [55:08] Speaker I (unidentified): Coming in to your point, if we receive more information, I totally lost my train of thought. I swear, I had something really important. I just didn't want to hear myself talk. But I think if it's something, oh, because they have to go through this channel, if they receive a request, they have to go through with this. So if we deny it and then it comes back to us, then we know they're actually serious about it and it's something that they're genuinely interested in, not just something that they're obligated to go through the motions and send it to us, so yeah, I agree with that, deny with an explanation that if they really want it they can send it back to us, more info, okay, sounds good, I'll [55:49] Speaker H (unidentified): entertain a motion, okay, like to make a motion pursuant to article 7 section 4 H of the zoning and land use code to send a favorable recommendation to the city council for the disposition of 38 Water Street, okay, any further comments, Zoe, call the roll please, oh no, it's got to get second, oh yeah, second, and then discussion, any [56:14] Zoe Lidstrom: further discussion, no, then call the role please, okay, Michael Marcotte, no, Panthea Burns, no, Zoe Lidstrom, no, Lucy Bisson, no, Alex Pine, no, Heidi Burtells, no, Darren Galant, no, okay, and for the [56:31] Lucy Bisson: Record we'd like to indicate to the City Council that we are not necessarily not in favor of disposing of the property. We just don't have enough information at this time to make a favorable recommendation at this time. Yeah, the City Council would like us to send a favorable recommendation. We need more information. Yeah, especially given how special the problem. Right, absolutely. Okay, D Planning Board making a recommendation to the City Council on the disposition of a hundred and fifty nine Pine Street. Now, by the way, is that the one with the with the hammer? Yes. Okay, that's what I thought. We've done this before. No, I remember giving a recommendation to dispose of this property, but it isn't that like it lasts for two years and then three years back? Yep, three years. Okay, so it's been that long. Oh, yes. Okay, I've been on this board long enough. Okay. [57:44] Alex Pine: Okay. Point of inquiry on that? Huh? Point of inquiry on that? Absolutely. Because when I saw the item, I went online and looked at Google Street Walk, and I thought that the hammer was on the corner of Horton across from the credit union, where this property is on the next corner of Charmant. [58:08] Lucy Bisson: Yeah, it is on the corner of Charmant. [58:09] Alex Pine: And I think that the hammer might be on the corner of Horton, if I wasn't mistaken. [58:15] Lucy Bisson: I don't think so. I don't think so. I think it's on the corner of Horton. We'll play you up the math. [58:21] Alex Pine: Okay, please. Could have been just seeing double or something. There's the hammer at Horton. [58:47] Lucy Bisson: The one with the hammer is there. Yeah. Oh, yeah. [58:51] Alex Pine: Oh. So it's not the one with the hammer. [58:55] Lucy Bisson: Yeah, I think this picture is old. Oh, no, the hammer is on the next, on the previous one, yeah, okay, so it's not the hammer, because I've got the street view and you can see the hammer down the street. [59:12] Alex Pine: It looks more like what one of my friends calls a mini Stonehenge, because all these properties have big rocks in front of them. [59:20] Speaker H (unidentified): All the foundation rocks? [59:22] Lucy Bisson: Well, that and so that people won't park. [59:25] Speaker H (unidentified): Well they used to be part of the rubble. Yeah, I'm sure they were adaptive [59:30] Lucy Bisson: reuse, right? Okay, Shelly, did you want to make any comments on this one? Yeah, sure. [59:41] Speaker C (unidentified): So there have been entrusted buyers over the years for this parcel. I think there might be one now, which is why it's being brought forward, because there was interest and the decision was made that it had been saved at one point as part of the choice neighborhood grant program in case the city wanted to use it, and it's been determined that there isn't a use for it, so there's no reason to hold on to it anymore. A finance committee will be looking at this at their March 30th meeting. The property was tax acquired and a building was torn down by the city at that time because it was in poor condition. So because it's tax acquired, we would need to work with a real estate broker to market the property. Sorry, and it was tax acquired in 2017. At that time, the taxes, utilities, demolition costs and legal costs totaled $33,800 roughly. The total assessed value is $17,000. So it is a legally conforming lot. and so it could there's water and sewer in the road and so it also could have up to four dwelling units built on it 's in the g5 infill growth sector which are typically built out parts of the city with some vacant and underutilized land still so it would be great to have this vacant parcel rebuilt dominating [1:01:24] Speaker H (unidentified): the of conversations tonight, but