[0:01] Good evening, everyone. I'm going to officially call the meeting of September 8th,

[0:09] 2026 here to order and doing a roll call. We are all currently present.

[0:15] Tell manager, was this meeting properly noticed? Yes, it was. Beautiful. I'll remind our counselors

[0:20] here to please silence your electronic devices. And the first thing on our agenda is Executive

[0:27] Executive session one MRSA 4056 a personnel matters to have a motion to go into executive

[0:33] session motion by Councillor Wilson. Is there a second seconded by Councillor Ellis. Any

[0:41] discussion on the motion not seeing any I'll call the vote Councillor Ellis. Yes. Councilor

[0:47] Ecker. Yes. Councilor Anderson. Yes. Councilor Pearl. Yes. Councilor Hicks. Yes.

[0:57] Councilor

[0:58] passes unanimously. So we're going to enter executive session. We'll be back at 6.30. Thank you, everyone.

[1:30:50] Okay, welcome back. Thank you again for being here at our September 8, 2026 meeting. We already did

[1:30:59] acknowledgment. This was properly acknowledged and roll call. We are missing Councillor Ellis this

[1:31:04] evening. As a reminder, please silence your electronic devices at this point. So if you have

[1:31:10] that, airplane mode is always a good one. And then please rise if you are willing and able

[1:31:15] for the Pledge of Allegiance.

[1:31:26] One way indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

[1:31:36] Thank you everyone.

[1:31:38] As Chair, that I ask that while we hold this space together,

[1:31:41] we treat every person here with respect and compassion

[1:31:43] as we work to serve our town.

[1:31:47] And as part of the adjustments to the agenda,

[1:31:49] I am going to add one item here for folks

[1:31:53] with the consent of the body.

[1:31:55] To add a resolution to the consent agenda regarding 9-11,

[1:31:59] and you have it printed in front of you all.

[1:32:01] So we're gonna add this to the consent agenda

[1:32:03] with the other resolutions.

[1:32:08] Is that okay with everyone?

[1:32:09] Thumbs up, head shakes, cool.

[1:32:12] All right, we'll add that to the consent agenda.

[1:32:15] Are there any announcements of council?

[1:32:17] Councilors have any announcements to make?

[1:32:20] Councilor Weems.

[1:32:22] Thank you, Chair MacDonald.

[1:32:23] Yes, I want to announce an event

[1:32:26] coming up at the Curtis Memorial Library.

[1:32:31] called Community Conversations, Wabanaki, Tribal Sovereignty, in our homelands now called

[1:32:40] Maine.

[1:32:41] It's the name of the session, and it will be led by Bullion Bryant, the Penobscot citizen

[1:32:49] and the Executive Director of the Wabanaki Alliance, and her associate, Sage Phillips.

[1:32:55] He's also a Penobscot citizen and employed by the Wabanaki and Alliance.

[1:33:04] At the Curtis Memorial Library Wednesday, September 16th at 5 p.m.

[1:33:13] Thank you.

[1:33:14] Are there any other announcements of councillors?

[1:33:18] Councilor Perl?

[1:33:20] Just to let anybody know out there that on Saturday the 12th from 4 to 8 out at Wildoats and Flight Deck Brewing is the block party and proceeds from the vendors, the food vendors will go to support Brunswick Community Education Foundation.

[1:33:45] Great.

[1:33:46] Councilor Eckert, did you have something?

[1:33:47] thing? I do. I have two. If you'll grant me that. Go for it. First, I think it'd be...

[1:33:56] I'm on. Sorry. First, I think it's notable that the

[1:34:03] Councillor who is absent tonight, Councillor Ellis, is starring in a

[1:34:09] production at Midcoast Youth Theatre this coming Friday, Saturday and Sunday

[1:34:16] called is it called pants or no pants? So he gets to perform in another theater

[1:34:23] and I'm sure people would love to see a counselor in another venue so that's one

[1:34:28] announcement. The second one back to town business I just want to note that

[1:34:37] the long-awaited one and a half mile stretch of repaving from Main Street to

[1:34:42] McQuaid Road, Mirror Point Road is done and with it, the significant bike pedd

[1:34:48] improvements, ADA improvements on the sidewalk, traffic calming measures, a new

[1:34:54] pedestrian crossing at Meadowbrook and Botany Place, narrower

[1:35:00] vehicle travel lanes, and they're designated bike lanes almost the entire

[1:35:06] length. And I just want to give a good shout out to the many staff who worked on this over

[1:35:14] the course of two years. It involved a lot of community involvement. It involved the

[1:35:20] bike ped committee. I'd especially like to recognize Assistant Director Astel and Project

[1:35:29] manager Chrissy Adamowitz for their roles in it. I know others played a role. I think DOT was

[1:35:37] involved as well, but it's really a bit of a pivot point I think in terms of development of our

[1:35:44] bike pad safe infrastructure for all on one of our key network roads. So I just want to make sure

[1:35:51] that people recognize that. Also recognize it may not be perfect. People are going to have to

[1:35:58] get used to where these lines are now, and I think there's some changes coming, but the

[1:36:05] majority of the comments I've heard have all been positive that this has finally happened.

[1:36:09] So thanks, I'd like to thank everyone that played a part in that.

[1:36:13] Thank you, and thank you to our staff and community.

[1:36:17] Without further announcements, I'm going to go ahead and move us to public comment.

[1:36:22] As a reminder, public comment is for non-agenda items only.

[1:36:26] If you wish to speak about an agenda item, you'll have time when that happens.

[1:36:31] You have three minutes per speaker. We'll have 30 minutes this session.

[1:36:35] If we need another 30 minutes at the end of the meeting, we'll do it then.

[1:36:38] Please follow the Code of Conduct that's posted on either side of the room.

[1:36:41] Show your name, town, pronouns if you'd like.

[1:36:43] And if you're looking for a follow-up response,

[1:36:45] we have a sign-up sheet right over on the table that you can fill out.

[1:36:49] Without further ado.

[1:36:49] Jim Truzzini, 149 Main Street, Department 208.

[1:36:54] My first public comment is a little civic lesson of how you go in and out of an executive session.

[1:37:02] Tonight's agenda item says regular meeting agenda.

[1:37:05] The first thing on it says executive session at 5.

[1:37:09] Then it says basically the regular meetings at 6.30.

[1:37:13] I want to make sure everybody understands MRSA, subsection 405, 6A.

[1:37:19] 6A, and the most important one is 1MRSA subsection 4053.

[1:37:27] To legally enter an executive session,

[1:37:30] the council must carry out the following procedures

[1:37:32] in plain view of the public.

[1:37:34] Convene publicly.

[1:37:36] The council must formally start an open public meeting first.

[1:37:41] Then they have to make a special motion.

[1:37:43] The council member must make a motion

[1:37:45] to enter executive session.

[1:37:46] motion, this motion must be second, the precise nature of the business to be discussed and

[1:37:52] actually cited the statutory authority that allows it.

[1:37:58] They have to hold a public vote,

[1:38:02] record the vote, and it has to be passed by a supermajority.

[1:38:07] No problem.

[1:38:09] If a council gathers privately without first conducting this open meeting process and

[1:38:14] taken a recorded public vote. The meeting is illegal and any actions of

[1:38:19] consent agreements resulting from it are null and void. I just want the public to

[1:38:24] be aware of that. My next is the sidewalk on Main Street. We're back at it again.

[1:38:32] I've been informed today it's going to take six weeks. You got to be kidding me.

[1:38:36] It's 200 feet. But let's talk about it fact it's still 300 million dollars over

[1:38:42] budget. You already used $1.6 million from Tiffin Couch that's supposed to

[1:38:48] gone for other projects. You still have the major, the most biggest portion of the

[1:38:53] sidewalk not done in front of JJ Cleaners and Mason Road, Mason Street. So the

[1:39:00] question I have to the council, I hope they get back to me because I did sign

[1:39:03] that paper, when are you going to do that project and where you're getting

[1:39:07] the money. You've got to bond it. It's a million dollars. We know we can throw

[1:39:14] $800,000 away. We did that a couple weeks ago on gas, gas tanks, gas pumps.

[1:39:23] Next one is, this is about the fourth time I've mentioned this one. What was the

[1:39:27] total cost of Cressy Road? Why did that dead-end road get all brand new

[1:39:34] sidewalks, brand new curb? And I have to disagree with you, sir, about up the

[1:39:39] Main Street.

[1:39:41] I think it looks like crap.

[1:39:44] There's places where there's six, eight to a 40 of hot top

[1:39:49] that was never milled out, curb to curb.

[1:39:53] Curbs weren't replaced when they did damage to them.

[1:39:56] You've got areas up there with no curb.

[1:39:58] You've got concrete curb and some,

[1:40:00] granite curb on some others, asphalt curb on some others.

[1:40:05] So let's get it fixed.

[1:40:08] Thank you.

[1:40:10] Thank you.

[1:40:15] Hi, my name is Paul Whitcomb.

[1:40:17] I'm from Brunswick.

[1:40:19] I need to speak about the Public Works expansion project.

[1:40:24] There are two critical flaws in the reasoning behind this project

[1:40:31] that show the short-sightedness of it.

[1:40:34] One is the fact that a proper needs assessment was never completed

[1:40:38] requested nor requested. A space needs study is not a needs assessment. The needs assessment

[1:40:49] has to precede the space needs study so that gap identification can be performed. Without

[1:40:59] How gap identification, there is no logical basis, performance basis for this project.

[1:41:09] Number two, conclusive evidence has just been formed in Quebec by a cohort study of children

[1:41:20] in the six digits, I forget the exact number of children that were involved in this study

[1:41:27] regarding the incidence rate of childhood leukemia in proximity to fuel

[1:41:37] stations. The incidence increased as the proximity decreased. Okay, there

[1:41:51] There was a 100 meter threshold identified where children who spent significant time inside

[1:42:01] that distance had a 35 to 55 percent increase in the incidences of pediatric leukemia.

[1:42:16] I sent this information to all of you.

[1:42:19] Counselor Ecker was the only one who replied to me.

[1:42:24] You all have this information, including an Australian study of 2024 that corroborates all of these findings.

[1:42:37] What I would like you to do is to appoint a pediatric oncologist

[1:42:44] specialist or leukemia specialist to inform or become part of the task force, to expand

[1:42:57] the task force.

[1:42:59] In light of this scientifically proven information and a drastic increase, this correlation that

[1:43:09] cannot be ignored and you cannot run away from it. I will make sure that you do

[1:43:19] not ignore it.

[1:43:24] Come on up.

[1:43:27] Hi Jane Champ, I live on Jordan Ave and I want to talk

[1:43:32] about safety on Jordan Ave, particularly the section from Federal Street

[1:43:36] down to Kate Furbish Elementary, which I think you all know houses our youngest

[1:43:40] of students ages four to eight.

[1:43:43] I think that fundamentally Jordan Av is unsafe

[1:43:46] on this end for pedestrians and cyclists.

[1:43:49] Many of our council members and our town staff

[1:43:52] have engaged thus far and for that I'm very thankful.

[1:43:55] And I think we need to keep going.

[1:43:57] The road here as you know is very narrow.

[1:43:59] The sidewalk as well and there's no buffer in between.

[1:44:03] So if you're standing on the sidewalk,

[1:44:04] you might have a car about four inches from you

[1:44:06] or sometimes closer.

[1:44:08] The single biggest issue, aside from the narrow streets and sidewalk, is really the speed.

[1:44:13] People are speeding extremely fast every day at all times,

[1:44:18] and particularly through even the 15-mile-an-hour zone at school times.

[1:44:23] The second biggest issue, which we don't discuss much, is distracted drivers.

[1:44:27] I regularly see people pull out of the school lot looking at their phones.

[1:44:32] They're eating and drinking with both hands.

[1:44:34] hands. They are doing their hair with both hands and last week I saw a guy on his laptop.

[1:44:41] So with that I also regularly see near misses between cars and cars, between cars and cyclists.

[1:44:48] I've had near misses myself and I think the high speed distractions and no physical infrastructure

[1:44:54] in between is a recipe for tragedy and it's a matter of time in my opinion.

[1:45:01] So I'd like to ask the town to provide immediate speed enforcement, more safe crossings at key

[1:45:07] locations and to conduct a full safety study on Jordan Ave to include where the multi-use

[1:45:12] path, which I'm excited about, will connect up with the rest of the road. So it can be

[1:45:17] one full complete thought. I'm really excited our school zone light got turned back on.

[1:45:23] It did take a full year, meaning this important and readily available safety tool was not

[1:45:28] used at all for the 25 to 26 calendar year. I would ask the town staff and

[1:45:33] council take a moment to reflect on what went wrong and what could be improved in

[1:45:39] the future in such instances. I would like to remind the town and everyone

[1:45:44] that these accidents can happen anywhere. We're not immune. There was a

[1:45:49] four-year-old tragically killed in her daycare parking lot two years ago not

[1:45:53] far from here. It's the same age as our students. Last year we lost a five-year-old and a 12-year-old

[1:46:00] in bus accidents. I think all kids in our town and in our state deserve to have

[1:46:08] their adults looking out for them and providing safe streets. I'd like to get our kids walking

[1:46:14] to school and I hope that we're never the town that looks back and says oh we should have

[1:46:20] done something, what could we have done?

[1:46:23] Let's go ahead and get it done.

[1:46:24] And thanks everyone for the support this far.

[1:46:27] Thank you.

[1:46:34] Good evening.

[1:46:35] My name is Connor.

[1:46:36] I am here this evening not only as a resident

[1:46:38] of downtown Brunswick, the Main Street area,

[1:46:40] but also as a business owner in our community.

[1:46:42] And first, I'd like to thank you for your effort and work

[1:46:46] in being a counselor, your public service.

[1:46:49] I come from a long line of public servants

[1:46:50] and I know it is sometimes a very thankless job.

[1:46:52] So thank you for being here

[1:46:53] and your commitment to improving our town.

[1:46:55] I am here about action items 110 and or 111 first with 110 the changing of Main Street overlay

[1:47:03] Conner I'm gonna pause you there. So this is the section for non-agenda items. So I will be back when that item comes up

[1:47:11] You can come on right back. Thank you so much

[1:47:16] Anybody else in the room that would like to speak before I move to zoom

[1:47:22] Not seeing any I'll go to zoom Jennifer Navarro

[1:47:28] Yes, good evening. My name is Jennifer Navarro and I'm a candidate for Brunswick

[1:47:32] Town Council at large and tonight I'm asking the town to act for the for a

[1:47:36] Brunswick family in an immediate humanitarian crisis. The head of this

[1:47:40] household is the United States Marine Corps veteran and a purple heart

[1:47:44] recipient who is now battling stage 4 cancer. He returned to his lifelong

[1:47:50] family after it had been rented out and found it in serious unsanitary

[1:47:53] very disrepair. The family reports mold damage flooring, a broken bathtub, inadequate appliances

[1:47:59] and no adequate heat. This man is now bedridden and incontinent. His family is providing intimate

[1:48:06] daily care, bathing him, managing his basic needs and trying to keep him comfortable.

[1:48:11] He has always been the head of the household and the person who handled these things

[1:48:15] for his family. Right now he is currently not able to do that. He has advanced cancer

[1:48:19] involving his bones. He's gravely ill and he's cold. Yesterday I personally came out of pocket

[1:48:23] a substantial amount because his family needed immediate help and according to his wife she

[1:48:28] had contacted Brunswick and had not received the return call. I also left the voicemail asking

[1:48:33] Salica Sello and Carol LaDonnell to contact either me or Teresa and asking for this family

[1:48:37] to be connected directly to appropriate assistance including Habitat for Humanity.

[1:48:43] This request is especially relevant because I spoke on the August 26th housing meeting

[1:48:46] concerning habitat, it had habitat in there

[1:48:49] and other grants being allotted

[1:48:52] for the second disbursement.

[1:48:53] And then there's also our human services budget.

[1:48:56] Actual human services expenditures were approximately

[1:48:59] 402,000 in 24 or 25 fiscal year.

[1:49:03] The following adopted budget increased that to 601,000,

[1:49:06] nearly $200,000 more or 49.4% increase.

[1:49:10] Within that budget, social services agencies

[1:49:12] funding increased from 20,000 actually spent to 45 budgeted within that budget

[1:49:18] social services agents funding increased from that 20,000 to the 45 and where

[1:49:23] does the money go during budget discussions we heard assurances that

[1:49:26] people in genuine need particularly particularly people needing as

[1:49:30] essentials such as fuel would not simply be turned away then where is the

[1:49:34] help for this family where is the public benefit from the human services

[1:49:37] dollars taxpayers are being forced and required to find where are the

[1:49:41] organizations receiving public money when a bed ridden purple heart US Marine

[1:49:46] Corps veteran with stage 4 cancer is freezing in his own home. This family

[1:49:51] should not have to make call after call and chase referrals, decide for

[1:49:54] eligibility requirements and coordinate multiple organizations while providing

[1:49:57] this level of care. The system should reach toward them. So I'm making a

[1:50:02] special request tonight, designate one responsible point of contact, contact

[1:50:06] his family using the information I provided in voicemail yesterday,

[1:50:09] assess the immediate heat, fuel, housing, condition and social service needs,

[1:50:13] connect them directly, not merely by handing them another telephone number to

[1:50:16] Habitat for Humanity and the municipal state, veterans, non-profit or other

[1:50:20] programs which they may qualify and follow through. I'm not asking the

[1:50:24] town to promise benefits for which someone is legally ineligible. I'm

[1:50:27] asking the town to make certain that a Brunswick family facing extraordinary

[1:50:30] circumstances does not disappear between agencies. And when the next

[1:50:33] budget season comes, if taxpayers are asked for another substantial human

[1:50:37] service increase, I will remember this family and this exact meeting. Before asking taxpayers

[1:50:41] for more, show us where the money went and show us that when one of our own or desperately

[1:50:45] need the system actually worked. Thank you.

[1:50:48] Thank you. A reminder for those in the room and those on Zoom that if you are seeking

[1:50:55] elected office here in Brunswick, we have a policy in which you cannot promote an

[1:51:01] active candidate. So I understand that we have other folks who may be running for office

[1:51:07] in this room. And that means, you know, no bringing a shirt with your name on it, saying

[1:51:13] what office you're running from, a sign, a hat, a button, any of those things is in

[1:51:20] violation of policy participation. So I'll consider this just as a warning because

[1:51:25] I know that we have folks that are, we have a lot of folks who are running for

[1:51:28] office this cycle with so many seats open on the council. So just a general

[1:51:32] reminder to everyone. Is there anybody else on Zoom that would like to speak?

[1:51:40] Not

[1:51:41] seeing any hands going up. We are going to continue on.

[1:51:48] I'm going to close public

[1:51:50] comment and turn it over to our town manager to give the manager's report.

[1:51:54] Thank you Chair McDonald. So when I wrote my manager's report over a week

[1:52:00] ago. We were still in the process of committing taxes. Many of you will have

[1:52:05] received your tax bill by now. So taxes for the 26-27 fiscal year were

[1:52:11] committed on August 31st. The tax office did a very fast job and got the tax

[1:52:17] bills all 10,000 plus of them out the door before the end of last last week

[1:52:24] and I received mine in the mail I think on Saturday. So I will just

[1:52:30] report that the tax rate ended up being $1350 per thousand, which you will maybe remember

[1:52:37] is a bit lower than was estimated in the budget.

[1:52:40] And this is because we are the town assessor is now trying to make changes every year.

[1:52:49] So we won't be facing these huge drops and leaps in a revaluation time.

[1:52:56] So, he is trying to, he is working to keep up with the market and making adjustments.

[1:53:02] The adjustments he made were kind of across the board so that they don't affect anyone

[1:53:07] in particular, but it did mean that the tax rate could be lower than anticipated,

[1:53:13] which is what we expected with this new model.

