board meeting this Wednesday May 18 2016. uh first item on our agenda is a roll call tonight we have Lisa Buck we have Krista Swinson we have Judd McIntosh we've got Jeremy Chubbuck myself Phil Ruck and we've got Michael Costello down at the end uh next item is acceptance of the agenda so moved have a second second any uh discussion additions comments doing none all those in favor the agenda is presented I feel you need to designate Michael I designate you as a voting member this evening thanks up approval of the minutes of last month April 27 2016. I move approval of the minutes discussion comments edits with your usual Stellar job thank you I I only have one sorry Ruth I've got to make one comment on your way out the door so yeah I know it's your last chance yeah uh page four I don't know is it Phil Ruck felt it was a bad impressive dance to set or a precedent foreign public hearings this evening first one up is an amended site plan review request by Independence Advocates of Maine I think Inc who wish to construct an addition to their existing facility located at 2 Hillside Road tax map 20-3 lot 59 in the C2 Zone before we get going uh I will be recusing myself for this uh application and stepping down uh Judd what do you mind sharing I would love to yeah what a guy from you Evan um typically the first step is to have the applicant gear Bay overview an overview of the of the plan um give the board a chance to ask questions of that and then I can provide a summary and then you open the public hearing for comments sounds great the applicant [Music] good evening I'm Sean please the CES Engineers representing the applicant tonight also here is Catherine Robertson the executive director for independent Advocates of Maine and I and also their board president so they'll be able to helpful and hopefully answer any questions that you may have regarding the facility but I'll give you an overview of what the project is the existing facility was built in around 1979 and it's uh they've sort of outgrown their space they're quite restricted in there for not that they want to grow the number of residents that they have but mainly expand some of the the living space and the administration and services that are inside the building this is a Intermediate Care Facility residential care for people with extreme disabilities both physical and mental disabilities as you can see sort of on the plan the existing building it's shaped sort of like a capital e each of the three so I've gone through the they're designated as houses three houses on the I'd say essentially the South East part there's one here one in the middle one on the end those are the uh residential spaces they have approximately 15 beds total for those three Wings where and each Wing has bedroom space or the common living space and bathrooms and then sort of the long piece of the existing building is where they have the administration areas kitchen facilities laundry and that type of type of things so the proposal is to add two additions onto the building one in this area here and one on the corner over here one's roughly 2 800 square feet and the other one is approximately three thousand square feet and then also off to the side a 900 square foot garage for uh storage space and things like that the the additions will be used for to expand the administration essentially the administration area is essentially up in this corner conference room space office space and the bottom area would allow an expansion of the kitchen and those facilities service type areas as part of this project the rest of the existing building it's it's essentially a complete renovation of the existing structure allow them to expand those residential areas more into some of the existing space I'm moving there admin and kitchen areas into the new areas of the site other than the the building expansions or additions proposing a change to the parking layout currently the driveway comes up there's a parking area on this side of the building for their band Vans and shuttle buses and on the back side the sort of a big loop that comes around with parking around the exterior of that Loop that'll all be removed in in the parking lot is as shown here with a central island parking on both sides would replace the existing parking until it adds roughly 12 new spaces to the to the property and the overall between the the parking revisions the building Edition s removal of existing Pavement in some areas it adds a little over 8 000 square feet of new impervious area to the site we're proposing to handle storm water through the construction of a underground soil filter right over in that corner there's a high point in this proposed parking lot right in here so all this new parking will drain over to that under drain soil filter along with a portion of the road here and some of the roof area from this building so we're treating approximately 10 000 square feet of impervious surface so that extra the treatment that we're providing it's it's more than what the new impervious areas that we're adding so that should address any concerns with uh with runoff both quantity and quality all the existing utility services that come into the building those will all be reused so all the all the Plenty work or service work is all inside the building or in the basement areas and there's no new traffic or traffic increases no increase in employees or residents so be happy that answer any questions that the board has was so one of our issues was Version Control but it looks like it was added after the fact it was and perhaps Sean can address that yes after we had submitted our sort of our sinus Mission having noted that we didn't include an erosion control plan so we had we've included a narrative plan that addresses erosion control and we also revise the site plan and the detail sheet to add origin control notes and immersion control measures on the site plan Mandy has not seen this or you indicated that you felt like she should approve this or uh she and she saw the original plan um she did not see the erosion control plan but I think this is a standard plan that's of the type that she would advise hey thanks and just to to make clear I assume that the the the there's a could you point out where how the drainage is actually going to work that part of the dream that's going to be directed toward the uh uh the filter and that part which is going to be directed towards a reshaped Swale around to Hillside sure So currently there's a a high spot essentially in the center of this back parking lot where water is directed either Westerly direction or off to the east there's a Swale that runs around the side of the property and down which continues on through the culvert I think it's actually two culverts there's a there's a separate access I think it's emergency access for Orchard Trails potentially it's a gated gated Road through here so there's a culvert under there and another Culvert under Hillside where the water all discharges and similarly on this side it comes around line on this edge of the property is an existing stream so all the water gets down through the woods to that stream and eventually goes down and crosses the road as well so we're essentially maintaining that same high spot and maybe shifted slightly to the east a little bit so the water on this half will continue to flow to the east we have to revise some of the grading for this whale to get it to go out around this Edition but once it's there it'll continue on in that same sort of fashion that it does now down that side and then the side here where it all goes to the proposed on the drain soil filter we have a an overflow structure in that filter and all the under drain from that filter is piped over to an existing catch Basin structure which is then piped down in outlets near the Stream So that that catch Basin and that outlet pipe is all there today we are proposing to replace the pipe because it's in bad shape but they're not necessarily redirecting or changing the flow pass from where the water goes now to to where it's expected to go and I could I guess I didn't mention the revision to this side of the building but so the parking lot that there that's there now will come out um we have a essentially it's a drop off pickup area for the residents there's a not an enclosed structure but a roofed structure here so when it does bring the residents out and Wheelchairs and such they can have them undercover when it's inclement weather parking spaces here for their Vans and buses does anyone else have any questions on the board all right Evan you wanna yes um Sean's done a pretty good job of of explaining that the projects are won't go through all those details again for context this was built facilities built in 1979 and at the time it was a probably about a 50 percent larger lot than it is today 2003 the Southeastern portion of the lot was sold off to uh for the purpose of a single family home is located there now so it is now 2.9 Acre Site um the the dividing line between the two properties is a stream and it's a CEO round stream with water's flowing all year but small stream is not large enough to be part of the Shoreland zoning system and so forth that is something that we want to make sure we looked at in terms of the additional flows if there are any flows but as you can see on the plan and maybe Sean can point it out there is not too much intrusion on the existing Rotator there is between the development and the paid paid area the driveway and the parking and so forth and the proposal garage and that stream there is remains a fairly wide wooded buffer area the only place that comes close is down towards the uh entrance into the into the around those three you'll see three three proposed parking spaces on the widened access road is near the beginning and you can see that the grading comes down close to the boundary line of the property which is the Stream um so um now drainage will have been largely captured before that and and so um you know in in pipes but um we might hear from Sean about a little bit more about how that might be stabilized and vegetated and so forth um just uh I think the remote control plan addresses it but you might want some clarity on that um they're it's uh because this project is adding information but it's also subtracting in previous area it's converting much of the front parking lot into a landscaped area and so there's uh there's the net addition of improvement series is modest only in the realm of 8 000 uh four thousand forty four hundred square and eight thousand around eight thousand square feet and um Mandy has looked at that and agrees that that does not add the the under drain that they're putting in will treat a larger purpose area than they're adding so there is a probably a net gain in stormwater quality as a result of that utilities a number of the utility piece of utility infrastructure being replaced you can see in the on the plan uh storm lines are being replaced um the water line is remaining as it is um I think sewer line is the meaning as is it's all being handled from the existing internal system so primarily it's the storm drain lines that are being replaced to accommodate the uh flow into and out of the uh the uh basin um the uh there's no there's a lighting plan that was submitted and it shows that all of the uh there will be no full clear but the the neighbor on three sides of this is Orchard Trails Apartments um and on a substantial part of our boundaries in the open space area of the orchard Trails plan the required open space as part of that cluster development um so in any case there is no spill level of lighting and there are no buffering or setback issues that we identified um I don't think any new signs are proposed um there is you'll see uh proposed new dumpsters they appear to be properly located and screened and the financial capacity they uh have submitted letter of loan support from the appropriate Federal agency that works with their agency they have as noted now submitted in the origin control plan permanent planting of the swells the great areas that they are proposing to do and so I think we have no other terms or issues I will say that just by way of context and and they've got a map in the in the booklet um this uh since earlier after sorry it's a it's a drawing this show we're just drawing with a lot of quickly blue on it it shows uh the surrounding wetlands and internal pools we knew from our aerial imagery uh on hand that there were rumor pools in the vicinity and we just wanted to understand the relationship of this development to those vernal pools and wetlands as you can see there are