I was wondering if staff knows off the top of their head why it can only support four units. Is that just square footage, or you know, I find it sort of humorous that there was a six unit building there and now all we can build back is four, and we have such a emphasis on densifying that part of town. [1:01:47] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, it is limiting factor. So it's 1250 square feet per dwelling unit and it's a 5,000 square foot lot. So it would be four units [1:02:01] Speaker H (unidentified): under the current ordinance. And do we have any idea like how big the historic units were in the building? I don't know. [1:02:18] Lucy Bisson: Probably or two bedrooms. Yeah, might have been three. [1:02:27] Speaker I (unidentified): Pretty tight, well 50s pretty large space for, I mean. [1:02:33] Speaker H (unidentified): Well, so 12, 1250 is the square footage on the lot per dwelling, you at the dwelling unit could be any size, right? [1:02:41] Speaker F (unidentified): Anyone else have any questions, comments? Funny that Alex no took some of my thunder. [1:02:48] Alex Pine: Was gonna ask about why limited to four. Yeah, I didn't know that it had six. I was gonna ask how many it had, and I know historically there used to be a lot of square footage per unit unless it changed hands over time and somebody made two units out of one, right? That's happened a lot down Oxford Street and such, and could it happen here? I mean, there's a debate either way to intensify or de-intensify, pros and cons both ways, but I don't know if it's worth revisiting the ordinance because that was my first thought was why only four because you look at the other buildings around it and that would be kind of small potatoes, and I'm curious as to the 1250 is the building's perimeter [1:03:47] Speaker H (unidentified): 12 50 you need 1250 square foot feet of lot space per unit. That's right. It determines the density you can have on the lot. So it has nothing to do with the size. So the lot space is [1:04:02] Alex Pine: 5,000 50 by 100 okay because that's right and yeah so the apartments are not going to be 1250 no it's if it's two stories it's going to be quite small if it's four stories you're not even gonna get the 1250 I live in a pretty good sized perimeter of the whole building some of it is not usable space but yeah well 50 is kind of large yeah by itself just thinking 1250 they made me to consider [1:04:35] Speaker I (unidentified): parking as well i'm not sure where the street parking is available the requirements are for [1:04:39] Lucy Bisson: that area yeah it's usually like at least 0.9 or something like that right in that area yeah [1:04:47] Speaker C (unidentified): i think downtown residential is like 0.75 maybe 0.75 okay yeah i mean they're gonna have to have some they'll have to be a couple parking spaces yeah a couple of parking spaces and unless they're within a quarter of a mile of a parking garage and i don't know for sure they're not no that's [1:05:03] Lucy Bisson: that's a long ways people where they are okay anybody else have any yeah is there somebody [1:05:11] Speaker C (unidentified): who has this in mind and a butter i don't know who i think the city was approached but i don't [1:05:20] Speaker F (unidentified): know if it wasn't a butter or somebody else is the next door occupied or boarded up i think i [1:05:28] Alex Pine: saw in a picture online that second floor window might have been boarded on the building [1:05:34] Speaker C (unidentified): That they're at 155. Yeah, because, yeah, because it was tax acquired, it has to be sold by a realtor on the market. So anyone interested is eligible to put in an offer. And I think there's limitations on what the city can accept. Like, I think there has to be the best offer, or I don't know exactly the requirements, but we can't just choose to sell it to Susie Q because she's the abutter for half the price of what someone else. But if somebody's [1:06:01] Alex Pine: interested, they know they just have to wait for it to be on the market, and they're going to co-merge it with 155 to build something that the units could probably be a lot more to, not unlike some of the building structures we've [1:06:15] Lucy Bisson: seeing as of late. Yeah, sure. Okay, any further discussion? In that case, I'll entertain a motion. [1:06:23] Speaker E (unidentified): Someone wants to make a motion, go ahead. I'd like to make a motion pursuant to article 7, section 4h of the zoning and land use code to send a favorable recommendation to the city council for the disposition of 159 Pine Street. Do we have a second? Okay, Zoe, any further discussion? [1:06:42] Lucy Bisson: Would you call the roll, please? [1:06:45] Zoe Lidstrom: Michael Marcott. Yes. Penthia Burns. Yes. Zoe Lidstrom. Yes. Lucy Bisson. Yes. Alex Pine. Yes. Heidi Burtels. Yes. Darren Gulland. [1:06:53] Speaker F (unidentified): Yes. Okay. [1:06:55] Lucy Bisson: All right. Last item on this second. No, Michael wants a second, another item. Okay. WORKSHOP ON CHANGES TO THE ZONING AND LAND USE CODE ON ARTICLE 11, SECTION 