Brunswick Planning Board advances driveway, Golick housing, Main Street contract zone

[0:07] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): Good evening, welcome to the September 22nd, 2026 Brunswick Planning Board meeting. We have four cases before us tonight. Case 2648, Little Fawn Lane private driveway and stream. Case number 26-21, Golick multi-family development, it's on remand from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Fields, case number 2649, 5369, 269 Main Street, a contract zoning application for parking. And case number 2630, the Brunswick Perimeter Trail phase one, and we'll be opening that up and then tabling it. I'll introduce members of the board here on my far right Rob Burgess planning board vice chair next to Rob Steve Walker next to Steve Chris Baldwin Laura hat maker is on zoom and Allison Harris is on zoom and on my near left Julie Erdman director of planning and development next to Julie Matt James our land use planner and I'm Bill Dana [1:31] Matt (Town Planner/staff): Matt, would you start us off? First up, we have case number 2648, Little Fun Lane private driveway and stream crossing. The Planning Board will review and act upon a major development review sketch plan application submitted by Sightlines PA on behalf of the property owners Robert Muller and Judith Porter Muller for a new private driveway to serve a residential lot. The subject property is located on Little Fawn Lane, map 742, and within the Rural Farm and Forest zoning district and the shoreline protection overlay and shoreline protection overlay stream protection sub-districts. [2:11] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): Thanks. Before I come to you, Joe, I'd like the staff has reviewed the application and determined and that is complete. I'd like a motion that the staff review committee that the Planning Board concurs with staff's conclusion that the basic sketch plan major development review application materials have been submitted and that the application is complete such that the committee the board may proceed with substance review of the application and identification of any further information required from the applicant I have a motion to that effect motion by Steve second by Chris all those in favor I see Laura and Allison do I have your hands okay that's unanimous of the board members present thank you all right Joe [3:06] Joe Martin (applicant's attorney): Thank you. Show my name is Joe Martin. I'm here on behalf of the applicant, just go the first one. So the applicant, as Matt noted, is Robert Moeller and Judith Porter Moeller. Robert Moeller should be on Zoom, and he will have a short presentation after I finish mine tonight here as well. He wants to provide some comments on the project as a whole. So sightlines is the engineer and surveyor record for the project. So the project was a piece that was, the property is was a piece that was carved out of a subdivision that was approved by the board a number of years ago, Douglas Ridge subdivision. We were also the surveyor and engineer record for that project. So one of the things that we had to do for this project is update the wetland delineation that was done a number of years ago. That was the wetlands didn't change. The stream limits of the stream did change slightly from the previous delineation, but all that's been updated for this application, the review process. So we initially submitted this to staff review as a sketch final approval all kind of one. Based on the comments we received at staff review, we've decided to separate this and do a sketch review, and then we'll come back for a final review at a future planning board meeting. We have submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers for a permit for the wetland impacts of stream crossing. I have a meeting with the project manager for the Army Corps next week to address some comments she has. Then hopefully that permit will get wrapped up. We have submitted and received the NRPA perm by rule from the DP for the wetland crossing and sorry wetland impacts, the stream crossing, and that should be in your packet as well. So this is an aerial of the project area. So Hacker Road kind of cuts east to west on the screen, Rose Douglas. This lane is a private road, and that's part of that previous subdivision that was approved. You can see the majority of the house lots within that subdivision have been developed at this point. But there is one piece of land over here that was left as retained by owner. It was a little over five acres, and it was retained by the original owner for a future house lot, which they're now looking to move forward with constructing a house on at this point. The summary of the project, so again, the side area is lower five acres. It's in the RF zoning district, as I noted before, is retained by owner. So the project itself is just the construction of a private driveway that is required to cross over a stream to get to the buildable portion of the property. The reason that's coming to you for review is because the project results in more than 100 cubic yards of earth moving within the SPO, SP overlay district, and because of that requires a site plan approval from the planning board. This is the site development plan. So this is the existing private road here, it's a little Fawn Lane, it's a short dead end road, private road, and this is the new driveway extending off of that road. Again, it's sloped down towards the stream crossing, and then once we cross over that stream, we come back up to the relatively flat area of the property with a turnaround at the end for emergency vehicles, and then we also have shown here a potential house location, but really that house could be anywhere in this, in this area, as long as it meets the applicable setbacks. Based on comments we received from the staff review meeting, we have also contracted with Albert Frick Associates to get on site and dig some test bits for the septic, so when we come back for final application, we'll have those and those locations as well. So you can see here, this kind of dash, double dashed area is the stream that crosses the property. If you read the wetland delineation report, it's a fairly minor stream where it enters onto the property here, it's maybe a foot and a half wide, and then and it kind of flattens out here and widens out, and I think reaches a maximum width of around five or six feet over here. So we are proposing to cross that with what is called a pipe arch culvert, which is pretty much a squashed culvert that is wider at the bottom. It has been designed to meet all DP and Army Corps standards. Standards, part of that is the sizing of it based on a multiple factor of the cross-sectional area of the stream, and we have also sized it to have a width that is more than 1.2 times bank full width of the stream, the average bank full of the stream, and what that is intended to do, to allow the stream to maintain its natural course and not be constricted by the culvert, and then a lot of course during larger storm events, you'd have those flood plains and would be able to pass those flows through. The culvert next slide, so this is the plan and profile. Because one of the comments we received at staff review from the fire department and from the town engineer was concerned about the steepness of the driveway. It comes off, I believe it's 13 off Little Fawn Lane, and then back up at a 12 and a half percent. We do have vertical curves added here to reduce that angle of approach and departure as you come into those changes and road grades. I do still need to coordinate with the fire department and the town engineer to see exactly what they want. The fire department had some concerns about their vehicles either bottoming out on the back when they're coming up. I don't think that'll be an issue with the inflammation of vertical curves, but that is going to require some further coordination with them as part of the final plan application. And then over here in the upper corner is the, pipe arch culvert that we're proposing. One of the things we're also doing is we are embedding that culvert into the natural soils, and that's actually part of the comments that the Army Corps had, is they wanted more detail on what that embedment material would look like. So we'll work with them next week to finalize that, and that will be included as part of your package for final plan as well. And then lastly, one of the comments, if you read the staff review committee meeting minutes, there was a lot of discussion, or a little bit discussion about the type of crossing that was proposed. Again, we were proposing a pipe arch culvert. The environmental planner had provided some comments that she would like to see a bridge in this location. I did talk with the applicant with that, it's really not financially feasible for this scale of a residential driveway. I mean, you're looking at upwards of a couple hundred thousand dollars to put in a bridge to cross that stream. This is a minor tributary, it's not even a mapped stream on a USGS map, but it does meet the requirements for regulatory stream. So just you know, as part of this sketch plan meeting, I'd be interested to hear some comments from the board of expectations for meeting those standards as we move forward. And with that, I will turn it over to Bob if he's on, if he's online. I [11:03] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): don't see him. Oh yeah, yep, here he is now. Mr. Muller? Yes, we can hear you now. Okay. [11:24] Robert Muller (applicant/property owner): I can see you, but I don't know if you guys can see me. We can't. I can't even though I think I got okay. I just kind of missed my photos showing up on my end. Are you still there? We're still here at this stage, and I appreciate the opportunity just to add some additional information. Probably not much, probably the same as what Joe said, but our move forward, the information I'm going to talk about I think is provided in front of you for five acre stream costume. It's pretty simple. It's a non-intrusive a driveway to get across the stream to get to the remaining part of the five acres. Yeah, this is a very minor stream. It's a minor design across a very small stream. In my tenure, the stream has been intermittent. And it has a very well defined U channel. It's not a nebulous boundary of the stream. It's It's very well defined. It begins somewhere on the Two Echo area, which is south of the property, but it does not go across Durham Road. There is a stream across Durham Road, but that is not the stream. It's seldom ever flooded as long as I've owned the property, and I've owned it since 1986. 