what are copies of the agenda for the public yeah right over there onair over there okay thanks like ioke up home went to sleep woke up was fine it was bizarre everybody well the whole board question yeah I mean where is it how are you you get a good paycheck for us at least got to show up I forget about that I forget turn my phone off Main really that's a good that means there's more tolerance of the idea without accept yeah how you doing pH almost look like old home week have a guest spot for you you do it for 30 years you can just come on that's right I took my 30 years all right V than all right I think we'll get going uh welcome all of you to the planning board this Wednesday May 17th 2017 uh first item on our agenda is a roll call uh tonight we have Jason charlon we've got Lisa Buck we've got Christ schwier we've got Dre Macintosh myself Phil Ruck we've got Jeremy Chuck we got David Thompson John Becket Mike Castello down the end we do have a full house so this is a welcome site uh next item on our agenda is acceptance of the agenda can I have a motion so moved very good second seconded very good any additions comments hearing none all those in favor of the agenda next up is approval of the minutes we have two minutes before us I think yeah I don't know if we had a quorum but one of one of the items was tabled so we have March 15th minutes and April 19th any I guess uh can I have a motion I move that we accept the minutes of March 15th as written okay anyone to anyone want to take the 19th yeah okay second there we also have the 19th as well so Mike do you want to expand your motion I'll expand that to uh also April 19th we were here for that okay very good uh we have a motion and David seconded procedural question I can't I can't vote on the 15th cuz I was absent correct same here should we have them separate should we vote separate yes good point yeah so we will separate these cuz I was not here as well so I I can't do the the 15th so we're going to take these one at a time Mike we're going to stick with your your motion just we're going to do the 15th first I wasn't there so I I cannot vote so who do we have to designate somebody for that then Evan I just whoever was here yes just whoever was here yeah okay very good so any comments Corrections edits for the 15th all those that were here that are in favor very good thank you uh moving on Mike can you uh do the 19th as well please I move that we accept the minutes of April 19th as presented very good can I have a second second very good any uh edits on that one Corrections all right hearing none all those in favor that were there unanimous next up we have two public hearings this evening first one is a site plan application of Laura Winters for a low impact non-residential use located at 177 Stillwater AV identified as tax map 26 Lot 24 in the Stillwater AV overlay zone of the low density residential district low impact non-residential use is a category of small scale uses governed by performance standards that limit size traffic and other aspects of the business the proposed low impact non-residential use is a walk up hot dog food stand can I have the applicant step up and tell us who you are and explain your your project yeah sure hello I'm Jim Winters uh I have uh Bob with me just in case I can't hear someone and I apologize for that inconvenience my hearing is something like 50% uh so I'm Jim Winters I'm uh Laura's husband and I'm representing Laura uh I guess for questions very good can you explain your project I'm sorry can you tell us a little bit about your project well uh we've had ideas that didn't really uh uh uh build up to being more than uh than what we uh sometimes it just never even went anywhere so this idea is for a uh a drive-thru walk up hot dog stand buns and hot dogs and drinks in box models and uh I guess you'd call it an experiment just to see uh what it would feel like to do that we have no sign we have no exact hours we have some ideas but um there's no big grand plan other than the experiment of uh seeing uh come to think of it I'm not sure what we'd call it actually so so it's an idea in the early phase but we come to you first to see if if you object and uh we put some money into it and and uh it would it would so it would be uh something conservative and safe uh with ours limited let's say for example Wednesday through Saturday 11: to 4: um nothing really big and uh and we also paid for uh an extensive uh site uh analysis in terms of parking uh with a company down in Bangor MH I think I think $900 maybe for that something like that so it was it was a a nice survey analysis with respect to where the parking would be uh so it's the uh the building by the road and uh and and I guess that's sort of in a nutshell that's what it would be a hot dog stand hot dog buns drinks like a $5 lunch that kind of thing mhm so wasas look out we're not trying to be a McDonald's or anything just a small family hot dog stand okay and your name is my name is Bob perole and I have a Bakery and unitin I've done foodie things before and I'm in the farmers markets doing pies and turnovers and canoli and things like that and very good so I'm helping them out with the food aspect of it okay very good uh do we have any questions from the the board before we open it up to to public hearing I do understand that I mean you've come before us before I remember there was a soup uh application uh several years or couple years ago now anyways so the same building there's no new proposed buildings minimal gravel expansion of your parking area toward the back of the the site correct yeah yeah we never sold one bowl not not one customer MH so so this would be uh I guess a different approach and and really just as Bob came into our life as a friend uh he was encouraging us so we sort of didn't know what we were doing uh in in the the thing that that you've mentioned with soup the idea of sing uh selling a bowl of soup uh so so uh I think Bob actually had the idea of making it more simple uh what could go wrong with hot dogs heat it up with the you know the stove The Boiling Water Propane for heat keep it simple and uh and hot dog buns in a drink mhm yeah if it if it's works out that it works well and the people like it and I guess the demographic survey or the study is on traffic there's 16,000 cars a day that commute into into to Bangor on Still Water Avenue mhm and boy what a what a nice audience you know to get things so very good give it a shot y other questions comments very good Evan you did uh provide a summary so before I open up public hearing can you uh just go over some of the the points that You' reviewed sure [Applause] um yeah this uh uh this again is that use called Lo impact non-residential use it's the use that characterizes the Still Water a overlay District that came out of the conference of planning work from 2009 um when the uh Town looked at Force agriculture district and created the low density residental district and this overlay District to allow some very small scale uh commercial activity along Still Water r with without it being um the idea without it being a nuisance to or anything that would change the low density residential character of that Corridor so this uh the idea is that a youth has to meet a set of 11 standards in order to qualify uh as a low impact non-residential use and um couple things first of all because there's no new construction involved here other than some some minor uh upgrade of the parking area um there are several submission waivers requested and there was letter in the packet from Mrs wyers making that request and you have to act on that we have a request separately as a separate item uh in terms of the submission things things like uh um detailed storm water management plan detailed soil survey things that you'd expect erosion control plan things that you would be asking for if there was new construction those things are moot in this case so um that's one um so this is uh this the the building um Mr winter has referred to drive-thru it is not a drive-thru that would be prohibited drive-thru is not allowed in the in the Still Water AB District No drive-through windows so it's very clear that this is a park and you walk up to a wind uh walk up to the building and get your food it's probably what was meant but very clear to everybody that there is not a drive-thru that would be prohibited it's explicitly prohibited within the district um um the um plan calls for utilizing the two existing driveways there are two driveways they're not connected now but there are two driveways um one a main driveway leading in to the to the home and the some of the other buildings uh on the property that goes right by this um a small 200t building and then another one on the other side of the building that leads to a couple of the other out buildings on the property um the plan uh that was prepared for the applicant and submitted by the applicant it shows some minor upgrades of that of those um and of those curb cuts and connecting them so it's basically a horseshoe around the back of the building with a parking coming off of that uh coming off of that that driveway uh there's parking for five spaces which is what um code enforcement officer uh bill and I uh looking at the ordinance believed the ordinance would require based on the size of this facility and the kind of use that's proposed so five spaces are there that's in addition to whatever is needed for the res residences so one of the questions we had asked the applicant and uh is the the parking seems the customer parking seems to block access to the part of the you know to the access to the home so that's a a question that we had um posed to Mrs wnter and she said that uh Mr winers would address it this evening um secondly um there are no no natural features and things like that would be disturbed um it certainly appears this kind of use we could live within the noise standards as set forth in the uh for low impact non-residential use um this uh they would rely on a water supply from an existing well on the site uh um there is a leech field and subsurface Wastewater Disposal system on the site and they are the plan shows that they're keeping the required distance away from that with in terms of wherever the cars may be parking um there will be electricity off of an existing pole on the site according to the plan um there um uh a low impact non-residential use allows a 24t sign Mr winter said there's no sign proposed but in fact there is a a sign proposed on the plan it shows its location and according to the application it will be 24 Square ft in size which is the maximum mhm uh size of the plan and according to the application it will be externally lit with a light shine up toward toward it um the ordinance would not allow that that appliance that lighting Appliance needs to be shielded in a way that does not put light in the eyes of drivers or you know spill over on the Still Water Avenue or just derb any neighbors so it will have to get a building permit and a sign permit so forth if this is approved and but that's a standard that the code enforcement officer would be enforcing um the other um the other standards for low impact non-residential have to do with size no more than 2500 F feet this is way under that um can't generate more than a daily average of 50 vehicle trip ends that is 25 in and 25 out basically um we've looked at the data from the in inst uh Institute of Traffic Engineers which is the reference work that the ordinance refers to and something of this small size um probably would not generate more than that would probably generate less than that but um um you know it's kind of right at the edge uh so it couldn't be much bigger than what it is um would' have to compile with a curb cut standards which it does um would have to locate the parking to the rear or side of the building which it does maintain the front yard as uh in its um in its unbuilt condition which this does U maintains vegetated buffers to the bre and side this is a fairly large lot two and A4 acres and um there's a lot of a wooded lot so that standard appears to have been met doesn't require truck shipments over a certain amount and this does not do that um can't store materials or sell Goods outside and not that is not proposed and explicit does not include drive-thru service so uh and none is proposed according to the application um the um one of the outstanding question that the fire marshall asked and Mr wers said that Mr wers would address it tonight is uh we're assuming that the fuel for the stand the cooking will be propane tank um and um far Marshall Henry Bon wants needs to know where that will be located on the site and how it will be protected from traffic and cars moving in and out of parking areas and so that's a still a question to be asked MH um there are some conditions of approval that I've suggested if we you know when you get to that point mhm very good so you just heard before we open it up uh there are two questions so the propane uh location and how you're going to protect that from access from vehicles on the site and then the other one was the proposed as it's shown on the plan you have three parking spots which appear to be right in the middle of where the the gravel access is to the study and the and the Dome so it shows some parking there so the the two questions that were outstanding in in the review were those items could you address those all right I I I did hear that actually so the second question first what I expect to do and I'd want this to comply with what the survey company uh uh is is telling us is to have the personal cars to the inside of the property not in the way of people that are traveling uh uh in and out either whether it's the driveway or around the back of the building it's sort of a double horseshoe kind of configuration I think so the personal cars I'd like to be out of the way and uh and I guess that's my answer there's there's there's quite a bit of uh area past the tree that's in the middle closer to the house and that's where those cars should be um and then the first question I would want the propane company to uh feel comfortable about what they think I I I literally would ask them and I I picture concrete blocks as a barrier I I see that commonly uh and