[0:00] Again, this is a reminder that this is also a remote meeting in teleconference using Zoom, pursuing to one MRSA, Section 403, TACA. Welcome to the Sanford Plain Board September 2nd meeting. The meeting will come to order. This is a public proceeding, unless the board specifically votes to go into executive session, you have the right to hear everything that is being said and to look at all exhibits that are offered. Please notify the chair if you are unable to hear or see something. Please know that if any planning board members have a potential conflicts of interest in which they are aware,

[0:29] They will disclose the conflict prior to the Board

[0:31] in issuing a hearing or action on an application.

[0:34] All persons speaking will be asked to state your name and address

[0:37] and then proceed at the sole discretion of the chair

[0:39] to public testimony may be limited to five minutes per speaker.

[0:43] For each item, the applicant will be asked to describe the project.

[0:46] There after the chair will ask for opponents of the project to speak

[0:49] followed by opponents and those are neither four nor against

[0:52] but who want to ask a general or ask a question or make a general comment.

[0:57] Everyone who wants will have the opportunity to speak to the board through the chair.

[1:01] Any questions must go to and through the chair who will then decide at what point to either ask staff or the applicant to respond.

[1:08] The chair may wait until after testimony has concluded to seek answers to any questions that are raised by the public or board members.

[1:15] Please note that rudeness, uncivil behavior, clapping, cheering, booing, etc will not be tolerated and if these behaviors occur the chair at his sole discretion may terminate the hearing.

[1:23] and reschedule it for another date.

[1:26] In addition, the chair at his sole discretion

[1:27] will limit repetitious comments,

[1:28] although it is entirely appropriate for an individual

[1:32] to indicate that he or she agrees with a previous speaker.

[1:35] Prior to closing the public hearing,

[1:37] the chair will ask if there are any new comments,

[1:39] then the applicant will be asked to make a single rebuttal

[1:41] in the response to the testimony which was provided.

[1:45] Once the public hearing portion of the meeting is closed,

[1:47] the chair will accept no additional public comment.

[1:49] However, a member of the board at the chair's discretion

[1:51] may ask the applicant or a member of the public to respond to a question.

[1:55] This will not reopen public comment.

[1:58] Planning board decisions are based solely on whether an applicant has provide sufficient evidence to meet the requirement of requirements of local, state and federal law, and this regard public testimony is most effective when it considers the impact of a project in light of Sanford subdivision site plan, shoreland or zoning ordinances and other relevant regulations.

[2:16] After the board discusses the merits of each project, it will vote on written findings

[2:20] of facts since the findings may substantially affect appeal rates and also as a matter

[2:25] of courtesy, the board asks that those attending the meeting not leave until the board has

[2:28] adopted the findings for the project you are interested in.

[2:33] After the planning board makes its final decision, any reconsideration by the board must be

[2:37] made at the next regularly scheduled meeting.

[2:39] If anyone wishes to appeal the board's final decision, he or she must do so within 30 days.

[2:44] The city's ordinances and comprehensive plan are available for viewing on the city's website and in the planning and development department's office at 919 Main Street.

[2:52] Remember, this is a public proceeding. You have the right to hear and see what is happening and we welcome public participation.

[3:00] All right, so for minutes, we have the minutes from August 19th, 2026. Todd was absent. Do we have a motion?

[3:09] Motion that we accept the minutes from August 19th?

[3:11] Okay. Second. Second. Second. All right. All in. Any discussion? All in favor? Five zero. One. One abstention. All right. Hearing in business. New business file 2026, tack 26, tack. ZC. Michael Kuna.

[3:30] Gay House Road, R18A-74A-4.

[3:36] Jamie, can you orient us on this?

[3:39] Yes, good evening.

[3:41] The applicant is here tonight requesting a zone and ordinance table of land use amendment

[3:48] to allow an AICS code that starts with 4931 in the AD zone.

[3:57] the AD zone is down in South Sanford essentially surrounding the airport.

[4:04] This went to site plan review a couple of weeks ago.

[4:08] In the packet is some staff comments, both from in-house as well as from Sanford Water District

[4:16] and Kenny Bunkport Wells Water District with some potential concerns due to the proximity

[4:24] of the wellhead protection zones and mapped sand and gravel aquifer down by the airport.

[4:32] For those of you that aren't familiar, KKW can report wells water district is concerned

[4:37] because their water supply comes from the branch brook and the branch brook essentially

[4:43] starts on airport grounds or very near the airport grounds so it's the headwaters of their watershed.

[4:48] They own hundreds, if not thousands, of acres of property on the other side of the airport

[4:54] heading towards Wells and Kenny Bunk to protect their watershed.

[5:01] They're generally concerned, as you know, all projects in the airport come with letters

[5:07] from them.

[5:08] So, the applicant had provided a letter originally from the water to church, actually

[5:15] both Sanford and KW. There were a little bit confused at the first request. They thought

[5:21] it was talking about A-specific use on A-specific lot. At site plan it was clarified that this

[5:31] isn't a request for A-specific use on A-specific lot. It is asking for an AICS code in the entire

[5:40] of the 80s. So once both water districts got clarification on that, we received updated

[5:47] memos from both of those agencies. Those are in your backup.

