2026-10-06 - Planning Board

00:00the button here and I should pop up.

00:06There we go.

00:14Yeah, we we can see it.

00:27Good evening and welcome to the

00:29applicant, staff, board members, and

00:30members of the public. This is the

00:31October 6, 2026 meeting of the city of

00:33Bangor's planning board. It's 7 o'clock.

00:36My name is Jonathan Boucher. I'm chair

00:38of the board. Uh board members are

00:40volunteers from the Bangor community.

00:42and other board members in attendance

00:43this evening include Ted Brush, Trisha

00:45Hayes, Greg Hobson, Ken Hune, Vice Chair

00:49Janet Jonas, and Russ Woodford. City

00:53staff members in attendance this evening

00:55include planning officer Ana Colette,

00:57assistant solicitor Grace Inennis, city

00:59engineer Jefferson Davis, and planning

01:01analyst Matthew Alier. Uh we thank them

01:04for their help in preparation for this

01:06meeting. We're going to start with the

01:08old business which includes the meeting

01:09minutes from September 1, 2026.

01:13Actually, that seems too well long ago.

01:15Can we correct that date? Is it

01:17September 1 was our last meeting?

01:20>> Um, well, I think September 15th was

01:22cancelled, so that's why we have this

01:25one.

01:26>> Okay. Yeah. So, the meeting minutes from

01:28September 1.

01:30Um, any any corrections or otherwise I'd

01:33look for a a motion? Move to approve

01:37>> and a second. Member um member Hinn with

01:40the motion and a second.

01:42>> Member Jonas and a roll call vote.

01:44Member Brush.

01:45>> Yes.

01:45>> Member Hayes.

01:46>> Yes.

01:47>> Hopson.

01:47>> Yes.

01:49>> Hun?

01:49>> Yes.

01:50>> Jonas?

01:50>> Yes.

01:50>> Member Woodford?

01:51>> Yes.

01:52>> And chair votes yes.

01:54>> Next we have the adoption of findings

01:57for 201 Oddlin Road and 8 through10

02:01Harllo Street. and we had the full board

02:03in attendance on September 1st. So,

02:07we'll move forward with a motion.

02:13>> Member Hinn Chair, I'd move that we

02:15approve the u

02:19cate the um motion is is presented and

02:22is approved by us.

02:24>> Okay. And a second.

02:26Member Brush. And a roll call vote.

02:28Member Brush.

02:29>> Yes.

02:29>> Member Hayes.

02:30>> Yes.

02:30>> Member Hobson. Yes.

02:33>> Hun.

02:33>> Yes.

02:33>> Member Jonas.

02:34>> Yes.

02:35>> Whitford.

02:36>> Yes.

02:36>> And the chair and the chair votes yes.

02:40>> Which brings us uh to my introduction

02:43for the new business. [clears throat]

02:45The planning board has two main roles.

02:47First, we review amendments to the land

02:48development code which typically include

02:50either changes to zoning districts or

02:52changes to the text within the code. But

02:54there are no amendment amendment items

02:56on the agenda tonight. Secondly, the

02:58board serves as the regulatory authority

03:00for the land development permits uh for

03:02land development permits commonly known

03:03as site plan review. Site plans are

03:05reviewed to ensure compliance with the

03:07city code as to parking, driveways,

03:09storm water management, lighting,

03:12landscaping and buffering, building

03:14location, environmental impacts, and

03:16shoreline zoning as may be applicable.

03:18We also ensure the plan meets the

03:20dimensional requirements for the project

03:22zoning district. We review larger site

03:24plans that trigger site location

03:26development with the main D as well

03:28under their requirements. Uh some uses

03:30are conditional uses that have specific

03:32conditions and requirements we use to

03:34review the project. State statute also

03:36outlines the requirements for

03:38subdivision review and the city has

03:39additional standards as to roadway and

03:41utility specifications. The board

03:43ultimately endorses a plan that will go

03:45to the registry of deeds if the plan is

03:46approved. There are two items on the

03:48agenda that are land development permits

03:51and further information on the city's

03:52codes and standards and the

03:54comprehensive plan may be found at the

03:56city's website. Our first

04:01Oh, excuse me. For um for these land

04:04development permits, we'll first

04:06consider the vote on the application's

04:08readiness for review and any concerns

04:10for conflict of interest. For all items,

04:12the applicant or their representative

04:14should then come forward to the podium

04:16and provide a brief introduction to the

04:17proposal and then they should stay at

04:19the podium while we consider any

04:20questions from the staff and or board

04:22members. Once the item has been

04:24presented, the applicant may be seated

04:26and we will allow time for public

04:27comment. For public comment, the person

04:30should come to the podium, introduce

04:32themselves, state if they're a Bangor

04:34resident and/or an abuter to the

04:35property as applicable and indicate if

04:38they are for or against the proposal.

04:40It's also helpful if you present your

04:42thoughts based upon the city codes and

04:43standards and the comprehensive plan as

04:45these are the primary documents used by

04:47the board to make our decision. All

04:49comments and discussions should remain

04:51respectful and considerate of others.

04:52Once public comments are completed,

04:54we'll close the item to public comment.

04:58The board will then deliberate on the

05:00proposal using the applicable standards

05:02for clarity when considering land

05:03development proposals. The code

05:05standards are typically read and voted

05:06on separately and then the final

05:08decision is read and voted on. If the

05:11applicant disagrees with the land

05:12development permit decision that the

05:13board has made uh then they can appeal

05:16the decision to the superior court of

05:17Maine. Once a project you're interested

05:19in has been reviewed, you may leave the

05:21meeting, but please be respectfully

05:22quiet so as not to disturb the review of

05:25other agenda items. On to new business.

05:28We have our first item which is a land

05:31development permit application for a

05:32major site development and site location

05:35uh of development SLOA for the

05:38construction of a 6,70 ft training

05:41center and restoration of existing cold

05:44storage building including a drainage

05:45and storm water including drainage and

05:47storm water improvements new parking and

05:49access drives located at 511 Maine Avenue

05:53map lot 001-001-G

05:56and the government and institutional

05:57service district GNISD.

06:00The applicant owner, City of Bangor,

06:02Community Connector,

06:04and staff have indicated the

06:05completeness of this application and its

06:07readiness for the board review. The fees

06:09are documented and paid. The applicant

06:10standing is confirmed. Do uh does the

06:13board have any concerns or conflicts of

06:15interest?

06:19>> Okay. Then if so,

06:22>> I'd look for a motion on the uh to

06:25accept the completeness. Member Jonas.

06:28>> Chair, I move the board finds that the

06:30application was deemed complete based

06:32today, October 6, 2026. That all

06:34applicable fees for the project have

06:35been paid per exhibit 3 of our packets

06:38the and that the proposed project is a

06:39major site development and major slow

06:41modification.

06:42>> Thank you. And a second. Second.

06:45>> Member Hune. The second and a roll call

06:47vote. Member Brush.

06:48>> Yes.

06:49>> Member Hayes.

06:50>> Yes. Robson,

06:51>> yes.

06:52>> Member Han,

06:52>> yes.

06:53>> Jonas,

06:53>> yes.

06:54>> Member Woodford,

06:54>> yes.

06:55>> And the chair votes yes.

06:57>> Um, so at this point, we'd like to

06:58invite the applicant to come up to the

07:00podium and give their presentation on

07:02the project.

07:07>> I think they'll add it to the uh they'll

07:09present it on the screen.