a couple properties over it and um in any case don't affect uh regulatory don't affect this site and there's there does remain good wooded buffer between in any cases development and the verticals which are within 250 feet but on other properties not theirs um so with that um that completes my review right um I think it perhaps Sean would just say a word about some of the vegetation on that grading that's going to happen right on the stream bank or right near the stream Bank yeah so all the uh cell phones will be in place around all the edges of the the down street down slope grating and then All Slopes will be seated launched so fence will ring in place until that's all the slopes are stabilized and there's very minimal runoff in those areas to to create potential erosion problems final thing that I should have said is that fire marshal Henry Vaughan reviewed the plan and has no issues no problems with it so the water supply continues to be adequate for this increased value we're building all right I'm going to open the public hearing now uh pretend I have a gather public hearings open would anyone like to come up make a comment no uh we'll leave it open for now um next steps is is there any discussion John I have one question what's what's the time frame on the construction of this what season are we looking at they want to start construction in September this year and work through I believe it is supposed to be complete in uh early 2018. it was April 2018. so it's a it seems like a long it's a it's a very difficult phasing project to keep all the people in the building and essentially rebuild the houses that they're living in while they're there so it's the time frame that we're looking at Mr chair could I get one clarification just a small clarification in places I think I see references to 17 beds and I replaced with the 15 beds is it is it accurate to say it's a 17 bed facility two of the beds are for emergencies or spillovers or that sort of I believe they're licensed for 17 beds but there's only 15 residence CRM we're licensed for or licensed for 17 and we've been maintaining between 15 and 16 based on Space we could have 17. there isn't a difference in the beds foreign comments or questions all right I'm gonna close the public hearing um given the fact that they have the original control plan but Mandy hasn't reviewed it yet should we leave if we were to approve that recommendation in place sure you may say you may say that um uh that as part of a pre-construction conference with the contractor uh she needs to she needs to approve the Euros control plan that could be a condition just leave it as is so to speak sure right well I have to change the word a little bit obviously yeah they've provided you with their provider plan just needs to be reviewed by the time engineer and it's a very standard and adequate plan so I'm sure that's okay but it's good for her to put her eyes on it all right it's motion time now findings are fast um I was trying to skip that don't want to read it I need water yep there's some back I'm good thank you all right I'm gonna read into the record uh the pose Finance effect um Independence Advocates of Maine Incorporated type of interview treats Falls house expansion May 18 2016. pursuant to article 6 section 18-177 of the Orono code of ordinances the Illinois Board is considered the application of Independence Advocates of Maine Incorporated for the site plan approval to expand tweets Falls house and Intermediate Care Facility for persons with intellectual disabilities at 2 Hillside Road the properties identified as tax map 20-3 lot 59 and the commercial C2 excuse me commercial 2-2 District based on all evidence presented by the applicant reviewing agencies Town departments and the public the plumbing board has found the following number one requirements of the district but the proposed use of Permitting the commercial two district with site plan approval and conforms to the dimensional requirement to the district number two write title of interest that the applicant has titled to the property subject to a sewer easement granted to the town of Orno and further that the current 2.9 acre lot is a portion of a larger property that existed in 1979 when treat Falls house was originally built but was divided in 2003 when a Southwestern section of the property was sold number three compliance with Talent ordinances and codes that the proposal does or is able to acquire the town ordinances and codes number four utilization of the site that the site is already developed with a 17-bed Intermediate Care Facility related access road and parking and that the expansion which will consist of two one-story attached spaces totaling 1500 square feet for kitchen administrative uses a 900 square feet excuse me a 900 square foot freestanding garage for storage purposes and modified parking is primarily within the existing developed envelope of the site number five traffic parking and pedestrian access that the expansion will not change existing access to the site at Northeastern end of Hillside Road and will not significantly affect traffic volumes or patterns B that's a modified internal traffic circulation provision for a shelter for a van pickup and drop-off and off-sheet parking areas meet the standards of the landlused ordinance and are appropriately located within the site and see that the adequate provision has been made for pedestrian circulation within the site item number six storage and materials that there would be no exposed non-residential storage on the site I didn't have seven stormwater management erosion control that the expense of the facility will increase the impervious area of the site by approximately eight thousand and forty six square feet will now alter the overall existing damage pattern will utilize existing opsite drainage infrastructure without overloading them and that through installation of an underdrained soil filter will treat storm water for more impervious area that is being added resulting in the net Improvement in storm water quality further that the appropriate measures have been included in the plan to control the erosion and sedimentation during the during and after site work number eight water supply and sewage disposal other utilities that the site will continue to be served by public water supply sewage disposal and electrical utilities and if these are adequate to serve the proposed uses including fire protection number nine natural features water quality shorelands and flood zone that the Redevelopment of the site will not significantly alter natural features of the site will not have an undue adverse effect on water quality will not affect Wildlife Resources and is not located in a shoreline area or flood zone number 10 hazardous special and radioactive materials petroleum products that the proposed use will not generate Hazard hazardous special or radioactive materials or waste number 11 Solid Waste Management that Municipal Solid Waste generated within a facility will not significantly cheat will not significantly change as a result of the proposed expansion and that proposed on-site storage of solid waste is is appropriately located and screened number 12 historic and archaeological resources that the proposed reuse of the property does not affect known historical archaeological resources number 13 Financial capacity that the applicant has the technical and financial capacity to complete the project according to all local state federal standards number 14 signs that no new signage is proposed as part of the expansion and finally number 15 noise and lighting that the external lighting will be in locations and of a design that will prevent this Beluga of light and glare beyond the Project's property lines and that the use of the property can be operated to be within the noise limits of the town's employees ordinance next time there's a motion I will make the motion uh I move that we approve the site plan review by Independence Advocates of Maine Incorporated to treat Falls house expansion location 2 Hillside Road tax map 20-3 lot 59 um that's it the conditions excuse me two conditions the prior Solutions of a building permit the erosion control plan provided is satisfactory to the town planner or engineer two that the project comply with all other applicable State rules and regulations second all in favor I think it was 100 yes thank you thank you thanks Phil all right next item on our agendas and amended users foreign just give one to the lady right there okay thank you good evening everybody my name is Michael malinowski I'm with Alan and major we are the civil engineers for the project we had been back before this board of July of last year to approve the project that you see before you would consists of two apartment style buildings as well as six multi-family units that will be used as student housing through the process we received site plan approval through this board we had also received the site law approval from the state as well in July 2015. it was part of the ongoing process with the architect and the owner's representatives there was an attempt to downsize the square footage of the buildings make them more efficient to be more conducive to a modular style construction that would better suit the construction needs of the project so as part of what you see before you is a slight modification in the footprint to apartment buildings which are in this area up here and then the power homes which are in this area here the multi-families were previously approved for two structures with a total of 24 units the new process is unchanged there'll still be two multi-family units with 24 into the bedroom count does slightly decrease it goes from 96 to 93 beds in those two units and there is approximately a thousand square feet less footprint associated with those two apartment buildings um when we kind of move down to the town homes the the town homes still six structures it was it was previously approved there's still 36 units and it's the maximum bed count was 144 that has remained unchanged there is however a slight increase in the square footage of the total aspect of those Town Homes it goes from 23 000 square feet plus or minus traditional over 25 000 square feet foreign was in this area here initially it was a maintenance facility with a you need to talk into the microphone it was a single maintenance facility with a single unit up above um to better help the maintenance staff they had requested more space for that maintenance facility so what we've done is for taking the square footage for that maintenance facility and created it all as maintenance and moved the single unit up to adjacent to the intersection of washboard Ave the total bedroom count has a slight decrease overall for the project the net disturbance Remains the Same because all the modifications were provided within already previously approved disturbances so this the limits of disturbance on the fringes as well as opposite Orion drive and the resource areas has remained unchanged um the site increase in the previous area there are three under drained soil filters which collect what rain water there's one centrally located between the town homes and the apartments adjacent to the road there's one on the opposite side of the road which looks like kind of a triangle opposite the road and then there's one in the middle of the town homes was a slight modification to the offices and the hour control structures to accommodate the bad additional square foot of impervious we still need our pre versus post storm water for the project we did have the plan and some supplemental calculations to go on to Mandy who had sent the level over to Evan agreeing with our modifications into this no more this is approved project we spend a fair bit of time reviewing that so what this board is to ask what we're doing tonight are we propose changes so Evan was provided the summary I'm going to ask him to present that in a minute but just understand that we're not able to go back and open up this discussion that happened during the previous school so we are more or less limited to but they're presenting tonight for the changes uh thank you thank you Evan you did provide a song yes and Mr malinowski has I think done a pre-complete job of explaining the changes and and he also submitted a letter letters dated April 15th uh going through and giving you some current versus proposed conditions um this is the kind of project that the code enforcement officer built Murphy um would look at and decide whether the changes were significant enough to come back to the board and in this case because there is a a