[5:53] So is the applicant here to speak?

[5:57] If you'd like to add anything additional, please feel

[6:01] free to do so at the podium.

[6:05] Can you please come up to the microphone? Just so it's on the public record.

[6:11] Well, when I fill up the application, I wasn't aware that we will be changing code for

[6:19] the all AD zoning.

[6:22] And also, I did not realize that when the code actually covers so many different industries

[6:31] that doesn't really specify the car storage, which we want to

[6:37] avail the specified storage of, you know,

[6:42] has a fuel and all the, you know,

[6:49] storage materials, which I kind of look up a little deeper

[6:54] into the code, and I guess the code will go to, like,

[6:59] Like a digit which will actually specify the car storage

[7:05] There's a code

[7:08] 493190-08

[7:11] Which specified the storage of the

[7:16] Recreation vehicles

[7:19] Vehicles and abodes and you know like secure storage

[7:26] which, climate control storage, basically,

[7:31] that's what I would like to build on that specific lot.

[7:37] And I'm not asking to change the quote for the whole AD zoning.

[7:44] It will be good enough for me to change just for the particular lot.

[7:51] Awesome, thank you.

[7:52] So this was advertised as a public hearing, correct?

[7:56] So we'll hold the public hearing, and then the board will

[7:58] deliberate if we have any questions we will ask you.

[8:02] All right?

[8:03] Okay.

[8:04] All right.

[8:05] With that, I will declare the public hearing open.

[8:08] Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of this

[8:10] project?

[8:11] Either here or on Zoom.

[8:13] All right.

[8:14] On Zoom?

[8:28] So sorry.

[8:29] Thank you.

[8:31] Hi, it's Mary Hastings from the Sanford Group Council.

[8:34] So we've been helping Mr. Kuna get through his application.

[8:39] It just as a whole series of events, we've been done this for a long time.

[8:47] When he first applied to the to codes, he just applied for his warehouse, the piece of

[8:56] property he wants to buy in the airport.

[8:59] And he did go to the water departments, both of them, and they both said what he wanted

[9:04] to do was absolutely fine. The problem was is it's not zoned for that. So then of course

[9:11] code said, well you could do a zone change and here we are. So trying to find a code

[9:16] just for warehousing of vehicles is not existent. So all the codes that we have looked at have

[9:25] of a multitude of things that you can do.

[9:30] So I understand that our ordinance is on NAICS codes.

[9:34] That's what we have to work with

[9:36] because that's what we have to do.

[9:37] I understand that the NAICS code is not the 202 NAICS code

[9:43] that work under, I understand that.

[9:47] I am trying to say is there some way that we can do this

[9:51] by descriptions, so if the water departments didn't have any problem with warehousing, but

[10:00] they have a problem with the bulk petroleum storage of this NAICS code, why is there a way

[10:08] that the planning board could allow Ms. Takuna to go ahead with the zone change and just

[10:18] by description or by exclusion, exclude petroleum warehousing, which is in that next code.

[10:29] There's no way to separate them. So that would be what I would ask if you can look at that.

[10:37] We do have other, if you look at our land use code, we do have other things in there that say,

[10:42] All permitted except this all permitted except that so we it's you know, it's not like we have never done that before

[10:52] Thank you awesome. Thank you

[10:54] Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this project?

[10:59] Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition for this project either here or on zoom?

[11:06] Is there anyone who would like to ask a question or make a general comment either here or on zoom?

[11:13] All right, I declare the public hearing closed

[11:18] Is there anything staff would like to add?

[11:21] So in the packet is a letter from Alex representing code enforcement.

[11:28] She brought up a couple of key points in that we're in the middle of a comprehensive

[11:34] plan update.

[11:36] Typically speaking, zone changes request should be very limited in the middle of a comprehensive

[11:40] plan update because coming out of the comprehensive plan will be future land use tables and future

[11:47] land use maps and auditory rights that correlate to those.

[11:52] So I'm going to make that generic statement that we've been telling people for the last

[11:56] year or so that some amendment should be limited at best.

[12:02] Added to that, as part of the comprehensive plan update process, we did an economic market

[12:08] analysis.

[12:10] That market analysis essentially said that one area of opportunity for the city of Sanford

[12:17] is our industrial zone land, and we are posed for industrial development because a lot

[12:23] of our surrounding communities in southern Maine and New England in general, don't have

[12:29] a lot of available industrial zone land, and not only do we need to preserve our industrial

[12:35] zone land, we should seriously consider updating and adding more properties on industrial.

[12:43] The table of land use is take those industrial uses into an account for the A.D. zone and the IB zone, which is that area down in South Sanford.

[12:53] Car storage isn't necessarily an industrial use, although I will say it hasn't allowed use in the IB zone, which is on the other side of 109 in that area.

[13:05] So car storage would be an allowed use 500 feet from or a thousand feet from this lot per

[13:12] say.

[13:14] You add into it.

[13:16] So Mary said that the table of land uses have areas where it says this number accept.

[13:23] Generically speaking, when it says that, it's not accepting a specific use within a code.