[1:53:18] So, 1350 per thousand.

[1:53:19] And if you have any questions about your assessed value and your tax bill, you can call the assessing department.

[1:53:32] And if you have any questions about the collection side, you call the tax office.

[1:53:36] I will remind everyone that we now have resident access.

[1:53:40] And for a dollar per payment, you can pay online with an ACH from your bank account.

[1:53:49] So it's a convenience that we now have, we've had it for approximately one year.

[1:53:56] So next, nomination papers and this is old too.

[1:54:01] Well, it's old in the sense that they're not available anymore.

[1:54:04] We, you know, as a town clerk, I always don't care if I have one person running

[1:54:10] or 20 people running for an office, I just like to see people involved.

[1:54:13] And in this case, we do have a few uncontested races, but we have a couple contested races.

[1:54:19] had a lot of interest, so I appreciate all the people who as voters sign petitions, people

[1:54:25] who circulate the petitions, and people who are willing to run as candidates.

[1:54:29] I did want to say that people can request absentee ballots at this time.

[1:54:34] They will not be physically available to issue until October 5th, so kind of mark that

[1:54:41] on the calendar if you're interested in voting that way.

[1:54:44] We will be having voting at the back center.

[1:54:46] And I am asking, we have absolutely wonderful election workers, but what kind of happens

[1:54:53] is we have to legally keep a balance between Democrats and Republicans.

[1:54:57] And we're lacking some really qualified Republicans, we're actually lacking Republicans.

[1:55:03] So if there are any folks out there who are interested in serving our community as

[1:55:09] election workers, especially if you happen to be in the Republican Party, we love all

[1:55:12] of our workers.

[1:55:13] But that's the area that we're a little short in I'm just please reach out to our office and speak with Ali on myself

[1:55:20] And we'll get you what information you need to do to get involved and thank you

[1:55:24] Thank

[1:55:27] You clerk Smith

[1:55:29] Next a reminder that two days from now is the up the restoration advisory board day

[1:55:35] We're not it's not just a meeting

[1:55:38] They're holding an open house

[1:55:40] on September 10th, 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the Jordan Avenue Brunswick Topson Water District

[1:55:47] site, and this is to see the district's new treatment facility, which was largely funded

[1:55:53] by the Navy. So it's 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. at 159 Jordan Avenue, and it is part of the Restoration

[1:56:01] Advisory Board's day here. They will follow that up with a poster session right here

[1:56:08] in council chambers from 530 to 615 and this is a chance to just chat with all

[1:56:15] the people on the restoration advisory board, ask informal questions and have

[1:56:20] more of it back and forth and then their formal meeting will begin at 630, go

[1:56:26] to about 8 o'clock and that's the restoration advisory board for the

[1:56:32] Brunswick Naval Air Station. So next I have a couple things. I have Economic

[1:56:39] Development Director Sally Costello is going to tell us about Cook's Corner

[1:56:43] Placemaking and the Visitor Center improvements.

[1:56:53] Good evening, counselors.

[1:56:54] Thank you so much for letting me come tonight and give you a little bit of an

[1:56:57] update on the Cook's Corner Vitalization Plan specific to the

[1:57:01] placemaking. As many of you know we've been working on improvements to

[1:57:06] Cooks Corner in a number of areas, transportation and connectivity, planning and development,

[1:57:14] and then also economic development.

[1:57:17] And with the place making, with regard to the place making, we're looking at activating

[1:57:22] sites.

[1:57:23] And that means also sites that are underutilized, sites that are blighted, and sites that might

[1:57:30] be a safety hazard.

[1:57:31] And so we identified about a year ago three sites in Cook's Corner that were in need of some improvements.

[1:57:39] The top left is of a site that's over in Aquifer, and it's also over the flight APO district.

[1:57:50] And so nothing can be built there, but it is a very long stretch that takes us,

[1:57:56] and we really see this as the boundary where the Cooks Corner area begins, so we are working

[1:58:03] on that and where we've got these three sites, we had to get site control and not all of

[1:58:11] them do we, are we going to own?

[1:58:13] This site is one that we have a lease agreement with MIRA, it's a 50 year lease and so that

[1:58:18] we advance the design on that which will have a path, a bike and a ped path that

[1:58:25] will connect to the next site, which is on your right, which is the gas station that

[1:58:31] is there, the abandoned gas station that's been there for over a decade.

[1:58:35] We are working to get that through a donation agreement.

[1:58:39] It is a site that has been blighted for a long time and the buildings, there's a

[1:58:46] convenience store there that's in not good shape and there's the canopy for the

[1:58:53] the former gas station and both of those are in disrepair.

[1:58:56] The tanks have been removed and we've done a phase one

[1:58:59] and we're about ready to do a phase two,

[1:59:01] but we're hoping that we're gonna bring that agreement

[1:59:02] to the town council in October

[1:59:06] upon getting the results of the phase two.

[1:59:09] And then the bottom site is what I'm really gonna focus

[1:59:11] on tonight to update you because that is one

[1:59:14] that we are hoping to move forward with

[1:59:16] in the next few weeks.

[1:59:18] That is a site that's right outside of Brunswick Landing.

[1:59:22] It is what we refer to as the jug handle.

[1:59:25] It's a site that MDOT owns.

[1:59:27] And it's a dangerous site with a curb cut that people jump the light.

[1:59:31] It used to be, many of you may remember who lived here a long time,

[1:59:36] that that was a way of making a left-hand turn into Brunswick Landing

[1:59:39] or what was the former Naval Air Base.

[1:59:41] There has always been a plan to close that curb cut because it's dangerous.

[1:59:46] and we wanted to do a little bit more there and infuse some green space because part of things we're trying to do in Cook's Corner,

[1:59:54] not only the transportation and connectivity, but we're also trying to beautify and again, like I said, activate sites.

[2:00:00] This would be a site we did get approval in May from MDOT to go ahead and move forward with this and they've seen our concept to close the curb cut but also to beautify the site.

[2:00:13] This is an early concept that had just some plantings and trees and that sort of blob in the middle was actually a pine cone that was a piece of artwork.

[2:00:22] It was for illustrative purposes. We were trying to say there could be some kind of a neat public sculpture there.

[2:00:28] Since that time, we thought that because you have to have so many feet from the right

[2:00:34] of way that it could be a deadly fixed object, and so we rethought that, and what we'd like

[2:00:41] to do now is move forward with the landscape plan, which has plantings from all different

[2:00:45] seasons.

[2:00:46] It was in your packet.

[2:00:48] We'll go to the next slide, please.

[2:00:50] Just a little bit of the work that needs to be done.

[2:00:54] We need to close the curb cut, but we don't want to cause any flooding.

[2:00:57] We've been working on the placemaking interdepartmentally with the planning and development, with engineering, economic development, and others to make sure that it's designed appropriately.

[2:01:08] Laura Smith, our assistant town engineer, designed this so that we have kind of a catch basin that will collect the water and we are going to be obviously putting in some new curbing and reusing some curbing.

[2:01:21] So that part will happen first and we hope that should be able to happen in the next couple of weeks.

[2:01:30] What we're trying to do is have that happen in a timely way so that we can get our town arborist to help us with the planting plan and hopefully get this done.

[2:01:39] So we're kind of TBD on whether we're going to do that because we have to get the planting done in October.

[2:01:44] So we'll keep you posted on where we are with that.

[2:01:47] Next slide please. So I'm going to call Dennis Wilson up here to talk a little bit about the the planting plan and

[2:01:59] Dennis Wilson, town arborist. So my past life I was a landscape designer as part of

[2:02:05] also an arborist so I volunteered to do the landscape design for this jug handle

[2:02:10] and basically the design was kind of given an aspect of trying to get a

[2:02:15] flowering aspect of it from the spring all the way till first hard frost in

[2:02:19] the fall.

[2:02:20] So this design is basically showing where it would be flowering, something flowering there

[2:02:25] at all seasons, you know, design-wise anyway, like that.

[2:02:30] And because this is what's called a heavily impacted zone, which in the wintertime a lot

[2:02:35] of snow gets piled up on it from plowing, salt spray, sediment from the road and everything

[2:02:39] like that, the plants were chosen to be really hardy and low maintenance.

[2:02:43] And so it doesn't necessarily mean all of them are actually native, they're

[2:02:46] native cultivars for the most part.

[2:02:48] Some of them were chosen because I didn't have a native that would probably fit

[2:02:52] there that survived long term. These are also plants that will attract pollinators

[2:02:59] like bees, pollinating insects like that, hummingbirds, other birds and stuff

[2:03:04] like that. Some of these plants actually will host the butterfly larvae and also

[2:03:09] attract certain butterflies as well. So I kind of tried to integrate

[2:03:11] everything I possibly could into this kind of little pocket park which

[2:03:14] give it some little pop and flower for the whole season as I possibly could.

[2:03:23] Next slide please, Larry.

[2:03:27] Okay, so we, this is the cost that we have for the project,

[2:03:32] and most of it is related to the engineering as I discussed.

[2:03:37] The landscape plan, it shows a $5,000 estimate there,

[2:03:41] although I just was informed tonight that that may go down by $2,000.

[2:03:45] So that is not the final price.

[2:03:48] We hope it's more around 29,000 and yeah so the next slide please if there's any

[2:03:56] questions I'm happy to take them and so is is Dennis if you want to have more

[2:04:01] details. Councillor Hicks. Thanks for presenting this question about just the

[2:04:08] functionality of it as a you called it a pocket park is it how does it get

[2:04:12] how is it accessible to it's not really going to be accessible there's

[2:04:17] there is a road that a drive there's a there's a credit union there and

[2:04:23] they're gonna still need to have active you know they're gonna need to be get

[2:04:26] going through that right because their parking is to the side and then they'll

[2:04:30] come out they'll still be able to come out so that's what another reason why

[2:04:34] we decided against the the public art piece and so it's really just a

[2:04:39] pocket part it's a beautification but it's not we're not really inviting the

[2:04:43] public in to hang out in the park.

[2:04:49] Councilor Ecker?

[2:04:50] Yes, directors Costello, what's your best guess

[2:04:54] on timing on when the mobile station will be gone?

[2:04:58] Well, we are trying to get the donation agreement to you

[2:05:02] all in October.

[2:05:04] And then I'd like to move on that.

[2:05:06] We've got an estimate.

[2:05:07] We'll have to firm up that estimate.

[2:05:09] But I'd like to move on that this winter if we could.

[2:05:12] And then we're designing the pocket

[2:05:14] Park now with the with the CTO landscape who's our consultant. Okay so I'm hoping hoping to get

[2:05:21] the at least the structure taken down you know fairly quickly. So hopefully this winter. Yeah

[2:05:27] great thank you. Yeah. Councilor Timi. You mentioned that we had done a fees one and

[2:05:35] fees two is coming is that regarding environmental cleanup of the site? We just do not recommend

[2:05:40] And we do not ask the town to take on anything until we know what we're taking on.

[2:05:44] So there was a phase one that was done.

[2:05:46] And then the phase two is that we just want to make sure there's no asbestos in the building that we're taking down.

[2:05:52] So we need to be aware of that.

[2:05:53] We are getting a gift of services.

[2:05:56] So it's a grant from our mid-coast council of government.

[2:06:00] So we're getting those gift of services.

[2:06:03] And that's not something that we pay for.

[2:06:05] But it is something that we're getting a good value on.

[2:06:08] and we don't want to close on any even receipt of a property

[2:06:11] until we know what we're taking.

[2:06:13] And did the phase one, does that like talk

[2:06:15] about like soil contamination?

[2:06:17] I know the tanks are out of there at this point,

[2:06:19] but it was a gas station for quite a while.

[2:06:23] Right, yes, and they were taken out and certified

[2:06:26] in the appropriate way, but it is a more fulsome look

[2:06:29] at everything that could possibly be

[2:06:32] that we would then have to do a secondary,

[2:06:34] and that's why we're doing the secondary with the phase

[2:06:36] to on the asbestos.

[2:06:38] Thank you.

[2:06:42] Other questions?

[2:06:45] Question around the financing.

[2:06:47] So you brought forward a number.

[2:06:49] What does that number mean?

[2:06:50] So that we have some money in the Cook's Corner of

[2:06:54] Vitalization, you know, I guess account.

[2:06:59] And we have plenty of money available for that.

[2:07:02] So I don't know if you want to know any more than that.

[2:07:05] Yep.

[2:07:06] That's good for now.

[2:07:07] Yeah.

[2:07:08] Thank you.

[2:07:09] Thank you.

[2:07:11] So if I can just clarify, that money had already been previously appropriated by the council

[2:07:16] from TIF revenues for the Cook's Corner re-vetalization.

[2:07:19] And it's been used for a variety of things to enhance Cook's Corner.

[2:07:25] Hopefully a lot more will be used.

[2:07:28] I remember the CIP presentation, so I was going to say that.

[2:07:31] So do you also want to talk about the Visitor's Center?

[2:07:35] I can talk a little bit about the Visitor's Center.

[2:07:37] We are doing kind of a joint project with the Brunswick Downtown Association.

[2:07:44] We are the fiscal sponsor. They have been very helpful.

[2:07:48] They actually brought us in. It's called a, it's not really a grant.

[2:07:52] They're calling it a reimbursement from NEPRA.

[2:07:55] And that is, they run the Amtrak and they would like to improve visitors' experience.

[2:08:03] And so they made this reimbursement grant available to various towns.

[2:08:10] We applied with the BDA and we received approval to have that.

[2:08:18] We have to basically submit and we get reimbursed.

[2:08:21] The town council did agree to pay 20% match of that.

[2:08:25] So originally it was 100,000, so it was about 20,000.

[2:08:29] Since then, the budget's gone down a little bit

[2:08:31] because we actually had a lower cost on the lighting.

[2:08:35] So we're replacing the lighting

[2:08:36] with all efficient LED lighting.

[2:08:38] There's gonna be new seating benches.

[2:08:41] There's new flooring, a new poxy flooring.

[2:08:45] There's gonna be painting, a new reception desk.

[2:08:48] If you've been in there, if any of you have been in there,

[2:08:51] everything was all paper, you know, even schedules.

[2:08:54] And so that's all gonna be,

[2:08:56] they're gonna have TVs with the schedules and everything.

[2:08:58] So we're trying to get it more modern and better for the user experience

[2:09:02] There's even going to be like a little sort of bar area with stools where people can plug in and do laptop stuff

[2:09:07] And so that's basically what it is. It's kind of just an update on what's there

[2:09:13] Yeah, great

[2:09:14] Any questions from Council on that one and that is starting quickly too

[2:09:18] So that should start the end of September

[2:09:21] beautiful

[2:09:25] Councilor Timi.

[2:09:29] So once stuff like these in TVs and whatnot are installed, who's responsible for like replacement costs when things like just inevitably stop working like everything does these days?

[2:09:40] Well, we have, we're the ones that have the lease with the, I forget the name of the management company now maybe, maybe Jay can help me with that one.

[2:09:49] But we have the lease agreement.

[2:09:50] So I think the town would be responsible for that, you know, we pay the BDA to staff, but it is ultimately the town that has the lease.

[2:09:59] Thank you.

[2:10:04] So, thank you.

[2:10:06] Okay, thank you.

[2:10:07] So just a couple more things we've been hearing a little bit about infrastructure.

[2:10:12] Thank you.

[2:10:13] Councilor Eckert Main Street is finished.

[2:10:16] The Le Mans block is starting today.

[2:10:19] The other thing that is starting today is the Parks and Rec parking lot.

[2:10:22] That's going to be a few weeks of repaving both the front and back parking lots.

[2:10:30] Let's see, what else? Old Bath Road was going to start this week, but it's starting next week.

[2:10:37] Jordan Avenue, we are still fingers crossed, but we're waiting for two things.

[2:10:44] One, that the culvert will be completed and that the Army Corps permit will be extended.

[2:10:49] So it's not a no yet, but it's not a definite either.

[2:10:55] So keep all your fingers and toes crossed on Jordan Avenue.

[2:11:00] So the other thing some of you have seen, exit 28 southbound.

[2:11:05] So this means if you're coming south on route 295 and you want to get off at Brunswick at exit 28,

[2:11:12] it's going to be closed starting Thursday, right?

[2:11:16] and I believe it's said for two weeks so this is people coming southbound will

[2:11:22] have to get off and top some doesn't affect the northbound exit but just the

[2:11:27] southbound so that's gonna be a little interesting we're trying to publicize

[2:11:32] it as much as we can and that's all I have on infrastructure and I will

[2:11:37] remind everyone again but October 7th so this is after our next council

[2:11:41] meeting so I'll tell you about it again the fire department is having their

[2:11:44] open house so and that's all I have great okay moving right along here we're

[2:11:53] going to move to new business some of you on council maybe like what new

[2:11:57] business this item we've had a public hearing on so how's the new business the

[2:12:02] way that it works because we didn't vote on it last time it comes as a new

[2:12:05] business item so that's why it's under there so item number 110 the town

[2:12:09] council will consider adopting an amendment to his owning ordinance

[2:12:12] Appendix A attached draft additions and changes for the Main Street Overlay District and we'll take any appropriate action

[2:12:19] I'm going to turn this over to the Planning and Development Deputy Director Dielman to introduce. Thank you.

[2:12:27] So again tonight we're returning to continue the public hearing on the proposed Main Street overlay

[2:12:32] the overlay intends

[2:12:34] Overlay is intended to prioritize active commercial uses enable higher density and well-designed development along the downtown Main Street corridor

[2:12:43] Staff previously presented this proposal at the August 3rd and August 17th council meetings.

[2:12:50] So I'll keep my presentation tonight brief and try to start by summarizing some of the changes made in response to the last council discussion.

[2:13:00] Next slide.

[2:13:04] The three key updates included in tonight's packet are first,

[2:13:09] First, the response, in response to concerns about the overlays potential effects on the downtown parking supply.

[2:13:17] Staff have removed the parking reduction provisions from the draft,

[2:13:22] realizing that the council could always revisit the downtown parking policies in the future.

[2:13:28] In the meantime, if an applicant is seeking parking relief for a particular redevelopment project,

[2:13:34] such as the one at 53 Main Street.

[2:13:37] They could still request relief through a process known as contract zoning,

[2:13:43] which is a separate process, which would be reviewed on a case by case basis by the council.

[2:13:49] Second, the open space language in the draft was clarified,

[2:13:54] requiring open spaces to be accessible to the public from dawn till dusk.

[2:14:01] Descended seating areas serving an on-site business would be limited to patrons during business hours,

[2:14:09] subject to any required town license for installations in the public way.

[2:14:15] And finally, staff have also included a map showing where the existing Village Review overlay exists,

[2:14:24] where there's demolition protections in place that would apply,

[2:14:29] which I'll cover more in my next slide.

[2:14:35] So again, this map illustrates where the Village Review Overlays existing demolition protections apply.

[2:14:41] As shown here in pink, only a limited number of properties would not have any protections in place.

[2:14:50] For a protected structure, again, demolitions may only be approved by the Village Review Board

[2:14:57] when the proposed replacement or

[2:15:07] So this is a strong level of protection for the historic downtown. That's already in place.

[2:15:08] And I think it's important to make sure that the public's health and safety, or that its condition prevents it from being adapted to another permitted use.

[2:15:20] That would provide a reasonable economic return.

[2:15:24] So this is a strong level of protection for the historic downtown. That's already in place.

[2:15:29] and would not be removed or weakened by the proposed overlay.

[2:15:34] Instead, the overlay would provide a regulatory backstop for future redevelopment.

[2:15:39] If and when a protected structure that meets the village review overlay standards to be demolished,

[2:15:51] the Main Street overlay would ensure that the replacement is subject to more specific requirements

[2:15:56] on building form and design and make it more compatible

[2:16:01] with the historic downtown.

[2:16:03] Next slide.