we would make that happen I I wouldn't want the tank to be uh accessible to any car uh and and that's normal you would never see a tank uh unprotected so that would be a very very big deal so it would be uh I picture it being as we Face the building to the left corner in proximity to where it's needed inside the building but protected by concrete mhm that's what I picture so Evan if we did move forward with that just a condition of approval would just be that Henry would have to sign off on yes very good any other questions before we open it up all right I am going to open it up to public hearing uh please opponents proponents step up to the mic state your name don't be shy say that's oh you want yes please y they can sit down yeah thank you guys are you can have a seat all right thank you my name is Janet Smith don't live directly across their home but diagonal across the field um I just had one concern excuse me can we get your name again Janet Smith sorry we we have to record these so the if you could be near the microphone please okay um my concern is the parking which has been addressed um because with the last project there is no shoulder on the road and so there's no way to get out of the way of passing traffic but they're going to have parking on the property and that's all I was concerned about that it is going to be on the property right yeah so you've seen the site plan there are five recommended parking spots but it is actually behind the stand so that would appear to address your concern yeah good okay thank you others can can I address that I know everyone cautions me not to say too much don't overthink uh I would actually like to take that on I'd like to actually say that uh when we uh used to do daycare 16 years nobody's allowed to park on the road so I I I actually am very sympathetic to what Janet is saying and uh and I wouldn't put up with it for any length of time no hot dog is worth it so I would literally um uh go to the people and say one of two things has to happen either you have to come in or or resume driving you cannot not even for 10 seconds you cannot park on the side of the road so I I agree and and it's from the heart I mean I I wouldn't want anyone to be attempting to do that well while you're up here the it does mention a picnic bench I didn't happen to see that shown on the plan or I might have missed it but it's between the two parking the two oh that's what that is yeah okay so there we go I see where the bench is it's shown on the plan I didn't didn't know what that symbol was thank you as far as a bench I'm not really thinking about it uh uh I I'm more I I was more wishing that people would just get their food and go and I wasn't exactly set up for uh people wanting to stay for a long time uh just to talk to us I mean uh uh so so I don't I don't have any bench in my mind at the moment okay it is mentioned in the application but seems like a minor issue I I think Safety First the bench can come after that first things first you know make sure that the park being in cars make sense uh uh we haven't really known what to expect so so it's uh kind of wait and see kind of feeling on that rather than uh creating incentive for people to park and stay a long time we really need to free up those spaces and no one would be on the shoulder of the road okay and that's the way I would like to see it very good thank you other questions last call public hearing all right I'm going to close the public hearing just limit it to comments from the board this does seem to meet the low impact uh uh definition so any any other questions for the applicant yeah I have a question that uh you stated there 16,000 Vehicles a day going on stillw Avenue there that was the number I just heard right yes Mr Mr chairman that's uh according to main do right I 15 that's between 4 and 5,000 Vehicles a day and this part is still water a uh when you get up to exit 193 you're in the High Teens low 20s but in this part of Still Water a it's it's somewhere between 4,000 and 5,000 on an average annual annual average for provided that in your summary if I recall y yep well I asked the question because uh there's no shoulders people are going to be turning making left hand turns in if they're going south left hand turns out the other way if they're going the other way uh I've seen other areas in the town where we've had development It's Still Water Avenue off of the 95 exit on the east side going towards Oldtown if you've been through there you know you got to keep your eyes open you got to really pay attention and I just don't want to see something go in there that uh all of a sudden you have a traffic problem there the safety problem my recollection is in that particular spot that there's pretty good sight distance going both ways good sight distance but if you've got a lot of traffic and somebody wants to take a left hand turn to go in there they're going to back up behind it eight or 10 cars and that's when you get people get anxious and you have accidents mhm I I just I think it's a I've been by there many times till I go down take that road to go to the mall and I just concerned about it and I wanted to express it okay thanks dve other comments all right uh I think we're okay first item we need to act on the waiver so could someone provide a motion we do have the the waiver request letter is right in the front of the packet I believe the application packet second [Applause] page I make a motion that we Grant the waiver how specific do we have to be other them that the waiver as requested in the letter okay as requested in the letter very good I second any further discussion all those in favor of the waiver request it is unanimous uh next up Evan do we have a proposed findings we do I just want to point something out first okay um I've changed the format of this I've changed the format of this slightly because we're getting ready for transition of planners MH and so I just wanted to um uh have a format that's readily transferable to whoever may come next so um I've always known that this is a draft that it's just to move things along and you can say yes no change the findings as you see fit um but just to institutionalize that what I've done put this in chart form you'll see with a yes and a no column so you know if you agree with it if you go through process as you always do and say are there any objections or concerns and if there are none then it's then we will know it's a yes okay and U but you have it's really the signal that you have every right and responsibility to question the finding if you're not satisfied for those of you that didn't catch that Evan is on the the shorter end of a career I think you only have three years with us left shorter than that very good again these are proposed findings of fact so I will read these into the record uh proposed findings of fact for the low impact non-residential use for Laurel Winters and James con 177 Stillwater AV for the site plan review dated May 16th 2017 today's the 17th May dated May 17th 2017 pursuant to article 6 section 18-1 177 of the Oro code of ordinances the Oro planning board has considered the application of Laura Winters and James con to conduct a loow impact non-residential use on their property at 115 Stillwater Avenue identified as tax map 2624 the proposed low unpack non-residential use is a walk up hot dog food stand the property is located in the low density residential district and Stillwater Avenue overlay District based on all evidence presented by the applicant reviewing agencies Town departments and the public the planning board has found the following number one again Evan mentioned these are our site plan review Criterion so number one requirements of the district that the property contains 2.24 Acres according to tax assessor records and meets all setback requirements for low density residential district in that low imp imp act non-residential uses are allowed in the Stillwater Avenue overlay district with site plan review provided that all standards by which low impact non-residential uses are defined as set forth in section 18-111 of the land use ordinance are met that the proposed activity will not include drive up or driveth through Windows which are not allowed in the district and that the code enforcement officer has determined that this use can conform to the requirements of the low density residential district and Stillwater Avenue overlay District including standards for signs and lighting with appropriate permits from The Code Enforcement office are there any issues with that I I actually have a question it say it reads that the property is at 115 Still Water Avenue up in that paragraph up sorry should be 17 very good but yeah 177 so I was getting that mixed up with another property 177 thank you thank you good catch other comments concerns uh hearing none everybody in in favor of that one correct moving on number two right title or interest that the applicant is fee ownership of the property any issues there heing none moving on number three compliance with Town ordinances and codes that the proposal does not involve any new construction or expansion of any structure and only minor expansion of a gravel parking area and therefore does not affect sections of ordinances governing the impacts of new construction does not involve Shoreland zoning or flood planes will not affect existing required setbacks or buffers and that the prop proposed activities are within or are capable of being conducted within the standards for low impact non-residential uses are there any issues or concerns there hearing none uh number four utilization of the site that the proposed use of the site will not change the footprints of the existing buildings or the locations of existing curb cuts locates the proposed use within the site in an area suitable for customer access and will not significantly alter the existing wooded buffers of the lot or infringe on natural drainage or other natural features of the site are there any issues there concerns comments hearing none number five traffic parking and pedestrian access that access can be safely provided via two existing curb cuts off Stillwater Avenue which will be connected to allow for one-way entry and one-way exit in which are adequate distance from any intersection that the proposed activities will not generate vehicular pedestrian traffic requiring improvements to the local Street system or that would cause a danger to the public that adequate sight distance exists in both directions from the driveway looking north and south on Stillwater AV the customer traffic for the uses individually and collectively will be periodic in low volume I.E no more than a daily average of 50 vehicular trip ends per week day which is the limit for low impact non-residential uses that the plan provides for sufficient parking on the site to accommodate anticipated customer traffic to the site as well as current residential use and for adequate internal vehicular circulation and that while Stillwater Avenue lacks sidewalks the low density location of the site is not expected to draw significant pedestrian traffic that would require pedestrian facilities are there any issues or concerns there y I already expressed one my concern and I guess it's fine if it's 50 vehic strips per day what happens if that goes to 60 70 or 100 my understanding was and good good Point any change in the scope or the proposed scope of this application buildings or anything more than what they propos would have to come before the board yeah uh this is this is a very important point so thanks David for raising it uh that's right any change in the building or configuration of the site or the activities would have to come back now this limit on traffic is only looking at the average based on uh uh reliable reference work which is the first stop is the Institute of Transportation Engineers which has a a volume on parking on traffic generation and so you look you find the appropriate land use in that volume or land uses sometimes and uh based on the size of the facility or in this case the number of seats or the square footage of the facility you can calculate you can approximate um what what would be the traffic generation and if that number is within the 50 then it meets the terms of our ordinance if there's an outstanding success and becomes a big attraction and generates 70 trip trips a day it is still allowed that would not violate this because there you know the use itself is within the uh averages uh that are cited in that reference work there's no way for us to monitor the actual traffic uh generated uh what you're saying what we're really saying is a 200 FT walkup stand no drive-thru um in this type of location um according to the reference work would live within the 50 trip ends on average per day thank you Evan now that's an average so there you know on some days it might be 70 or 80 and on other days it might be 20 but the average would be 50 during a weekday other comments or concerns on that David you've expressed yours into the record as long as it's in the record because if it it exceed it to any great extent then something else needs to be done because you'll have a dangerous situation there period I mean i' I've seen the heard this before that the engineers say oh that's fine so many trips so many trips and then you get a mess you get get a traffic problem and we have them in honor right now so that that's my concern so procedurally you've got your checklist and I'm just thinking ahead so you're going to make note of that so we we expressed our concerns this is a yes or no but yes this will be the concern can be expressed but you have to find yes to all these findings in order to correct these are some modified findings that are that f conforms with the ordinance in order to approve the project right so I'm just making sure that we're we need to do to satisfy your new format so do we need to have a yes because I've asked for comments you do yes you do need a yes now it doesn't have to be unanimous yes but the majority of the board would have to say yes we make this finding that it can live within the standards of the ordinance which is a no more than a based on the reference works no more than average of 50 vehicle trip ends per day right so I'm just