[13:33] It's saying that for instance 49 I lost the number.

[13:41] It would say 4931 is allowed with the exception of maybe 493160.

[13:51] So it's not, it's not exempt in a specific use, it's except in one of the two-digit add-on

[14:01] code to the 4931 is just warehousing in ICS. The last two digits essentially break down warehousing

[14:10] more specifically. As Mary said, that code doesn't break it down 100% specific. It gives examples

[14:20] like automobile dead storage, bonded warehousing except for farm products, bulk petroleum storage,

[14:27] storage, document storage and warehouse and lumber storage, private warehouse and storage

[14:33] except for farm products, public warehouse and storage except for farm products, warehouse

[14:40] and except for farm products, and whiskey warehousing.

[14:44] So essentially, it's all the warehouse and uses that aren't specified in a different section

[14:51] of 4931.

[14:53] one. So while the water districts have voice concerns for up

[15:00] About patrol and storage, there might be other uses, not even listed that I just read, that fall under this category, because essentially what that says is any warehouse and activity that doesn't isn't specified in any ICS in a different number falls under this category. So it's not saying we're allowing automobile storage on his lot or any lot in the AD zone. It would be saying we allow other warehouse

[15:29] in the 80s. If he wanted to, he could apply for a contract zone, contract zone is specific

[15:40] to a lot and specific to the uses. So if, I mean, you guys is rolling here is to give

[15:47] a recommendation or not a recommendation for City Council to approve it. City Council

[15:52] is who makes the official determination on a zone change. So if City Council isn't countable

[15:59] grant them this, an option would be for Mr. Kuhner to reapply as a contract zone.

[16:05] And the contract zone is a specific zone for that parcel and only that parcel.

[16:10] The contract could then be specific to say really whatever Mr. Kuhner and city management,

[16:17] city council agree on for verbiage.

[16:21] So the water districts, both voice concerns about it being in the whole AD zone because there

[16:31] are other sections of the AD zone that are much closer to their actual source than this

[16:37] law.

[16:38] This source is within their well head area, but it's not super close, but there are other

[16:43] lots in the AD zone that are much closer.

[16:46] And again, this approval isn't for one specific map,

[16:50] a lot number.

[16:50] It's for the entire AD zone.

[16:55] So we covered comprehensive plan, we covered the generic,

[17:01] any ICS, I'll just make a generic comment.

[17:05] City of Sanford is one of, I'm going to say, a few at best.

[17:10] Minus palies that used any ICS as a zoning tool.

[17:14] Any ICS was never intended to be a zoning tool.

[17:18] It was intended to be a business classification for tax purposes.

[17:23] All of us file taxes.

[17:25] Anybody that has ever done like a sole proprietorship or

[17:28] DBA or something, on your taxes you have to put a six digit code of your use.

[17:32] That is what this manual is for, is to determine that six digit code.

[17:36] It is not a land use thing.

[17:38] In Sanford, two previous planners found this document and at the time we were struggling

[17:47] with, in a table of land uses, if a use isn't listed, it's not allowed.

[17:54] And say our ordinance was written 25 years ago, there are uses that didn't exist before

[18:00] that exist now and because they're not shown on a table of land uses, that automatically

[18:05] says it's not allowed.

[18:06] So, Jim Galnet, great planner, I worked with him my first ten years or so here.

[18:13] He came up with the idea of use in this classification system in a table of land uses to bridge

[18:19] that gap of the uses that are standard that every municipality has in a table of land

[18:25] uses.

[18:26] This was a tool that was specific, but generic enough where we could potentially regulate

[18:32] some of the newer uses that weren't accounted for before.

[18:37] It's a good tool in that it does just that.

[18:41] But in cases like this, the generacy of it actually works against in this case,

[18:47] Mr. Corner, because he's looking for a specific use.

[18:51] Any ICS doesn't have a code for that specific use, so we have to go to other warehousing,

[18:57] which does include uses that are problematic for the water districts.

[19:02] Jamie, can I just ask for clarification on the application that used the 4-digit code in the agenda, it had a 6-digit code on here.

[19:12] So the agenda was a mistake, this request is to put the 2002 NAICS code number 4931, that was the official request from Mr. Kuhner.

[19:28] is there any other staff

[19:30] comments? All right, open up to

[19:33] the board for discussion.

[19:34] Didn't Allison from the airport

[19:39] say that this use on airport

[19:42] property would not be allowed?

[19:44] Correct. She was present at site

[19:46] plan and she endorsed the use.

[19:50] So I asked the question of okay,

[19:53] the entire airport is a D zone so you're saying that you're okay with people

[19:59] storing automobiles on the airport and her response was no that's not allowed.

[20:04] I think that's FAA right? Correct. So if on the airport say you have a

[20:10] personal vehicle and you drive your personal vehicle to the airport to take

[20:15] your plane to Vegas. You're allowed to bring your personal vehicle store at

[20:21] they are when you have your plane,

[20:23] and then you land, you park the plane, you drive off.

[20:27] So that's an allowed use within the airport grounds,

[20:30] but other than essentially to get to your plane

[20:34] and from your plane, automobile storage

[20:36] would not be allowed within the fence.

