Belfast Planning Board Approves PCHC Lot Transfer to RSU 71

[4:34] Pippa Jolly (Chair): We are here at the City of Belfast Planning Board meeting for Wednesday, September 23rd, 2026. so welcome everybody i am pippa jolly the chair lewis baker is here david bond jan canard shannon scheimer and biff atlas is not here tonight we also have a new associate member who is not here tonight but we look forward to welcoming her Erin Simmons and we'll probably discuss that later as we go forward so for now can I hear motions and seconds to accept the agenda for this evening move second it all right any additions comments changes all right all those in favor of adopting the agenda Looks like the eyes have it. Meeting minutes, we, I didn't see any in my packet. You didn't have a whole lot. Oh, there they are, sorry, I left half my packet at home, so I apologize, that's entirely my fault. Can I have some motions and seconds to accept the meeting minutes for last week? All right. All right. Lou? I'll second the motion. David's going to second it. Any changes, comments, anything anyone noticed? Do you want to see them? I already looked at them. Nothing jumped out at me, which is probably why I left it on the kitchen table. Okay. It doesn't look like anyone else had any, so all those in favor of adopting those minutes? I abstain. And we have one abstain. Ms. Chan was absent last time. Okay. Okay, and now for a big excitement, our one and only development review is subdivision amendment number one and site plan amendment number three for Penobscot Community Health Center. It's a creation of a lot 2A for RSU 71 at 21 Scudic Drive, map five, lot 26. Before we go any further, I'm going to ask the board, I am an employee of RSU 71. One, albeit very part-time and very low level, but just in the interest of ethics, I would ask if I should recuse myself on this one. [6:59] David Bond: I don't see any reason to. What about the applicants? [7:03] Pippa Jolly (Chair): Applicants, do you have any problems? For me? No? They're all saying no, it's okay. So they're fairly straightforward in the first phase, really just the transfer of land. So I will continue to run the meeting and go accordingly. So with that, Penobscot Community Health Center is the applicant and proposes to reconfigure Lot 1 of their subdivision in order to create a new lot and ownership structure within Lot 1 to reflect the change. The applicant is proposing to sell Lots 2 and 2A to Regional School Unit, RSU, 71. There are no physical changes to the site as a part of this amendment, and there are no changes to the current use of the existing maintenance building proposed at this time. So this change does require planning board approval as a part of the adopted subdivision and site plan conditions of approval pursuant to chapter 90 site plan, chapter 94 subdivision, and chapter 98 technical standards, and chapter 102 zoning. It's a whole big list there. So with that, I would invite the applicants from PCHC to step up to the podium and give us a quick overview. [8:17] Sean These (Haley Ward, applicant representative): Good evening. Sean These with Haley Ward representing the applicant. So as you said, this is a fairly straightforward application tonight, change to the plan. Lot One was originally a part of the condo set up for the property, so that was one of the units of the condominium, and that was the former maintenance building at the MBNA facility. What they're proposing to do is remove that from the condo development, create a new separate actual parcel that can be sold to RSU 71. There will be access and utility easements along the existing Katahdin Avenue where all the utilities come to that building now, so the RSU will have access in the utility easements for that. At this point, no physical improvements or changes will happen at the site. Eventually, RSU would probably come in for some sort of a site plan approval to make any changes. But for now, it's just creating that new lot so it can be sold separate from the condo association. [9:30] Pippa Jolly (Chair): Any questions from the board for the applicant? [9:34] David Bond: And they're just they're getting two and two a that's the plan yes yeah but right now there's [9:42] Sean These (Haley Ward, applicant representative): no changes to law two that was an existing lot of the subdivision separate from that was never part of the condo association it was just a separate lot in the subdivision but so [9:59] Pippa Jolly (Chair): essentially it would just be the maintenance building will be separated from [10:03] Sean These (Haley Ward, applicant representative): condo correct yeah there is a slight there the condo had a I can go up to the screen here and you still hear me previously the condo was limited to an area sort of like that and this area was still part of walk one we now just created a line across there and created this as a little bigger space bigger space cleaner yeah creates a [10:32] Jan Canard: as just sort of its own law but they will ultimately end up with that