thinking that just so I follow with you normally I just ask the question whether there's concerns or comments and you know just like David mentioned but procedurally how how would you like us again from the transition to approach your new format so at the end after I read all these or go through and do I give a yes yes I think I think ultimately each member will have to based on the comments the discussion you're having like this at the end each member have decide yes I Can Vote Yes it meets the St these findings I can agree with you can mod ify the findings but you you know it's this is this is a black or white standard unfortunately right if if you believe the use as referenced by it would generate more than 50 vehicles per day then you know that doesn't meet the standard if it does it meets the standard I what I I just want to just again make sure because we we've streamlined the process these these help us think about the issues so we go through the review criteria but are you saying by this we should vote on everything cuz I've just asked for in you know I think you can vote on it all once at the end got it and then if somebody like David is so concerned about this one thing that he doesn't trust that this activity would in fact meet the standard he's free to vote no and as is anybody I was just thinking that voting on each one of these would you don't need to do that thank you good all right um moving on we are at storage of materials number six that there will be no external storage of materials or external storage areas associated with this use any issues there uh moving on seven storm water management that with no new construction proposed and only minimal expansion of the gravel driveways and parking areas the proposed low impact non-residential uses will not have an impact on existing storm water facilities storm water runoff volumes or amounts and will not disturb soils in a way that would cause erosion are there any concerns or comments there hearing then uh number eight water supply and sewage dis disposal that the proposed use will be adequately supplied by an existing on-site well and in an existing on-site subsurface Wastewater Disposal system and that the parking area as shown on the applicant's plan will meet the required setback from the system's leech field any issues hearing none number nine utilities that the electricity will be supplied to the proposed stand from an existing pole on the site and that a propane tank serving the stand is appropriately located and protected on the site as we mentioned this will be a condition of approval that our uh fire inspector has to sign off on that any other issues hearing none uh what are we up to uh natural features number 10 uh that the property natural features water quality shorelands that the property is not within the Shoreland zone or a 100-year flood plane that there are no Wetlands uh that would be affected by the proposed uses and that the proposed uses will not impact other natural features wildlife habitat or Surface or groundwater quality are there any issues there number 11 hazardous special and radioactive materials and Solid Waste Management that the proposed use will not generate hazardous special or radio radioactive materials and that Solid Waste will be managed in a manner typical of a residence any concerns uh number 12 historic and archaeological resources that the site will not involve new construction and in any case is not known uh to contain historic or archaeological resources any issues number 13 Financial capacity that the project does not entail construction of new structure utility lines or other infrastructure that would have an impact on public facilities or adjacent properties and that would require a showing of financial capacity to construct such facilities in an orderly manner are there any issues lastly number 14 noise that the proposed use is capable of being operated and must be operated within the noise limit standards of the Stillwater Avenue overlay District are there any concerns there hearing none got those in the record uh I believe we're ready for a motion I move that we approve the second plan review of Laur Winters and James con for the proposed walk up hot dog food scan uh at 177 St Avenue tax map 26 L 24 [Applause] with the following recommendations well not recommendations but uh caveats conditions of approval there we go thank you blanking number one the approval applies only to the activity proposed at the scale of at the size and scale proposed I.E hot dog food stand with walk up service number two the prior that prior to opening the activity must comply with all state and local licensing requirements and standards to be met with respect to fire safety including a plan approved by the fire department for location deide the protection of any outdoor fuel facility such as a propane tank number three that prior to opening the applicant receive all required licenses for the preparation and servant of food number four that the applicant apply for and receive the required permit for for sign and if the lightting lighting of the sign must comply with the lighting standards of the land use ordinance including no spill over on the Stillwater Avenue or neighboring properties and no glare that would affect vehicles on solar Avenue number five at all standards governing low impact non-residential uses of Water Avenue overlay district will be complied with at all times and number six that this approval is based on the applicant's representation that no new construction to accommodate the proposed use will be involved and that if there is a new construction in the future of buildings parking or other facilities to accommodate the use and the new construction involves the excavation or filling of land such excavation or filling shall comply with the standards of land use ordinance regarding the excavation removal land including submission on the amum site plan to the in such Earth movement will do more than 100 cubic yards good thank you Jud uh we have a motion to have a second second further discussion all those in favor I don't think I have a vote today right yeah that's right very good only regular members vote so again all those in favor good luck but you have should ask we opposed oh all those opposed excuse me thank you y it is not unanimous thank you and good luck thank you all right uh next up we have another public hearing uh this is for a proposed amendment to the land use ordinance establishing the Main Street office overlay District the amendment would allow small scale office uses uh for a maximum of 2500 ft of floor area along Main Street between Juniper Street and Kelly Road provided the property would be subject to certain performance architectural preservation and property maintenance standards the purpose of the amendment is to simultaneously maintain a safe attractive environment in which residents have the quiet enjoyment of their homes and provide the incentive and means to invest in and maintain the historic architectural and other important elements that create a visually appealing Main Street and entrance to Orono and Evan I understand that you are going to provide a summary for the board sorry got a it again uh two months ago um we had an informational session here uh and so some of you have heard heard some of the background of this uh but I'm going to go through um some of some of this will be repetitive but some of it is will be new information based on a public meeting that was held in April and uh a subsequent Council committee meeting that discussed what it wanted to rec what it wanted to refer to the planning board uh the key thing here is that this proposal has been um changed from um uh General overlay District that would allow multiple kinds of low impact non-residential uses including office uses retail uses Artisan Workshop uses now to include only office uses uh that was based on some pretty strong push back at the public meeting and and among some of the counselors about over concern about activities that would have um even small scale activities that would have traffic moving in and out of dve ways uh on Main Street and the potential to press for more signage and things like that that they thought would change the character of the of the um corter so um but just as a refresher that one went off um the zoning in this Corridor and when we talk about the corridor we're talking about from Juniper Street to Kelly Road and we're talking about um only those properties that are currently zoned medium density residential um and to a depth of 300 ft uh either side of Main Street just before do you need to speak in the mic or are you going to cat that you got a mic right there okay good obious I just noticed all right good thank you keeping you honest and the properties would have to have a main street address so certain Corner properties would not be involved with this and here you can see the map um the yellowish ba the beish light brown is medium density residential so you can see that dominates the zoning in this Corridor there are there is some commercial to and and one or two contract zoning Lots where rain is and the St Mary's Church complex is but is mostly residential um the existing land uses are um a large majority are single family dwellings uh but there is also uh you know I think seven a number of two family or or larger dwellings and there are um uh 17 properties that are part of the rental registration ordinance so they are obviously renting to um uh students or other uh households there are a few um non-residential properties in the corridor as well at present uh there is limited flexibility within the medium density residential Zone to do anything but a single family home or a two family home uh the three the two ways you can do more than that are a home occupation which as you know is meant to be very limited um as to size as to employees as to signage as to your ability to advertise and so forth uh we have a couple of examples of Home occupations in the corridor but only a couple uh you can do contract Zone which is as you know a customized way of of zoning a property but usually C usually it's reserved for properties that are either unique by their nature like the St Mary's complex uh or unique by their situation by how they're located uh or by the size of the building and it's appropriateness for uh a mix of uses so we have a couple contract zones uh in in the district but we only have a half dozen contract zones townwide and so this is not something that you would try to apply to lots of properties uh properties that are just alike and one gets a contract Zone and the other doesn't uh we do have one other um situation there are some uses in the C that are non-conforming and they can be reused for something that is no more non-conforming and the sanctuary Wellness Center was a situation like that do medical office being converted to another um for wellness uh oriented facility but that's it otherwise it's single family homes or two family homes unless they are otherwise grandfathered and uh the comprehensive plan recommendation which is this which is what this is helping to implement uh cited the need for some flexibility in the corridor for land uses that would be uh economical would essentially make these large properties economical to maintain uh architecturally and in terms of property maintenance and compatible with residential uses and so the recommendation was to create this overl District that would be uh an incentive based District it's not something that anybody has to take advantage of but it would be incentive based so that properties up front on Main Street could have what the what the conference plan referred to as low impact non-residential uses in return for preserving certain architectural features of the corridor and the reason is that this Corridor uh from actually Pine Street to to Maplewood although we're only talking about Juniper to Maplewood uh Juniper portion of it um is a historic district was the deemed the historic district and put on the national register in 1977 and there are in fact many uh Grand Homes handsome homes or homes that uh talk about the um that say something about the history of Oro so there was that historic district and in addition we had a reconnaissance survey done by uh an architect who specialized in historic properties and he identified 34 other structures that are exemplary of their style or noteworthy of their style in this quarter some which were in the original area of the historic district but we're not in 1977 we not by definition old enough to qualify even if they might have been significant so four squares for example in 1977 would not have seen as historically important today 40 years later they clearly are um just by way of example and then there are some other structures that are Beyond Maplewood that are also would have been would have qualified as a historic structure had they been in this uh original district from 1977 so those have been identified and and uh documented and and there are some other important elements of the street um that give it a visual character including um walls you know at the top of the hill there uh Landscaping uh the uh some open space but some U the uh the monument uh out in front of the apartment complex and uh just the relationship of the buildings to the streetscape and the porches and the way they communicate with each other something that we all take in and appreciate even if it's uncons subconscious so the concern expressed by the comprehensive plan committee and why this made it into and several of you were on the committee was that in 2012 2013 when this was all being prepared um we were at the tail end of a very deep recession and there were 10 to 15% of the buildings on that Corridor were for sale and some of them just weren't moving so there's concern about whether single family use in these large older homes especially could be sustained would the trends favor them with the coming of age of the of the current so-called Millennium generation and a number of reports suggesting that they um would not be attracted to these kinds of homes as readily as earlier Generations were the impact on the corridor on single family use of 12,000 cars a day on that quarter the financial burden of