24 RELATED to the no-name pond over the overlay district and Shelly could you please explain what it is that you guys are trying to do because I'm a little confused sure so especially with some of the correspondence that we've received it's it's I'm not quite sure what you guys are trying to do so if you do you have a graphic that you can put up i'll talk first [1:07:41] Speaker C (unidentified): and then okay we can do that so the suggestion as you're aware no name pond has an overlay that protects it was put in place at least 20 years ago i can't remember when but it was in the 90s I believe related to the phosphorus inputs into the lake so the ordinance throughout looks at ways to limit the amount of lawn area rooftop impervious surfaces places where water would be draining off and getting to the lake there are requirements that a phosphorus kind of analysis of what the export of Phosphorus would be off the site, be done for new construction and so forth, limits to fertilizer usage for the residents, etc. So it's all phosphorus driven because that is typically the limiting factor for algal blooms and growth within lakes. So phosphorus is what we're typically concerned with. So that was the purpose for the No Name Pond overlay. One portion of it has space and bulk standards, which is noted in the memo here, which is F, and that limits the construction of structures or use of land. Based on distances from the lake, so when you look at that part way down, you'll see that there's this minimum buffer from perennial or intermittent stream or open stormwater drainage course retained in a natural vegetated state, and that it's a 50 foot buffer. So this provision is, I was talking to our environmental engineer John Kaczynski about this, and he stated that the intent, as he was reading this, would be that it would be, the whole goal would be to keep water out of the lake. So if you have a stormwater conveyance that's going directly into the lake, you would want to have this buffer and protection for it to reduce impacts. If it's going into a system such as a pond, you know, that was designed for stormwater, it didn't make sense to have that buffer requirement because it's not getting down into the lake. The whole thing came up because we did have a property for sale that was an approved subdivision lot in Waters Edge Drive, and they, the property was not built on for a period of years. That's a subdivision that's been around for quite some time and had a number of amendments to it, and at this point it has been purchased, and there was an application for a driveway permit that was filed with the city. And when we looked at it, because of how the lot was reconfigured over time with an amendment, the driveway area was within the 50 feet of a swale that was designed as part of the stormwater for the property, for the project, that goes into a stormwater pond. So that was the question in this particular case. The driveway was down slope of the swale, and the swale goes to a pond that doesn't outlet to the lake. So staff looked at that and thought this really is not doing anything for lake protection in this particular situation, and it's preventing this lot that was intended to be buildable from being built. So we were looking for a solution to that. So subsequent to me putting the memo together last week, code enforcement, staff looked at it and they had a suggestion for improvement. to what I had suggested for language. So thank goodness. So they were suggesting that we just clarify that drainage way that requires the buffer drains directly into a lake, river, stream, or wetland. So instead of some of the language on the back of the memo we had about definitions, we wouldn't need a definition anymore. It would just clarify that this 50-foot buffer is for streams or, you know, a drainage way that's going that leads directly to the water body. I can pull up the specific subdivision that brought this to mind, and that's what the residents who have had questions are specifically looking at. But I do want to point out that this change would be broader. It wouldn't just affect that lot. There's a stormwater pond here, and it's not much of a swell. There's water somehow makes it into this pond. I think a lot of it travels overland this way without going into the whale. So this is a parcel that's undeveloped, and because of restrictions in the subdivision, there's a 50 foot no development buffer along no name pond, and then along the outskirts of all of the lots in the subdivision, which they did for, you know, they were concerned about water quality. And then their the developable area for this lot, for each parcel, there was a developable area identified, and the phosphorus transport was allocated for that so the developable area that was kind of up in this portion initially, just for a little history, when this lot was first, the whole thing was first platted out, there was a lot here and a lot here, and what they did was they did an amendment to take the lot down here and to give some land here to it and to put the rest of the land