[20:39] So in our ordinance, we have AD zone,

[20:42] and then it breaks it up into sub-district and support district.

[20:47] So within the fence is defined as the district,

[20:50] And then outside of the fence, all of the AD zone property outside of the fence is the support sub-district.

[20:58] So essentially what Alison is saying is she would be okay with it outside of the fence line, but it wouldn't be allowed within the fence line.

[21:06] The property that Mr. Corner is required about is outside of the fence.

[21:12] Does it currently break up inside the fence, outside the fence, uses like lumber yards, for example, are allowed.

[21:20] Does it specify that it has to be outside the fence?

[21:23] the request was to simply allow this code in the AD zone.

[21:28] No, I'm just saying for other uses, does it specify which ones can be in one sub-district or the other?

[21:36] Please hold it.

[21:47] Well, he's looking that up. Any other discussions?

[21:55] It was, when I was reading through all the comments, it was not just storing that I read by servicing the vehicles and painting the vehicles.

[22:07] and so I want to make sure that we're talking about what the usage actually is going to be within the building.

[22:14] And the whole, the request for the entire zone, that's a, not, anyway, I don't, that's something that has to be resolved.

[22:26] Ben, could you pull up my screen, please?

[22:30] So here's the AD zone in Chapter 280, and I'll just start with the purpose.

[22:36] The purpose of the A.D. zone is to promote the smooth and efficient functioning of the airport.

[22:41] This zone includes the Sanford Seacos Regional Airport,

[22:45] adjacent clear zones, and nearby properties with potential for providing support services to the airport.

[22:51] All land use and development in this zone shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws,

[22:58] including without limitation, FAA rules and regulations, main DEP rules and regulations and

[23:03] importantly, agreements.

[23:04] All land use and development within 80 June,

[23:07] so I'll be compatible with the goals

[23:08] and the judges of the comprehensive plan,

[23:11] as may be amended from time to time.

[23:13] The ultimate airport layout plan, as amended,

[23:15] from time to time.

[23:17] And then the next line is where it defines

[23:20] the AD airport sub district and support sub district,

[23:24] again, area within the fence for airport sub district,

[23:28] all the land area located in the E-don outside of the fence

[23:32] is AD support, some district.

[23:35] When it gets into uses, it doesn't really specify here,

[23:41] except it says, a use that is not designated as a use permitted

[23:44] is deemed to be prohibited use in the AD zone.

[23:48] Which means we then go to the table of land uses to determine

[23:52] what uses are allowed. The table of land uses does not specify

[23:56] within the fence or outside of the fence, it just says overall

[23:59] Oh, what uses are allowed in the zone?

[24:01] Yep, but, okay, so I'll go back to Todd's comments.

[24:13] I just want, before we start talking about the land use table

[24:16] in a loud uses, this is just for vehicle storage.

[24:18] This isn't for painting or repair of auto reveals

[24:22] because those we prohibited due to the well head protection

[24:25] or the, so when Mr. Koenner first started the conversation,

[24:29] He said that he might do minor repair or service work.

[24:33] He has since revised his comments to say, that's not what I'm intended anymore.

[24:39] I want to just store vehicles.

[24:43] Because if I recall in similar protections, we did not allow a transmission job.

[24:49] Right, right, due to issues of the water, right.

[24:55] So, yes, state statute actually prohibits automobile service in wellhead protection zones.

[25:03] That's why the transmission shop was not allowed.

[25:06] And this is a wellhead protection zone.

[25:07] Correct.

[25:08] So, even if he wanted to, we couldn't even permit it.

[25:14] Correct.

[25:17] It is verified.

[25:18] So, we're talking about petroleum storage, correct?

[25:21] So, we are talking not about automobile storage.

[25:24] not about automobile service repair, we're talking about any ICS code that starts with 4931 and all of the uses that are allowed under that code.

[25:35] That's what we're talking about.

[25:36] What's he proposing? That's what I'm getting at.

[25:38] It doesn't matter what he's proposing. The zone request is to allow code 4931 as written in the AD zone.

[25:47] We're not talking about his use right now.

[25:49] The request is to allow 4931 in the AED zone.

[25:54] His use is irrelevant.

[25:56] The only option is a contract zone.

[25:58] Yeah, I think that's-

[26:00] Yeah, I have concerns about that.

[26:04] I mean, given that we're still working on a comprehensive plan,

[26:08] I'm not sure this is the right time to be having this discussion honestly.

[26:12] I'm not too concerned about the comp plans going on.

[26:16] It's been going on for years, it shouldn't hold up everyone.

[26:20] I would say it's a risk that you make a change, and then before a permit is pulled, it gets overridden when the comp plan changes the land use table yet again, but that's a risk of the applicant.

[26:35] I don't find warehouse using to be incompatible with the AD zone.

[26:42] If you don't mind scrolling down at some of the uses specifically like industrial and commercial.

[26:57] So government and nonprofit outdoor recreation, essential service, public utility, solar energy system,

[27:07] utilities,

[27:08] these excavated and general contractor health

[27:16] service facility,

[27:18] motel, hotel, bed and breakfast,

[27:23] marijuana production facility,

[27:27] motor vehicle service repair sales facility, small scale,

[27:33] all permitted except in the well head protection zone.