whole training [10:37] Sean These (Haley Ward, applicant representative): it would be what's shown there is lot 2a plus the larger lot two that's just vacant property [10:45] Pippa Jolly (Chair): That's just so we're clear for all the folks in TV land, there actually are people that watch this. So all right, I feel somewhere from it's our five minutes of fame. So with that, I am now going to open a public hearing. As we do with all of these, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak? I see no one. So I will check with the planning board, the planning staff. Let's see if we've duly noticed it, and if we have had any email or other visits expressing opinions. [11:23] Shannon Scheimer: Yeah, so we did run an ad in the newspaper. We have not had any comments on the ad or on this application. All right, great. [11:35] Pippa Jolly (Chair): So we're sort of squishing some things together, but Alex or Bob, are you handling? Bob? Yeah. Can you give us just sort of brief history, and we'll dive right into the application. [11:49] Shannon Scheimer: Sure. Is the public hearing closed? Oh, yes. [11:52] Pippa Jolly (Chair): Sorry. Sorry. Officially, let me close the preparing. Great. [11:56] Shannon Scheimer: Yeah, so just a quick background. This is written in the findings, which we'll be going through. But basically, the board approved a site plan amendment previously, and this applicant created a subdivision, if you folks remember, in 2025 for two five-acre lots that were out on Route 3. The board had previously approved a health care office use for building number five. And obviously this property was part of MBNA. The property is subject to a site location of development permit. And the property has some flood zones, but no shoreland zoning. This is the first application that this board is reviewing under the new subdivision ordinance. And so what we've got here is a combination of a subdivision amendment under the new ordinance plus there's a site plan amendment because the reconfiguration of the main lot of the main campus is being reconfigured. So if you have any questions along the way, what I would suggest is that we go through the findings fairly quickly because there's a ton of them, but I do want to just make sure that we've gone through them once. I have a few things highlighted just for cues to maybe ask a question or two, and that's the way I would suggest proceeding. This is a proposed transfer of ownership. They have [13:46] David Bond: to create the law first going from the condo association to PCH people, maybe I misread that, in order to then in order to transfer to RSU. Did I misunderstand that? It was just quite [14:01] Sean These (Haley Ward, applicant representative): Possible, I guess, I'm not sure. The question, PCHC owns this all now, right? If there's a condo association, which they so own that law, the condo association owns it right now, PCHE makes up the condo association. There's not other, yes. [14:22] David Bond: Okay,, okay. I thought I had just read somewhere that it was being transferred to PCHP to transfer it to RSU. [14:28] Sean These (Haley Ward, applicant representative): They're creating the lot separate out of the condo association so then it can be transferred to RSU 71. [14:37] Pippa Jolly (Chair): So yeah, that sort of change in ownership is really just pulling that maintenance building out of the condo association so they can consolidate it with the lot and then make the sale. [14:48] Shannon Scheimer: All right and just a couple other tidbits before we dive into this. Obviously there are cross easements and there are condo docs that are associated with how the ownership works and utilities and shared rights and responsibilities and so those are all in the application as well. The condo docs you'll see that there's a condition later on that those get reviewed if this gets approved by the city attorney just for accuracy and, you know, make sure it's all going to pass the legal standards. With that, I'm happy to go through the findings. [15:28] Pippa Jolly (Chair): All right. Everyone okay? Let's proceed. Great. [15:34] Shannon Scheimer: So we start off with the site plan findings. These are the Chapter 90 sections. The first one is regarding pollution. It's not really a concern here. You'll see that there are a lot that aren't really a concern because there is no development associated with this proposal at this time. I think as the applicant mentioned, if a future buyer who sounds like it's going to be the RSU wants to do something different, they'll have to come back and do a site plan amendment for that lot. Sufficient water and municipal water supply. I think this is the first one where I just wanted to make a note about what the cross easements are because water is one of the utilities that comes to this lot. This lot doesn't have frontage on a public way. And so it might be a good time to just hear how all the utilities, and then we can cruise through the rest of them as we go, how that ownership structure works if you'd