2026-10-20 - Planning Board

00:36Good evening and welcome to the

00:38applicant staff, board members and

00:39members of the public. This is the

00:41October 20, 2026 meeting of the city of

00:43Bangor's planning board. It is 7:00. My

00:47name is Jonathan Boucher. I'm the chair

00:48of the board. Uh board members are

00:50volunteers from the Bangor community and

00:52other board members in attendance this

00:53evening include Ted Brush, Trisha Hayes,

00:56Greg Hopson, Ken Hin, vice chair Janet

01:00Jonas, and Russ Woodford. Uh city staff

01:02members in attendance this evening

01:03include planning officer Anya Collette,

01:06assistant solicitor Grace Ennis, city

01:09engineer Jefferson Davis, planning an

01:11and as well as planning analyst Matthew

01:13Altiero. And we thank them for their

01:15help in preparation for tonight's

01:16meeting.

01:18We're going to start with old business,

01:19uh which includes the minutes from the

01:21October 6th, 2026 meeting.

01:24Ask to see if there's any modifications

01:25or comments.

01:28I would like to hear a motion.

01:30Uh

01:32Yes. Member Hin.

01:34And a second?

01:34>> Second.

01:35>> Member Hopson. A roll call vote. Member

01:37Brush.

01:38>> Yes.

01:38>> Member Hayes.

01:39>> Yes.

01:40>> Member Hopson.

01:40>> Yes.

01:41>> Member Hin.

01:41>> Yes.

01:42>> Jonas.

01:43>> Yes.

01:43>> Member Woodford.

01:44>> Yes.

01:44>> The chair votes yes.

01:46Our next item is the adoption of

01:48findings for uh 511 Main Ave and 6

01:52Bangor Mall Boulevard.

01:54Ask to see if there's any discussion

01:57or if there's a motion.

01:59Member Brush.

02:01>> I have moved I move that we

02:04adopt the

02:06permits for the

02:08511 Main Avenue and 6 Bangor Mall

02:11Boulevard.

02:13>> Thank you in a second.

02:16Oh, member Jonas in a roll call vote.

02:17Member Brush.

02:18>> Yes.

02:18>> Number Hayes.

02:19>> Yes.

02:19>> Number Hobson.

02:20>> Yes.

02:21>> Number Hinn.

02:21>> Yes.

02:22>> Number Jonas.

02:22>> Yes.

02:23>> Number Woodford.

02:23>> Yes.

02:24>> The chair votes

02:25>> Yes.

02:26>> That brings me to the introduction of

02:27new business and our discussion of what

02:30the planning board does.

02:32The planning board

02:34has two main roles. First, we review

02:36amendments to the land development code,

02:38which typically include either changes

02:39to the zoning districts

02:41or changes to text within the code. Our

02:43review of these amendments includes

02:45adherence to the comprehensive plan as

02:46well as considering any applicable

02:48concerns from the public. Our vote on

02:50these items is in the form of a

02:51recommendation to the city council as to

02:53whether the item ought to pass ought to

02:54pass or ought not to pass.

02:56The city council makes the final

02:57decision on zoning and land development

02:59code changes. There's one item on the

03:01agenda that is an amendment change.

03:05An amendment,

03:07I should say.

03:08Secondly, the board serves as the

03:09regulatory authority for land

03:11development permits, commonly known as

03:12site plan review. Site plans are

03:14reviewed to ensure compliance with the

03:16city code as to parking, driveways,

03:17storm water management, lighting,

03:19landscaping, and buffering,

03:21a building location, environmental

03:22impacts, shoreland zoning as may be

03:24applicable. We also ensure the plan

03:26meets the dimensional requirements for

03:27the project zoning district. We review

03:29larger site plans that trigger site

03:31location development for the main DEP as

03:33well. Under their requirements, some

03:35uses are conditional

03:37uses

03:38>> [clears throat]

03:39>> that have specific recommendations and

03:41requirements

03:42um we that we use to review the

03:44projects.

03:46State statute also outlines the

03:47requirements for subdivision review and

03:49the city has additional standards as to

03:51roadway and utility specifications. The

03:54board ultimately endorses a plan that

03:55will go to the registry of deeds if the

03:57plan is approved. There is one item on

03:59the agenda that that is a land

04:00development permit.

04:03And further information on the city's

04:04codes and standards and the

04:05comprehensive plan may be found on the

04:07city's website.

04:10As for how we will be

04:12dealing with each item, for land

04:14development permits we'll first consider

04:16and vote on the applications readiness

04:18for review and any concerns for

04:20conflicts of interest. And for all items

04:22the applicant and or their

04:23representative should then come forward

04:25to the podium and provide a brief

04:26introduction to the proposal.

04:28And then they should

04:30stay at the podium while we consider any

04:31questions at the staff and or board

04:33member from other staff or board

04:35members. And for code amendment staff

04:37may make the presentation.

04:39Once the item has been presented the

04:40applicant may be seated and we'll allow

04:42time for public comment.

04:44For public comments the person should

04:46come to the podium and introduce

04:47themselves, state if they are Bangor

04:48resident and or an abutter to the

04:50property and indicate if they are for or

04:53against the proposal. And it's also

04:54helpful if you present your thoughts

04:56based upon the city's codes and

04:57standards and the comprehensive plan as

04:59these are the primary documents used by

05:01the board to make our decision.

05:03All comments and discussion should

05:05remain respectful and considerate of

05:06others and once public comments are

05:08completed we will close the item for

05:10public comment. Board will then

05:12deliberate

05:14on the proposal using the applicable

05:15standards and for clarity when

05:17considering land development proposals

05:19the code standards are typically read

05:21and voted on separately. The final

05:23decision is then read and voted on and

05:24if the applicant disagrees to the land

05:26development permit decision that the

05:28board has made they may appeal the

05:30decision to the superior court of Maine.

05:32Once a project that you're interested

05:34has been reviewed you may leave the

05:36meeting but please be respectfully quiet

05:38so as not to disturb the review of other

05:40agenda items.

05:43Okay.

05:45So our first item for tonight

05:47is

05:48an amendment

05:50to the code and it's to amend the land

05:52development code by amending the That's

05:54repetitive. Okay, 1 second. Let me re-

05:56re- reread this. To amend

06:00land development code section 165

06:02attachment 2 schedule A urban

06:04development area to remove floor area

06:06ratio or FAR from the downtown

06:08development district DDD.

06:11And the applicant will be

06:14>> Anja banker?

06:16>> Anja, would you like to go ahead?

06:18>> Yeah.

06:19So, I'll just re-review things for those

06:22who are here and those who are watching.

06:23But, what we're proposing is to

06:25eliminate the floor area ratio limit

06:27from downtown development district

06:29basically because it's kind of an

06:31outdated standard that

06:34was originally used to

06:37um limit like building form and bulk and

06:40um neighborhood character and things

06:42like that and it doesn't really

06:44effectively do that. Um we have historic

06:48districts covering most of downtown and

06:49also what's called a facade district

06:51that um really controls building form

06:54and appearance and things like that.

06:56Um

06:57And generally in the downtown

06:59development district we're not as

07:00worried about height. Um and that's

07:03really what this limits and there's

07:05existing or development that would like

07:08to happen to add some stories to

07:09buildings that this does limit and we do

07:13have existing historic buildings that

07:14are over this limit.

07:16Um

07:17And based on some comments that we did

07:20receive from council and maybe planning

07:22board last time, we did talk with the

07:24fire department and airport about, you

07:26know, whether height limits are needed

07:29in downtown.

07:30The fire department basically said that

07:32the taller building gets, the more that

07:35they

07:36already have to integrate into that

07:38building design for fire protection um,

07:42they weren't really worried about, you

07:44know, fire response and things like that

07:46with

07:47very tall buildings like skyscrapers.

