Bangor Planning Board OKs bus training center, mall subdivision

[0:00] Edwin Brush: The button here and I should pop up. There we go. [0:14] Jonathan Boucher: Yeah, we can see you. Good evening and welcome to the applicant staff, board members, and members of the public. This is the October 6, 2026 meeting of the City of Bangor's Planning Board. It's seven o'clock. My name is Jonathan Boucher. I'm chair of the board. Board members are volunteers from the Bangor community and other board members in attendance this evening include Ted Brush, Tricia Hayes, Greg Hobson, Ken Huynh, Vice Chair Janet Jonas and Russ Whitford. City staff members in attendance this evening include planning officer Anya Collette, assistant solicitor Grace Innes, city engineer Jefferson Davis, and planning analyst Matthew Altiero. We thank them for their help in preparation for this meeting. We're going to start with the old business, which includes the meeting minutes from September 1, 2026. Actually, that seems too long ago. Can we correct that date? Is it September 1 was our last meeting? [1:20] Speaker C (unidentified): Well, I think September 15th was canceled, so that's why we have this one. Okay. [1:26] Jonathan Boucher: Yeah, so the meeting minutes from September 1. Any corrections or otherwise I'd look for a motion? Move to approve. In a second. Member Hyun with the motion. In a second. Member Jonas. And a roll call vote. Member Brush. Yes. Member Hayes. Yes. For Hobson, yes. For Jonas, yes. Number Whitford, yes. And chair votes yes. Next we have the adoption of findings for 201 Audlin Road and 8 through 10 Harlow Street and we had the full board in attendance on September 1st, so we'll move forward with a motion. Remember here, sure, I'd move that [2:15] Kenneth Huhn: that we approve the motion that is presented and is approved by us. [2:23] Jonathan Boucher: Okay, in a second. Member Brush, and a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Heughan? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Whitford? Yes. And the chair votes yes. Which brings us to my introduction for the new business. The planning board has two main roles. First, we review amendments to the Land Development Code, which typically include either changes to zoning districts or changes to the text within the code. But there are no amendment items on the agenda tonight. Secondly, the board services the regulatory authority for the land development permits, for land development permits commonly known as site plan review. Site plans are reviewed to ensure compliance with the city code as to parking, driveways, stormwater management, lighting, landscaping and buffering, building location, environmental impacts, and shoreline zoning as may be applicable. We also ensure the plan meets the dimensional requirements for the project zoning district. We review larger site plans that trigger site location development for the main DEP as well under their requirements. Some uses our conditional uses that have specific conditions and requirements we use to review the project. State statute also outlines the requirements for subdivision review and the city has additional standards as to roadway and utility specifications. The board ultimately endorses a plan that will go to the registry of deeds if the plan is approved. There are two items on the agenda that are land development permits and further information on the city's codes and standards and the comprehensive plan may be found at the city's website. Our first oh excuse me For these land development permits we'll first consider the vote on the applications readiness for review and any concerns for conflict of interest. For all items the applicant or their representative should then come forward to the podium and provide a brief introduction to the proposal and then they should stay at the podium while we consider any questions from the staff and or board members. Once the item has been presented the applicant may be seated and we will allow time for public comment For public comment the person should come to the podium introduce themselves state if they're a Bangor resident and or an abutter to the property as applicable and indicate if they are for or against the proposal. It's also helpful if you present your thoughts based upon the city codes and standards and the comprehensive plan as these are the primary documents used by the board to make our decision. All comments and discussions should remain respectful and considerate of others. Once public comments are completed we'll close the item to public comment. The board will then deliberate on the proposal using the applicable standards for clarity when considering land development proposals. The code standards are typically read and voted on separately and then the final decision is read and voted on. If the applicant disagrees with the land development permit decision that the board has made then they can appeal the decision to the superior court of Maine. Once a project you're interested in has been reviewed you may leave the meeting but please be respectfully quiet so as not to disturb the review of other agenda items on to new business we have our first item which is a land development permit application for a major site development and site location of development slota for the construction of a 6070 square foot training center and restoration of existing cold storage building including a drainage and storm water including drainage and storm water improvements new parking and access drives located at 511 Main Avenue, MAP Lot 001-001-G in the Government and Institutional Service District, GNISD. The applicant owner, City of Bangor, Community Connector. And staff have indicated the completeness of this application and its readiness for board review. The fees are documented and paid. The applicant's standing is confirmed. Does the board have any concerns or conflicts of interest? Okay. Okay. Then if so, I'd look for a motion to accept the completeness. Member Jonas? [6:28] Patricia Hayes: Chair, I move the board finds that the application was deemed complete based today, October 6, 2026, that all applicable fees for the project have been paid per Exhibit 3 of our packets, and that the proposed project is a major site development and major slow to [6:41] Jonathan Boucher: modification. Thank you. And a second? Second. Member Huynh, the second. And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Whitford? Yes. And