1986 the wetlands at this specific spot are very minor and limited in this special area according to prior wetland surveys we've done over the years. The design I think that Joe has put in front of the planning board, you know, it complies with all the state and the federal design requirements, you know, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the Army Corps and the Federal Fish and Wildlife. They're involved somewhat because this may be a salmon migratory zone area. Even though salmon don't come up this stream, it falls within the salmon zone. We did a prior crossing into the subdivision. We crossed a very large stream. It was much more complex and had a significantly larger impact to the wetlands, and the federal and the state recommend the bottomless culvert that we're using in this in the design today. It was a much better, a much bigger culvert of course because it comes down Rose Douglas Lane, again a slope of about 10 percent. That one was done I want to say about 2016, and that was about 90,000, a very significant cost for a culvert crossing. The town of Brunswick hasn't still installed the same bottomless culvert crossing in a couple areas is. There's one just down Packer Road, maybe a half a mile from River Road. The comments that I've received from Joe, from the planning board had mentioned there may be a request for a bridge for a very simple drive driveway. I mean, this would be extraordinary burden and certainly economically unfeasible. You know, nobody could afford a bridge based on initial information. You know, we're looking at 200 to 500 thousand dollars for a bridge versus a very simple culvert. And with a bridge, there's a completely different maintenance and upkeep costs that are reoccurring and they can get very expensive as well. So that's all the comments I have. I hope it provides you with enough information to move forward, you know, with a very basic simple minor stream crossing for a driveway to get to five acres. Thank you. [16:42] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): Okay, thank you Laura. I'd like to start with you since you may be leaving us at some point, so thank [16:51] Planning Board member: you i just would like to start with just kind of asking a little bit more about how we came to determining the front part of the lot was not feasible just kind of looking at the some of the neighboring lots it looks to be similar elevation but i 'm not an engineer so I just would like to, for the record, to kind of understand a little bit more about how that was being decided and what the thought process was behind that. [17:22] Robert Muller (applicant/property owner): I'll turn it over to Joe. Initially, Sightlines designed all the lots here, and this five-acre was in the back. So they proposed the right-of-way, I think it's a 50-foot right-of-way that lot 5 owns between the lots of the subdivision. This lot was not included as part of the subdivision, it was expressly accepted out, and the planning board has notes so designating that. So that's how it came about. Joe, if you want to add anything, feel free [18:01] Joe Martin (applicant's attorney): Yeah, the one thing I would add is that this property has a wooded buffer on it that is part of the treatment system for the subdivision. And with the relatively narrow width coming off Little Fawn Lane and that wooded buffer, there's really not much buildable area to be able to construct a house, tie the grades in without impacting that wooded buffer or getting encroaching on that those side setbacks to that adjacent property. So that was a primary reason. This is based on the width, that's all that would be found there, and the slopes coming off Little Fawn Lane, it was just very difficult to tie in everything without impacting those existing features. [18:47] Planning Board member: I think the other question I had is what is the maximum width of the [18:53] Joe Martin (applicant's attorney): Stream that you're where you're crossing, where we're crossing it. I think the average stream width in that section was the maximum width. Is what I'm asking for, the maximum width. Yes, I would have to determine that. We did have our surveyors go out and they marked the edge of that stream as it as it crossed through the property. The average I know is five. The maximum width I would say is maybe a little bit over that, maybe five and a quarter, but it is not sniffly wider in that area, generally range from four and a half to a little over five. I've personally walked that [19:43] Robert Muller (applicant/property owner): whole stream in prior years. It's a very well defined stream with the u channel. The width [19:50] Planning Board member: doesn't vary very much at all. Yeah, I would just ask that the or recommend that the design reflect the maximum, just ensuring that 1.2 bank full width is the maximum that the stream channel is currently, not the average, just in case there was variation. You just want to make sure you're capturing the full extent of that flow rather than an average extent of that flow. That's what's going to lead to potentially issues more downstream. The other questions I kind of had were predominantly going to be structured around, great, it is something that's already been brought up. I know that the fire planning are already looking at that and talking with you about it. My concern would be more into erosion into the stream bed itself, just knowing that Yet over time, things can erode. We've been having a lot more intense rainstorms. Things are more prone to runneling as well as just pulling sediment in. I've seen numerous culverts that have large fills on either side where they've had to raise things up. And often parts of the drive, also parts of the fill are running off from the edges into to those areas that are sensitive. And so that's just one thing I would like to hear just some discussion about what bmps you all are proposing in order to prevent that from happening. [21:20] Joe Martin (applicant's attorney): That was part of the discussion that we really haven't had with the fire department and town engineer yet, because that was a concern brought up at staff review. The surface, the driveway surface, you know, right now we have it shown as gravel. That could be a discussion point with the town of some either, you know, a firmer gravel that you could put on the surface, you know, like a reclaimed gravel, or maybe portions of it could potentially be paved. And additionally the side slopes where, you know, that's Where you're gonna see potential failure that could result in sediment being transported to the wetland of the stream, you know. Right now, I think we're showing some erosion control matting on that to allow vegetation to get started on that, but we could revise that as well to do more of a permanent turf reinforcement mat to help that side slope kind of stay together and mitigate the potential for any future erosion. Well, the nice thing about gravel is that it's [22:21] Planning Board member: a little bit more permeable than pavement, so that is one thing I would just maybe consider, is that sometimes the pavement can actually increase the issue, occasionally, just because you've got nothing there to slow the water, but definitely with trees, but maybe even some kind of firming with great, I don't know, but something would potentially be helpful. I think for a lot of us is understanding what is being done to help mitigate that beyond just erosion control blanket and things like that, so that's something I would like to see in a final plan is in something a little more creative that really outlines preventing any of that, because it's quite a bit of substantial fill and two-to-one slopes is still more prone to erosion. Just kind of seeing how, but how is that going to be prevented with erosion? In addition, I'll just emphasize the course comment that you've already received, kind of understanding more of what that stream bed material would be in the culvert. We would like to see something, or we would recommend something that would be more natural that the stream already has present, so if it's more of a cobble surface, having more cobble present in that culvert as that backfill rather than and sand or silt. So trying to get that representative streambed mimicked, if at all possible. [23:58] Robert Muller (applicant/property owner): I can comment. That's exactly what we did on the initial crossing into the subdivision, that culvert. That's a bottomless. I mean, it was pretty disruptive when we brought, you know, per the federal guys reviewing it in the Army Corps, we brought a big excavator, literally had to excavate to put the foundation for the culvert in, and the material we removed was put back in at the bed of the stream. We didn't bring any foreign material at all. They wanted the natural bottom as well. I think that's the whole purpose of a [24:37] Planning Board member: Bottomless culvert for the fish. Yeah, it is for fish passage as well as any other wildlife passage, although technically it's not bottomless because it does have an embedded feature. It's just an embedded backfilled culvert. A bottomless culvert would be more of an arch. Yeah, I'm sorry. The other – let's see. Sorry, I'm just going down my comments. What kind of tree removal are we looking at within – I know IFMW recommended 100-foot buffers. Generally, [25:12] Joe Martin (applicant's attorney): what I know you have to obviously remove some trees in order to create the driveway, but what, how much removal is going beyond that? I don't want any. It's subject to Joe's design requirements. It's really just the limits of the roadway and the grading. I mean, up on the, I'll call it the flat area of the property, once you get past the stream, I mean, that kind of clearing window is up to the future homeowner or Bob, if he chooses to build a home there, so we didn't, you know, locate any actually trees within this area, but I mean, it is, it is a wooded area, so any area where you're showing any new contours or, driveway or the culvert, you're gonna have to remove trees within that envelope. [26:08] Robert Muller (applicant/property owner): Just for historical purposes, this was the Rose Douglas farm. And the land on the other side of the stream was farmland. Most of the trees there are maybe 60 years old. I mean, it's not like they're 100 years old. They're new growth from, it was all farm, it was cattle on the land back there, and it was all fenced in with barbed wire. [26:32] Planning Board member: Yeah. The more the buffer is for ensuring water quality for downstream purposes, which since we do have conservation lands, it seems downstream, that would be kind of a primary thing. And even though it's an intermittent stream, that's an important food source for a lot of our fisheries as well as other critters that live in the area. Being able to have the cool, clean water, which is, of course, facilitated by having that canopy cover, is important, as well as woody dupree and habitat inputs. So just trying to ensure that is minimized to the extent practical for that installation. Is important and I think that is the extent of my, oh, one last thing, just kind of again wanting to understand more about how we arrive to this position. You mentioned that the stream was a little more narrow further to the side. Is there a potential for the driveway to shift over a little bit more to where the stream is more narrow to kind of minimize where we're placing [27:37] Joe Martin (applicant's attorney): Seeing impacts? No, not really, that the narrow part of the stream is as it directly as it crosses on the property, which is really, there's really no opportunity to get over there to cross it. The section kind of the, if you take the lot frontage and extend it towards the stream, that kind of whole section there is between four to five feet. Okay, thank you for that clarification. [27:57] Planning Board member: I appreciate it. I have no more comments. Thank you. All right, thanks Laura, Allison. [28:05] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): nothing all right steve thank [28:10] Public commenter: you bill it's been called a minor stream multiple times tonight and i guess that's in the eyes of the holder i've walked this whole area and what's cool about simpsons brook is there's only one or two culverts on the entire in the entire watershed right now and one of the largest is the river road crossing and that's actually shorter than the 69 foot culvert proposed here simpsons brook is also a native eastern brook trout stream and while it's been called intermittent i'm familiar with this Stream, familiar with permitting both to Echo and this subdivision back in the day, and this is a perennial stream, and it is important refugia during summertime because it for Eastern brook trout because this is groundwater fed, so it stays cool throughout the summer. And I appreciate Laura's comments about tree removal. I think that's going to be critical to, I would like to see a planting plan for the side slopes and whether or not we're going to put trees back in there. I think the 69 foot culvert. Here is an excessive fragmentation of the stream. I would like to know if T walls have been considered as a crossing, as an alternate. I mean, a bridge would be ideal. A T wall could shorten up that crossing quite a bit as well and