07:49Um, and like we talked about previously,

07:51there's not at this time demand for

07:53skyscrapers in the city, so we're not

07:54really concerned about having that

07:56that result from this. Um,

07:59and then as far as the airport, their

08:01main we've been meeting with them, um,

08:04to talk about the new land development

08:05code and their needs with that. And

08:08they're more so concerned about areas

08:10within the runway approach, um, which is

08:13pretty far away from downtown. So,

08:16they're definitely concerned about

08:16height limits there. Um, downtown is

08:19like the very

08:21foremost, um, northeast corner of where

08:23they would be

08:25looking at limitations, but, um,

08:28height limits that, you know, we're

08:30talking about with them would be far

08:32more than what we're seeing demand for

08:34in the city. And if we were to by some

08:36chance get a skyscraper request, we

08:39would definitely talk with the airport,

08:40you know, um,

08:42and make sure there's no concerns there.

08:44Um,

08:45so I think that covered everything and

08:47I'm happy to answer questions.

08:51>> Any questions from the board?

09:02All right, thank you. Um, so at this

09:04point we'd open it up for public

09:05comment.

09:07If there's anyone who'd like to come

09:08forward and speak,

09:11we're discussing whether or not to

09:13remove the, uh, floor area ratio in the

09:16downtown development district.

09:21So, we'll close public comment. Any

09:23final discussion

09:24amongst board or for questions for city

09:26staff?

09:29Not, I'd look for a motion on the

09:31proposal.

09:32>> a recommendation to council.

09:34>> So, So that's a good call. We are

09:36talking about phrasing this motion in

09:38the form of ought to pass and we vote

09:40yes or no on ought to pass.

09:43It's easier to vote yes or no on

09:44affirmative

09:45what phrasing on a

09:47an affirmative

09:49um motion rather than doing double

09:52negatives.

09:53So

09:54if someone would like to make the

09:56motion, please make it in the form of

09:57ought to pass and we can vote up or down

09:59on that. Member Huen.

10:01>> Yeah, Chair, I move that uh

10:03uh

10:03we [clears throat] recommend that that

10:06uh this amendment ought to pass. It's

10:08amending the land development code

10:10um section 165 attached

10:12schedule A urban develop uh area to

10:15remove floor area ratio FAR from the

10:18downtown development district.

10:21Um

10:24>> Thank you, Member uh thank you, Member

10:25Huen and a second.

10:26>> Second.

10:27>> Yeah, Member Jonas in a roll call vote,

10:29Member Brush.

10:29>> Yes.

10:30>> Member Hayes.

10:30>> Yes.

10:31>> Member Hobson.

10:31>> Yes.

10:32>> Member Huen.

10:32>> Yes.

10:33>> Member Jonas.

10:33>> Yes.

10:34>> Member Woodford.

10:34>> Yes.

10:35>> The Chair votes yes.

10:38That brings us to our second item which

10:40is the land development permit

10:41application for a major site development

10:43conditional use for proposed uh

10:45car wash, gas station, and convenience

10:47store at the property located at

10:49um

10:511187 Union Street map lots

10:54R 24-001-A

10:57and R uh 24-001-B

11:01and uh R 24-001-C

11:04in the shopping and personal service

11:06district SNPS. The applicant owner RH

11:09Foster Energy LLC.

11:11Uh the staff has indicated the

11:12completeness of this application and is

11:14ready for board review. Fees are

11:15documented and paid and the applicant

11:17standing is confirmed.

11:18Does the board have any concerns about

11:21um

11:22Does the board board members have any

11:24conflicts of interest or any concerns?

11:32Then otherwise, I'd like to hear a

11:33motion to accept the completeness.

11:35Remember Jonas?

11:37>> Chair, I move the board finds the

11:39application was deemed complete today on

11:40October 20th, 2026

11:43The applicant paid all applicable fees

11:45per exhibit three in our packets, and

11:47the proposed project is a major site

11:48development and a conditional use.

11:50>> Thank you. And a second?

11:52>> Second.

11:53>> Remember Hobson and a roll call vote.

11:55Remember Brush?

11:56>> Yes.

11:56>> Remember Hayes?

11:57>> Yes.

11:57>> Remember Hobson?

11:58>> Yes.

11:59>> Remember Hume?

11:59>> Yes.

12:00>> Remember Jonas?

12:00>> Yes.

12:01>> Remember Woodford?

12:01>> Yes.

12:02>> And the chair votes yes.

12:04With that, I'd like to turn it over to

12:05the applicant or representative to come

12:07up to the podium and give their

12:08presentation, please.

12:12>> Uh good evening. Sean Thies with Haley

12:13Ward representing the applicant R.H.

12:15Foster tonight.

12:17Um

12:19Matthew, could bring the plan up on the

12:21screen.

12:25While he's doing that, I just I guess

12:27one one point of point of clarification.

12:29You mentioned this was a land

12:30development permit and a conditional

12:31use.

12:32Does it We also have to include that

12:34it's a storm water permit as part of the

12:36planning board approval, or is that

12:37staff or

12:38>> It's

12:39We just lump it in with the

12:40>> Okay. Just wanted to make sure we

12:41weren't missing something.

12:44Um

12:46So, this is uh property at the corner of

12:48Union Street and Griffin Road um owned

12:51by R.H. Foster. There's currently uh

12:54it's three parcels that they own.

12:56There's the one directly on the corner.

12:58There's currently convenience store, gas

13:00station.

13:01Um the next property up on Griffin Road

13:04is uh

13:05it's currently closed, but it's a

13:07self-serve car wash.

13:09And then, the project the property to

13:12the east along Union Street, it was uh

13:14formerly Captain Nick's restaurant that

13:17R.H. Foster purchased. So, three lots

13:19combined show uh create the square that

13:22you're seeing here

13:23on the plan.

13:25Um what they're proposing is a uh

13:28approximately 7,100 square foot new

13:31building for the convenience store

13:34with um

13:36six fuel dispensers across the um

13:39across the front parallel with Union

13:40Street.

13:42Uh to the right of the new store,

13:44there's a uh diesel island uh with a

13:46canopy.

13:47And then on the back lot where the

13:50current uh car wash is, that would be

13:52replaced with a automated car wash um

13:56two bays um sort of like a tunnel, but

13:59um you pull in and the equipment moves.

14:01It's not a tunnel that the pulls the car

14:03through.

14:04Um

14:06the parking proposed on the left-hand

14:08side of the building and then uh some

14:10vacuums related to the car wash

14:12and uh maneuvering space around the back

14:15of the the store for uh a loading area.

14:19There's currently

14:21for the three lots combined uh seven

14:24curb cuts along Union Street and Griffin

14:27Road.

14:28We're cutting that back to uh four.

14:32Um there's two full-service [snorts]

14:35When I say full-service, right-in,

14:37right-out um proposed on Griffin Road,

14:40one full-service on Union Street, and

14:43one right-in only on uh Union Street.

14:47Um

14:49there'll be new

14:50new water sewer services connected uh to

14:53both the car wash and the store.

14:57We've got a uh

14:58dumpster area with a emergency

15:00generator,

15:02um some underground propane tanks to

15:04serve uh the generator, the car wash,

15:07and the new store.

15:09Um

15:10sidewalk connections out to the

15:12sidewalks on both Union Street and

15:14Griffin Road.

15:17Um

15:18as you can sort of see on the where

15:20we've pulled the pavement back from the

15:24frontages of both streets, so they'll be

15:26creating some more green space between

15:29the buffer yards on

15:31between the paved areas and the streets.

15:33Um

15:35This requires a

15:37storm water permit from the main DEP,

15:39which the city now has delegated of

15:41review authority on. So, in the back

15:43right corner, there's a um

15:45It's actually two underdrain soil

15:47filters that'll collect the storm water

15:49from the site, treat that prior to

15:52leaving the site.

15:55There's It's only a minimal amount of

15:57new impervious area, but it's viewed as

16:01a redevelopment project uh through DEP,

16:04so that requires treatment of the

16:06majority of

16:08the impervious area on site, even though

16:09a lot of it's existing.