modest but notable increase in the impervious area a new structure in terms of the form of single-family dwelling which I think will be housing the facilities manager that's correct I think that's the intent at least it's not limited to that but that's the intent and that those things meant that the changes were significant enough to come back for you to you with this proposed amendment and so it is before you I think it's important to note um well the key staffers to look at this because the things that we want to look at with respect to this amended amendment is from Mandy and she's indicated that she's satisfied with the conclusions reached by um by Michael's from as to the increase of stormwater drainage as being within the uh the bounds of the ordinance and uh far martial lawn you want to make sure you looked at any changes in circulation and so forth the ability to get around buildings and so forth and he has no issues with it so um fairly minor changes that raise no issues with with staff the important thing here continues to be that there are a number of conditions and agreements that were attached to this original approval and so we just want to make sure that as you consider this and if you decide to um if you do decide to approve the amended plan that we make very clear that all those conditions and Agreements are remain in force and have to be in place before the indicated points of the development process either before building permits or are issued or before certificates of occupancy are granted as the case may be we've included in your packet a summary of those of those conditions and agreements and for those board members who were not on the board during the review of this project is worthwhile just making sure you know even though these are we're not these are not reopened for consideration tonight there's been no request by the applicant to amend any of these things but just so that you know that um uh among the requirements were that there'd be reciprocal easements between this project and the adjacent Orchard Trails which is a I guess it's in the corporate different corporate entities but with overlapping uh ownership but reciprocal easement so that uh there is a way to get a couple different ways to get in and out of this project um uh as as people from Orchard Trails may be using uh the new road or um people from this project will be using Orchard trails to get into the into the development um as of August 10th yes updated or all of them are still in place some of them have been executed uh but uh you know things are in process a lot of some things have not been executed so they can't move ahead with the project until they are um and I think that's on there to-do list as I understand it so it always reciprocal agreements there were traffic mitigation requirements uh most pertinently they are required to participate in the Sheldon bus system and to pay a proportion share of the cost of that shuttle bus system that runs between downtown Orono and the University campus the shuttle bus can be easily rerouted it was determined through that review process it now goes over the trails they'll now swing through its development and back over to the university and the expectations that that reduces the vehicle trips from this development and allows it to stay within the limits that we would expect in addition they um the development must pay uh a fee that can go towards some kind of upgrade there's some uncertainty as to what the impact were the where the greatest need will be and what the best strategy to reduce that impact um are a peer review of our of the development for us that we hired that you hired and advised you was that there was a warrant for a turning lane on Washburn if to uh um to achieve certain um better flows but you'll recall the board was quite uncertain that that turning was a good idea that there might be better ways it might go towards a traffic signal it might go towards enhanced uh Transit it might go towards some other mitigation technique that once this is up and running could be better understood so they are paying 54 500 as a one-time fee that's the equivalent of what it would be if they'll return constructed in the right term Lane and if the town decided that was what was the best thing then it could build it um there's also making a one-time few which is a voluntary a voluntary offer which now becomes a condition of the of the of the plan a thirteen thousand dollar fee because that would have been if they had been under a main DOT traffic movement permit uh and Main dot did not feel this project triggered that permit requirement but if they had been they would have been paying a sum towards the Improvement of the um of the um a roundabout at Rangeley Road and so they are pitching in that would have been their proportion of share which comes to thirteen thousand dollars so those things are in place they're also they've all they they've got the storm water maintenance agreement that they signed and the open space agreement and the covenants to protect all the existing open space that you see on the plan um and um there will be an inspection program and so forth so you can read those things but I just want to make sure that you that those of you who didn't have the opportunity to review this a year ago uh are not looking at this in a vacuum or out of context so there are a lot of conditions attached to the development and none of those is altered by the by these relatively modest changes I'm doing uh before I open up public hearing and I ended up opening up two questions on the board I I had one uh just out of curiosity you apply for State funds as long as what we require in the town that's correct did you know okay I'm sorry yes yes in the Florida Department State requires anything that the time okay so I just have two quick questions one I think I can ask and the other one I'm going to ask if I can ask I guess so the first one is in in the letter that was sent to Evan on the 15th of April the sheet C1 it says the number of gamecap spaces was reduced from six to seven should that have been seven to six so the second question that I have is I assume I can ask it because you're amending that part of the sheet is I noticed that all the handicap spots are at one end of the construction proposed construction area but there's no handicap spots on Portland drive or pink lady Terrace is there a reason why they're all frustrated on Amazon nearer where some of these other departments the Town apartments based on their the modular construction do not allow for Ada access So based on the architectural view of the local code that they're providing sufficient number of ADA units within the apartment style building where you see the handicap spots now the interconnecting walkways are all Ada accessible so it allows for clear path of travel up to the the facility thank you any opponents proponents the step up to the mic take your name um this is your chance good job all right I'm going to leave the public hearing open then uh any additional questions uh the conditions I guess I would ask or if we just continue that conditions in place we should refine it just the ones that are remaining just out of curiosity rather than that we paid lists of conditions have any of those been executed that we you don't need to address or is it just sufficient to uh I think that I think you continue I think you can just say it all encompassing the things that because the conditions don't apply even if they've been executed right me thank you thank you fantastic one two three there you go it looks good all right yeah and there will be um you know at some point there will be a pre-construction meeting and uh and a review by uh Bill Murphy and others as to you know to show that all these things have been met uh this board is kind of considerable amount of time with all the other issues that's the the number of conditions so uh last call for public comment all right public hearing uh on them so for the record uh the proposed finding the facts for the edge and Orchard Trails Orion um 2016. 177 Cyclone review are the seventh September 22-210 subdivision review and section 18-136 plus food development the important ordinances the Arnold planning board is considered the application of Orion on the edge LLC to amend the final subdivision and site point of a 61 unit cluster development consisting of two multi-family structures containing 12 dwelling units per structure for a total of 24 units six single-family attached townhouse structures with six units per building for total 36 units the single family dwelling in a facilities building across community and green open space the amount of time reduces the composed number of bedrooms and the blunder units on the maximum of 244 meters with a maximum of 439 bedrooms which are intended to be rented to students the development site is located in a commercial tune District Park Street and Washburn Place based on all evidence presented by the applicant review in the agency's town Department one extent of the amendment with the proposal amendment is not change the character of the development from the final subdivision and site plan approved by the planning board on July 15 2015 is not significant with that previous findings related to the vehicular and pedestrian traffic the traffic circulation utilities systems open space water resources and other natural resources is water control and Solid Waste Management signage lighting landscape and security and other North with voice control does not change the planning much previous timing with respect to financial and Technical capacity it does not change the point of course previous funding with respect to Conformity with other local and state laws and regulations including the standards of the commercial tube District the cluster development provisions of Article 5 section 18-136 and the land disorders the main site locational development Act and the Maine Department of Transportation traffic multiple any issues or concerns with that [Music] by about 4 400 square feet for about three percent over the previously approved plan you know based on the materials submitted or review and comments of the Town engineer and Greenwich facilities are large enough for Quality potential runoff in the Greenwich area and to convey USB forms generated by a 25-year frequency event without overloading the system and flooding areas not specifically designed to be flooded and that the rate of the flow of stormwater from the development from rodency the rate of outflow stormwater from the site prior to the development for 2 to 10 to 25 Year events and further with the effect of the subdivision's drainage from Downstream drainage facilities from not only the existence system be the subdivision continues to be planned to protect property from the hazard of funding and see the storm water management system is subject to the post-construction monitoring the requirements of chapter 13 art before the performance and then the developer of the previously exceeded final subdivision and site plans made appropriate Provisions for permanent ownership maintenance monitoring and inspections stormwater facilities any issues are concerned for that hearing them number three open space Wildlife Recreation land with the amended development plan is not altered or previously designated in the Philly Falcon space area so it's required under the cluster development foreign issues there again lastly other findings that all other findings of the planning board with respect to this development at its meeting of July 15 2015 in all conditions of approval and requirements for paying thereto are unchanged and remaining place in the comments thank you very good now that that's the record to express our motion proof thank you I'll make an ocean um that we approve the amendment number one to the subdivision plan and site plan for the Orion ume Edge LLC engine Orchard Trails location 111 Park Street tax map 20-1 lot 42 in the commercial two Zone with the following conditions that all conditions should we read this in just saying that all the previous conditions still apply or is that just assumed you said I think you should read it in okay that all conditions attached to the original approval of the edge Orchard Trails apartment development remain in force including all conditions and agreements must be met or executed before issuance of building permits or certificates of occupancy as appropriate and number two that the signed amended subdivision plan to include conditions of approval that run with the property be recorded within 90 days of approval of the amended plan during none