upkeep of large homes there are no requirements to preserve the historic character at present although by and large it's the buildings have been kept intact just because the owners have wanted to do so um we have had over the years a number of requests for conversions to non-residential uses and could really only offer those opportunities of well you can do a home occupation or you can apply for a contract Zone which is a fairly onerous process and is really intended again for not every situation but only some situations uh and finally there was the conference plan recognized the importance of micro business to Oro and the idea of allowing very small scale business uses in in a home or in one of these buildings even if it wasn't the home of the proprietor uh made some sense in this Corridor so for all those reasons it recommended uh this overlay District what's happened to date is that we hired an architect who did this reconnaissant survey uh we've got a design guide which identifies the Styles the important architectural Styles and why what makes them important and what the features are uh that um distinguish each of those Styles we had uh two uh well attended Corridor meetings one in September and one in April and in between a five-person ADV visor group from the corridor met with uh met with me and um AI uh several well a number of times half dozen times so we could bounce things off and just really get feedback and whether we were on the right track or not and this was a group that had Divergent opinions and so we were trying to balance uh what those Balance out those opinions in the end we came up with three alternative approaches from a sort of a a light approach to one that was more comprehensive uh and then a fourth was do nothing yes cordor meetings I'm just curious was that a Butters or went out to everybody the quarter meetings went to uh the properties all along Main Street plus one property deep either side uh additional butter so there there was public notice as well yeah we we mailed out I think something like 40 to 160 how many it was like 148 148 not was on the website for other people on the website and it was uh advertised so we had good attendance we had 40 to 50 each time people come so we had these were there opportunities to add input if if uh a homeowner was not able to attend in person yes there we're always invited through the website and through the notices V is written or just talk to us if you have concerns okay um we then after the second quarter meeting uh we talked with the council and committee again and the council decided to dial it back to the lightest approach which was this office over overlay District which I'll explain uh very incremental uh change from what we have today so what's proposed in the in this office overlay district and you've got the ordinance and there are some copies here if anybody needs one um and I can go through this in as much detail as you want or we can go through this at a high level now we summize speak and then then do some more detail as you need uh afterwards so in general in this overlay District uh you could do anything that you can currently do plus you could do office uses and that would include medical offices or um you know Allied Health Care offices or software offices or professional any you know anything that's an really an office based use it would not affect home occupations home occupations would be just as they are today uh the dimensional standards for the Lots would be the same as in the MD District but there'd be 125t Frontage requirement one of the things that we recognize about this Corridor that really distinguishes it was its spaciousness along the along and that seems almost it it it is a very distinguishing feature of the corridor and we looked at the frontages and most of the frontages are at least 125 ft or in some cases quite a lot more there are many that aren't there are some that aren't but they'd be grandfathered they just couldn't be made smaller um and there are Provisions for non-conforming Lots so it's really uses now it limits the scale of the office uses no more than 2500 sare ft of total floor area uh no additional curb cuts to Main Street uh maximum of 10 parking spaces which corresponds to the maximum of 2500 ft uh to the and they' have to be located to the side or the rear of the building not in the front area uh we have to maintain a vegetated buffer between the parking and adjacent properties uh maximum 40% lock coverage you know you don't want small lots to be out pavement to accommodate these so 40% loot coverage seem to make sense oby and I went through a a sample of properties to test some of these standards do they fit in most situations uh and they do except for the Lots with the that are narrow or uh quite small uh they could still have it but they might not get 2500 square feet worth uh and they would get there would be one sign with 8 square ft of area uh plus a directory sign for multi-tenant office space so if the building had three offices in it um they could have one sign that's 8 squ feet and then a sign near the door to the directory and the three just before I lose the thought the vegetated buffer was there any discussion of of alternative screening or was it just limited to vegetated buffers cuz with other projects even recently yeah fencing something like that um I think what the ordinance says I'll have to go back and it says it it could be a combination of fencing and and vegetation or fencing it the idea is that would have to be the width of the of the setback right so probably there would have to be it could be lawn and a fence that would be all right too the idea is you don't pay that area all right so in the ordinance that's in front of us I think it refers to the buffer standards of the bigger ordinance which allows that combination okay and then there are some visual compatibility standards this is the trade-off those office use in return uh there are some um responsibilities to maintain the visual character of this Corridor but let's before we get to those let's look at a couple things from the design guide this was put together by Ma Collins a a well-known architect in Maine with a lot of historic preservation uh work he's done a lot of work at University Maine campus as well as around the state um he identified nine significant the nine architectural styles that distinguish Main Street and I'm not going to go through the character of all these you can sort of see them but they're explained in the guide which is online by the by the way it's on on the web and has been referenced every notice we put out um and we've got a few hard copies downstairs when it's all compiled if this goes forward we will be making this available to every property owner on a dis probably um just for their use if nothing else happens they'll have that so they'll have some information that might be helpful to them if and when they ever want to renovate or put an addition on that sort of thing but there's the Federalist style uh with this uh you know the the double chimneys the um the 6 over six Windows um the center uh doorway uh entrance way uh the Greek Revival uh with the um the triangular piece at the Gable end and um often with balconies or porches that go the length or the width of a building uh the italianate uh uh style which is distinguished it like a got his word got his name as I learned from the Italian farmhouses of the Italian Countryside that got style got imported into uh the United States in the late 19th century and we have a number of italianate homes in this Corridor and one of the distinguishing features is their long tall narrow Windows often with hoods over them uh as this property has um the Queen Anne style some people call it Victorian style which is kind of a fanciful Style with multiple uh intricacies uh in the building and and often decorative features uh colonial revival Styles uh and what we have are kind of hybrid colonial revival Styles one uh that tends toward the shingle style so is on the left there and and we have a couple Dutch Colonial uh properties in the corridor these were all recognized even in the 1977 survey that led to the historic register listing uh then a few that weren't at that time because they're simply not 50 years old or older by 1977 but the four square uh architectural style is a significant piece of this the Craftsman or Bungalow style which often is one or one and a half stories but we have some two-story elements of them as well uh and even the ranch style we have some early ranch homes in in the quarter so those are nine significant styles that the that the that Mac Mac identified and um they are located throughout the cor the the red properties are properties that were part of the 1977 survey and as CED as contributing buildings to the historic district the yellow properties in this diagram are some of those other 34 properties that were identified as contributing to the uh important character of this quarter now each of these Styles and this are explained in the in the guide uh each has distinguishing what I'm calling large features features that Dave milin referred to and I've adopted as 2525 meaning you can you notice them they make an impression on you going 25 M hour down the road and you're 25 ft away uh these are the overall height and dimensions and orientation of the building uh the roof lines uh and and and presence or absence of Dormers and chimneys uh the location and um size and design of the uh front entries which are different from from Style to Style uh the window openings and their spacing and their sizes um and the clading and color of course are these are all large features then there are also distinguishing detail features so for example the Federalist show is style is is distinguished by it 6 over six uh window lights um there the italianate is distinguished by certain trim and each sty each of these Styles architectural St Styles has certain trim features that help Define that style and are integral to the style whether it's the moldings or the East trim or the Sills or the uh hoods over Windows uh and then often there are door details within the vestib and vestibule trim and here you can see uh the lines of lights on either side of the door these in a historic preservation ordinance would be Central would not even be questioned it just be it's part of it as Bangor has and Hampton has and a number of communities in Maine have uh but from a visual from a 2525 point of view for first visual impression probably are not so important and that's this something we discussed a lot with the Advisory Group and and at the um at the cour of meetings so what's the the purpose here according to the conference plan is partly preservation but it's largely based on maintain this visual Integrity as we drive in into town so now with that background the visual compatibility standards in this uh draft uh would have a couple things first of all as as with respect to Renovations or additions they would apply only to the contributing properties I.E those properties identified in the 1977 historic survey or in the uh reconnaissance survey that Mac did last year and there are um can't remember the exact number of those but it's not there are other properties besides those in this Corridor but this will only apply to Renovations or additions to those contributing properties and only if the property pursues an office use so hopefully that's clear uh and the standards would be limited to those distinguishing large scale features that are visible from the public street so if there's a side of the building that's not visible to the public Street it wouldn't apply and will only apply to those large features that I showed you in general and these are listed in in on page six of the ordinance draft uh and we can go over those if you want to um and then there's as closely as possible test because typically in historic preservation if you're going to replace or renovate something you want to replace or renovate it in way that uh that um respects the historic character the the the style and so if it's 6 over six Windows you'd want 6 over six six Windows um but we only talking about the large features and so maybe there would be the columns for example if you're repairing or replacing columns you want to replace it in kind but as closely as possible test is that it's got to be readily available locally commercially or from another readily available commercial outlet you don't have to go to a mid work place to get it done that was one of the questions I was going to have Evan because I'm responsible for the historic buildings on campus yes and I can tell you it's virtually impossible to maintain those buildings because of the historic requirement of mill work very particular colors on Windows particular Styles and windows yet you have Energy Efficiency and you can't buy Windows today they're energy efficient and are compliant with the the historic requirement on campus I had a discussion with Bob Kelly cuz I was I so first of all this as closely as possible test is meant to say listen if you you don't have to you don't have to rely on Mill work you've got to be able to go into bking or Grandville and be able to get it or you know if it's right available on the internet you might get it off the internet but I did talk about Kelly who if you know Bob he is a well very experienced well-respected contractor who specialized in historic properties and has done a lot in this region and he was he was telling me what's available at bking and it might not be available at um Lowe's but it would be available at bking or Granville or uh place like that and he has not had great difficulty in meeting this test so it would not have to go to mil I mean if that's what it is then you don't have to go there and further we're not going to the detailed level so here if you want to replace your 6 over6 window in your federal building with a one over one you'd be free to do that it's just that the size and spacing of the openings would have to remain the same yeah the the bigger the bigger concern that I had was the mill work yeah it's just incredibly expensive and the type of wood you're required to use you have to match the exact wood you can't use like modern day materials and it's very cumbersome