16:13Um

16:15What else? I think that's

16:18It's about it. I'll

16:20happy to answer any questions that the

16:22the board has.

16:23>> Thanks.

16:24Any um city comment uh comments from

16:27city staff?

16:28>> Um I don't have anything special. I just

16:31now Shawn has made me paranoid, so when

16:33you do get to your final decision, just

16:35to be safe, maybe just say it's storm

16:36water permit, too. So.

16:41>> Okay, one second. I'm just taking a note

16:43for us as we

16:44when we come to the decision.

16:47Um and then

16:50questions from the planning board?

16:52Remember again?

16:53>> Yeah, you're going to put propane tanks

16:55in it. You don't have natural gas out

16:56there, or is it

16:58propane better?

16:59>> The applicant sells propane, so they uh

17:03just as they normally put propane tanks

17:05in to serve their stores, rather than

17:06purchase natural gas from a different

17:09Exactly, yeah.

17:15>> Any other questions? Remember Brush?

17:17>> Yeah, do you anticipate any change in

17:19the traffic pattern from the current

17:22usage?

17:23>> So, there is we are doing a traffic

17:26movement permit with main DOT. Um

17:29based on the increased store size and

17:32the changes that we're proposing,

17:34um

17:35it does generate more trips for a

17:38facility like this, the majority of the

17:40trips are um pass by, meaning it's

17:43vehicles that are already on the road,

17:46um but they will be coming to the site

17:47as opposed to um

17:50somebody coming from across town, say,

17:52to specifically go to this store. That's

17:54a different type of trip and in this

17:56case most of them are are pass by, so we

17:58are working with DOT to go through that

18:00process, but um there's currently

18:03n- no concerns really raised as far as

18:06what the traffic uh impacts would be

18:08from the project.

18:11Member Jonas?

18:13>> Okay, so I have a bunch of questions for

18:15you.

18:15>> Okay.

18:16>> I'm going to piggyback on the one um

18:17that Member Brush just asked regarding

18:19the traffic patterns because I actually

18:20drive by that area

18:23multiple times a week um and

18:25I think that there um and I think that

18:27the

18:29traffic study really does raise a big

18:31question about increasing the amount of

18:33particularly in the afternoon in the um

18:35in the commuting hours about the amount

18:37of traffic that's going to go through

18:38that intersection in any particular

18:40direction. So, I think we do really need

18:42to take a strong look at that. Um I also

18:45think there might be opportunities based

18:46on the traffic study to do a little work

18:49in the traffic pattern, particularly um

18:52as you're going

18:54west on Griffin Road into that

18:56intersection, they um

18:58the laning the lane lines do tend to get

19:01a little bit bottlenecked, I've noticed

19:03um and particularly in the dark in the

19:05winter when the lines aren't very clear,

19:07it's it's a difficult intersection to

19:09navigate if you're not familiar with it.

19:11Um I also recognize that that is the

19:13closest gas station to the airport,

19:16which means it probably gets a

19:17significant amount of additional traffic

19:20going to and from because as we heard,

19:22um, we know that Bangor's rental car

19:24market is really strong in the summer.

19:26So, I think that it also warrants maybe

19:28we need to look at that. Um, and that's

19:30not really so much for you as it is for

19:31us to consider as the city.

19:33Um, but I do have a question. Um, maybe

19:34this is for staff about reusing the

19:37existing buffers. One of the buffers,

19:39the one that's in front of the currently

19:41disused car wash, most of those trees

19:43appear to not be very well or healthy.

19:46Where Are those intended to be replaced?

19:48Or would we require that?

19:51>> um, a lot of that is being replaced. We

19:52have a pretty extensive landscape plan

19:54though

19:55>> You do. You do.

19:55>> in your packet. Um,

19:58and I

19:59think it's shown there, um, those

20:01plants, the the ones in front of the car

20:03wash are being replaced.

20:05>> I thought I thought that's what I saw I

20:06saw, but then when I went back to the

20:07other plan, I wasn't really that clear.

20:09So,

20:10>> I don't think I think there's some on

20:11the, um,

20:13near the intersection, if I remember

20:15right, that we were going to, uh, keep

20:17more some shrubs and stuff in that area,

20:19but, um, a lot of it's, uh, new.

20:21>> Yeah. I guess my my big concern is that

20:24we have a process to be sure that if

20:25there's an existing buffer that's

20:28not healthy, that we do have the means

20:31to require that to be replaced. And

20:33that's part of the final

20:35review, right? The

20:37>> Um, well,

20:40yeah, I mean, you should definitely part

20:42of your purview here. Um,

20:44if you But it sounds like Shawn, they're

20:46already proposing

20:47>> Yeah.

20:48>> Yeah, I remember in the in the staff

20:50review we got from the city forester,

20:53there was one tree that we were

20:54proposing to keep and they had made a

20:56comment that, um,

20:58>> It's the ash tree.

20:58>> that it was, um, in poor health. So, uh,

21:01when we revised the plan, we

21:03removed that and replaced it with a new

21:05tree.

21:06>> And I'm specifically concerned about the

21:07ones in front of the where the vacuums

21:09are going in front of the car wash cuz

21:10they are just not healthy.

21:12>> Yeah.

21:12>> Okay.

21:13Um

21:14>> [sighs]

21:16>> Um the other thing I wanted to say is I

21:17I'm kudos for um explaining the

21:19catchment um the graphs and and the

21:23diagrams and everything. It really

21:24helped understand how you determined

21:25where the storm water needed to run off.

21:27It was actually really pretty

21:29readable. So, thanks for that. And then

21:31the um last thing I wanted to bring up

21:33was um

21:34I found it and then staff caught it,

21:35too. I would just want to be sure for

21:36the record. Um there was a reference to

21:39the town of Thomaston when referring to

21:41the um lots

21:44in the storm water narrative. Probably

21:46needs to be fixed for the record.

21:48>> Okay.

21:49>> Thanks.

21:52>> I'll talk a little bit about traffic and

21:54your concerns there. So, um

21:57we did have you know, we had a scope

21:58meeting with the DOT um and we talked

22:00about all this stuff, but um you know,

22:03the way that the site that was proposed

22:06vastly improved site circulation and

22:08site access at those intersections.

22:09They're pulling the existing access um

22:12away from the intersection of Griffin

22:14and and Union Street. Um they're getting

22:17rid of the [snorts]

22:19um

22:20the act the exit that's closest to Union

22:22and Griffin.

22:24Um right now it's shown as a right right

22:25in, so that's that's not a problem

22:27there.

22:28Um

22:29the Griffin side um the lane striping is

22:32is really not there worried. That's

22:34that's the city, but um on Union Street

22:37um we we already talked about restriping

22:39Union Street to help um navigate some of

22:42this, so

22:43um

22:44I think we're going to do like a

22:45teardrop island north of the

22:46intersection coming inbound, so it gets

22:49people to

22:50um

22:50you know, get get some alignment coming

22:52into town a little bit better. And I

22:54think the city is going to also

22:57um extend the left turn

22:59from the intersection.

23:00Um

23:01so, you have a dedicated

23:03turn right there. So, I think I think I

23:05have no concerns with this project going

23:07in. Yes, it's increased traffic.

23:09Majority of it is passed by traffic

23:11anyway, as Shawn said. So, in that

23:15just the improvements to the access

23:16getting them away from the intersection,

23:19I think I think is is pretty good for

23:20this project. So, the staff doesn't have

23:23really any concerns and the DOT doesn't

23:24either. So,

23:28>> Thank you. Any other questions?

23:32>> I just wanted to comment on that um

23:34wording if I thought it was fixed in the

23:36revised narrative.