of those in favor I just know Mr chair that they will provide us with a uh with the updated plant and we'll bring it for your signatures okay thank you were not able to participate in the comp plan I think as we started earlier we're coming through some of the action items that the identified and Evan if you could please give us a summary yes this is one of the strategies or actions that the confidence plan committee recommended and the and the council accepted in general not with respect to the details because the details or wheat are ordinance like this in order to remember like this to try to continue to a provide choice of housing for people of all stations in life age income and so forth and B to continue to be able to integrate uh student housing in the neighborhoods in a way that are that is not disruptive to those neighborhoods and one of the things the comprehensive plan committee found through a lot of discussion and hearing from landlords and and public forums the public and so forth was that often it's the owner-occupied homes that offer a rental opportunity are the ones that cause the least concern um um if uh if occupied by students of course accessory Apartments may be mother-in-laws or lots of other people besides students as well um the the town ordinance has provided for some time some number of years now long before I well at least for a while before I got here uh accessory Apartments it defines what accessory apartments are which are you know drawing units of no more than 500 square feet um they have to meet a series of Standards it's got to be in a building that is owner occupied and the owner has to be a real owner not a corporation or um you know some surrogate owner um so and and there are a number of subjects except for your apartments in Orono now it's hard to say how many um in theory they should be registering um under our rental registration ordinance and there are some that are uh there are probably more but they're fairly invisible and um in any case that's been there the issue that Mr Murphy may want to speak to if he wishes but the issue that came before the conference plan committee was that from time to time the request is for an accessory apartment in an accessory structure so there might be a detached garage or an outbuilding that served one purpose of some point but uh could be converted into a small mother-in-law accessory apartment now our ordinance does not allow that it has to be inside the principal building and this amendment would allow uh an accessory apartment to be in an accessory structure as well as in a principle but it would say have to be all the same all the same standards now I I did want to note um so so from that point of view it is a very simple Amendment it just adds a phrase you know always structure that was accessory to the single-family dwelling unit that's you know the underlying portion of proposed amendment is the only change in what is currently exists uh the council in its discussion as you know the this is a council decision ultimately then they're looking for your recommendation as they must they are required by ordinance to get your recommendation but the cops are always meets a committee to review these see if they've got thoughts that should lead to a change in the in the draft and then recommends it to you for your input and recommendation at this point in their discussion a couple of counselors raised a concern and watch your take on it whether it's a concern of yours um and they may they may change the proposal accordingly their concern the concern is one or two counselors is that um a dwelling unit in an accessory structure I think it's twofold one is the accessory structure in our you know built-up part of town maybe on a downward for me lot that was a lot smaller than normal and the accessory structure may be right at the property line or you know the side property line or the rear property line and if there are no lights and things like that it simply may be too close and then they've caused a disturbance to a neighbor secondly that the normal comings and goings of people um if in a accessory structure that's not if you have to go into the principal building you might regulate yourself in ways not to disturb you know the owner of the who's at home uh you know it might start might come in later at night there might be just more comings and goings that might be that natural um and they just wonder if they're I don't think they're saying there shouldn't be units uh in accessory structures but maybe that should be only if yard setbacks are met so that you know if you're in a non-conforming situation and and the garage is right at the property line or the building you want to convert is right to property line Maybe uh you you wouldn't be able to do it or um or perhaps that the minimum lot size should be at least X you know so if it's not on a 5 000 square foot lot maybe it has to be uh you know at least ten thousand or fifteen thousand square feet if you're going to do an accessory structure just to allow to ensure that there is um some space so that it can fit in I don't know if those are concerns or not but they specifically asked me to pass that concern that was raised on to you for your consideration and advice so that's the proposal and uh Bill may want to speak to some of some of this um because he's had these requests from time to time so uh I guess before I open up a public hearing uh questions for Evan from the board hey any thoughts on the council concerns all right oh go ahead I was going to say that if the concern is that we're going to bother the neighbors um then rather than making a minimum lot size the setbacks should take care of it and it's quite possible that if you include the set if you have the standard setbacks then if it's a tiny lot you just can't do it but rather than defining it in terms of lot size it seems to me that the functional part that matters is the setback with this is as I read this if I have an existing structure that is a shed I can convert it into an accessory apartment so if it's two feet off the line a non-conforming five foot off the line because the setback would be 10 feet so that means that even if you had setbacks you would potentially now all of a sudden have a little livable structure that was 20 feet if everything was conforming from your neighbor potentially but so I guess that would be my concern of we're now potentially turning these the entire MDR you know area into duplexes uh maybe I like that I don't know well yeah and uh yeah and that's I think that's because then these are small 500 square feet yeah 11 square feet no more than one bedroom like efficiency is pretty everything's yeah it's uh you know so they're not actually considered dwelling units for density purposes in our ordinance they are considered accessory uses that's the that's the essence of what an accessory apartment is but you're right it would be create another living unit on the lot right now they can be in the in the principal building right they just can't be on the ride so if the garage is attached to the building and and you have a second floor they could do it if the garage is separated from the building by you know five or ten feet they can't do it bill I I wouldn't mind actually hearing from you if I'm curious as to you know how many requests does non-conforming particularly don't want to make it more non-conforming all right how many research do you get Ben Murphy course I got a couple of requests a year generally it's for in the apartment but I always tell them the question for us is that this may at some point in the future nobody lives forever become a rental and so I will make sure they're aware of uh the existing setback requirements now for any new structures if it's an existing structure that's not his existing structure it that is a detached structure currently now they can't do it but uh without going through a common little way of attaching that structure to the main house once it's attached to the house about Breezeway or whatever it then becomes a part of the house because there's a comp plan we talked about providing these opportunities this just seemed like one of the the options to do that I'm curious as to really how many current non-conforming situations there are I would think that would be a small number but I don't know I don't want to bother demand but there are a lot of non-conforming lots I mean the median lot size in the MDR district is less than what the minimum what the required minimum lot size is so accessories and then the question is how many of those have freestanding accessory structures I don't know the answer to that oh yes it's more than a handful it's there are probably more dwellings with attached garages than detached garages and but they do exist and you know there are former bonds or former large outbuildings and so forth that that we're aware of and or sheds and we had one situation where shed became an accessory apartment and somehow they figure out how to attach it to the building just to say it was attached um I I think it's more than a handful I don't think it's an overwhelming number but I think it's more than a handful I read my guess my degree other thoughts on setbacks I just want to clarify that these accessory units have to comply with water and sewage meaning all laws and code right yes so it's not like you could take your garden shed that doesn't have a toilet in it and say oh no well you could put you can push into it if you wanted to right I mean so you could you know say if you could rent that 500 square foot apartment for a thousand dollars a month which you couldn't I don't think but then you could say well that's twelve thousand dollars a year it's going to cost me you know I guess you do the numbers and figure out if you want to do it so you could push the water and sewer to it certainly but you would have to do that yeah it's a good point man I thought before was that these types of situations would be self-publishing I was trying to figure out even you know I was thinking of setback what 10 foot would mean you know 55 feet or 10 feet yeah I mean I don't mind sorry there is there is a section of the orders that allows an accessory structure a shed of no more than one story to be five feet from the real line other thoughts and everything just uh not gaming the system but would it is it consumable if somebody would want to build uh an apartment or a in-law suite and not get approval of work because of the lot but go ahead and ask for approval for a garage or a shed and then take advantage of this amendment and that will turn that shed a year later into an apartment or it's similar to a situation I had two weeks ago with a contractor looking to to get plans drawn up for a person on the largest schools on last one okay that's good uh yeah and then I told him I said it at some point it may become an enforcement nightmare for me for anybody because you have to be sure that that's not being used as a dwelling if it's just a garage to anticipating building so it's something that has to be rushed and that's all you can do somebody came in and built let's just say that the setback requirement for shed is five feet for one story set is five feet so somebody comes in and says I want to build a permit for a a shed within you know 400 square foot shed and it meets the standard um if at some point they could under under their language as it is now uh they could make that into an accessory apartment if well you said that yes you can have an accessory apartment in an accessory building but that accessory building must be at least 10 feet or 15 feet from the property line um then they wouldn't be able to the fact that the existence of the shed wouldn't allow them to convert the use of that shed so but right now you're right they could do that so my thoughts getting back to the original question that we were tasked with from from the from from the council you know will the Cummings and goings cause a disturbance it seems to me a 500 square foot building there wouldn't be a whole lot of Cummings and goings and indeed if it was uh on our it's the owner occupied the same property now I don't have one of these on my property but if I did and there was excessive Cummins and goings I'm sure my wife would have something to say about that so indeed it would be solid food I think it may be prudent to have a definitive setback 8 or 15 feet or whatever you think it's prudent although I I've won I I just can't foresee um a problems based on the size of the structure that that was my initial thought that I was reviewing this as well with the setbacks and some assurances I