so it sounds like that's been addressed here yeah I mean you know this is was not intended to be historic preservation ordinance the comprehensive plan committee did not elect to recommend that didn't get get into the comper of plan and so that's not what this is It's meant to give some um protection to Historic properties for the sake of this visual Integrity of the corridor but I had I had a slide you know 1 to 10 slide where one is no protection for historic and 10 is complete protection and if you look at the Bangor ordinance or um uh free ports ordinance so forth you know they're in that eight or nine category and if the university it's probably 10 um our three approaches range from about a 2 to three to a around a seven by my gauge and this is at the 2 to three level so if you're a historic preservationist you would not be you would see this as pretty weak if you are trying to achieve the things we're trying to achieve I think it's a reasonable step in the direction but that's for others to decide um as to the construction of new structures I mean we don't get a lot of new we've had a couple of new buildings in this you know over 20 years but not many and so it's not going to happen but very often but if any property is going to build new then there would be some standards relating to that so that it respects what this what this Corridor is so building orientation to the to the street height of building roof form window door size and spacing would have to be compatible with what's visibly close to it around it and I will say the one or two bill buildings that have been built in the last 20 years actually do that um Property Maintenance um again the new construction would happen whether or not you're proposing an office use but the renovation addition would apply only if you're only if it's part of you know if you're only if you're doing an office use under this under this uh overlay district and similarly the property maintenance standards um would only apply apply it would apply to all properties but only if it's an office use proposed so it's part of the trade-off that the comp to plan Envision is part of the incentive based system here and that would relate to protection of exterior surfaces uh you know things that are typical of uh of a uh of certain building code items would have to be uh maintained and again those are listed uh in the ordinance so uh Administration and enforcement uh if a property proposes an office use under this District it would be subject to planning Board review um to make sure the standards are being met uh the same procedures would apply as for site plan review namely there would be public advertisement notification of neighbors within uh 500 ft a hearing by you and a decision that that meets the standards or doesn't um and if uh if the planing board needed the assistance of a qualified architect to look at some of the what's proposed uh uh that would be covered so that's it uh in Broad outline thank you Evan so procedurally uh Evan mentioned there's there's a lot of meat in this and we've had some people waiting patiently for this meeting so you know I guess my opinion is is we can can dive into this but I do want to offer a a chance for public to provide comment so uh we can ask you know before we open up public hearings if there's a few clarifications or we can I think we'll have ample time to raise questions but thoughts on that are we okay to receive some comment after the presentation please and we we do not again we do not need to be pressured into you know addressing or dealing with this today so we're going to make sure that we have time for public comment we do need to you know this has changed quite a bit since the original draft I was not able to participate in the uh focus groups of the corridor group so some of this I'm I'm learning as we go so Evans presentation was was helpful but uh again we just need to take the time to to do this right so I am going to open up to public hearing I invite you to step up to the mic again please state your name for the record and and let us let's know what you think hi my name is Jennifer picker and I live in the overlay District Main Street and um I did attend one of the meetings one of the most recent meetings and I know a lot of work has gone into this and I respect that but I have some concerns I concerned about in um changing the the zoning allowing small scale offices that actually what will happen eventually what we'll see is residents will leave the area and that what this will become is more of a um of a business area of historic homes the idea that you can have a a business a house historic building in this area with three or more offices is a little bit troubling to me for a couple of reasons because I think it's not necessarily pedestrian friendly I think the concern about the traffic um and potential for accidents being mentioned about Still Water would be a major concern for having office spaces with people coming and going uh on Main Street I don't know how many of you have um been on Main Street in the morning uh when the school is when the university is in session and kids are going to school the traffic backs up beyond the crest of the hill so if you have more people coming to go to their offices that an issue a concern I have um I'm concerned about the um the loss of residents's the residents ability to um have more input or say over the businesses that go in by allowing this um 24-hour if you have a call center can it run for 24 hours um you know I have a lot of concerns about this actually I have haven't written them all out um I know I'm not alone I know other people have them too one of the things that have been mentioned uh at the the meeting that I went to was the possibility of owner occupied I mean if this is to allow people to afford the homes that are there so let them live there let them invest in the area Beyond just a business um I know that you know there's a major emphasis on the Val of the buildings for their style and their architectur architectural detail but I wonder if there's value in the the families that live there I know personally for myself when I drive up the street or walk up the street I think about the people who live in the homes I'm I know of an area in Upstate New York that has a lot of historic buildings um my father ended up uh having an engineering office in one of them there was a museum next door beautiful historic homes along this whole area hardly any families left in the homes once they started to have businesses or offices um in them so that's my concern thank you question Evan so when we have transition to or somebody sets up a business then they sell the property as she said that doesn't go with the property how how would that be set up it would be a whole another application if they proposed another use uh this the draft does not require owner occupancy okay as a residents it could be I expect a lot of them would be well some of them would I don't know how many would ever go in this route to begin with but to the extent that there is office use I think a lot of it would be like the situation at rainstorm where the family lives there and they have an office in another part of the building um but it's not required you know it might be uh just that as there is in the wellness center that's not owner occupied well there two there's two Dimensions to owner the owner you could you could one or three situations either require no owner occupancy at all it could be just a building that somebody's bought and is leasing up to 2500 ft of it out to an office use or you could have um somebody who owns an office a building wants to use it not for residents but for their office so they're involved as an owner as also as an occupant uh and they might lease other parts of it to somebody else but they're involved with it and then third is um you have to live there if you're going to have an office there you got you have to live there too so that's three options what what this draft is does not require does not have any owner occupancy standard so that if somebody bought a building well or let's just um yeah if somebody bought a building that's currently being used for office space offices but doesn't want to live there and didn't have an office there they just wanted to render it out to office users they could do that this could be amended to include some owner occupancy requirement was that discussed in the corridor committee meetings or the the open meeting yes oh well yes I mean I think uh the this woman is correct Janet is it sorry it's Janet Jen Jen uh that there was some were some people advocating that mhm um in The Advisory Group meetings there were people saying that that would be too restrictive um so okay and I so it's a judgment call um I think those who believe that owner occupancy of some sort either because they're living there and have an office there or because they own it they don't live there but they own it and they have their office there um that they believe that people would care for it more carefully MH than if it was an investment property being rented out um you know it just I guess my the other side of it is let's say the uh let's say the wellness center I'll just pick on that not because I there's anything it's because it's an office it's not a residence um they the owner uh retires and still wants now wants to rent out space that they may be occupying to somebody else they want to continue own it but they would be prohibited from doing that and I don't know how necessary that level of restriction is so I did not include it but it's that's certainly open for discussion uh and if the town wants to go that way we can build that in thank you other comments good evening my name is Thomas I've had the pleasure of the last 22 years of being a resident at 115 Main Street the Helm of my parents who regret who send their regrets that they could not attend this evening had a couple points as I listen to uh well it seems odd for a person of only 25 but Evan Mr Evan's fine Evan um but as I listen to um Evan's points there there were a couple that really sort of struck me the first was that his he started his presentation with the question of the need now I love to walk Main Street excuse me sorry but I've walked Main Street many times I enjoy walking around Main Street and uh lately I have noticed a a a Dar of for sale Signs Now wherever I live in the other side of the river there are plenty for rent and for sale signs but really around Main Street I'd have to say that there are no for sale signs at least none that I can really see so I challenge his first point there that he talks about the need I'm not sure I really see it maybe I'm just young and I really haven't seen it yet the other thing is that he talked about significant structural things he mentioned the monument I don't know if many of you walk Main Street but there's a big smiley face spray painted on it I question that if we're going to enact IES that we really feel are we must maintain the structural Integrity well I tell you what guys and that's 25 by 25 I drive that road every day you can see that smiley face it's as plain as day which was all the more evident today as the sun came out so I question that that from a standpoint of if we're going to actually enact policies and talk about the significant structural features let's admit that we have fallen down in some places the fourth was is that the architectural styles of the houses must be maintained now I live at 115 Main Street I've read the report the 75 page paper which was no easy task even for a man of my education but I'd have to say that 115 is identified as a Greek Revival style well let me tell you as a man who has worked underneath the ceiling of that it's a federalist style the porch was added on in the mid-60s it was not an original structural component it's a federalist style so I challenge the accuracy of this report that so clearly identifies this one house as in Greek Revival well it has the pillars well sure it has the pillars and it has since the 60s but in the 1860s when the house was built by the son of the founder of this town it was a federalist style and anybody who takes a good law look of it we'll tell you so as the characteristic of the chimneys on both sides the 6x6 windows and the symmetrical style so it challenge the accuracy of any report that could be so negligent my fifth point the 25x 25 does not protect the trees nor the Landscaping if Miss if Mr Evan there we'll just give you the honorific there my my comfortability not yours um if we're really to protect the structural AR the structural features of the landscape let me tell you that some of the most distinctive features of Main Street are in fact not in the homes themselves but rather the trees that have lived there for decades on end the Norwegian Maples the regular Maples the Pines these sorts of trees are not anywhere protected in this policy so this policy clearly fails to address significant portions of the Main Street thing and if we're going to enact policy it ought to be right it ought to be right and that goes to the fifth point this goes to the fourth point the reports have to be accurate policy ought to be driven on fact and it ought to be efficient and quite frankly this policy fails on that point as well the sixth point that I wish to address was the uh was one of the ones that really was not brought up in the meeting that I had the honor to attend two months ago was the issue of multi-tenant the multi- tenure really sort of uh this policy as it was sort of pitched if you will maybe with no no deception meant on Mr evans's part there but really was sort of thought that there would be a tenant maybe our an office not not two or not two or three two or three tenants I mean at what point does a building become a become an office what at what point does a home become an office building how what is the moral differences there my seventh point the problem of replacement now uh the building across from St Mary's uh in my very lifetime burned down I have to question that a policy that says well the building has to be built back in the exact same way I have to ask the board would you prefer an empty lot or a new building done in the modernist style food for thought my eth point