the chair votes yes. So at this point, we'd like to invite the applicant to come up to the podium and give their presentation on the project. I think they'll add it to the, they'll present it on the screen. [7:17] Shelley Lizotte: Hi, I'm Shelley Lizotte with Artifact Civil Engineer, working with the City of Bangor on this project. The main goal of this project is to first repair renovate the existing storage building that is now being used as a community connector storage for their the city buses and right now that is in pretty bad shape so that is a primary objective of this in addition to that the city is going to be consolidating the bus operations and providing a training center attached to the end of this building so that, you know, everything is sort of centrally located. The bus drivers can be trained in an appropriate facility and we'll have, you know, ample parking for those needs. Right now, the site is, it's been a many things. I guess in the past, more recently since it's been the sewer department on the front, the back half has been the parking for the buses. They were also a recycling center at one point. And so the interior of it has decent foundations and floors, but the shell is really in bad shape. So and while they're doing this, another major goal of this is to provide appropriate electrical service so that the future fleet of buses can be charged because the goal is to have hybrid and electric buses at some point. And so we want to make sure that they have the appropriate services for that as well in addition to a couple other things that are happening on the inside of the building that aren't relevant to this land development permit just for your information for this situation right now the buses are now all housed in there but they're parked in a very tight configuration and they have to come in from the side of the building so as part of this we're we're providing two new overhead doors on the end of The building so that you know a bus can come in straight into the length of the bus barn and park in the perpendicular spaces so that'll that'll make it easier for buses to get in and out in case there's ever an emergency and one bus needs to get out and another one is blocking the door for example so they have two exits so in doing so it creates a very sort of like an obvious area to provide the required stormwater treatment that we're needing to do here because this is a redevelopment Project from as a part of the airport slota that has been in existence for I'm not sure decades I guess so that the design of the training center which is about six thousand three hundred square feet six thousand seventy square feet is what I have on here that will that will sort of interconnect with these the bus the bus entry and exit and it also provides a fairly decent private exit for the buses to make their complete like round about the building and not have to be conflicting with all the Other vehicles that are on the other side as you know this that's a maintenance garage and so there's a lot of vehicles that are in and out of there all the time fueling and washing the car wash. So, you know, the buses can be protected on their own side and not have to worry about the traffic for that. So, you know, like I said before, in doing so, we've created a nice big sort of like a radius type of a circle. It's like rectangular for the exit. It's an existing exit now. It's going to be rebuilt. And that comes out onto Main Avenue. And then additionally there's a parking, a set of parking spaces along Main Avenue that will serve as the new parking for the sewer department and their vehicles to also put them in a location that avoids conflicting vehicles coming in and out on the other side. So it'll, it'll get all that, you know, traffic off to that side for the stormwater permit. Well, for the, there aren't a lot of buffers required. There's a couple of street buffers and we did address those with some new street trees along Main Avenue. The other side that happens to fall on Union Street has a fairly wide buffer already and none of those trees are being impacted by this. The site plan does include some new plantings as was requested by the forestry department and in trying to replace what was removed because there are a few trees that are going to be taken out there. They're distributing those throughout the green space there. The number of parking spaces was determined based on like the congregate or the aggregate number of spaces that would be required for the uses that are in this building on the slot. And it was determined that, you know, we need a total of, think, get the number here in my head. 28 parking spaces, only need 28 parking spaces, but there are 83 three parking spaces that are going to be available for everyone to park on here. The existing ones are on the back side over near the Union Street side and those will be reconfigured at some point so that it is a more defined parking space for employees and then the other side with the new parking for the sewer department has a few spaces there and there's a handicap spot as the typical requirements, one per 25, so there's, there's two provided and I'm sure there are more that could be delineated but there really isn't, you know, it's not a requirement so there's, there are plenty of them where they need to be. The improvements in drainage are mainly to provide proper drainage from around the bus barn building. The back of it right now is very flat and they have a lot of roof run off that comes down there and then we're adding a couple of catch basins and diverting all that around the building and then eventually taking it Back in to the storm rain that cuts across from the where the new sort of where the new training center is going to be, and it goes down across Main Avenue eventually. And that is also the same outlet that we will be discharging the vegetated filter for the stone water treatment. I'm sure you might have questions, but I could explain more, let you guys ask. [14:58] Jonathan Boucher: Are there any staff comments? [15:01] Speaker C (unidentified): I don't think we had any comments on this. [15:06] Jonathan Boucher: All right. Any questions for staff or for the applicant on the board? All right. We'll go to... Thank you. We're going to open up public comment. So public comment's opened up. There's no one on Zoom. Then we'll be closing public comment. And I'll put it back