minimize the erosion of the two to one side slopes. Yeah, it's a cost, but you're asking to build across a pretty important resource, and I think as Eastern brooktrout or a public resource, I think doing the right thing here is pretty critical regardless of cost. That's not, you. Know, important to me as much as maintaining the integrity of the stream for Eastern brook trout. What else did I have? I think it was clarified that is not an open bottom arches, the landowners saying, but this is an embedded had squashed. I would encourage going back to an open bottom with a T-wall if not a bridge. [30:32] Joe Martin (applicant's attorney): So was a T-wall considered? No, mainly because it falls within the NRPA PBR standards. [30:41] Public commenter: For less than 75 feet. Well, those are, you know, those are minimum standards for the state, I think. [30:46] Joe Martin (applicant's attorney): We can do a little better here. We can definitely look into that. I would say when he was saying bottomless, I think he was trying to say more natural stream bed, which is [30:55] Public commenter: required. Yeah, it's not like you're doing, you know, anyone a favor here. You're meeting minimum [31:00] Robert Muller (applicant/property owner): requirements. So I'd like to see you push it a little. I have a question. Simpson Brook, this is not Simpson Brook. Simpson Brook is actually a little further back. This is a tribute, this is a tributary stream feeds into Simpson. This is a tributary and the fish and wildlife from Maine when we did the studies found no fish. They found one trout in 1963 in their entire survey of these two streams. So I'm just, I'm confused where Simpson Brook has now been called this brook here. Well [31:40] Public commenter: I'd be happy to clarify. Simpsons Brook has multiple tributaries, which this is one. We have We contacted IF&W as part of our comprehensive planning process, which we just finished this past year. And in their own correspondence for our plan, they noted Simpson's Brook and its value of a native eastern brook trout stream based on current survey data. [32:05] Robert Muller (applicant/property owner): Correct. Yeah, I don't refute that at all. [32:08] Public commenter: So there are trout in it. [32:11] Joe Martin (applicant's attorney): I would add, too, it is also identified as Atlantic salmon habitat. [32:17] Public commenter: Yeah, well that's, you know, I'm not going to comment on that. I know, you know, the quality of that [32:21] Robert Muller (applicant/property owner): Yeah, I haven't seen any salmon there since I've lived there for 40 some odd years. Rob [32:36] Planning Board member: Joe, thank you and Bob, thank you. Oh, thank you. The, can you clarify the spread of the gravel footprint based on the current design and how that might be affected if more gravel was brought in to raise the level of the road to try to dampen the slopes on both in both [33:10] Joe Martin (applicant's attorney): directions going down and up? Yeah, you know, part of the comments from the fire department in the engineer was they were looking to get the slopes to 10. I think that's listed with the NFPA for fire lanes, but those can be changed by the local fire authority. But if it did have to go back to 10 slopes, then you're picking up the road another couple of feet and that does result in a in a wider crossing if you do just tie in with natural two to one side slopes. So you know, if we did end up having to pick up the road and then maybe we could and or either or we could implement maybe some T-walls or some other design modifications to try to reduce that length. But yeah, if you do, regardless if you lift the road, you're gonna [33:57] Planning Board member: End up with more fill to cross over that. Yeah, I'm just, you know, curious. I mean, isn't that fill on either side of that stream impacting wetlands on either side of that stream? I know that, you know, you know, the channel gets more defined and wider and doesn't seem to have wetland adjacent to it, but where the stream crossing is, that looked, you know, fairly marshy. And I guess I'm wondering how we can propose this when there are going to be those kinds of wetland impacts just by the spread of the gravel. [34:41] Joe Martin (applicant's attorney): I mean, I would say except for some very certain situations, anytime you're going to cross a stream, you're going to be impacting floodplain areas, whether the wetlands or whatever. You know, you have the stream channel which is where the stream flows the majority of the time, and then also larger storm events it overflows. So this isn't different from any other stream crossing we've worked with in the past. What you try to do is you try to limit the amount of wetlands that you're impacting, and that was either done through two to one side slopes, some sort of T walls, or some other sort of design implementations to reduce that impact. I think we were at 4,000 ish square feet of wetlands impact for this crossing, which isn't significant. You know, it's below that, the thresholds, the permanent thresholds that would be having to deal with here. You know, they're one of the concerns that I would be, that I would have from an engineering standpoint is something that Laura mentioned is concerns about long-term erosion in this area. So that's, that's something I think when we come back for a final review we can implement some more items into this. You know, I'm sure you've all seen the crossings, especially the driveway crossings, and they, you know, every couple years they just come dump another truck full of gravel in there, and what happened to the previous gravel just washed into the stream. And so we want to make sure that doesn't happen in this situation. So I think those comments from Laura and Steve were, good. [36:13] Robert Muller (applicant/property owner): One comment I'd like to add, it's historical, you know, this was, this subdivision was designed with echo conservation in mind. We paid a lot of attention to the road that we put in there, and that has held up very well, and by design, and from a marketing point of view, it was not to be paved, just for some of the reasons that Laura mentioned. It just moves water quickly to the edge and contributes to erosion. You know, maybe every once three to five years we lightly grade that road, but it's, it's very held up very well with the gravel that's on there. I would hope we would do the same thing on this steep slope driveway going to the stream. I mean, I'm very conscious of that. I don't ignore things like that. [37:08] Matt (Town Planner/staff): Thank [37:11] Planning Board member: you. I know it's not relevant for sketch exactly, but I hope this is back for final at some point that we get an update on costs. OK, because, you know, the financial letter, you know, referenced about twenty thousand dollars. And I think we even, people that don't do this for a living can recognize that's a low number. [Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): Chris, yeah] thank you thanks Joe thanks Rob you guys have nailed on most of the stuff that I had one big-picture question can we put the site plan back up I'm just curious about the wooded buffer and I'm imagining that 's a water quality wooded buffer that exists on there that was meant to treat runoff from little fawn road that's correct there is a stone yeah a berm level how does it get i mean where's the water coming from that water's mostly coming from across [38:20] Joe Martin (applicant's attorney): the other side of the road, and there's a culvert come, I think it's off the screen here, I think the culvert comes off over here and it dumps into that level lip spreader, so it's not [38:30] Planning Board member: meant to treat the runoff from Little Fawn Road that would now possibly get intercepted and come down your new gravel road. No, this section of the road, because it does fall off pretty quickly, [38:41] Joe Martin (applicant's attorney): this section just drains off into the into the woods, yeah. Just a concern, make sure we're [38:46] Planning Board member: still keeping with that, yeah, the stream smart coughing culvert crossing. Just make sure someone goes out and measures bank full width and you come back with that, and then average bank full width downstream and upstream works. You'll probably be constricted to some construction windows, I would imagine bats, and probably be able to get into the stream only in August, September, so be aware of that. Erosion and sedimentation control, it's been discussed a little bit. I don't really like the Positioning of your sediment barrier, it just crosses all of your topo perpendicular all the way down the slope. All that's really going to do is collect all the water up against it and funnel it all the way down to the bottom where it's then going to blow out right at the stream. So you really kind of need to, you know, overlap that sediment barrier as you go down the slope and working with the contours, you know what I mean? Yep. Yeah, so right now it's just one line that's not going to work. Yeah, you Talk about oh Little Falls Road, is that gravel or is that paved? That's gravel, okay. So you're not worried too much about a stabilized construction entrance unless you're starting to track on to Hacker, right? Yes, all right, you'll be aware of that. I think on your details you do call out a turf reinforced mat for your two horizontal, okay, one vertical, which would be a good idea, but then on your detail you call out I think SC 150 a North American Green, which is actually an erosion control blanket which would just be a straw biodegradable thing, which probably isn't applicable here. So if you're going to call out a product, call out a turf reinforced mat, which is meant to last a few years, and I think which would probably be better off on this two to one slope if you don't have to go to riprap, but I'll let you evaluate that. T wall, just a head wall, is that what we're talking about, head walls? I just [40:50] Joe Martin (applicant's attorney): want to make sure I understood that. Yeah, and sometimes they can, I thought head wall would be appropriate here too, but I've seen them with like the steel pipes and they have the [40:58] Planning Board member: the steel, yeah, and I'm pretty sure this culvert would come with a precast head wall that would be made out of steel that you could slap right in there and you wouldn't have to pour concrete, so that would work pretty well. And yeah, the only thing is the project cost twenty thousand dollars, you should upgrade that, Joe, and maybe put together an engineer's cost estimate for this [41:18] Joe Martin (applicant's attorney): because I think that was primarily based on, I had a discussion with Bob about the cost of the pipe arch culvert and that was the price from the, rough price from the manufacturer. Yeah, for the pipe, exactly. So we'll revise that as part of the final to include construction costs and everything, tree clearing, 400 feet of gravel, the whole bit. [41:41] Planning Board member: Yep, good, that's all I had, thank you. And you've got a battle with the slope, but you know that. [41:50] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): Okay, I'm I'm very uncomfortable with the 13 grade down into the property and 12 and a half percent coming up, and I think you really need some clarity with the town planning staff and the fire department and the town engineer. I'm I'm inclined to propose denying the application until we get an application that we can actually work with, because it just doesn't, you've got that, we have a cost that's unrealistic at this point. We 've got so many conditions that were that we're asking you to answer for before you come back for final, that I'm worried that we'll have more conditions when we get to final, and I'd like to see a project that you we know you can actually build. I mean, eighteen hundred and fifty yards of fill is Mr. Muller said that he did the previous road or the previous crossing for much