with this lot. So originally, which is kind of crazy, this lot here had an access that came out to Water's Edge Drive like here. And then when they took this lot and they gave some land to one and some to the other, so they eliminated a lot, the access got moved up to here. So, it's unclear to staff whether, you know, the intent was always that the driveway would come off of Waters Edge Drive, was always that it was buildable. There was phosphorus allocation and calculations for the lot to be developed. Originally the driveway would have been out here, and now it's here. And these changes were made, you know, a long time ago to the MNN, to the plan. So that's what we're looking at, is trying to find a solution to making, you know, originally one of our code officers had suggested that the buffer only be for upslope and not downslope of the facility. So that is also a solution we had thought about, but then when I talked to our environmental engineer, he suggested that it be tied more specifically to draining into the lake directly. So we're here tonight for discussion to see if there are recommendations on how you want to proceed and language for that. We did publish a public hearing for a week from tonight for the 23rd. So potentially we have a public hearing on whatever language the board discusses tonight unless you choose not to move forward with that. [1:16:17] Lucy Bisson: So my [1:16:25] Zoe Lidstrom: understanding is that the definition is based more on where it's draining to rather than what the drainage way itself is. Like a man-made drainage way could drain to the to two no name pond, but then it would require a 50 foot buffer, or it could be a natural, you know, it's just a stream and that would require a buffer. But if either of those things, either a man made drainage way or a natural one went to a storm water retention basin that was itself engineered, then the buffer would not apply. So it's not about what it's flowing through, it's about what it's flowing to. [1:17:06] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, that's how we're proposing it be changed. [1:17:08] Zoe Lidstrom: Okay, because it seemed that a lot of the concern around this was, I think that a lot of people seemed concerned that if the water was running through an engineered drainage way that automatically got rid of the buffer, but that wasn't my understanding. It that it depended on where it was going to. That's [1:17:29] Lucy Bisson: right. Okay, very that clarifies, thank you. Anyone else have any concerns? So basically, we're just looking at language that will come up next week. Yes. Okay. So does anyone have any other questions or concerns? [1:17:51] Speaker I (unidentified): When it comes to the retention ponds, I assume the requirements for those are, well, articulated somewhere else. As far as the engineering requirements to ensure there's no groundwater seep into the pond. Because that's not a very long distance and well I do appreciate that it's going, you know, into a holding pond. I'm not an expert enough to know whether there's an issue between, you know, that distance, the phosphorus being, because groundwater, you know, unless it's perfectly lined, it's always going to eventually get to a pond. Is your concern [1:18:28] Speaker C (unidentified): groundwater seeping into the pond so the pond doesn't have capacity anymore and it overflows or is your concern more the water table yeah like so there's water in the stormwater pond getting into the water table and ending in the lake that way yeah so thinking about phosphorus the way that phosphorus travels is as it's dissolved in water and it's particulate matter so if you have erosion and you have soil transport when it has a chance to percolate and go through vegetation and through the mineral, you know, layer, it's no longer an issue. So it's really that transport that's the concern. So we're really, the purpose for the buffer is to keep, you know, soil and other matter from washing into the lake directly. Makes sense. [1:19:22] Speaker I (unidentified): Yeah. So, I know you specified that it's very much about phosphorus, but that's also not clarified in here. And so— [1:19:30] Speaker C (unidentified): It's not because, really, the purpose of the entire section of the ordinance was phosphorous control. I don't know if it actually states that at the beginning of it, like, the purpose of this is blah,, blah. [1:19:42] Speaker I (unidentified): Yeah,. Because, like, then it's like, okay, if that's not, you know, if that's being filtered out by the physical, you know, process through the—but what else? What else could possibly come through there and if the intention of this—to the point of somebody one of the individuals that submitted the letter to us you know pointed out that we shouldn't be changing anything to make it less restrictive you know there shouldn't be interpretations that reduce the restrictions on the current environmental process so i just want to make sure that you know yeah if it was always intended to be phosphorus then maybe that's also a change that