beat if you if you're in the truck lights on or music from a dwelling that can you happen to have a neighborhood that scene full of also I think a great upset that would be improved I don't know exactly what that should be yeah it's something you know I think that um go into fire safety you know the distance between structures you know these principal structures typically wants to be 20 feet so if you got 10 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other side um that that makes it 20. so that would argue for a 10 foot minimum setback um and you could say 10 minimum 10 foot setback but at least 20 feet the total distance between this structure and any other structure on another lot would have to be 20 feet um I'm sorry do we have any other examples of that we do have some minimum distance requirements between principal structures and this would not be a principal structure but it was a living unit and so you know fire and fire spread and that sort of thing has some heightened uh consideration comparison seems like some level of Precedence is inside of that 24. it doesn't give any language for my daughter to disapproved or request for disapproval like a neighbor without you um it would be uh no if you allow this it's allowed and it couldn't be dislodged because the neighbor didn't like it you've had sort of decide whether this is generally good you know in the public interest of Public Health saving welfare um now um so I yeah so the the the challenges come up with standards that will generally be acceptable and not cause avoid problems and you know some minimum setback requirement whether it's 10 feet or 15 or because if under 20 feet you could say at least 10 feet because you're assuming that the other person might have at least 10 feet but if the other person could better within five feet a shed the level right so now you got a 15 foot distance so but the 10 10 for the probably suffice what is yeah and if you want to make sure that already be 20 feet you'd say at least 15 feet from the side then because somebody could go within five feet yeah what happens to already existing of these if they're if they don't meet that setback requirement now everything is great that exists today legally would be grandfathered all right so if we assume that the number of cases would be more than a handful but not I don't know if it was already an accessory unit if it's an already accessible unit if it's already Dylan unit five feet and turned it in right instead of 10 feet yeah if there's already an accessory unit it's already one legally existing even if you don't know about it yeah I you know then then the question becomes is illegally existing you know and that those are the questions that have to be looked at if you if we find such a thing I mean I mean it's a little dicey which is and these have to be owner occupied in the principal structure and we say that but then in five or ten years someone comes along and buys that house we get back to the whole student housing thing where it's almost impossible for code enforcement to enforce that to say oh well an owner's not living there or the owner happens to be a student who's also renting out the accessory unit I mean it just gets into kind of a mess but I I say all that just as a word of caution I'm fine with this with the 10 foot setback but it is a little dicey or you could just not allow on an excessive structure to uh take advantage of the five foot setback reduction of five to five feet um delivery line you can just say the big best not that's not available yeah I mean I'm good I'm good if we essentially say you know what was recommended here by you which is go with the 10 feet maybe minimum 20 and so is the wording to be then that the setback has to be 10 but it has to be at least 20 from any other structure in other words if the neighbor has a shed yes that exists at the time of the building permit that you wouldn't stop the neighbor from building a shed within five feet if they were within the rights to do that but at the time of well then are we may be better off by saying uh making it 15 feet setback that was a huge thing and then that way the neighbor can have his shed within five feet which he's ordinarily allowed to do thoughts on that yeah that seems reasonable yeah so 15 feet and again a minimum of 20 we would still have that yeah I I mean that was a suggestion setbacks that they came up with for Tech members I didn't really think you know this is something we're trying to promote as part of our top plan discussions people who came up with I could not come up with other protections or in my opinion thought that they were necessary but I just wanted to ask that question yeah any other uh well you almost thought I have is the unit is small you're going to have one person living there at most two they don't have room to have a noisy party so I agree that the comments and goings I just didn't see that as an issue but the structure close to the neighbor you know if it's non-conforming that could be an issue so yeah okay and then I have a question I don't know if I'm the only one who stumbled over this but there is the underlined part that or a structure that's accessory okay and renting of one and only one dwelling unit shall be permitted now um where I got myself hung up here is whether the one and only one is on the lot in other words if you already haven't are renting something in your house can you also have one in an accessory building or whether the one and only okay all right or is it if you have one in your house you cannot also have one in an accessory um surprise I think he's gonna answer the same way I would answer I think so uh my opinion I screwed up is there becoming me for prom tonight said no you only have we only have one uh accessory on your property that's it okay but if you have but if you have if you're renting a room in your house okay can you also rent a room in an accessory doing it no but you're only allowed one uh one accessory unit on your pocket but if it's in your house is it considered an accessory yes an accessory unit had to be out that's right now I know we're talking about accessory dwelling here accessory dwelling unit is a dwelling yard that that's complete living facility so it's got a kitchen and a bathroom and living area just can't be worth 500 square feet or more than one bedroom you could have a situation um where a single family property owner is living in a home and just rent in a bedroom to somebody okay and they also want to have an accessory dwelling unit they could do that because there's no you know the bedroom is just another occupant yeah but they cannot have more than one accessory dwelling you're on the property uh one question number five on the proposed amendment do you have to clarify the primary or the principal buildings or occupied is that the community good point as long as the owner is on the premises okay um yeah maybe yeah we might say the property is on right right yeah the properties that the property is a good catch I was going to suggest that uh something to keep in mind that was when you're talking about the setbacks to properties these tiny House Nation buildings 69 thousand some could want to stick one of those on the back of the property and say it's one story and we're at any place living if I would have heard our recommendations 15 feet a very good suggestion that any other conditions I guess this is a public hearing so I'm going to open that up here and then one of them but uh I'll invite any comments I guess one was going price so I guess the next step again is it that formal that we need a motion or yes okay there we go we need a motion can I just make it generic or do I need to read this whole thing in no you can make it to Nero okay um I move that we approve the proposal and telling these Origins to allow the renting of an accessory dwelling unit in an accessory structure as well as in a single family home dwelling itself with one addition which is that the accessory the non-attached accessory units must have a setback of a minimum of 15 feet and be a minimum of 20 feet from structures on other properties and then you're going to just add one word perhaps to number five oh property yeah number five change building to property the property is owner occupied second further discussion paper thank you next up we have another proposed Lanes order commendment to section 18.31 uh definitions section 18-15 purpose of districts in section 18-106 Federal abuses concerning certain land uses and dimensional standards in their commercial One commercial two and economic development Zone districts yes this again flows directly from the recommendations of the competent plan and you know generally they're kind of packages or each one is important the relatively um small self-contained proposal so I'll go through them in order as they're presented in the in the uh for his Amendment um first of all there is a definition um clarification of the enhancement of what Light Industry means um want to make sure that Light Industry includes a certain industry related services that support production of Goods such as climate controlled storage testing facilities and packaging Services these are things that we hear about from time to time as needs by producers and just to make sure that that and that that is distinguished from what a wholesale businesses which is separately treated in the uh in our ordinance um there are a couple of other very minor just housekeeping things but basically this is a clarifies What In This Light Industry means um secondly it now allows it states within the Light Industry presently is allowed in the commercial one District uh the commercial one District um is I Still Water Revenue that we have one commercial one District which where shopping centers are allowed and fast food operations and things like that um Light Industry is um presently allowed in the uh see one District but only west of I-95 so for example if the former Ames department store building space in the shopping center University Mall wanted to get converted to a Light Industry space it couldn't do it because it's not a lot of for some reason it's not allowed this side of 95. um the comprehensive plan recommends just allowing it throughout the commercial one District um so we we make a proposed clarification as to the purpose of the commercial one District to include like industrial establishments as well as commercial establishments and that change is also reflected in the chart that's attached also in the purpose of the districts in the economic development Zone Economic Development Zone as you'll recall exists in part of the main Technology Park the part where the Target Technology Center is and the center SRD building is also covers a large area out at Exit 191 where the Boy Scout headquarters offices and where the Public Works facility is on the other side it covers actually a lot of basement land in that area um and uh you know the EDC was created in the late 1990s there was another kind of District preceded it so this was a kind of a modification as I understand it um to to reflect the desire the times desire for for business Parks they had a campus like well-designed well landscape environment and that continues to be its purpose um um but for some reason it excluded residential uses you could not have a residential use within an economic development Zone and that goes back to a philosophy that has been held in the past at least that um there should be kind of a strict separation between homes and Office Buildings and other Enterprises um and that you should Reserve such land for those job creating tax paying activities I think as time has gone on over the years there's been a sense that um you know these high density housing inter mixed with in in these kinds of business Parks um can be a plus it can be placed for residents who are working in some of these places to live and that um it can also be a location for multi-family development in a place that has the infrastructure and so forth that can handle it and there's also a tax paying kind of uh activity anyways as the comprehensive plan can be looked at the EDC for example in the exit 191 area um you know where you've got where the county road Business Park hypothetically was proposed and and uh some other vacant land there seemed to be ample opportunity for transitional use you know if there were Pines and wanted to expand for example up toward that area or if um somebody wanted to take undertake a um a higher density development in that area but there was nothing incompatible about that with the idea of a office product or a business park that we had