[2:16:07] So now to just transition into providing a general overview

[2:16:10] about the proposed overlay, it would only apply

[2:16:14] to new buildings in additions, fronting Main Street

[2:16:16] between Mill Street and Noble Street.

[2:16:20] It uses a form-based approach, meaning the zoning standards

[2:16:24] focus primarily on how the development is designed

[2:16:27] and its relation to the street.

[2:16:31] The standards address building and parking placement,

[2:16:36] height, frontage, architectural design,

[2:16:39] open space, and enhancing the public realm.

[2:16:42] The underlying zoning requirements

[2:16:43] and village review overlay would continue to apply.

[2:16:47] The new overlay would supplement those existing requirements

[2:16:50] by expanding standards more than

[2:16:53] the village review overlay currently provides on its own.

[2:16:57] And next slide,

[2:17:01] moving on into the more of the specifics of the proposal.

[2:17:05] The standards primarily address the building placement,

[2:17:11] height, higher quality architectural design and enhancing the pedestrian experience.

[2:17:17] The existing GM6, Growth Mixed Use 6 zoning district currently allows a maximum building height of 40 feet.

[2:17:24] The proposed overlay would allow up to 55 feet for flat roof buildings and 65 feet to the peak of a pitch roof and for permitted non-habitable roof features.

[2:17:36] Portions of buildings above 40 feet would also be required to step back at least 15 feet or the abut single or two family residential uses along the side and rear property line.

[2:17:49] And to help illustrate what additional height could look like downtown, the images shown to the right were prepared by an urban design firm that the town consulted.

[2:18:01] They show how taller buildings with flat or pitched roof could fit within the existing context.

[2:18:09] Beyond height, the overall eye would also require ground floors to be designed as store fronts with commercial uses,

[2:18:17] visible entrances, substantial windows, and sufficient depth to create functional commercial spaces.

[2:18:24] Buildings would need to closely front the sidewalk and occupy at least 80% of its frontage,

[2:18:31] helping to create a more continuous building edge to engage pedestrians.

[2:18:36] Buildings would also be required to use high quality durable materials and incorporate pedestrian

[2:18:41] scaled elements such as awnings, canopy lighting, seating planters and display windows.

[2:18:48] Additionally, a 5% open space requirement could be met through providing a plaza,

[2:18:53] pocket park or active sidewalk area.

[2:18:56] So overall the intent here is to ensure new development contributes to an active

[2:19:02] and more comfortable downtown environment experience at the street level.

[2:19:07] Next slide.

[2:19:11] So these draft amendments, staff have reviewed and found them to be consistent with Brunswick's

[2:19:16] comprehensive plan, which is required for any zoning amendment process.

[2:19:22] The overlay is located within the town's designated growth area as identified in the plan,

[2:19:27] which directs reinvestment towards areas where infrastructure and

[2:19:33] services can support more concentrated growth.

[2:19:36] Second, the plan identifies downtown as one of the areas that has opportunities for

[2:19:42] additional housing, revitalization, and infill development on underutilized properties.

[2:19:48] There are also several strategies that directly support the proposed overlay,

[2:19:51] including one that calls for prioritizing active commercial uses and

[2:19:57] higher density development near major commercial corridors and within mixed

[2:20:01] use zoning districts and another that recommends considering

[2:20:05] form-based zoning within the growth area. Additionally, other strategies speak

[2:20:11] to creating beautiful streets and beautiful streets with active

[2:20:15] ground floors and other standards that also support shops and pedestrians

[2:20:20] they serve. So for all these reasons, staff believes that amendments are consistent with the comp plan.

[2:20:28] So

[2:20:31] in summary, the overlay would allow additional building height in exchange for stronger standards,

[2:20:36] governing building form, architecture, open space, and the pedestrian environment.

[2:20:41] It's intended to support additional housing, commercial activity, and long-term reinvestment

[2:20:47] while providing a predictable framework for future development

[2:20:50] and how it should relate to Main Street.

[2:20:54] Again, in July, the planning board found the proposal was consistent with the comprehensive plan.

[2:21:00] Followed by that, the Village Review Board also endorsed the draft and recommended that it is compatible with the existing Village Review Overlay District.

[2:21:10] And at tonight's hearing, staff are requesting the Town Council to vote and adopt these proposed amendments.

[2:21:17] And Julie and I are happy to answer any questions.

[2:21:19] Thank you.

[2:21:22] Questions of Council?

[2:21:28] Councilor Ellis is in here, so I'm a force of habit looking over in this direction.

[2:21:32] Councilor Ecker.

[2:21:34] Thank you, Deputy Director Diehlman.

[2:21:37] I'm wondering if you could go back to the slide that showed the overlay and the buildings that would be protected.

[2:21:49] So explain the colors, yeah, that one right there.

[2:21:56] So which colors?

[2:21:58] So what you're looking at is parcels that have a protected structure on them.

[2:22:05] So in orange, there's a lot of colors going on.

[2:22:08] So I apologize.

[2:22:09] The orange is contributing.

[2:22:12] So the highest degree of protection or essentially very historic structures

[2:22:18] that are contributing a lot by way of their historic character.

[2:22:24] And then non-contributing is kind of the secondary class,

[2:22:27] both of which are given protections under the Village Review overlay.

[2:22:34] And then you'll see just dashed lines.

[2:22:36] Those are just historic district boundaries, but for the purposes of this,

[2:22:40] it's really just those two colors that have the protections orange and blue.

[2:22:46] And then we tried to point out in pink any properties within the proposal tonight that don't have those protections.

[2:22:55] So you're looking at about nine properties with a mix of uses on each.

[2:23:00] In pink.

[2:23:02] We might have to really zoom in to see it.

[2:23:05] I probably should have used a different color, but I had limited options here.

[2:23:09] Yeah, where's pink?

[2:23:13] You see there's kind of a line going to those like circled areas. Those are parcels being circled that are without protections.

[2:23:23] Alright, and can you just give real quickly layman's what's the highest degree of protection for the ones that I see as yellow?

[2:23:36] It's yellow orange ones.

[2:23:38] So the ones that aren't contributing or non-contributing?

[2:23:42] For contributing.

[2:23:44] Well, the protections in place would apply

[2:23:47] to contributing and non-contributing.

[2:23:49] So the ones that aren't within either of those two camps,

[2:23:54] they would just be held to the standard zoning requirements

[2:23:57] and property development standards

[2:23:59] as a project might trigger them.

[2:24:04] So everything in orange slash yellow

[2:24:06] and Lou is protected, hypothetically.

[2:24:10] There's a fair bit of protection in place, except for those nine properties.

[2:24:18] Further questions?

[2:24:20] Clarification?

[2:24:23] When we say protected, does that mean that the overlay does not apply to them?

[2:24:29] I'm trying to understand, because looking between here and the picture that was in our packet,

[2:24:35] it looks like almost all of downtown is covered by that,

[2:24:40] by the yellow slash orange and the blue.

[2:24:44] So I'm just trying to understand like what does this all mean?

[2:24:50] Right, so there's essentially the protections

[2:24:52] we're talking about here that are under

[2:24:55] the village review overlay.

[2:24:57] It's just a higher bar to be able to,

[2:25:00] if a developer or if an owner wants to develop

[2:25:03] help upon that property and demolish an existing structure that's contributing or non-contributing.

[2:25:09] There's a higher degree of standard that needs to be met.

[2:25:13] So they need to essentially show that what they're proposing would be compatible with

[2:25:19] the surrounding streetscape and contributing resources in the vicinity.

[2:25:24] And then they also have to meet one of two additional criteria where it has to either pose

[2:25:29] imminent threat to public health or safety or they have to demonstrate that the existing

[2:25:40] or the condition or use of the property would not provide them, reuse of that property would

[2:25:45] not provide them a reasonable economic return.

[2:25:48] So essentially like a hardship test and that's kind of a high bar to meet for a developer.

[2:25:54] They'd have to really provide a lot of documentation to be able to demolish a structure.

[2:25:58] So just to recap, an existing building within all of that area has to meet all of those criteria

[2:26:06] if it's contributing and a lower bar if it's non-contributing.

[2:26:11] But if they met all the criteria then they could go under the new ordinance to allow for

[2:26:22] the redevelopment.

[2:26:23] That's right.

[2:26:24] I think the best way to see it is it's what we're proposing tonight is you know

[2:26:29] it serves the purpose of being a regulatory backstop if if ever a property

[2:26:35] needs to be developed needs to be demolished and they're able to

[2:26:39] demonstrate that we have much more detailed set of regulation in place to

[2:26:45] ensure that a future development is is done well and designed well. What if one

[2:26:51] One of those pieces wants to do an expansion to their existing building, because you're

[2:27:00] just talking about demolition and building new here.

[2:27:04] What would they have to do to be able to expand the height or whatever?

[2:27:14] Sure.

[2:27:15] I think expanding on top of an existing structure would carry quite a bit of cost

[2:27:21] to do that to make sure that the in existing structures structurally sound that said it's

[2:27:27] not impossible but the again the requirements of the village review overlay would apply

[2:27:33] as well as these these requirements so how whatever their design looks like would still

[2:27:38] need to be contextually appropriate designed well quality materials you know you name

[2:27:43] it all the standards would be applicable in that case.

[2:27:48] Councilor Anderson?

[2:27:51] One other quick question.

[2:27:54] Yeah.

[2:27:54] Okay.

[2:27:54] Question summary is the cumulative effect of this is that there will not be a drastic

[2:28:04] change to the main street look as it stands now because assuming all the buildings are

[2:28:12] in good condition, they're not going to get torn down because a developer comes along and

[2:28:17] says, I want to put in a four story apartment building.

[2:28:22] I think that's a good way to put it.

[2:28:24] I think staff didn't expect this to be an all at once type of deal.

[2:28:29] It would be very incremental and clearly the amount of protections currently in place

[2:28:33] would make it very difficult to change the downtown fabric very, very quickly.

[2:28:40] Thank you.

[2:28:44] To throw out a question here as well, so our current standards, do we have them?

[2:28:52] What does that look like?

[2:28:56] So we have zoning standards for the GM6 district, which this is in.

[2:29:03] There's a max height of 40 feet and a build to zone between zero to five feet.

[2:29:11] So that that requires basically you have to bring your building to to be within that zone. Can I I'm gonna I'm gonna

[2:29:18] Edit my my broad question a little bit. Are there current standards on the appearance of structures in that area?

[2:29:27] like besides height

[2:29:29] There are there are more general standards laid out in the village review overlay district

[2:29:37] there's

[2:29:38] for instance, there's a

[2:29:39] a range of fenestration that developers would need to meet.

[2:29:46] But under our proposed overlay, there's

[2:29:49] a much harder requirement, a higher number

[2:29:53] that developments would have to meet.

[2:29:55] So in many cases, the proposal tonight will expand.

[2:30:00] And specify in greater detail those components that are required.

[2:30:05] Great, because I guess what I'm looking at, so orange slash yellow on this map feels like things that are probably never going to change,

[2:30:15] where the blue is a little bit more iffy and the pink is for sure something that can be addressed,

[2:30:20] where I'm assuming, because what I have in my mind when I'm thinking about these at least,

[2:30:24] This is the right on Pleasant Street on this map, that blue corner that is the 7-11.

[2:30:30] And so hypothetically, if a developer came and was like, because I know that that fuel,

[2:30:36] former fuel station can't be used there, the permits are expired or whatever it is.

[2:30:41] But a developer could come purchase that building and put essentially anything that

[2:30:45] fits in GM 6 there.

[2:30:47] They don't necessarily have to follow, like where this would put specific main street

[2:30:52] requirements for it. Is that, is this an accurate summary? If this, so this

[2:30:57] overall is, it is completely, it's entirely applicable to additions or new

[2:31:06] constructions, so for that example they could still technically do a permitted

[2:31:12] use within that existing structure under the current zoning ordinance, but

[2:31:17] But I think this framework does provide much more incentive to build the highest and best

[2:31:26] use on a property.

[2:31:28] I think certainly that the Council can always revisit in the future the protections in place

[2:31:35] on contributing structures.

[2:31:37] I think it's quite a bit, it's potentially onerous for folks to develop on those, the

[2:31:44] Blusheted parcels so that's always something the council can return to examining at a later point, but yeah right now

[2:31:53] Projects would be subject to the existing zoning

[2:31:56] Requirements got it. Thank you

[2:31:59] counselor pearl

[2:32:01] Apologize if this was talked about at a previous meeting, but just curious like what the

[2:32:08] The neighbors down on Main Street

[2:32:11] how they're feeling about it like the businesses and stuff have you guys heard

[2:32:17] from them is it been positive like did their concerns anything like that we have

[2:32:24] not received any comments or written comments on this I know that the town

[2:32:30] has reached out to the Brunswick downtown Association and and heard general

[2:32:36] general feedback expressed through a few business owners is my understanding

[2:32:40] and it was generally positive.

[2:32:43] I don't think we received any concerns.

[2:32:45] And I know earlier, I think we have at least one

[2:32:48] business owner in attendance who might be,

[2:32:50] was interested in speaking tonight.

[2:32:52] So I'll, I think the question may be better answered

[2:32:55] later in the session.

[2:32:59] Any last questions before I do public comment,

[2:33:01] Councillor Teemee.

[2:33:04] Yeah, first of all, I just wanted to say thanks

[2:33:05] for the changes to the, like the public space

[2:33:10] requirements, I think that's a lot more clear

[2:33:11] and just make sure that people will have access. Regarding parking, which now has been taken

[2:33:18] out, I kind of support these changes for housing, but I wanted to know a little more about how

[2:33:27] those parking requirements impact businesses on Main Street, because I know that we have

[2:33:34] current parking requirements, and I believe that the change that had been proposed but

[2:33:38] that is now removed was to allow them to count on-street parking towards their minimum.

[2:33:43] Is that right?

[2:33:46] Whether or not that's right, what are the current requirements that are in place?

[2:33:52] How would those changes have impacted existing businesses

[2:33:57] or new businesses opening in existing storefronts, if that makes sense?

[2:34:04] Sure.

[2:34:05] So, the previous draft, the language had talked about allowing parking demand studies to count

[2:34:14] on-street parking for commercial uses.

[2:34:17] Typically, parking demand studies look at the base needs of the uses within a proposed

[2:34:26] development and looking at what that need is and putting it on the site,

[2:34:35] typically you can't count on-street parking when you look at that, so this

[2:34:38] would have provided a little bit more flexibility for commercial uses. That

[2:34:44] said, there's still the parking demand study that's available to

[2:34:47] projects. The other component flexibility that was provided was to

[2:34:53] to kind of lower the number of spaces for residential units with more bedrooms.

[2:35:01] So we've kind of just, it'll default to the standard of two parking spaces per unit if

[2:35:10] it's two bedrooms or more.

[2:35:14] I mean, ultimately the standard parking requirements would need to be followed.

[2:35:18] So there are currently exceptions in the zoning ordinance for I believe really can correct me if I'm wrong.

[2:35:26] Structures that are 10,000 square feet or less or lots of parcels that are 10,000 square feet or less.

[2:35:34] So they're exempted from parking already.

[2:35:36] So it's really the relief that we were kind of embedding into the earlier draft was for

[2:35:43] uses that potentially would be greater than that scale.

[2:35:46] So that's the only kind of thing we were potentially revisiting in the future, but not now.

[2:35:55] So just to confirm, like, this is just talking about newly created commercial spaces.

[2:36:02] So like an existing commercial space of a business closes,

[2:36:04] new one comes in, they don't have to do any sort of parking studies or anything.

[2:36:08] Great.

[2:36:08] Yeah.

[2:36:08] Well, so that's currently in our zoning ordinance under a certain scale.

[2:36:12] So

[2:36:14] without further questions, I will go ahead and open the floor to public comment.

[2:36:21] If you wish to speak on this item, please come to the microphone, say your name, town of residence.

[2:36:25] You have three minutes, follow the code of conduct, all of those steps, please.

[2:36:30] Jim, through the 8208 Main Street, 149 Main Street, Plymouth, 208.

[2:36:37] First of all, I'm kind of glad now I can see that this is going both sides of Main Street,

[2:36:41] up to Noble Street. When this first study was on a very short part of the main street,

[2:36:47] I didn't think that was right.

[2:36:52] I don't have a problem with the height and all that stuff,

[2:36:54] but I honestly think, because right now we've got a planning board meeting going upstairs

[2:36:59] about contract zoning for a piece of property that we're talking about down here tonight too.

[2:37:05] This is all about allowing somebody, I believe, a developer to be able to develop

[2:37:10] up a little bit bigger in the JJ's cleaners lot in that area to pay for the sidewalk.

[2:37:17] That's how I see it. This is all about allowing him to be able to go a little bit higher so

[2:37:22] he can justify doing the project and part of it is going to be either through the contract

[2:37:27] zoning upstairs that's going on now or through this process that they're going to have

[2:37:32] to pay for the sidewalk. So the best thing to do is we're going to find out who's

[2:37:35] going to pay for the sidewalk. Going forward, I think this is what happens when you

[2:37:40] towns when you've got too many overlay zones. You've got an overlay zone on a regular zone,

[2:37:45] on an overlay zone, on a regular zone, this different zone. Parking, what are we talking

[2:37:50] about parking for? You gave away 15 parking spaces for the fire station. There's no parking

[2:37:56] problem down Main Street. You did a sidewalk project and nobody can convince me that

[2:38:04] we added parking. Nobody. You took five places away from Social Goose and Portland Pie. You

[2:38:12] took three away from Richards. You took one away down by Joshua's. You didn't add too

[2:38:20] many. So I don't know why parking is part of the problem. But the biggest problem I

[2:38:25] have with this, it just makes it more confusing for anybody to understand what can and can't

[2:38:29] be done in a zone. If you had a simple zone that allows something to be done or not, you

[2:38:37] now have what? Four, five, six different overlay zones. You've got a historical district zone,

[2:38:43] you've got this zone, you've got the regular zone, and now you're going to add this to

[2:38:47] it, and this is going to be added to it, and we're going to use it if we have

[2:38:51] to. We might not have to do it in this case, but we're going to do it over here.

[2:38:56] I think this whole thing needs to be cleaned up so everybody can understand it, but I also honestly

[2:39:02] I'll leave this the only reason this is being done is we're trying to find somebody to pay for the sidewalk

[2:39:07] And I think that's totally wrong. Thank you.

[2:39:24] Hello again start with confusion earlier. My name is Connor

[2:39:27] I live in downtown Brunswick as well as I'm a business owner on Main Street in the middle of this overlay

[2:39:32] Again, thank you for your service and being here today

[2:39:35] Seeing now that the parking change has been removed from the previous bill, I have less

[2:39:40] things to say except that I am in support of the general protections for downtown historic

[2:39:44] buildings and making it more difficult to demolish buildings as well as strict requirements

[2:39:49] for what they must look like should we rebuild them.

[2:39:51] I think those are good things for downtown Brunswick.

[2:39:53] We are the heart, blood and energy around Brunswick as much as we are building up

[2:39:58] the landing in Cook's Corner and what have you.

[2:40:00] Currently at least downtown Brunswick is kind of the energy and lifeblood of

[2:40:04] community and I think it will be for some time. That being said, I'd like to then also

[2:40:08] really strongly support not changing park requirements. If anything, making them even

[2:40:13] more strict for any building that comes in. There already is a lack of parking in

[2:40:18] downtown Brunswick. I have no umbrage with making buildings taller, providing another floor.

[2:40:24] Again, it's kind of the way things are going as this gateway region. Again,

[2:40:27] Brunswick, the gateway region, say it with me, is a future of our state and we

[2:40:31] We need taller buildings, and that's incredible.

[2:40:33] However, if we can assume that this building

[2:40:37] is going to have 32 units, most places

[2:40:40] or especially in this economy are not

[2:40:41] going to be able to have one occupant for a one-bedroom home,

[2:40:44] let alone a two-bedroom, is going

[2:40:45] to have a minimum of two people.