07:17Hi, I'm Shelley Lazad with Artifact

07:20Civil Engineer um working with the city

07:23of Bangor on this project. The the main

07:26goal of this project is uh to

07:30first um

07:33repair renovate the existing storage

07:36building that is now being used as a

07:38community connector storage for their

07:41the city buses. And um right now that is

07:44in pretty bad shape. So that that is a

07:47primary objective of this. In addition

07:50to that um the city is uh going to be

07:54consolidating the bus operations and

07:57providing a training center uh attached

07:59to the end of this building so that um

08:02you know everything is sort of centrally

08:04located. the um the bus drivers can be

08:08trained in in an appropriate facility

08:10and uh we'll have um you know ample

08:13parking for for those those needs. Uh

08:17right now the the site is um it it's

08:21been a many things I guess in the past

08:24um more recently since since it's been

08:26the sewer department on the front the

08:28back half has been the the parking for

08:31um the buses. Uh they they were also a

08:36recycling center at one point. And so

08:38the interior of it has um decent uh

08:42foundations and floors, but the shell is

08:45is uh is really in bad shape. So um and

08:50while while they're doing this, another

08:52major goal of this is to provide um

08:55appropriate electrical uh service so

08:57that u the future fleet of buses can be

09:01charged because the goal is to have

09:03hybrid and electric buses at some point.

09:06So, we want to make sure that they have

09:08um the appropriate services for that as

09:11well. And in addition to a couple other

09:14things that are happening on the inside

09:15of the building that aren't relevant to

09:17this land development permit um just for

09:19your information uh [clears throat] for

09:22this um situation right now, the uh the

09:24buses are now all housed in there, but

09:27they're parked in a very tight

09:29configuration and they have to come in

09:31from the side of the building. So, as

09:33part of this, we're we're providing two

09:35new overhead doors on the end of the

09:37building so that, you know, a bus can

09:39come in straight into the length of the

09:42uh the bus barn and uh park in the

09:46perpendicular spaces. So, that'll

09:48that'll make it easier for buses to get

09:50in and out in case there's ever an

09:51emergency and one bus needs to get out

09:54and another one is blocking the door,

09:56for example. Uh so, they have two two

09:58exits. So in doing so uh it creates a a

10:02very sort of like an obvious area to

10:07provide the uh required storm water

10:10treatment that we're u needing to do

10:12here because this is a redevelopment

10:14project from uh as a part of the airport

10:18slow that has been in existence for I'm

10:21not sure decades I guess. Um so that uh

10:26the design of the training center which

10:29is about 6,300

10:32square feet oh 670 square feet is what I

10:34have on here um that will uh that will

10:38sort of interconnect with these the bus

10:41um the bus entry and exit and it also

10:45provides a fairly decent uh private exit

10:50for the buses to make their complete

10:52like round about the building and not

10:55have to be con uh conflicting with all

10:58the other uh vehicles that are on the

11:01other side. As you know, there's that's

11:03a maintenance garage. And so there's a

11:05lot of vehicles that are in and out of

11:06there all the time fueling and washing

11:10the car wash. So, you know, the buses

11:12can be protected on their own side and

11:14and not have to worry about the traffic

11:16for for um for that. Um, so you know, in

11:20in like I said before, in doing so,

11:21we've created a nice big uh sort of like

11:24a radius type of a circle. It's like

11:28rectangular for for the exit. It's a

11:31existing exit now. It's going to be

11:34rebuilt and that comes out onto Main

11:36Avenue. And um then additionally,

11:40there's a parking a set of parking

11:44spaces along Main Avenue that will serve

11:47as the new parking for the sewer

11:49department and their vehicles to uh also

11:52put them in a location that avoids

11:54conflicting vehicles coming in and out

11:57on the other side. So, it'll it'll get

12:00all that, you know, traffic off to that

12:04side. um for the stormwater permit.

12:07Well, for the there aren't a lot of

12:10buffers required. There's a couple of

12:11street buffers and we did address those

12:14um with some new street uh trees along

12:17Main Avenue. U the the other side that

12:19happens to fall on Union Street has a

12:22fairly wide buffer already and none of

12:24those trees are being impacted by this.

12:27Uh the [clears throat] uh the site plan

12:30does include some new some new plantings

12:33as was requested by the uh forestry

12:36department and in in um in trying to

12:41replace what was removed because there

12:43are a few trees that are going to be

12:44taken out. They're um they're you know

12:46distributing those throughout the

12:48throughout the green space there. Um

12:50[clears throat]

12:51the number of parking spaces was

12:53determined based on like the the

12:55congregate um or the aggregate number of

12:58spaces that would be required for the

12:59uses that are in this building on this

13:01lot. And it was determined that uh you

13:05know we need a total of I think uh

13:10have a number here in my head 28 parking

13:12spaces. uh only only need 28 parking

13:16spaces, but there are 83 parking spaces

13:18that are going to be available for for

13:20everyone to park on here. The existing

13:22ones are on the back side over near uh

13:25the Union Street uh side and those will

13:29be re reconfigured at some point so that

13:32it is a more defined parking space for

13:36employees. And then the other side um

13:38with the new parking for the sewer

13:41department has a few spaces there and

13:43there's a handicap spot um as the

13:46typical requirements one per 25. So

13:49there's there's two um provided and I'm

13:52sure there are more that could be

13:54delineated but there there really isn't

13:56uh you know it's not a requirement. So

13:59there's there plenty of them where they

14:01need to be. Um

14:05the improvements in drainage are um

14:08mainly to uh provide uh proper drainage

14:11from around the bus bus barn building.

14:13The back of it right now is very flat

14:15and they have a lot of roof runoff that

14:17comes down there and then uh we're

14:19adding a couple of catch basins and de

14:22diverting all that around uh the

14:24building and then eventually taking it

14:26back in to the storm drain that cuts

14:28across from the where the new sort of

14:32where the new training center is going

14:33to be and it goes down across um main

14:37avenue eventually. And that is also the

14:40same outlet that we will be discharging

14:42the um the vegetated filter for the

14:46storm water treatment. Um I'm sure you

14:49might have questions but um I could

14:53explain more let you guys ask.

14:57>> Thank you. Um are there any staff

14:59comments?

15:01>> Um I don't think we had any comments on

15:03this. All

15:07right. Any any questions for staff or

15:09for the applicant?

15:16>> Um, all right. We'll go to

15:19Thank you. We're going to open up public

15:21comment.

15:22So, public comments opened up.

15:28Any Yeah, there's no one on Zoom. Then

15:32we'll be closing public comment

15:35and I'll put it back to the board to see

15:37if there's any other questions or

15:38discussion before we move on to review

15:41of the standards.

15:46Yeah.

15:47All right. In that case, we'll move on

15:49to the applicable provisions and

15:51findings.

15:53Um [clears throat] we'll start with um

15:56part one that the project meets the

15:57requirements of articles 2 and 12. I'd

16:01look for a motion on the first item

16:02there under part one. Member Hun.

16:05>> Yeah, chair. I move that the board finds

16:06that based on exhibit two, the applicant

16:08satisfied land development code section

16:11165-33.1's

16:13requirements surrounding erosion

16:15sediment control.

16:16>> And a second member brush. And a roll

16:19call vote. Member Brush.

16:21>> Yes.

16:21>> Hayes.

16:22>> Yes.

16:22>> Hobson.

16:25>> Yes.

16:27>> Yes.

16:28>> Member Jonas?

16:28>> Yes.

16:29>> Member Woodford?

16:29>> Yes. Chair votes yes. Um item two,

16:33member brush.