should be clarified in this text but other people may not interpret it being that they may be looking at it but more overall picture of contamination to the pond because I certainly would think about just an overall not phosphorus specifically earlier [1:20:40] Alex Pine: I was gonna say it's as clear as mud but I'm still trying to understand in and it's going to come down to the science of it all. I hear phosphorus and I know Lucy probably remembers. We had a huge phosphorus issue at [1:20:58] Speaker F (unidentified): Sabatis Lake. Oh, I know. I grew up on Sabatis Lake. [1:21:03] Alex Pine: Along Pond Road in Wales and there's a farm there, and it just came right down the hillside, right into the lake, and it just fed the algae and everything else in Sabatis Lake. It was horrid, phosphorus. And I was trying to formulate a similar question to what I think Heidi brought up, is will it seep into the ground and travel through the water table to the lake? I am wondering if the lake is wholly natural or partially made. Maybe it's bigger today because of some damming or something, I don't know. Where it leaves now. [1:21:48] Lucy Bisson: I'm curious. I think it's a natural lake, a pond, isn't it? Yeah, that's what I thought. It's a natural thing. It's relatively shallow, though, that's part of it. [1:21:58] Speaker C (unidentified): That's why it's more fragile, yeah. [1:22:01] Lucy Bisson: As I understand what Shelley said before, if the water with phosphorus or other particulates goes into the retention pond, then as it filters through the soil and the vegetation that's in the retention pond, before it gets to the water table it's held, the ground articulates are captured in there, and then the water table is, you know, the water that goes through the water table is purified, and that's what I meant by the science of right, and that's the science of it, is to clean it. [1:22:42] Speaker F (unidentified): Before it gets into the water table, and I have canoed on that pond in the past. [1:22:50] Alex Pine: And Scoutmaster that live right off to one side, and it is shallow, and I know that sunlight and shallow ponds can wreak havoc as well, and my growing. [1:23:01] Speaker F (unidentified): Unwanted things, just to add to sort of the science of it all, water draining. [1:23:12] Zoe Lidstrom: Into soil is one of the best mechanisms that exists for purification of storm water, so that's kind of one of the ideas behind storm water retention ponds, as well as the ability of vegetation around it to uptake other nutrients or, you know. [1:23:33] Lucy Bisson: Toxins and what have you. Just to clarify, if we didn't make a change, this section at the bottom of the page here would still exist, but would say stormwater a drainage course instead of drainage way. That's right. Thank you. Okay, all right. [1:23:59] Speaker H (unidentified): Looks like in the correspondence package we were given, someone printed out or, you know, screen captured a map that shows a drainage path that goes through this retention pond to the lake, and I mean, I, we're not debating that right now with the language change. I guess I would wonder, and maybe this is something staff could look at, just making sure that the language is tight enough where it's like, okay, it's going to a retention pond, but does the retention pond have any way, an overflow or whatever, of. getting in to the body of water and just making sure that 's tightened up but you know generally i think it does make sense if you're clarifying you know what sort of waterway is going to need that buffer that makes sense to me anyone [1:24:51] Alex Pine: else? I was just curious. [1:24:53] Lucy Bisson: Yeah, I was just going to ask, so although this is not a public hearing, if you would like to make some comments, if you would go to the podium, state your name and address, and we'll give you three minutes, but I mean, you will have ability to speak next week when we are, because we're not doing anything other than talking language right now, but if you do want to say something I will give you three minutes too. Would you speak? Because there's a [1:25:28] Daniel Bernier: microphone there. I would prefer that she speaks. We are not together, we are just neighbors. Oh, okay. [1:25:35] Speaker F (unidentified): That's okay, so I didn't, I didn't marry you to each other, that's okay, I just wanted to be [1:25:42] Lucy Bisson: very clear. Yes, I'm going to state his name as well. Yeah, would you please state your name and [1:25:47] Daniel Bernier: your address, sir? My name is Daniel Bernier. I believe I own 28 and 32 Waters Edge Drive, which would be the lots above the pond and connected around the pond. It was mentioned the common area that existed before these two lots got combined, that was very clear by Shelly, that was the original intention of the subdivision, and some things got dropped off that we're not going to talk specifically about that. Michael mentioned that we obviously hope that this fails, we hope that it'd be more restrictive. We're, I'm very unsure why we have a ordinance that goes in