less money, but I don't see that you can buy 1850 yards of gravel for under eighty or ninety thousand dollars, so I just I really would like to see you address the in it, and if doing a t-wall addresses some of the slope issues, then that's what we ought to have, but that's that's what we should be seeing I think for a site plan, and I don't know how the rest of the board feels about it, but well I would just note [43:45] Joe Martin (applicant's attorney): here this is a sketch plan, you know, and a lot of times we would just come forward with a plan showing the driveway and the culvert location and none of the other details, so we're a lot further progressed than that at this application, you know. I think it's I'm fully comfortable moving forward at this point with a sketch plan approval, or and then you know we'll come back for final. If I don't satisfy the concerns you have, then obviously that would be tabled or moved to a different application process, but I don't I wouldn't want to come back forward here for a sketch plan and I've met all your concerns and then we've got to wait for additional meeting for final to get that ironed out. All right, well let me open it up to [44:29] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): the public comment first, and then I'll come back to the board. Any members of the public online or in the audience like to make a comment or an ask or ask a question? Seeing none, I'll come back to the board. Chris, I [44:56] Planning Board member: I have no further comment or question. I feel like they met the conditions of sketch plan and I would approve it for sketch plan. I think they've got their work cut out for them before they come back with vinyl, and I think I think staff will do their job when it comes back into them, but okay, I feel like I would I would vote to approve it from a [45:16] Public commenter: Sketch plan standpoint, we'll go down the line. Steve, now I concur with you, Chair, that there's enough questions and unknowns on this that I'd like to see you come back as a revised sketch plan. [45:29] Planning Board member: And Rob, I guess I'm likewise with that, given you know the potential environmental impact that this would have and the and the missing details I think that have been identified this evening. I would feel you know better with a denial and a new sketch plan. Okay, can I comment [46:00] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): on that one moment, Allison? I was just gonna say that I tended to agree with Joe and Chris that [46:12] Planning Board member: they've done the basics of the sketch plan and we should go ahead and let them take their chances is at the final. But on the other hand, I also share a lot of the concerns, particularly about the steep slope and navigating that not only for fire trucks and stuff, but just for the safety of the people living in that home. So I'm I'd be okay either way. Okay, Laura. I likewise feel like they have met the requirements for sketch plan. It's not they definitely are risking a final plan being denied, so that is something that to think about is maybe it is worth the little bit of extra due diligence to have that rather than go through the whole process all over again. But that's the applicants decision. I'm just putting that out there is it might be maybe in the long run better to take a step back and try it and go forth again for sketch and then getting a little more feedback or something a little more viable. But that's I think ultimately the minimum for sketch plan has been met. Okay, go ahead Joe. I [47:39] Joe Martin (applicant's attorney): I was just going to say kind of reiterate what I said before, you know, I we presented this as a sketch final to hopefully get approved one meeting. Obviously that's not going to happen. If we were just doing the first sketch plan and I knew this was sketch and final, I would come forward with a plan that showed the road in the stream and that's it, without any additional detail. So I feel like if this is held back from another sketch plan, we penalize for providing additional information in this instance. All right then. [48:11] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): I will make a motion. Well I we have we have people three people in favor of denying and three people who could go either way. I'll make a motion that the sketch plan is approved. All those in favor, I see Allison, I see yeah, I see three approvals and denials, I see three. We're stuck. Robert. [49:04] Planning Board member: Schools, but we need it. I [49:07] Staff (Town Planner): think you can have further discussion and try another vote. Okay. [49:12] Joe Martin (applicant's attorney): All right, Julie, can I ask you a question? Sure. Are we in the middle of the no, go ahead. And I don't know how it applies for sketch plan versus final, but you know there are, I'll call it, standards we need needing to meet our sketch plan. So if we're denied, then we would need a reasoning for why we [49:31] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): didn't meet one of those standards. This is true. Well, I think we would be denying on the on the excessive road grades and financial capacity, but those aren't required as part of sketch plan. It's well, they are because in fact you 're you're showing a project here even though it is a site, you're showing a project that has to cross a stream with an excessive grade to get across that screen stream. So I think I think they are part of the part of that site plan, Bill. [50:17] Planning Board member: If we had the applicant indicate that at the very least they would agree to a slope of no more than 10 percent going in either direction as part of the sketch plan discussion, I would feel more comfortable than saying that's on the record and that's what we would see at a at a minimum, and then to allow it to move on to the next phase, and then as other members of the board have said, that's the risks and it final that there still could be a denial if the other criteria aren't satisfactorily [51:07] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): met. I think I think that consideration makes a lot of sense. That Steve, what do you think [51:14] Public commenter: about that then? Yeah, I'd be happy to go along with that. Okay. [51:19] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): Joe and Mr. Moeller. [51:23] Joe Martin (applicant's attorney): The only concern I have with tying it to an exact slope is I would just say that we will comply with whatever obviously the fire department and the town engineer require. The 10 number had been what they had referenced at the staff review meeting, but if that changes, I don't want to be held to an arbitrary number, but I'll say that we'll comply. I mean, we have to comply. We can't come to you with a project that the fire department and the town engineer says they're not going to grant their blessing on so [51:53] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): that. But that's what they want is ten percent. That's the [51:56] Joe Martin (applicant's attorney): number they had mentioned in the in the staff review meeting. Okay. All right. All right. [52:06] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): I'd like a motion that the sketch plan is approved with the stipulation that the road grade is built at no more than ten percent grade. Moved by Chris, second by Steve. All those in favor? Allison, your hand. Okay, that's unanimous of the board members. President time. Thank you. Thank you, Joe. Thank you, Mr. Moeller. Oh, thank you everyone. Appreciate the time. All right and [52:46] Planning Board member: Unfortunately, my time is up, but thank you. I didn't, we can't hear you, Laura. Early, we can't hear you. All right, I said my time is also up. Unfortunately, I need to get back to thank you for [53:01] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): for joining us for a while, for allowing me to be present for a bit. Okay, case number 26 21 Golick multi-family development remand. Matt, the planning board will review and act upon a [53:21] Matt (Town Planner/staff): site plan amendment application submitted by pol LLC on behalf of the property owner Cheryl a Golek that has been remanded by the zoning board of appeals for the review supplementation and substantiation of the project findings. The subject property is located at 23 Thomas Point Road, map cc2 lot 37, and within the growth mixed use four zoning district in the Cook's Corner [53:47] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): overlay sub-district. All right, thank you. I'd like a motion that we take up the remanded project, that the planning board take up the application of Cheryl Golick for 23 Thomas Point Road previously decided by the board on June 23rd 2026 pursuant to the zoning board of appeals decision dated August 11th 2026, which remanded the matter to the planning board to further substantiate and supplement the findings. Do I have a motion to that effect? Motion by Steve, second by Rob. Job, all those in favor Allison, that's unanimous of the board members here. Thank you staff for doing a great job of adding detail where we need it for the zoning board of appeals. And Kara, are you going to make a presentation or second motion? Oh yes, I do correct the, I'm sorry. Oh yes, the staff has reviewed the application and determined that it's complete. I'd like a motion that the planning board concurs with planning staff's conclusion that the basic major development review application materials have been submitted and the application is complete such that the board may proceed with substantive review of the application and identification of any further information required from the applicant. Motion by Steve, second by Rob, all those in favor, that's unanimous of the board members present. I [55:59] Staff (Town Planner): thought I would just go over. All right, thank you. As outlined in the memo I've provided to the board, the goal site plan amendment is back before the board tonight on remand from the zoning board of appeals, and the project had been appealed citing insufficient findings. Upon further review, staff agreed that the findings could have better supported the planning board's decision, and we requested that the zba remand the application back to the board. The board's job tonight is to review the amended Findings including the additional document outlining the Cook's Corner design standards and take action on the project. Again, staff have found that some of the Cook's Corner design standards did not apply to the application because they were not applicable to the original project when it came through and de minimis changes have been made to the application in that regard. There are also standards that were impossible to meet due to a conflict with other codes or standards such as building within five feet of the front setback but also planting street trees at least five feet from the curb. Doing both in this context isn't possible. In these cases, staff have found that the project meets the standards to the extent possible. When reviewing the amendment submission again for the Cook's Corner design standards, there are a couple of items that were missing that the applicant has since provided including a landscaping narrative and landscaping maintenance and preservation plans. Staff have also provided a new condition that the landscaping plan be amended to show that all plant sizes adhere to the Cook's Corner design standards and that's all I've got. [57:38] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): Okay, would you like to say anything before we discuss? Okay, I'll come to the board. Allison, I [57:56] Planning Board member: just wanted to thank the staff for doing such a thorough job in revising the findings and particularly their attention to the Cook's Corner standards, I found it very helpful and, to my view, pretty well satisfied the concerns of the ZBA. Okay. Rob? I would agree with that, and I think with the added