[27:36] So if any of those lots are outside of the well head protection zone,

[27:39] it would allow small scale motor vehicle sales and service.

[27:42] I'm not aware of any of the 80's own loss that are outside the well head protection, but there might be one.

[27:50] Office of mental health practitioner.

[27:54] I just, a question, is office mental health practitioner in support of the report?

[28:03] I guess that would be up for debate.

[28:06] Typically, health service things are around airports.

[28:11] It's debatable whether you have to have a mental health practitioner on airport ramps.

[28:21] So I just, the zone gets a little confusing for me because it says one thing and then

[28:27] you see power sports sales.

[28:30] You see excavation storage, of course, excavation companies.

[28:34] So I struggle with what is would be considered consistent or inconsistent with the conference

[28:45] of plan as it relates to the airport development district.

[28:51] So because there is all of these inconsistencies, I believe lumber yards is permitted in the

[28:58] 80's zone because we do have a lumber yard in the 80's zone, correct?

[29:01] like that property is in the urban zone, urban zone?

[29:05] Is it allowed?

[29:07] Is lumber yards allowed in AD?

[29:12] Let me look up to any ice code, just one second.

[29:15] Actually, I looked that up already for another use.

[29:19] Lumber storage is not allowed,

[29:23] but if it was like a hardware retail store,

[29:26] that would be allowed.

[29:28] Yeah.

[29:29] So, I love this, what I'm getting at is it's very hard to rule on consistency, inconsistency.

[29:36] I do know that the conference of plans speaks very strongly about branch protection for

[29:43] Cape on water.

[29:47] So that one's more clear cut to me.

[29:52] Well, if we're not discussing the allowed use and we're not discussing anything else

[29:55] other than the NAI, this change that he's requesting, which is affecting the...

[30:00] Okay, all right. We've got a commission to go and identify its own. Given that both water companies are opposed to this, I can't support it. It just doesn't make sense. Given that we have another, we do have an ongoing discussion about zoning and that discussion is not complete. I mean, I think if the city wants to grant a contract zone that's up to them. And I don't think this is the right time to be having that discussion.

[30:23] I can't speak for the water districts, the memos are in

[30:26] the packet. I don't think the water districts are comfortable with without specifying an

[30:32] exact use. Both water districts, when they thought they were talking about one lot with one use

[30:38] with limitations applied, they seem to have a small amount of comfort with that. Both the letters to

[30:46] me are very clear that asking for a code in the entire zone, it's clear to me otherwise that they

[30:54] They were not accepted of that.

[30:56] So I can't speak for them if they was to come back with a contract zone request, if

[31:03] they would send a letter of support.

[31:06] But I can say that prior to them realizing we were talking about an entire code for an

[31:11] entire zone, they both provided letters saying that with specific protections put in place,

[31:18] they would potentially support it.

[31:20] I had had conversations with KKW Supervisor Form and I don't know it's official title director I think but he had mentioned that they were going to do deed restrictions on the property so that it was very, very clear what uses were allowed on that property.

[31:41] Again, as soon as I said, we would have to do a de-restrictions on every property in

[31:45] the AD zone.

[31:46] He's like, well, what are you talking about?

[31:47] We're talking about the lot of Mr. Codawats.

[31:50] So again, I don't think either Wads' district has any comfort in an AD zone-wide request.

[32:00] Well, the Water Department and even Allison from the airport, they were all in favor of

[32:06] this until they realize that this change would affect every property in the A.D. zone.

[32:12] I would agree with that analogy.

[32:14] Well, I don't really find Allison's disagreement helpful when I look at this list like is a finance

[32:22] and insurance property allowed on the airport?

[32:24] It's a professional scientific technical services allowed on the airport.

[32:27] They're allowed in the A.D. zone, you know, so I don't see that argument very strong because

[32:35] Because as all of these uses, I mean, I doubt they have an education services, maybe except flight school.

[32:40] But they certainly aren't allowing a regular school, even if it's allowed outside the fence.

[32:48] So what I'm struggling with, so state law, when it comes to vehicle auto repair, is it that specific as into the use that state laws prohibiting or would state law also prohibit petroleum storage in a well-hit protection zone.

[33:06] It is not that specific, it's pretty much, we use the transmission shop because that was

[33:15] an example that was live.

[33:18] It's really, any hazardous material, it could be a transmission shop, could be a bulk

[33:25] diesel fuel storage, could be a bulk ammonia plant.

[33:29] It's really any liquid that has the possibility of permeating the ground isn't allowed in

[33:34] well-head protection zones. So then we keep talking like with the zone change, the

[33:41] fear is the petroleum storage. If it's not allowed anyways because of the well-head protection

[33:48] zone, that seems like a non-issue. And again, I said I'm not 100% positive. Every lot

[33:55] is, every AD zone lot is in a well-head protection. We have two different well-heads that combine.

[34:01] there might be some of these lots that are just outside of it so I don't I don't

[34:09] want to say it might or might not be allowed.