23:37>> I thought it was. I thought you had

23:38mentioned it. So, I just assumed that we

23:40had fixed that, but I left it

23:42back through and check the storm water

23:43narrative to

23:44>> I maybe just to be safe um

23:47you could just condition that it's fixed

23:49in the narrative for um

23:51when it gets to building permits.

23:53>> Yeah, I I I know that I think it was

23:54Matt actually fed that information back,

23:56but when the packets got to us it didn't

23:58include an update for that page. So,

24:01>> Um, all right. We'll just condition it

24:03just in case.

24:06Thanks.

24:08>> With the wording we can say that we can

24:10firm confirm that the the naming has

24:13been updated corrected from Thomaston.

24:15Something to that effect.

24:17And then the storm water plan was the

24:18second piece that we captured before

24:19that we're going to reference that um

24:24We'll have to ask about the wording on

24:25that one.

24:26>> It would just be So, would you say land

24:28phone and permit for major site

24:30development?

24:30>> Yeah, in the introduction.

24:31>> and then storm water permit like you

24:33did.

24:33>> So, when we're reading the decision we

24:34just list that as

24:36with another comma and then storm water.

24:43So, that's just adding to the

24:44description and then the other one's an

24:46actual condition with the condition that

24:49Then it was taking notes.

24:52Um, all right.

24:54Can we Can you reiterate for me the curb

24:57cut comment you made you made cuz you

24:59were saying we're at seven curb cuts and

25:00we're going to four? I'm just trying to

25:02understand that. I was wondering if I

25:05misunderstood you.

25:06>> There's currently, I believe

25:09I believe it's four on Union Street and

25:11three on

25:12Griffin Road.

25:13So, there was I think one at Captain

25:16Nick's and then maybe three into the RH

25:18Foster one.

25:19Um

25:20two at the car wash and one into the

25:25existing RH Foster convenience store on

25:27Griffin Road.

25:29So,

25:31we're replacing all those with

25:34the one full movement on Griffin Road,

25:37which I mean Union Street, which is as

25:38far away from the intersection as we can

25:41get it. It's essentially what was the

25:42entrance to Captain Nick's will become

25:45the entrance into the

25:47the main entrance into the development

25:49off Union Street. Then, we have the

25:51right in only that is closer to the

25:54intersection.

25:56And then on Griffin Road,

25:59we have the two shown on the plan there.

26:01One is sort of is a direct entrance to

26:04the car wash.

26:06And then the the other one is a

26:09mainly an entrance into the store.

26:11Um

26:12but it could also access the car wash

26:14through that or serve as a

26:16exit from the car wash. And then

26:18currently, they're they're not

26:19connected. So, if anybody's at the car

26:21wash,

26:22if they wanted to go to the store, they

26:23have to go out onto Griffin Road and

26:25then come back in to the next lot. Um

26:28Now, that's all connected. So, you can

26:30go directly back and forth between the

26:32car wash and the convenience store.

26:35>> So, should we do those all as like

26:36traffic traffic calming

26:38uh efforts, right?

26:40To avoid

26:41>> Yes, and improvements to the overall

26:43flow. Less Less conflict points with

26:46people

26:47exiting the site onto Union Street and

26:49Griffin Road.

26:50>> But, it's not working.

26:53Any other questions before we uh um

26:56open up public comment?

26:57All right, thank you. Appreciate it.

27:02Any other staff comments? You guys? No,

27:04okay.

27:06So, at this point I'd like to open

27:07public comment on this item. If anyone

27:09like to come up and speak or if there's

27:10anyone on the Zoom who would like an

27:12opportunity to speak about it.

27:18Um seeing no one, we will close public

27:20comment.

27:21But before [clears throat] going to the

27:22motions and standards, um I'll just ask

27:25one more time if board members have any

27:26other questions, comments before we move

27:29on to our review.

27:34And we are going to turn to our

27:37um applicable provisions and findings.

27:41And um I'd like to start with

27:45part one that the project meets the

27:46requirements of articles two through 12.

27:51Do I have a motion on number one? Member

27:52Hune?

27:53>> Sure, I find that the board finds I move

27:56that the board finds that based on

27:57exhibits two and 14, the applicant

27:59satisfied section 165-33.1

28:03of the land development code regarding

28:05best management practices of erosion and

28:07sediment control.

28:08>> Thank you. In a second.

28:10Member Brush. I'll roll call vote.

28:12Member Brush.

28:12>> Yes.

28:13>> Member Hayes.

28:13>> Yes.

28:14>> Member Hobson.

28:15>> Yes.

28:15>> Member Hune.

28:15>> Yes.

28:16>> Member Jonas.

28:16>> Yes.

28:17>> Member Woodford.

28:18>> Yes.

28:18>> Chair votes yes. Item two.

28:22Number Hobson.

28:23>> Chair, I move that the board finds that

28:24based on exhibit two and 33, the

28:26applicant satisfied section 165-62

28:30of the land development code regarding

28:32finding adequate visual clearance on

28:34corner lots, section 165-64's

28:38requirements for side yard width, and

28:40section 165-65's

28:42requirements for yard space for group

28:45buildings, and section 165-68's

28:48requirements of minimum lot frontage.

28:50>> Thank you and a second, member Jonas in

28:53a roll call vote. Member Brush?

28:55>> Yes.

28:55>> Member Hayes?

28:55>> Yes.

28:56>> Member Hobson?

28:57>> Yes.

28:57>> Member Hyun?

28:58>> Yes.

28:58>> Member Jonas?

28:59>> Yes.

28:59>> Member Woodford?

29:00>> Yes.

29:00>> And chair votes yes. Item three?

29:02>> Chair.

29:03>> Jonas?

29:03>> Chair, I move the board finds that based

29:05on exhibit two and 33, the applicant

29:07satisfied section 165-72

29:09of the land development code regarding

29:11the required number of parking spaces,

29:14section 165-73's

29:15requirements regarding parking area

29:17location and screening, and section

29:19165-74's

29:21requirements regarding parking area

29:23design, construction, and maintenance.

29:26>> You and a second?

29:28Second, member Brush in a roll call

29:29vote. Member Brush?

29:30>> Yes.

29:30>> Member Hayes?

29:31>> Yes.

29:31>> Member Hobson?

29:32>> Yes.

29:32>> Member Hyun?

29:33>> Yes.

29:33>> Member Jonas?

29:34>> Yes.

29:34>> Member Woodford?

29:35>> Yes.

29:35>> And chair votes yes. Item four?

29:38Member Brush?

29:39>> This is chair. I move the board finds

29:41that based on exhibit two and 33,

29:44the applicant satisfied land development

29:46code section 165-76

29:50regarding the required number of loading

29:52spaces,

29:54section 165-77's

29:56requirements regarding loading space

29:59sizes, and section 165-78's

30:03general requirements for loading spaces.

30:06>> Thank you and a second.

30:08>> I'll second.

30:08>> Member Hobson in a roll call vote.

30:10Member Brush?

30:11>> Yes.

30:11>> Member Hayes?

30:12>> Yes.

30:12>> Member Hobson?

30:13>> Yes.

30:13>> Member Hyun?

30:14>> Yes.

30:14>> Jonas?

30:15>> Yes.

30:15>> Member Woodford?

30:16>> Yes.

30:16>> And chair votes yes. Item five?

30:20Member uh Hayes?

30:22>> I move the board finds that based on

30:24exhibits two, 19, and 30, the applicant

30:27satisfied section 165-79

30:32>> [clears throat]

30:32>> of the land development code regarding

30:35providing the necessary utility services

30:38required, section 165-80's

30:41requirements regarding providing

30:43adequate water and sewage services and

30:47what section 165-83's

30:50requirements regarding providing

30:52adequate electrical service.

30:54>> You in a second. Member Brush in a roll

30:56call vote. Member Brush?

30:57>> Yes.

30:58>> Member Hayes?

30:59>> Yes.

30:59>> Member Hobson?

31:00>> Yes.

31:00>> Member Hune?

31:01>> Yes.

31:01>> Jonas?