16:35>> Mr. Chair, I move the board finds that

16:37based on exhibit 2, the applicant

16:39satisfied land development code section

16:42165-68

16:44requirements for lat fronted lot

16:46frontage.

16:47>> Thank you. And a second.

16:49Member Hayes. And a roll call vote.

16:50Member Brush.

16:51>> Yes.

16:51>> Member Hayes.

16:52>> Yes.

16:52>> Member Hopson.

16:54>> Yes.

16:55>> Yes.

16:55>> Member Jonas?

16:56>> Yes.

16:56>> Member Woodford?

16:57>> Yes.

16:58>> The chair votes yes. Item three,

17:01member Hayes.

17:04>> I move the board finds that based on

17:06exhibits 2 and 16, the applicant

17:09satisfied land development code section

17:12165-72

17:14regarding the required number of parking

17:17spaces. Section 165-73's

17:20requirements regarding parking area

17:23location and screening. and section

17:26165-74's

17:28requirements regarding parking area

17:31design, construction, and maintenance.

17:34>> Thank you. And a second.

17:35>> Second.

17:36>> Member Woodford. And a roll call vote.

17:38Member Brush.

17:39>> Yes.

17:39>> Member Hayes.

17:40>> Yes.

17:40>> Member Hopson.

17:41>> Yes.

17:43>> Yes.

17:43>> Member Jonas?

17:44>> Yes.

17:44>> Member Woodford?

17:45>> Yes.

17:46>> Chair votes yes. Item number four.

17:48>> Member Brush.

17:51>> Mr. Chair, I move that the board finds

17:53that based on exhibits 27,

17:5713- 15, 20, and 21, the applicant

18:00satisfied land development code section

18:02165-79

18:05requiring adequate utility service,

18:08including water, electricity, fire

18:10protection, and provision for storm

18:13water runoff.

18:14>> Thank you. And a second,

18:15>> chair.

18:16>> Uh, member Jonas and a roll call vote.

18:18Member Brush,

18:19>> yes. Member Hayes,

18:20>> yes.

18:21>> Member Hobson,

18:22>> yes.

18:23>> Yes.

18:24>> Member Jonas,

18:24>> yes.

18:25>> Member Woodford,

18:26>> yes.

18:26>> And the chair votes yes. Item five.

18:29Member Jonas.

18:29>> Chair, I move the board finds that based

18:31on exhibits 2 and 21, the applicant

18:33satisfied land development code section

18:36165-80 requiring that whenever possible,

18:38all uses and developments shall be

18:40provided water service from the Bangor

18:42water district.

18:43>> Thank you. And a second.

18:46Member Han. Roll call vote. Member

18:48Brush,

18:49>> yes.

18:49>> Member Hayes,

18:50>> yes.

18:50>> Member Hopson,

18:51>> yes.

18:52>> H,

18:53>> yes. Member

18:54>> Jonas,

18:54>> yes. Member Whitford,

18:55>> yes. And

18:56>> chair votes, yes.

18:58>> Item six.

19:00>> Member H.

19:01>> Sure. I move that the board finds that

19:02based on exhibits 2 and 8, the applicant

19:05satisfied land development code section

19:07165-81

19:09requiring providing adequate lighting

19:11and preventing uh light pollution and

19:13trespass.

19:14>> Thank you. And a roll uh and a second.

19:17Member Hayes and a roll call vote.

19:18Member Brush,

19:19>> yes.

19:19>> Member Hayes,

19:20>> yes.

19:20>> Member Hobson,

19:22>> yes.

19:23>> Yes.

19:24>> Jonas,

19:24>> yes.

19:25>> Woodford,

19:26>> yes.

19:26>> Chair votes yes. Item seven.

19:30>> Member Brush.

19:32>> Mr. Chair, I move the board finds that

19:34based on exhibit exhibits 2 and 20, the

19:37applicant satisfied land development

19:39code section 165-82

19:43requirements regarding having adequate

19:46fire protection.

19:47>> Thank you. And a second. Member Hun. And

19:51a roll call vote.

19:53Member [clears throat] Brush.

19:54>> Yes.

19:55>> Member Hayes.

19:56>> Yes.

19:56>> Member Hopson.

19:57>> Yes.

19:58>> H.

19:59>> Yes.

19:59>> Member Jonas?

20:00>> Yes.

20:00>> Member Woodford?

20:01>> Yes. The chair votes yes. Item number

20:04eight.

20:07Member Hayes.

20:09>> I move the board finds that based on

20:11exhibit 2, the applicant satisfied the

20:13land development code section 165-83

20:17requiring adequate electrical services.

20:20>> Thank you. And a second. Uh, member Hun.

20:23And a roll call vote. Member Brush.

20:25>> Yes.

20:26>> Member Hayes.

20:27>> Yes.

20:27>> Member Hobson.

20:28>> Yes.

20:29>> H.

20:30>> Yes.

20:30>> Member Jonas. Yes.

20:31>> Member Woodford.

20:32>> Yes.

20:33>> The chair votes yes. Item number nine.

20:37>> Member Hun.

20:38>> Chair, I move that the board finds that

20:39based on exhibits 2713 to 15 and 21, the

20:43applicant satisfied the land development

20:44code section 165-84 requiring provisions

20:48for surface water and storm drainage.

20:50>> Thank you. In a second. Member Brush.

20:53And a roll call vote. Member Brush.

20:55>> Yes.

20:55>> Member Hayes.

20:56>> Yes.

20:56>> Member Hopson.

20:57>> Yes.

20:58>> H.

20:59>> Yes.

20:59>> Member Jonas.

21:00>> Yes. Member Woodford.

21:01>> Yes.

21:01>> The chair votes yes. Item number 10.

21:05>> Member Brush.

21:07>> Mr. Chair, I move the board finds that

21:08based on exhibit 9, the applicant

21:10satisfied land development code section

21:12165-85

21:14requiring information on sewer flows and

21:18section 165-86

21:21regarding compliance with sewer

21:23regulations.

21:24>> Thank you. And a second.

21:25>> Member Jonas. And a roll call vote.

21:27Member Brush.

21:28>> Yes.

21:28>> Member Hayes.

21:29>> Yes. Yes.

21:29>> Member Hopson.

21:30>> Yes.

21:31>> Hun?

21:32>> Yes.

21:32>> Jonas?

21:33>> Yes.

21:33>> Member Woodford?

21:34>> Yes.

21:35>> The chair votes yes. That completes part

21:36one and brings us to part two that the

21:38project meets the requirements of

21:40section 165-97

21:42Government and Institutional Service

21:44District GNISD and the section 165-101

21:48Shopping and Personal Service District

21:50SNPS. There's one item here. Member

21:52Jonas.

21:53>> Chair. I move the board finds that based

21:54on the findings made in part one of

21:56section 4 of this document, the project

21:58meets the requirements of section

22:00165-97B

22:02for uses within the government and

22:03institutional service district or known

22:05as GNISD and section 165-101B

22:09for uses within the shopping and

22:11personal service district known as SNPS.

22:14>> Thank you. And a second member Hune and

22:16a roll call vote. Member Brush,

22:18>> yes.

22:18>> Member Hayes,

22:19>> yes.

22:19>> Member Hobson,

22:20>> yes.

22:21>> Member Hun,

22:22>> yes. Member Jonas,

22:23>> yes.

22:24>> Member Woodford,

22:24>> yes.

22:25>> And the chair votes yes. Which completes

22:27part two and brings us to part three.

22:29The project meets the requirements of

22:31section 165-114 land development

22:33approval standards. Um I'd look for a

22:36motion on item one.