[34:16] It sounds like this code system is

[34:18] that fault maybe we shouldn't be using it. That's what I'm getting out of this

[34:21] discussion.

[34:24] Again my interpretation of the letters from the water districts were

[34:28] if the applicant came forward with a specific request for a specific lot they

[34:34] They might have comfort and would support this.

[34:37] Other than that, I don't believe they have comfort.

[34:40] But we don't have the authority to make that decision here.

[34:42] City Council's who grants ordinance amendments.

[34:45] So, you guys' responsibility is to either recommend the council approve it or not recommend the council approve it.

[34:52] That is the plan and board responsibility in a zone change.

[34:56] The city council is ultimately who takes all of the information provided and make a determination whether that zone change is appropriate for Sanford.

[35:07] I'm not going to say that if you guys say it should be approved, that 100% of the time they agree with you, I'm not going to say that if you guys say it shouldn't be approved, I'm not going to say that they have to agree with that either.

[35:20] Your advisory to the City Council in this case.

[35:24] Just like I'm advisory to you guys here, I am also advisory to the City Council when they ask me questions.

[35:32] And so all I'm trying to get down to is when we give an opinion, you know, whether we determine that this change is consistent with the comprehensive plan or inconsistent opinion is aside.

[35:43] And I'm struggling with that because I'm really struggling with that.

[35:50] So,

[35:53] a lot of the uses from industrial business are, they also are allowed in AD.

[36:04] And so, if we find that this is inconsistent, and then we get a contract zone request.

[36:15] How can we not find that inconsistent, too?

[36:17] Well, because it specifies that one particular property that they can do whatever he's

[36:24] proposing.

[36:25] And it's one specific use, one specific property.

[36:28] So it doesn't affect any other property in the AED zone with a contract zone.

[36:33] I'm much more comfortable with a contract zone here.

[36:37] I am, too.

[36:38] I have, you know, I know that you all sound like you're comfortable with it.

[36:43] But I'm only concerned about setting a precedent for more contract zone changes.

[36:48] Even though it's not a comprehensive change to the code.

[36:52] If you give one contract zone, then why wouldn't five other people ask for the same contract zone?

[36:57] And next, you know, now the water district has the same problem because we've set a precedent.

[37:02] And that's just a what if, but.

[37:03] Well, that's why we leave that to our friends on the City Council to deal with.

[37:07] I mean, didn't Walmart ask for a contract zone when they came in?

[37:10] I mean, Wal-Mart lows is a contract zone.

[37:14] And just to remind our comprehensive plan,

[37:19] the contract zone requirement say it has to be consistent

[37:22] with the comprehensive plan so that it's not just

[37:24] anybody that lasts for a contract zone gets it.

[37:26] There still are prerequisites that have to be met

[37:29] in order to get a contract.

[37:31] But yes, the city of Sanford has utilized contract zones

[37:34] in the past.

[37:36] I'm sure we'll utilize them in the future.

[37:38] In the state of Maine, what's called spot zone is illegal.

[37:43] Spot zone is essentially when we create a zone for a lot or two or three that isn't consistent with ordinance requirements.

[37:59] So the state has authorized municipalities to do a contract, which is still consistent with the comp plan.

[38:06] still consistent with most parts of the ordinance but provides relief in limited basis requirements

[38:14] that still meet all the other requirements. Typically a contract zone is for a use that

[38:24] is new and not common that we didn't think about or when the zone and happen 15, 20 years

[38:31] years ago, let's say that area was our boom in industry.

[38:36] We didn't want retail, we wanted to preserve the industry access for tractor trailers

[38:42] and not have to worry about pedestrian safety and all that.

[38:46] Industry goes away, we have a lot of giant lots that are the operated buildings on them.

[38:52] Now our use is coming in and saying, okay, we want to take the lots that front on Main Street

[38:56] and make the retail instead of industry like Siro and all of those.

[39:03] Sprague,

[39:06] it was deemed at the time that the Wal-Mart Loes contract zone was consistent

[39:10] with the comp plan and granted.

[39:15] Do we discuss how many vehicles can be stored?

[39:19] You can, you can, for the contract zone.

[39:21] For the contract zone, you can discuss anything and everything.

[39:25] For this request, again, the request, I'm sorry to keep repeating.

[39:28] I know you, I get it, for this request it's different, it's yes or no, and then the

[39:36] contract zone is a whole other conversation.

[39:38] Correct, I get that.

[39:39] A contract zone is a, it's a zone written specifically for one property.

[39:44] Right, so the council could say, okay, we're going to allow Mr. Cooner to store 10 vehicles

[39:51] as long as he paints the belt-in-half-pink, half purple, and he contributes $6.5 million

[39:58] dollars a year towards ambulance service in Sanford. And he would then agree or

[40:03] disagree to that. Obviously I I threw out exaggerated it on purpose so that

[40:08] nobody's thinking I'm suggesting any of this. But like we did a contract zone

[40:14] 20 years ago on Patriots place for condos and at the time when that was approved

[40:21] that was all 55 plus condos.

[40:25] So part of their contract was they made a $50,000

[40:28] contribution towards an ambulance

[40:31] because it was assumed that we were gonna have

[40:33] more rescue calls because of a hundred

[40:35] and something condos being placed.