and this goes to what Jen had said Miss Jen Miss Jen if the plan goes by the board if we enact this policy if you all enact this policy what really is their recourse for the homeowners to challenge you say well there would be a public hearing well if the public hearing says that an office can go in then I'm no lawyer I'm a history teacher but it seems to me if the policy says you can have an office then it doesn't matter whether I'm selling uh you know whether or not I'm managing a business down the road or whether I'm uh or whether I'm selling any number of uh what we might term toward Goods so really what recourse does the homeowner have will they say well I don't want to I I don't want a shop that you know manages the accounts of such and such being advertised next to my home well Miss Jen the policy clearly states that I'm allowed to have an office and whether or not you care about what my office manages or what it sells is none really of your concern under this policy my ninth Point as Jen was talking about the traffic I live at 115 Main Street it sits on the corner of Westwood and Main Street recently this very year there was a sign put up I was shocked to see the sign let me tell you as a person who was walk there time and again between 7 and 8:00 in the morning and 2 and 3 in the afternoon left turns are not actually allowed they're illegal they're elicit uh off of Westwood which I already which I already have problems with but laying those are if we already have problems on Westwood how much more so my 115 has two cuts into the uh into the roads it has a nice uh a very nice little sort of uh turn there it's a very uh advantageous point for any sort of office building I me from any sort of Point you'd have to say Well it has two cuts it's we got that nice oneway that the gentleman Mr wers was talking about earlier it's very prime location under this ordinance 115 is allowed to put in office there how much more problems will be caused on Westwood by this policy more food for thought finally I'd like to give you a piece of cultural information there's a thing in Spain it's called the P Italy has it too but I'm no Italian scholar my father who teaches who taught Spanish we tell you I'm no Spanish scholar either but there's this thing called the p and it's this this idea that in the evening people walk about town and you walk about town and you say hello to your neighbors and one of the great Joys growing up was walking with my father on these very streets D up Westward around on Mountain View down back around up through Main Street and seeing my neighbors and the people that I'd grown up with and they walk the same routes and they sit on their porches and they hang out and we see each other where does that go when the office closes at 5: in the evening where does that go thank you for your time consideration thank you appreciate it others wow um and you are I'm Daniel the point and two sites in Oro one on Forest Avenue and one on Kelly Road um long-term resident um first I was a little Tardy on the first meeting I understand that those folks got their uh request in for a stand good it's great we love business and we love families doing business and the heartfelt thing that Mr Gillette spoke about really resonated with me and so it's it's in it's in kind uh what he was saying zoning always results in further taxes no more new taxes no more none okay if a family wants to do something different that's that's leave it up to them no restrictions on Historic Site inspection or oversight shame on all of you how egotistical each home was built in different times under different circumstances they didn't have the zoning the economic engine to create those homes were prevalent in the area at that time and they're a godson and how dare Mr Evan ever ever and I'm just going to be clear I I I I do not want you to insult the board I don't want you to insult sorry I'm not insulting anybody but how dare anybody ever say that it's not anything in this town is nonconforming with new ordinance that I find offensive U Mr chabuk thank you sir you mentioned something that is very serious the restrictions on historic is sufficient for that these people love their homes they live in their homes they're part of their homes you know once these things these restrictions go into place you have no Deeds do not say that you have a right of dis oversight on these dwellings now that they're historic and they choose to live in them wow great for them happy the Gillette are a wonderful family and very vibrant within our community I there should always be opportunities for changes within the family structure mother-in-law family additions or subtractions for that matter the fact that the person comes forward and says gosh I find myself in a different economic uh position perhaps you could help me if you make these restrictions part of policy and unleash inspections how dare you that's not right you you don't have that right it isn't part of anybody's D you can't assume to take that from them and these are unfunded mandates but you know the idea that these uh possibilities for changes within the family should always be accommodated anybody trick or treat here there are two great streets in Orono one is Main Street and the other is Forest Avenue homes occupied by people friends family I grew up with and went to school with how lovely all of this goes the the only place left is breweries the only place left is museums nonprofits businesses coldhearted doors closed nothing there home occupancy and a business adventure oh yes by all means we Pat them on the back we welcome this we just say hey great friends but anybody that thinks that they're going to be so restrictive on taxes you've driven a lot of people out of this community and coming here for taxes where's the families where's the education where are the people the new people coming in here for these elitist Country Club type things that God sakes alive you're going to have an El elderly retired somebody even come into the family dwelling and try to exist here under such circumstances how wealthy do we want everybody sad um it's not welcoming these this whole process is not welcomed not welcoming it is an oversight you know the progressive thing is to just micromanage and I'll tell you what's take a step back this doesn't need to be done the the traffic uh mentioned by this lady and Miss uh Gillette Mr Gillette are very much a concern God's sakes you know anytime there's an Adventure going on at the University we suffer and the whole Community does Family Values you know I it it's it's it's uh what you you have to have accommodation for families and this is not accommodating the minute that you say it has to be that and we're not going to Mr Gillette concern about trees and stuff there is such a diversity here how it's the challenge and the restrictions for the consider this to be Auntie bellum's homes for the whole length of it is absolutely be beyond measure how you know the only thing that I can see at the end of this is nonprofits businesses the family the environment of the community and when you have somebody that loves a home the the the long picked up the the the home ownership the occupancy when you walk the street how joyous it is to to have friends and neighbors and and this is nothing of a friendly step for this board or anybody to consider such uh these these things architecturally and and the greatest problem here is saying that the vibrancy of the community my God I'd love to see the Harry Potter house go up over here because the family has 25 members within that family and has a need to expand all right I'm not saying that maybe it would be the best thing in the world but I would love to see such vibrancy everything that you're saying here is is no the absolute opposite to to family vibrancy and viability the um like you to wrap it up to so we can now I have one more thing to say with these businesses and this is my biggest concern now in this community blue sale feed had a wonderful place that was there forever in a day a tool shop that I'm sure everybody and maybe many in this room went there and and they offered Cut Rate tools it was a great deal for the community and and I myself took advantage of this well you know they got displaced out of their rent and the reason they got dis placed out of the rent is because a pot growing operation is going to be in that site now God Dar it folks this makes me angry when you're going to take a step back and you're going to say you know this is more my economic engine in this community is not handled correctly you are topheavy you are pay spending too much money and to think that you're going to generate this money by driving people out and and taking away from this an W up again I walk the streets with grandchildren on trick-or-treating some of the people come out of the homes and walk and we socialize the feeling within the community is complete this decision actually takes a knife and it cuts the arterial blood out of the community forever changing it okay thank you Dan like to invite others hi my name is uh John Tierney I live at 92 Main Street right down the street I was part of the uh committee subcommittee to uh partake in developing the overlay over the winter months I missed most of the April meetings because I was away in guiding in other parts of the world but uh so things kind of took a big change during that time and I'm not that familiar with the basis for some of those changes but uh I think as it stands now I've lived in Oro since 1981 since 1984 I've lived somewhere on Main Street I have two properties in Orono um I also was the only paramedic in Orono from 1988 until oral fire took over the fire to fire for the most part and during that time I don't really have any recollection of there being any auto accidents that cause any injuries to pedestrians on Main Street I can only really recall one so if we want to speak about facts then let's actually look it up um and and see how many incidents actually have occurred um I don't think that the volume of traffic that we're speaking about here is going to significantly change from what is already there is driving the traffic is the University which is a long-standing tradition of oreno right whether it comes through Oldtown or it comes through oreno it has to get there so I don't think the addition of of some offices or some small retail spaces are going to significantly alter that if you take 12,000 and you add 30 to it what have you done if you take 12,000 and you add 50 to it what have you done you haven't really significantly impacted that so I'm not sure that some of these things would have the kind of impact that I'm hearing at expressed I can say for my own business which is Alpo adventure sports um we were forced to move out of a location in downtown Oro and I purchased a house here as an alternative to move into there and and our business has really suffered over the last 8 to 10 years because of that um we under work under a home occupation we probably have less than 10 car visitors a day probably more like five to six the majority of traffic is walk-in traffic and bicycle traffic pedestrian traffic and that comes in uh you know and even that we're probably talking about less than 20 customers a day so we're not talking about big numbers I feel like we've weakened this process so much that at this point it's not much different than a home occupation view you know and and we've also allowed to have a planning board and Council review of any future prospects anyways if they are an office so if we're going to do that then what is the purpose of this you know that becomes the question right because if you can't just go ahead and do it what the ordinance is allowing or proposing then you really have to still do the process so what do you gain by having an ordinance that allows you to do certain things so so that's kind of a question I guess that I would propose I I have some kind of questions that I just wanted to clarify and I know Evans worked super hard on this and tried to be very you know ecumenical to all the varying you know concerns and causes and and taking it back to the drawing board 100 times I feel like so uh so I certainly appreciate all that work I just feel like we' kind of watered it down to just offices and that certainly has an impact on me personally um I'm not sure that I'm pretty convinced I could put offices in my house under this ordinance and have a lot more traffic but still not significantly impacting the traffic on the street okay um I think I'd have more than five or six cars coming in a day if I had two Physicians offices in there or something like that but it still wouldn't be dramatic it would still probably be 30 cars you which is not going to significantly change the traffic on Main Street um so a couple questions I I guess I would have just to see Clarity and perhaps I should have done this earlier with with Evan but what is what constitutes under this definition a dwelling unit would that be like a whole apartment or a room or uh a dwelling unit would be an apartment an apartment okay that's what my definition as well I just want to make sure yes a dwelling unit is already defined in the ordinance as any unit that has the complete living facilities a bath room bedroom living area eating area and the second question would be is there any way to to create a mixture of office space and home occupation use yes this you uh this would not affect this would allow mixed use you could have residential which would also include could could be a home occupation and it could have an office as written I would favor that this favor the person who's living in their home having an office or a retail space in their home um but that they're living there rather than just converting it um I would also say that I I have a real concern about the value of my property okay I purchased this property in 2001 or 2003 I've done tons of infrastructure repair New heating system new insulation uh rewired the entire house a lot of infrastructure refinish floors and things I had it appraise this year and it's less worth less now than it was then so I'm like huh what do I do with that you know I'm actually in a losing proposition here so how do I move forward with that so um I don't know