Easy. >> What? What? >> Right. And then >> it just started this weekend, right? >> Good so far. >> Yeah. >> Going on trips. >> We're going to the Outer Banks Saturday. >> Yeah. >> Should be fun. >> Should the daughter graduate? >> No, she has one more year. >> She's a senior. >> No, she's a junior. Yep. One more year. Yours is two two. Oh, >> so she was a freshman. >> You got a long way to go. >> Well, and I have a four-year-old. >> Yeah, I know. So, you got forever. Exactly. That's what I meant. Like your >> And Iris was so good that like the time just on a date with my son. >> All right. I >> could have warned you. My oldest is is a boy. >> All right. Mike's on it. That says 6:30. My wife. But we're good. Mic's on everybody. Let's get rolling. All right. Welcome everybody to this planning board meeting Wednesday, June 17th. Uh first up on our on our uh agenda is a roll call. Tonight we have Ashley Case, we've got Michael Castello, we got Jud Macintosh, myself, Phil Ruck, we've got Lisa Buck, we've got Bob Bear, we've got Christa Schwinser on the end. Uh next up is acceptance of the agenda. Can I get a motion? >> So moved. Good. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> I do want to add a discussion item. There's two things, two changes I want to make. Uh add a discussion item item 5B. Uh just to talk about applications process, couple things. And then I'd also like to uh for we have four uh applications before us. The last two are relatively simple. A lot of times we try to accommodate uh people so they don't have to sit here for a long time uh to have their applications heard. So I did speak with uh the applicants representative for our first hearing and he did not have an issue with that and I'm hoping Sebago Technics will be uh understanding as well. But I would like to bump C and D switch them with A and B if anybody has an issue with that. Any any issues? >> No. >> All right. >> Which one officially goes first? >> Uh we're doing C first. >> Okay. >> And D second and then A and then B. All right. So, uh no issues with that amended agenda and the discussion item. Uh all those in favor and opposed. Good. Next up, uh, approval of the May 20th, 2026 planning board meeting minutes. Can I get a motion? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> Thank you. Uh, any comments, edits? Anybody? Any edits? Addie. Stellar. Stellar. Any other comments? All right. Thank you. Uh, no edits. All those in favor? We're good, man. We're rolling now. Uh, next up, new business. Again, we're going to bump uh item C, the minor site plan application extension request of Unatil. Submitted is Bangor Natural Gas for the installation of a natural gas pressure regulation station located at 19 College AB, tax map 19-4, lot 67 and the MDR zoning district. Uh recall that this was approved previously on July July 19th, 2023. Do I have an applicant's representative here? Somebody Yeah. Can you tell us? >> Yeah. Sorry about that. Ryan Rancort, principal gas engineer with Unatil, previously Bangor Gas. >> Uh thank you for having us here tonight. >> Could you I don't know. Prop that mic up a little bit. We're having a hard time hearing you. >> How's this? >> Ah, perfect. >> All right. >> You want me to start over? >> Keep going. >> Okay. Uh, thanks for having us here tonight. Uh, as you stated, we uh, have a site plan that's been approved previously back in July of 2023 at 19 College Avenue. Our company's been waiting the decision from the main superior court since that time. And with that, we haven't been afforded the opportunity to construct the natural gas rag station at 19 College Avenue. Uh just recently on June 2nd of this year. Uh so just a few weeks ago, they approved uh the planning board's decision to move forward with the construction of that site. So they denied the appeal that was raised by the neighboring properties. And uh given the short time frame, we're not going to have the time within the next month to start construction on that project. We're going to need time to uh set up resources to construct and gather materials and we won't be able to start on that until next year. So, we're here to formally request an extension of just one year uh to extend our approved site approval uh that was approved back in 2023. >> Very good. Thank you. Do you have anything to add, staff? Now you're on both sides. Get a help. >> No. Uh this falls in line with um it's up to the board's decision to grant the extension. Uh nothing has changed from the application. So uh just a mere uh administrative extension. >> Okay. Again, so this is we uh is this a public hearing as well? I just want to make sure. Is this administrative? Is this us or we do we have to open it up? I'm going to allow public comment because if we don't know that answer that's something okay just for future reference that's what we're going to discuss at the end but I just want to make real clear what what our task is you know this evening or any evening so we're going to open it up for public comment in a minute and allow that allow you folks if you want a chance to speak but any questions uh from the board you recall uh in the past that this is a critical infrastruure ructure uh utilities uh just have a little bit more flexibility. Uh we discussed this at length and it was approved uh and then appealed and as you heard that apparently has been resolved. So uh that's what be is before us. Any any questions from what we've heard? Yeah. I mean clearly he can't start construction while under a lawsuit. >> Agreed. I mean nothing's changed from our perspective and >> No, >> you can't move forward. >> No. >> Makes >> Yeah. Okay. All right. Any other comments, questions? I'm going to open up the public hearing, invite folks uh to come up to the uh lectern over there and tell us who you are and if you have comments. >> Thank you. You >> Hello. Uh Pac Wells 23 College A. Uh quick question for the chair if I may. Uh I know that there's some new bylaws. I was just wondering how much time I have. I'm not going to take too much time, but I just wanted to know if you're going to be timing this. Yeah, five minutes. >> Okay, perfect. Um, so there there is one new issue with this. Um the it is true that uh I was one of the appellets and the court ruled uh in uh Unatel's favor but uh the justification for that was that the uh the initial issue was that the lot was non-conforming and the reason that the the court allowed that was because they uh that lot had a principal use which was the garage. So you can expand that not non-conforming um use right and that got past some u uh some issues with the actual lot size now in the meantime what has happened is uh bank natural gas/ last unitil bought that property 19 college aav in uh 2024 I believe and then they evicted that garage uh murice uh I believe it was June 1st was when Maurice left so that's about two years uh ago. And the u I can cite the code if we want to go through that. I got about a page here. Won't take long to read it. But the short version is the code says that um if a property is non-conforming, if it has an abandoned building and it's not being used for business, then it defaults back to a conforming use. And that lot is an MDR lot. So it's a residential lot. Now we now must look at that uh property in this site plan as a conforming lot because of that new change in situation. uh there is a uh dimensional lot uh provision which says that for a uh for an essential service building right this is non-essential service the essential services the pipelines and things like that this is a building in that building um uh unitil natural gas they said that their footprint is uh 2200 square feet the uh actual code and they said okay we meet the dimensional zoning standards. But the actual code uh says that uh there's a footnote 10 in section 18106 and it commands that the lot requirement for an essential service building shall be a maximum area of 2500 ft². So that's the lot size, not the not the footprint. The footprint that they're talking about is the fenced in accessory structure um and and the gravel. Now the actual lot size is a 0.52 acre lot and that's going to be around um uh 22,651 square feet. So they're about that lot size is 20,000 uh square feet too large for that use. Uh and so for that reason and again I can go into detail if there's any questions but uh for that reason uh you should vote no on this because of this change in circumstances. The only other thing I'll add is that they can't amend that. Uh this this board uh does not have jurisdiction over zoning waiverss. So they would actually have to go back to the zoning board of appeals, get that uh get a variance for that, and then they would have to come back and and reapply. So >> very good. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Appreciate it. I'm going to uh defer to town staff on this one. As far as uh process, I'm not aware of any changes. Uh there's no physical changes on this. They're asking for an extension. We've done these before. I'm not aware and I'm going to wait for you folks to confirm to us that there's no changes. He made a contention about his interpretation of the ordinance, but that's what you guys get paid to do. So, what what are your thoughts on that? >> Uh the thoughts are we are not aware of any changes. If there are changes, they would have to come back to the planning board u to make those changes. Mhm. >> Um but the extension and the changes are um in our opinion independent. >> Mhm. >> So, >> okay. So, you don't see any issues, any uh change of use with the structure? As far as I know, that's the exact same project we reviewed before. So, I'm not quite sure why review standards would change. That seems odd to me because I'm I'm thinking about like grandfathering and, you know, something that was approved before. You can't keep moving goalposts. So that's something that that concern concerns me a little bit. >> Okay. So do we have any, you know, other comments on that? Town staff doesn't have any issues. >> I mean, go ahead. >> No, I don't have it. >> Uh, so his point was that after a two-year period, if you're not continuing that non-conforming use, that it now must conform. Is that true? >> Okay. But our ca our contention here is that because this is the same thing we saw before. It's not pertinent. >> That's okay. >> Yeah. I'm not sure that you can change the goalpost in the middle of an application. It's a pending. Well, this one is a pending application. We had an approved project that the timeline is going to run out. >> Agreed. Clearly, they didn't have any opportunity to build this because of the the pending legal action. So, here we are. >> And and wouldn't that use the approval of that use extend through the entire period of the approval, which doesn't end until gosh, >> the 17th, I think, July, >> right? So, that two-year period would then start >> because you can't change that. Yeah. >> That is that's how I would understand it potentially. >> Okay. Good point. Yep. Other comments on that? All right. Other members of the public, do you want to come up and say? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Sorry. I uh I just wanted to have a chance to clarify a little bit of what I was saying and and yes, um uh you you're you're correct that the they did not change the plan, but it's the change in use of the building because that building is vacant. Uh under chapter 18 article 3 of the orno code if grandfathered non-conforming use is discontinued or abandoned for a period of 12 consecutive months is protected status uh permanently expires. So, so that's in the code. And then as far as my uh I did some research on this and and uh I could try to find it, but my understanding is that uh what I have a note here that section 1877 uh you're supposed to review this as the as as the current standing. Right? So, if there wasn't this change in circumstance and that building was still non-conforming, they would be able to build because it had uh they were borrowing from that principal principal use. So that's that's the only change. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. I do want to just mention this. So it is an interesting question. We need to make sure that the town is is uh covered for this instance. So I'm a little curious. It doesn't make sense to me that I agree with your setup. He has an existing or they have an existing permit that expires when you know that that statute. So currently they're they're compliant and we would be extending that within the current approval. So logic to me would seem like this, you know, that that we can't move the goalpost. But just my sense if we have concern on that, you know, what I'm wondering is because that deadline's coming up so quickly if we uh even tabled this so that we could either have staff confirmation or, you know, talk to our town attorney, whatever, uh to confirm his uh Mr. spacing's contention then I don't know how that would affect the the timing of all this cuz I certainly want to make sure that a complete you know that they wouldn't have to come in reapply and do everything all over again for something that we already >> I would imagine that the the real distinction here depends on the definition of use right so is use active usage or is use you've been permitted for this thing that's on hold but you're still permitted it, right? Like, so I'm I'm wondering you you would want to talk to the town attorney for sure, but >> the way I would define use probably in this circumstance would be, you know, they were approved for this thing. That use is paused, but it still extends through the period of pause is kind of how I would potentially interpret it. >> I'm just thinking of timing. So we have two years approved by the board on July 19th 2023 whatever the the timing is. I just want to three years. Okay. So I mean July 19th so tenatively we might not have our next meeting till it would be probably after that. So I'm not that would be pushing up a timeline. So I don't know I I don't know have memorized that procedure to know that we could bump them a month without causing undue hardship for what happens in July. Do you follow me? >> Could we potentially ext like vote whether or not to extend on the condition of town and attorney approval of >> There we go. >> So >> yeah. Oh, that's interesting. Okay. Conditional approval. That's something obviously we do all the time. >> Very good. >> Yeah. >> Phil, out of curiosity, can you reiterate what the what the deadline is, that date that it >> uh we approved it on July 19th, 2023. So 3 years from there. >> I wanted to verify in my calendar what the third meeting was. Our meeting would be July 15th. >> Yep. Uh >> technically speaking, it is an option to wait till the next meeting, but that is prerogative. >> I prefer the conditional approach. >> I think that's all right. Uh other members of the public, please step up. >> Hello everyone. My name is Pip Hansen from Two University Place. I am an appellent alongside Pac um on the approval that you pushed through in 2023. And I would just like to bring it to the attention of the planning board that we did not receive a notification of this meeting which I believe is legally as a property that abuts the property in question. It is a legal requirement and this is not the first time that the town has failed to notify abutters of this property in regards to this matter of meetings that we have the opportunity to attend. So, I'd like to bring that to the attention because I think that's a big failure on the part of the town to allow us the proper and correct path to bring up concerns about this building and this project. That's all I have to say. >> Very good. Um, staff, when did a Butters notices go out? >> That would have been two weeks ago now. and I um I would have been the one to send them out. We did have a couple get sent back because they weren't deliverable. So, I can check and see, but um I did make sure to include them in this parcel map. So, I'm sorry to hear that. >> Public notice is a really important part of this process. We take that very seriously and we've been trying to improve our our notices over time. It's not always a foolproof system. Uh, we have I understand that. Yep, I understand that. I'm just saying it's not a foolproof system. So, a butter's notices went out if one was returned and not able to be deliverable. I don't have an answer for that. But again, we we try our best to do that. So, that's all I can tell you. Other members of the public, please step up. I'm Adam Nagna. I'm also a resident of two University Place. I can attest that uh we also did not again my wife Pip Hansen. Um we also did not receive uh a notification of this. Um we heard from our neighbors who are also equally concerned about about this issue. So the the the cards definitely made it to at least parts of University Place, but for some reason they didn't make it to actually the places to where um where those who were part of the of the suit. Um so to me that's a that's a big concern. Again, as as Pip pointed out, this is not the first time that this has been an issue. This can go I can this so this goes back to where we've had these concerns. We've liked to have the ability to res like to basically voice our opinions to the planning board, but that hasn't always been the case where we can either ourselves or our neighbors have been able to do that. So, the reason that we're coming across again and again about this is that we feel that our voice has not necessarily been heard about the concerns that we have around around the the the the the structure that is being proposed. Right? So yes, you keep going back to this uh you know this approval back which is close to three years ago, but I would argue that that that really the public has not had the full ability to weigh in around those concerns. Um so I I again ask that you consider again you can say yes you're trying your best but when it actually affects people on the ground in the town of Orno who are really um trusting in that our government's working as it's supposed to right and are very sort of strong supporters overall of what the town is trying to do that this is where things fall over that we feel that our voice cannot be heard and our ability to actually respond to that um is is is in a way being ignored. Right. So, it's very