to the board to see if there's any other questions or discussion before we move on to review of the standards. All right, in that case, we'll move on to the applicable provisions and findings. We'll start with Part 1, that the project meets the requirements of Articles 2 and 12. I'd look for a motion on the first item there, under Part 1. Member Huynh? [16:04] Kenneth Huhn: Yeah, Chair, I move that the Board finds that based on Exhibit 2, the applicant's Satisfied Land Development Code, Section 165-33.1's requirements [16:13] Jonathan Boucher: requirements surrounding erosion sediment control and a second member brush and a roll call vote member brush yes for hayes yes for hobson yes number jonas yes number whitford yes chair votes yes item two member brush mr chair i move the board finds that based on exhibit two [16:38] Edwin Brush: to the applicant-satisfied land development code section 165-6H requirements for lot frontage. And a second. Member Hayes. And a roll call vote. Member Brush. Yes. Member Hayes. Yes. Member Hobson. Yes. [16:54] Shelley Lizotte: Yes. Member Jonas. Yes. Member Woodford. Yes. And the chair votes yes. Item three. Member Hayes. I move the board finds that, based on Exhibits 2 and 16, the applicant's satisfied land development code section 165-72 regarding the required number of parking spaces section 165-73's requirements regarding parking area location and screening and section 165-74's requirements regarding parking area design construction and maintenance [17:33] Jonathan Boucher: Thank you. And a second? Second. Member Woodford. And a roll call vote. Member Brush. Yes. Member Hayes. Yes. Member Hobson. Yes. Yes. Member Jonas. Yes. Member Woodford. Yes. Chair votes yes. Item number four. Member Brush. [17:50] Edwin Brush: Mr. Chair, I move that the Board finds that based on Exhibits 2, 7, 13-15, 20, and 21, the applicant satisfied Land Development Code Section 165-79 requiring adequate utility service including water, electricity, fire protection, and provision for stormwater runoff. [18:14] Jonathan Boucher: And a second? Chair. Member Jonas and a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Newman? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Whitford? Yes. And the Chair votes yes. Item 5, Member Jonas? [18:29] Patricia Hayes: Chair, I move the Board finds that based on Exhibits 2 and 21, the applicant satisfied Land Development Code Section 165-80, requiring that whenever possible, all uses and developments shall be provided with water service from the Bangor Water District. And a second? [18:45] Jonathan Boucher: Member Heughan? Second. roll call vote number brush yes number hayes yes number hobson yes number jonas yes number whitford yes and chair votes yes item six remember here sure i move that the board finds it [19:02] Kenneth Huhn: based on exhibits two and eight the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-81 requiring providing adequate lighting and preventing light pollution and trespass [19:13] Jonathan Boucher: Thank you. And a second? Member Hayes? And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Nguyen? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. Chair votes yes. Item 7. [19:30] Edwin Brush: Member Brush? Mr. Chair, I move the Board finds that based on Exhibits 2 and 20, the applicant satisfied Land Development Code Section 165-8 to requirements regarding having adequate fire protection. [19:48] Jonathan Boucher: And a second? Member Huynh? And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. member jonas yes number woodford yes the chair votes yes item number eight member [20:07] Shelley Lizotte: hayes i move the board finds that based on exhibit two the applicant satisfied the land development code section 165-83 requiring adequate electrical services thank you in a second member hewn [20:22] Jonathan Boucher: And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Heughan? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. The Chair votes yes. Item number nine. [20:36] Kenneth Huhn: Member Heughan? Chair, I move that the Board finds it based on Exhibits 2, 7, 13, 15, and 21. The applicant satisfied the Land Development Code Section 165-84 requiring provisions for surface water and storm drainage. [20:50] Jonathan Boucher: Thank you. In a second, Member Brush and a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Heughan? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. The Chair votes yes. Item number 10, Member Brush? [21:06] Edwin Brush: Mr. Chair, I move the Board finds that based on Exhibit 9, the applicant satisfied Land Development Code Section 165-85 requiring information on sewer flows and Section 165-86 regarding compliance with sewer regulations. And a second? Member Jonas? And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. [21:29] Jonathan Boucher: Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. And the chair votes yes. That completes part one and brings us to part two, that the project meets the requirements of section 165-97, Government and Institutional Service District, G&ISD, and the section 165-101, Shopping and Personal Service District, S&PS. [21:51] Patricia Hayes: There's one item here. Member Jonas? Chair, I move the board finds that based on the findings made in part one of section four of this document, the project meets the requirements of section 165-97B, for uses within the Government and Institutional Service District, known as GNISD, and Section 165-101B for uses within the Shopping and Personal Service District, known as SNPS. [22:13] Jonathan Boucher: Thank you. And a second? Member Huynh, and a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. And the Chair votes yes. Which completes Part 2 and brings us to Part 3, that project meets the requirements of Section 165-114, Land Development Approval Standards. I'd look for a motion on Item 1. Member Brush. [22:40] Edwin Brush: Mr. Chair, I move that the Board finds that, based on Exhibits 2 and 16, the applicant satisfied Land Development Code Section 165-114B's requirements that the proposed parking and loading layout are arranged in a reasonable and safe configuration. And section 165, there's 114 C's requirement that all proposed access drives are reasonably necessary and safe. [23:08] Jonathan Boucher: And a second. Member Huynh. A roll call vote. Member Brush. Yes. Member Hayes. Yes. Member Hobson. Yes. Member Huynh. Yes. Member Jonas. Yes. Member