[40:37] So that was part of their contract.

[40:40] So in my readings, I can't remember if it was

[40:43] a superintendent or if it was from the water district

[40:45] where they, somebody said if this was a contract zone

[40:49] it be more palatable. So I think that I would want to make sure that that's a confirmation

[40:57] that everybody else agrees that if it was approached as a contract zone, then that would

[41:03] be something that I would endorse as long as everyone's downstream supported that.

[41:10] We're not here to discuss the contract zone. We're either going to tell the, that's

[41:17] We should also recommend this or we don't recommend the change.

[41:21] And we're recommending the code change or not recommending the code change.

[41:25] Nothing to do at this point with contracts.

[41:26] Let's come back with a contract zone and then we can discuss all that.

[41:30] All right, so based on, I'm trying to base it on whether it's warehousing,

[41:39] is consistent or inconsistent with the contract zone.

[41:42] And then say exactly why to the City Council.

[41:48] It may be the type of warehousing we're talking about.

[41:53] That it's too broad, I don't disagree, that there's certain uses that wouldn't be.

[42:00] Because they currently petroleum storage is allowed in industrial business.

[42:04] I thought we would discuss in that, just one of our, we're just discussing the code change, right?

[42:11] Yes.

[42:12] It's right now it's a yes or no, right?

[42:13] Yes.

[42:14] and then we can have it.

[42:15] Well, right now, it's a recommendation from the City Council to approve or not approve.

[42:18] Based on whatever you guys want.

[42:22] Why don't we poll everybody to see where we're standing right now on just the code, just

[42:27] the code change.

[42:29] All right, because that's just a chair.

[42:32] So, but that's just an idea is that we just see where everybody is.

[42:37] Yep.

[42:38] All right.

[42:38] Those who aren't in favor of the change.

[42:41] This is not an official vote.

[42:42] No, this is a strumple, just to see how much more discussion we need.

[42:46] So, who would not be in favor of it?

[42:49] I'm not in favor of it.

[42:51] All right.

[42:53] Well, I'll have to vote then.

[42:58] I move that we have a motion.

[43:02] So I have a suggested motion.

[43:03] Good.

[43:04] Good.

[43:05] So, typically when this goes to council, so this is not part of your motion, but before I read the motion.

[43:11] Typically, when it goes to council, I have to explain the thought process behind the recommendation

[43:19] or not recommendation.

[43:22] What I'm asking the question in this case, what I'm hearing is due to the broad request

[43:30] of any ask code, 4931, in the entire AD zone, and the fact that the two water districts

[43:36] that have well had protection in the area, have serious concerns about it.

[43:41] You are not recommending approval.

[43:43] Is that what I heard from you?

[43:44] Less the report, director.

[43:47] That's what you want me to relate to, City Council.

[43:49] Yes.

[43:52] So are you ready to, ready for a suggested motion?

[43:56] The planning board accepts the information in the August 18, 2026 summer report,

[44:01] any September 2nd, 2026 site plan, review committee recommendation to the planning board,

[44:06] and finds the zone and ordinance table of land use text amendment request application

[44:12] number 2026-26-ZC to allow the 2002 NAICS code number 4931 in the airport development

[44:26] zone and does not recommend City Council approve the requested table of land use amendment.

[44:37] a question.

[44:40] Second.

[44:40] Any discussion?

[44:42] All in favour?

[44:44] All opposed.

[44:48] So, five, one.

[44:50] So the by-law state that when someone votes an opposition,

[44:54] that they give their reason.

[44:55] So I will give my reason.

[44:57] Yes.

[44:58] I am not convinced.

[45:00] Yes, the warehousing is inconsistent with the conference of plan for the AD zone, given the other uses that are allowed in the zone. I feel that there's more discussion to be had on it. That's the reason for my vote. All right. Moving on. Mr. Chair, can I speak for one last time.

[45:22] So the best bet will be to speak at the city council meeting as they will be making the final decision.

[45:29] on this. Since we have a very cast out vote, right. Thank you.

[45:38] So moving on to other

[45:39] business, Director's report?

[45:45] Before I get to Director's report, you just made a comment

[45:49] that I just want to elaborate on a little bit. When we talk about the comprehensive plan

[45:53] and ordinance amendments coming after that, that is exactly when we're going to go through

[45:58] use by use, zone by zone, talking about what should be and what should not be

[46:03] allowed. So this conversation we had tonight is going to be repeated about 1.2

[46:08] million times in the near future.

[46:12] Because really, depending on how thorough of a

[46:15] job we want to do, and I'll be honest with you, as both your planning director and

[46:19] code enforcement director, I want us to get this auditory right correct because

[46:23] we've been working with a document that's had its challenges for too long, and I've

[46:28] state employed here with the hope that someday we could fix this and we're finally here.

[46:33] So I am requesting ahead of time that we do put a lot of thought into these ordinance

[46:39] discussions when we get to that point because that's going to be what defines Sanford's future.

[46:47] Planning Director's report, I'm going to keep it short and sweet.