like. [16:37] Pippa Jolly (Chair): Board I [16:40] Lewis Baker: would assume that attorneys are going to check this out and make sure everything is going to work. We have no ability to judge whether or not it's going to work out well again the [16:55] Pippa Jolly (Chair): complicating factor is that for the management of the rest of the lot the condo association deals with that so i'm assuming that all the utilities run through there so the question would be so that RSU 71 does not run into any legal or practical entanglement entanglements that there will be something clearly stated about for all utilities so we're talking about everything will then somehow transfer to them they will have legal right to it or to access off of it to do what they need [17:28] David Bond: to do, right? So right, and there, yeah, and they're also a landlord. It'll be a landlocked site, so they need that access, the vehicular access as well. Correct. There will be [17:37] Speaker G (unidentified): easements provided for access on the town avenue. You are correct. The attorneys have been working on that between both buyer and seller. It's all comes from the football agreement. This is no different than the way that building has been handled for water and sewer comes down throat. They will be allocated a percentage based on the size of the lot, based on everything else. Common area maintenance, plowing of Katahdin Avenue, plowing of Scudic Drive, those types of items will be all part of the real estate documents that come through to protect RSU 71 and to protect PCAC and to assure that they will always have access and always have access to water or sewer. [18:27] David Bond: So I'm just curious. Yes. Is there a reason that RSU could not have stayed on Conrad Lane? Do they need to own it outright? I'm just curious. [18:38] Speaker G (unidentified): It's preferred that they purchase it right outright. If they have a condo unit, then they're still part of everything. They're purchasing the lot number two, so they would actually at some point in time have continuous. They also own Troy Howard Middle School, which is the other abutter, so this works out well for them to own it. [18:58] David Bond: I was just curious. Yeah. [19:04] Pippa Jolly (Chair): Questions? So do you all feel sort of comfortable in the general approach that the utilities are being negotiated as part of the legal agreement? As Buff said, I think we have a little something in the conditions that will obviously have to be completed and satisfactory to both parties. Again, we just want to avoid any future legal entanglements, as I'm sure they do. Okay. I think we're good on that, Bob. Great. Hey, Bob. I'm just curious. [19:32] David Bond: Can you pull up the aerial, the Google? I just want to see the relationship of this to Troy Howard. [19:39] Shannon Scheimer: Yeah, it's right there. The back athletic fields are like right here. I'll show you. Yeah. [19:43] David Bond: I mean, I see that the property is there, but I was just wondering the physical relationship. This [19:57] Shannon Scheimer: is Troy Howard right here, and this is the existing building here. You can see the property lines right in there. Okay, great. [David Bond: Thank you so.] Yeah, this site is served by municipal water, and there are cross easements to cover the that. Soil erosion sediment control is not an issue. Highway and public road congestion, they discussed that there will be a perpetual access easement to serve this lot. I don't think there are any other concerns about traffic at this time. No, we don't know how it's going to be used. Sewage, same thing. It's served by municipal sewer, but it's all a private system within their property. And so there'll be cross-seasonings for that as well. Solid waste is not a concern. I'm going to skip through aesthetic, cultural, and natural values as not a concern. This is in conformance with the city ordinance and plans. The financial and technical ability of any future owners or applicants and PCHC is not a concern. Surface waters aren't a concern. Groundwater flood areas are not a concern. I do want to drill into freshwater wetlands just for a minute because the site is subject to a site law permit from MDP, and we did get a transfer for that permit, basically an amendment to that permit acknowledging this as a basically a release, and as far as we know, any future proposed wetland alterations on unit one lot or lot two will be considered cumulatively with the wetland alterations permitted is what the letter had said. So MDP is okay with this. There are no weapon alterations proposed as part of this proposal, but if they were in the future, then they're sort of considered considering the fact that there were weapons filled long ago and they've done some, so they're not starting from zero. [22:34] Pippa Jolly (Chair): It is cumulative. Yeah, I was saying that is complicated a little by the easement or the mitigation agreement for a plot of land that's now under a contest, under contest. Is that, is this part of it, or