31:02>> Yes.

31:02>> Woodford?

31:03>> Yes.

31:03>> The chair votes yes.

31:06Um moving on to item six.

31:09Member

31:10uh member Hune?

31:12>> Chair, I move that the board finds that

31:13based on exhibits two and 13, the

31:15applicant satisfied section 165-81

31:19of the land development code regarding

31:21providing adequate lighting and

31:22preventing light pollution and trespass.

31:25>> Thank you in a second. Member Brush in a

31:27roll call vote. Member Brush?

31:29>> Yes.

31:29>> Member Hayes?

31:30>> Yes.

31:31>> Member Hobson?

31:31>> Yes.

31:32>> Member Hune?

31:32>> Yes.

31:33>> Jonas?

31:33>> Yes.

31:34>> Member Woodford?

31:34>> Yes.

31:35>> The chair votes yes. Item seven.

31:39Member Brush?

31:41>> Mr. Chair, I move the board finds that

31:42based on exhibits two and 31, the

31:45applicant satisfied

31:47section 165-82's

31:49requirements regarding having adequate

31:53fire protection.

31:56>> Thank you in a second.

31:57Member Hune in a roll call vote. Member

31:59Brush?

31:59>> Yes.

32:00>> Member Hayes?

32:00>> Yes.

32:01>> Member Hobson?

32:01>> Yes.

32:02>> Member Hune?

32:02>> Yes.

32:03>> Member Jonas?

32:03>> Yes.

32:04>> Member Woodford?

32:04>> Yes.

32:05>> The chair Item eight.

32:07>> Here.

32:07>> Member Hobson?

32:08>> Chair, I move that the board finds that

32:10based on exhibits two, 30, and 32, the

32:13applicant satisfied section 165-84

32:16of the land development code regarding

32:18providing adequate storm drainage and

32:20storm water offset.

32:21>> Thank you in a second.

32:22>> Second.

32:23>> Member Jonas in a roll call vote. Member

32:24Brush?

32:25>> Yes.

32:26>> Member Hayes?

32:26>> Yes.

32:27>> Member Hobson?

32:27>> Yes.

32:28>> Member Hune?

32:28>> Yes.

32:29>> Member Jonas?

32:29>> Yes.

32:30>> Member Woodford?

32:30>> Yes.

32:31>> The chair votes yes. Uh item nine.

32:33>> Here.

32:34>> Member Jonas?

32:34>> Chair, I move the board finds that based

32:36on exhibits 2 and 30, the applicant

32:38satisfied section 165-85

32:41and section

32:42165-86

32:44of the land development code regarding

32:45providing information on sanitary flows

32:48in compliance with sewer regulations.

32:50>> Thank you. And a second?

32:51>> I'll second.

32:52>> For Hobson on a roll call vote, member

32:53Brush.

32:54>> Yes.

32:54>> For Hayes.

32:55>> Yes.

32:55>> For Hobson.

32:56>> Yes.

32:56>> For Huen.

32:57>> Yes.

32:57>> For Jonas.

32:58>> Yes.

32:58>> For Woodford.

32:59>> Yes.

32:59>> The chair votes yes. That completes part

33:01one and brings us to part two that the

33:03project meets the district site

33:04development standards under article 19.

33:08There's one item here. I'd look for a

33:09motion.

33:12Member Huen.

33:13>> Yeah, chair, I move that the board finds

33:15that based on exhibits 2, 21, 22, 25 to

33:1926, 30, and 33, the applicant satisfied

33:22section 165-135

33:25of the land development code regarding

33:26height limit, floor area ratio,

33:29impervious surface ratio, and buffer

33:31yards.

33:32>> Thank you. And a second? Member Brush on

33:33a roll call vote, member Brush.

33:35>> Yes.

33:35>> For Hayes.

33:36>> Yes.

33:36>> For Hobson.

33:37>> Yes.

33:37>> For Huen.

33:38>> Yes.

33:38>> For Jonas.

33:39>> Yes.

33:39>> For Woodford.

33:40>> Yes.

33:41>> The chair votes yes. That completes part

33:42two and brings us to part three that the

33:44project meets the requirements of

33:46section 165-101,

33:49shopping and personal service district

33:50SNPS. Uh there are Yep, we'll start with

33:53item one.

33:55For Hobson.

33:56>> Chair, I move the board finds that based

33:58on the findings made in parts one and

33:59two of this document, the project meets

34:02the requirements of section 165-101B

34:05for uses within the shopping and

34:07personal services district SNPS.

34:10>> Thank you. And a second? For Jonas on a

34:12roll call vote, member Brush.

34:14>> Yes.

34:15>> Member Hayes.

34:15>> Yes.

34:16>> Member Hobson.

34:17>> Yes.

34:17>> For Huen.

34:18>> Yes.

34:18>> For Jonas.

34:19>> Yes.

34:19>> For Woodford.

34:20>> Yes.

34:20>> The chair votes yes. Brings us to item

34:22two.

34:23>> Okay.

34:23>> Remember Jonas.

34:24>> Chair, I move the board finds that

34:25provided the project is found to meet

34:27the requirements of section 165-9 in

34:29part five below, and based on exhibits 2

34:32and 34, the project meets the

34:34requirements of section 165-101D

34:37for the conditional uses of retail auto

34:39service, drive-in business, and gasoline

34:42service station within the shopping and

34:44personal service district or SNPS.

34:46>> Thank you, and a second.

34:48>> Second.

34:49>> Hopson, and a roll call vote. Member

34:50Brush.

34:51>> Yes.

34:51>> Member Hayes.

34:52>> Yes.

34:53>> Member Hopson.

34:53>> Yes.

34:54>> Member Hume.

34:54>> Yes.

34:54>> Member Jonas.

34:55>> Yes.

34:55>> Member Woodford.

34:56>> Yes.

34:56>> The chair votes yes. That completes part

34:58three. That brings us to part four, that

35:00the project meets the requirements of

35:02165 of section 165-114,

35:05land development approval standards.

35:07For a motion on item one.

35:10Member Hayes.

35:11>> I move the board finds that based on

35:13exhibits 2, 8, 28, and 30, the applicant

35:17satisfied land development code section

35:20165-114B's

35:23requirement that the proposed parking

35:25and loading layout are arranged in a

35:28reasonable and safe configuration,

35:30including the provision for safe

35:32pedestrian travel to all on-site uses.

35:36And section 165-114C's

35:39requirement that all proposed access

35:42drives are reasonably necessary and

35:44safe.

35:46>> Thank you, and a second.

35:47>> Second.

35:48>> Yeah, member Woodford.

35:50And a roll call vote. Member Brush.

35:51>> Yes.

35:52>> Member Hayes.

35:52>> Yes.

35:53>> Member Hopson.

35:54>> Yes.

35:54>> Member Hume.

35:55>> Yes.

35:55>> Member Jonas.

35:56>> Yes.

35:56>> Member Woodford.

35:57>> Yes.

35:57>> The chair votes yes.

36:00Item two.

36:03Member Brush.

36:05>> Mr. Chair, I move the board finds that

36:09provided the project is found to meet

36:11the requirement of section 165-9

36:15I I think I

36:16>> I think it'd be we're on part four, item

36:18two.

36:20>> Sorry.

36:21>> Excuse me.

36:21>> Should be page five of eight. I'm

36:23looking at it.

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

36:27on exhibits 2, 9, 10, 15, 16, 30, and

36:3232, the applicant satisfied land

36:34development code section 165-114D's

36:39requirements that the proposed

36:41development will not have unreasonable

36:44adverse effects on abutting or

36:47downstream properties or protected

36:49resources such as wetlands, lakes,

36:53streams, or brooks.

36:55And that all downstream channels or

36:57municipal stormwater collection systems

37:00have adequate capacity to carry the flow

37:04without significant negative effects.

37:08>> Thank you. And a second?

37:10>> Second.