where to turn I think it's going to be very difficult to sell a home that has 12 rooms as a single family unit I think there has to be Alternatives we spent a lot of time this winter trying to figure out those Alternatives it seems like they've been quite limited and at the end of it we still need planning board approval so my argument would be that we basically encourage people to come forth to the planning board and say this is what I would like to do put it out to the people and say do you think this is okay and then get a yes or no I mean we're not that far away from that right now with this proposal as it stands as it stood back in February and March I think we had a pretty good proposal but I don't think we have a very strong one now so thank you thank you others uh I'm going to allow new comments please before we uh go up for the second one thank you my name is Ben King and I live at 123 Main Street and uh my wife and our young family um my girls are fourth generation to live at the house and it's been owned by the family for nearly 80 years and we value having families live on Main Street and certainly Our concern is that this may encourage some of those homes to um become essentially non-residential um even though they may appear to be residences that um it it's something where there wouldn't be kids playing next door that that sort of thing um so that's certainly Our concern and um it's also our opinion that there are current mechanisms maybe they're not perfect but if someone did need to have a home office or something that seems like uh there are current mechanisms uh in place so certainly a question that that we have is um is there really a sufficient need to to make this change given that there are potential costs we do value the historic Integrity of the homes on Main Street it's certainly uh one of the reasons why we we love our homes so much um and uh but at the same time um you know these These are homes in our minds um so uh if 10 to 15% of the homes were for sale in the 2010 or or that vicinity if this was in place perhaps there would be four or five fewer homes on Main Street um that I think would make a difference to the the community as it is but I certainly appreciate all of the the work that has been put into these proposals and thinking longterm um but we wanted to voice our opinion so thank you thank you Jen you're up so my name's Jen I just wanted to address a couple of things that John mentioned um I do think that you know whether this is considered a gain or a loss is a matter of perspective I don't think it's one way or the other obviously I consider this a loss he consider you know he would like to see it he he sees it as a loss he'd rather see it more aggressive in a way or um mixed use friend might be the better way to say that um the other thing about the the cars the traffic when I was talking about that my concern is not necessarily the number of cars it's the people turning left and right and I know that there have been accidents on Main Street I was rear ended uh turning on to Westwood about a year ago and the person in back of me who was sandwiched was rushed off in an ambulance so I do think it's the number but it's the number of people turn turning turning left and right and that is an issue um I I wanted to add I you said John Ben sorry Ben um mentioned how um the figures that kind of initiated this whole thing was uh 10% of the homes in this area and I don't know how many homes that includes is it 50 is it more how many no well there are 80 nine proper so there were there were I think 11 at one point properties for sale at the same time as in the 2012 period so I mean we can all understand that right there's a turnover an economic turnover maybe a number people are moving out of the area right it that can happen but we haven't seen anything like that since probably I thought uh Ben's point that a number of those homes would now be businesses and under this proposal could be um buildings historic buildings that are Office Buildings and that does impact the community um I think that a Orno Prides itself on community and I think it's something that's worth really considering how this would impact it um thanks I won't come up thank you are there new comments before we have repeat I know we have a couple members of the audience that took the time to come here this evening would you like an opportunity to speak wait just a minute please okay new comments and then we'll hi I'm Lynn Curtis King I live at 123 Main Street we have the ASA Babcock house which was built in 1829 and as my husband mentioned my grandfather bought it in 1940 um my family has kept very good care of it and growing up here one of the things that I definitely valued were the children in the community knowing that we had children across the street children next door lots and lots of families to play with um Orno I feel has sadly in the past kind of lost the ball and too many of the houses have been converted into Apartments which today are for college students for the most part and we're starting to lose that sense of community and the sense of families and I would hate to see that degraded even more by ending up with more Office Buildings and once you start that Trend I'm just afraid that it's kind of a slippery slope and too many of the houses are going to end up being converted before my grandfather moved up here he lived in Freeport and for those of you who have visited Main Street in Freeport there are no families who live there anymore and I do not want that to happen to Orno it's a town that we love it's a town that we value and we truly appreciate the residences and the families that live here thank you very good before we move further I do want to clarify there's been a couple comments uh just talking about uh what this board is doing what the council's doing but just to refresh people's memory we spent 2 and A2 years redoing our comprehensive plan with endless discussion about trying to attract uh young families trying to make things affordable trying to open up opportunities and enhance uh our town a lot of discussion very rigorous uh participation in our public hearings we we received a lot of comment so I I hope it's clear that uh the restrictions are coming out or what it's perceived restrictions were that that's not the intent the comprehensive plan is looking out 10 years to help this town grow and part of the the ongoing process with the ordinance that's before us right now is to figure out uh hopefully a better way to to do things so with you know without trying to limit the opportunities in Oro but attracting young families and affordability were pretty much I would say probably the biggest point that was made over two and a half years so just just know that there is a lot of town and citizen involvement not just this board but so a great process you know but uh to answer your point again the and you know you had mentioned you stepped away but clearly The Proposal in front of us is strictly office space so between the comments from the council and from the corridor committees that's that's what we're looking at now again as you mentioned an incremental start perhaps and to see whether this might be uh a good start and then see where we go go from there so it's still on the table uh again we appreciate your comment but so uh new comments please uh please be pointed uh we don't need any repeat discussion we you know we've heard heard the comments so Dan you're up uh to to the point and first if you please uh you're what's that Mr the comment is a quick one y thank you go ahead I just wanted to um to say actually and this this might be um this might have been made Mo by your last statement sir I just wanted to realize um I realized in going over my uh my remarks that I did not thank you sir for your hard work uh I recognized um in my comments certainly many things that I felt were flaws but I do recognize and having been on many committees for my own School the the amount of hours that you have put in and certainly the amount of hours that the board has put in and I wanted to say that wow I think that the proposal in in front of us is not really where I'd like to see it but I do appreciate the work that has gone into it so thank you sir and thank you members of the board we appreciate that that comment Dan Leo Forest Avenue Kelly Road long-term res resident pretty much my whole life um I wish to say something that happened here in this very same building this is the third Town Hall we have misadventure for whatever reason burnt down two fire stations burnt down each time they were rebuilt with the current vibrancy of the community to the best abilities we could in fact that structure this structure nothing like it in the town before with these ordinances this historic such things that you're requesting that would cost us way much more and the vibrancy of this is the fact that the building is built and it's being used some parts of it were built for other means but it has it's fully occupied and I'm saying that that restriction is something we don't need the families love their homes and I dare say what they paid for it back in the 40s or whatever is not what it's currently valued today and how much do they pay on taxes god um I you know we talk on certain things but there are considerations that Oro has that it hasn't considered or maybe has and I I just want to say that the business parks on efforts of Oro the benck road Kelly Road dismal very poor you you guys you know I don't want to give you guys a rating on that because maybe you're not involved but it's pretty sad and um there's a lot that can be done and we don't have to change and Chase out our community and our friends and neighbors thank you all right we're at 9 o' uh we've received public comment but I for one uh I'm not ready to keep moving on this uh so we have a couple options typically we don't we don't really go too late on this planning board so I I don't think we're going to resolve this uh this evening so I can leave the public hearing open I can I mean if there's couple you know comments here again you folks set through this meeting so Mr shair can I just ask one question of Evan Maybe yeah if this passes what will it do to the property taxes of the folks that live there words I talk to Rick Sans during the process because that came up several times and Rick didn't think it would have much impact much much or any he couldn't discern any because it would it would only help maintain whatever value it's got that that was the whole intent and it's like what what would be the case so when the re-evaluation goes through it wouldn't become you're saying it wouldn't become revalued at a a higher state property because now it could be something that it's not currently no it would it would still be it would still depend on what the market is saying that property is worth okay and not you know it's really based on what the what the comparables are and not what some imagined highest and best use would be that's you know that's what that it is and um I do just want to say that and I probably didn't make the point strong enough but it was brought up just a few minutes ago that everybody should be clear that right now today anybody can take one of those homes and convert it into student housing that can be done today uh at least at least for most cases three students a two un though right it could be could it could be if it's got a 40,000 ft lot which the number of them are you could have two units and six students so that's what you can do today and a lot of the concern of the comprehensive plan committee was to figure out how you balance a student population in town which is you know part of big part of this town with the desire to not lose family housing and what you can do today is convert those homes into student homes and we now have 17 properties in the quor that are rental properties residential rental properties proper what you cannot do is have an office you can't even have an office you know other than a home occupation you could not do a rainstorm and I think a lot of the model that we have in our mind is the rainstorm which as far as I know has not caused anybody any problems but rather has been a matter of quite quite a lot of Pride but anyways that's important point because the this was this Prov this work that the conference plan committee recommended and that the council adopted as part of the conference of plan was to help give an alternative to the conversion of single family homes into student housing thank you we had another comment I'd like to hear hear what you have real quick kind of basically just said it again my name is John uh going back to the initial purpose of the plan right to attract new people to attract young families things like that I I think Evan pretty much just summed it up pretty well in the sense that we need more options and this if we if we this gives us more options it doesn't give as many as I would like but at least gives us some um so I guess I would ask that the planning board Comm you know consider how many options are we creating for people I I'm pretty certain I would have a difficult time selling my home if I didn't have some opportunity for a young couple or family to come in and have some alternative use because families just aren't as big as they used to be and I don't know what they would do with those other six or seven rooms um so without subdividing it without renting it to students I'm not really left with many options and if I have to pass that off to someone else to purchase my home in the future they're not going to have many options which ultimately means eventually that home just kind of Falls further and further into Decay because there's no money to maintain it and this provides a source to help maintain the homes as well so that would be my point thanks thank you all right so can can I ask a question you certainly may oh good um I just want to make sure that I understand this if we um allow this ordinance and a um a site plan came to us that met the criteria we couldn't deny based on the type of office that's right that's correct okay thank you mhm other questions so and just keep in mind I don't think we're going to solve this tonight we haven't really jumped into the meat and gone