[2:40:46] In most cases, it'll have a couple and another person.

[2:40:48] And the way the economy is going,

[2:40:50] the way affordable housing in our area is not affordable,

[2:40:53] which is no one's fault.

[2:40:54] It's the way materials and everything are going.

[2:40:56] But if you have 32 units, that's 48 cars.

[2:40:59] If half of those, if only half have two cars per unit, 48 cars, if we need enough parking

[2:41:05] for those people, you need more parking in downtown.

[2:41:08] Whether this developer builds a parking garage in addition to parking for their unit, I really

[2:41:12] don't care how it happens.

[2:41:14] But this project aside, as we continue to move forward in the development of our glorious

[2:41:18] gateway region of this state, we really need to be focused on parking as we move forward

[2:41:24] or public transportation or something else, whatever it may be.

[2:41:27] But as long as you're not removing those things, I'm happy.

[2:41:30] Thank you for your public service and I look forward to a robust gateway region.

[2:41:34] Thank you.

[2:41:42] Hi, I'm Stephanie Braun from Bronzewick.

[2:41:44] So my biggest concerns about this are that we're giving away the sidewalk that we just paid for to these private businesses.

[2:41:51] The 5% requirement also meets a 100% usage requirement of their zoning that they have.

[2:41:57] So, with that, we're just kind of handing over our sidewalks, saying they're only for

[2:42:02] private use in these specific areas and the developers get to use them.

[2:42:06] We just paid for those.

[2:42:07] So, giving them way to private kind of companies, developers, I don't really understand.

[2:42:14] The other issue that I have is that there's nothing stopping short-term rentals.

[2:42:17] So, what is showing that this is going to benefit downtown Brunswick?

[2:42:22] We can have a short-term rental market.

[2:42:24] People can just buy them and not kind of stay there.

[2:42:27] So, how are we kind of maintaining that it will actually benefit the downtown.

[2:42:32] There's no fiscal kind of report on this.

[2:42:37] And so, there's no like owner occupancy requirements.

[2:42:44] We're also talking about bringing in more people to downtown.

[2:42:48] The developers have talked about privatizing.

[2:42:50] They want us to take Waymo's and taxis in to our downtown.

[2:42:53] We're not talking at all about improving the bike infrastructure or our pedestrian infrastructure.

[2:42:59] And yet we're going to bring in all these private businesses.

[2:43:02] So really it's really about making sure that we're closing all the leases loopholes.

[2:43:06] This is again being pushed by a developer before some other initiatives are coming out.

[2:43:11] So I want to make sure our downtown stays, you know, we're voted the cutest downtown, I think, fourth in America right now.

[2:43:19] So making sure we stay that way, bringing tourism in, it's a big part of our town.

[2:43:25] So let's not let the developers bring in the modern infrastructure.

[2:43:28] That's going to take that away from us.

[2:43:30] Thank you.

[2:43:31] Thank you.

[2:43:36] Hello.

[2:43:37] Hello, everyone.

[2:43:38] My name is Sarah Braiman and I'm a resident of Brunswick.

[2:43:42] And I spoke on this last time.

[2:43:43] I love seeing the changes in the map.

[2:43:49] I think the map is very clear.

[2:43:50] is very helpful, it helps us understand, helps me understand better sort of what the dynamic

[2:43:55] situation going forward could be. And there's some other changes that I also think are great.

[2:44:02] However, I would, I am a bit disappointed that we did not look more closely at what

[2:44:07] the public is getting in terms of sort of public amenities. We are increasing, we're

[2:44:12] moving forward to, I think the form-based codes are great, I understand the increased

[2:44:17] massing. There's a lot of attention to detail. And at the same time, I think only requiring

[2:44:24] the 5% open space is very low. We want a contemporary urban scape that is activated, as we talked

[2:44:34] about for pedestrians, but we really want to activate it in a contemporary way. And

[2:44:39] all over the country, I see public art going in, plazas, really creative stuff that's

[2:44:44] happening and I'd really like to ask for more for the public on that, if we're doing that.

[2:44:50] So I wish there was a way, could we get a little bit more than 5% and also that has been alluded

[2:44:57] to previously that 5% can.

[2:45:00] We'll include the sidewalk, which we already own, and yes, it would be an improvement so

[2:45:06] that helps our budget process, which is great, but I would just encourage you all to think

[2:45:12] more about what the public can have, and I know we've talked about affordable housing,

[2:45:16] but I think public space and whatever are good things to consider, if possible, at

[2:45:21] this state phase of that process. Thank you.

[2:45:24] Thank you.

[2:45:30] Hi, my name, excuse me.

[2:45:33] My name's Phil Carey from Hatwood Lane.

[2:45:37] And I've been concerned with the downtown for over 40 years.

[2:45:43] And during that time I've been a patron of the downtown businesses.

[2:45:49] Spent 15 years as town planner staffing the Village Review Board.

[2:45:54] board, and several years as a member of the BDA's design committee and facade improvement

[2:46:02] program.

[2:46:03] Currently, I'm chair of the Village Review Board, and over that span of years, I think

[2:46:11] I can count maybe two new buildings, and then a major addition to the Tontine Mall.

[2:46:21] So the pace of development downtown is not, by any means, overwhelming.

[2:46:28] We do have protections in place for the important buildings, but we have other sites that if

[2:46:39] the council adopts the proposals, can provide incentives to redevelop some of those sites

[2:46:51] into something that would contribute more to our downtown, and so, you know, speaking

[2:47:01] for the Village Review Board, we unanimously are in favor of the proposed amendments.

[2:47:12] Clearly as things move forward, assuming it's approved and some developments can

[2:47:18] happen, the council can revisit any issues surrounding it, parking, public open space.

[2:47:32] These are things that can certainly be tweaked.

[2:47:36] Given the modest pace of development we've been experiencing, I think the town will

[2:47:42] have plenty of time to react and make adjustments.

[2:47:49] So I thank you very much for your attention.

[2:47:53] Thank you.

[2:47:55] Anybody else in the room that would

[2:47:57] like to speak on this before I move to Zoom?

[2:48:01] Going once, going twice.

[2:48:03] All right, I have Sean Hogan on Zoom.

[2:48:08] Good evening, Town Council.

[2:48:10] Sean Hogan, Brunswick resident.

[2:48:13] Couple thoughts on this.

[2:48:15] I don't recall there being any great outcry for changing the zoning overlay

[2:48:22] downtown until we had a developer who wanted to redevelop the JJ Cleaner

[2:48:29] property and I've seen the plan and it looks beautiful but apparently it

[2:48:34] won't work financially for the developer unless they could add that top

[2:48:38] floor and the zoning didn't permit for that so suddenly we have before us this

[2:48:46] what we're discussing right now and I'm not so sure that's a good precedent to

[2:48:52] set where a developer comes in and drives the need for a zoning change as

[2:48:56] opposed to the town organically wanting to change this I'm going to

[2:49:01] respectfully disagree with the previous speaker yes there has been very

[2:49:07] very slow development downtown until all of a sudden we've got apartments over the old

[2:49:12] fire station. You're going to hear later on tonight about I believe 22 or 24 possible

[2:49:19] apartments being proposed for the Hawthorne school area. And then of course you've got

[2:49:24] this what we're talking about here at the JJ Cleaner possible development with

[2:49:28] apartments over that. Nobody again has talked about the fact that we do not have the

[2:49:36] infrastructure, at least in terms of transit, necessary to support this influx

[2:49:42] of people and the cars or other means of transit that they require to get around.

[2:49:50] I said this previously, our downtown is a jewel and the recipe as it is

[2:49:57] works and you are playing with fire if you start tinkering with it and I think

[2:50:05] this is a mistake to approve this.

[2:50:07] I think we should wait until we find a developer

[2:50:09] who can make it work fiscally with the limits,

[2:50:14] the height limits that we have now.

[2:50:15] This is really all about just adding height

[2:50:18] so that way we could add additional departments.

[2:50:20] And I hear what the planning department is saying

[2:50:23] about this fits with the comp plan

[2:50:25] and this is within the growth zone.

[2:50:27] But just because it fits within the comp plan

[2:50:30] and downtown is part of the growth zone

[2:50:32] does not necessarily mean that we have to make it even more advantageous to grow by growing

[2:50:40] up in height. Yes, downtown's in the growth zone, but it doesn't necessarily have to be

[2:50:47] on Main Street that we do the growing. I think that we've already got problems. We know

[2:50:54] we've got problems with transit. We're just going to have more problems with that. Additionally,

[2:50:58] Personally, I would just like to ask that any zoning that you make here, when we talk

[2:51:04] about doing a traffic study, every time we have a development and they refer to a traffic

[2:51:08] study, all they talk about are trips generated, and the number of parking spaces allotted

[2:51:14] for that development.

[2:51:15] And I've said this before and I'll say it again, Title 29A, Main Statue, which

[2:51:20] covers motor vehicles and traffic, defines traffic as a variety of means of locomotion

[2:51:26] to include pedestrian traffic, bicycle traffic, scooter traffic, whatever you want to call it.

[2:51:34] And if we're only talking about a traffic study that looks at trips generated in parking spaces

[2:51:39] allocated, you're really doing yourself a big injustice. So any traffic study that is done has

[2:51:46] to include all those other modes of transportation, especially in a town that claims to really

[2:51:51] value alternative modes of transportation. Sean, I'm going to interrupt for a second

[2:51:56] I can just let you know your three minutes

[2:51:57] if you could wrap up.

[2:51:59] Yes, sir, thank you.

[2:52:00] I'll just highly recommend that you do not approve this.

[2:52:05] Thank you for your time.

[2:52:06] Thank you.

[2:52:08] Anybody else on Zoom?

[2:52:12] Not seeing any hands go up.

[2:52:14] I'm going to bring it back to council for a motion

[2:52:16] as a reminder, motion, and then discussion.

[2:52:21] Councilor Timmy.

[2:52:22] I have a procedural question.

[2:52:24] Yeah.

[2:52:24] So, we have had one public hearing last time, and then there were other changes.

[2:52:31] And now we're at the second public hearing.

[2:52:33] Do we have to suspend our rules because it's changed since last time?

[2:52:38] Or are these changes not considered important enough that it does that?

[2:52:43] Two answers to that question and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[2:52:47] One, because we've made it less restrictive rather than more restrictive,

[2:52:51] it's not something that needs to be publicly re-held.

[2:52:53] So like the we made the parking less restrictive because it's more spaces that they would get rather than less spaces in that way

[2:53:00] And the second part of it is that this is technically not a public hearing

[2:53:03] It is a new business item because it comes back as a new business item for us after the public hearing

[2:53:10] Just did I miss anything?

[2:53:12] No, okay

[2:53:13] Questions answered. Yeah counselor Wilson

[2:53:17] Go for it

[2:53:22] I'll make a motion to amend zoning ordinance appendix a

[2:53:25] attached draft additions and changes for the main street overlay

[2:53:30] MSO district motion by Councillor Wilson, and I'll get that a second

[2:53:36] Discussion

[2:53:43] councillor team

[2:53:45] Yeah, I just want to say I'm very

[2:53:47] appreciative of the changes that have been made to this since it first came forward. I

[2:53:55] I think I agree that it would be nice to have more public space.

[2:54:02] But as has been stated, I think it is very possible for

[2:54:05] the council to make changes like that after the fact.

[2:54:10] Other than that, I mean, I think I am supportive of this as is at the moment.

[2:54:17] Great.

[2:54:18] Any further discussion?

[2:54:19] Councilor Ecker.

[2:54:21] Can I just ask a question of staff?

[2:54:23] Go for it.

[2:54:23] Um, is it my understanding that if we leave the parking requirements, then as they've been revised to that, if a developer wants to less parking, anyone in that zone would have to come in with a contract zoning application to do that so it would get its own review.

[2:54:42] That's right. Yeah. The council could review that on a case by case basis.

[2:54:46] Okay. All right. Thank you.

[2:54:48] Councilor Hicks.

[2:54:49] Well, you're up there.

[2:54:51] A question about, I know that there's limits to how much open space can be created on some of these properties.

[2:55:01] Is there an opportunity to create a fund, almost like a mitigation fund,

[2:55:06] so that the funds they would use to create an open space that they can't because they don't have the space,

[2:55:12] could be applied to somewhere that's a priority for the town in the main street area?

[2:55:20] That's always a possibility that could be explored in the future.

[2:55:25] I think for smaller sites, smaller parcels, they're going to be likely proceeding with using the sidewalk to meet the requirements.

[2:55:39] But that said, there are some strings attached, they need to make it an active sidewalk with

[2:55:48] features such as benches, street trees, plantings, lighting, bicycle racks, or other elements.

[2:55:56] So there is some requirement beyond just having a sidewalk in front of a property, but certainly

[2:56:05] you know potentially a fee in lieu could be an option we could consider more in

[2:56:11] the future. Great and so with if they're using the sidewalk would they be

[2:56:16] actually contributing funds towards its maintenance or they're just pointing

[2:56:21] they're going to just say we're going to make sure that we have the space

[2:56:24] available we'll provide those amenities and then that will be that if the

[2:56:28] amenities are already that I guess they can add more amenities I'm just

[2:56:31] saying we already have benches we already have a lot of amenities there

[2:56:34] I'm just wondering, it sounds like we can actually create another way of getting support for those

[2:56:44] amenities, for the open space in the future that we can create that out of the fact.

[2:56:49] I think, I mean, a lot of the, a lot of where the proposal will head will be at the discretion

[2:56:54] of the planning board if they find, you know, what's been proposed is appropriate and, and

[2:56:59] sufficient to meet the intent of the standard, I think it really is kind of driven by each

[2:57:06] case of redevelopment providing a more active streetscape and engaging pedestrian experience.

[2:57:13] So there are options laid out in the ordinance.

[2:57:17] So there's certainly a whole palette that folks could consider to meet the requirement.

[2:57:26] I'll jump in here with just an emphatic.

[2:57:29] I'm excited about this.

[2:57:32] I know that folks aren't maybe saying that.

[2:57:36] I think that this is the perfect complement to the world growth ordinance that we just

[2:57:44] passed where we limited a lot of development happening in our rural areas.

[2:57:48] It aligns with the COMP plan because we're now focusing on the very limited growth area

[2:57:52] that we have just approved in the COMP plan.

[2:57:55] Also, by virtue of it being a height and incentivizing density of apartment buildings, it's also giving us affordable units because even though the mainstream overlay does not call out specifically affordable units, we have a town-wide overlay that is called an inclusionary zoning district.

[2:58:13] And that mandates that any, I believe it's 15 units or more have to then include affordable units in their buildings.

[2:58:20] buildings. So if people are going for density and people are building up, that by virtue

[2:58:25] is just going to create more affordable housing in our town. So I think there's a lot better

[2:58:31] uses of some of those buildings that are downtown, especially some of the more abandoned

[2:58:36] ones that could use some love. And I think something that wasn't necessarily brought

[2:58:40] up in the presentation here but was put in our packet was a conversation we have

[2:58:45] around tax time every year. The amount of added taxable value that this would

[2:58:50] to bring to the town is could be pretty staggering.

[2:58:53] Some of the examples you give is the Taunton Mall in 2020.

[2:58:56] The taxes, the value of that building

[2:58:58] was about a million dollars, just over a million dollars,

[2:59:01] and now it's current value is just under six million.

[2:59:04] So that taxable value, like we talk a lot about,

[2:59:07] especially during the revaluation about that pie

[2:59:09] and how the corporate side of things

[2:59:12] keeps shrinking and shrinking and we need

[2:59:14] to add more businesses and now we're building

[2:59:16] the infrastructure to add more businesses

[2:59:18] and be able to hopefully start to shift that pie back

[2:59:21] where the tax burden isn't as much on the residential side.

[2:59:26] So I personally, I think it's wise for us

[2:59:29] to take a more comprehensive look at parking as a whole.

[2:59:34] So I appreciate that it's not necessarily part

[2:59:36] of this overlay because I do think

[2:59:40] that there's a more comprehensive look

[2:59:41] that should be part of it.

[2:59:43] I also, to address one other piece of this,

[2:59:46] I also think that while this is something that has come up rather suddenly, it's not

[2:59:54] something that has been rushed, and I think that that's an important clarification because

[3:00:00] A lot of these overlays and zoning and planning work has been all in preparation for us to do

[3:00:06] our large recode based on the comp plan that we just passed. So we're going to, we've already,

[3:00:12] I know the planning department's already been looking at how are we going to align all of,

[3:00:17] you know, our zoning to match what the comprehensive plan that we passed, you know,

[3:00:29] which we've

[3:00:29] like a developer came and we're like, okay, we're going to quick put together something

[3:00:33] so that way they can do this, like this was a, you know, we have this in the back burner

[3:00:37] and it's kind of in weight waiting for this opportunity when we do the bigger overhaul

[3:00:41] but it makes more sense to do it now and that to me all feels like wins.

[3:00:47] So I wholeheartedly support this.

[3:00:50] I did want to just quickly clarify the IZ, you may have mentioned it, it does

[3:00:54] apply to rental specifically, but I think what you're going after was that just

[3:00:58] increase the supply it uses demand principle that a lot of housing planners

[3:01:02] believe. Correct or if one of the developments that's down there does all

[3:01:06] rental then it would have to be a percentage of that rental. Yeah that's

[3:01:10] right. Councilor Weems. Yes thank you Chair McDonald. Just a few comments here

[3:01:17] I'm definitely in support of this change and I'll be

[3:01:22] supporting it. I think it's like we might have a classic case here of of not

[3:01:28] making them perfection be the enemy of the good.

[3:01:33] First there's some really good

[3:01:35] ideas floating around here that I like in terms of increasing the open space or

[3:01:40] community space and I'm not exactly clear which it is but I think that's

[3:01:45] good. The greater focus on public art would be excellent. I have some

[3:01:49] different views about the parking but I'm gonna revert to my comment about not

[3:01:55] making the perfect the enemy of the good. I think the value of this is it first of

[3:02:01] all it will not transform downtown Brunswick at least in my lifetime and

[3:02:08] maybe long after it in it will provide some progressive guidelines for

[3:02:13] incremental development and improvement directly in alignment with the

[3:02:19] principles of the comprehensive plan.

[3:02:23] So I'm wholeheartedly in support of this and we're voting accordingly.

[3:02:28] Any further discussion before I call the vote?

[3:02:33] Not seeing any.

[3:02:34] We'll start with Councilor Ecker.

[3:02:36] Yes.

[3:02:37] Councilor Anderson.

[3:02:38] Yes.

[3:02:38] Councilor Perl.

[3:02:39] Yes.

[3:02:40] Councilor Hicks.

[3:02:41] Yes.

[3:02:41] Councilor Teeme.

[3:02:42] Yes.

[3:02:43] Councilor Weems.

[3:02:43] Yes.

[3:02:44] Councilor Wilson.

[3:02:45] Yes.

[3:02:45] The chair is a yes.

[3:02:46] That is unanimous of the council present.

[3:02:48] The motion passes.

[3:02:49] Thank you.

[3:02:53] Moving on to item number 111, the Town Council will consider awarding the Hawthorne School Redevelopment Project and will take any appropriate action.

[3:03:04] I'm going to turn this over to the Economic and Community Development Director, Costello, to introduce, or Project Manager, Adam Owitz.

[3:03:13] Thank

[3:03:16] you. Good evening, Town Council.

[3:03:19] Christy Adams, Economic and Community Development Project Manager.

[3:03:24] I am here to provide you an update and make a recommendation from the Hawthorne School

[3:03:33] Redevelopment Task Force.

[3:03:35] Can you come just a little bit closer?

[3:03:38] Oh, I'm sorry.

[3:03:39] Thank you.

[3:03:39] I'm a little scared to get that close.