[46:51] I'm going to say the world is a status quo in Sanford, we are still rather busy on both sides

[46:57] of the hallway, working through the applications. As you guys know, staff and the site plan

[47:08] recommetti has continued to make sure that the applications that we accept as complete

[47:15] as well as the applications that get moved forward from site plan to you guys are complete

[47:21] without a bunch of conditions required.

[47:25] So those of you that don't watch site plan meetings

[47:30] because you're at work, we're doing other things.

[47:34] On most every project at this point

[47:35] is being tabled at site plan.

[47:38] Request in cleaner plans be created

[47:43] and reviewed again by the review team

[47:45] so that the plans that you guys see

[47:47] are much closer to being a clean sheet.

[47:53] I feel we've been working at this now for a few years,

[47:56] and I see results already better of approvals coming out of you guys' desk

[48:02] that are much easier for the applicant to understand what was actually approved,

[48:07] much easier for contractors that are constructing these places to know what they're supposed to be doing,

[48:12] much easier for.

[48:13] I'm going to say the future of code enforcement officers and the future of planning directors and code enforcement directors to know what was actually approved.

[48:22] As I have the fortunate role of doing a lot of things here and I've struggled at times in the past when

[48:31] a plan was approved with four or five pages of conditions and it takes the applicant six months, sometimes 16 months to work through those lists.

[48:41] staff has to almost re-review the entire thing because by then we're on a hundred projects since and it's very, very cumbersome.

[48:52] And that's how mistakes are made.

[48:53] So I want to thank you guys for the support that you've given us in the site plan Rookmitty to hold the quality standards high.

[49:03] I think that is paying its dividends.

[49:06] Again, thank you for that.

[49:08] As always, I'll say thank you to you guys as volunteers on the board and city staff.

[49:12] A lot of work goes on behind the scenes and you guys all make it look seamless.

[49:17] Thank you, Jamie.

[49:18] Communications.

[49:20] I have to agree with Jamie and all the other people on the site plan review.

[49:24] They've, when plans come before us and there's so many things that have, aren't answered questions.

[49:32] And then we table it and they come back in two weeks hopefully and sometimes the next night they're here before us.

[49:40] Yeah, and I'd like to add, that's, I mean, that's why projects have been approved.

[49:46] You know, almost, I don't want to say feels like a rubber stamp, but by the time it gets to us, there has been so much work done to make sure that it meets everything and it is complete.

[49:57] There's a lot of cases very little to discuss.

[50:02] And I think the only issues we've had lately is DEP permits, you know, we're pending

[50:09] DEP approval and then the approval comes back and they want something different.

[50:14] I think that's in the only time we've seen some amendments and so that's really good.

[50:21] So as far as your speech, the first speech you give, can some of that be put on the agenda

[50:26] for it was on the end?

[50:29] So we're working on amending that.

[50:31] So essentially what he reads is almost the by-laws in its entirety.

[50:44] So essentially what I think, I don't even like God's talking.

[50:51] I will say in my time as you're planning board chair, Lenny was chair for the first month and a half that I was here and then Tom and then Jason, I believe all three of them have voiced a little bit of concern about the length of reading that every morning, every morning, every night.

[51:09] I have done research, I have determined that we don't have to read all that.

[51:14] That's your by-laws, essentially.

[51:17] The by-laws are voted on at the beginning of the year.

[51:20] They are valid for the entire year.

[51:22] It was the best I can determine in years past we had some highly contentious plan and board

[51:30] meetings, and to make it so that everybody, meaning the applicants, were aware of the by-laws.

[51:37] we started reading that at the beginning of every meeting.

[51:41] I discussed it with staff and while I think some of it might need to still be said

[51:47] I think we're going to start putting the by-laws in every agenda packet

[51:53] so that both you guys and or the applicants can review those ahead of time

[52:00] or during the meeting or whenever they want and we don't even have to do that.

[52:04] I like to be transparent as possible.

[52:08] That's why we've continued to do it.

[52:11] But I've had some discussions and a lot of thought on it.

[52:15] And I think we're still being transparent

[52:17] if we make the bylaws readily available.

[52:19] The bylaws are on the planet website.

[52:21] Again, I'm going to go the extra step

[52:23] and add them as a page to the packet.

[52:25] That way, nobody can say I didn't know that.

[52:29] So yes, in the near future, we're going

[52:31] a switch to highly abbreviated version with by-laws being included in the packets.

[52:38] Yeah.

[52:38] Works for me.

[52:39] Because the city council wants very short.

[52:41] Yes.

[52:43] Yeah.

[52:43] And I think people reading and having the list in the packet is much more benefit than me mumbling

[52:49] through it and them having to hear it.

[52:52] I agree.

[52:53] I am a thousand per cent for city government to be transparent.

[52:57] I think including the packet is more transparent than trying to keep up with.

[53:01] I mean, you do a great job reading it.

[53:03] I do better, or of course I'm deaf,

[53:05] but I do better reading than I do hearing.

[53:08] Even when I can't hear.

[53:13] Do we have a motion?

[53:14] Oh, motion to adjourn.

[53:16] Second.

[53:16] All in favor.

[53:18] Six zero.

[53:19] Thank you.

Planning Board Meeting

Transcript