22:39Member Brush.

22:41Mr. Chair, I move the board finds that

22:42based on exhibits 2 and 16, the

22:45applicant satisfied land development

22:47code section 165-114B's

22:51requirements that the proposed parking

22:53and loading layout are arranged in a

22:56reasonable and safe configuration and

22:59section 165-14

23:01C's requirement that all proposed access

23:04drives are reasonably necessary and

23:07safe.

23:07>> Thank you. And a second, member Hun. And

23:10a roll call vote. Member Brush,

23:12>> yes.

23:12>> Member Hayes,

23:13>> yes.

23:13>> Member Hopson,

23:14>> yes.

23:15>> Member Hune,

23:16>> yes.

23:16>> Member Jonas,

23:17>> yes.

23:17>> Member Witford,

23:18>> yes.

23:19>> The chair votes yes. Item two.

23:22>> Member Hun.

23:23>> Chair, I move that the board finds that

23:25based on exhibit 2, the applicant

23:27satisfied land development code section

23:29165-114

23:31C's requirement that all proposed access

23:33drives from the site to any public

23:35rightway are reasonably necessary and

23:37safe.

23:38>> Thank you. and a second.

23:41Member Brush. And a roll call vote.

23:43Member Brush,

23:44>> yes.

23:44>> Member Hayes,

23:45>> yes.

23:45>> Member Hobson,

23:46>> yes.

23:47>> Member Hun,

23:48>> yes.

23:48>> Member Jonas,

23:49>> yes.

23:50>> Member Whitford,

23:50>> yes.

23:51>> Chair votes yes. Item three.

23:55>> Member Hume. Chair, I move that the

23:57board finds that based on exhibits 27

23:59and 14 to 15, the applicant satisfied

24:02land development code section 165-114D's

24:06requirements regarding minimizing

24:08adverse effects from storm water runoff

24:11and ensuring adequate storm water uh

24:13collection capacity.

24:14>> Thank you. And a second

24:17uh member Hayes and a roll call vote.

24:19Member Brush,

24:20>> yes.

24:20>> Member Hayes,

24:21>> yes.

24:22>> Member Hobson,

24:23>> yes.

24:24>> Member Hune,

24:24>> yes. Member Jonas,

24:25>> yes.

24:26>> Woodford,

24:26>> yes.

24:27>> And chair votes yes. Item number four.

24:30>> Member H.

24:32>> I move the board finds that based on

24:34exhibits 2 and 8, the applicant

24:36satisfied land development code section

24:39165-114E's

24:42requirements that all outdoor lighting

24:44shall be designed, installed, and

24:46maintained to avoid unreasonable adverse

24:50effects from light and pollution.

24:52>> Thank you. And a second. Member Jonas.

24:55And a roll call vote. Member Brush,

24:56>> yes.

24:57>> Member Hayes,

24:58>> yes.

24:58>> Member Hobson,

24:59>> yes.

25:00>> Member Hun,

25:01>> yes.

25:01>> Member Jonas,

25:02>> yes.

25:02>> Member Woodford,

25:03>> yes.

25:04>> The chair votes yes.

25:06>> Item five,

25:08>> Jonas.

25:08>> Chair, I move the board finds that based

25:10on exhibits 2 and 22, the applicant

25:12satisfied land development code section

25:14165-114F's

25:16requirements for landscaping.

25:19>> Thank you. And a second, member Hun. And

25:21a roll call vote. Member Brush. Yes.

25:24>> Member Hayes.

25:24>> Yes.

25:25>> Member Hobson.

25:26>> Yes.

25:27>> Member Hume.

25:28>> Yes.

25:29>> Member Jonas.

25:30>> Yes.

25:30>> Member Woodford.

25:31>> Yes.

25:31>> And the chair votes yes. Item six.

25:34>> Member Brush.

25:36>> Mr. Mr. Chair, I move the board finds

25:38that based on exhibit 2, the applicant

25:40satisfied land development code section

25:43165-114G's

25:45requirement that the location of the

25:48buildings meets all

25:50required setbacks and are suitable to

25:54are situated to avoid unreasonable

25:57adverse effects on adjacent properties

26:00or public rights of way.

26:02>> Thank you. And a second member Hayes and

26:04a roll call vote. Member Brush. Yes.

26:06>> Member Hayes.

26:07>> Yes.

26:08>> Member Hobson.

26:09>> Yes.

26:10>> Member Hinn.

26:10>> Yes.

26:11>> Member Jonas.

26:12>> Yes.

26:12>> Member Woodford.

26:13>> Yes.

26:13>> The chair votes yes. Item seven.

26:17>> Member H. Chair. I move that the board

26:19finds that based on the findings uh

26:21above in this part three and also in

26:23part one of section four of this

26:26document. The applicant is in compliance

26:27with 38 MRSA uh section 484

26:32um

26:34and applicable departmental

26:36environmental protection regulations

26:38which includes chapters 371, 372, 373,

26:43375, 376, 377 and 500.

26:47>> Thank you. And a second. Member Brush.

26:49In a roll call vote. Member Brush.

26:51>> Yes.

26:51>> Member Hayes.

26:52>> Yes.

26:52>> Hobson.

26:53>> Yes.

26:54>> Member Hune.

26:55>> Yes.

26:55>> Member Jonas. Yes.

26:56>> Member Woodford.

26:57>> Yes.

26:57>> The chair votes. Yes.

26:59>> Member Hompson, would you like to read

27:00us the decision?

27:02>> I'm sorry I don't have it on my screen.

27:04I couldn't find it.

27:05>> Oh, I understand. I was just trying to

27:06involve you.

27:08>> I [laughter]

27:09uh would would someone like to provide a

27:11motion. Member Brush.

27:13>> Mr. Chair, I move the board finds that

27:16the project meets the requirements for

27:19land development for a land development

27:21permit for a major site development and

27:25major SLOA modification and therefore

27:29the board grants the land development

27:31permit and SLOA modification for the

27:34proposed project.

27:35>> Thank you. And a second. Uh member

27:38Woodford and a roll call vote. Member

27:39Brush.

27:40>> Yes.

27:40>> Member Hayes.

27:41>> Yes.

27:41>> Member Hopson.

27:43>> Yes. Member Han.

27:44>> Yes. Member

27:45>> Jonas.

27:46>> Yes. Member

27:47>> Woodford.

27:47>> Yes.

27:48>> And the chair votes? Yes.

27:53>> So, um, with that, the applicant can

27:55reach out to, uh, code enforcement

27:57office for more guidance. Thank you.

28:03Which brings us to our next land

28:05development um item, [clears throat] the

28:07land development permit application for

28:09a minor subdivision and planned group

28:11development for the creation of a 0.5

28:14uh.54

28:18acre uh and 6.24 acre lot from an

28:24existing 6.78 acre parcel located at 6

28:29Bangor Mall Boulevard. Map lot 061-016-A

28:34and the shopping and personal service

28:36district SNPS the applicant owner

28:38waterstone Bangor LLC. Uh the staff have

28:41indicated the completeness of this

28:43application and it readiness for board

28:44review. The fees are documented and

28:46paid. The applicant standing is

28:48confirmed. Uh does the board have any

28:50concerns or conflicts of conflicts of

28:52interest?

28:55And I'd look for a motion on accepting

28:58this uh the this application's

29:00completeness. Member Hun.

29:01>> Yes, Chair. I move that the application

29:03was deemed complete on October 6, 2026.