Whitford. Yes. And the chair votes yes. Item two. Member Huynh? [23:23] Kenneth Huhn: Chair, I move that the Board finds that based on Exhibit 2 of the Applicant Satisfied Land Development Code, Section 165-114C's requirement, that all proposed access drives from the site to any public right-of-way are reasonably necessary and safe. [23:38] Jonathan Boucher: Thank you. And a second? Member Brush, and a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Whitford? Yes. Chair votes yes. Item three, remember [23:55] Kenneth Huhn: here. Chair, I move that the board finds it based on exhibits two, seven, and fourteen to fifteen, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114d's requirements regarding minimizing adverse effects from stormwater runoff and ensuring adequate [24:11] Jonathan Boucher: stormwater collection capacity. Thank you. In a second, Member Haze, and a roll call vote. Member Brush. Yes. Member Hayes. Yes. Member Hobson. Yes. Member Huynh. Yes. Member Jonas. Yes. Whitford. Yes. Chair votes yes. Item number four, Member Hayes. [24:31] Shelley Lizotte: I move the board finds that based on exhibits two and eight, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114E's requirements that all outdoor lighting shall be designed, installed, and maintained to avoid unreasonable adverse effects from light pollution. And a second? Member Jonas? And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. [25:00] Patricia Hayes: Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Whitford? Yes. The chair votes yes. Item five. Sure. Member Jonas? Chair, I move the board finds that based on exhibits two and 22, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114F's requirements for landscaping. And a second? Member Huynh? And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. [25:27] Edwin Brush: Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. And the chair votes yes. Item six? Member Brush? Mr. Chair, I move the board finds that based on Exhibit 2, the applicant satisfied Land Development Code Section 165-114G's requirement that the location of the buildings meets all required setbacks and are situated to avoid unreasonable adverse effects on adjacent properties or public rights of way. [26:02] Jonathan Boucher: And a second? Member Hayes? And a roll call vote? Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Heughan? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? [26:13] Kenneth Huhn: Yes. The Chair votes yes. Item 7. Member Heughan? Chair, I move that the Board finds that based on the findings above in this Part 3 and also in Part 1 of Section 4 of this document, the applicant is in compliance with 38 MRSA Section 484 and applicable Department of Environmental Protection Regulations, which includes chapters 371, 372, 373, 375, 376, 377, and 500. Thank you. In a second, Member Brush and a roll [26:49] Jonathan Boucher: Call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. The chair votes yes. Member Hobson, would you like to read us the decision? I'm sorry, I don't have it on my screen. I couldn't find it. Oh, I understand. I was just trying to involve you what could would someone like to provide a motion member brush [27:13] Edwin Brush: Mr Chair, I move the board finds that the project meets the requirements for land development for a land development permit for a major site development and major slow to modification and therefore the board grants the landlord permit and slow to modification for the proposed project [27:35] Jonathan Boucher: Thank you. And a second. Member Woodford and a roll call vote. Member Brush. Yes. Member Hayes. Yes. Member Hobson. Yes. Member Huynh. Yes. Member Jonas. Yes. Member Woodford. Yes. And the chair votes yes. So with that the applicant can reach out to code enforcement office for more guidance thank you which brings us to our next land development item the land development permit application for a minor subdivision and planned group development for the creation of a 0.54-acre and a 6.24-acre lot from an existing 6.78-acre parcel located at 6 Bangor Mall Boulevard, Map Lot 061-016-A in the Shopping and Personal Service District, SNPS, the applicant owner, Waterstone Bangor, LLC. LLC. The staff have indicated the completeness of this application and its readiness for board review. The fees are documented and paid. The applicant's standing is confirmed. Does the board have any concerns or conflicts of interest? I look for a motion on accepting this application's [29:00] Kenneth Huhn: Completeness. Member Huynh? Yes, Chair. I move that the application was deemed complete on October 6, 2026. The applicant paid all applicable fees specified in Exhibit 3, and the proposed project is a minor subdivision modification and planned group development. Thank you. [29:18] Jonathan Boucher: And a second? Member Brush and a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Whitford? Yes. Chair votes yes let's see at this point we'd invite the applicant to come up to the podium to provide their presentation [29:41] Applicant representative: Acre lot in the northwest corner of the existing property along Bangor Mall Boulevard. So be creating an out parcel in the parking lot area for in the parking lot of the Bob's Discount Furniture in the Burlington Coat Factory. At this point alls we're looking for approval for is to create that new law out of the existing lot that's there. Future development would come back for a site plan approval and any other required permit applications for any development within this new lot. It'll be a planned group development so be a lot of shared site features between the existing development and anything that's proposed there as far as parking access eliminating any sort of buffers and setbacks between the two developments on there. Happy to answer any questions that the board has at this time. Thank [31:04] Jonathan Boucher: you. Any comments from the staff? No comments. Any questions to the applicant from the board? [31:14] Kenneth Huhn: You don't have a purpose right now for that particular person? [31:23] Applicant representative: They're in talks for a proposed development on that lot, but nothing's finalized at this point, and we haven't finalized any sort of plans for development there yet. [31:40] Patricia Hayes: Member Jones? I'm just a follow-up on that. So I read throughout the packet, you know, there's no defined use yet, but how did, so how did you decide what size the