is that? So it could be a future few. It's not a problem with this, but it could be a problem. [22:56] Shannon Scheimer: Yeah, I think that was an issue for a while, but the DEP finally, you know, got to the bottom of that. They wouldn't have allowed this transfer to go through had that been an unresolved issue, so [23:07] Pippa Jolly (Chair): because that was a concern with my song for eating. Sure, rivers. [23:14] Shannon Scheimer: And streams aren't an issue here. Storm water again, this is one of the utilities. There's a storm water system that covers this whole campus in one piece, back when it was all one piece and one owner. And there are features as on this lot and adjacent to this lot that serve this lot and serve other lots and other condo owners. And so there are cross-seasons in place for maintenance [23:42] David Bond: of that as well. Presumably they will be working out before they purchase it with capacity issues for any of these things. [23:52] Shannon Scheimer: Yeah, I mean, if a new owner of this new lot comes in or lot two and they want to do something, they're going to have to figure out stormwater, whether they use a portion of the existing system or not, or they just have a self-contained system on their own area. That would come back to the board, obviously. Then we get through access to sunlight, not a concern. Solid waste is not a concern. Exterior lighting, buffering, noise, storage and materials, landscaping, off-street parking, hazardous waste, air pollution, and public health and welfare, all in line with certain mountain types of waste. And then back to the development that may substantially affect the environment. This is a slow department or cycle apartment, and so it is, there's a long finding here, but it all boils down to that they have an amendment of that they've submitted as part of this. That's all the site plan standards. There's not a lot because there's not a lot of development here, obviously. And then we get into chapter 94 subdivision, our brand new ordinance that we've never... So the way the ordinance is structured now, it starts right off with the review criteria in chapter one. If folks remember, this is the review criteria that the state requires every city from town to have for subdivisions, and we start off with pollution, not really a concern. Sufficient water, we've talked about, these are very similar to the site plan criteria, but you are required to make findings about these specifically as well, so they're all basically not a concern. We're talking about water, erosion control, traffic, sewage, municipal solid waste, natural cultural and aesthetic values, conformity with local plans, financial and technical capacity, surface waters, ground waters, flood areas, wetlands. One of the new ones is farmland, and the applicant has identified this on the amended subdivision plan, so that's marked on there. I have a little bit of a note here just so folks, in case there were questions about what that may or may not be, it's highlighted. Then we get to river streams and brooks, stormwater, spaghetti lots, phosphorus, and adjoining municipalities, and then liquidation and harvesting. None of those were a concern, is the way the findings are then. Then we get into Chapter 2. This is more about, you know, if you're building roads and creating lots. And there were no highlighted sections here. Again, we're talking about conformance with the comp plan, land that might not be suitable for development, configuration of the lots and then electrical utilities we've heard about the cross easements on those this is a specific section and water supply sewage disposal surface drainage land features construction and flood hazard area there is a little tiny bit of a flood hazard area here but they're not posing any development there impact on groundwater access control and traffic impacts. We talked about the cross easements for access. Nothing is changing in regard to any way that the roads are lined out for this or anything like that. So a lot of these are not applicable. Then we get into chapter 2 which is completely not applicable because there's no construction. So this is street and storm water drain, storm drainage construction standards. And then chapter 4 is performance which, again, there's no development here. Chapter 5 is waivers, and they haven't requested any waivers. And that's it for the new subdivision requirements. And then we get into Chapter 102 zoning requirements, Article 5, District Regulations for Office Park Zoning District. These are the dimensional standards. None of them have changed because there aren't any proposed. There's no proposed development. I will note that the board letter D on page 11, the board found that the existing development on lot 1 and proposed lot 2A is conforming in regard to the max height of 60 feet for structures. There is no non-conformance here in any of these, the way it is. So this new lot line isn't creating a non-conforming lot as the main thing. And then we get into the performance