interesting that that at least two people pace and I'm not sure if if you received the card or not as well. You did. So, again, so then that's that's the case. For some reason, the ones who's basically are most immediately impacted where if you look at the plans, they're essentially this this structure is going to be really in our backyard within um 10 to 20 ft of of of where my son plays, right? If we don't actually have the notification, have to rely on our neighbors and not the town to respond. That's something that the town needs to do to do better. So, thank you. >> Agreed. All right. Any others? Uh, Mr. Can you please wait? Are there any others that would like to speak? Anybody online? Mitch, anybody online? Oh, there you are. Oh, you're online. Okay. >> Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Yeah. Really quick, just uh as far as the buttercards, uh I I did receive one, but we as uh Mr. Dagnola has said, we've had issues with that. Um last time there was just discrepancy with the mailing list from the town. Uh so in this case it'd be really helpful if you could publish that mailing list to the materials folder and then we could just check that out you know just cross reference um and and so that that would be very helpful. I could always request it but again if you could just publish that as a matter of due diligence for us that would be awesome. Uh the the only other thing uh I did find the statute for uh zoning uh specifically. So it's a main state allowed title 30A uh section 4353. Uh the only municipal body with the statutory authority to wave alter grant relief from a strict dimensional zoning requirement is the zoning board of appeals uh via a formal dimensional variance. So >> thank you. Thank you. >> Very good. Any any other comments? So the meeting in 2023 was a site approval process. The neighbors who are bought this were never given any chance to talk about their concerns with the actual project. There are environmental and public health concerns in regards to >> I'm going to disagree with that. There was ample time to discuss environment. We were told I was we were online for that meeting. We weren't actually in RNO at the time and we were told that this was not the time or place to talk about our public health concerns in regards to it was that the meeting was focused on the site plan review and any comments we had to make had to be in regards to building size, building structure, but not about what it actually means for public health to have a natural gas compressing station in a neighborhood where kids play. in a neighborhood where we want to live our lives without the risks of the emissions that come from these stations. >> Yeah. Emissions. We talked about uh hazardous waste issues in the existing building, making sure that the new construction wouldn't impact those and result in issues for the town. We did talk about safety issues, traffic issues with students driving on college a we we had lengthy discussion. There were not comments if I recall others can can weigh in as well. I I do not remember comments at that meeting about public health. Limiting comments like that would not be coming from the board. Okay. If it's not appropriate, there's certain things that are not uh under our purview. We can't talk about property values, those kinds of things. That's not a re review criteria. that we we listen to people with almost every other concern unless it's something that we're not allowed to to consider during our deliberation. >> There's no question. >> Well, I'm just saying that there was lengthy discussion that evening about a variety of issues and that didn't come up. If those issues don't come up, then >> I disagree with that because we have all met as neighbors and have all felt that we were stifled in our ability to express our concerns about the public health, especially in regarding people who will be living right next door to this thing. >> Mhm. >> And I would like to ask you all personally, if this was proposed for your backyard where your kids, your grandkids play, would you say, "Yeah, that's fine. Go ahead and build it." >> I work next to it every day. and you don't have concerns. I I am immunosuppressed. I have high respiratory risks and I'm basically being told that this thing's going to be built in my backyard and potentially cause me even more health issues. And I think it's highly inappropriate that the town just decided to push it through because it's considered critical infrastructure from a company that is not even owned. >> We didn't decide to push I I want to push back because what you're saying is not accurate. We didn't decide to push through. This board deliberates on the rules that are set by the town council. We don't make the rules. We just make sure applicants try to to follow them. When public makes comment, we try to listen to those comments and come up with solutions as best we can. But we're limited by the ordinance. So, we didn't push anything through. The project met the standards of the town. We talked about all the review criteria. We did not ignore comments. This board I don't remember a time when we were we limited discussion specifically a public health concern. That's just not how we operate. So we did allow uh quite a bit of conversation. We we followed the town process. This was uh apparently there was a lawsuit for this and what I just heard this evening that uh that that that lawsuit didn't didn't move forward and we followed the correct process. We we take that very seriously and we we like it when public, you know, come to to talk about stuff, but to say that it was pushed through that that's not accurate. >> That's great. >> So, I understand your I understand your health concerns and I appreciate those. >> All right. Uh last call for public comment. All right. I'm going to close the public hearing and limit discussion to the board. So, we've got a couple things now timing wise. So, we we talked about uh extension of the the deadline uh potentially and then with a perhaps a condition of approval. But, you know, I want others thoughts on this. How how would you like to proceed? Maddie said that our meeting technically would be before the expiration. So, that is an option that we could push to another public hearing if we wanted to table it and get confirmation before that meeting from town staff and perhaps our our town attorney, but I want to understand uh what you folks think. >> Uh I agree with Ashley that um we should uh vote for the extension um with a condition that it's approved by the town lawyer um just because you know like if there's no electricity on the night we're supposed to meet, you know, something like that. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, Lisa. >> I'm going to start down here. What do you think? >> You've already said your piece. >> Yeah. >> Okay, Michael. >> I I She came up with the best solution possible. >> Good. >> Yeah, I agree. It's critical infrastructure. It's needed, you know. So, Yep. >> Uh Bob, what do you think? I need approval, but I certainly think that the town attorney needs to be consulted. >> Right. Uh Christa, >> okay. All right. I I appreciate the discussion. Again, it's it's a tough one. Critical infrastructure needs to be located where it can serve the town. It is. And again, that that's why there's that provision because it's not not always the easiest solution, but we approved this application based on the information submitted that they needed to put uh that station there and and it followed all the the rules of the town. So, given that uh do we have this is just an extension. I don't think I Yeah, I do. >> Yeah. Oh, there we go. Uh all right. So, we we've heard some any, you know, some uh comment tonight. We've discussed that. Any other questions, comments before we move ahead? >> All right. Uh I think I'm ready for a motion. >> Okay, I'll try. I move to approve the one-year extension of a minor site plan review application of Unatil Natural Gas Regular Station located at 19 College A. tax map 19-004 lot 67 from July 19th 2026 to July 19th 2027 per the findings of fact dated June 17 2026 subject to the following conditions that uh the town lawyer take a look at the issue that was raised by the public tonight about um about whether this is going to be okay to A little bit more definition there. I'm just saying uh >> you want me to just >> Yeah. >> Town lawyer concurs that this conforms with the town ordinance. >> Yeah, that's good. >> And that this didn't turn into a non-conforming lot over this paused period of time. >> Very good. What Lisa said with Jud's comment too. Uh thank you both of you. So we have a motion. Do I have a second? >> I'll second that. >> Very good. Further discussion. All those in favor? Very good. Thank you. Uh moving on to the next one. Again, D is now our second uh application. So, where's There we go. All right. Next up is a minor site plan review application of Lewis, pardon my uh pronunciation, Mel Madrona and Barbara Barbara Manguy Main. I apologize. uh to reclassify the previously approved home occupation application, home psychiatry office to an application for an office within the existing