lot should be? We've [31:53] Applicant representative: done a preliminary plan for something that could go there. Fair. [31:58] Patricia Hayes: And it... I respect that. I was just curious. [32:04] Applicant representative: I don't want to say anything. [32:06] Patricia Hayes: Yeah, a lot of businesses don't want to commit until we've done our part. I get that. And I don't really particularly care what goes on. [32:12] Applicant representative: They were working towards a lease agreement with a potential development on that parcel, but nothing's been finalized yet. I think it would be suitable for more than just one specific use on that law, lot and it's sized appropriately for I would say a variety of uses of thank you any other questions [32:34] Jonathan Boucher: before we'll open it up to public comment and seeing no one to approach we will close public comment so I'd like to return to the board to see if there's any discussion. Any discussion or additional questions? I know we just had a chance, but seeing none, then we should move on to the, let me get to my, then we'll just move on to the standards and the findings, applicable provisions, which starts us off with part one, that the project meets the requirements of section 165-126 for a minor subdivision. I'll look for a motion on part one. Member Hinn? [33:34] Kenneth Huhn: Chair, the board finds that based on Exhibits 2, 7, 8, and 9, the project meets the requirements of Land Development Code Section 165-126F1 regarding compliance with State of Maine guidelines for subdivision approval contained in 30-A MRSA Section 4404. [33:56] Jonathan Boucher: And a second? Member Brush, and a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. member hobson yes number hughes yes number jonas yes number whitford yes chair votes yes item two [34:11] Kenneth Huhn: member chair i move that the board finds it based on exhibits two and nine the project meets the requirement of land development code section 165-126f2 regarding conforming to the existing lot dimension and area regulations of the zoning district Section 165-126F3's requirements of abutting an existing improved public road and Section 165-126F4's requirement on the angle of side lot lines to street lines. [34:49] Jonathan Boucher: And a second? Member Brush? On a roll call vote, Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Heughan? Yes. Member Jonas. [35:01] Patricia Hayes: Yes. Member Woodford. Yes. And the Chair votes yes. Item 3. Member Jonas. Chair, I move the Board finds that based on Exhibit 2, the project meets the requirements of Land Development Code Section 165-126F Part 6 regarding the plaque containing all information required in Section 165-126D Parts 1 through 8. [35:25] Jonathan Boucher: And a second. Member Huynh. And a roll call vote. Member Brush. Yes. Member Hayes. Yes. Member Hobson. yes remember hyun yes remember jonas yes remember woodford yes chair votes yes which completes part one and brings us to part two that the project meets the requirements of section 165-69 for a planned group development there's one item here i look for a motion remember brush mr chair i move [35:49] Edwin Brush: the board finds that based on exhibit two the applicant satisfied section 165-50 69 of the Land Development Code regarding the requirements for planned group development. [36:03] Jonathan Boucher: And a second? Member Hayes, on a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Whitford? Yes. The chair votes yes, which brings us, which completes part two, and brings us to our decision. I look for a motion on the decision. Member Huynh? [36:21] Kenneth Huhn: Chair, I move that the board plans that the project meets the requirements for a minor subdivision modification and plan group development, and therefore the board grants the land development permit for the proposed project. Thank you in a. [36:33] Jonathan Boucher: Second number brush and a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Number Hayes? Yes. For Hobson? Yes. For him? Yes. For Jonas? Yes. For Whitford? Yes. Chair votes yes. Thank you. That brings us to the end that item. You can follow up with the code enforcement Office if you have any questions or need more guidance. And what brings us to other business and planning officer Colette, we have the proposed growth boundary change. Is it the first item that [37:08] Speaker C (unidentified): you'd like to start with? Yes. Although I do just want to mention a few things before I start on that because I'm sure I'm going to forget otherwise. The first thing is you all are pretty good about this normally. I just wanted to give you a reminder that when you are speaking to try to like lean forward to speak into the microphone because if you are leaned back then people on zoom can't hear us as well. That was mainly a complaint we got about each pc but I just thought I would let you all know. Also if you could, I think we said something when we sent you the packet but if you know of anyone who might be interested in being on the planning board please spread the word because we do have two vacancies coming up next year. And then I did just want to ask you all if you're good generally with the way we've ordered things in your packets or if there's a way you'd like us to change that. Any thoughts on that? [38:02] Jonathan Boucher: Does anyone have any comments on that? Make sure you lean forward though. Do you have anything to say? [38:09] Speaker H (unidentified): Just out of curiosity, is it two positions plus the associate or two including? [38:14] Speaker C (unidentified): I think it's two including the associate. See it and [38:22] Jonathan Boucher: then as far as packets any questions there. I appreciate that. Okay great. Yeah I like having it front loaded with the index and with the findings because then you can kind of know what to be looking for. If you read through the findings and then have concerns about any of them I think it helps guide the rest of the reading. Okay especially on trickier ones. Yeah [38:48] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah. Okay. And we try to order things after that, like in order of when they come in. So if we have staff comments, then we'll put like the response to comments to that. And just wanted to make sure that you don't see the need to put like revised materials after those comments, or if you like having all the materials up front and then the communication after that. I