[3:03:42] I have a brief presentation that to provide an overview of the process to jog everyone's

[3:03:49] memory about where we are, where we are, where we came from, and the recommendation from

[3:03:55] the task force.

[3:03:57] So if next slide please.

[3:04:00] So on June 16th, 2025, the town council appointed the Hawthorne School Redevelopment Task

[3:04:09] class course after accepting the Hawthorne School Building from the school department,

[3:04:14] which had vacated the building, and no longer had any use for it.

[3:04:20] The town thought as part of us to support the comprehensive plan and all of our growth and

[3:04:25] visioning for a vibrant downtown as an opportunity to redevelop it in a way that

[3:04:31] met a community vision versus allowing the school department to sort of put it on the open market.

[3:04:36] So that is the two-second history of why we have this building in our possession.

[3:04:41] This is just a picture of where it is on the map.

[3:04:44] Next slide, please.

[3:04:46] And here is a snapshot of the process that the town council,

[3:04:52] and the responsibilities that the town council gave to the Hawthorne School Task Force when it was formed.

[3:04:58] Four basic tasks were to conduct community engagement, create a request for proposals,

[3:05:04] and then review those proposals once they were received and then make a

[3:05:09] recommendation to the town council based on evaluations and that is why we are

[3:05:13] here today. Next slide please. Just briefly the community engagement outcome was

[3:05:21] pretty it was positive not too many large surprises. The survey was opened

[3:05:27] for about a month in February and March. We had really great response we had

[3:05:31] We had 925 responses.

[3:05:33] We had some in-person opportunities with a neighborhood meeting and an open house and both of those events were well attended.

[3:05:41] Then the outcome of that survey and that community outreach was that affordable housing was a top priority, no surprise.

[3:05:48] Historic preservation was also a top priority.

[3:05:52] Respondents favored two bedroom units, followed closely by one bedroom units that was very, very similar.

[3:05:59] And 67% of respondents supported some commercial use of the commercial uses allowed by zoning daycare facility was one of the highest ranked uses and preservation of the playground was a very high community priority.

[3:06:14] So that's just a brief crash course in what the vision of the building was and how we structured the RFP to guide developers to respond to that vision.

[3:06:26] next slide please and again just the top public benefits very similar historic

[3:06:32] preservation increased housing supply job creation green space so we with that

[3:06:39] community input the task force drafted the RFP I was approved by the town

[3:06:45] council on May 18th and proposals were due in July July 2nd next slide

[3:06:53] Next slide, please.

[3:06:55] We received seven really,

[3:06:58] we received seven great and complete proposals.

[3:07:02] Those proposals were scored by the task force

[3:07:05] based on project consistency with the vision,

[3:07:08] qualifications of the project team,

[3:07:10] evidence of a financial capacity and project feasibility,

[3:07:13] acquisition price, tax generation potential,

[3:07:15] project schedule and sustainability.

[3:07:18] Next slide, please.

[3:07:21] And when we did those evaluations, two proposals came out on top.

[3:07:28] They came out on the very top.

[3:07:30] There was Bowdoin and Doaryard came out in essentially a tie.

[3:07:34] Doaryard had a total score of 399 points and Bowdoin had 398.

[3:07:40] And the third place, the third place developer was around 360 and then everybody else was

[3:07:48] below 300.

[3:07:49] So they really were up at a higher level at a time and then the other proposals were

[3:07:55] farther down based on a mixture of their response to the affordable housing piece or

[3:08:00] the demographic piece or just their funding structure and the timeline.

[3:08:06] all those things sort of bumped those other candidates down.

[3:08:12] Next slide please.

[3:08:14] So I'm just gonna go to give you a high level overview

[3:08:17] of the two proposals, and I'm happy to sort of answer

[3:08:21] questions along the way, if you have any confusion.

[3:08:24] We also have, actually we have the two proposal,

[3:08:27] the two developers here, Bowdoin and Doryard,

[3:08:30] if you have any really specific questions

[3:08:32] that I can't answer for you.

[3:08:33] So, and we also have members of the task force here too.

[3:08:38] But let's just get started with Doryard's proposal, really high level.

[3:08:42] So their concept is 26 housing rental units at 80 to 100% AMI area median income.

[3:08:50] 18 units will be affordable and the rest would be about market rate.

[3:08:55] And there's no age restriction.

[3:08:57] They propose a daycare on the ground floor serving 50 children.

[3:09:00] But they have expressed in their proposal that they are open to negotiation on that.

[3:09:07] And they do say in their proposal that that could be potentially used as community space instead,

[3:09:11] if that's something that the town council and the community feels more strongly about,

[3:09:14] because both of those things came out in the RFP as top priorities.

[3:09:21] They do propose to keep the existing playground and enhance it with new equipment

[3:09:25] and also refurbish that existing playground because it does need work.

[3:09:28] but it's still a very sturdy playground and could be refurbished.

[3:09:34] That playground would be open to the public and that's something that would also be negotiated in the purchase and sale process.

[3:09:43] Let's see. They also proposed to expand some green space.

[3:09:49] The financial picture.

[3:09:50] Sure, so the financial picture for all of the proposals were reviewed in depth with the by staff and the task force and in the executive session.

[3:10:00] All of the proposals had a preforma, development, budget, sources and uses in a rent role.

[3:10:06] And those were all the documents that sort of came into the evaluation process.

[3:10:11] And that's something that we can't really talk about in the open because it's confidential information.

[3:10:16] But if the council wanted an executive session, we'd be happy to do something like that if you needed to.

[3:10:22] But high level here, Doryard's acquisition price is essentially $925,000.

[3:10:28] They do in their proposal say $1,025,000, but

[3:10:32] there is a $100,000 land discount proposed in there.

[3:10:37] Their estimated tax generation is 93,000.

[3:10:40] They do ask for a 80% TIF for 10 years on the eight unit building.

[3:10:45] They do have an affordable housing support fund grant request of $100,000.

[3:10:50] Their total development cost is around $10 million and their year of completion is $28.

[3:10:57] Project manager?

[3:10:58] Yes.

[3:10:58] Do you want to also just level set with us on what the appraised value of the current

[3:11:04] building in Slashland just so people have contact?

[3:11:07] My apologies.

[3:11:08] Yes.

[3:11:08] That was appraised at $705,000.

[3:11:13] Next slide, please.

[3:11:15] And so to just have some visuals now for you from the proposals, this is door yards, we

[3:11:24] have the smaller eight unit, I'm sorry, eight unit building over on the left there, and

[3:11:30] the main building, the Hawthorne building, we have the majority of the units.

[3:11:35] They do propose sort of some flex parking in the back, they do propose to keep the

[3:11:40] playground where it is currently they have they are proposing to shrink this

[3:11:47] the parking area in the turnaround area for the daycare drop-off I think that is

[3:11:52] sort of the high level of that and then if you next slide you can just see some

[3:11:57] of the renderings that they I'll ask you also to remember to stay close I'm

[3:12:02] sorry and next slide please and then just another picture of

[3:12:10] of their eight units.

[3:12:14] And then next slide, we'll go on to Bowdoin's proposal.

[3:12:19] So Bowdoin proposes 14 rental units

[3:12:22] at 100 to 120% area median income.

[3:12:26] The units would be restricted to Bowdoin faculty and staff,

[3:12:28] but there would be no age restriction.

[3:12:30] Community space located on the ground floor

[3:12:33] available for public use for free

[3:12:35] and they would provide a new and expanded playground

[3:12:38] and expand a green space. Financial picture the acquisition

[3:12:43] price is that $705,000 with $505,000 for the site and $200 as a donation for the

[3:12:52] Affordable Housing Support Fund. Estimated tax generation is $41,000

[3:12:58] approximately and they are not tax exempt. We checked with the tax

[3:13:03] assessor and because of the nature of the building and it's not for

[3:13:06] educational purposes is for housing, they will not be tax exempt.

[3:13:11] The project will be fully financed by the college.

[3:13:14] Their total development costs is estimated to be $13 million, and

[3:13:18] also a 2028 year of completion.

[3:13:21] Although I should go back to, I forgot to mention that Doryard's proposal

[3:13:26] does include a 2027 completion for the smaller 8-unit building.

[3:13:30] I've neglected to mention that, sorry.

[3:13:33] Next slide, please.

[3:13:36] Here you go with the site plan from Bowdoin and you know no building in the

[3:13:43] backs, keeping the parking lot about the same, expanded green space, no parking in

[3:13:49] the front of the building so completely sort of restoring that historic lawn

[3:13:53] that the building used to have and if next slide please you can see more

[3:14:00] details of the proposed playground so that it's fairly large and would be it

[3:14:05] would be an expansion of what is there now. Next slide please. Here's a rendering

[3:14:13] of the front of the building. Next slide. An interior shot and then the proposed

[3:14:22] community space in the ground level. Next slide. So the task force, you know, they

[3:14:30] evaluated, they felt that both of these proposals were excellent. They're

[3:14:34] different and, you know, they have their differences. They both have great

[3:14:37] strengths. They both have drawbacks and we felt like it was appropriate to

[3:14:42] bring both proposals to the town council for your consideration. And

[3:14:47] And after you make a decision, staff would then move on with the purchase and

[3:14:54] sale and development agreement process.

[3:14:57] So that is what the task force is.

[3:15:03] Thank you for the presentation. Clarity on next steps. So if the council chose one of the two proposals today, you would go as staff to negotiate purchase and sale, and then that would eventually come back to council for review before anything were to happen.

[3:15:23] Right, so the staff would work with the town attorney to craft that draft purchase and sale agreement

[3:15:30] The vision of the proposal would be fully embedded in that purchase and sale

[3:15:36] You know with some negotiations, but we would absolutely bring it back to you for your final approval

[3:15:42] Great other questions of counsel

[3:15:46] council teamie and

[3:15:47] All right counselor Hicks

[3:15:50] Just on the door your proposal. Maybe this is a question for them

[3:15:54] But when it says it's 26 units are 80 to 100% AMI,

[3:16:00] and then it says 18 units will be affordable.

[3:16:03] So what's the definition of affordable in that context?

[3:16:07] So that would be under 100% AMI.

[3:16:11] So the 26 is 80 to 100, and then they're coming to the mic.

[3:16:17] If you'd like to come up to the podium

[3:16:19] to answer the question, feel free.

[3:16:20] Make sure to say your name or identification

[3:16:23] and the town of residence.

[3:16:28] Hi, I'm Melissa McHugh.

[3:16:29] I'm the COO of Doryard, live in Falmouth, Maine.

[3:16:33] So the 18 proposed units that are in the school itself are 80% AMI,

[3:16:39] and the eight unit would be 100% AMI.

[3:16:43] Okay, so there's a total of 26 units.

[3:16:45] Correct.

[3:16:46] Okay, got it.

[3:16:47] Thank you.

[3:16:49] Councillor Teeming, questions?

[3:16:53] Yeah, I have two.

[3:16:53] So first of all, in terms of like the procedure of like negotiation, we would be selecting

[3:17:03] a project potentially tonight.

[3:17:08] And that selection is authorizing staff to enter negotiations with the developer.

[3:17:16] If we, you know, if we have things about these projects that we really like but like

[3:17:23] would only really support it with a particular negotiation succeeding.

[3:17:30] Is that the sort of thing that the council could decide to request?

[3:17:34] And if so, and that negotiation doesn't work out, does selecting a project

[3:17:39] commit us to that project and whatever the negotiation ends up sort of being?

[3:17:45] I assume not, since it's coming back to us for approval, but.

[3:17:48] So what we did with the fire station was that the negotiation period had

[3:17:52] an expiration date and so during that time there was back and forth and you

[3:17:58] know we with the fire station we did come back to council for extensions when

[3:18:02] we passed that date so it could could look like that if we got into that sort of

[3:18:06] back and forth phase but I don't think I think that these are fairly straightforward

[3:18:10] I don't imagine that it working out the same way the fire station did as far

[3:18:16] And the other question, and it kind of connects into what Councillor Hicks asked about the

[3:18:24] affordability piece, you know, our zoning code defines the 80% or under AMI de-restriction

[3:18:32] as like how we define zoning, I'm sorry, how we define affordability.

[3:18:40] But the 80-100% AMI range that is given, is that income limited locked in or is that their

[3:18:52] goal window and it's actually market rates?

[3:18:56] I'm just trying to understand that piece of it better.

[3:18:59] And I guess one more little question I'd like to tie in there, which is, do you happen

[3:19:02] to know the survey results?

[3:19:04] What number of percentage of people said that they wanted market rate housing?

[3:19:08] I would have to pull them up.

[3:19:09] I don't know off the top of my head.

[3:19:12] The survey results.

[3:19:14] And then the first part of your question was basically like what's the range of units that would be between 100 and 100?

[3:19:21] No, like do they stay like 100% AMI going forward?

[3:19:28] or is that just like the what the price is that they're introducing at but

[3:19:32] they're actually just marketary units? Like is it descriptive of the units or

[3:19:37] are they actually locked in as units that are like deed restricted or in

[3:19:42] some way required to stay 100% AMI you know income limited? So you're asking

[3:19:49] if the 100% AMI would be deed restricted? Or in some other way

[3:19:54] required to stay that way. Yes. Do you want to answer that question?

[3:20:02] Again Melissa

[3:20:03] McHugh here from Doryard. So for the 18 units we would be using the main rural

[3:20:09] affordable housing program so they are required to stay at 80% AMI for as long

[3:20:15] as the property exists. So I think ongoing we have it goes on for 42

[3:20:20] 42 years I believe it's but they are de-restricted and to answer your

[3:20:26] second question, 69.7% wanted affordable housing in the survey.

[3:20:35] My question is actually how many wanted market rehousing, because I did remember that it was

[3:20:42] 70%.

[3:20:43] Well, maybe, yeah, maybe the 30% that didn't want it affordable.

[3:20:47] Maybe.

[3:20:48] I think there was, like, luxury in there too or something, but anyway, not very much.

[3:20:52] But the piece that I was asking about was not what the deed restriction was of the 18 units.

[3:20:58] I was asking about the eight other units.

[3:21:00] Are those income restricted at 100% AMI in some way or

[3:21:05] is that just kind of like the range you're targeting and it's actually just market rehousing?

[3:21:10] So that's the range that we're targeting because we're not working within any government program.

[3:21:17] There's not any specific, like, government restrictions from an income perspective.

[3:21:23] I think we'd be open to having that conversation if that was something that the town really wanted.

[3:21:29] But as of right now, we're just, our rents are a little bit, I think, below 100% AMI.

[3:21:36] And we intend to keep them there.

[3:21:41] Further questions of Council Councilor Weems?

[3:21:44] Yes, thank you. I have two right now.

[3:21:46] Now, I'm going to say what the second one is before I ask the first one, then ask the

[3:21:52] first one just to give a little warning here.

[3:21:56] Whatever order you'd like.

[3:21:57] The second one is, could we have each, I notice that there are representatives from

[3:22:02] each of the two entities here in the audience set up, my second question is, could we have

[3:22:07] each of them, give them each an opportunity to kind of summarize their own proposal

[3:22:15] rather than the summary that we've been given.

[3:22:18] And the first question while we're thinking about that one

[3:22:21] is, I'd like an explanation on the difference

[3:22:24] in the estimated property tax revenues,

[3:22:30] where a $10 million project was close to $100,000,

[3:22:35] and a $13 million project was close to something

[3:22:38] around $41,000.

[3:22:40] What's going on there?

[3:22:41] Yeah, so that, you know, it's all based on assumptions, you know, it's real estate development and, you know, those numbers are, you know, estimates.

[3:22:51] I think that if you wanted to really look under the hood of those, we would invite, potentially invite the candidates to executive session,

[3:22:58] because that once you start digging into that financial information, it starts getting into confidential territory.

[3:23:06] Well, that's just a normal rate and a cost of building, I think.

[3:23:11] Is there a simpler explanation or is it something more complicated?

[3:23:24] I think both of them have different business deals that I think have specific details around that

[3:23:32] that we weren't going to get into the specifics.

[3:23:34] But, you know, I think Chrissy did say that there was going to be a TIF request by Doryard,

[3:23:42] so that reduces some of what we would have there.

[3:23:45] And it's a pretty robust, 80 percent, I think, 75 or 80 percent?

[3:23:49] 80 percent.

[3:23:50] So that, right off the top, there's a reduction there.

[3:23:56] But, I mean, these are some of the questions that you asked previously.

[3:23:59] Obviously we can negotiate, you know, to Councilor Timi's question about affordability, you know,

[3:24:07] we certainly, some of the things that we do, it's a process unfolds in the purchase and

[3:24:12] sale agreement based on what the Town Council directs us to do.

[3:24:16] Thank you for that and hold that thought about negotiation for later.

[3:24:22] So my second question, I'll leave that to the Chair to opine on.

[3:24:26] Yeah.

[3:24:28] I know we have some questions over here are would they be potentially answered by some proposal presentations?

[3:24:35] No, I need a clarification. Okay. All right. Let's do councillor Perall and then councillor Ecker, and then we'll revisit the presentation. Okay

[3:24:46] Just want to clarify the TIF in the in our information

[3:24:52] The 80% TIF was only going to be on the eight unit building not on the whole so that

[3:24:58] $93,000 of tax revenue, there's only a portion of it that would be going to TIFF, not 80%

[3:25:08] of the $93,000.

[3:25:10] Yes, for 10 years.

[3:25:14] I had a TIFF question too, so this is included in the downtown TIFF, okay, so there's no

[3:25:20] changes needed there.

[3:25:24] My next question is around, it's around the scoring and just trying to help me understand the scoring.

[3:25:32] So, as I look at it, the Bowdoin proposal has about half the housing, and I might have some of this wrong, so correct me if I'm wrong here.

[3:25:41] It's targeting a higher HMI.

[3:25:47] It's housing is limited to Bowdoin faculty and staff,

[3:25:52] and it shows at least in this analysis less financial benefit to the town.

[3:25:58] So what in the scoring criteria, I guess, tied these two proposals,

[3:26:07] proposals. How are they different in that regard that I mean you would have to look at,

[3:26:14] I mean you would want to compare each task force members score to dig into that. I mean I

[3:26:20] think they're like I said at the beginning both proposals they're quite different but

[3:26:25] they do have a strong you know they have strong benefits and they do have drawbacks

[3:26:30] and I think that they kind of washed out, you know, as they both rose to the top because

[3:26:36] of those unique proposals.

[3:26:40] But I couldn't point to one particular thing, I think, to say, like, what the difference

[3:26:48] was there.

[3:26:49] Yeah, maybe just in terms of the aggregate scores, I guess, were there certain categories

[3:26:55] that Bowdoin just knocked it out of the park on versus some of these others?

[3:26:59] I would say the financial category, they're very low risk, they're not asking for subsidy,

[3:27:04] they're not asking for credit enhancement agreement, they're self funding.

[3:27:08] And when you have multiple sources of funding, and not to say the other team has high expertise in being able to get those sources of funding,

[3:27:16] it's just a higher risk to have to cobble together more sources of funding.

[3:27:21] Okay, thank you, that's good.

[3:27:23] The the only other thing that I'd add into is that during that council meeting in which we approved the RFP the council

[3:27:29] Gave more weight to more play room

[3:27:32] I suppose in the mission and vision section so that allowed for more subjectivity for these bigger swings

[3:27:39] Yeah

[3:27:41] For the community values section

[3:27:44] Yeah, for the for the section where we went from 10 points to 20 points right that that creates a bigger swing on

[3:27:49] on where people, I guess the subjectivity of where people see that value.

[3:27:54] In those different proposals. Yeah. Yeah. Between individual people scoring. Yes.

[3:28:00] Okay, thank you. Between task force members. All right.

[3:28:03] Okay, so I want to see, look into the audience for potential thumbs up.