29:07The applicant paid all applicable fees

29:10um specified in exhibit 3 and the

29:13proposed project is a minor subdivision

29:15modification and plan group development.

29:18>> Thank you. And a second. Member Brush.

29:20And a roll call vote. Brush.

29:22>> Yes.

29:23>> Member Hayes. Yes.

29:24>> Hopson.

29:25>> Yes.

29:26>> Member Hume.

29:26>> Yes.

29:27>> Jonas.

29:27>> Yes.

29:28>> Woodford.

29:28>> Yes.

29:29>> Chair votes. Yes.

29:30>> Let's see.

29:32>> At this point, we'd invite the applicant

29:34to come up to the podium to provide

29:37their presentation.

29:47>> The minor subdivision amendment

29:51development. create the.54

29:55acre lot in the northwest corner of the

30:00existing property along Bangor Mall

30:03Boulevard. It'll be creating an out

30:06parcel in the uh parking lot area for in

30:10the parking lot of Bob's Discount

30:13Furniture in the Burlington Coat

30:15Factory. Um

30:18at this point, alls we're uh looking for

30:20approval for is to create that new law

30:23out of the existing lot that's there.

30:26Um, future development would come back

30:28for a site plan approval. Uh, any any

30:31other required uh permit applications

30:33for any development within this new lot.

30:36And it'll be a uh plan group

30:38development. So, um be a lot of shared

30:42uh site features u between the existing

30:44development and anything that's proposed

30:46there as far as parking access

30:49um

30:50eliminating any sort of buffers and

30:52setbacks between the two uh developments

30:54on there.

30:58Happy to answer any questions that that

31:00the board has at this time.

31:04>> Thank you. Um,

31:07any comments from the staff?

31:09>> No comments.

31:11>> Any questions for the applicant from the

31:14board? Remember,

31:15>> you know, you don't have a purpose right

31:17now for you just

31:21for that particular parcel.

31:23They're uh in talks for a proposed

31:26development on on that lot, but um

31:30nothing's finalized at this point and we

31:32haven't finalized any sort of uh plans

31:35for a development there yet.

31:38>> Okay.

31:40>> Thank you. And member Jones,

31:41>> I just to follow up on that. So I read

31:44throughout the packet, you know, there's

31:45no defined use yet, but how did So how

31:48did you decide what size the lot should

31:49be?

31:53We've done a preliminary plan for

31:54something that could go there.

31:56>> Fair.

31:58Okay.

31:58>> And it uh

32:00>> I don't think he wants to tell you.

32:02>> And I I respect that. I was just

32:03curious. A lot of businesses

32:05>> I don't want I don't want to say

32:06anything.

32:06>> Yeah. A lot of businesses don't want to

32:07commit until we've done our part. I get

32:09that. And I don't really particularly

32:11>> care what goes

32:13>> They were working towards a lease

32:15agreement with a potential

32:17>> uh development on that. Okay.

32:18>> parcel, but nothing's been finalized

32:20yet.

32:21>> Right. Thanks. Yeah, I think it's it it

32:23would be suitable for

32:25more than just one specific use on that

32:28law and it's sized appropriately for

32:31would say a variety of uses.

32:34>> Thank you. Any other questions?

32:37We'll open it up to public comment.

32:42And seeing no one to approach, we will

32:47close public comment.

32:52Um, so I'd like to return to the board

32:56to see if there's any discussion

32:58or additional questions. I know we just

33:02had a chance, but

33:08seeing none,

33:10um, [clears throat]

33:13then we should move on to the Let me get

33:16to my

33:20Then we should move on to the standards

33:21and the findings applicable provisions

33:24which uh starts us off with part one

33:26that the project meets the requirements

33:28of section 165-126

33:30for a minor subdivision. I'd look for a

33:32motion on part one. Member hint

33:35>> chair. The board finds that based on

33:37exhibits 278 and 9, the project meets

33:40the requirements of land development

33:41code special 165-126F1

33:46regarding compliance with state of Maine

33:48guidelines for subdivision approval

33:50contained in 30-ra

33:54uh section 4404.

33:56>> Thank you. And a second

33:58member brush. And a roll call vote.

33:59Member Brush,

34:00>> yes.

34:01>> Member Hayes,

34:02>> yes. Member Hobson,

34:03>> yes.

34:04>> Member Hun,

34:05>> yes.

34:05>> Member Jonas,

34:06>> yes.

34:06>> Member Whitford,

34:07>> yes.

34:07>> Chair votes yes. Item two,

34:12member Hun.

34:13>> Uh, chair, I move that the board finds

34:15that based on exhibits two and nine, the

34:17project meets the requirement of land

34:19development code section 165-126F2

34:23regarding conforming uh to the existing

34:25lot

34:27um dimension and area regulations of the

34:30zoning district. Section 165-126F3's

34:35requirements of abudding an existing

34:37improved public road and section

34:40165-126F4's

34:43requirement on the angle of uh side lot

34:46lines uh to street lines.

34:48>> Thank you. And a second

34:51member brush. Thank you. On a roll call

34:54vote. Member Brush.

34:55>> Yes.

34:56[clears throat]

34:57>> Member Hayes.

34:58>> Yes.

34:58>> Member Hobson.

34:59>> Yes.

35:00>> Member Hune. Yes.

35:01>> Jonas.

35:02>> Yes.

35:02>> Woodford.

35:03>> Yes.

35:03>> And the chair votes yes. Item three.

35:07>> Jonas.

35:07>> Chair. I move the board finds that based

35:09on exhibit 2, the project meets the

35:10requirements of land development code

35:12section 165-126F

35:15part 6 regarding the plaque containing

35:17all information required in section

35:19165-126D

35:21parts 1 through 8.

35:24>> Thank you. And a second. Member Hune.

35:27And a roll call vote. Member Brush.

35:28>> Yes.

35:29>> Member Hayes.

35:29>> Yes. Member Hobson,

35:31>> yes.

35:32>> Member Hume,

35:32>> yes.

35:33>> Member Jonas,

35:33>> yes.

35:34>> Member Woodford,

35:34>> yes.

35:35>> Chair votes yes. Which completes part

35:37one and brings us to part two that the

35:38project meets the requirements of

35:39section 165-69

35:42for a planned group development. That's

35:44one item here. I look for a motion.

35:46Member Brush.

35:47>> Mr. Chair, I move the board finds that

35:50based on exhibit 2, the applicant

35:52satisfied section 165-5069

35:57of the land development code regarding

36:00the requirements for planned group

36:02development.

36:03>> Thank you. And a second member Hayes on

36:05a roll call vote. Member Brush,

36:07>> yes.

36:07>> Member Hayes,

36:08>> yes.

36:08>> Member Hopson,

36:10>> yes.

36:10>> Hun, yes.

36:11>> Member Jonas,

36:12>> yes.

36:12>> Member Woodford,

36:13>> yes.

36:13>> The chair votes yes. Which brings us

36:15which completes part two and brings us

36:17to our decision. I look for a motion on

36:19the decision. Member Hume.

36:21>> Chair, I move that the board finds that

36:23the project meets the requirements for a

36:25a minor subdivision modification and

36:27plan group development and therefore the

36:29board grants the land development permit

36:31for the proposed project.

36:33>> Thank you. And a second. Member Brush.

36:35And a roll call vote. Member Brush.

36:37>> Yes.

36:37>> Member Hayes.

36:38>> Yes.

36:39>> Hobson.

36:40>> Yes.

36:40>> Member Hinn.

36:41>> Yes.

36:42>> Jonas.