detail, the project has been further improved both in terms of its you know appearance with the addition of the porch and on both buildings and you know I think it is even better integrated into the neighborhood and you know I support the project in its redesigned and re explained fashion so okay thank you Chris yeah I agree with Rob and Allison. I have nothing additional. Thank you staff for adding the further detail. I think it explains a lot and I still support the project. Thank you. [59:20] Public commenter: You Steve? Likewise, thank you to staff for clarifying all this that echoes what you know I thought we had discussed originally but it's great to have it in writing and the additions certainly clarified ties the Cook's Corner design plan as suggested so thanks I have nothing to add and still support the project. Hi. [59:47] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): I echo all those comments, and again thank you for adding the details that you've done and tying in the cook's corner design standards. I said I thank the planning staff for adding more detail, and I concur with all the other members of the board on the applicability of the project to the cook's corner design standard where necessary, the landscaping plans and maintenance plans that the applicant has provided us, and all the work that the staff has done to clarify the different parts of our ordinance that are met here in this project. It's a, I think it's a great project. With that, I'll open it up to public comment. Anybody in the public like to come up and my [1:01:08] Jennifer Johnson (public commenter, abutting property owner): name is Jennifer Johnson. I about the property, we own the property that abuts 23, we own 21. I am asking the board tonight to look carefully at what actually has been corrected on remand and what simply has been given more explanation. I appreciate the September materials that contain much more detail than the June findings, but more details does not necessarily resolve the underlying questions. Before this board adopts new findings, the record should clearly show what the plan actually has approved, what evidence supports each finding, and what ordinance standards apply to the changes being made. One issue that concerns me is the treatment of the cook's corner standards, section five point two point ten, that says an approved site plan is revised and the revision, revisions must be evaluated against applicable ordinances standards, including later zoning amendments where the section requires that. GM4 also states applications are subject to cook's corner design standards. Is a clip a couple if some current standards are being applied while others are treated as not a clip a clip, go, sorry. I am asking the board to explain why and identify the ordinance basis for that distinction. I also remain concerned about the landscaping and conditions of approval. I about it with a large field next to it, I am going to be the one that they trespass through. If the board is finding that the project complies with landscaping requirements now, but is also requiring revised compliant landscape plant approval, that should be reconciled before the vote, as in a butter landscaping buffering, which there's not much between the house and my property which is under Walter Johnson which is a family-owned place buffering lighting drainage parking and circulation directly affect my property the same is true of waivers if this project relies on the prior waiver of the Town Council action concerning the driveway or other REQUIREMENT THE RECORD SHOULD IDENTIFY EXACTLY WHAT IS WAIVED BY WHOM WHEN AND WHETHER THE CURRENT AMENDED PLAN IS STILL COVERED BY THAT APPROVAL THERE ARE ALSO BASIC RECORD BASIC record questions: which in 2024 and 2026 plans control, which documents supersede earlier versions, and whether the final landscaping, storm water, circulation, and site plans all match the findings being adopted. I am not asking the board to deny housing. Housing, I agree, needs to be put on. How many units on one parcel of land is my concern? 14 units with 10 parking spaces. [1:04:46] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): Do the math. Could you finish up? [1:04:49] Jennifer Johnson (public commenter, abutting property owner): You've gone. I'm going to finish going over your three minutes. I'm sorry, I wasn't even, I threw this together. I wasn't even aware of this. I had to look it up on your site. I am asking for the same ordinance, the same review standards, and the same level of documentations that should apply to any applicant before bow voting. Please make sure the findings themselves resolve these inconsistencies rather than simply describing them in greater detail. Adding words does not answer the questions at times as an abutting property owner. I want you to know exactly what is being approved and exactly what standards govern it. I thank you for your time, but I also remind you that the parking spaces don't add the units that we're putting on there. Thank you. I'm [1:05:46] Dora Stewart (public commenter): Dora Stewart, and I live at 25 Thomas Point Road, and her lot is as big as my lot, and there ain't no way she could put that many houses on that lot. And I'm afraid, I live by myself, and I know how much property she's got because it's the same as mine, and there's only one car can park in my door yard. So thank you very much. Thank you. No, I didn't. No, I didn't get notice yet. I just heard from the lady up the street. Thank [1:06:26] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): you very much. I wish [1:06:28] Dora Stewart (public commenter): you guys would report when you're going to build stuff on the Thomas Point Road. I didn't get no notice about that. How the, what did you want to call it, the house up by the swamp area. I've been living on Thomas Point Road since 81, and I know this road, and I don't think it's fair that you can go and build something without somebody's submission before. [1:07:03] Public commenter: You start my three minutes. I would like to say it's still listed as April 28th for notice, and where this has new expanded findings, I would like to get clarification on if new notice was is required, and also if condition four of the first approval was approved by the town council for the waiver, because I cannot find it in any record, and if that can get mailed to me if that is done. And so all right, you can start timing me. My name is Jennifer Navarro, and I am the appellant who got this remanded. And I live at 90 Thomas. I ask that the statement and my Friday written comments and Julie Erdman's Monday confirmation that these comments will be distributed to the board be posted online and be in the official record for 26-021. Tonight is not the first look complete. In this hearing on August 11th, the zoning board of appeals remanded this matter so the board would further substantiate and supplement the findings. Staff's own July 27 memo says that while reviewing the appeal with the town attorney, it became evident that June 23rd findings could be more substantial. This is the assignment draft motion 2. Finding a basic major development review application complete is not the remand task. The board is authorized to approve only if the zoning ordinance standards are met on the record. With findings in reviewing court can follow from the face of the decision. You may deny, you may continue, you may not substitute a later staff condition for missing present evidence. You may not declare some Cook's Corner standards applicable and others inapplicable, unless you can identify here right now on the record which of the ordinance subsections permits that distinction. Practice and a staff memo cannot create authority, the ordinance does not confer. The draft still fails to test on its face. On motion 4 and exhibits A and B swallow the entire June 2026, October 2024 packets. After material changes to ADA access, building locations, parking ways, storm water landscaping and lighting, no sheet number, revision or date identifies the controlling plan. section 4 1 7 is found not applicable then found satisfied two paragraphs later still under affordable housing that is internal contradiction is still in the draft that the remand was supposed to cure density is 18 allowable units in the finding and the 19.13 in the plan comparison state one calculation for this record for section 4.16 is found satisfied on june 14 2025 main housing notice to proceed that says it is not a commitment or financing so show me how there is a financial capacity Approvable tonight, and I wonder if everybody gets that type of treatment where expirations just stay open for however long they need to, with approval and closing deadlines that have already passed on the face of the document. Condition 3 asks staff after approval to confirm funding. A later staff check is not evidence for a present board finding under 4.16.2.1 or I five. Condition four admits the landscaping plan before and does not meet Cook's Corner installation sizes, then finds landscaping. satisfied anyhow notice is still recited as april 28th 2026 for a remanded proceeding with expanded findings and a new dispositive vote on a packet posted Friday afternoon at 419 p.m. And today's a Tuesday hearing. Nothing I say tonight withdraws my July 9th appeal or my August 11 CBA record or any issue I have already raised. Participation on remand is not constant and is not a waiver. I request a specific finding on each of the six points and on every item in my Friday letter so the record shows. This shows what the board was asked to decide. If the board issues a new written approval that does not identify the controlling plans, does not correct the contradictions, does not rest each material finding on identified present evidence, and does not cite ordinance authority for which current standards apply, I am willing to pursue and I intend to pursue an ADB judicial appeal in superior court. The lawful course tonight is to continue this as a table until the defects are cured on its face. Or to deny, not to vote the draft as written. I asked at the ZBA, I asked you to do what the ZBA sent this back for, a decision that could be understood and reviewed for its on its base. Thank you all right. [1:11:34] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): I'll come, anybody else in the public, come on up. Hi. [1:11:48] Planning Board member: Kara Wilbur with the project team. I just wanted to make. [1:11:51] Applicant's representative (Golick project): One clarification that the plan you have reviewed does contain 14 parking spaces, one per unit, so I just wanted to make sure everyone on the need that on the. [1:12:01] Planning Board member: Record there. [1:12:03] Dora Stewart (public commenter): Are 14 parking spaces on the plan. Okay. [1:12:12] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): I'll close, I'll close a public comment now and come back to the board for further questions or comments of staff for the applicant Chris. Okay, Rob, I [1:12:30] Planning Board member: think staff has addressed the issues that we needed to address tonight, and I'm ready for a vote. Okay. Allison? I agree with Rob. I just reread the ZBA findings, and they said that there was not enough information for them to make a decision on their appeal, and I believe they now have that sufficient information to respond to the concerns of the appeal. [1:13:00] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): Okay. Steve? [1:13:02] Public commenter: You know, I agree with Allison and others, and I think it's been clarified by staff which sections of the Cook's Corner design plan were deemed not applicable, and there's an explanation for each one of those determinations, so I think we've satisfied what ZBA said to satisfy. Okay. [1:13:24] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): I agree with the rest of the board members, and I think the staff has done a great job in coordinating with the Cook's Corner design standards and adding