standards for this zoning district. None of these were a concern. These are down the same roads as all the other ones. And there are some here if you're doing construction in regard to design requirements and things like that. But we don't need to go through all that. That's it for all this. There's a lot of paperwork here and a lot of standards that we had to read just make sure we covered, but there sounds like there aren't any concerns. We've got the cross easements figured out, and the city attorney, like I said, we'll review the finalized condo docks. Usually [30:49] David Bond: they will always, the condo association will always give you access to the site. [30:58] Shannon Scheimer: Yeah. So what my... [31:01] David Bond: That's the one concern, is that it's creating the complexity of the site. Right. So... Those documents need to be pretty carefully screwed in. Sure. [31:14] Shannon Scheimer: And so my plan is to have the city attorney review the deeds and the condor docs just to make sure there's a shared access and for all the utilities and all the access and make sure she doesn't have any concerns that somehow a future owner of one of these laws would end up, yeah, we've got, we've got the cross easements written into the deeds that they already submitted as part of this, but I'm not a lawyer. So that's it for the findings, and then we get into the conditions. Any [32:04] Pippa Jolly (Chair): questions on the findings before we move on to conditions? [32:07] Shannon Scheimer: Okay, yeah, so the project description is typical. The zoning is just a description of what's going on here. The plan approval, basically any changes have to come back to the board if change in the applicant happens before the work occurs, but there is no work, so you know, a change in the applicant wouldn't, wouldn't matter so much on this particular project. Number five is for the condo docs to be reviewed by the city attorney as we discussed. There are other permits that may be required for, you know, work that may be contemplated in the future. They have to maintain public sewer, public water, and other utilities. Solid waste disposal is handled on lot one and proposed lot 2a within the lot. Stormwater again is shared. These are very typical findings about erosion control, lighting, the landscaping, signs. It's important to remember that for site access, lot 2 has to have access on Belmont Ave. The code requires that, and that's that was a condition of approval of the original subdivision, and it's still in there. And then also the idea that it would be shared, the site access for lot 2a parking is typical, accessibility is typical, and then future development has to come back to the board, and this new subdivision needs to be recorded. Any [34:26] Pippa Jolly (Chair): questions? Any comments from the board? Yes, for instruction. This is just fairly straightforward. All right, so can I hear motions for or the findings of facts. [34:47] David Bond: Let's see if we can get this right. [34:49] Pippa Jolly (Chair): All right, let's go for it. [34:52] David Bond: We approve the draft findings of facts. And I don't think there are any changes as reviewed. [34:59] Pippa Jolly (Chair): As discussed in review. Can I hear a second? Second. Any last words, discussion, questions? All right, all those in favor of findings of facts? That is unanimous. [35:15] David Bond: Okay. I move that we approve the conditions of approval as assessed. [35:20] Pippa Jolly (Chair): Great. Shannon will second. Any further comments or questions on that? All right. All those in favor? Looks like that's unanimous also, so I didn't need to ask for a no vote. And then last, but certainly not least, can I hear motions for approval of the site amendment [35:39] David Bond: plan? Sure. I move that we approve site 10 amendment number 3 and could we do subdivision amendment at the same time? Subdivision amendment number one. All right. [35:48] Pippa Jolly (Chair): Shannon was second. Any further comments, questions, thoughts? All right. All those in favor? And that looks like unanimous as well. Thanks, folks. We can start on the next exciting chapter. [36:03] David Bond: Thank you all very much. This has been a long and arduous process. [36:08] Pippa Jolly (Chair): It feels like it's not done yet. [36:10] Speaker G (unidentified): This has been a monumentous task to try and bring life back into the complex that was always designed to be one entity. And every time we turn around, it's like, oh, something else. So we appreciate your help and your patience, and thank you for all your time. [36:32] Pippa Jolly (Chair): And again, a lot of the questions are hopefully to help you make that more flexible going into the future. [36:38] Speaker G (unidentified): Oh, yes, we've had a lot of good discussions with the experts and everyone else, so it's great. So thank you. Good luck. Appreciate it. [36:51] Shannon Scheimer: We'll send the finalized findings and stuff along for signatures. [36:55] Sean These (Haley Ward, applicant