structure at 292 Main Street, tax map 31-1, lot 60 in the MDR, Main Street, Overlay District Office. That doesn't make sense. All right. Uh do we have an applicant here? Could you step up to the the mic and tell us who you are and what you propose, please? So, uh, I'm Lewis Melmadrona. This is Barbara Mangi. And we live at 288 Main Street. And, um, we are proposing to let go of our office in Bangor. and um use the first floor of 292 um Main Street as our office. Um it's actually we mostly do teleike, but we have a few in-person clients that come and um we'd like to be able to have a short commute and when when it's convenient for us, see a couple people here or there. Um, I work full-time for Aadia, so I don't see very many private patients. And, um, Barbara's practice is also small, so we don't believe it would, um, take up much it would it would bother the neighborhood very much. Um, and go ahead. >> Um, and we own both the buildings. >> We own 288 and we bought 292. And then we want to put our office in the basement of 292. So we applied at a previous meeting as a home a home business. And now I understand that the adjustment is to make it a business in the house next door adjacent >> adjacent >> and adjacent. >> Okay. >> And we we plan to um second rent the second and third floor uh once we finish renovations which hopefully will be very soon. Very good. Thank you. Town staff have anything to add? Again, just clarify. We approved something before and you said there's a change in occupation. Just please add anything you can to what they just told us. >> Yeah, at the end of the day, the goal is to have them have their business. Uh the previous application, there was a little bit of confusion on who lived where. I think the the fact they own both properties. So, under our ordinances, um, the homestead had to be owner occupied. Um, but we did some further investigation and found that they are actually in the main street overlay, which allows for office space as long as there's uh residential on the property uh, but does not require uh, owner occupied. So, this time their application checks every box. >> Thank you. >> All right. before we open up for public hearing. This is one of those. Yes. Number seven, water supply. >> Could you turn your microphone on, please? >> Oops. Is Is your microphone on, Christa? >> Sorry about that. Okay, we're on page two of the findings of fact. And we have arrived at number seven, water supply and sewage disposal. Uh here I propose that instead of saying the home is located, it should say building or structure whichever we like and then um is located on public water and sewer. the addition of the business. Let's put bis scratch out home occupation as it's no longer a home occupation and put business instead can meet capacity. >> Good catch. >> Y >> very good. >> Thank you. >> Very good. Again, this this is one of those uh they're not changing anything outside. is not a lot different from what we saw before other than where people are living. I did have a question on signage. So this is just one of the items. So any signage proposed? So that's just if not no signage is proposed now, but they might have signage. Is that how you understand it? And as long as they they run it by code that covers them. Okay. I really don't have anything on this. Any any other comments? >> It's the same except for the categorization. >> Yep. >> Yep. >> All right. I'm going to open up the public hearing. Invite anybody to step up to the mic. All right. Uh, anybody online? >> Last call. Close the public hearing. Uh, I think we're ready for a motion unless there's any further discussion. Right. You want it? >> Yeah, I can read this. Okay. I move to approve the minor site plan review application of Dr. Lewis Miladrona and Barbara Jane Main Guy to establish a professional office within the existing structures at 292 Main Street, tax map 31-001, lot 60 per the findings of fact dated June 17, 2026. Subject to the following conditions. Uh, we talked about the there's standard conditions and the unique conditions. One would be the signage issue. >> Mhm. >> Um, >> I think we can just refer to >> Yeah, >> sorry. With public hearing if you're going to So, if you had proposed signage before, good enough. Okay. >> Yeah, >> we did propose signage before. Just a little sign. And so we're fine. >> Okay. You know, it's what is it? Two square feet >> something. >> Two by one. >> Yeah. >> Something like that. Whatever it amounts to. >> Yeah. >> You'll have to run it by code enforcement. >> Sure. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> Cuz the flashing neon might be something that >> Yeah. >> Yeah. No, I think what was it? No phone numbers. You can have the name of the business, but there's you can't put much on the sign. So, work with them. They know what they're doing. All right. Uh, so we had that. You read everything. So, we got a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> Did we I don't I don't think the motion included number seven, water supply and sewage disposal change. >> Change. Yeah. >> Oh, the thing about Christa said, >> thank you, Ashley. Man, you're you're right on the ball today. Uh, yeah. So we have a a motion. We need to amend that to >> I would like to amen a amend the motion to include changes to number seven water supply and sewage disposal section 18-7 177 K and J to say the structures located on public water and sewer and the addition of the business instead of home occupation can meet capacity. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh any further discussion? And that's the amended motion. All those in favor? Very good. >> Oh, there wasn't a second to that motion. >> Second. I did second. Okay, good. >> That's so y. >> All right, moving on. Number three used to be number one. Uh, now it is a final major subdivision review application of S-class Homes, Inc. Uh Shane Rogers, authorized agent AE Hodson Consulting Engineers for the construction of a 15unit clustered subdivision located at 76 Kelly Road, Tax Map 30, lot 17 in the MDR zoning district. I have the applicant's representative step up and tell us what you propose >> there. Good evening. Um, my name is Jeff Allen from AE Hudson Engineers and uh, at the last meeting in April, we presented most of the information about this. Uh, at I can go through that briefly because Mr. Rock wasn't at the meeting and so I could give you a little twominut summary. >> Yeah, the only Yeah. Okay, go right ahead. That'd be great. Thank you, Jeff. Um this is at 76 Kelly Road and we're proposing a cluster subdivision. Uh the overall property is around 8 1/2 acres and we're proposing to and there's an existing um farmhouse, an old farmhouse there. Uh we're proposing to add seven new duplexes to create a total of 15 uh dwelling units on in this cluster. I think the zoning would allow us up to 17 uh units in this area, but this is what we wanted to do. Um it'll have city water uh because we're going to extend the water line from there's a hydrant right across the street from the farmhouse. Pull that over. Uh we'll probably have to put in a pump station to increase the pressure of the the uh water for the lots because they're they continue to go uphill. And uh there'll be a com common septic systems that's been designed by David Moyes of Moyes Environmental in Bangor. The um storm water has been reviewed. It's we're under an acre of new storm water. So only uh local permitting is necessary for this. It doesn't uh go to anything that D would be involved in. uh wetlands have been mapped and so we're uh not disturbing any wetlands. In fact, we're able to maintain us at least a 75 ft setback from the wetlands. The um only remaining issue that we had last meeting was u the board requested that we put in a series of um trees blocking the view of the units from the uh northern light clinic area. that's uh just to the west of us here. So, um we've revised the site plan to include that and uh they the board also asked if we could put all of our changes into one document. We've done that and submitted that to the city and I believe you have copies of that as well. So, I that's it in a nutshell. If I'd be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you. The town staff have anything to add to that? No, I concur. Concur what they have added. The plan includes all the additions over the last couple uh proposals. So, we're good to go on on our side. >> Okay. Got a couple questions. So, I just I you had addressed it when you gave me the summary because I flagged the septic systems. >> Yes. >> You said septic systems would be provided uh later in the process >> before Yeah. Before we do the actual construction, we'll provide the HH 200 forms that you need for the septic systems, right? >> But what our intent is is to have two septic systems. One serving sort of the back units and another serving the front units, right? >> Um due to their locations, we'll probably have to we'll have individual septic systems from each building >> and then go to a common pump system to pump out to the individual. You you mentioned moist environmental. >> Yes. >> Have they done the designs or they're going to do the designs? My