a campus-like design and setting so the proposal is to allow um multi-family and and single family attached that is the higher density versions of residential use in the edz with site plan review so the purpose statement for ddz is reflects that and the chart reflects that as well um finally um dimensional standards the current commercial two District is kind of schizophrenic in that on the one hand its purpose is to create sort of a neighborhood scale mixed-use set of activities so commercial buildings are limited in the size that they can be they can't have a large Shopping Center or a big department store a big box store in the C2 District you can only do that in the commercial one District um and it allows housing and indeed a lot of the housing student housing that we're seeing they are in this is in the C2 District um but the emphasis is on neighborhood or Village scale kinds of activities um even though they may be rather large like the student of housing developments um but the lot sizes the minimum lot sizes suggest that you've got to have a fairly sizable activity you know you got to have an acre and a half minimum lot size to do something so if somebody wants to come in with a smaller business or something like that or a a small residential development that just a you know full family thing you'd have to have an apron and a half to do it minimum lot size um Carpenter plan said let's reduce that to 20 000 square feet um you know parking and other things may cause the lot size to be larger but let's not freeze out the smaller scale neighborhood scale kinds of activities that tend to um be Uninvited because of the large minimum lot size requirements so where there's public water where there's public sewer this would reduce the minimum lot size to a half twenty thousand square feet uh where you don't it would still be 60 000 square feet uh it would also reduce the frontage from 200 feet to 100 feet and um so that's that and then also generally uh this proposal would allow maximum Building height to be um 45 feet not to 35 feet we've seen a lot of that dips it's present 45 years president allowed with site plan reviewed but there's actually nothing to speak against 45 feet in public health we got Fire Equipment everything else that can serve that easily um it could go up to 50 feet with site plan review and we've seen a couple of puzzles that are in that area and the final thing this no this one doesn't uh um yes it does the final change with respect to these commercial districts is the C2 District this is again comes directly from the conference of plan recommendations which is it would reduce the bedroom density of multi-family development of cluster development in the C2 District right now there's a big bonus density bonus in the C2 District if you cluster and have open space and you know meet the design requirements so you can go up to eight units per net residential acre net residential acre mean after you subtract out the unbuildable area and the access roads you can get eight units per net acre and that's what every one of these apartment projects has done basically they started out multiplied by eight and that's number of units they get it's fine uh what we experience and what we discussed a lot with the conference plan committee and this was I guess really Bill and me and people could turn stormwater stuff traffic um said the eight units is fine that's overall by itself moderate density but it's the fact that every dwelling unit has four bedrooms in it and so now a you know 200 unit development becomes 800 bedrooms and each of the bedrooms has a car and it's just it's I think it's more that it puts a lot of stress on systems and we've seen this repeatedly with these proposed projects so what this is what this is doing for the confidence plan is it ties the density two bedrooms if you're going to Cluster in the C2 District what you get is a maximum of 16 bedrooms per net acre so if you want to go eight units per acre those eight units are going to be two average two bedrooms not four if you want to go four units per acre then each of them can be four bedrooms so it will reduce it wouldn't reduce the number of dwelling units necessarily better reduce the bedrooms or reduce the number of people living on a given quantity of land so that's the proposal and you'll see that that's in the cluster development section of the ordinance so this is a package of things uh trying to handle a package of things dealing with these commercial districts um in one Fell Swoop I mean uh Evan just curious uh the 75 to 70 decibels just to the library yeah that's um yeah into the noise ordinance specifies seven decibels so this is making this consistent with the noise ordinance yeah thank you questions comments those of you if without participating in the cloud plan it's hard to understand how much discussion with the housing issue we spent two and some years and we we really hashed out what opportunities what what the concerns were so that just it's hard to say enough about you know how much we looked at this issue but the last point that we talked about we had a lot of the housing boards there's a lot of bedrooms and that was an issue we have an opportunity with our company we try to direct yeah I was doing you know the previous amendment that we talked about let's look at things in different ways so again without as much background for those of you who didn't go through it but that came right out of a lot of discussion so please uh by all means have had a question for anybody you think am I getting it right you're talking about having life Industrial area that has the ability to have a family no nothing right it's the economic development Zone The Economic Development zone is the main the part of the bad part the part of the main Technology Park we call it the main texture the main Technology Park really started out as two separate business Parks the first one was called the Stillwater lab exchange park um and it included where black bear in is and where the next links building is and the white office building plus a couple lots that are vacant and then as you go out down Godfrey drive toward Bennett Road that was a second proposed park ever happened they were both developed at the same time those second proposed Park and that was called um main r d Park it's now all called the main technology park for convenience but the front half at was Zone commercial one the back half though toward Bennett was zoned Economic Development Zone um yeah the the commercial one would allow a whole range of retail so right now today in the commercial one District then that fun part you know let's say there's a vacant lot for example between black they're in now and the dice Hearts convenience store they're being allowed to become a restaurant you can become a retail store anything allowed to see one District but it could not be Light Industry because it's on the east side of I-95 and not on the west side of I-95 um this would allow the rest of the C1 District to have Light Industry in it the economic government Zone already allows Light Industry that's so that's not a change but the only change is a C1 I you know this the company the plan can be discussed this in the wake of a couple different requests or inquiries we had from people who were talking about the need for um places for things like packaging and Test Facilities and those sorts of things and it was unclear as to whether they'd be allowed in the C1 District in the in that part of the park and um I think the conversation we decided there was no reason why he shouldn't in fact it'd probably be very complementary as companies expand out of the incubator at the Target Psychology Center Maybe you want to do something you know some some production and they need some packaging facilities and things like that that it would be a convenient place to be there I think there must have been some I don't know why it was excluded back blind but it's very explicit that excluded it so there's a footnote there you'll see that footnote's been proposed to be deleted but the footnote says um the chart where it says use limited to the west side of I-95 it's footnote number nine that use is referring to Light Industry number nine but then on the table before that was replacing number nine or and then there's a second sheet of this yeah there's that yeah because there are two schedules yoga's has a schedule of uses and that's one chart with its own footnotes and then there's a schedule of dimensional standards and that has its own footnotes right the section 18 146 reference I know 136 is in here where's 146 what are you referring to oh in just the number 10 in the central service buildings all right it seemed like the housekeeping adding references this section 82-1 yeah yeah I had to look at the audience there was something missing so I added where where it's um very Central service buildings are dealt with okay just across as a cross reference yeah other questions I have one album of concern which is um if we were to allow Hyden to residential uses in the edz district does that mean that a large apartment student housing complex could go in on the bottom half of that main target Technology Center um they could but not in the same way because clustering's not a not not a a use a lot in edz District so um you could have a student Apartment project in the in whether now the business the technology park for example or out by Kelly Road or something that you could do that but um I guess I would hesitate to I'm for the rest of them I would hesitate on this one until we maybe thought that through as to what the implications could be because I'm assuming that the people with houses on Bennett Road might not be thrilled right if a big student housing complex was built right behind them uh not that I'm against or foreign but I think I'd want to look at a map and I'd want to figure that all through to make sure that we're not going to create a problem yes I think that's a that's a good points you know some Industries and housing I guess like I'm actually for this whole thought even if it is student housing on a small level in these areas where there's housing mixed late industrial use I think that makes a ton of sense or commercial but I just don't want us to create a problem when all of a sudden that's not what happens it turns into uh you know yeah 300 unit or 200 unit monster in the middle of a bunch of houses so process-wise that's a very good point yes so passing a recommendation not that we craft that language tonight but that the express concern yeah yeah so I'd like to bring it back to you was more information or okay yeah and then you know it really comes down to let's see all the density and things like that and I haven't specified that at this point so maybe maybe you need to know that before you can recommend on this one yeah I agree continue this yeah we can continue it sure that's a good point sorry about that no no not at all that's why we do this that's why we do this I you know that was something that should have been considered and I didn't yeah I I would just like to say you know I I too for adding flexibility to town because my big reaction is lower taxes to be able to retire here and the only pathway I see to doing that is by becoming more flexible in town however I totally agree we need to balance that with what's right I'm a property owner dude yeah I understand the concerns for us to review that or more um we we have a whole bunch of these items in front of us here and uh uh I'm finding it hard to jump from one to the other and I'm wondering whether it would make sense to go through them one at a time instead of jumping in here and there okay then we could if you know maybe on some of them like the definition of Light Industry if we like that we could dispose of it and say okay we're done with that we don't have to come back to it yeah there's some issues as far as state it seemed like I haven't heard any concern of some of the edits so yeah if we narrow it down you know we're not going to make a motion to approve everything but that clarification but yeah yeah you could you could you could kind of extract the economic development Zone piece of this if you wanted to and hold it and pass on everything else if you wanted to if we can go we go one by one to see if you have issues if you would like trying to understand process he weren't saying review you know just I mean one ordinance per meeting it's just you know obviously items in within the order in The Proposal yeah I mean we have that we have a number of there's a lot to digest here yeah and we have a number of proposals that are kind of interrelated but we can probably do them maybe in the order that they appear here yeah uh would you like to step through we did kind of bounce around I not sure if anything was left out of this one so were we good with the definition of Light Industry that's the first one that appears here question did anybody have any issue definition right uh the 70 decibels editorial it was the same may be remembered from time to time uh or Haywood manufacturing that just seems to be a good addition in my mind any other questions next uh a little more collaboration on my industry anything with smelting in it it's my thumbs up troublemakers any questions on that that's a little bit of texting all right it's the old exit uh memory so this this EDC one is one we're going to wait for more information on correct there were if you looked at the scheduled uses and uh in the dimensional standards there were quite a few additions we did talk about you know any concerns now uh on the reduction in Block sizes or the you know the square footage from 60 down to 20. everybody comes does that and let me change it for that picking up things you know again with frontages 200 down to 100 feet all right again more important to use on the last page of dimensional standards there is one from 200 to 150 seats and one from 400 to 200. 