representative): Okay. When do you plan to do something? [36:59] Shannon Scheimer: Maybe when we get those findings all squared up very quickly. Yeah. [37:06] Pippa Jolly (Chair): All right. Great. Attending to those last administrative details around the signing of documents and getting them reported. Always fun. We've now concluded that development review. Next item of business is other business. Do we have any other business? [37:24] Shannon Scheimer: I just wanted to bring up that we do have that comment on your desks. Yes. In regard to the city council's recent actions on the cannabis ordinance amendments that you folks put to them. [37:41] Pippa Jolly (Chair): I don't believe they sent the ordinance back to us, though, for this. We're not doing anything, right? [37:47] Shannon Scheimer: So I just wanted to address that. So you have a comment from one of the people that was at that meeting. Yeah. And the city council did in fact basically just, I don't know if you've all watched the meeting, but they basically said we're not going to move forward with adult sales at this time at all, and they want to cap medical at the number that's existing, and they, but they want to build in the lottery or, excuse me, the licensure language and fix all the things that needed to be fixed. So in doing that, they want to have the planning board do it, because that was what, that was what they chose to do, I think. There was a lot more on the table when they chose to do that, and now, so all that to say, I already am prepared to bring this back to the board to look at real quick. It's a lot of mechanical stuff, and it's not that dense, and, then we need to have a public hearing, and you folks need to decide if you want to recommend it back to the city council for [39:02] Pippa Jolly (Chair): approval or not. All right, so we basically poke our eye out with a pencil for a couple more times. Yeah, it doesn't seem like that's a productive use, but that's what they've asked to do. We'll do. [39:15] David Bond: Sure, so you guys will call out of that language, I mean, you'll pull out of that language together. [39:23] Pippa Jolly (Chair): Yeah, well, it's essentially a lot of the work that we had done to update the amendments per state law, while probably the things that we'll do, we're just not going to do adult use, and we're going to cap things, which again, don't see why, but okay, you know, sure. A lot of the things that they are looking at are already regulated by the state, so it feels a bit redundant to me, but we'll do it. [39:47] David Bond: But the important thing is they're not going to move ahead with the adult, you said they're not going to move ahead with recreational use. No, that's right, for sales. Yeah, can I just look? [39:56] Speaker H (unidentified): For clarity, that was, that was their original interest was adult use, correct? And so they have decided they are no longer, never mind. Yeah, okay, so I'm not misunderstanding. No, all right, thanks. [40:15] Jan Canard: Yeah, well, I guess they wanted to see what it meant. Yeah, and I think, right, yeah. [40:22] Shannon Scheimer: There were a lot of people that came to the second reading that said a lot of things that were never talked about at any of the planning board public hearings or the two previous council meetings. Was there a lot of opposition? I think, I mean, honestly, I would suggest you watch the meeting if you have a minute, maybe like double speed. I know I didn't watch the [40:47] Speaker H (unidentified): meeting, I was reading it and then the way it was reported and, yeah, I would suggest you watch the [40:51] Shannon Scheimer: meeting because the reporters are, okay, you know, often just taking like a AI transcript. [40:58] Jan Canard: What was the date of the meeting? Pardon? What was the date? It was September 15th. [41:04] Shannon Scheimer: Yeah, and it's available on the city website. But basically, yeah, there was a bunch of new people that came and said some things. And I think that the council decided that was, you know, that was their choice. [41:20] David Bond: So that's why there are multiple meetings, multiple opportunities for people to talk. [41:25] Speaker H (unidentified): Yeah, but it's hard when there's recency bias of whoever has the most recent year, whatever. [41:32] Shannon Scheimer: whatever but i 'm prepared to make it short and sweet to get it done and i know it's pain painful process at times but we really i'm just i'm interested in getting this completed [41:48] Pippa Jolly (Chair): It does feel like a lot of waste of time, so let's not waste a lot of time, right? [41:52] Shannon Scheimer: That's, that's what I'm, yeah, let's just get her done, that's all. This comment here. Basically, I think it's just a suggestion that if you have any questions, you know. This is from one of the business owners in town, Paul McCarrier, who owns One Mill over on, at the end of Mill Lane. [42:21] Pippa Jolly (Chair): Did he attend any of the pre-meetings? It's not familiar to me. [42:26] Shannon