question >> is whether there's suitable soils. I'm guessing there probably is, but >> there's no mention of that. >> So normally, and you've been before us several times, >> and for town staff, >> this is one of those things that I want to discuss later that >> normally septic designs, this is something that's resolved during the application. So, usually we're not going to see a lot of stuff after the fact because there just wasn't much of a mention of, you know, say you have suitable soils cuz to approve a project and then go design septics after and not know you have soils, that's that's not a good way to go, >> right? I agree. Moist has been on site and has found suitable soils and they've done preliminary designs. >> Okay. >> So, they're just not not final HH2 200 level designs. So they they have have completed preliminary designs. >> Okay, that's I just need to know you have suitable soils and we're not approving a project that can't get septic. >> Yep. >> Good. Uh so understand there's a condition in the uh the recommendation or the the findings of fact that talks about you know getting that septic design uh before things are built. So that covers that issue that I wanted to talk about. I remember a discussion a while back and I think we saw this on sketch plan because this was familiar. >> Yeah, this was in December of 24 so it's really reaching back there. >> We had a discussion there and I didn't see it mentioned and I was scratching my brain trying to recall exactly how we addressed it. >> But do you remember the connectivity issue? Like I don't know. >> We talked about it when you came in last time. >> Okay. >> Y >> fill me in please. I'm just curious because and I I know it's called a driveway and it's a private road and is that the reason that we don't need or we're not pursuing connectivity? >> We I'm just curious. >> Yeah, we did include sidewalks here along the along the project road. Uh and they go all the way out to uh Kelly Road. >> Okay. I'm talking about for future development. >> Yeah. We've always had that right of way so that if there's future development, this town doesn't or we're not hamstrung by a series of deadend culde-sacs or just, you know, dead end roads everywhere. Oh. So, it's always reserving a right of way to an adjacent parcel because again, you remember, >> isn't this the location where that plan with like multi-ousing people have been on the board for a while? a while back there was all kinds of stuff going there and there was connectivity through to that back parcel. >> They would have all been connected on the high upper end. Yeah. On the north end, >> right? We I do remember that discussion and um at at the meeting in April uh I think we addressed that very briefly that anything uh connectivity up beyond this would go right through the middle of a wetland. So, um, that's one reason we we stopped where we did. Um, also, uh, my client has looked at some of this land out back and doesn't believe it's developable, uh, or it would be very limited development back there. So, uh, Dave Moyes concurs with that estimation because there's there's a wetland swipe that goes right up through our property. This continues back onto the property behind us. So, we've avoided it, but it would go right through the middle of some somebody building in behind us. So we, you know, we could have a a right-of-way extension to the end of the road because it's just a paper thing. >> It's not we wouldn't be building anything in there. We wouldn't be create creating any disturbance in there. So yeah, >> if if you wanted to make a condition, for example, that we extend the sidewalk right ofway or a >> um even a road right ofway back to the end of the property, >> that would not be a problem, I don't think. >> Okay. >> Because it's just it would just be a piece it'd be dashed lines on paper. >> Yeah. We can't predict what's going on 20 years down the road. And if somebody wanted to connect and actually route traffic so we can avoid the deadend streets and we wanted the connectivity for utilities, all the stuff we've talked about in comp plan, you know, again, smart planning. This is what we've talked about in two comp plans now. So preserving that right of way, it might not seem like it's going to have any impact now, but the only thing I we you know, we're looking at the project in front of us. He's referring to what the applicant thinks about the adjacent property. I I'd defer to a wetland scientist. I don't you don't have all the wetlands mapped here. There's a tiny portion of one adjacent to your property. So, I don't know what that uh what the back side of this looks like, but we we have been consistent. We haven't seen a lot of developments, but you know, we've been asking for them. I think the other issue was that this is going to be a private road forever. >> It's never going to be >> that was the other thing. >> Exactly. Okay. >> Uh and that and then the rightway really would have to be all along the entire road. >> Yeah. >> Right. And then because they're not building it to town standards so that we could actually take it. >> So >> see that's what I was wondering too because it's called the driveway in the application. So I was wondering whether it even met standards. Yeah, >> it's going to be a single owned entity >> rentals, not a neighborhood, not individual units. >> I had forgotten that, but you are correct, sir. >> All right, Krista, I remember you brought this up because when we discussed it at sketch plan years ago, I remember you made the comment, why would we connect if it's just a smaller road? It was three years ago, but I remembered you made a comment on that and I I I listened to you then. So, what are your thoughts now? I mean, this is just something again that those of you that have been on the board longer, when the last time we had a subdivision, it's just good planning just to continue that. If this is a private road and it's not applicable, what are your thoughts? I don't want to make that call. You probably still have the same opinion you had three years ago or whenever it was. Yeah. >> I think the issue is that private roads have a way of becoming public roads with time. >> Yeah. And then there we are. >> So would you prefer the right-of-way or just again on paper, you're not building anything. It's just a right-of-way extension to the endline. That's really what we're considering. And it's just it might not happen, but it's just something that if if somebody developed in the rear, maybe they'd want to connect roads and make more efficient transportation, right? I would think that if there is a right of way made somewhere through this >> Yeah. >> on paper through this property that could be invoked in 20 years or something when somebody wants to do something and back so that that land back there isn't tied off isn't isolated that you can't get to it. So for a while this doesn't burden the applicant immediately. It's just again on paper reserving space. So I don't know it. So Christa, we'll just go down the line. Bob, what do you think? >> Okay. Uh Lisa, do you have an opinion? >> Yeah, me too. I'm for the right of way. >> Okay. >> Uh I'm easy. >> Okay. I I'm just thinking about planning it. We This is a comp plan item that we wanted to minimize the number of dead-end streets cuz >> the the whole main street all of those we we've been trying to do this so we don't have many opportunities and this this is one of them. Yeah. >> So, uh that's that's my thought. >> I get what you're saying, but we're talking about a driveway technically. So, are we going to have everybody have a rightway at the end of their driveway going forward? If somebody 20 years from now wants to use that road as a rightway, they'll deal with it on their own approach to make it a road. The city would have to acquire to take ownership of the road first. >> I think you're right, >> Ashley. >> Uh I feel like even though this is a driveway, this isn't one person's driveway. This is a driveway for what was it? 15 units. >> 14 units. >> 14 units. That's a lot of units for a drive for calling it a driveway. Um I would just prefer to reserve the right for future and you know if it never comes up and it may not then nobody's impacted but if I I don't like closing the door to future development especially when we have a housing shortage in Oro and we've talked about it the whole comp plan process. >> I' I'd prefer to just keep it as an option. >> I understand your point. However, if uh if you extend the rightaway up there, do we then need to have a rightaway along this driveway? >> That was my next that was my next discussion is that there's >> how does that affect >> y >> the cluster subdivision? >> Uh I don't I don't have this is a unique situation. I don't have an answer to that right off hand. >> Yeah. The other thing is is we are we've maxed out development on this property. Essentially, we're de developing 15 out of 17 possible units within the cluster subdivision regulations. So, the likelihood that we're going to try to add more on our property um seems seems remote. If in the future if someone wanted to extend the road there, they you know, I believe