[3:28:09] Are our two proposals interested in giving like a,

[3:28:17] I'm going to,

[3:28:17] you know, talk on your proposal.

[3:28:19] Is that something you're interested in?

[3:28:22] Yep, I got thumbs up over here, over there.

[3:28:27] I'm giving them a second to consult.

[3:28:29] I'm giving them a second, yeah.

[3:28:30] Just a little five minute, just, you know, brief.

[3:28:33] We have the, we have the, you know, proposals themselves,

[3:28:37] but I want to make sure that you each have

[3:28:39] at least five minutes.

[3:28:40] We'll allot it that way, so that way it's fair.

[3:28:43] Okay, so let's go alphabetically.

[3:28:45] We'll start with Bowdoin.

[3:28:59] Good evening, Councillors.

[3:29:01] Matt Orlando, I'm the Senior Vice President

[3:29:03] for Finance Administration at Bowdoin College.

[3:29:07] And thank you for this opportunity.

[3:29:09] Councillor Weems and Chair MacDonald.

[3:29:11] I didn't really come prepared with like,

[3:29:12] normally I'd have like a slideshow,

[3:29:14] but I can at least sort of hit on

[3:29:16] a few of the highlights of our proposal.

[3:29:20] And I first want to also thank you

[3:29:22] for giving us your consideration

[3:29:23] and thank the task force as well.

[3:29:25] There was significant effort put into this process

[3:29:27] and just really appreciative of the work and the time.

[3:29:32] Just as far as the origin of the problem,

[3:29:34] we're trying to solve and how this building makes sense for us.

[3:29:38] We have a workforce housing issue at the college.

[3:29:41] It started to emerge about six or seven years ago

[3:29:43] and has become acute and sort of core to a small residential college

[3:29:48] like Bowdoin is having faculty live and work near the college.

[3:29:53] And we're finding that the newer tenure track faculty that we hire can't find affordable housing in.

[3:30:00] Our stock is limited in terms of what we can provide, particularly vis-a-vis other peer colleges who guarantee housing for up to seven years until those tenure-track faculty get their tenure.

[3:30:12] We can only guarantee, we can't really guarantee that we try to house them for three years and then they're sort of off into the market like everyone else.

[3:30:18] But what we're finding is those newer, higher tenure-track faculty are moving 40, 50 miles away because that's where they can afford to buy.

[3:30:27] And that's not the kind of environment we want to boat in.

[3:30:31] We've for 200 plus years, we've had faculty who have lived on the fringes of campus,

[3:30:35] participated in not just the classrooms, but also the social life,

[3:30:39] the cultural life of the college, attending sporting events,

[3:30:41] seeing your professor downtown having coffee.

[3:30:44] We don't want to lose that, and that was sort of the origin of this.

[3:30:47] And really the location of the Hawthorne School,

[3:30:50] first of all, it's a fantastic landmark building.

[3:30:53] We feel like you could not get a better location.

[3:30:57] In terms of the property that Bowdoin owns, you might ask, like, why don't you just build

[3:31:01] this somewhere else?

[3:31:02] We don't have anything like this that is such convenient access to downtown and to the college.

[3:31:08] And we see it as an opportunity to revitalize an area of the Federal Street District, the

[3:31:12] downtown district, in an extraordinary way.

[3:31:15] This is really a fantastic opportunity to help sort of a win-win between the college

[3:31:19] and the town.

[3:31:19] And we feel like, Councilor Eckert, that there are substantial public benefits

[3:31:24] in our plan.

[3:31:25] And so in addition to the 14 units that we would price,

[3:31:28] we would target at up to 120% AMI.

[3:31:32] That's typically the range that we hire tenure track faculty

[3:31:36] in, so they fit that.

[3:31:38] And I see these faculty are at the highest level of their,

[3:31:41] they've achieved PhD master level.

[3:31:44] They don't want to move into a little studio.

[3:31:45] They want one and two bedrooms.

[3:31:47] And that's why we got a portion 14 units.

[3:31:50] We felt like that was an appropriate alignment

[3:31:53] of units in the building and we would, they would be subsidized so they would be

[3:32:00] below market rate at that 120 depending on the household configuration. The

[3:32:07] playground, those of you have seen what we did at Longfellow that as this

[3:32:11] playground that we'll do here is in that same vein playgrounds are not cheap.

[3:32:16] You can tell you we spent $450,000 on the Longfellow playground. This one is

[3:32:20] 300,000 so a little bit smaller but we want to use the same designer we want to

[3:32:24] have the same impact on the community and just think about the opportunity for

[3:32:28] families either in the neighborhood or families visiting Brunswick spending the

[3:32:32] day downtown and having such convenient access to a playground right

[3:32:37] down the street. We didn't want to overcrowd things so we want a full

[3:32:41] green space in the front so you can imagine picnic tables next to the

[3:32:44] playground rather than parking and exhaust from a drop-off. We looked at

[3:32:48] daycare center there. We did not see the circulation was sufficient to fit that in. And certainly

[3:32:57] you have all that parking in the front and the back, but we have operated a daycare center

[3:33:01] at the college for 40 years and we know how crazy it can get on drop-offs. So we just

[3:33:06] didn't see it working. We kept the parking in the back. We kept the green space in

[3:33:10] the front, kept them separate, keep the students, their children safe. There's

[3:33:15] There's a community space in the basement that would be rent-free.

[3:33:18] You might remember that when the college owned this building, this space was

[3:33:24] reservable by the community for whatever, for meetings, for nonprofit meetings,

[3:33:28] for book clubs, whatever, we would do the same thing at no cost.

[3:33:33] And we would fit up these spaces so there'd be a community meeting room as well as a makerspace.

[3:33:38] Fit it out by the college and reservable on an as needed basis by the community.

[3:33:45] At the end of the day, it turns into sort of as Sally was alluding to sort of a burden

[3:33:51] hand versus two in the bush.

[3:33:53] We are ready to go.

[3:33:54] We're shovel ready.

[3:33:55] We have the commitment of the board behind us.

[3:33:58] We have the financial capacity to do this.

[3:34:01] We have a definitive schedule.

[3:34:03] We want to break, you know, we would go into design mode and then do the construction

[3:34:07] and get this done by the fall of 28.

[3:34:10] And with no reliance on any outside soft funding.

[3:34:13] This is fully backed by the financial credit of the college.

[3:34:17] Thank you so much.

[3:34:18] We'll move on to Doryard.

[3:34:32] Hi, my name is Cara Wilbur, owner of Doryard, and nice to see you all.

[3:34:39] We're really excited about this project and the opportunity to breathe new life into this amazing building.

[3:34:47] That's the Hawthorne School.

[3:34:49] And also, we're really excited to try to figure out a way to meet the community's goal of

[3:34:55] adding more housing, but in a way that sort of fit the fabric of the neighborhood.

[3:35:02] And so, you know, seeing the parking in the back, we thought there was an opportunity

[3:35:06] to add more units in a way that sort of was sensitive to the neighborhood, maintained

[3:35:12] a good amount of parking spaces and that also provided community space in the basement.

[3:35:19] As mentioned, we're really flexible on what that looks like.

[3:35:23] The 50, you know, person day care, child day care is really the capacity that the space can afford,

[3:35:33] but it's really a conversation with the community about what is the best use for that space

[3:35:38] and we're very open to going in many different directions on that. We just

[3:35:43] know that the numbers generally can work with a variety of options.

[3:35:50] And you know

[3:35:53] we've talked a little bit about taxes. We looked at this as an opportunity to

[3:36:00] to help the town generate more taxable income from this site.

[3:36:07] We've estimated that over 30 years, we're looking at 2.5 million in taxes generated for the town,

[3:36:13] which is helpful and supports, I think, some of the goals we've heard tonight from the community.

[3:36:22] Along with the housing at 26 units, which we think meets that goal of the community.

[3:36:32] So I don't know, Melissa, if you have anything else you want to touch on.

[3:36:37] But that's sort of the high level picture.

[3:36:43] I'll just add to that.

[3:36:44] Again, Melissa McHugh, CIO.

[3:36:45] So I want to mention that we're totally a main company

[3:36:50] and everyone involved in this is going to be main related.

[3:36:54] So architect is in Portland, engineers in Bangor.

[3:36:57] We're utilizing the modular plant in South Portland.

[3:37:03] We have, in terms of the tax component,

[3:37:06] I think we took a look at the neighboring assessments

[3:37:11] and I think the difference in taxes that you're seeing

[3:37:13] is we're creating this second building that, you know, creates a lot of value.

[3:37:19] And I just want to mention, I think, you know, the Bowdoin really put forward a thoughtful

[3:37:24] application and, you know, they really identified a real need, which is that we have a big

[3:37:30] housing crisis that we need to solve.

[3:37:33] And part of our proposal provides housing for the people that, you know, like the

[3:37:40] teachers at Bowdoin.

[3:37:41] So the 100% AMI 8 unit that we'll be creating is really, like, perfect for those teachers who are looking for space.

[3:37:51] And we'd love to help solve it either way.

[3:37:55] And I guess just in terms of what the community was specifically asking for, we really wanted to center our proposal around addressing each one of those.

[3:38:03] So I know Kara touched on it a little bit, but, you know, we really wanted to maximize the affordable housing.

[3:38:08] you know really you know the they asked for a community space and we are

[3:38:14] providing that keeping the green space in the playground and has saving the

[3:38:19] historic building so we sort of wrap that all up and in terms of our sort of

[3:38:24] financial risk I just want to mention that we have a ton of experience

[3:38:30] already we have closed for and about to be six rural rental projects in New

[3:38:36] Newcastle and Rumford and Yarmouth, we're working on one in Brunswick now.

[3:38:41] We have deep history working with TIS and getting the financing that we need.

[3:38:47] In terms of the eight-unit building, we'd be able to move forward quickly in terms

[3:38:52] of utilizing our own neighborhood investment fund.

[3:38:56] So we can, like she mentioned, that would be done in 2027 while the rest of the financing

[3:39:02] would be in progress for the 18-unit.

[3:39:05] So, I appreciate all of your time and happy to answer any questions.

[3:39:12] Good.

[3:39:13] Great.

[3:39:14] Thank you.

[3:39:14] Any last questions from Council before I open up for public comment?

[3:39:18] Councillor Timi.

[3:39:21] So, staff said earlier that the Doryard project has an improved playground, which is talked

[3:39:28] about in the proposal, but it's kind of a little vague about it.

[3:39:34] I think it says like additional equipment and so it's you know like improved but

[3:39:41] also a lot of it is staying the same and

[3:39:47] like possibly repaired because I know

[3:39:49] that there's like a section of it that's just blocked off with zip-tied fly

[3:39:52] wood right now but I kind of wonder about like the plausibility of that

[3:39:59] approach because it's pretty old playground and the like insurance to

[3:40:04] have a playground like that could potentially be an issue.

[3:40:07] So I just wanted to get a little more information about what

[3:40:12] you all are thinking about the playgrounds, ideally.

[3:40:22] Hi, I'm Patrick Booth.

[3:40:24] I'm an architect with Wood Hall, architect

[3:40:26] in the project out of Portland.

[3:40:28] So the reason why we noted that is

[3:40:30] that it was presumed to be designed

[3:40:32] for elementary school kids.

[3:40:34] And so the daycare was our primary use in the building.

[3:40:40] So we presume that the equivalent should be designed towards those ages of 1 to 5 or so as opposed to 5 to 12.

[3:40:48] So that was part of it. It would be evaluated to more detail later, but we imagine it would be modified to that age group.

[3:40:57] Any further questions?

[3:41:02] Not seeing any. Let's move on to public comment.

[3:41:04] If you'd like to speak on this item, you have three minutes.

[3:41:07] Say your name, town of residence, follow the code of conduct, all of the good things.

[3:41:10] We'll start in the room and then we'll move to Zoom.

[3:41:14] Jimt was named 149208 Brunswick, Maine. There is no choice. There's only one. That's the

[3:41:23] Doriad proposal. One, they're willing to pay more for the property. The housing they're

[3:41:29] going to provide will be for people in the town trying to live and provide housing for

[3:41:35] everybody else. For Bowdoin, you have to work for Bowdoin to live there. If you

[3:41:40] look at the cost of their willing to pay for, what is it? A couple hundred thousand

[3:41:45] dollar difference? Whenever that's because we're going to get both in to pay

[3:41:49] two hundred fifty thousand dollars for that multi-purpose field down to a rec

[3:41:53] field later on. There's no choice here. Douya proposal is the right

[3:42:00] proposal. I get a lot of concerns because earlier this evening you heard

[3:42:03] the Economic Community Director talk about making sure before the town took

[3:42:09] over a piece of property. They wanted to make sure there was no hazardous materials, asbestos

[3:42:13] and all that. So they did a phase two somewhere down in Cooke's corner. I'm assuming the town

[3:42:19] is going to do the same thing on this property before they even think about selling it.

[3:42:23] Phase one, phase two. Didn't do it on the fire station. Didn't do it on the fire

[3:42:28] station. No, you didn't.

[3:42:33] You also, you heard all we're a little concerned about

[3:42:36] the finances from Dorian. The fire station had federal, state, local, whoever else gave

[3:42:43] grant money to do the proposal. It took seven extensions, almost two years delay.

[3:42:53] If you're

[3:42:53] going to go forward with this project, I also want to make sure that everything that they

[3:42:57] have to do is brought up the standards, including while Al Pac and Stormdrain has

[3:43:05] these materials, ADA, flyer codes, sprinkler system and any other codes have to be brought

[3:43:09] up the current standards they weren't on the fire station.

[3:43:14] But going forward I think there's

[3:43:15] only one deal and that is door yachts. Yes, Bowdoin College has a reputation in the town

[3:43:22] but we got a chance to get somebody else in town willing to do something for possible

[3:43:27] working people in town. Bowdoin's proposal is for Bowdoin's employees. That's not

[3:43:33] what this proposal is about. If you're going to do affordable housing, you're going

[3:43:40] You want to work at some of the places that you're talking about on Main Street, the restaurants, the stuff you want to bring in.

[3:43:45] You're going to have places for the end of the live.

[3:43:49] Bowdoin could put it on their own land, they've got plenty of it.

[3:43:52] So my recommendation is the only one, let's do it yet.

[3:43:56] Thank you.

[3:44:00] Hello, I'm Lucas Lincoln.

[3:44:03] I sent you all an email, a few emails this weekend actually regarding this proposal.

[3:44:06] I agree there's only one choice, although I believe it's the Bowdoin choice.

[3:44:11] And hopefully I can answer James' question a little bit about why it was scored so high,

[3:44:17] at least from my point of view and what I think it brings to the town.

[3:44:21] Now the previous speaker mentioned that the housing is limited, it's only for Bowdoin.

[3:44:25] But they compensated more than compensated for that by what they offer to the community.

[3:44:31] The playground in the doryard proposal is non-existent and poorly thought out.

[3:44:36] There's the issue with the equipment.

[3:44:39] It is not a public playground of its use for the daycare.

[3:44:41] I don't know of a single private daycare that allows the public to use their property.

[3:44:46] There's a liability issue there.

[3:44:47] Bowdoin has addressed this in their proposal.

[3:44:49] They mentioned that they lease the playground back to the town.

[3:44:51] Therefore, I assume, absolving their liability.

[3:44:54] They do this with Longfellow.

[3:44:55] They're established.

[3:44:57] Bowdoin also has an established track record.

[3:45:00] Historic preservation. And if you look through the documentation of both proposals, they are

[3:45:04] very explicit about what is historic and what will remain. They in general are an excellent

[3:45:12] steward of that building and that property. There was a, I hadn't seen this before, but

[3:45:19] earlier during the last discussion there was this flower with one Brunswick, I believe.

[3:45:24] I believe it was sort of a, each petal had a representation.

[3:45:29] One of those was active recreation and public facilities.

[3:45:33] The Bowdoin proposal provides both of those.

[3:45:36] The green space touted by Doaryard is behind that eight unit building.

[3:45:40] That's not a public space.

[3:45:41] That's, this is similar to the public space at the fire station,

[3:45:44] which is their beer garden.

[3:45:46] That's not a public space.

[3:45:47] That's a part of that development.

[3:45:50] The Bowdoin proposal, however, has public space.

[3:45:53] It eliminates the parking lot in front, there's green space, there is a world-class destination playground.

[3:45:58] When I'm a long fellow, I talk to people from Augusta, from Lincoln County, from Portland, from all over,

[3:46:05] who come to Brunswick, who spend money in Brunswick to visit that playground.

[3:46:08] Likewise, the community members in that area have a chance to interact.

[3:46:13] Playgrounds are a place where parents of children, grandparents of children,

[3:46:18] and local people of all ages and neighbors can interact and strengthen community bonds.

[3:46:23] This is something we are lacking.

[3:46:26] Affordable housing can be created by the Brunswick Council and has.

[3:46:31] There are tools for doing this.

[3:46:32] There is already a given percentage of units that will become affordable.

[3:46:36] We just are discussing increase.

[3:46:39] Well, we just passed, you all just passed this increase on the height limit downtown.

[3:46:44] That's going to create a lot of new units.

[3:46:46] and we can drive those to be affordable units or whatever the mix may be, we will not get a

[3:46:51] world-class playground. We will not get a free-to-use community space downtown. We will not get a

[3:46:56] makerspace if we do not take advantage of the Bowdoin proposal. I recognize the importance

[3:47:02] of affordable housing. The high net worth areas are not the most culturally rich,

[3:47:08] rewarding places to live worldwide. However, in this case, the opportunity

[3:47:14] to create these community assets is greater than the housing.

[3:47:19] I have more points. I recognize my time is up. Thank you.

[3:47:22] Thank you.

[3:47:28] Hi. Jane Champ, Jordan F.

[3:47:31] So for something completely different, I don't actually have a vote,

[3:47:34] but I do want to thank the task force.

[3:47:37] You know, it's a lot of work, and I think both proposals

[3:47:40] showed a lot of respect for the building,

[3:47:43] and they'll look beautiful either way.

[3:47:45] I do have a few things that really stuck out to me

[3:47:48] and the doryard proposal.

[3:47:50] It seems like it's a notional daycare.

[3:47:54] Brunswick has done daycares.

[3:47:55] My son was one of the first through the door at the rec center.

[3:47:59] And while we had a great experience there, daycares are really hard and they fail.

[3:48:05] And I wouldn't want to see the space sort of attempted to be built for a daycare,

[3:48:11] which then does not succeed.

[3:48:13] and we've sort of lost out on an opportunity to do something different.

[3:48:17] In particular, the drop-off space I think is way too small.

[3:48:22] You can't make a left turn out of there in any case in the mornings.

[3:48:27] See my previous comments on Jordan Ave.

[3:48:30] Right at Jordan Ave. and federal is super hazardous.

[3:48:32] You've got buses and walkers and cars.

[3:48:34] It's crazy.

[3:48:35] I don't think we should be putting any more traffic coming in and

[3:48:38] out of that part onto federal.

[3:48:39] In that area, I think the Bowdoin proposal really excels on the overall outdoor plan,

[3:48:45] returning the front into green space, putting in a really nice playground that's truly accessible.

[3:48:51] What did stand out to me on the Bowdoin proposal is just that, you know,

[3:48:57] if a Bowdoin professor can't live in Brunswick, is there hope for anyone else?

[3:49:03] And I don't say that to be funny. I really mean that.

[3:49:06] But I do worry that the Bowdoin proposal could increase the actual housing disparity or

[3:49:13] at the very least the perception of it in this town.

[3:49:17] And that's a problem in the perfect world.

[3:49:19] I'd love to see the affordable housing from Doaryard combined with the actual outdoor site plan from Bowdoin.

[3:49:26] The playground's awesome.

[3:49:27] I think people really use it.

[3:49:29] I agree, you can't use the playground that's assigned to a daycare.

[3:49:32] and no kids want to hang out at daycare for one to five-year-old like playground.