more detail to each section of our ordinance as it applies. Would you like to make any other comments or questions before I ask for votes? I [1:13:56] Staff (Town Planner): would just add that the noticing requirement as laid out in the zoning ordinance was met. We did what we felt was required of us. Okay. [1:14:09] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): Then I'd like a motion to approve the following waiver, a Plan showing all 10-inch caliper trees to be removed as a result of the development proposal. Do I have a motion to that effect? Motion by Steve? I'll second. All those in favor of the waiver, that's unanimous. Allison's raising her hand, that's unanimous of the board members present, and I'd like a motion for approval that the planning board approves the major development review application for the affordable housing development element on the property located at 23 Thomas Point Road, map CC2, lot 37, as outlined in the application, with the following conditions. Matt, would you do we've closed the public comment? [1:15:07] Dora Stewart (public commenter): Know, but this is a paper that I got from the town hall that shows you what kind of property she's [1:15:14] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): got. You want, we have that, we have that in our, because there ain't no parking lot, we have it, [1:15:22] Public commenter: and she says she wants to see where the parking lot has been in the record. Yeah, I'd like to see [1:15:26] Dora Stewart (public commenter): where the parking lots are going to be, please. We [1:15:32] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): have, we have detailed plans with the parking lot BEHIND THE BUILDING. COULD YOU TURN YOUR LIGHT OFF? [1:16:13] Public commenter: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and a handicap. I found 11 and a handicap, and I would like this verified on the record because I can't take this to Superior Mortgage. [1:16:24] Dora Stewart (public commenter): Don't do your job. He gave me a town hall. This is her. This is mom. Do you think they know that? That many cars? Do you want me to take this? Huh? I'll take this. And I got the big map. I'm going to keep yours. Keep it. And I'm living by myself. I don't need people coming on my property, Matt. [1:16:50] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): Would you mind reading the conditions? [1:16:56] Matt (Town Planner/staff): One, that the board's review and approval does hereby refer to these findings of fact, the plans and materials submitted by the applicant, and the written and oral comments of the applicant, their representatives, reviewing officials, and members of the public as reflected in the public record. Any changes to the approved plan not called for in these conditions of approval or otherwise approved by the director of planning and development as a minor modification shall require review and approval in accordance with the Brunswick zoning ordinance. Two, that the original conditions associated with the project, case number 2354, are still in effect and shall be met by the applicant. Three, that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide evidence that funding for the project has been secured to satisfaction of the director of planning and development. And for that, prior to the review of any building permit, the applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan stamped by a licensed landscape architect, modifying the installation sizes of plantings to meet the Cook-Sorin design standards as outlined in the findings, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development. [1:18:02] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): That's the motion. I'll make the motion. Do I have a second? Second by Steve. Second by... [1:18:09] Planning Board member: I had a discussion on the motion. Motion with regard to the name of the roadway, has that been resolved? Because I know Rose Away was apparently already a chosen name, and I think on a revision it was Rosa, and I think the, you know, the plans that we have, even the revised, the, you know, continue to carry the old name. Okay, so I'm wondering if we just ought to know that would be addressed as part of the approval. Okay. [1:18:55] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): we have a motion we have a second all those in favor allison that's unanimous of the board members present thank you very much all right we're still in session if you have conversations to have go ahead please go ahead and have them outside the room case number 26 49 53 60 and to 69 main street contract zoning application matt the [1:19:44] Matt (Town Planner/staff): Planning Board will review and make a recommendation to the Town Council on a contract zoning application submitted by 53 Main Associates LLC and LBJ Inc. on behalf of the property owners Hannah Associates and Macor Corporation. The proposed contract zone would reduce the off-street parking required under the zoning ordinance to facilitate mixed use redevelopment of the subject properties. The properties are located at 53 to 69 Main Street, Map U13, Lots one, two, one, and one, two, three, and within the growth mixed U6 zoning district Andy Village review overlay sub-district and [1:20:25] Staff (Town Planner): Before we hand it over to Ryan, I just wanted to say, so the board has seen this project before at sketch plan and also recommended approval of the Main Street overlay and which the J needs to achieve the added height for their project. The adopted Main Street overlay did not include the parking reduction as originally proposed, and so the J has returned to request a contract zone for that parking reduction. They've provided a draft contract for the board to review and comment on. Ultimately that contract will be negotiated with the Town Council and reviewed by the town attorney, so that document is likely not a final document. The application requires a recommendation from the Planning Board to the Council on the project, and that recommendation should be based on the three findings that are listed in your memo. The project was workshopped with the Council last night and I mentioned to them that in addition to what's been submitted here, elevation drawing should be a part of the approved contract zone so there's reference to what is being approved, and there should also be some inclusion of the sidewalk in front of the project and a breakdown of what the applicant is responsible for in that [1:21:36] Ryan Barnes (attorney representing LJB Inc.): regard. Okay, thank you Ryan. Thank you very much chair. Thank you Julie. I understand it's been a little bit of a long night already, so I'll try to go quick for you and because I'm trying to fight off a sinus infection that has cropped up, so I'm Ryan Barnes, I'm representing LJB Inc. and the owner of this project, 53 Main Associates, who is represented tonight by David Holman. If you want to just skip ahead to a couple of slides, might as well just go right to the project team. Well, like I said, keep this Brief for you. So the project team is made up of LJB Inc, handling the civil site and permitting for the project, which is why we're here tonight. We have Archetype Engineers on board with Kathleen, I'm on, leading the project, and we've, I believe, put together a package that both the board and others have felt was favorable. And we have a landscape architect on board, Dry La, who are assisting us, kind of envision what the kind of in court with the streetscape could be incorporated into this project, not because we're planning on doing all of the streetscape, but because we're trying to make sure that they both really complement each other and create a great anchor for the town. Next slide, please. So this project is consists of eight commercial spaces for a total of approximately 900, I'm sorry, 9,900 square feet, plus or minus, and it includes 34 dwelling units on the upper three floors. That includes 10 single bedrooms and 22 and three bedroom units. Below the building is where the parking for the residential portion will be contained. So that'll help keep it away from the public view and outside of any setbacks as required by the Main Street overlay and the zoning requirements. Next slide, please. Just to kind of want to just kind of step through some history, which I think most of you have actually been a part of, but just summarizing it for those in the audience and those who are watching, so that we're all kind of seeing the same thing. So Brunswick has always had a great vision, especially for the downtown, and they've done a lot to study and make sure that the decisions that they make are well thought through and not forced. Next slide, please. So in 2001, a parking study was completed that parking study analyzed all of Main Street plus several of the outlying streets, and what it determined was what that the majority of the parking only had about 50 to 55 percent use. There were areas that were much higher, there were areas that were considerably lower. So it found that there was no need for new parking at that time. It recommended management of the parking, so two hour limits were implemented in certain areas, and they worked to try to figure out kind of what the best method was for The entire downtown fast forward to 2025. I think some of this probably came out of some of the discussions for the comprehensive plan. They re-looked at it, new data, Ty Lynn re-analyzed it. They again stated that the parking was more than adequate to accommodate the uses in the downtown, and in fact they went on further to say that it could accommodate an additional 314 parking space demands. That's a lot of parking in the downtown. I will say that you'll see some numbers from us later where we analyzed just the parking within a thousand feet of this building. Please just keep in mind that their study area was lunch larger than that, so when you see that our numbers don't seem that large compared to their 314, just keep in mind that theirs was over a bigger span. Next slide please. Moving forward in time, this is somewhat chronological, the master plan in downtown town Brunswick and outer Pleasant Street MPEG study also reviewed parking. They said that the town should be exploring shared parking and in fact developing funds to try to develop that parking and mostly they wanted to pursue state and federal funding to try to improve the parking expand it in the downtown but also just better manage the parking next slide please moving forward to 2024 with the climate action plan the climate action plan had a lot of really good intent in it 's definitely in line with a lot of the other documents the town has done in the past a couple to highlight one of the comments that was heard several times during the surveys was that they need to revisit the ordinance, predominantly for density and parking for housing. In fact action 3.1.3 under housing specifically stated that they needed to revise and reduce the minimum and maximum parking requirements, so basically shift the entire scale downward so that not only can you build with fewer parking spaces but you're no longer allowed to build a lot more parking spaces than you need, which is great because anytime you do that you reduce chlorides, you reduce maintenance, and you reduce the heat effect of having paved surfaces versus impervious surfaces. Next slide please. Also out of the 2024 climate action plan was the section specifically on transportation. Item 3.6.2 indicated that the goal was to prioritize active transportation and public transit. You'll see that we've, the way we're situated, we're hoping to take it full advantage of both of those. 