might ask, and I put [39:15] Jonathan Boucher: Put it out to you guys if you agree. I well, the part I enjoy the best is seeing email correspondence and seeing the engineer's notes and things like that. Helps me understand what to be looking for and then to be thinking if there's any gaps as I'm reading forward to come to that after the fact. After reading through and looking through all these different maps, it almost means after you look at that you have to go back and it's only really when there's tricky ones that might happen. Does anyone ever think it would make sense to have the correspondence and the engineer notes? I think the engineer notes have to come at the end after the different details, but yeah, I don't really see any problem. I think we're getting there one way or the other. It would be a tiny tweak and a tiny benefit. All right, just want to [40:04] Speaker C (unidentified): make sure. So I did forget to print my memos for these two items, so I'm going to be reading [40:10] Jonathan Boucher: off my phone. I think I have a copy of it if you want it. Oh, okay. Sure. Yeah, you just have to give me a second. [40:23] Speaker C (unidentified): Ruffle,. Which ones do you want to start with? The very end, the growth boundary tree. You want the whole thing or just the memo? That and the, yeah, [40:37] Shelley Lizotte: I guess so. Thank you. [40:39] Speaker C (unidentified): I'm working on it. I think it's actually on the back here, so I'm all set. Okay. Yeah,, thank you. So yes, for the growth boundary change, this is a staff proposal to potentially change the growth boundary that was in the 2022 comprehensive plan on that particular parcel that you see on that map that it's teal. Teal is the rRNA zone. And we outlined these two parcels in and cyan, if you're looking at the map. So these are off Stillwater Avenue, and Kittredge Road. So the VA is looking at potentially putting a hospital on these two parcels. But obviously the one that is in our RNA would not allow a hospital use. So they would need a zone change, but typically we wouldn't recommend a zone change to something a lot more intense zone outside of the growth boundary. So the cleaner option is to change the growth boundary, particularly in this case where you could pull in water and sewer from still water if the use is going to traverse both of those lots. And then this is also in a pretty developed area already. Ready. It's not like it's, you know, kind of way out of town. So we thought it made sense to look at this for a potential growth boundary change. The growth boundary isn't necessarily set in stone. Like you can change it along the way. If it makes sense, sometimes conditions can change. But, you know, we do have to go through quite a process for it. You know, we have to, the formal process is to bring it to you while we have to give the public 30 days notice beforehand and then goes to council for the final adoption but we also have to send it to the state for them to review and approve because technically it's a change to the comprehensive plan we would also be proposing a public workshop ahead of time ahead of that formal meeting where we talk to all the abutters and you know talk about why we're proposing this and all the ins and outs of it and get their feedback. Council, and it's a good idea to do this ahead of time, but council really wanted to get a feeling for like how people in the area would feel about this, just because on Kittredge Road, especially like, that's really like a boundary, you know, between very developed to very rural, you know, and people around that live up Kittredge might have very strong feelings about it. So we are planning a public workshop on this at the end of the month on October 29th and we'll be letting all the butters know and so we will get that feedback then but we did want to bring it to you all ahead of time too to get your thoughts before we set the wheels in motion for the formal change so any [43:40] Kenneth Huhn: questions no I was excited to see that because being a healthcare provider myself and knowing that, you know, I'm not sure most of the public is aware that the VA hospital we have now currently was commissioned by Abraham Lincoln. Really? It was the first VA hospital in the country. And so to have one up here would be a really good thing for veterans. [44:09] Jonathan Boucher: Any other questions? Jones, Member Brasch? [44:14] Edwin Brush: What about the availability of alternate sites for that? [44:18] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, that's a good question. I don't know all of the sites that the VA was looking into. I do know they were potentially looking into one near the airport where the city owns some land. It's called the Main Business Enterprise Park. But I think they did have concerns about being that close to the airport and noise and things like that. So they're looking at this area instead. [44:41] Edwin Brush: I get the message that the alternate sites are limited. [44:47] Patricia Hayes: They're not an abundance of them. Yeah, I believe so. Thank you. I'm just a follow-up. I did a quick survey of Bangor wondering where else it might go, because I know we often, when we get public feedback, we say it's a great idea, we support it, but we just don't want it in our backyard. So I didn't, I didn't find any place that looked like it was available and anything that wasn't also our RNA. So I, so in that regard, I really do support this. I do have a question though about the sewer capacity out there, because I remember last year we approved a preliminary site plan for a very large housing development that was going further out Stillwater Road, just a little bit further, and then I believe I've read in the paper recently that they have not been able to build because of the lack of sewer capacity. So that's a good question [45:42] Speaker C (unidentified): and Jeff might be able to speak on that more. That's for you, Jeff. I can tell you that the VA is actively working with sewer to resolve some of those issues. [45:50] Public works/engineering staff: Yeah, so engineering has been working for the past year on getting capacity out there. So we're going to get, we have a multi-phase project. Phase one is happening now. Phase two is going to happen in a few weeks. So we're going to have capacity out there within, you know, definitely by the end of this year, we'll have capacity for the housing development