37:10>> Member Hayes. Roll call vote. Member

37:11Brush?

37:12>> Yes.

37:13>> Member Hayes?

37:13>> Yes.

37:14>> Member Hobson?

37:15>> Yes.

37:15>> Member Hume?

37:16>> Yes.

37:16>> Member Jonas?

37:17>> Yes.

37:17>> Member Woodford?

37:18>> Yes.

37:18>> And the chair votes yes.

37:20Um

37:22Item three.

37:23Member Hume?

37:24>> Chair, I move that the board finds that

37:26based on exhibits two and 13, the

37:28applicant satisfied land development

37:30code section 165-114E's

37:33requirements that all outdoor lighting

37:35shall be designed, installed, and

37:37maintained to avoid unreasonable adverse

37:40effects from light pollution.

37:42>> And a second?

37:43>> Second.

37:43>> Member Hobson. And a roll call vote.

37:45Member Brush?

37:45>> Yes.

37:46>> Member Hayes?

37:46>> Yes.

37:47>> Member Hobson?

37:47>> Yes.

37:48>> Member Hume?

37:48>> Yes.

37:49>> Member Jonas?

37:49>> Yes.

37:50>> Member Woodford?

37:50>> Yes.

37:51>> And the chair votes yes. Item four.

37:54Member Brush?

37:56>> Mr. Chair, I move the board finds that

37:57based on exhibits two and eight, the

38:00applicant satisfied land development

38:02code section 165-114F's

38:06requirements for landscaping.

38:08>> Thank you. And a second?

38:11Member Hume. And a roll call vote.

38:12Member Brush?

38:13>> Yes.

38:13>> Member Hayes?

38:14>> Yes.

38:14>> Member Hobson?

38:15>> Yes.

38:15>> Member Hume?

38:16>> Yes.

38:16>> Member Jonas?

38:17>> Yes.

38:17>> Member Woodford?

38:18>> Yes.

38:19>> And the chair votes yes. Item five.

38:22Member Hume?

38:24>> Chair, I move that the board finds that

38:25based on exhibits two and 30, the

38:27applicant satisfied land development

38:29code section 165-114G

38:32requiring buildings to be situated to

38:34avoid unreasonable adverse effects on

38:37adjacent properties or public

38:39rights-of-way.

38:40>> Thank you. In a second.

38:41>> I'll second.

38:42>> Member Hobson and a roll call vote.

38:43Member Brush.

38:44>> Yes.

38:45>> Member Hayes.

38:45>> Yes.

38:46>> Member Hobson.

38:46>> Yes.

38:47>> Member Hume.

38:47>> Yes.

38:48>> Member Jonas.

38:48>> Yes.

38:49>> Member Woodford.

38:49>> Yes.

38:50>> Chair votes yes. Item six.

38:55Member Hayes.

38:57>> I move the board finds that based on

38:59exhibits two, four, nine through 11, and

39:0232, the applicant satisfied land

39:05development code section 165-114K

39:10requiring that site developments needing

39:13approval under 38 MRSA section 420-D

39:18meets the standards of 38 MRSA section

39:22420-D1

39:25as amended and the requirements of the

39:27Department of Environmental Protection

39:30regulations chapters 500, 501, 502.

39:35>> Thank you. In a second. Member Jonas and

39:37a roll call vote. Member Brush.

39:39>> Yes.

39:39>> Member Hayes.

39:40>> Yes.

39:40>> Member Hobson.

39:41>> Yes.

39:42>> Member Hume.

39:42>> Yes.

39:43>> Member Jonas.

39:43>> Yes.

39:44>> Member Woodford.

39:44>> Yes.

39:45>> Chair votes yes. That completes part

39:46four and brings us to part five that the

39:49project meets the criteria for a

39:50conditional use under section under

39:55uh section 165-9A.

39:57>> Sure.

39:57>> Item one. Yeah, member Jonas.

39:59>> Chair, I move the board finds that based

40:01on the findings made in parts one

40:02through four of section four of this

40:04document, the applicant satisfied land

40:06development code section 165-9A

40:09part one's requirements regarding not

40:11requiring a variance of development or

40:13other standards.

40:14>> Thank you. In a a

40:15>> I'll second.

40:16>> Member Hobson and a roll call vote,

40:17member Brush?

40:18>> Yes.

40:19>> Member Hayes?

40:19>> Yes.

40:20>> Member Hobson?

40:20>> Yes.

40:21>> Member Hyun?

40:21>> Yes.

40:22>> Member Jonas?

40:22>> Yes.

40:23>> Member Woodford?

40:23>> Yes.

40:24>> And the chair votes yes. Item two.

40:26>> Chair,

40:26>> member Hobson.

40:27>> Chair, I move the board finds that based

40:28on exhibits 2, 18, and 30, the applicant

40:31satisfied land development code section

40:33165-9A2's

40:36requirements regarding not creating

40:38unreasonable traffic congestion or

40:40hazardous conditions on contiguous or

40:43adjacent streets with the condition that

40:45the applicant's traffic movement permit

40:47application is approved by the Maine

40:48Department of Transportation.

40:50>> Thank you, and a second.

40:52>> Second.

40:52>> Member Brush, in a roll call vote,

40:54member Brush?

40:54>> Yes.

40:55>> Member Hayes?

40:55>> Yes.

40:56>> Member Hobson?

40:57>> Yes.

40:57>> Member Hyun?

40:57>> Yes.

40:58>> Member Jonas?

40:59>> Yes.

40:59>> Member Woodford?

41:00>> Yes.

41:00>> And the chair votes yes. Item three.

41:03Member Hyun?

41:04>> Chair, I move that the board finds that

41:05based on the findings made in parts 1 to

41:08through 4 of section 4 of this document,

41:12the applicant satisfied land development

41:13code section 165-9A3's

41:17requirements for providing and

41:18maintaining adequate

41:20and appropriate utilities, fire

41:22protection, drainage, parking, and

41:25loading, and other necessary site

41:27improvements.

41:28>> Thank you, and a second.

41:29>> Second.

41:30>> Member Jonas, in a roll call vote,

41:32member Brush?

41:32>> Yes.

41:33>> Member Hayes?

41:34>> Yes.

41:34>> Member Hobson?

41:35>> Yes.

41:35>> Member Hyun?

41:36>> Yes.

41:36>> Member Jonas?

41:37>> Yes.

41:37>> Member Woodford?

41:38>> Yes.

41:38>> And the chair votes yes.

41:39>> Mhm.

41:40>> Item four.

41:40>> Chair,

41:41>> member Jonas.

41:42>> Chair, I move the board finds that based

41:43on exhibits 2, 8, and 24 through 26, the

41:46applicant satisfied land development

41:48code section

41:49regarding

41:52the proposed use being appropriate for

41:54the location in which it is sought

41:56because it conforms to the general

41:57physical development pattern of the

41:59immediate area.

42:00>> Thank you, and a second. Member Brush?

42:03In a roll call vote, member Brush?

42:04>> Yes.

42:05>> Member Hayes?

42:05>> Yes.

42:06>> Member Hobson?

42:06>> Yes.

42:07>> Member Hyun?

42:08>> Yes.

42:08>> Member Jonas?

42:09>> Yes.

42:09>> Member Woodford?

42:10>> Yes.

42:10>> And the chair votes yes.

42:12Which brings us to the decision and I

42:14wanted to make sure that we were

42:17aware of the changes that we discussed

42:18up to this point that when we're reading

42:20this we would read that it's a land

42:22development permit for major site

42:24development, that it's a storm water

42:26permit and a conditional use

42:28and that therefore etc. But then also

42:30that we add the condition related to the

42:33reference to

42:35the Thomaston

42:37reference in get updated, corrected or

42:41that we confirm that it has been cuz it

42:43may already have been corrected.

42:46Is what it sounds like, right?

42:48Um

42:50Any additions?

42:52Any other corrections?