Scheimer: Yeah, I think he came to one of ours and submitted a comment maybe in writing one point. Yeah, so just like we've done previously, we're gonna reach out to all the business owners when we do these meetings just so they know they're welcome to come in and talk, but it's looking like this will be at the next meeting. We'll be doing a development review and then this ordinance workshop afterward, so once that's done we can have the public hearing and move on from the planning board stage. [43:00] David Bond: You know that October 14th? Yes. [43:09] Shannon Scheimer: Any other questions about that? October 14th. No? [43:16] Pippa Jolly (Chair): Okay. We'll go ahead and do that. Yeah, I don't think it'll be a lot of work. I think just some of the updates we had done. [43:22] Shannon Scheimer: It's mostly deleting things. [43:24] Pippa Jolly (Chair): Yeah, we've done a lot of tidying up as a part of that. So we just need to go back and make that a part of the medical use. Yes. And add a cap. Yes. Which the economy is already making its very own cap. I mean, what happened, you know, but there you go. [43:45] Speaker H (unidentified): Otherwise. [43:50] Jan Canard: That's all I have for other business. Great, we can any other business from anyone else? All right, let's move on to department report. So I don't have too much. [44:03] Shannon Scheimer: to report this week I do I will say that we are looking at the regular meetings in October so the 14th and then the 28th is the other meeting there was another email that went out in regard to a meeting with the council for the LD 2003 kickoffs and public campaign and that sounds like we were talking about the first wednesday in november but now we are not talking about that anymore because it's the day after the election and i mean i thought that 's what they wanted at first but it sounds like We're going to give it a minute to breathe the election and shoot for the 18th. Okay, which is not necessarily a normal week that we would be meeting on the 11th of Veterans Day. I mean, and the 11th is Veterans Day, and then the week after that is the night before Thanksgiving, and I can't meet on that. Yeah, so if we can just hold the 18th of November, and then we may, if we have to, ask folks if they can do the first week of November, but that's, I'm not going to ask you to hold that now. I think we'll. Just hold that 18th and go from there, from there. And that would, that 18th date would be a joint meeting with the city council at six o'clock ahead of their normal meeting. Sorry, is that the 17th? Yeah. [45:39] Jan Canard: So the Tuesday is the 7th. I apologize. Yeah. [45:41] Shannon Scheimer: It's Tuesday the 17th. That's a Tuesday. It's a normal council meeting night. That's what you, they would like to meet for a joint meeting at 6 o'clock before we get started on the public campaign of the LD stuff, and we will have an. [45:59] Speaker H (unidentified): Potentially new council members at that point. Sounds like we'll have at least. [46:04] Shannon Scheimer: One new one because, yeah, and then we would be having a meeting, a planning board meeting potentially the night after. [46:21] Speaker H (unidentified): Yes. Oh, got it. Okay. And then the. [46:28] David Bond: Following day. Yeah, Louie. [46:36] Speaker H (unidentified): Is that hand cuz you're gonna volunteer to bring candy? What's that? No, you're joking, Lou. No, that's not a mandatory meeting for us. [46:44] Shannon Scheimer: Pardon, that's not a mandatory meeting for us. They've just asked you to meet with, they meet with every city committee at least once a year. I understand that, but really most [46:55] Speaker H (unidentified): of them a little bit of nothing, just a waste of my time. Okay man, one day I'm gonna speak my mind. [47:06] Pippa Jolly (Chair): They're still good. I'm somewhere between you two. Yeah, I'm almost ready to speak my mind. [47:13] Lewis Baker: Are you saying we have a regular meeting of this board on the 18th, on the 18th as well? [47:18] Pippa Jolly (Chair): Yeah, which is weird. Yeah, right, because the second week is Veterans Day, yeah, and then the fourth is the night before Thanksgiving, so we'll do one meeting in November and it will be the third [47:32] Lewis Baker: week. We wouldn't meet on the 4th of November. [47:37] Pippa Jolly (Chair): Right. We originally talked about that, but no. [47:40] Shannon Scheimer: We can't meet on the 4th because there's a city council meeting that night. Yeah. In this room. Because they don't typically meet on the election day. They meet the day after. Yep. Sorry for the... November, every year seems like it's the hardest month to schedule, and then December's the second hardest. Yep. [48:02] Lewis Baker: Lou? I know we're looking a long way ahead. Is there any chance we're going to have development reviews in November? Do you think? [48:15] Shannon Scheimer: We've got two or three pending big reviews that just haven't submitted yet. We've been talking with folks. We had one person reach out today that said