36:42>> Yes.

36:43>> Woodford.

36:43>> Yes. The chair votes yes. Thank you. Uh

36:47that brings us to the end of that item.

36:51You can follow up with the code

36:52forcement office if you have any

36:54questions or need more guidance.

36:57And uh which brings us to other business

37:01and uh planning officer Colette. Uh we

37:04have the proposed growth boundary

37:06change. Is it the first item that you'd

37:08like to start with?

37:09>> Yes. Um although I do just want to

37:11mention a few things before I start on

37:13that because I'm sure I'm going to

37:14forget otherwise. Um the first thing is

37:18um you all are pretty good about this

37:19normally. I just wanted to give you a

37:21reminder that when you are speaking to

37:24try to like lean forward to speak into

37:25the microphone because if you are leaned

37:27back then people on Zoom can't hear as

37:29as well. Um that was mainly a complaint

37:32we got about HPC but I just thought I

37:34would let you all know. Um, also if you

37:38could, I think we said something when we

37:40sent you the packet, but if you know of

37:41anyone who might be interested in being

37:43on the planning board, please spread the

37:44word because we do have two vacancies

37:46coming up next year. Um, and then I did

37:49just want to ask you all if you're good

37:51generally with the way we've ordered

37:53things in your packets or if there's a

37:55way you'd like us to change that. Any

37:58thoughts on that?

38:02>> Does anyone have any comments on on

38:05that? Make sure you lean forward though

38:06if you have anything to say.

38:08>> Um, just out of curiosity, is it two

38:11positions plus the associate or to

38:13including?

38:14>> I think it's to including the associate.

38:22>> And then as far as packets, any

38:24questions there?

38:25>> I appreciate the packets.

38:27>> Okay, great. Okay.

38:28>> Yeah. I I like having it front loed with

38:31the uh the index

38:33>> and with the findings because then you

38:36can kind of know what to be looking for

38:40if you read through the findings and

38:41then have concerns about any of them. I

38:43think it helps guide the rest of the

38:45reading.

38:45>> Okay.

38:46>> Especially on trickier ones.

38:48>> Yeah. Okay. And we try to um order

38:52things after that like um in order of

38:55when they come in. So, if we have staff

38:57comments, um, then we'll put like the

39:00response to comments to that. And, um,

39:03just wanted to make sure that you don't

39:05see the need to put like revised

39:07materials after those comments or if you

39:09like having all the materials up front

39:11and then the communication after that.

39:13>> I might ask, and I I'd put it out to you

39:15guys if you agree. I Well, the part I

39:18enjoy the best is seeing the email

39:20correspondence and seeing the engineers

39:22notes and things like that. that helps

39:24me understand uh what to be looking for

39:28and then to be thinking if there's any

39:30gaps as I'm reading forward to come to

39:32that after the fact after reading

39:34through and looking through all these

39:35different maps. Um it almost means after

39:38you look at that you have to go back and

39:41it's only really when there's tricky

39:42ones uh that that might happen. Does

39:45anyone ever think it would make sense to

39:46have the correspondence and the engineer

39:48notes? I think the engineer notes have

39:50to come at the end after the different

39:52details, but

39:54yeah, I I don't really see any problem.

39:57I think we're getting there one way or

39:58the other. It would be a tiny tweak and

40:01a tiny benefit at

40:03>> all.

40:03>> All right. Just wanted to make sure. So,

40:06um I did forget to print my memos for

40:09these two items, so I'm going to be

40:10reading off my phone.

40:12>> I think I have a copy of it if you want

40:13it.

40:14>> Oh, okay. Um sure.

40:16>> Yeah, you just have to give me a second.

40:23Ruffle ruffle.

40:27>> Which ones do you want to start with?

40:28>> At the very end, the growth boundary.

40:31>> You want you want the whole thing or

40:33>> that and the

40:37Yeah, I guess so.

40:38>> Thank you.

40:40>> I'm working on it.

40:40>> I think it's actually on the back here,

40:42so I'm all set. Okay.

40:43>> Yeah. Thank you. Um so yes for the

40:46growth boundary change um this is a

40:49staff proposal to potentially change the

40:53growth boundary um that was in the 2022

40:56comprehensive plan on that um particular

40:59parcel that you see on that map that

41:01it's teal um teal is the RRNA zone um

41:06and we outlined these two parcels in

41:09cyan if you're looking at the map um so

41:13these are off Stillwater Avenue um and

41:16Kitridge Road. So, the VA is looking at

41:19potentially putting a hospital on these

41:21two parcels. Um but obviously the one

41:24that is in RNA would not allow a

41:26hospital use. Um so they would need a

41:29zone change, but typically we wouldn't

41:31recommend a zone change to something a

41:34lot more intense zone outside of the

41:36growth boundary. Um so the cleaner

41:40option is to change the growth boundary.

41:43Um particularly in this case where you

41:46could pull in water and sewer from still

41:50water if a use is going to traverse both

41:53of those lots and then this is also in a

41:56pretty developed area already. It's not

41:58like it's you know kind of way out of

42:00town. Um, so we thought it made sense to

42:05look at this for a potential growth

42:06boundary change. Um, the growth boundary

42:09isn't necessarily set in stone. Like you

42:13can change it along the way if it makes

42:15sense. Sometimes conditions can change.

42:17Um, but you know, we do have to go

42:20through a quite a process for it. You

42:22know, we have to um, the formal process

42:25is to bring it to you all. We have to

42:27give the public 30 days notice

42:28beforehand and then um goes to council

42:31for the final adoption, but we also have

42:33to send it to the state for them to

42:35review and approve because technically

42:37it's a change to the comprehensive plan.

42:39Um we would also be uh proposing a

42:43public workshop ahead of time ahead of

42:45that formal meeting where we talk to all

42:47the abutters um and you know talk about

42:50why we're proposing this and all the ins

42:52and outs of it and get their feedback.

42:54um council and it's a good idea um to do

42:58this ahead of time, but council really

42:59wanted to get a feeling for like how

43:01people in the area would feel about this

43:03just because on Kitridge Road especially

43:05like that's really like a boundary, you

43:08know, between very developed to very

43:10rural, you know, and people around that

43:12live up Kitridge might have very strong

43:14feelings about it. Um so we are planning

43:17a public workshop on this at the end of

43:20the month on October 29th. Um, and we'll

43:23be letting all the abuters know and um,

43:25so we we will get that feedback then.

43:28But we did want to bring it to you all

43:29ahead of time too to get your thoughts

43:32um, before we set the wheels in motion

43:35for the formal change. So,

43:40>> any questions?

43:42No, I I'm I was excited to see that uh

43:46uh because um being a healthc care

43:48provider myself um and knowing that you

43:51know I don't sure most of the public

43:52aware is aware that the only VA hospital

43:55we have now currently was commissioned

43:57by Abraham Lincoln

43:58>> really it was the first VA hospital in

44:01the country and so to have one up here

44:04would be um would be a really good thing

44:07for veterans.

44:10>> Any other questions?

44:12Jonas. Oh, member brush.

44:14>> What about the availability of alternate

44:16sites for that?

44:18>> Yeah, that's a good question. Um, I

44:20don't know all of the sites that the VA

44:23was looking into. I do know they were

44:25potentially looking into one near the

44:27airport um where the city owns some

44:30land. It's called the main business

44:31enterprise park, but I think they did

44:33have concerns about being that close to

44:35the airport and noise and things like

44:37that. So, they're looking at this area

44:39instead.

44:42I get I get the message that it's the

44:46alternate sites are limited. They're not

44:48not abundance of them.