42:53>> So it's written correctly here.

42:55>> Well, I don't believe it is written

42:57correctly. We got to include when we're

42:59reading the major site development, we

43:01have to include storm water permit and

43:02conditional use. That's the first piece

43:05and we have to read the second the the

43:08bullet there about the application

43:09needing the traffic movement and then we

43:11have to include a condition to uh

43:15to confirm that Thomaston has been

43:17updated and removed

43:20um from

43:22>> water narrative.

43:22>> From the storm water narrative, that's

43:24what I was looking for.

43:26>> Or that it or that it reflects Bangor.

43:28>> Yeah, ultimately that it references

43:30Bangor instead of

43:32uh another town in the storm water

43:34narrative.

43:35Any questions about that? Is any any

43:37brave individuals wanted to

43:40hit that on?

43:43>> I'll I'll

43:43>> So it's member Jonas.

43:45>> Since I'm the big mouth, um

43:48Chair, I move the board finds that the

43:49project meets the requirements for a

43:51land development permit and a storm

43:53water permit for a major site

43:54development and conditional use and

43:56therefore the board grants the land

43:58development permit for the proposed

43:59project project with the following

44:01conditions.

44:02>> Did you mention the storm water permit

44:03in there or did I miss

44:04>> I think I did.

44:05>> You did.

44:05>> Okay, sorry.

44:05>> I stuck it in after Linda built me.

44:07>> Okay.

44:08>> [laughter]

44:09>> Um the applicant must receive approval

44:11for their traffic movement permit

44:12application from the main Department of

44:14Transportation. And secondly, that the

44:17um storm water narrative be corrected to

44:20reflect that the parcels are located in

44:22the city of Bangor.

44:23>> Thank you. And a

44:24>> Second.

44:25>> Member Hobson, in a roll call vote,

44:27member Brush.

44:28>> Yes.

44:28>> Member Hayes.

44:29>> Yes.

44:29>> Member Hobson.

44:30>> Yes.

44:30>> Member Hume.

44:31>> Yes.

44:31>> Member Jonas.

44:32>> Yes.

44:32>> Member Woodford.

44:33>> Yes.

44:34>> The chair votes yes.

44:35Thank you for your application. Uh you

44:37can reach out to our office man office

44:39for more guidance.

44:45Which brings us to other business.

44:48Um

44:51It's a couple items that didn't make it

44:52on here, but uh that I think we wanted

44:53to just remind about the upcoming

44:55election.

44:56Uh the first item is about the election

44:58for the planning board.

45:00But there's also we wanted to make sure

45:02people were aware of this upcoming

45:03schedule change. That we're not going to

45:06be meeting on election day.

45:09So I'm just going to say that first of

45:10all. Do you know when our next meeting

45:12is going to be offhand?

45:14November 17th.

45:18Um

45:21Any

45:21>> That's the third Tuesday.

45:24>> So we're just going to skip the the

45:25first meeting. We're only going to have

45:26one meeting in November.

45:28Okay.

45:29And then we'll have two meetings in

45:31December.

45:32Which will bring us to the new year and

45:35at the beginning of the new year, our

45:36first meeting we have uh an election of

45:39officers. And I wanted to make sure we

45:41were talking about it here instead of um

45:44sort of doing it the day of or something

45:45like that because this way we at least

45:47know what's coming uh coming as far as

45:49it as it's concerned. Um

45:52Planning officer Collette, would you

45:53like to talk through it at all?

45:56>> Um well, there's not much to it. You

45:58guys um just think about who you would

46:01want to nominate for chair and vice

46:03chair. Um Um, and you can also nominate

46:05yourselves if you want. So,

46:08just to get you thinking about it before

46:09the new year.

46:12>> And then, so when we get the nominees,

46:14we then do the the vote, and I was going

46:17to just give a little rundown on what

46:18it's been like being uh the chair this

46:20past term so far cuz this is my first

46:23time doing it. And I wanted to if anyone

46:26was interested in taking it on, I wanted

46:27to explain what it's been like.

46:29But basically, Anya will send me

46:31uh

46:32uh

46:33a sneak peek of what's coming, and then

46:35I'll have an opportunity to ask any

46:36clarifying questions about it. But

46:38basically, I build out using a template,

46:40I build out a sort of an agenda uh

46:43where I put in each item and the details

46:46that we that we have in the bulleted

46:48section of our uh agenda.

46:51And then there's some template language

46:53that I read out, and that takes a while.

46:55>> [clears throat]

46:55>> My experience has been it's a lot of

46:57talking. It's It's really the big

46:59responsibility here. You don't have to

47:01read the uh

47:03the applicable provisions and findings,

47:05which is a

47:07which is I guess a a counter balance,

47:09but there's that section in the

47:11beginning to read. And the prep work is

47:12not a

47:14a huge lift in addition to just reading

47:15the general packets. It's not a lot.

47:18Um, but I just print that out and I have

47:20that handy so that I can read it.

47:23And

47:25other than that, that's the biggest

47:27responsibility um

47:29the roll call vote and trying to keep

47:30consistent and trying to give There's a

47:32couple reminders throughout the script

47:33here that give us a chance to remind

47:35people that if we have fewer than

47:38voting members, then we have to give

47:40them the opportunity to not come before

47:42us, that we need a minimum of four yeses

47:45on

47:46one scenario versus majority in the

47:48other.

47:49And there's a couple little things like

47:50that to keep straight, but as you know,

47:52our our city staff do so much to

47:55um assist and keep us

47:58um, aware of these as we're going.

48:02Um, if anyone's uncomfortable being

48:04nominated, uh, or nominating themselves,

48:07I was going to if you guys want to let

48:09me know that you're interested, or let

48:11uh, I'm happy to nominate any one of you

48:13guys and putting it up for

48:15um,

48:17putting it out there. I'm happy to serve

48:18again next year if there's no no

48:20interest. Uh,

48:22but I did want to open it up. I don't

48:23want to to uh, I think everyone should

48:25have an opportunity to see what it's

48:26like from this position, and it's it's

48:28interesting. It's different from being

48:31um, a voting the um,

48:34from not being the chair. It it is a

48:36different experience.

48:38But, um,

48:39it's a good one. I mean, it's it's it's

48:41interesting, for sure.

48:43Anything else? And then, as the vice

48:45chair, I was that one year, and you've

48:47been it this year.

48:50Any comments?

48:51>> Um, no, because I mean, we coordinated

48:54the one time that you weren't going to

48:55be here, and I only made one mistake

48:57when I asked Crystal about something

48:59that she wasn't here for.

49:00It was just cuz

49:02I didn't have the

49:04sooner enough to go through it and

49:06actually do that. But, that's that that

49:07was just

49:08I mean,

49:11there's really no additional preparation

49:13and as long as you coordinate with the

49:15chair if they're not going to be here,

49:16or or an

49:17occasionally I would let him know if I'm

49:19not going to be around, too, just

49:20because

49:23>> There's always mistakes to be made. You

49:25just

49:25>> Oh, I'll find them.

49:27Yeah. And our staff is fantastic, you

49:29know, we

49:31We I think we know every time we go out

49:32and speak with other planning board

49:33members around the state, we realize how

49:35fortunate we are to have a staff that we

49:36do

49:38get pulling things together for us.

49:41>> I wanted to talk about that well in

49:42advance of the January election, just so

49:45that we

49:46um,

49:48felt like we had an opportunity for

49:49follow-up questions.

49:50>> Michelle's chaired three times. I don't

49:52need to do it again.

49:55>> I'd like to say on the record that

49:57you've done a great job this year.

49:58>> I was I was going to turn to see if

49:59there was any feedback or any changes

50:01that we'd want either for myself or for

50:02a future chair to be aware of and we can

50:04always turn to these type of questions

50:06but Thank you.

50:08Um

50:10Yep.

50:11I appreciate it.