that you mentioned earlier plus some more, and then we're going to be working on phase three and four of that next year and the year after. So that shouldn't be an issue here going forward [46:26] Kenneth Huhn: Yeah, what's the plant with do you have any idea with water departments planning on doing a water line? Isn't that another thing that holds back the growth? They haven't, well I mean the growth [46:38] Speaker C (unidentified): boundary does follow water service areas, but the water district hasn't expressed any water capacity concerns there, if that's what you're asking. Yeah so [46:57] Jonathan Boucher: I was gonna raise this to her question too, so I'm glad that we were thinking on the same wavelength. Your question for us tonight though is to just elicit some conversation with us, or are you looking to see if there's any objections from [47:15] Speaker C (unidentified): the planning board or possible? Yeah, I mean to see if there were any objections, if you felt strongly about that this shouldn't change, and any other feedback you might have. So does [47:43] Jonathan Boucher: anyone have any additional thoughts or conversation? Okay. [47:48] Speaker C (unidentified): I just want to make sure Greg, you're, you're all set too. Yeah, I'm fine with it. Okay, all right. So yeah, like I said, we plan to have that workshop [48:02] Jonathan Boucher: On October 29th, so we'll see what happens. This to our next item about the workshop [48:13] Speaker C (unidentified): on removing the floor area ratio. Yes, so this change we're proposing is also because of a potential development downtown, and this and actually I found out about another one today that this limitation is holding back. So changing the floor area or removing floor area ratio from our downtown development district, it is somewhat of an outdated dimensional control. It's kind of confusing and hard for people to understand. A lot of modern codes don't include them because they don't really get the outcome that they're intended to get as far as controlling like building scale and form and things like that. When we're thinking about how do we control, you know, the form of buildings downtown, really design standards help a lot and maximum height if that's something we want, you know, and if something is above a certain height requiring it to be set back from the road a little bit, and all of those are things that we're looking at with the new land development code and the other like the consultants are proposing to get rid of the standard for all zones in the new land development code and instead focus on those like setbacks and height and things and design standards. I will say though for downtown they are proposing if it's within a certain distance of residential the height would be capped at around 60 feet and then it would have a greater setback from residential if you're in the downtown district, but at this time we just wanted to do this one small change and then we'll worry about all the other changes when we actually do the land development code update. I will say when we brought this to the bed committee last night they did express some concerns that we don't have a height limit at all downtown and you know whether we want to see skyscrapers downtown potentially. I will say we don't have demand for skyscrapers right now and the case is that people are looking at adding stories, I think it's just a few stories to add residential units, so I also don't think people could really get a return on investment from building a skyscraper in Bangor right now, but so they were more comfortable with like waiting till we get to the land development code update to talk about potential height limits downtown. So we may be proposing an overall height limit downtown, or like if you go above a certain height, say 100 feet, then it's conditional use. We do that in waterfront development district, but that's something we'll also discuss more with our consultants and so I but I just want to put that out there as a consideration, and also just for reference I didn't explain what floor area ratio was, so I'll just get back to that. But basically, it's the total gross floor area of a building, all stories included, divided by the area of a lot. So if you have a 40,000-square-foot building overall on a 10,000-square-foot lot, it's 4.0, floor area ratio 4.0. The building right across the street, Redmond-Winshell, is 4.5. And then the one where that new credit union and people credit union, I think, on State Street next to the stream, that's 5.3. So those are already above our area ratio. And we did feel like this aligns with the comprehensive plan to really encourage more housing and infill in our core urban area. So is there any feedback on that? [51:53] Edwin Brush: Yeah, I just support the effort to find alternative measures for protecting sunlight and building style or bulk of the building. I think those are important considerations. I understand it's difficult to get a measure, but I encourage the search for that. [52:16] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, that's definitely something we've mentioned, mainly in our residential areas. areas you know when it comes to building height and like making sure people aren't you know shaded out and I think we can control for that with building envelope standards. So you know if you're within a certain distance of the property line your height is lower, and then you would gradually increase as you go in. It's kind of like what we do now, but the standards might be tweaked a little bit downtown. I think it's harder because it is meant to be such an intense the densest commercial zone but it's definitely something that we can ask the consultants about, like you know are there design standards we could use that would protect sunlight more in downtown [53:06] Patricia Hayes: I'll just add a comment in that regard. I did live downtown for a year, and there are parts of downtown that get very little sun, especially depending on which side of the building that you're on, but get very little sun in the winter because the sun's so low in the sky. And it comes up in the county building as the county offices block it until it gets up to a certain point. And then Haley Ward would block it when it gets just over to the other side. So I'm not sure that trying to protect that's really particularly feasible in all cases with something overarching like this. So I'm in