44:50>> Yeah, I believe so.

44:51>> Thank you.

44:53>> And just to follow up, I did a quick

44:54survey of Bangor wondering where else it

44:57might go because I know we often when we

44:59get public feedback, we say it's a great

45:01idea, we support it, but we just don't

45:03want it in our backyard. So I did and I

45:05didn't find any place that looked like

45:07it was available in anything that wasn't

45:09also R RNA. So um so I so in that regard

45:13I really do support this. I do have a

45:15question though about the sewer capacity

45:18out there because I remember last year

45:23>> we

45:25approved a preliminary site plan for a

45:29very large housing

45:31>> um development that was going further

45:32out Still Water Road just a little bit

45:34further and then I believe I've read in

45:36the paper

45:37>> um recently that they have not been able

45:39to build because of the lack of sewer

45:41capacity. So that's a good question and

45:43and Jeff might be able to speak on that

45:44more. That's

45:45>> for you, Jeff. I can tell you that the

45:46VA is actively working with sewer to

45:48resolve some of those issues.

45:50>> Yeah. So um engineering has been working

45:54for the past year on getting capacity

45:56out there. So we're going to get we have

45:58a multi-phase project. Uh phase one is

46:01happening now. Uh phase two is going to

46:03happen in a few weeks. So, we're going

46:05to have capacity out that within, you

46:08know, definitely by the end of this

46:09year, we'll have capacity for the the

46:12housing development that you mentioned

46:13earlier, uh, plus some more. And then

46:16we're going to be working on phase three

46:17and four of that next year and the year

46:19after. So, um, that shouldn't be an

46:22issue here going forward.

46:23>> Great.

46:24>> Yeah.

46:26What is the plan? What do you have any

46:28idea what the water department's

46:30planning on doing with water line? Isn't

46:32that another uh thing that holds back

46:36the growth?

46:37>> They haven't. Well, I mean, the growth

46:39boundary does follow water service

46:42areas, but the water district hasn't

46:43expressed any water capacity concerns

46:46out there, if that's what you're asking.

46:51Yeah.

46:57So,

46:59um, I was going to raise this to your

47:01question, too. So, I'm glad that we were

47:02thinking on the same, uh, wavelength.

47:07Um, your question for us tonight,

47:09though, is to just elicit some

47:12conversation with us or are you looking

47:14to see if there's any objections from

47:15the planning board or possible?

47:18>> Yeah, I mean, to see if there were any

47:20objections. if you felt strongly about

47:23that this shouldn't change. Um, and any

47:26other feedback you might have?

47:43>> Does anyone have any additional thoughts

47:44or conversation?

47:48>> Okay.

47:50Just want to make sure Greg Greg, you're

47:51um you're all set, too.

47:55>> Yeah, I'm fine with it.

47:57>> Okay.

47:59All right. So, yeah, like I said, um we

48:02plan to have that workshop on October

48:0329th, so we'll see what happens.

48:08>> Brings us to our next item about the

48:11workshop uh on removing the floor area

48:14ratio.

48:15>> Yes. Um, so this change we're proposing

48:18is also because of a potential

48:20development downtown. Um, and this and

48:23actually I found out about another one

48:24today that this limitation is holding

48:26back. Um, so changing the floor area or

48:30removing floor area ratio from our

48:32downtown development district. Um,

48:35it is somewhat of an outdated

48:37dimensional control. It's kind of

48:38confusing and hard for people to

48:40understand. Um, a lot of modern codes

48:42don't include them because they don't

48:44really get the outcome that they're

48:47intended to get as far as controlling

48:48like building scale and form and things

48:51like that. Um, when we're thinking about

48:54how do we control, you know, the form of

48:56buildings downtown really design

48:58standards help a lot and maximum height

49:01if that's something we want. Um, you

49:04know, and if something is above a

49:05certain height, requiring it to be set

49:07back from the road a little bit. Um, and

49:10all of those are things that we're

49:11looking at with the new land development

49:12code. Um, and the other like the

49:16consultants are proposing to get rid of

49:18the standard for all zones in the new

49:21land development code. Um, and instead

49:23focus on those like setbacks and height

49:25and and things and design standards. Um

49:29I will say though for downtown they are

49:31proposing if it's within a certain

49:33distance of residential the height would

49:35be capped at around 60 feet and then um

49:38it would have a greater setback from

49:40residential if you're in the downtown

49:41district. Um but at this time we just

49:44wanted to do this one small change um

49:47and then we'll worry about all the other

49:49changes when we actually do the land

49:50development code update. Um, I will say

49:52when we brought this to the bed

49:54committee last night, um, they did

49:56express some concerns that we don't have

49:58a height limit at all downtown and you

49:59know whether we want to see skyscrapers

50:02downtown potentially. I will say we

50:03don't have demand for skyscrapers right

50:05now and the case is that people are

50:08looking at adding stories. I think it's

50:10just a few stories um to add residential

50:12units. So, um I also don't think people

50:17could really get a return on investment

50:19from building a skyscraper in Bangor

50:21right now, but um so they were more

50:24comfortable with like waiting till we

50:25get to the land development code update

50:27to talk about potential height limits

50:29downtown.

50:30Um so we may be proposing an overall

50:33height limit downtown or like if you go

50:34above a certain height, say 100 feet,

50:37then it's conditional use. um we do that

50:39in waterfront development district but

50:42that's something we'll also discuss more

50:43with our consultants and um and so I but

50:47I just want to put that out there as a

50:48consideration um

50:51and also just for reference I didn't

50:54explain what floor area ratio was so

50:56I'll just go back to that um but

50:58basically it's the total gross floor

51:01area of a building all stories in

51:03included divided by the area of a lot so

51:06if you have a 40,000t building overall

51:09on a 10,000 foot lot's 4.0 floor area

51:124.0. The building right across the

51:14street, Redmond Oneshell, is um 4 and a

51:17half. And then the one where um that new

51:20credit union and people credit union, I

51:22think on State Street next to the um

51:26the stream, that's 5.3.

51:29So um those are already above current

51:33area ratio. Um and we did fel feel like

51:36this aligns with the comprehensive plan

51:39um to really encourage more housing and

51:42infill in our core urban area. So

51:48is there any feedback on that

51:53brush? Yeah, I I just support the effort

51:56to find alternative

52:00measures for

52:02protecting sunlight and building style

52:06or bulk of the building. I think those

52:08are important considerations.

52:11>> I understand it's difficult to get a

52:13measure, but I encourage the search for

52:16that. Yeah, that's definitely something

52:18we've mentioned um mainly in our

52:21residential areas, you know, when it

52:23comes to building height and like making

52:25sure people aren't, you know, shaded

52:27out. And I think we can control for that

52:30with building envelope standards. So, um

52:33you know, if you're within a certain

52:35distance of the property line, your

52:37height is lower and then you would

52:39gradually increase as you go in. It's

52:41like what we do now, but the um

52:43standards might be tweaked a little bit

52:45downtown. I think it's harder because it

52:48is meant to be such an intense the

52:51densest commercial zone. Um but it's

52:54definitely something that we can ask the

52:56consultants about like you know are

52:58there design standards we could use that

53:00would protect sunlight more in downtown.

53:03So

53:05>> member

53:06>> I'll just add a comment in that regard.