effect for one year and then a year later we're sitting here talking about the rules as applies to it, because it seems like it must not have been applied before now, but again the overlay itself was just put into place and just went in February of one year ago, and yet here we are without it being more restrictive, which was the intent. That's why you have an ordinance. If that was the case, anybody would just do whatever they want, and that's why we put in ordinances like this, and the DEP should be questioned about it. You're asking that the board get more information from the DEP before making this decision. I know you had your own internal people, but it just doesn't seem to fit the situation out there, because we have a retention pawn that was put in as you mentioned in the original development, but there's, if you look at the overlay which you haven't done, or at least I did put in the packet, this water is being directly directed into Channels as well from across the street and up the hill, and the color one's a lot easier because there's actually oranges and there's a sinister behind there, so it is being directed directly. The only stuff you see on top of the water, and I just put it on top of the water thing that isn't going into that, 's going into the pond, but not what's already in the storm water is going directly into storm water retention, and it's finding its way directly to the lake because that's the way it was directed. By the town, it's very clear with a purple pipe and stuff like that, so both ways, and still there's storm flow over above the ground and there's also stormwater below the ground in man-made obstacles. What did, I've never seen a pump, so I 'm assuming whatever goes up and turns in there is making it even worse. There's a full septic system on the other side that turns down from the lake that's pumped up, so you have the possibility of PFAS and everything else that are coming from man-made structures. And churned up and put up there, so I have a well that I don't use, I don't think any of the neighbors do, Diane herself, I don't want to speak for her, but she lives in a gully below that, so the water rushes down my driveway. I can take a picture of it first day I bought, I called, I called the town up to come out and take a look. No name pawn overlay restrictive is not less in the common area, I know Bartles and Burns mentioned about they were excited, well I was excited when the no name pawn overlay. Took fact, I'm not excited now, I'm trying to make smart decisions. We're not going to get another one of these lots, it's sitting on the lake, it's it's well below another 50 feet above of home. I'm good, thank you very much, man, appreciate. [1:28:55] Lucy Bisson: Your time. Oh no problem, and make sure that you come next week and then you can have another three minutes at least. Okay, thank you, okay, thank you, yeah, thank you very much for coming. Okay, so since we don't have to do anything, you have our comments and I think you're speaking with, did you want to speak. [1:29:20] Speaker C (unidentified): If you do want to speak, you should go to the microphone, okay. [1:29:38] Speaker K (unidentified): My concern is the ordinance that was put into place in 2025, and now because the lot is sold and they want to build on it, now they want to change the ordinance. That's my concern, and with the water flow and all that stuff into the pond, they're finally cleaning the pond up, it's getting to the point where it's healthy again, and I'm not sure what this is going to do, and as he said, PFAS stuff that they turn up in the air, I just, okay. [1:30:16] Lucy Bisson: Well, thank you very much. [1:30:17] Speaker C (unidentified): Thank you very much. I do want to point out for clarity that the change that was made a year ago was part of it had to do with the Section F, where the Planning Board added the clause, however, where Article 12, Section 2, Shoreland Areas, Subsection 8, Nonconformance, would allow the expansion, alteration, reconstruction, or replacement of the structure. That section will be used to regulate the replacement of a legally nonconforming structure within a 100 feet of No-Name Pond, notwithstanding the setback requirement below. So, we had a situation where there was a conflict between the shoreline zoning provisions and with this, and we had individuals who had structures that existed that they wanted to reconstruct or rebuild or that had burned down and they wanted to replace, and this was preventing them from doing so. So, that was the change that was made a year ago. It wasn't adoption wholesale of this whole overlay. The overlay has been in place for a period of decades. I will try to have that date when it was adopted for the next meeting. [1:31:33] Zoe Lidstrom: I did just have a question because I do have, I do have this, I printed in color. I printed it at work today and I do see, I can't tell which layer it is, I had to click them on and off in order to figure out which ones were on there. But I do see that there's sort of like a brook being shown as flowing