Mr. Rogers would allow them to have discussion about acquiring a right of way across the property. You know, perhaps in in tradeoff for maintaining his driveway. >> I don't know. There's a tough, >> you know, I'm not sure if this is um you know, if this were a conventional subdivision, I get it. I you know we could extend it on paper with no no problem that you know because the paper street is doesn't cost anything if it were um I'm not sure how it affects the um it would change the usability numbers because of the calculation that allows you to do a a cluster subdivision takes out the area that's reserved for roads. So that would trickle back through all the calculations >> um because you're required to have so much usable space left over. We exceed that by a bunch, but it through the calculation that Maddie was very gracious to help us with in the first place. I want I do want to give her credit again. Uh it would be difficult. Well, I mean, we could recreate it, but do we need to go back and redo all of the calculations to prove we're still able to have 15 units? I I think that would be not difficult to do, but it's just a separate question. >> Yeah, this is unique because the other instances where we've uh required this, they have not been clustered subdivisions. >> They they've been actually neighborhoods like they've been subdivision. This isn't really even a subdivision. This is a >> It is. >> Is it a cluster subdivision? >> It's a I think that's technically it, but most of these are I'm putting in the subdivision with 20 lots or 15 lots. Yeah. >> And it's going to be a town road. >> This is a single entity, a single piece of property. Um, I think there's a road like that over in in uh is it Bradley or Milford and it's a private road and it was so bad this past winter that they were asked begging the town to take it over >> because they couldn't get through. >> So, I mean, we're >> we could there are a lot of private roads with several houses on all over Maine. all over. They're they're formerly camps and now they're turned into >> year- round residential homes that are being, you know, purchased on a regular basis and they're buying them because they're on a private road. >> Yeah. >> People Well, we've heard that. We heard it during comp plan public hearings and public meetings. People, you know, there's a couple side that, you know, one side that wants efficient a lot of affordable housing or just housing in general. And there's a lot of people I remember I spoke to two individuals at that meeting that love their private roads. >> Yeah. >> But it's not good planning. >> No, >> it's just the way it is. I mean, you need that connectivity, uh, looping, redundancy with utilities. There's so many benefits. You know, learn a lot in two comp plan processes, but it's just we've been trying to avoid that. I'm not sure how we pigeon hole in an extension which I I recall 50 foot rightways. >> Yeah. >> Is it possible >> rings a bell but >> is it possible to make a condition of if the right of way is ever used the town takes over the road? >> We know >> that's a >> Yeah, we would we can't commit town that they get the big bucks. >> I do the reverse. If the town ever takes over the road then we require the right of way. Oh, >> right. Because then if the town then it's all kind of solved. Town's taken the road. Now we get the right of way. Now we'll people remember that. >> Okay. >> But if it's a and this will be recorded so yeah remember it. >> So the the idea is as long as it remains a private road. >> Yeah. >> There's no right of way. But should the town take over m maintenance of the road Yeah. >> then it's a kind of a conditional right of way. Yes. >> In all your experience, I I'm just sorry to bring in, but does that sound feasible? That's an interesting solution because we This is something I don't think we thought about for cluster subdivisions, but All right. Let's Yeah, come on, Clint. Earn earned >> one of the agenda items then. I wasn't supposed to be here tonight. No. So I mean I I want you to repeat it. What's your >> Clint and town manager town that >> So what was the specific what's the specific idea? You've had a few. Which one are you honed in? >> So tell them your what the the concept would be >> if the because we you know we want the connection if it's available. So if this road were ever to come under the town's ownership, we would have to part of that deal would be we get a right of way through it. So I think there's a couple things going on here and I'm going to start with the bigger level. I think this is on the some of the complaints of what Orno set up for years for urban infill. This is kind of the definition of a cluster development. It's maximizing what the intent was. You haven't seen a lot of this so this is kind of nice to see that in a different area they're happening. I would start with that commentary. I would say as far as mandating I think I would lean more towards Mr. Allen in the comment that if there's a future project that comes forward, I think that future project developer's got to work with us. Um, the only example I have since I've been here is there's one other right ofway that seems to have value as a town road as we move forward. It was it's just there. It's a private driveway, resembles a road an awful lot. We're looking at it. Is it something we're going to do right off? It's contingent upon the developments that are happening around it. So I think it puts us in dealing with the land owners and I think the town and the council's comfortable dealing directly with land owners if back parcels end up wanting to be developed. We'll have to deal with him and others. So I mean I even if you put the rightway on what you're drawing, it's still going to require compensation. The town cannot just go in and not compensate a person for the rightway exists. You're not mandating it as a town road. That would be different. So I would say I'd lean to it's so close to a coin flip. I mean, it really, really is whether you draw it on there or not. But I do not think the planning board is in a position where you could mandate that that become a road if fer development happens because you're telling future counselors what they've got to do. And we don't know what the rules and regulations will be by the time we get there. That could be decades from now. We have a subdivision in town, as many have heard, that is well over 50 years old and is just on paper. You know, it comes up all the time. I would not want to see this turn into one of those as well. So I would say on the coin flip with a slight lean too. I think if it ever needs a rideway in the future, we can cross that bridge when we get there. But Phil, your textbook answer. Connectivity, safety, utilities, it's always a high priority. I think because it's a private drive. I lean just a little bit the other way on this one. >> But it is a tough call. I I hear you 100%. and showing it on paper. If they're willing to just show it on paper, it may be just a good future planning tool to have on there if it's nothing more than a drawing on paper. That would be my last >> little sentiment. But it's a tough call and that's why you're the planning board and I get to do my job. >> That's why we get the big bucks. I'm just saying we're earning our money tonight. Yeah. >> Yes. All right. >> Thank you. Uh All right. would be it. >> I'm just, you know, let's wrap this uh discussion up because I'm thinking again, you know, you do it now. If it's never used, great. But we would have something on paper. It's not ideal, but it would be it would prevent if there's a right of way there. He's not going to like put any site improvements or anything like that. It would just at least reserve a spot. It's got to be in the right spot. So, I'd be curious to see, you know, we don't know where those wetlands are. So where where just a right of way would make sense if we put one on paper, but I I just if it's on paper, no harm, no foul. I think it just protects us for later. It's just may make things easier down the road. >> In the in the >> prints, they show a potential future right away with dashes. >> Yeah. The condition would be you show a potential future right away on the prints with dashes avoiding the wetland to the north. >> Just try to minimize. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So I I think if we can reserve something and our condition is going to be that town staff approves this because I I don't want to look at it again. I think the town staff can handle this. >> But that makes sense. I >> my only concern would be, you know, whatever we do, I want to make sure the plan goes forward, right? So >> Oh, yeah. Prohibited in any way. I wouldn't I I I wouldn't be in favor of it. I like the idea. >> Just putting dashes on a piece of paper, right? Yeah. >> I I have no problem with putting dashes on a piece of paper and say it's potential future right away. Yes. >> And it'll just begin at the end of our road, end of our driveway. >> Yep. >> Yep. because we can't do anything else because it's Yeah. >> Yeah. So, yeah, I'm okay with that. >> Let's propose that. I want to just again if the board agrees, we'll he'll throw one on paper. 