they were going to submit, so that might come in for October. But if they don't get their ducks in a row quickly, they'll be in November. [48:32] Lewis Baker: So let me ask you a different way then, if we have no development review reviews for November's, could we just not meet November? [48:40] Shannon Scheimer: I wouldn't ask the board to meet, I mean, there are no development reviews, but there the thing is there's probably ordinance work that will, yeah [48:50] Speaker H (unidentified): But I was gonna say during November. I mean, I'm gonna wait till December do the audience work. Yeah [48:57] Shannon Scheimer: I mean, I hear what your position is. So I appreciate that [49:02] Jan Canard: just that feedback and just not have a meeting in November, right [49:09] Pippa Jolly (Chair): Well I think we need to at least at least pencil it in because it sounds like we may have a development review at a minimum, we need to do it. Yeah, but we only need three of us, right [49:21] Jan Canard: Oh hey no, it's on my calendar, it's on my calendar and then if I could [49:29] Shannon Scheimer: Switch gears for a sec. We do have a new member. Their name is Erin Simmons, and can't wait to meet her, and not face to face, just some of the logistical stuff, but she was sick tonight, and she's looking forward to being on the board. We're looking forward to having a full board. Yes, we are. It's good. That's what her resume said. Yeah, otherwise we're, we've got a few development reviews like I said coming through. Permitting is still fast and furious, but I do think that there's a lot of uncertainty out there, and the price of doing business is just brutal right now. So construction is not, it's not gangbusters, that's for sure. Especially commercial construction. Yeah, [50:40] Pippa Jolly (Chair): sadly, all that good work to make housing more affordable, and it won't be the zoning, that's the problem. [50:49] Shannon Scheimer: I will say something came across my desk today. There's a working task force for an LD that came through to look into sprinklering requirements and elevator requirements and how, if there are avenues for making things more affordable for construction, obviously there are times when you really wanna have a sprinkler and it's just, but I think there are people that think there might be some room for times when maybe you don't need to be sprinkled and also when maybe you don't need to have an elevator for certain uses. [51:28] David Bond: There's also the whole issue in terms of modular housing and having it reviewed once and not having to go through other reviews at each municipality too. [51:39] Shannon Scheimer: Yeah, I don't know that there's a working group on that yet. This is an actual working group at the state level. They're working on this LD that was passed that said we should have a working group on these two topics so otherwise there's been some exciting developments the bradbury manor demolition was selected we have a contract the news everywhere so it was good yeah that's something for me i've been working on since the day i started working here and it's nice to see light at the end of the tunnel and yeah what will happen to that site look open rfp p going out how will that i would imagine that 's the Plan there's no proposal yet and there's no proposed process yet either. I think it's been a lot of work just to get it through all this. I mean if folks remember it started with 80k actions in court and dangerous buildings proceedings right and then escalated because the owner just didn't comply with any of that. But then it was determined that the cost to demolish it was so high that the city just didn't have the money to pay for that and so brownfields became an avenue because it was contaminated with all these hazardous building materials and that was why it drove the cost up as well. The residences right on both sides there are yeah but most of it's in the building you know. And then the only way to qualify for brownfields was the city had to take that property by eminent domain and that's where that's the only reason why we have resolution. Every single avenue of trying to get the owner to do something that was you know with their property didn't work out. The courts dangerous buildings that through the council all that stuff and really was the final the last measure the only thing left and it's nice to see it coming to some closure or at least like a redevelopment phase. How wide is that site it's not very wide yeah it's not a very big site it's kind of long and narrow yeah the building's almost right on the property line on the north side oh it is oh yeah that's tough [54:11] Pippa Jolly (Chair): So it's going to be interesting to see what it gets developed into, because it's pretty small. [54:20] Shannon Scheimer: Yeah, if there's any questions about anything else, feel free to reach out. We'll be back for the 14th. [54:29] David Bond: Okay, super. [54:30] Pippa Jolly (Chair): Any final thoughts from anyone? If not, this meeting is now adjourned.