[3:49:38] It's not very fun. You can put out a sandbox and that's okay. But again, I

[3:49:43] don't think the daycare space works because four drop-off spots and a

[3:49:48] little turnaround is just going to be pandemonium. So that's pretty much it

[3:49:53] for me. My one other kind of comment on the bone proposal, I think the

[3:49:56] makerspace is cool. I hope if that happens that it's being done in

[3:50:00] coordination with our library, with the mix, which is right next door, and I do

[3:50:06] hope that any public space at Bowdoin isn't sort of subject to creep, where

[3:50:13] people feel like it's not a public space, but it becomes a Bowdoin space, like make

[3:50:16] sure it really is public and really is available and feels available and is

[3:50:21] clear that it's available. And that's about it. You guys have a tough

[3:50:27] task. I think they both have great things in different ways. So thank you.

[3:50:31] Thank you.

[3:50:35] Good evening. Jessica Factor, I live on Green Street. So I am a member of

[3:50:40] the Hawthorne School Redevelopment Task Force, living directly across the street to the

[3:50:46] back parking lot on Green Street. So I have a very vested interest in the redevelopment

[3:50:52] of this very special building. My home, my grandparents built the home and our

[3:50:58] children are the fourth generation of our family to live in that home. So you

[3:51:03] could say I have very deep roots in Brunswick. I am very appreciative for

[3:51:08] the opportunity to have been a member of this of the Hawthorne redevelopment

[3:51:12] task force. I want to thank each of you the town council. I also want to thank

[3:51:18] manager Hensie for the opportunity to be part of this. I'm also grateful to

[3:51:23] the town employees, the counselors and all of the task force members. We

[3:51:28] We have given many hours to this task.

[3:51:31] I very much have a different lens as a resident on this project.

[3:51:39] I want to clarify that I am in no way opposed to the redevelopment of the Hawthorne Building.

[3:51:46] I am very interested in it.

[3:51:48] It's tough living across the street from a vacant building.

[3:51:51] And it's a beautiful historical building.

[3:51:54] We have one opportunity to do this well.

[3:51:56] I respect the need for the redevelopment. I also want to see the return of property taxes to that building.

[3:52:09] What concerns me is the back parking lot and the redevelopment of the back parking lot.

[3:52:16] I see each summer the number of cars that fight for parking spaces to attend music on the mall,

[3:52:24] to attend the barbecues to attend any of the functions on the mall and parking

[3:52:32] is a premium there are about 30 maybe 36 spots I'd say in that parking lot so what

[3:52:40] concerns me is to add a building to that small lot I am more interested to see

[3:52:48] the building be in the back part the upper part of the lot but as I

[3:52:52] understand by ordinance it would need to be connected to the building. I'm

[3:52:56] concerned about as I say parking but also snow removal. I am also very

[3:53:03] concerned of the amount of traffic that happens on Green Street. It is a

[3:53:08] significant amount. We are a small three-home one-way street in Brunswick

[3:53:13] and so adding more traffic from another building in the back parking lot

[3:53:19] is difficult. It's a tight squeeze so I am really concerned with how building will

[3:53:25] fit there and my colleagues on the task force are aware of that. The

[3:53:29] intersection at Jordan Avenue is a dangerous area, significant traffic

[3:53:33] between buses and the area. So I ask that you please consider the

[3:53:39] neighborhood in your deliberations this evening and what fits into the

[3:53:43] neighborhood. But thank you for your consideration of the redevelopment of

[3:53:47] Thank you. Thank you so much.

[3:53:50] Anybody else in the room that would like to speak?

[3:53:52] Oh, there's people behind the pillar. Didn't see you over there.

[3:53:55] I was trying to stay out of sight.

[3:53:58] My name is Charles Juever. I lived out on Jordan Avenue, 8 Jordan Avenue.

[3:54:04] I just want to echo a few of the other things that have been said here already.

[3:54:10] The traffic on Jordan Avenue is horrendous.

[3:54:13] And there's at least two hours a day that my wife and I don't even think about going out.

[3:54:22] And that's in the morning and in the, I would call it the early evening when school's getting out.

[3:54:31] That intersection up at Ferro and Jordan is horrendous.

[3:54:35] And the school bus is coming around the corner, it'll pick you out.

[3:54:41] I'm just amazed that we don't have more accidents there already.

[3:54:46] At any rate,

[3:54:49] I have children that went to Hawthorne

[3:54:52] and it is kind of a deep rooted thought in my heart

[3:54:57] that we would preserve that building

[3:55:00] and make it of good use to the town and to people.

[3:55:05] And the other thing is that the traffic again on Green Street is really bad, no matter how

[3:55:17] you handle it, no matter what you put in there, it's going to be hard.

[3:55:21] So I would think that the voting proposal is the better way to go for the town and

[3:55:29] for the residents and the people that live around here.

[3:55:33] And that's all I have. Thank you.

[3:55:35] Thank you.

[3:55:45] He's quite a bit taller than I am. Carol O'Donnell, Brunswick resident and chair of the housing committee.

[3:55:56] So I really commend the task force for bringing both of these proposals forward.

[3:56:03] I can see why they were interested in both of these, or why they surfaced to the top.

[3:56:11] And we need both affordable housing and workforce housing.

[3:56:15] I think that's been pretty clear to several of us.

[3:56:23] And I'm not going to weigh in on favoring one over the other, just to start out here.

[3:56:32] I mostly have questions. So on the Bowdoin project, I just want to verify that I saw this correct.

[3:56:43] That they are actually proposing to donate $200,000 to the Affordable Housing Support Fund, correct?

[3:56:55] If the real estate market changes such that their faculty and staff have an easier time

[3:57:03] finding housing in the future, would they be open to then opening up some of the apartments

[3:57:10] for the general public instead of limiting them to faculty and staff?

[3:57:17] Have they looked at any other sites, is that a major, are there any other sites that would be suitable for what they'd like to do?

[3:57:30] And the community space and the use of the community space, community spaces are hard to find in this town.

[3:57:38] Whenever you want to hold a meeting with a number of people, it's hard to find a space to do that now.

[3:57:44] For Door Yard, my question is, would it at some point make any sense to consider 100 to 120% AMI for the 8-unit building if that might accommodate Bowdoin faculty staff?

[3:58:06] And as far as the community space or day care, what I heard from you folks was flexibility.

[3:58:15] That if day care didn't make sense, community space maybe you'd be open to looking at options for that.

[3:58:25] So that's all I have to say.

[3:58:27] Thank you.

[3:58:33] Just making sure that is registering.

[3:58:35] I think it is.

[3:58:36] Hi, I'm Kristen Haynes.

[3:58:38] I rent on Columbia Avenue.

[3:58:39] And I'm also part of the Brunswick Renters Organization, so you might imagine that affordable housing is very important to me

[3:58:45] and something that I really think is truly lacking in town, especially in the downtown area where folks

[3:58:51] would love to be able to walk about and just can't afford to live in the places that, you know,

[3:58:56] you have to drive to get into downtown from almost any of the affordable units, like in the rest of town.

[3:59:00] So I would love to see something affordable here, which I think

[3:59:05] begs some negotiating to both projects.

[3:59:08] I would love to see the door yard limits be closer to like 60% AMI to reflect true affordability

[3:59:17] because our AMI in town is skewed by Bowdoin faculty, no disrespect, but it's something to consider.

[3:59:26] And yeah, the fact that the other building is also going to be on the higher range of things is just a bit concerning.

[3:59:32] I think someone else said that this is like a rare opportunity to do something great with this site.

[3:59:37] So we do need to think about that really hard which I know everybody has done at the task force

[3:59:42] They actually allowed public like the public to come into meetings

[3:59:45] So I was able to go to one and I think really tremendous work was being done the task force

[3:59:50] So thank everybody who that was a part of that

[3:59:53] So that's one negotiation. I think also if we're looking at Bowdoin's proposal that also needs to be lowered a lot there

[4:00:00] There are a lot of staff, not just faculty that work at Bowdoin and would love to be able

[4:00:04] to live here and engage in the community and not commute an hour for their 9 to 5.

[4:00:12] So if there can be negotiation there about the use of that space to consider the staff,

[4:00:18] the rest of their employees and the housing that they need, especially the way our weather

[4:00:23] is, it's very difficult to get to their work sometimes.

[4:00:26] And I know they have some like mediating factors, they're able to rent, you know, hotel rooms

[4:00:31] in town whenever there's weather emergencies.

[4:00:34] I know they make an effort to, you know, sort of accommodate that, but I think we could

[4:00:37] do better.

[4:00:38] So just wanted to remind everybody about those two factors.

[4:00:40] But again, thank you for your work.

[4:00:42] Thank you.

[4:00:51] Nat Shed, Cedar Street, a member of the task force on the Hawthorne revitalization.

[4:00:59] My sense about the survey was affordability.

[4:01:02] We didn't do a great job of defining affordability, but I always made a case that I felt that

[4:01:08] it meant low income and it meant low income.

[4:01:11] People who need to work downtown and work in our stores, work in the cafeterias at Bowdoin,

[4:01:17] and that that was the essence of the survey.

[4:01:20] There wasn't a lot in survey around work for housing, as I remember.

[4:01:26] The primary was low income.

[4:01:28] So, as much as I like the Bowdoin proposal in a lot of ways, and I appreciate the need

[4:01:33] for faculty housing being a spouse of a faculty member, another college I will say, but Colby

[4:01:41] did do a 1% reduction on your interest rate.

[4:01:43] You might want to consider that for your faculty, give me a little break.

[4:01:47] It's a big deal over 30 years.

[4:01:50] So I would hope that you would follow the guidelines of the survey, look at affordability.

[4:01:55] The door yard has more numbers, more affordability, also has flexibility with the other units in

[4:02:02] terms of that so that meets some of those needs and I think that's a big priority.

[4:02:07] The comments about the playground and the daycare are very well thoughtful and I think

[4:02:12] that's a criticism of door yard and I would hope you'd renegotiate that.

[4:02:17] I understand we have a daycare center space that's totally empty out at the recreation

[4:02:21] center.

[4:02:22] We have a playground that we paid for that doesn't get much use because there's no daycare next to it

[4:02:26] So I would hope that they would look at community space or maybe efficiency units in those areas

[4:02:33] and and

[4:02:34] Re-change the playground design for make it more of a community

[4:02:39] Playground not a preschool playground and maybe put something else in the basement. So those are my two cents. I think that

[4:02:46] But it doesn't qualify under our guidelines and I know that's not the consensus of the committee, but it's my personal opinion it doesn't qualify so I would hope that maybe you consider bumping up the number three slot and that that one is a very you'd be very impressed with it if you saw it so don't write them off just because they didn't make the top two.

[4:03:09] Anyone else in the room.

[4:03:12] Not seeing any going to go to zoom Larry could you switch me over to the attendees view.

[4:03:17] Thank you.

[4:03:18] Thank you.

[4:03:19] We're going to go with Sean Hogan.

[4:03:22] Yes.

[4:03:23] Good evening, Town Council.

[4:03:24] Sean Hogan, Brunswick, I'm a resident.

[4:03:27] I actually would support the Bowdoin College proposal for a lot of the aforementioned reasons,

[4:03:34] which I'm not going to rehash here.

[4:03:38] One thing I would like clarity on is at the beginning of this topic, it was mentioned

[4:03:44] and that Bowdoin College is not exempt

[4:03:48] from paying property tax on this property,

[4:03:51] even though the material said that after 15 years,

[4:03:54] they were interested in doing that.

[4:03:56] So I would like some definitive clarification

[4:03:59] that even after 15 years, that can't happen.

[4:04:02] Another concern would be is Bowdoin capable

[4:04:07] of changing the use of the building at some point in time

[4:04:11] where it would then be used for scholastic purposes and then tax exempt.

[4:04:17] Is there some kind of a rider where it remains housing in perpetuity or something to that effect?

[4:04:24] So I would be curious to get answers to that and I really hope you pursue that so we could all hear that.

[4:04:30] But I do overall prefer this option for a lot of the reasons previously presented

[4:04:36] and it will have a smaller impact on the number of vehicles and people downtown.

[4:04:44] 14 units as opposed to 26 units, you know, and honestly I imagine the Bowdoin

[4:04:51] professors are probably going to be maybe some of them parking their cars

[4:04:54] maybe up at the by the arena and biking on and off the campus or things of that

[4:04:59] nature, whereas the people downtown if you went with dooryard a lot of them

[4:05:04] might be commuting out of town for a job and there's going to be more cars and more traffic.

[4:05:11] Twelve units or so, it could make a big difference.

[4:05:14] So I would be in favor of the voting proposal.

[4:05:17] Thank you for your time.

[4:05:18] Thank you.

[4:05:19] Anybody else on Zoom?

[4:05:23] Not seeing any.

[4:05:25] I'm going to bring it back to council for a motion and personally I would like to

[4:05:29] make this motion because it was one of the reasons I ran for council was to redevelop

[4:05:36] up this building and so we have to have a motion to have discussion so personally

[4:05:41] oh I'm gonna have to choose one okay got it didn't realize I was gonna have to do

[4:05:44] that but I'm gonna make a motion to award the Hawthorne School redevelopment

[4:05:48] project to Doar Yard is there a second on that seconded by Councillor

[4:05:52] Wilson discussion. Councillor Timi.

[4:05:59] So I was also on the task force and there

[4:06:03] There was not a perfect proposal, and there probably never really is, but I had some thoughts

[4:06:09] that I wanted to share.

[4:06:11] Regarding door yard, I agree that the daycare seems like a waste of the space considering

[4:06:17] that we have an entirely empty daycare.

[4:06:20] Admittedly, it's nice to be able to walk to daycare, so there is some benefit to

[4:06:24] having it downtown, but the front lot on that building is it was a mistake and it's

[4:06:32] is atrocious and it needs to go, it is making,

[4:06:36] even now where people just park there,

[4:06:38] sometimes it makes traffic work worse on that street,

[4:06:41] the intersection of green and Jordan and federal

[4:06:45] is already a mess, and if you make it now

[4:06:48] kind of technically a five-way intersection

[4:06:50] with all the traffic coming in and out again,

[4:06:52] like it used to be when it was more in use

[4:06:55] as a building, it's just gonna be worse.

[4:06:59] The Bowdoin proposal is beautiful.

[4:07:03] Part of me would really love to have that proposal if it had been responsive to the idea of affordable housing.

[4:07:11] It's really a bummer because I know that there are so many staff at Bowdoin that are under 80% AMI

[4:07:17] and could really use affordable housing in Brunswick.

[4:07:19] But even then, I feel like the Bowdoin proposal is mixed for me because of the

[4:07:29] problems of having your employer control your housing. I'm sure Bowdoin isn't the

[4:07:35] type of institution to hold housing over somebody's head, but it really makes me

[4:07:39] think back to the like three and four story tenements that used to be all

[4:07:43] over Brunswick with like a hundred people packed into each of these

[4:07:46] buildings that were owned by the mill and if you went on strike they would

[4:07:51] gotten to kick you out if you like lost your job for some reason you had to go

[4:07:56] find more housing the laws to protect tenants were also a lot worse at the

[4:08:01] time but conceptually I think having your employer control your housing is

[4:08:06] not a great idea we kind of all know how bad that is with health care

[4:08:10] already. To just talk to the experience on the task force, some of the questions that it left me

[4:08:19] with that I knew I was going to have to grapple with once these came to council were

[4:08:27] the concepts of who the affordable housing is for. There were quite a few proposals that were

[4:08:35] It was all affordable housing and I would have loved to see a proposal advance that was all affordable housing.

[4:08:44] But among those proposals some were limited to just seniors and others were open to everybody.

[4:08:50] I think definitely given the location it would be great to have it open to everybody so that downtown workers could live there.

[4:08:56] But the other part was the AMI ranges that were targeted in these different proposals there.

[4:09:04] Mostly were proposals looking at 60% AMI.

[4:09:08] There was, I think there were two that were a mix of like 60 and maybe 50% AMI,

[4:09:17] both of which is sorely needed in our housing space right now.

[4:09:23] The doryard proposal has a mix, you know, so only part of it meets our zoning definition of affordable housing at 80% or less for rental units.

[4:09:35] So I think if we do choose to award this to doryard, I would really want us to push very hard to try and figure out if there's some way,

[4:09:47] either by like eliminating the daycare or whatever to make this project entirely affordable.

[4:09:54] Ideally at less than 80% AMI, but you know, if it had to be 80% AMI for the entire thing,

[4:10:00] that would be a lot better than having a mix like this.

[4:10:04] I actually, to answer my question earlier, I looked up the results of the survey

[4:10:08] and it was 25% of people who said that they wanted market rate housing,

[4:10:13] housing, which was presented as, you know, the opposite of affordable housing in this

[4:10:21] question and nearly 70% of people said that they wanted affordable housing. Also, of note,

[4:10:29] only 41% of people said that they wanted to take care, so that's less than half. That's

[4:10:35] kind of just generally where I'm at.

[4:10:38] Thank you. I will say that I have a very strong affection for that building. My mother graduated

[4:10:47] high school when it was a high school, and I actually went there from subprimary through

[4:10:52] third grade and the principal at the time because of something I did nasty to call the

[4:10:58] name. Anyhow, the principal, Mrs. Schofield, punished me by making me dust her books in

[4:11:07] her library, and she saw me staring at them. Anyhow, it turned me on to reading. It was

[4:11:12] the best thing that ever happened. But what I would like to say as I go with Doryard,

[4:11:18] because I really want to see it stay a Brunswick, and I appreciate Bowdoin College and I understand

[4:11:26] the need for the staff and stuff like that but Brunswick has a huge need. I like the

[4:11:31] extra house in the back and I know there's always a problem with traffic and parking

[4:11:37] and that's never going to end and the next council ahead of us has got to figure that

[4:11:42] out. Meanwhile the growth is not going to stop. We know that and I just really would

[4:11:52] like to see it focus on Brunswick and as far as the day care, yes or no, it'll go, we

[4:11:59] need housing and I love the place. I'm done.

[4:12:05] Great.

[4:12:08] Yeah, Councilor Weems.

[4:12:11] Go ahead.

[4:12:12] Okay, yeah, I'll throw something out there and then I'll go to you, Councilor Weems.

[4:12:15] So I also was on the task force. Personally, I think that the door yard, I appreciate

[4:12:21] Jay Bodin's thoughtful design of it, but I do think that the doryard proposal is the

[4:12:27] only one that fully answers the survey that the community reached out for.

[4:12:31] I understand there's some questions around the playground and questions around the mobility

[4:12:39] of the daycare, but something that you, unless you were deep diving and looked on our website

[4:12:44] and saw all the proposals that were made, there's already a daycare center that wants

[4:12:50] to move into the Hawthorne building.

[4:12:52] They signed up with another proposal, like they had an MOU with them and they were ready

[4:12:58] to go as soon as that facility was done.

[4:13:01] So for me, that says that there is a need for a daycare facility downtown because there's

[4:13:06] already daycare facilities that would go there if they could go there.

[4:13:09] And just because they didn't choose one of the seven other proposals to sign MOUs with

[4:13:14] every single one of them. It makes me drawn to the daycare response because also the other

[4:13:21] piece that I'm kind of weighing in this, when we're looking at the survey results and people

[4:13:26] are asking like what type of housing do you want this to be? What type of housing do you

[4:13:29] want this to be? And one of the options is residence hall. What is the first thing

[4:13:34] you think of when you hear residence hall? You think student college? Bowdoin. Of that,

[4:13:40] 172 people said that they wanted that.

[4:13:43] More people said that they wanted efficiency units,

[4:13:46] double the amount of people said that they would

[4:13:48] rather have an efficiency or micro unit,

[4:13:51] so something under 400 square feet, 381 people said

[4:13:54] that they would rather have that over a residence hall.