50:12Let me think. Um any other topic there

50:15Anya before we move down to

50:17All we had underneath this was land

50:19development code update just to get a

50:21status update on how things are going.

50:22>> Yeah. Um

50:24We are making good progress. We are

50:26about halfway through all the new

50:28articles with the consultants. Um

50:31Some of the remaining articles are very

50:32short so probably won't take us any time

50:33to go through. So

50:35Um

50:36But there's still a lot to work through

50:38um and we still have to look at the

50:39zoning map

50:41which um I have almost finished like

50:44making my proposed changes so

50:47um

50:49And then I alluded to this before but we

50:52are also working with the um the airport

50:54has their own set of consultants that do

50:55like airport planning.

50:57So we're working with them to create a

50:59overlay district that would go around

51:01the airport and limit uses um depending

51:04on the area it is like in proximity to

51:06the airport like whether it's in that

51:08runway zone or outside of that.

51:11Um and it would need you know all new

51:12language and stuff so I'm going to be

51:14having a series of meetings with them

51:16over the next few months to talk about

51:17all that.

51:18Um

51:20And so there's a lot of moving parts

51:21here.

51:22Um

51:25But we're still aiming to have a public

51:27draft ready by early next year.

51:30Um I will say at this point

51:33like we were hoping to um

51:36lump in some of the changes we have to

51:38make with LD 1826 and 2173 with the new

51:41code.

51:43And we're definitely integrating the

51:44state laws into the new code but with

51:46the timing, since I don't anticipate

51:48having the new code done

51:50um

51:51until like the end of next year, we

51:53probably will have to take out

51:56um all the changes because of these

51:58state laws and um put them in our

52:01current code in the spring, work on

52:03doing that in the spring. Um and we have

52:05to show that

52:07that new draft to the state as well

52:09um

52:11to get their review since we've gotten

52:12grant money from them to make these

52:14changes. So, I guess

52:18be on the lookout for that next year. Um

52:22but that's where we're at right now, so.

52:27>> You want to talk about your upcoming

52:28public event?

52:31>> Yeah, um we are we are coordinating a

52:33public workshop on the growth boundary

52:35change we talked with you all about

52:37earlier in the month. We're doing that

52:39next Thursday at 6:00 p.m. over at

52:42Rangeley Hall. I don't know if you all

52:44know where that is.

52:45Um

52:47we have gotten I've gotten an email

52:49feedback just from one of abutters so

52:51far. Um we had a pretty extensive

52:53conversation about like the whole

52:55process of

52:57you know

52:58what comes first as far as growth

52:59boundary change, zone change, and then

53:01land development permit, and

53:03what all of it

53:04you know what results from that. So, I

53:08um

53:09you know, I do anticipate what we will

53:11hear from abutters along Kittredge Road

53:14um which I anticipated. So, we're just

53:16there we're going to be there to answer

53:18questions from people and just get their

53:19feedback, and we will go from there.

53:22We'll hear what they say as well.

53:26>> Thank you. And are we are still looking

53:28for additional candidates for the

53:30planning board?

53:32We still have open positions.

53:33>> So, I don't know if anyone's applied yet

53:35since our last conversation cuz um I

53:38don't really get clued in when Lisa gets

53:39applications. So, I don't know where

53:41that's at.

53:43Um typically, I find out about it um

53:46when I look at the council agenda and

53:47then

53:47>> [laughter]

53:48>> they're appointing people. So,

53:50yeah.

53:53>> Any other comments or questions?

53:56Good job, Liz.

53:57>> Um

53:58>> Oops.

53:59>> I have I have a question and I'm not

54:00really sure that this is the right forum

54:02for it, but I'm going to ask it anyway.

54:04Um after

54:06um being out and about in Bangor over

54:08the last couple of weeks and then

54:10reviewing the traffic study around this

54:12um

54:14property that we just that application

54:16that we just approved, um I'm wondering

54:20with the increased traffic that we're

54:22seeing on our major arterials, if there

54:24might be

54:26the possibility of building commuter

54:28lots somehow in the outskirts of Bangor

54:30to help alleviate some of the traffic

54:32and the parking issues and the things

54:33that we're having. And that might be a

54:35question I need to

54:37send to our council

54:39person. I don't know if it's really a

54:40land use issue, but

54:42>> you want them to do?

54:43>> Like a park and ride?

54:44>> Is that what she mean?

54:45>> Yeah, like a park and ride. Like a yeah.

54:46>> Okay.

54:47So,

54:49I honestly think

54:50and this is more just coming from my

54:54perspective as a planner and looking at

54:56the demographic info and the commuting

54:58um statistics of people

55:00um within the city and outside the city,

55:05I I think that a lot of what we're

55:07seeing is because we don't have enough

55:09housing that's affordable within the

55:11city and we have people living outside

55:14of the city that commute in.

55:16I do think that's a lot of what we see

55:18and maybe Jeff has a different

55:19perspective, but um I will say there's a

55:22there's a statistic that was in our

55:24housing study that showed that 80% of

55:27people that work in city limits live

55:29outside of the city and commute in.

55:31>> Yeah.

55:31>> Yeah.

55:32>> Huge.

55:32>> And there's and they do tie that to the

55:35lack of affordable housing that we have

55:37in the city for people who work here.

55:40Um

55:40>> And avail- lack of affordable, but also

55:42available housing.

55:43>> Available housing, yeah.

55:45But, I will say our housing study did

55:47pinpoint that what we're most lacking is

55:49deeply affordable housing to people that

55:51make very low incomes.

55:53Um and there's all kinds of factors

55:55contributing to that. But, you know,

55:58and the zoning is only one piece of it,

56:00you know.

56:02So, yes, we hope that like creating more

56:05allowances for density and affordable

56:07housing will help out with that

56:09shortage, but there's so many other

56:10factors, construction costs, and

56:12contractor availability, and things like

56:14that that affect housing availability.

56:16Um

56:18you know, and the city and the state's

56:20working on on things that do affect

56:22that, and it's going to be a long

56:23process. So, I don't know that

56:26I don't know that there's an easy an

56:28easy fix.

56:29But, yeah.

56:30>> Well, I mean,

56:31the historic traffic data hasn't really

56:33changed since 2000.

56:35But, if you look at the total numbers,

56:37it's it's the same. It might move from

56:39pocket to pocket. So, you know, Broadway

56:42we see a lot because of the commuters.

56:44But, the historic traffic numbers have

56:45not really changed since 2000. So,

56:48um

56:49and then, you know, maybe

56:52you know, the last couple years

56:53post-COVID, you know, certainly COVID

56:55everything dropped dramatically, but um

56:58yeah, that's So, that's something that,

57:00you know,

57:00we've always kind of talked about. You

57:02know, I've been consulting in this area

57:04since 2005. And, you know, I worked with

57:06the traffic engineers the whole time.

57:09And, um it never changes except for the

57:12little pocket to pocket that you'll see.

57:14So, of course, now Broadway is busy,

57:16Union Street. But, because, you know,

57:18people come commute for work. I mean,

57:20our population was what? 30,000? This is

57:22approximate. And we ballooned to 90,000

57:25during the day.

57:27So, that tells you we have a lot of

57:28commuters. But, that and that's been the

57:30same

57:31forever.

57:32>> [laughter]

57:32>> You know, that's been the same since

57:342002, so

57:35um yeah. But no, we do certainly have

57:38quarters that we need to look at.

57:39Broadway's is a major one.

57:42>> The average two is two, I noticed when I

57:44tried to make a left turn out there

57:45yesterday morning.

57:46>> Yeah, I can see that.

57:49Oh.

57:50>> I don't see any documents to sign. Well,

57:52before we do that, are there any other

57:53comments or discussion?

57:56Okay, so there are going to be documents

57:57to sign, so we'll stay around for that.

57:58Any final comments or questions before

58:00we wrap up?

58:03All right. Well, thank you. It's 7:57

58:05and uh we are adjourned.

```*