3.6.3 encourages density in the downtown in particular, but predominantly near Transit stops again, that is something that in this type of development we encourage, and 3.6.4 encourage mixed use developments to help reduce the total parking needs for a whole facility. If we could move forward one, Brunswick beautifully balanced, which I always have a hard time saying, in which Julie is very lucky to have been nominated for, or did you, but your plan got a nomination, so it's a very good plan, and Julie deserves some recognition that she did receive last night at Council, so I felt the need to repeat it because the Planning Board didn't hear it last night. So looking at that housing again, reiterated what the Climate Action Plan said, reiterated what a lot of the other plans said, that they wanted to eliminate excessive parking requirements, in particular they wanted to improve the downtown parking, but also look at infilling some of the downtown parking lots with mixed-use development. So that's the direction we're going moving forward. Next slide please. I'm gonna go over what the contract zone request is. So this is kind of the ask. Following that, I'll go over kind of what the benefits are for the community as a result of this ask. So first off, the residential parking for this project, again, it's 14 one-bedroom dwelling units, which requires 14 parking spaces, it's a one-for-one. There are 22 two and three bedroom parking or dwelling units, which require a two to one ratio of 40, for a total of 54 parking spaces for the residential component. The commercial component, although not yet set, is anticipated to require 33 parking spaces during the day as well, for a total of 87 parking spaces with this development. Just on the concrete floor, I mentioned we put, we're putting the parking underneath, we're able to accommodate 41 parking spaces. Above that, the parking spaces are all being designed to allow for lifts to be installed, so those lifts will be able to make it, get beyond the 54 parking space requirement, but also it'll has the capability of going up to 74 parking spaces if the homeowners of those condo units want that many parking spaces. One of the things we're trying to do with this project is not build a lot of infrastructure structure that's not going to be used, it's just gonna be a cost burden on trying to develop housing, so we're trying to kind of keep that in mind as we build it. So those are decisions that will be made based on the needs of the tenant, rather than just assuming that they all need to. Next slide please. I mentioned earlier that we looked at The area within a thousand feet of this development to see what there was for available parking, there were 515 daytime time parking spaces within that area, and we didn't even count some of the smaller residential neighborhoods as we got further out, but 515. After hours and on weekends there's actually 700 because that you add in places like CEI and the bank that allow overnight and weekend parking, so a fair amount of parking within a fairly short walk, a quarter mile in Portland would be a blessing I guess is the one thing I'll say. I'm the one who usually will walk a mile because I don't want to keep circling. Also within a thousand feet we have two transit stops, and there's one that's actually just barely over but we didn't want to count it and look like we were trying to cheat the numbers, so there are three in close proximity but two within that thousand foot buffer, and there are over 20 bike racks parking spaces currently as part of the streetscape project, and we're envisioning several more being installed as part of the streetscape work that's done in front of this project as well. Next slide please. So I developed this slide just to show what is feasible. Again we're able to accommodate 74 parking spaces underneath this building. If we just looked at knocking down the buildings and building a parking lot, which we don't want to do, we could put 40 parking spaces, that's what that gray shape indicates, it's essentially double stacked parking, 20 on each side, but there is a problem with that. Next slide please. There's a 20 foot buffer setback, so our 40 just became 20. So even if we were to redevelop the entire lot as a parking lot, the most amount of parking we can put on it is 20 parking spaces. It would use up everything. It doesn't really follow the comp plan, climate action plan, and I don't think anyone will argue that a parking lot is the highest and best use for the corner of Mason and Main Street. So that's why we've taken so much effort to try to figure out ways to kind of make everything work so that we can have this project be accommodated, so that's our ask is the reduction from 87 parking spaces to 41. Again, we can accommodate all of the residential that is requested, so it would be the commercial component that, similar to most of the businesses downtown, would be utilizing the on-street parking that the 2025 25 parking study indicated is adequate. So what the benefits are of this project or this ask, I guess. Next slide, please. So the big one is an environmental benefit. Right now those sites are highly contaminated. They've been previous gas station, former dry cleaners, you name it. These sites have it, so every ounce of material that comes off or gets excavated from this site is going to get have to get hauled away, and that's something that the developer is looking to or will be taking on. The site itself is roughly a third of an acre. To accommodate the doubles or the lifts in the parking garage, we intend having to dig down approximately 16 feet of material, which equals approximately 10 000 cubic yards, which may sound like a big number. I'm not sure. I like to put things in more plausible numbers. That's approximately 700 dump trucks that would have to be necessary to haul all that material away. The nearest facility that can accept it is 130 mile round trip. That's if we can dump there. It will depend on what the testing shows. We may have to go to a facility that's even further, and as a result of that, we're anticipating that cleanup to be, I'm going to say, north of the 1.3 million dollar we're putting here, but we're hoping we can keep it to 1.3 million. So that's a cost that the developer is taking on that will not become a future burden of the community. Portland, Lewiston, Auburn are dealing with a lot of sites that have essentially been abandoned because of contamination. So that's not something we're looking to do. We're looking to embrace it and utilize it. Next slide, please. Economic benefit. The current facilities, based on the 2027 evaluations, equal roughly $1.7 million in valuation, which with the current mill rate is approximately $23,000. The J rough numbers increases between 25 and $35 million, which would be somewhere between 337 and $472,000 annually. So almost a half million dollar increase annually in tax revenue for the community. Next slide, please. One of the other things that, although not necessarily dictated by any of the regulations that we're committed to working with, we've had several, I should say not we, but our team has had several conversations with Mr. Walker and others in the burning community, and we are looking at ways to try to help rehome the Swift's. Options that we're reviewing are either the applicant also owns the building across the street, so it would be trying to improve the chimney there, or trying to potentially rehabilitate the chimney that was done at the school that the birds did not rehome to. The issue that happened at HBS was that the chimney was originally meant to be brick lined. Because of cost, there was a change order and they just did CMU lining, so essentially cinder block, and that's apparently not a favorable medium for Swift's, so they've chosen not to use it. So one thought from several that we've talked to at IFNW and others is that if that were to be relined with brick, that it may bring them back. So we're looking at these different options. I had a great conversation actually in the parking lot last night with one of the residents who just left about this, because she's very adamant about the swifts, and she was talking about how she needs to start a fundraising campaign to help us, so that would be great. But we are looking at trying to accommodate that the best we can within the needs and means of it. Everything we do will follow what the regulations are, but we're looking to try to, you know, work with the community on that aspect as well. Next slide, please. I mentioned incorporation into the streetscape, so what we have on the slide now is showing kind of one vision of what that streetscape could look like. One change we've made, similar to the town's most recent decision on the Lamont block, is to switch it to parallel parking. The reason for that is it's not a very safe intersection today. DOT is going to signalize it. We're not going to get into the design of that, because it's not me. Heard about it last night, but I think it's important to point out that once that becomes a signalized intersection, trying to get in and out of angled parking is going to be next to impossible with queued up cars there. So the parallel parking will allow for safer merger in and out of that flow of traffic. That does bump it out a little bit more, but beyond that, you know, our vision and the town's vision are very similar. One thing that we were looking at is we'd like to encourage more of tree planting. The trees on this block, similar to what they've experienced on the other streetscapes, are in very rough shape, so we would look to try to replace probably all of them. I think there's two, with some pretty Vibrant tree plantings, probably some higher canopy trees highlighting the tower that goes into the residential facility, and then probably some smaller shade trees that are in the area where you might have outdoor retail or cafe spaces that might be utilizing that brick area. Next slide, please. Consistency with the comprehensive plan, so top left is a slide that was came directly out of the comprehensive plan. This is actually showing the 711 site, so the opposite end of the kind of corridor, but it's showing that, you know, taller buildings, things fully infilling the sites were all things that they were contemplating, which is essentially, if you look at our photo on the bottom right, what we've been mimicking. So we are really trying to focus on copying and mimicking what the plans of the town have been asking for. Next slide. And I do apologize, this is a little bit of a washed out photo just because time of day was not in our favor, but this just gives you a understanding of what that street will look like coming from Fort Andros. It is a great anchor, it is a great gateway project, it's something that this area in this part of town has needed to kind of bring all of that infrastructure together, and I just want to point out that looking at the scale from one side of the block to the other with how wide that street is doesn't seem unreasonable REASONABLE. So next slide, please. So I just wanted to kind of recap what the benefits are of this contract zoning request. So it's the site remediation, which is $1.3 plus million. It's the economic benefits, which is the $400 to $500,000 annual tax revenue increase. It's the fact that we are going to work with the Swifts. We're not. Someone is just going to come and start bulldozing without thought, consistency with the town plans, consistency with the streetscape, and trying to be, you know, a vibrant gateway for the community. With that, I'd be happy to open it up to any questions. Thank you, Ryan, good presentation. [1:39:29] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): It's a great project. Rob, would you like to start with questions or comments? [1:39:37] Planning Board member: I think what's being proposed is great, and I think the contract zone is appropriate and a perfect solution. What do you have a timeline on when this might begin if you were to get all these? Since he's standing up, I'm [1:40:00] Ryan Barnes (attorney representing LJB Inc.): gonna let my client answer that question before I commit him to other things. Okay. [1:40:06] Applicant's representative (Golick project): YEAH, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. IT WOULD BE THE NEXT SIX MONTHS IS OUR HOPE. YOU KNOW, THERE'S A BUNCH OF FACTORS THAT WE HAVE TO FUNDRAISE FOR IT, WE HAVE TO DO PRESAILS FOR IT, AND IF THOSE GO WELL, WE COULD BREAK GROUND TOWARDS THE END OF 2026. I MEAN, THAT WOULD BE OUR AMBITIOUS GOAL. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO WORK WITH THE DEP AND MCOG FOR THE PHASE TWO AND THE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INVENTORY THAT ARE STILL so there's some final boxes to check, but we are hopeful that we can work with the town to take down the existing buildings once the Swiss have left in November or December of this year would be the earliest we could start work. [1:40:47] Planning Board member: Is there a lot of remediation of the building itself before it can be raised, or is it just the ground that you're concerned? [1:40:57] Applicant's representative (Golick project): That's what the hazardous building material inventory tells us you know they go through and test and check a lot of professionals went through and they know what to look for and they didn't see a ton of issues so guardedly optimistic that in addition to our you know 1.3 ish million of soil we won't have a lot of above-ground issues but I'll just knock on wood and across my fingers thank you thanks [1:41:30] Planning Board member: Ryan great presentation appreciate that a couple quick questions my first is probably just for staff why does this have to be done as a contract zone versus just like a waiver or something [1:41:42] Staff (Town Planner): for the parking and the simpler you would you could do an administrative adjustment and reduce the parking requirement but you wouldn't be able to [1:41:50] Planning Board member: waive the parking requirement entirely so it's just contract zone versus administrative adjustment right guys don't mind so that's fine yeah they [1:42:02] Staff (Town Planner): wouldn't get it with an administrative adjustment it would only be a reduction of a handful of parking spaces they're looking gotcha a bigger reduction than [1:42:09] Planning Board member: that I'm just curious you had mentioned you know something I think in the past of ten to twenty thousand dollars per lift or something do you still stand by that number and market trends I mean what did they say do most people buy these things or will we really just end up with 41 spaces and that's it I'm just curious by the way I love your project and not put you on the spot I'm just [1:42:35] Applicant's representative (Golick project): Yeah, we don't know. Your guess is as good as mine. I suspect that there will be people buying lifts. There might be a lot more than I think they'll be, you know, eight or twelve is my best guess, which is a would give us about almost exactly the amount of parking, you know, for the residential side the code requires. But I kind of love this system because it allows us to give exactly the amount of parking that we actually need, and yet the physical cost of the lift is about 15,000. I mean, we need to include labor and a small markup on that, but they wouldn't, they wouldn't be terribly expensive if that's in someone's [1:43:17] Planning Board member: budget. Yeah, one other thing, I just, I really, I love this project and I really hope it happens. The contamination worries me a lot. Do you have to chase that? I mean, when you start digging down, can you stop at 16 feet or do you have to chase it until you get to a certain level of contamination? Do you have to go aerially? How does that work? We are still looking at the [1:43:41] Ryan Barnes (attorney representing LJB Inc.): different testing for the ESA2. It may be that we have to have some sort of an air vapor system in the building, you know, similar to like a radon system, but for these types of hazardous chemicals. Right now we're above or anticipated to be above the groundwater elevation, so we anticipate being able to stop when we get down to that elevation. If we get into the groundwater, it means that we'd also have to put in some sort of a pump system that would then bring it up into the sewer system. [1:44:08] Planning Board member: Yeah, have you been able to apply for any like brownfield grants or anything like that? [1:44:14] Ryan Barnes (attorney representing LJB Inc.): That's why we've been working through MCOG is to try to have our best opportunity for both having the ESAs done at a more affordable cost for the applicant, but also they're helping to work hand in hand with DEP. So anything that is available, hopefully we'll be able to find. I honestly don't know what the current marketer desire is on funding for those. I know that state funding is [1:44:35] Planning Board member: not great right now, so kind of, I don't think the federal funding's there either, so it's kind of tough. Yeah, and 700 truck trips, huh, that's a lot of diesel, which is really expensive. Good luck though, I can't wait to see this at the end of the street. Thank you, Chris, we appreciate [1:44:55] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): it, Steve. Great [1:44:59] Public commenter: presentation. I love the parking data. I love data, and I appreciated the ties to the climate action plan at the comp plan of course. So I, nothing further, I fully support the contract zone request. Thank you, sir. [1:45:15] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): Allison, I [1:45:20] Planning Board member: Echo everything. I think it's a great project, and over the years I've sometimes volunteered to help on some of the parking studies. That I contest the fact that there's a lot of vacant parking spaces on Federal and Union Street and on the side streets, and it's just a matter of encouraging people to walk a little bit farther. I did have a question, really just for my own edification, about the parking management system within the building. First of all, can the lifts be installed once the building's occupied, or do people have to buy those up front and then that's it? [1:45:57] Ryan Barnes (attorney representing LJB Inc.): They would be designed and equipped so that they could be added at a later time, but the intent tent would be that as people are moving in that they would be accommodating that need at that [1:46:05] Planning Board member: time. Okay, and then the other thing is, could an owner of a condo, let's say, put in a lift but really only had one car, could they kind of lease that extra spot out to another resident into the building and then take it back so when they sold their condo it could be sold with two parking spots? I mean, is that going to be something that one could do? That's a really creative idea. [1:46:38] Applicant's representative (Golick project): I think we need, we need you on the team. I hadn't thought of that, but yeah, I think that makes sense. I mean, we're going to be, you know, crafting the HOA documents that'll govern how this association works, and I don't see why someone couldn't install one with the idea of adding value to their parking setup for a future sale, or if they're having company over, they could lift their own car up and the company could potentially park underneath, again, if we're gonna allow people's guests to come into the garage. So those are kind of HOA questions, but they're good questions. [1:47:15] Planning Board member: Yeah, I guess along the same lines, if you have a resident who is a doesn't own a car but it's entitled to a parking space, could they, would they be able to keep that entitlement so that when they left they could sell their condo with a parking space? Yeah, that's another great idea, that's another great question, just because they're not using it, right? Different condo developers have handled parking [1:47:45] Applicant's representative (Golick project): differently. We're planning to sell the spaces and the condos completely independently, but we're going to reserve the right to buy at least one space for each unit, but if you choose not to buy one, then that ship may permanently sail for that unit, and that might affect your resale value. Okay, well, as I say, it was [1:48:10] Planning Board member: just for my own edification. I think it's a great project, and I look forward to [1:48:13] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): Seeing it but the up next to Cabin Mills. Thanks. All right, I agree with everything everybody said. I think it's a wonderful project. It's a lovely building. Is there any good news on your test boring yet? Are is there contaminated soil under the whole property or the problem [1:48:43] Ryan Barnes (attorney representing LJB Inc.): with the site since it is so small that even if there are pockets of areas that aren't contaminated it is migrating well we won't be able to excavate and separate them out in a cost-effective manner so we'll have to just assume that everything that comes out goes away because there is no place to temporarily stockpile the test on site. I asked that very question Bill. I was like is there even 10 percent that we don't have to pay tons of extra money for and I let DEP educate him so [1:49:08] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): it didn't have to be me. Okay with that I'll open I'll open it up to public comment. Either of you like to comment? I'll close the public comment and any further questions or comments among the board members? No? Okay, the Planning Board will make a recommendation to the Town Council on the proposed contract zoning application. Pursuant to Section 5.2.13F, the Planning Board shall provide an advisory recommendation speaking to each of the findings below. The first finding the Planning Board finds that the proposed contract zone is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The second finding is the Planning Board finds that the proposed contract zone is consistent with but not limited to the existing uses and allowed uses within the original zone and three the Planning Board finds that the proposed contract zone is subject conditions sufficient to achieve the purpose of section five point two point one three contract zoning. Do I have a motion to that effect? Motion by Steve second by Rob. All those in favor? Allison okay that's unanimous of the board members present and the director of planning will send our recommendation on to the town council. Thank you. Thank you Ryan. Thanks Dave. Thank you members in the audience. All right case number 26 30 Brunswick Perimeter Trail phase one [1:51:14] Matt (Town Planner/staff): the planning board will hold a public hearing and act upon a major development review sketch and final plan application submitted by flight catcher LLC on behalf of the property owner the town of Brunswick for a multi-use accessible trail between Mary Koenig Road and Samuel Adams Drive the subject properties are located along Harpswell Road map 48 lots 1 6 4 1 and 1 C and within the growth college for and growth natural resources and rural protection one zoning districts as well as the Shoreline Protection Overlay, Shoreline Protection Overlay, Stream Protection, Shoreline Protection Overlay, Resource Protection, and Rural Protection, Stormwater [1:51:57] Staff (Town Planner): Management Overlay sub-districts. Okay, so I just wanted to say that with the noticing requirements for public hearings, we have to get advertisements to the paper with a couple weeks before it actually runs. So what's happened here is we noticed the public hearing, we did not have the information necessary to send this to the board for this meeting, so we'd like to recommend to table it into [1:52:30] Chair (Planning Board presiding officer): to the next meeting and Planning Board can take it up then. Okay, I just noticed that there's a typo, yeah, in the college zone, it's collage. That being said, I'd like a motion to table this project to what date, October 13th? October 13. Motion by Steve, second by Chris, all those in favor, that's unanimous of the board members present. Allison is raising her hand. All right, thank you very much. Any other business? Or okay, we're adjourned. Thank you all.