through some of the provisions and I think we should has anybody looked at what the economic benefit would be of allowing the economic the off office occupancies well nobody's Quantified it I think just as a general matter of policy there was there were these several currents going on at the same time which pointed the conference of plan Committee in this direction John as you'll remember and one of those currents is an understanding that especially in Orono as a university town but generally other places as well there is this um there is a a trend towards um people combining their place of work with their place of living and that idea of was appealing to the town as a way to provide another way for families to live here um and maybe all those things point to an owner you know an owner occupancy kind of requirement which is not in this present thing but that was the idea that that our economic base in Orono which we understand quite well um is based in large part on the startup economy microenterprise um and those kinds of things uh that are not a typical of a university town was part of the thinking um that this Corridor might be made available to that in a way that's not today out outside of a home occupation other questions I don't want people to lose their thought but all right what a uh I'd like some opinion on uh process here I we're not I don't think we're ready to make any any vote at this time yes could I so uh here's the um question for and this is something that uh all planning boards face once in a while and that is something like this uh in June we're it looks like the agenda is building up on several items generally small scale but several items um so the question becomes do you want to have a workshop on this matter where you can just you focus on this matter and go through Section by section or you know digest the comments you've heard and decide whether there should be changes or whether it should uh go forward at all or whether you want to take it up again as simply an agenda item on a regular board meeting I was wondering again good question I was wondering whether we we'd actually make more process uh progress as a as a workshop so not not excluding the public that that would be open be open that' be public me but it would be it would be not a business meeting it would be a workshop session and U then it come then it would come back to your next business meeting as well for further you know open discussion and and a decision as to whether recommend it recommended with changes or recommend denial I would agree with the workshop approach others I would too okay other comments I mean are people okay with that we we can't resist another meeting right so I I support the workshop but I wonder if there's a way to kind of go through the options and do pros and cons so if you do one one item or one proposal what are the pros and cons if you do the other what are the pros and cons and if you do nothing what are the pros and cons have we already done that or I guess this seems very split from what we're hearing from public comment it it's been processed a lot but I mean what are what are the outcomes or the implic of whatever this policy right would be cuz I'm I'm still stuck on the When you mention the three options and hearing we had a chart earlier uh you know and we went through that that was before the April meeting we had a chart that said here are the three options and one was a more aggressive option both in terms of opening up potential land uses but also in requiring more in terms of architectural integrity and then there was a middle option and then there was this option it was pretty clear that the town certainly isn't ready for the more aggressive option on at either end of requiring more preservation in return for more uses or for the more uses so uh it bounced back dialed back down to uh this probably this most incremental option although it could be made even more incremental by adding things like the own Rocky requirement so but I could I could certainly take this draft as it currently stands and has been referred to by the council and say here are options with respect to this draft and here are pros and cons that we have heard on the on the key measures on the key standards and the key I think that would be responsibili I agree yeah I I think your the example that you gave Evan for right now somebody could do student housing as as the policy stands I think it might be helpful to have other similar examples so what can people what are people able to and not able to do currently and how much of a demand do we have from an application standpoint or even an inquiry standpoint yeah sure I can I can I can do a quick summary of it on in writing but as I've said before several times and as we noted during the comprensive plan committee um right now you can do you you can have a single family home if you got a large enough piece of land you can have a two family home either the single family home or two family home doesn't have to be owner occupied can be rented and it can be rented to students and we certainly know of a few cases where homes that were single family homes owner occupied are now homes rented to students that has not really taken I mean it's not doesn't not does not dominate this Corridor as it has dominated some neighborhoods because you know the single family part of this has been strong enough and desirable enough that it's been enough demand that it's withstood that um and the town's regulations on number of unrelated people who can live in a dwelling unit which changed some 10 or 12 years ago has dampened the ability to buy a large home and converted into you know housing for 10 or 15 students um and therefore has dampened the economics of that um so you can you can you can do that single family or two family rental or not you can do home occupations which are as you know quite restricted in terms of signage advertising number of employees it really is a home occupation that's part accessory to the dwelling P primary purpose is a owner occupied or as as the as accessory to uh the occupancy of that dwelling unit um or you can apply for zoning change you know sort of a lot by lot zoning change which is really not envisioned either in the law of zoning or in our comprehensive plan as something that is highly desirable you do it in you and you do it in relatively unique situations and you know we're the council will would entertain I'm sure any reasonable petition would at least look at it but zoning is meant to treat similar properties similarly and so it doesn't it's not intended to say oh well oh you want this oh well we'll do a little contract Zone with you customize that it's really meant for some and some of these properties would probably qualify as as unique because of their size and location and so forth so but that's an option and we've we've had a couple of those the St Mary's complex is a contract Zone and the rainstorm property is a contract Zone in this Corridor so those are the only options available today unless unless it's a non-conform unless it's use that existed before the zoning went in and so you have several offices office uses in the corridor and you can look at them as how they how do they perform and are they additions or are they detrimental to the corridor you got the real estate insurance office Scott Thomas's you've got the wellness facility which was a former doctor's office have rainstorm uh you have alpen glow which is a non-residential use uh is combined with a residential use and so forth and couple of those situations people live in the home where they also have their business a couple situations um the owner has an office but they don't live there so all right that part of it's pretty simple I'll write it down but that that part of it is pretty simple that's good so Workshop we agreed to that uh what we looking at June so we double up we've got a planning board meeting I don't even remember what day it is will be the 21st June 21st is the is the uh board meeting do you want Caitlyn to send out a doodle and see who can attend yes please better um certain days of the week you want me to aim for are we just going to try to stick with Wednesdays uh just send out a doodle pool we give us a couple options Wednesdays would be a start yeah so for members of the public so we propose a workshop these are open to the public so just so you know you participated now we're going to discuss this usually how we set things up at least I'm thinking like the comp plan committee Evan's going to provide us a summary you you know you're all invited come listen and usually we're going to discuss what we have to discuss and then there will be an option to provide public comment we'll have a designated spot usually so we can make progress we Forge ahead but there will be opportunity to participate correct that's how we're going to go about this yes and if you'd like you leave your email addresses so we can send you an email if when the date of the workshop will be good so I'll leave the public hearing open so that we can have the workshop and then come back and revisit this so public hearing stays open and then I'm just I it's after 9: I can't think so procedurally do we have to motion or do I just leave the I think you just table this matter we table this matter there we go what he said and keep the keep the hearing open until the next meeting I make a motion that we table this matter until second very good all those in favor oppos all right uh thanks for coming everybody uh moving on WE old business there is none you mention a new business uh it says None but you mentioned things are stacking up in June could you we yeah we have we certainly have several inquiries um and that I believe are going to materialize into uh items for the agenda uh um let's see if I can think of what they are there is at least one home Kelly Road right Kelly Road is that the disc golf course idea um I I don't know that that's com we've talked to them and they're not in a big rush to get out they want to really examine the site and understand the site to lay it out before they come in with a plan so I'm not sure they'll be in but we've got a home occupation for Pilates um studio studio that'll be coming okay um um there is I think maybe uh the the recent buyers of the lane property will come in for a finding of of a non-conforming use no more non-conforming than what was there previously um see I think there's at least I think there's one oh there may be a uh the council May refer to you a an amendment to the zoning ordinance that is being proposed by um the owner of Timberland uh Animal Hospital out in the C1 District um they would like a little bit that property owner would like leeway in the C1 district for some rural type uses that because it's commercial one allowed um and the council will discuss that tomorrow night at their at their committee meeting and I think there might have been a fourth one that's just escaping me right now but it sounds like three or four proposals may be coming in very good thank you all right next up uh discussion yes is it permissible to put a time limit on when these various people speak it is absolutely permissible yeah like five minutes or whatever right usually I gauge that depending on I mean if if we don't have a lot of people sitting in the audience so I I agree with you and then so if that's a concern I'll be a little bit more aggressive Too Short yeah yeah I think I'll be a little more aggressive but what I was gauging is one of one of the uh the speakers this evening actually went on on for a while that that there was 10 10 points and so I was trying to at least again provide equal time if the board wants me to shorten that up I can do that yeah I mean I I think that that that's uh that's something that's certainly within the prerogative of the chair sure uh and the and the committee I do think that you got some good input tonight we got some good input and you know the 10 points were right I'm mindful of that I usually try to provide equal time cuz that one went on for a while so I was gauging that in my head but I I agree with you if uh if the board wants me to tighten up a little bit I I I can do that I think if you did set a stand oh go ahead yeah asking them to have a statement that they want us to read I know I've when I've gone before the council a couple times I've given an outline of what I want to discuss so they know where I'm going right yeah I mean it's it's interesting to see where some of the discussions go but I'll uh I'll be a little more mindful of that but I I I'm always thinking of that but it just again trying to provide when you don't have a a huge crowd you know trying to fight equal time and but well I think we're all thinking of mostly limiting one person yeah correct and that I I don't yeah right and I I just do that can't that's that's not how how so to that that person has to have the same amount of time as whoever else spoke longest my and I thought the 10 or 12 points were reasonable I mean you know so so that that was my gauge this evening so again these people are coming out to the meetings I uh some comments are going to be for some are against I'm not going to put up with insults to this board that that's just not appropriate so usually well he didn't hold it against us yeah so either way either way're not and the other thing is as it gets closer to nine my brain starts to die you and me both so I I think if you just as a matter of principle if you have a three minute um guideline for every single hearing you have you have no risk of singling people out right and and again it's always just kind of on the Fly that that's been my Approach you you look at the audience and I'm like okay you know we have this many people that wasn't a large crowd so I was just thinking that I'll let I give them a little bit of latitude but the the first Speaker the 10 points that was then that became my my limit but so sometimes you know doing things on the fly but I I'll uh I'll be a little bit more watchful of that all right last up uh adjournment can I have a motion please all right so we had a motion on second did I get a second second very good uh all those in favor good see you next month and Caitlyn you're going to email us I sure will tomorrow for