50 foot right away. Just check in what's in the ordinance for that that width and just give us something on there that might not go through a lot of wetlands on the other side. If you can try to locate it if Mr. Moyes might weigh in and and then throw that at town staff. Okay. >> We're li actually As far as investigating wetlands, we're limited to generally staying on our property. We can't look 300 feet over in the field. >> No, but if there's wet just easily accessible wetland maps, state maps or state layers. >> Well, we've we've got some identified right at the end of our road. So, I'll just hang a right. >> Yeah. >> Very good. Are we okay with that? All right. Uh I got a one more question. So, we're talking about traffic, Jeff. That was good discussion. But uh traffic uh under the planners review the proposed cluster subdivision. This is page three. Uh is anticip and not anticipated cause unreasonable highways or public road congestion given this amount of traffic. There's not a lot of uh clarity in in the report. But Jeff, I found your traffic estimates in the report and I think it was like nine trips and 12 trips or something like that, >> right? >> Confirm for us that >> what your numbers don't trigger any traffic movement permit to confirm. >> The key to trigger traffic move traffic movement permit is 100 trips. >> Yeah. >> So I'm at nine or 10 something like that. So >> on the record, good answer. Uh, >> any trips? >> Yeah, >> that's all I got. Any other questions? I think we do it. We haven't had the public hearing yet. Open up the public hearing. Invite anybody to step right up and tell us what you think. Anybody online? Nobody online. Last call. Clint, you want another chance? You're good. All right. Last call. I'll close in the public hearing. Any uh final comments. All right. I think we're ready for a motion again. And we got that condition. If I hope that makes sense. You want to take it? >> Sure, I'll take it. >> All right. You can have this one. >> I move to approve the final major site plan application of the SC Slass Homes Incorporated. uh authorized agent AE Hodson dated June 17, 2026 to complete the proposed clustered subdivision with a total of 15 units on 8.54 acre lot with a physical address being 76 Kelly Road tax map tax map 30 lot 17 per fact dated June 17, 2026 and subject to the following conditions with there being five standard and uh a total of now four unique we're going to add a ninth condition to the end which is the applicant will add to the prints a possible future 50 foot right of way to gain access to the parcels to the north of the lot. >> Very good. Thank you. J >> did you want to add something else about the septic? In other words, making sure the septic design is complete. >> I think that condition was on the list. >> Okay. >> I think so. I didn't need to change it. >> Thank you. Good question. All right. >> Second. >> Yes. Nice. Uh >> telepathy. There we go. Uh further discussion. All right, all those in favor. >> All right, moving on. Last up. Uh, thanks for your understanding there. Uh, last one today, we have a minor site plan review application of the town of Orno Police Department. Authorized agent Sobago Technics for a new police building located within the existing structure of 56 Main Street, tax map 27-2, lot 140 in the VC MDR zoning district. Do I have a applicant's representative raring to go? Uh, good evening. My name is Matthew our civil engineer with Sebago Technics here on behalf of the town of Oro Police Department. Um the application tonight uh is looking to uh relocate the police department right across the street uh to the property through the windows to all of your right um just across the street there. There was a previous bank building. Um we'll be converting the use into uh a new police station. So a lot of interior renovation work. Um exterior there are some uh minor site modifications with respect to uh realigning the parking spaces, separating our public and uh departmental uh vehicles on site. Um as well as some upgrades uh to support utilities and functions of the internal workings of the building. Um, in addition, the current overhang for the drive-thru or the old drive-thru that serviced the bank building uh will be removed and we'll be uh proposing a sally port. So, a small addition uh where uh departmental vehicles can pull in um and hose down or uh transfer of any uh personnel as a safe way to enter into the building um through a secure manner. Um otherwise we're utilizing the existing utilities that service a building. So service uh through sewer and water connection. Um we have coordinated with both of those departments. Um received their approvals as far as the flows that are anticipated. Um traffic generation through this would be much lower than a business that has a drive-thru capability. Um we're really looking at small numbers here for patrol officers. um and comingings and goings of uh public that are involved with the police department. Um otherwise, yeah, it's pretty pretty small project, but uh I do have other members here of both town as well as the police department um and Benchmark Construction who is uh overseeing the overall project. Um if there are any more questions related to operations or uh any of the workings on the interior of the building. Thank you. Uh staff, do you have anything to add? >> Uh the only one um point or question we had was the lighting design. Uh we just there were a couple lights on the outside that looked like it may not conform with our ordinances about downward facing and the lumen. So we just wanted a clarification that those lights do uh in fact meet that standard or could be replaced with lights that do. Thank you. I did catch that. I was surprised when I looked through because I normally that's that's a consideration of our our review criteria and I didn't see it mentioned until your your comment the planner's review but I I just and then I went through the review criteria in the application and I didn't see lighting mentioned. There's utilities. I just thought lighting was part of our process. But so this was another one that when we say provide the lighting diagram like as a condition of approval that like that should be submitted. I mean you you've done a lot of these it lighting diagrams go with the application typically because you need to confirm. So we're going to get it after the fact but I was just surprised that it it wasn't part of the review criteria. Did I I'm surprised by that. But either way, uh, the lighting diagram, if you're changing the lighting, I mean, I don't know about signage or anything too, but lighting diagrams, you know, we just need you have the lighting consultant just to make sure that it's not uh like any increase on that neighboring property. Yep. >> You know, the drill. It's right in the ordinance. So, >> absolutely. >> Yeah, that's all I had. Yep. Light inspection. Any other questions? Yeah. >> Yeah. And so the footprint of the building, if you include the sally port as part of the footprint, is unchanged. >> Correct. The the sally port is still within the footprint of what um the overhang of the drive-thru >> and the exterior will be kind of unchanged. Like 98% of the work here is all interior. >> Correct. Um they will be replacing the roof of the building. Um so with that some of the upper facade of the exterior on the existing structure um would have to be replaced but uh what you see today is is largely the same same material makeup. So the brick structure um up to a certain height and then it'll transition where the new roof is placed on it. >> Got it. Go ahead. Is that speaking of just design and I know I think he had an AR uh a rendering or maybe this uh I was just wondering do you have to meet Main Street overlay the uh architectural requirements as part of this? >> They're not in it. >> Okay, it's not too close. >> Yep. Uh the only other thing I'm just curious, this is an Orno resident for a long time now. Uh I'm just curious from the police force cuz I just you know in the mornings you see the the line of cars and when you know university is in session I'm just wondering the in you know ingress egress out of that site. It just seemed like that would be a headache for police cars when you you've got to get to emergencies. You're just going to fight your way through it. I'm just curious because it great site. It's nice having it right across the street, but how are you gonna manage that during peak traffic flows when you got to get somewhere? >> You know what everybody loves? So, I'm Dan Merrell. I'm the police chief. >> Uh, full disclosure, I've never been to a planning board meeting. This has been a great process. >> Expected it to be. >> It's Yeah. >> Yeah. It's good. >> It's a great process. I think it's very spirited and debated and I love it. >> Yeah. >> Um, we have this magical thing called emergency blue lights. Um, as is I figured, >> you know, hey, >> we use them when we have to. As is mentioned in the plan really, >> it is a point of contention because we are a little closer to the intersection than we are where we are right now, but it is something that we run into more than you would expect or as much as you've mentioned now. Um, but we just do like the fire department does. If you ever see a fire department do it, you know, during council meetings, you just come to the end of the apron, you turn your lights on, you wait till everybody gets out of your way or stops, and then you just move out safely into traffic, and we're through the intersection, and we're out of everybody's hair. >> Um, so yes, your comment is well placed. It's something that we've thought about, but I can tell you that this opportunity would be a um if I could put a little elevator speech in here, a great opportunity for the town to put a marquee building in the downtown and give the police department a home that's right on Main Street. That will definitely, I think, provide a um feeling of safety that people may not know right now in our current location. Um, so it's as long as I've been here for almost 16 years, it's been a building that we've stared at longingly across the street and been like, "Oo, what could be?" And, uh, I think that with the renderings of Benchmark's been able to provide, it's, uh, very tangible to what it could be and it will be a great asset to the town. >> Yep. Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Any other questions? All right. I'm going to open up the public hearing and let the crowd come up. Anybody? >> Yeah, there. Wow. Nice. >> Thank you very much. I'm Daniel Barrett. I'm one of the resur town council for working hard with the desert town. >> How many times have I said that to people? Right. Yeah. Please turn your butt. I'm Dan Demerit. I'm a resident and I'm chair of the town council. We've been working with the the town and the the police department for a long time in this project. Um first I want I want to thank you for your service. It's a beautiful night. Um appreciate what you do here and uh we don't get a lot of nights like this. So thank you for being here. And I appreciated watching I appreciate knowing how staff and this team on the planning board help people get to yes in Oro. We saw it a couple times tonight. We saw Maddie greet some applicants on an earlier project who you know don't come through this process. They're not engineers. that aren't coming through this very often and we've had a lot of transition in um in the town in the planning office the economic development and I I'm really I'm trying to be mindful of that as a member of the town council and I I'm asking and urging everyone else to be as well. We've got um it's so important that we help educate people into compliance and be patient with people and it seems like you just you represent that in the work that you do. So, thank you. But in terms of the the project across the street and the visibility, it's it's such an important opportunity for Oro where we're trying to build this we have this Oro stops initiative and we're trying to build this culture of roadway sharing um and safety and the visibility there in the heart of our downtown and it's part of it's all connected to the in some ways it connects all back to the comprehensive plan and we have a home committee that's the heart of ornal main committee that's working on a vision for the downtown that'll be comply and consistent with the the comprehensive plan. We'll be updating people about that as well. But this is certainly a part of it. The library is a part of it. Um, and we're just we're really excited to see it come together. And I I don't have any um I think I'm soapboxing a little bit, but you'll have to excuse me. But we do think it's a big component of that that visibility and the presence and really appreciative of the work that the Orno Police Department does. Um, they've really been leaning into this orno stop stuff. Um it started here in the council chambers a few years ago when we had a bus driver come in and talk to us about you know 350 cars had passed um her stop lightss um in in in one school year in the school year it was like March and you know that week we had police officers following buses around um giving them police escorts to school and that's really heartwarming and then you the frustration she I was watching the video this morning from three years ago and the frustration she had at the time was just palpable you know she was concerned concerned, frustrated, and then talked with her earlier this week about how the school year wrapped up and she's empowered and she's appreciative of what the Orno Police Department's been able to do and all the partners. The school district's been a huge partner. Um so, and this is a part of it. This is um you know, I would love to spend you know, it's this or we spend $3 million on speed bumps, right? And um which, you know, I'm joking. Um I know you guys joke a little bit too. I saw the vote on the chair race last month and I appreciated that uh moment of levity and a serious meeting. But um this is a this is an important project to Orl. The council's uh has been really supportive. We have got a public hearing on the bond question next at our meeting in July that we encourage people to come out for. But um this is something that uh will be really important to our community for a long time to come and we appreciate all the work that's gone into it. So thank you. >> Appreciate it. Any others? Anybody online? >> No. Wow. Uh, all right. Last call. Closing the public hearing and limit comments to the board. Nice project. Uh, minimal disturbance and they're actually removing pavement in town, which is a rarity. So, uh, yeah. Further comments. Anything. All right. There we go. I think we're ready for a motion. Who wants it? Just a quick uh quick note in the motion uh which is in the planning memo the the number 028 acres it should be 082 numbers got transposed. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> We don't want to short the police station of lot size. >> Yeah. All right. Uh need a motion from somebody please. I move to approve the miter site plan application of the Ornal Police Department to complete the proposed renovation and repurpose of a structure located at point 0. What did you say? 82 >> 82 >> 82 acre lot with the physical address of 56 Main Street, Tax M 27-2 lot 140 per the findings of fact dated June 17, 2026 with the following conditions. We have three, four, five main conditions and one additional condition. >> Very good. Thank you, Michael. Uh was >> second. >> There was something about the signage. >> The lighting and that's number six. Number six. Okay. >> Very good. So, I think we covered it and you got Ashley second. Yep. Uh discussion. All those in favor? All right. Next up, uh, you can go last, EJ. I'm gonna So, it added a discussion item. Basically, just reviewing applications tonight, and this is just an opportunity to remind town staff when working with applicants. I just, you know, I was looking at three different projects and that we're reviewing tonight and one of them was submitting septic designs as a condition of approval. Another one was submitting lighting diagrams as a condition of approval. And then there was a third one on our other project submitting after the fact. And I just want to encourage town staff to get as complete applications as we can. I would like to minimize the number of conditions that we have with our applications. And if again lighting diagrams and and it was all explained and I understand the septic systems and tube uh as well but whatever we can get to have complete applications so we don't have to create like extra conditions and do stuff it just makes things a lot cleaner. So, make sure that applicants are giving us information in a timely manner and hopefully we can cut down conditions cuz lighting diagrams it's it's almost like standard issue. If you're proposing lighting for a project, you give us a diagram and we can review it so we don't have a condition. It's just simple stuff and it just pushed the applicants to make sure that we have critical information. septic systems. It was explained well, but you could never approve a project without having soils information or some information of septics cuz we we'd be in a real bind. You look at the the site and there's plenty of uplands soils, but they just need to confirm to us, you know, that they have suitable soils to get rid of waste water. So just a word of advice is, you know, for process is try to let's let's clean up some of the the submission requirements and try to get as much as you can prior to our redo. There we go. That's my discussion. Anybody want to add anything to that? It just goes easier. >> All right. We good with that? >> Great. >> You're up. Uh just a heads up, next month we have a uh site plan review for commercial development on Godfrey Drive uh that we've been working on >> um that is submitted and we'll be looking at a zone change for OBC and their uh expansion. So >> wowing. >> Yes, we'll keep you busy throughout the summer and beyond. >> Thanks EJ. Great for the town. All right. Uh good. Uh so yeah, see everybody in July. I think we're ready for a motion. >> So moved for adjournment. >> Very good. Second. >> Second. >> All right. Further discussion. All those in favor? All right.