favor of making the changes just to promote, again, more infill, more housing. [53:51] Jonathan Boucher: Require giant mirrors on the side of buildings. Like the light back down, not great for birds. Yeah, you talked about conditional use for height, and I wondered if talking about if there's a way to put conditional use into this so that we'd still have an opportunity to discuss, like have some grounds to discuss it if it was a fringe case, saying no requirements is probably fine, but maybe still putting some guardrail against a condition, like a scenario that would really not, wouldn't go against this. I think we wouldn't necessarily on its face be against the requirement in the code, but would potentially be something that we wouldn't want to approve, but I guess we'd have other avenues to review that site plan review. Are you saying [54:58] Speaker C (unidentified): for this change currently to add some provision and preconditional use, so will you remind me [55:04] Jonathan Boucher: what the standard is right now what the percentage is it 0.4 it's 4.0 is 4.0 [Edwin Brush: area ratio, so] I wouldn't say anything that's below 4.0, I would say anything that's below and then some strange number that's very low, or if that makes sense, or very high. So you're saying [55:27] Speaker C (unidentified): keep the four area ratio but make it so that if you go above that it's a conditional use [55:36] Jonathan Boucher: Yeah, I don't know if it's, what if that's worth considering, if you feel like that still gives us a sum parameters or like a avenue to, do you think that it might be better to do like [55:53] Speaker C (unidentified): do a preliminary like a height limit and then say like I mentioned if you're over 100 feet, or are you more concerned with other aspects of what the four area ratio controls? I'd have to [56:04] Jonathan Boucher: like understand like the scenario a little bit better, it's hard to envision when it would become a problem. It might be nice to see a couple examples of the ones that are not in compliance today that we're looking to, you mentioned the one across the street, yeah, and the [56:26] Speaker C (unidentified): Sixth State Street, where Goldman's office is, already, you know where that is, so it's like right across from Baymore Savings Bank down on Stage, okay, yeah, just [56:41] Jonathan Boucher: putting it out there. If we were thinking about conditional use, I know we don't want to perpetuate conditional uses because it creates uncertainty for developers, I would assume. But just adding it to the conversation. Any other conversation on this item? [57:07] Speaker C (unidentified): Is there a consensus? Like, how do we feel about what Jonathan has said? Does anybody else feel that way? [57:21] Speaker H (unidentified): Crickets. I think I would mostly be kind of second what the vice chair said, I up is the way to go in a lot of these building scenarios downtown, people are really good at kind of coming in with these knee-jerk reactions of, you know, throwing a word around like skyscraper, I think skyscraper, I think 40 floors or more, you know, I think the Empire State Building or the Sears Tower, or I was in Kansas City before I moved here and there was one skyscraper in downtown Kansas City and that was pretty much it, you know, I don't think anyone in Maine, let alone Bangor, is thinking more than 10 stories, you know, at most, and even that I would be surprised to see, but I think that is the way to go with housing, especially in a downtown area. Anybody [58:29] Speaker C (unidentified): else want to chime in? All right. I'm getting the feeling that maybe overall we're good with making this change right now, and then when we do the whole land development code update, we'll have more guardrails around building form and things like that. Is everyone good with that? And I will note, Jonathan, if it makes you feel any better, we do have historic preservation protections for much of downtown, so well, that's right, they do have purview over that and that'll, that will control a lot of the building form for much of downtown, so, given that, I will plan to bring this to your October 20th meeting for the formal public hearing, thank [59:28] Jonathan Boucher: you. Our next item was just general thoughts on the land development [59:32] Speaker C (unidentified): code update and land use planning. Yeah, so I kind of mentioned like a few parts of the new code already, we are still in the midst of working with our consultants on review, it's been really tough, October is a crazy month, it's been really tough working with everyone scheduled to get those meetings, but we have a lot scheduled for October to review the code, the consultants are optimistic that like we'll finish up by mid-November, maybe early November, and having a public draft out by early next year. So we'll see there's still a lot of mapping work that also needs to be done. I haven't had a chance quite yet to finish the reviewing the whole new zoning map. And we also have to look at there's in the airport area. The airport has consultants that are working on a potential airport overlay district that would restrict uses around the airport. So that's another moving piece. And then we have to look at, you know, wetlands and resource protection areas and things like that. So there's a lot of different irons in the fire with the code. So any [1:00:53] Jonathan Boucher: any dates coming up look forward to can't give you a specific date yet so sorry any other questions or comments from the board we do have a document to sign [1:01:09] Speaker C (unidentified): there should be findings and then the subdivision plans you reviewed tonight [1:01:13] Patricia Hayes: so very good and remember Jonas I just want to confirm I think everybody was copying on but we've decided we're not going to have a meeting on election day right okay so right yeah [1:01:24] Jonathan Boucher: but we will have another meeting in October provided there is enough material to review yes there will definitely be a meeting on October 20th so 10 20th will be our next [1:01:36] Speaker C (unidentified): meeting I'm not sure that I got that email about election day yeah oh I'm sorry I think I was just emailing Janet so yes you will not have a meeting on election day you just have one meeting in [1:01:48] Jonathan Boucher: November. Perfect. It's on Thanksgiving. [1:01:51] Speaker C (unidentified): November 15th, I think.