out of that storm water retention Basin and then goes to another like a gravity pipe, and so if there is water flowing out of that storm water retention pond, I do wonder if it's functioning as intended there. [1:32:08] Speaker H (unidentified): Well into that point, you know, even with the language change that would still count as and so the lot would still not be developable, so I think there is some value in looking at the language change because it does make the intention clearer and it's actually working towards like actual quality rather than sort of more of an arbitrary thing, but for this specific lot it may not help. I yeah sorry to butt in no that was all I had okay yes staff will definitely. [1:32:42] Speaker C (unidentified): Look at the original design and what we may or may not have as far as, I don't think we'll have any as builds, but we'll try to understand what's happening there. I [1:32:54] Lucy Bisson: think that would be very helpful for us next week to have to understand what Zoe was talking about, that overflow and whatever, just so that we, if and when they come for building permit or, you know, planning for us to give them permission, that we make sure that detention pond is working the way it's supposed to and it isn't just flowing into this pipe directly into this, into the lake. What role does a DEP have in monitoring this kind of [1:33:46] Speaker C (unidentified): situation? They don't. Okay, so this is an above and beyond ordinance that the city has put in place that we're not required to have. Thank you. Super. All [1:34:00] Lucy Bisson: right, Michael, you wanted to [1:34:01] Speaker F (unidentified): discuss something in other business? Yeah, hoping to have a discussion maybe next week under other [1:34:09] Alex Pine: business with regards to the email or emails that we've seen in the past week originated from firefighter Rick Kyee, I believe. There was a piece of information that I wasn't aware of at the time that we gave recommendations on the LCIP [1:34:30] Lucy Bisson: with regards to. Oh yeah, I remember that one. [1:34:32] Alex Pine: There was a $1 million grant of some sort. [1:34:35] Lucy Bisson: Yeah, for the fire station on Lisbon Street, yeah. [1:34:37] Alex Pine: I don't know if that million dollar grant was specifically for the building itself, whether it was the property, whether it was partially used to purchase the property that the city now owns, I believe between the Ramada and the funeral home. Yep, so I'd like to have it under other business and if Mr. Kai attends and anybody else that might attend get an opportunity to speak like tonight so that we can be better informed when it comes time to [1:35:06] Lucy Bisson: make recommendations. Yeah, absolutely, I agree. If that was known, I think there would have been different recommendations potentially. Yeah, potentially not necessarily [1:35:20] Alex Pine: but yeah, because with grants like that, I know in other cases they have deadlines. If you don't use it within so many years, it goes away and I believe that grant did come from the federal government probably back around 2020, 21, so it's five, six years now. Yeah, I just don't want to see that money evaporate. [1:35:48] Speaker H (unidentified): The gentleman who emailed in to us is he's part of the fire department. I was [1:35:54] Alex Pine: unsure of the relationship. He is an employee, I believe, is not only is the [1:35:59] Speaker H (unidentified): employee and a firefighter he's the union president got it seems like a big miss that the chief or you know department head was unaware of this and did not communicate that through the budgeting [1:36:10] Alex Pine: process. Well, if everybody saw my email, I hope that it went out to everybody. I think I got a couple emails today that a few I probably just categorically I didn't realize in my junk folder and deleted them, potentially causing those in the future to not show up at all, and at least one that I saw that I had to drag out of junk learn to make sure that it doesn't go there again or disappear completely. But I had put a response to one of those emails that included such comments as the administrator should direct department heads at least to attend their LCIPs. I mean, I've had that complaint in the past before and they don't. We've had some pretty big departments with big dollars, you know, just not respect us at all and not show up, and then we've had none. The new public works director, yeah, showed up, and the school department has provided more in recent years than they have in the past, but maybe having the superintendent here would be nice and the Parks and Recreation director here and so on and so forth, so that we are better informed when we make recommendations. [1:37:34] Lucy Bisson: Recommendations. Absolutely. Anyone else have any questions or comments? So there are no minutes for our review. We'll have them for next week, and so if we have nothing else, I will entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Do I have a second? All those in favor, see you [1:38:05] Zoe Lidstrom: next week.