53:10I I did live downtown for a year. Um,

53:12and there are parts of downtown that get

53:14very very little sun, especially

53:17depending on what side of the building

53:18that you're on, but get very little sun

53:20in the winter because the sun's so low

53:22in the sky and it comes up and the um

53:25county building is the county offices

53:27block it until it gets up to a certain

53:29point and then Haley Ward would block it

53:30when it gets just over to the other

53:32side. So,

53:33>> I'm not sure that trying to protect that

53:37really particularly feasible in all

53:38cases with something overarching like

53:42this. Um, so I'm in favor of making the

53:44changes just to promote again more more

53:46infill, more housing,

53:52>> require giant mirrors on the side of

53:53buildings, let the light back down.

53:56>> Not great for birds. I [laughter]

54:00>> the um you talked about um conditional

54:04use for height and I wondered if talking

54:08about if there's a way to put

54:10conditional use into

54:12into this so that we'd still have an

54:15opportunity to discuss like have some

54:18grounds to discuss it. If it was a

54:21fringe case, saying no requirements

54:25is probably fine, but maybe still

54:28putting some guardrail against

54:31um a condition like a scenario that

54:35would really

54:37not wouldn't go against this. I think we

54:41um wouldn't necessarily on its face be

54:44against the the requirement in the code

54:47but would potentially be something that

54:50we wouldn't want to approve but I guess

54:52we'd have other avenues to review that

54:56in site plan review.

54:57>> Are you saying for this change currently

55:00to add some provision in for conditional

55:02use?

55:03>> So would you remind me what the standard

55:05is right now? What the percentage is? Is

55:07it 04?

55:08>> It's 4.0 Z is the area ratio.

55:13>> Um,

55:16so I wouldn't say anything that's below

55:184.0. I would say anything that's below

55:20and then some strange number that's very

55:23low, if that makes sense, or very high.

55:27>> So you're saying keep the floor area

55:29ratio, but make it so that if you go

55:32above that, it's a conditional use.

55:36>> Yeah. I don't know this what if that's

55:38worth considering. If you feel like that

55:40still gives us some

55:42uh parameters or like a avenue to

55:47>> um do you think that it might be better

55:51to do like do a preliminary like a

55:55height limit and then say like I

55:57mentioned if you're over 100 feet or are

56:01you more concerned with other aspects of

56:02what the four area ratio controls?

56:04>> I'd have to like understand like the

56:06scenario a little bit better. It's hard

56:07to vis en envision when it would become

56:10a problem.

56:12Um

56:15it might be nice to see a couple

56:17examples of the ones that are not in

56:20compliance today that we're looking to

56:23you you mentioned the one across the

56:24street.

56:25>> Yep. And the um Six State Street where

56:29um Goldman's offices are. Do you know

56:31where that is? So it's like right across

56:33from Baymore Savings Bank down on stage.

56:36Okay. Right next to the bridge.

56:37>> Yeah.

56:38>> Yeah.

56:41>> Just putting it out there. If we were

56:43thinking about conditional use, I know

56:44we don't want to perpetuate conditional

56:46uses uh

56:49um because it it creates uncertainty for

56:52developers, I would assume.

56:55But um

56:57just adding it to the conversation.

57:00Any

57:04other conversation on this item?

57:08>> Is there consensus? Like how do we feel

57:10about what um Jonathan has said? Do does

57:14anybody else feel that way?

57:21>> Crickets.

57:23[laughter]

57:24[gasps]

57:27Uh, I I think I would mostly be um kind

57:31of seconding what the vice chair said. I

57:33mean, up is the way to go in a lot of

57:35these building scenarios downtown. Um,

57:41people are really good at kind of coming

57:43in with these knee-jerk um reactions of,

57:47you know, throwing a word around like

57:49skyscraper. I think skyscraper I think

57:5140 floors or more,

57:53>> you know. I think the Empire State

57:54Building or the Sears Tower or I was in

57:58Kansas City before I moved here and um

58:00there was one skyscraper in downtown

58:02Kansas City and that was pretty much it.

58:04You know, I don't think anyone in Maine,

58:08let alone Bangor, is thinking more than

58:1010 stories, you know, at most. And even

58:12that I would be surprised to see. Um but

58:16I think that is the way to go with

58:18housing, especially in a downtown area.

58:29Anybody else want to chime in?

58:36All right. Um,

58:39I I I'm get getting the feeling that

58:43maybe overall we're good with making

58:46this change right now and then when we

58:48do the whole land development code

58:50update, we'll have more guard rails

58:53around building form and things like

58:55that. Is everyone good with that?

58:58And I will note, Jonathan, um if it

59:01makes you feel any better, uh we do have

59:04historic preservation protections for

59:06much of downtown. So,

59:08>> well, that's right.

59:09>> They do have purview over that and

59:11that'll that will control a lot of the

59:13building form for much of downtown. So,

59:18um

59:19so given that, I will um plan to bring

59:23this to your October 20th meeting for

59:25the formal public hearing.

59:28Thank you.

59:29>> Our next item was just general thoughts

59:31on the land development code update and

59:33lane use planning.

59:35>> Um yeah, so um I kind of mentioned like

59:39a few parts of the new code already. Um

59:43we are still in the midst of working

59:45with our consultants on review. Um it's

59:48been really tough. October is a crazy

59:50month. It's been really tough working

59:51with everyone scheduled to get those

59:53meetings, but we have a lot scheduled

59:54for October to review the code. Um the

59:57consultants are optimistic that like

1:00:00we'll finish up by mid November, maybe

1:00:03early November and having a public draft

1:00:06out by early next year. Um so we'll see.

1:00:10There's still a lot of mapping work that

1:00:12also needs to be done. Um I haven't had

1:00:15a chance quite yet to finish the

1:00:17reviewing the whole new zoning map. Um

1:00:20and we also have to look at um the

1:00:23there's in the airport area. Um the

1:00:27airport has consultants that are working

1:00:28on a potential airport overlay district

1:00:30that would restrict uses around the

1:00:32airport. Um so that's another moving

1:00:35piece. And then um we have to look at

1:00:40you know wetlands and um resource

1:00:43protection areas and things like that.

1:00:44So there's a lot of different um irons

1:00:46in the fire with the code. So

1:00:53>> any any dates coming up uh look forward

1:00:56to?

1:00:58>> Can't give you a specific date yet. So

1:01:02sorry.

1:01:02>> Any other questions or comments from the

1:01:04board.

1:01:06We do have a document to sign.

1:01:10>> There should be findings and then the

1:01:11subdivision plans you reviewed tonight.

1:01:13So

1:01:13>> very good.

1:01:15And member Jonas,

1:01:17>> I just want to confirm. I think

1:01:18everybody was copied on the but we've

1:01:20decided we're not going to have a

1:01:21meeting on election day.

1:01:23>> Right. Okay. So,

1:01:24>> right.

1:01:24>> Yeah.

1:01:25>> But we will have another meeting in

1:01:26October.

1:01:27>> Provided there is enough material to

1:01:30review.

1:01:30>> Yes, there will definitely be a meeting

1:01:32um October 20th. So,

1:01:35>> so 10 20th will be our next meeting.

1:01:38>> I'm not sure that I got that email

1:01:40>> about election day.

1:01:41>> Yeah.

1:01:42>> Oh, I'm sorry. I think I was just

1:01:44emailing Janet. So, yes, you will not

1:01:45have a meeting on election day. You just

1:01:47have one meeting in November.

1:01:49>> Perfect. It's on Thanksgiving.

1:01:52>> November 15th, I think, is that meeting.

1:01:55So,

1:01:57>> well, thank you everyone. Uh, any other

1:01:59final comments before we adjourn?

1:02:02It is 801

```*