200. um your industrial use has seem to just because of the the trucking and everything are just delivering things that just 200 is still seems excessive but the only industrial district we have is on Ayers Island okay um so it's almost a moot point unless somebody wants to create an industrial district um but it seemed it seemed that 200 was excessive but the intensity of in and out in a manufacturing plant can be greater so and the need for exits and entrances so I I cut like it's just splitting the difference between if it's got public water and sewer and if it doesn't okay any concerns with that um yeah that's the same as a uh you know if it's on like soaring water then 200 feet is required across the board there uh building Heights everybody understands that the 45 feet by a matter of right things you mentioned I asked a question about 18 146 the reference is in the in the footnotes the housekeeping issues that was a good number of bedroom any questions on the 16 remember that you came up with all right we're gonna any other changes so we can focus other than to provide us more information at our next meeting on the uh nope 18 or five can I interpret that with the guidance be to allow for a small scale multi-family development but um now for example if if clustering's not allowed if you have to have a minimum of 20 000 square foot lot or something like that um I'm trying to think of the standards that you know it could be you know 30 units per acre for net acre um that alone is gonna probably discourage student housing larger scale student housing because you can't get the bedrooms you need um and we could tie that to bedrooms also by the way I suppose let me think about it but but overall you're looking to try to make sure that if the EDC is opened up given the location of the EDC on Kelly Road and and uh near Bannock you want to make sure that it's not going to be something that's going to intrude upon the enjoyment yeah okay let me look at it come back to you with a proposal so I'm going to leave the public hearing open until next time until until the next meeting that you hold don't don't make it yeah um clarification I won't you've kind of settled most of this but this edz stuff you need that that'll be a focus of the next discussion um I'll hold the whole package for console purposes until we get the EDC done so let's go to them as a package okay uh uh the public hearing well it's still open before I jump on okay what you're talking about if you've moved on you said I'll give you about yeah how about the discussion so uh is that yeah sure yeah please step right up whatever whatever yeah I'm sorry I'm sorry to delay you aren't you into it I live um right at Washburn on Park Street um I was encouraged to come and speak um of my concerns after talking with someone it um you mean and um it's about the traffic in general that's coming right in that area and around the especially at Washburn and the roundabout um I have to be concerns about those places but before I start those I'm going to talk about some miscellaneous things I have spoken three times with jaundice and French at the main Dot and these were on different occasions for different reasons and um I know we're kind of at the University of the experts with this roundabout it's an experiment but I do have a lot of concerns and who has admitted that he's done a little rural roundabouts in urban and this is definitely going to be different because of all the um the rush hour type traffic that's been dealt with in the students and that sort of thing and he also said that when there is an accident in a roundabout it's less severe because traffic is traveling slower but it is way harder to deal with now one of the things that I had mentioned when we first spoke and he called me because I had sent him one of the cards after the March meeting here and he and I said that I had spoken with my brother-in-law in Wisconsin and um yeah he was interested in the information but he didn't I won't go into all that anyway I got the information to him which was it was at least in Madison Wisconsin where the University of Wisconsin is the list of the team nurse accident-prone intersections and this was was back in 2014 and maybe it's not changed that it has or hasn't changed but I don't know um and of the ten there were three roundabouts and the top two and there's the three roundabouts for two two of them were the top two accident prone areas now what I'm see is it um what I can Envision I've been a walker all my life and especially here um it mean and um as I walk around I I notice a lot of things and I walked down Rangeley Road it's um and I happened to wonder how the walking lanes were going to be well when I called you mean they didn't know and I was kind of appalled at the poor communication so since I did want I did find out the information about the Wisconsin situation and I wanted to ask about that the um walking Lanes which I found out are going to be not as good not as safe and not totally complete but um it will be doable but I asked about if traffic I get Washburn and that his response was that's orino's problem so I'm hoping that you have something in plan to put a light in at that at at Rushmore and I'll get to that later um then um in case you didn't know there was discussion if you remember the big room when they said they're going to start work in September and and we said what you have the summer introducing that gets them out of the way well he said this they're going to start in September but they're going to do some work which he had said before there was something they could do ahead of the big you know the big mess um and but he said the bulk of it would be in the spring of 2017. now I don't know if you all had heard any of this whether you had knew anything about it and there was talk about a pedestrian overpass right right there which he sounded like he was um a little bit well maybe we could do something like that well I don't know whether he knew them but he said it's way too costly it would cost more than the whole rest of the roundabout I don't know if you've heard anything like that but it's a little upsetting but now I I'll go back to the wash man I live right there when my dog was alive we were always out there in the driveway or walking around and the traffic with just the when we first my husband and I first moved in there wasn't even a Washburn Place there so I have been through many years with with um the traffic situation there when my dog and I would be out in the driveway and just 160 or so that are in the Washburn Place townhouses that are there now I once timed every once in a while with time a car trying to turn left and and um this was the worst thing it was an exception but it was 3 and a half minutes for one car to be able to turn left and um uh that was excessive but when you only get one car coming out at a time occasionally two would fit out this is and I'm speaking about the rush hours because this is the big you know sometimes there's nothing coming Sunday morning you know you could walk down the street and nothing way but it's the rush hours that are the the big problem and right there um when there certainly can be the potential of 873 cars 873 beds at The Avenue Plus the new place um that's way more than um let's see I have the other ones uh am I kidding my paper Orchard Trails was 500 some and uh the Grove the the um what's its new name um has 600 some and this is when you add it together it um they're at Washburn it will be close to 1200 cars coming out in that one spot going left and Jonathan French made the front comment that well the cars coming out of the roundabout um will be going at such a speed that there'll be plenty of room in between and I thought that's only if you're turning right if you're turning left you've got the cars coming in from the right and so every time and I stood out there and watching them every time there was a clearing from from the white there was somebody coming up from the left so it takes an exceptionally long time for cars to turn left and if you have you know suddenly when I usually watch they're offering two three four five cars waiting and not everybody's going to have a car and not everybody's going to have an eight o'clock class but there will be you know at least 100 more in the morning and that bus is it and that was another thing I found out if I'm talking to you man there is a question of whether they can can continue with it and again it's money but the bus will have to weigh too and if it doesn't doesn't say 17th in line you know it's going to be a long time so there is a need for a traffic light but then and I'm not sure where I'm staying on this but there's going to be a traffic light but if there's a traffic light what's the point of the of the slinging cars around around about when you're going to have to come to a stop and the cars are going to have to come to a stop occasionally anyway because of the um Street crossing The Pedestrian Crossings there and they just putting tuning flashing leather three in all along we're on Park Street flashing um pedestrian crossing signs and you know when you're coming around the roundabout and you're watching who's who's going to be coming in from or in our Direction heading towards Old Town um you're watching who's coming in and you aren't seeing over here that oh the flashing lights can be on we're all going to have to stop and and it just it seems to me that it's opening up a lot more places for accidents and it's just substitute incense the whole reason for the roundabout in the first place was asking the state for help for the increase in accidents that happened since um The Orchard Orchard Trail and the Grove got pretty and um more cars and students impetuous you know in a hurry students projects individually the applicants will come to us and they'll provide experts if we have questions on issues we ask our experts questions so the the issue is if I understand it's correct that the roundabout that's that's something that we have no no control right yes I realize that right one thing this board did consider across from the house is you know what that situation would be and without understanding it I get your concerns I don't think we can pass this along the public works and and planners as we move forward because you know that was an idea that was put forward but we weren't sure if you know if a solution was right at that time because they weren't certain if they see within a a really short amount of time if you add those extra beds and put them at that intersection you lived right across there so I understand exactly what you're saying but now if they figure out that's a problem then then hopefully the people that will make those decisions because we're we we moved that application on they met the town standards we reviewed them as thoroughly as we can but that issue was still open so if they figure out that there's a problem the dot the town would be involved Public Works there's a whole bunch of people that will be watching that situation so from a planned work perspective we can only look at projects you know individually you know the roundabout that's not something that that we've had any piece of but the individual projects we've tried to address all your concerns I I agree with you and that that's been identified as a problem area but people are watching that so as a planning board all we can do now is pass along your concerns but the council is also my understanding is another opportunity for you to make your concerns known because people are going to continue to evaluate that intersection as far as what the solution could be and and hopefully that before we have the expense and the chaos and everything you've around about we can't touch that so that's more that's something that I'm probably a really good concern to bring up with a council but from a planning board perspective I didn't know where to go I just um there's no control over that so dot has made their recommendation they sit out of the town we aren't invited to those meetings so I appreciate your concerns the watch form is one that we were directly involved with but that project up on the wall we have not touched that is that something even from a planning perspective that well you know the roundabout is the the product of decisions by the um Maine Department of Transportation and the Bangor Area conference Transportation program um Time Warner was represented on that on on back says it's called bacts but in the end it's it's a it's a it's a main Department of Transportation project they determine what the best solution would be and how it needed to be funded and now they're designing it and this is was an iteration from several months ago um but you're right the playing board's not not about Washburn intersection probably because of your testimony at the time of one of the projects of the edge um all right I was surprised to see that other exit on the orchard Trail um exit it's a it's a it's a connect it's an interconnection um but Washburn that wasn't floated before and and I figured they're all going to be going out Washburn as well it's always been it's it's always been part of the project from the beginning um but the uh there is you know much some fifty four thousand dollars that the edge will be paying toward whatever might need to be done especially in the city of Washburn and Park um and that'd be only a fraction on the cost of signalization but if signalization is required as it may be you know the warrants might be there for it um you know Maine DOT determined that the warrants were not met for a signal at Washburn when the Avenue came in and we really questioned that we pushed them hard and they said that the the warmths were not meant and they don't like traffic signals on their main highways because traffic signals are friction points and they say cause more accidents not less in the end but if certain warrants are met delay warrants and accidents and so forth then but they said they weren't um and then they did not choose to take jurisdiction over the edge project uh for reasons that I don't fully understand but they didn't it was due to the playing boards efforts that um The Edge which is much smaller project than the others put up fifty four thousand dollars to be contributed either I mean a right-hand turn lane would according to the analysis of our peer reviewer would lessen the delays at Washburn it's officially well because the right turn lane from Washburn going north going towards Old Town that there's enough traffic during the peak hours in that direction but if you had a right turning lane off a Washburn onto Park Street according to our peer reviewer that would reduce the weight at Washburn enough to Warrant requiring that right turn lane you'll recall that small Staffing plan but looked if it said well right turn lane might be a good thing it might not be but it's going to widen that intersection that's going to make it harder for pedestrians and we don't know if that's the best solution a signal might be a better solution um or increased Transit might be a better we don't know what it is so they put in the the money that would be equal to what would be necessary for a right-hand turn lane from Washburn on the park but it is in the towns that is in the town's hands as to how to use that money and and I beg to differ with the gentleman who said that Town's problem on Signal washer in place because that is a that is a route to the town could not go put a signal on above its own choice main dot would have to be is the decision maker on that so right now he said um some bother you need the bottom about the light but ninety percent of the time when students are turning left to go to the university they aren't going to go around the island what they do what I've heard some people farther down say which is what is what happens where they go and turn at Crosby to a so instead of waiting to turn left they go and circle around at Crosby is they'll go down and go around the legion through the legion parking lot so they can just turn right on they can do two rights right in the left right yes and that's that's why I'm that's why I'm here just just to confirm Evan uh she's broader concerns somebody should be there until day one next semester opportunities for her to I mean just engage the council uh perhaps Dot correspondence yeah I mean it's the decision the big Transportation decision makers right on a route like route two which is an arterial it's not a local Road it's an arterial and the town is responsible for maintaining it because it's within the so-called Urban compact area but decisions about that kind of construction and from signals to intersection modifications to Road widening to lanes and all around about it rests jointly with the Bangor Area carpets of Transportation program that's backs which is the so-called Metropolitan plane Organization for transportation purposes and Main dot now Rob Yorks are our Public Works director is our representative to the max board of directors and he he would be he is he is the really the point of contact although in the end there's usually local money involved which is a council decision you know so so this board uh understand your concerns that is why we we focus quite a bit of attention on that discussion but we can't do anything more other than a past long year concerns to our Public Works director so this is now a matter of record your your discussion here I would encourage you to I mean speak to the council uh Rob Pierce's Public Works director but we we can't we can't really help you too much no I am okay I understand that when you say speak to council who who am I yeah it will be through Sophie Wilson it's um yeah and it would be you know I Sophie is the person who gets things onto the consul agenda she meets with the chair of the council and the town manager would be the if you want to get to council it would be through Sophie because this always happening as I was out walking and again this is nothing you can do but I'm just mentioning it when I went around the corner at the bank to head back home up the street it was at a time of day when the the sun was coming pretty much level and that's going to change different times of the day um different times of the year and it totally washed out the lights that were on The Pedestrian crossing sign and they're I don't know a number of them that flash can go across they just they made them white right our Public Works director has been quite engaged because it's part of our comp plan you've heard that discussion we need to make this down walkable bikeable all forms of transportation so any of those types of concerns talk to him yeah well I I did um through Scott's scripture was the one who passed things on and and Rob yorkson said no it can't be done my suggestion was amongst the lights that flash across here if you just put in one red light that you could see when the light is bright on a sunny day and the sun is coming this way across the stroller who was wrong who was crossing the street man almost got two cars just went if a policeman had been there he'd have stopped them I don't know how to stop two at once but it was bad it was a matter of recordings it has been reported it has been reported due to Bob Dirks have been reading you know the answer wasn't good wouldn't have helped the woman if she'd been hit so anyway yeah thank you all right we do have one more item uh for discussion uh I would like to publicly acknowledge uh this is Ruth's last meeting three or four years now I think 29 decades I've had a great pleasure of working with Ruth uh for I don't even know eight nine years I can't even keep track anymore but that's a stellar job uh makes art our job quite easy uh I've had a good time working with her uh so thank you I appreciate your um I appreciate your efforts for the board and service to the town so that's on record I still want to know who approved it because that was because somebody higher than me good luck in your next adventure thank you two two small things two small things one is I have the card it's I meant to bring it up to Mark Kittredge thanking him for his service and I bought the opportunity for you all to sign it so I will run down and get it and bring it up um secondly um the June meeting at this point there are no projects where we have would be uh the council looked at and it has Rec has passed on referred another amendment dealing with lodging you know uh uh Travelers accommodations um which is one of the changes from the competitive plan and then you'd have this one that you tabled so there'd be those two things in June if you if you want to have a June meeting I I guess I need to find out huh I think we could use a month off that doesn't seem yeah I may not be at the July I may have trouble in the July meeting okay we're trying to find out June July August what your schedules are so that we can determine whether we got a problem on things okay our others here in June I'm here and I'm here the third week of June yes okay Judd I think so we're looking out a little farther in projects in the pipeline uh there may be people are always talking with us and so it's never to tell you I know that there is um some discussion of a residential development in town um I don't know where they are but if not their Engineers talk to us the developers talk to us we know they've acquired the land we know they've done some survey work you know some habitat surveys and things like that so I know that's going to be coming um it's it could not be in for the journey it either could be they could still make it into the July meeting right Ruth six weeks they need six weeks um but we haven't heard anything son some adults would be July I wouldn't be surprised if it was August um so there are a couple and then there's a couple of smaller things that people have talked to us about so I'm I think there'll be some stuff coming forward Evan you said you would not be here on July 20th July 20th may be problematical I might be able to work things around um but people who are trying to get projects done because they've got schedules and deadlines and construction seasons are short so um I have nothing at this point so I'm not available in June and in July and then August uh 24th I'd say August 17th 17th okay it sounds like we can get a quorum on any of those months so let me see where things stand um for two ordinances are just one one in a piece what's that yeah I just want to know I'm I'm not here but that's up to you if you want to push off a meeting if in July we might want to push it to the let me find out my schedule but I might propose to you that we push it to the kind of my travel schedule uh moving to the 27th if we're going to come in and say there's no other you know public hearings in July if we had more ordinances to review we could actually come in and get some some things done yeah right yeah I think that's fine I think some of these smaller you've got another this travels accommodations coming in there then we're going to start jumping into bigger things the next thing that um I've been asked to work on is this Main Street overlay District which is a more major thing that's going to involve some significant public involvement and and and so that's not going to be ready for uh formal review for some time for you know for several months so you know June and then July figure out it's the 20th or the 27th yeah yeah okay and uh yeah okay sorry you don't sound sorry last item is Terry run down and get Mark's card so you can sign it yeah but you can make your motion motion second there we go Motion in a second uh this discussion all right so no June meeting as much as I like y'all I'm sorry I don't want to stay for any more meetings I won't miss them you'll be looking up on the website to read the minutes and stuff actually I uh the town of one that was on my Facebook so I'll know what's going on and my husband's still here