[4:13:57] So for me, it's hard to justify awarding this to Bowdoin,

[4:14:04] because I feel like if we put the question on here,

[4:14:06] like would you want this to be used for,

[4:14:07] exclusively for Bowdoin housing,

[4:14:09] housing, the resounding response would have been no.

[4:14:12] And so I feel like to honor the actual results of having affordable housing, yes, daycare

[4:14:17] center was the highest secondary use.

[4:14:19] We know that there's a daycare provider that would want to operate out of that space.

[4:14:23] We retain a green space.

[4:14:24] We have affordable housing.

[4:14:26] And personally, I'm not offended by the eight units as part of the 26 being at

[4:14:32] 100% AMI.

[4:14:34] My 100% AMI is still less than market rate housing because we know that market rate housing is kind of through the roof right now.

[4:14:42] If it was restricted to 100% AMI, it still would be a lot lower than any market rate housing that you would get today because it's based on area meeting income.

[4:14:51] It's not based off of what you can get from that property, which is how most rentals in town operate.

[4:14:57] great.

[4:15:00] I personally like the fact that there is this target because, A, in a lot of affordable housing

[4:15:06] developments, there is this siloing effect of like, yeah, we'll do affordable housing, but

[4:15:12] we're going to smush it all into this area and we're going to put all the low income people

[4:15:16] together, and by saying, no, we're not going to necessarily do that. We're going to have

[4:15:21] affordable housing that is income restricted, and we're also going to have this other

[4:15:24] affordable housing that is at 100% AMI that opens the door for these two populations to

[4:15:30] be together.

[4:15:32] Yes, it's in a building right beside it and they're at a shared parking and they're in

[4:15:35] a shared playground and all these other spaces.

[4:15:37] So I think that that's more of the culture that we're striving for as a town or at

[4:15:41] least personally that's how I see it because that's my biggest I suppose concern when

[4:15:46] it comes to affordable housing.

[4:15:48] My biggest disappointment was that there was no fore sale side of things, nothing

[4:15:52] that people wanted to look at doing condos or anything like that, or else that probably would have been my prerogative, I suppose,

[4:16:00] because I know that that section's missing from our town.

[4:16:03] But I think of the proposals that were there, this one most fully answers the brief.

[4:16:11] Councillor Weems.

[4:16:13] Thank you, Chair McDonald.

[4:16:16] I guess this discretion to me is just telling me what a complex world we live in.

[4:16:23] And apropos something I said earlier, I definitely don't want to make the perfect the enemy of

[4:16:29] the good, but I might get accused of this shortly.

[4:16:34] And I definitely salute the Department of Economic and Community Development for putting the

[4:16:43] a pedal to the pedal, all of the above, and saying we want to get on a time frame here

[4:16:54] and get something done.

[4:16:57] But I have several problems that I just got to get off my chest here.

[4:17:01] I don't know if this will take us anywhere useful, but I just got to get them off.

[4:17:05] One is I think the motion is miscast.

[4:17:08] I don't think we're even remotely ready to award anything to anybody.

[4:17:15] We might be ready to select a preferred vendor to negotiate something that we could award,

[4:17:26] but I think award is just a term of art that is inappropriate for the stage of development

[4:17:33] we're in.

[4:17:37] Consequently, and for other reasons that I'll get to in a moment, I think we're really premature

[4:17:42] tonight by saying we're going to pick somebody, whatever word you use, award, select.

[4:17:53] So I'll be at the appropriate moment offering a tabling motion, and if that makes any sense

[4:18:02] anybody else so be it if it doesn't I'll be voting no on whatever is in front of

[4:18:08] us tonight as a as a proposal to select somebody because I just don't think we're

[4:18:14] ready and that'll be my protest on that specifically I think that we're we're

[4:18:23] really rushed this evening and this is place back to my comment about both the

[4:18:30] perfectly in the enemy of the good and liking a timetable.

[4:18:34] But a timetable isn't something to worship,

[4:18:37] and I think we're really rushed.

[4:18:39] Because this came to us the week before Labor Day weekend.

[4:18:45] We had the Labor Day weekend.

[4:18:47] And here we are the day after the Labor Day weekend

[4:18:49] asking to make a really significant decision.

[4:18:56] And there are questions.

[4:18:57] They've been coming up all over the place,

[4:18:59] whether there are questions with the proposals or whether there are points that could be negotiated.

[4:19:05] There's just a lot of whether it makes sense to have a daycare.

[4:19:09] There's lots of examples here of just questions about what's in front of us

[4:19:14] and what's possible to emerge with at the end of the process.

[4:19:20] And I think we need just a little time to gestate on that.

[4:19:25] and let the process develop a little bit further.

[4:19:34] Secondly, we've got two really radically different proposals

[4:19:39] in front of us with clearly different strengths and weaknesses.

[4:19:44] And there's a third proposal within shouting distance

[4:19:48] and a ranking system.

[4:19:50] And that's the one from developers collaborative

[4:19:53] which we have a high regard for as a town, I believe, has done good work for us.

[4:20:00] It's in range of the top two.

[4:20:03] I would like to look at their proposal a little further, particularly because it's by far the strongest proposal for true affordable housing.

[4:20:20] It has limits, obviously, because it doesn't have certain things that are in the other proposals

[4:20:25] that we want.

[4:20:27] It was limited to senior housing, but it's a lot of units at a very affordable number.

[4:20:35] And it is in the neighborhood of what people are collaborating for to get something to

[4:20:42] be affordable, which is small units.

[4:20:47] So,

[4:20:50] I think we should table.

[4:20:52] I think we should look at a third proposal and come back and talk about it some more.

[4:21:01] Further discussion?

[4:21:03] Councillor Aker.

[4:21:04] Yeah, just a couple of comments.

[4:21:06] I think a lot has already been said.

[4:21:10] Three areas that are coming in.

[4:21:12] One is the work of this task force has been exemplary.

[4:21:16] It's really how a task force should work in so many ways from start to finish and I just want to acknowledge that

[4:21:26] And what came out of it were seven proposals. So it's it's fantastic. We've got seven choices to look at so

[4:21:34] but compliments to the task force on on running a great process and

[4:21:39] And getting us to this point

[4:21:42] Second thing, big picture, I just remind people in the public that our council retreat back

[4:21:51] in January was right.

[4:21:53] The number one issue we agreed to as a goal was housing and housing affordability.

[4:21:58] So that's something to keep in mind that what we're focused on here.

[4:22:06] second from our comprehensive plan that we've approved is it's working it's in

[4:22:13] place we wanted to densify housing in the growth area so that has

[4:22:20] complications traffic's one of them there's other things that are going to

[4:22:24] come up but we're going to have to deal with those things if we want to

[4:22:28] follow through with that plan so I'm not trying to push those or minimize

[4:22:32] those things, but traffic is sometimes relative, sometimes it's critical. We'll

[4:22:38] have to deal with it at some point. Third is I really like the doryard proposal.

[4:22:47] To me it hits the mark in many ways. I think Councillor McDonald mentioned all

[4:22:53] of them. That ring true to me.

[4:22:59] There's definitely some points to

[4:23:01] negotiate on. We've heard from public comment and from other things tonight. So

[4:23:04] there's, I'm not in favor of any award. I'm in favor of negotiation. And as far as

[4:23:12] Bowdoin goes, you know, I appreciate and I respect the effort that Bowdoin put

[4:23:17] into this proposal. I think it's great that they stepped up. But clearly they

[4:23:24] have, you know, the resources, the staff, the track record to just you almost can't

[4:23:33] compare them to the other six proposers. So it's really they're in a league on

[4:23:38] their own. And you can call it an unfair advantage.

[4:23:45] But I think that for me, I'd

[4:23:49] like to see as much affordable housing available to as much of the community as

[4:23:53] possible rather than limiting it. So I would not like to consider personally the

[4:24:00] Bowdoin proposal any further. I wouldn't be against just in the spirit of

[4:24:05] narrowing this down and having something to negotiate, you know, parties to

[4:24:12] negotiate looking at the third proposal. It wasn't that far off. I've heard

[4:24:19] some good things about it, but I don't know it like the task force members.

[4:24:22] So I'll just, I'm on the fence about that, but I'd consider it, and if we wanted more

[4:24:31] time to narrow our scope or staff or the task force to be looking at those two and coming

[4:24:38] back to us with recommendations and negotiated recommendations, I think that might be a

[4:24:43] way to go.

[4:24:48] There is some discussion in here.

[4:24:50] So we had talked about bringing all three to council, and we ultimately decided to

[4:24:55] only do these two. So, personally I don't think sending it back to the task force makes sense

[4:25:02] because what we arrived at is what's in front of you. We did have a discussion on whether

[4:25:08] or not to bring the third one, but given its point rating and the fact that our charge

[4:25:16] or duties was to provide one recommendation, we thought that already providing two was

[4:25:21] much and the only reason that we move forward with it is because they were

[4:25:24] virtually tied in the point system. And so the difficulty that I have like I'm

[4:25:30] happy to amend my motion to I'll give you the language I'm not making the official

[4:25:34] amendment but I'm happy to like do it as you know motion to select the

[4:25:37] Hawthorne school redevelopment project to do our yard to move forward with

[4:25:40] negotiation if that like is a comfortable you know language I've run it by

[4:25:44] friend to make sure it's above board. But I'm a little disheartened to hear some of the skepticism

[4:25:56] around the two that were brought, mostly because it feels as though we were given a task.

[4:26:14] Oh

[4:26:15] It's amazing this meeting is lasting longer than a full length musical though.

[4:26:19] I will say that.

[4:26:25] But it's just heartening to hear the need to revisit the proposals when it felt as though

[4:26:34] the whole purpose of the task force was to give you a proposal.

[4:26:38] And so if we, if you want, if the council wanted to be part of that process from the very beginning to actually go through all of the proposals and give your input on every single one of them, then it feels a little, it feels like what did we do in my opinion as someone who was on the task force.

[4:26:57] And so that's why, like, I do think that Doryard compared to, you know, as aggregated by the varying opinions that we had on the task force, I feel like that was the clear choice that answered the brief.

[4:27:15] Yeah, Councilman.

[4:27:16] Can I just respond to that a little bit?

[4:27:18] But so maybe for all of our benefit, public's benefit, how would we go about addressing what

[4:27:28] at least are voiced concerns with some aspects of their proposal?

[4:27:36] I think it would go through negotiation because ultimately it's going to come back to council

[4:27:40] before anything's approved.

[4:27:42] So we would let staff, staff has heard, the developers have heard, all of the commentary

[4:27:48] that happened tonight and they would go and negotiate on our behalf and then come back

[4:27:53] to council. I'm assuming we can have an executive session on contracts if we got to that point

[4:27:57] to get further feedback.

[4:27:59] So it's called a purchase sale and development agreement. So we're trying to get to an outcome.

[4:28:03] So if you give some direction on this and obviously they're here, those are the kinds

[4:28:07] of things we would go back and negotiate.

[4:28:14] Councillor Ellis in the night.

[4:28:16] So first off I'm going to abstain from an individual vote on the individual proposals

[4:28:20] proposals itself. I did watch a bit of it while I was off stage and actually saw Councillor

[4:28:25] Weems' comments in regards to tabling. And I would say absent, what I did see was a lot

[4:28:31] of questions and two very strong competing proposals. I would support what Councillor

[4:28:38] Weems was just saying in regards to I worry about our processes in general where we're

[4:28:44] being given very substantive decisions on a short, this is the first time the council

[4:28:49] has been presented this information and now we're basically making a call or a decision

[4:28:54] on it. And I know that even, like again, not to always go back to the school board, but

[4:28:58] when we had new policies, for example, we always at least had a first read. People had time

[4:29:03] to absorb the information. We came back for second reads. And, you know, that might be

[4:29:09] similar to like our public hearings as we do them. And then the third meeting was

[4:29:14] where you voted on it. And I just worry that we seem to rush into these decisions

[4:29:18] and so quickly in that, again, this was the first,

[4:29:21] I'm not saying the committee,

[4:29:22] the committee's been working their butts off,

[4:29:23] but I disagree with Councilor McDonald on the regards

[4:29:26] that we delegate responsibility to investigate

[4:29:28] and bring information back,

[4:29:30] but at the end of the day, it's a council decision,

[4:29:34] just like it was with the school department

[4:29:36] when we had a building committee,

[4:29:37] they came back with recommendations,

[4:29:39] but the people who would be held accountable

[4:29:41] for what the decisions were,

[4:29:43] were the school board in that case,

[4:29:44] and I think for this project,

[4:29:46] the people who are gonna be held accountable

[4:29:47] is the council that makes the decision on this.

[4:29:50] And so as I said, I will not vote on either of the two proposals.

[4:29:53] I'll abstain from those, but if the motion does go forward to table.

[4:29:57] For me, the process needs to be.

[4:29:59] Thank you very much.

[4:30:00] Done in a way that affords more time for counselors to consider the information after having been presented in this one meeting.

[4:30:09] The only caveat that I'll give is that the task force meetings are public meetings.

[4:30:14] We don't convene as a body, and so discussions we might have, for example, about it.

[4:30:19] I would much prefer to have those discussions amongst us as a body so the public can see our deliberations on the topic to see what was weighed in.

[4:30:27] But like I said, I'm not weighing in on either of the two proposals, so I'm leaving that to you.

[4:30:31] But just in general on process, I would be in favor of taking more time to make decisions like this in general.

[4:30:38] Councilor Teemee.

[4:30:41] So of these two proposals, I know which one I would pick, I guess is what I'm saying.

[4:30:49] But I do have my strong preferences about what should be negotiated.

[4:30:54] And it sounds like others probably, you know, have additional preferences as well.

[4:31:02] It makes me think that maybe we should have hopefully a shorter workshop on this to allow council to figure out what our priorities are.

[4:31:14] And then at the next meeting, you know, hopefully it was the term select a proposal and then give staff official guidance

[4:31:24] on what we would like them to try to negotiate before it comes back to us.

[4:31:29] I don't know whether that would satisfy the other counselors who are interested in more time on the matter.

[4:31:36] But I also would say sending it, like providing more guidance to the task force,

[4:31:45] asking for more assistance, you know, like that's, we're, we're, we're asking them to look into something for us.

[4:31:54] And if we say, oh, and like we, we're realizing that we want fully affordable housing or we realize we want senior affordable housing or whatever,

[4:32:03] giving them that additional guidance might be a way, you know, we're not, we're not steamrolling over the task force.

[4:32:11] by doing that we are continuing to ask for their advice with the knowledge that

[4:32:16] like Councillor Ellis said at the end of the day we're the ones making the

[4:32:19] decision but I think also at this point it would make more sense to do

[4:32:26] negotiations from my view on the matter. I'm going to turn to staff for a

[4:32:34] Second, if there is a comment that council wants to impart to staff to work on during negotiations,

[4:32:44] what do you feel would be the proper vehicle for that information?

[4:32:49] Well, I will look to the town manager and my director here, but I think, you know, the

[4:32:56] normal avenue is going through the town manager.

[4:32:58] If you have individual comments about things, that's how we receive your comments.

[4:33:03] We obviously open to workshop, executive session, anything you want we can do to sort of make you feel comfortable as if you need to have these conversations as a body.

[4:33:15] Okay.

[4:33:18] Yep, Councillor Perlman.

[4:33:20] I think I've made it clear to everybody in the council that I feel really strongly when we have those discussions they should be as a body and and not that I want to delay everything.

[4:33:32] but if we're going to ask for specific things in negotiation, I think we as a council need

[4:33:38] to have that discussion. And I would be comfortable with the workshop rather than waiting two weeks

[4:33:46] for a meeting. I don't know if we could have an emergency workshop next Monday. I don't know,

[4:33:52] but I don't feel comfortable with each individual counselor sending

[4:34:00] Town Manager, Hensie, our ideas for what needs to be negotiated, I think as a council we

[4:34:08] need to decide as a body, like what we want in negotiation, not individually providing

[4:34:14] feedback.

[4:34:16] A question on a path, potential path forward that I'm trying to, you know, steer ahead

[4:34:24] here through with folks.

[4:34:26] Is there a realm in which we select a RFP to move forward into negotiations with in which you have time to speak with them and then come to our next meeting in executive session to do contract negotiations?

[4:34:45] I'm glad you asked that because I was I did I should add to that, you know with with the fire station

[4:34:51] You know we had those we started those negotiations and then gave you

[4:34:56] gave the council drafts of the purchase and sales to respond to and and that's sort of important because

[4:35:03] Doing workshopping and that kind of thing. It's not like going to be like a free for all or blank canvas because the door yard and the Bowdoin has

[4:35:12] given the town council a proposal that pencils right and

[4:35:16] There are some, you know, there are ways to massage it, but like you can't just blow the whole program, right?

[4:35:20] So I just want to make sure that that's understood that, you know, there's ways to massage it and work it so that it's negotiated to the town's liking, but that's, you know, it's not going to be like a blank canvas.

[4:35:35] And so maybe it's most beneficial for us to bring a,

[4:35:40] we'll start those negotiations with the feedback we've heard

[4:35:45] and then you have something to respond to.

[4:35:47] And that's sort of, that would be sort of the process we were,

[4:35:53] we would go through anyway is you have this thing to respond

[4:35:55] to and you give us the feedback like, no,

[4:35:57] this string needs to be pulled more over here,

[4:35:59] over there and we can come back with drafts in that way.

[4:36:08] I'm thinking about both proposals and hearing what everybody is saying and again sort of

[4:36:14] like there are really good things about both which is why we were very conflicted and you

[4:36:20] know the scoring and I just want to be clear it was all individual scoring and it came

[4:36:25] within 0.10 points, so it was extremely close looking across all of those things.

[4:36:34] And I'm just wondering if we get some direction, we go back on the things that we've heard.

[4:36:40] I'm just throwing this out there.

[4:36:42] Maybe Bowdoin could hold some portion of it for the community at a lower percent area

[4:36:47] median income.

[4:36:48] Maybe Doryard could step up what's going on that they proposed as it relates to

[4:36:53] the park or maybe they rethink the daycare thing because there was a, and you don't have the benefit of all seven proposals.

[4:37:00] But there was somebody interested in moving there for daycare.

[4:37:04] There's any number of things that we work through.

[4:37:06] We had multiple issues on site issues with the central fire station.

[4:37:10] And by the way, I do want to say we definitely had a phase one done on that.

[4:37:15] And we're having a phase one done on Hawthorne.

[4:37:17] So just so you're clear, we don't take over property or we don't put it out unless we know what we're dealing with.

[4:37:23] So I just wanted to be clear that that was, you know, ground truth tonight.

[4:37:28] Councilor Weems.

[4:37:30] Yes. Thank you, Chair McDonnell. First, I want to thank from the bottom of my

[4:37:35] heart, the task force for doing an incredible job.

[4:37:40] I really mean that in particularly for giving us two proposals rather than

[4:37:48] one but they I mean that too so I think that was I have a great deal of gratitude

[4:38:00] for being given a choice at the council level but now we have it and so given

[4:38:08] that the chairs a member of the council noted that the task force almost gave

[4:38:13] us three proposals or at least talked about it I don't know how close they

[4:38:18] came to giving us that but they talked about it I would like to mo I'd like to

[4:38:22] make a motion to table this item tonight to allow further consideration of the top

[4:38:30] three scored proposals motion by councilor weems is there a second second

[4:38:37] I'm going to invite Councilor Ellis.

[4:38:40] I have a question.

[4:38:42] I would like a point of order.

[4:38:43] Yeah, point of order, Councilor Timmy.

[4:38:45] Don't you need to say for what time you

[4:38:48] want to table something until?

[4:38:51] Thank you for a definitive.

[4:38:53] When were you hoping to table it to?

[4:38:56] Either indefinitely or a specific date?

[4:38:59] Thank you for the point of order.

[4:39:03] Table it for long enough to hold either a workshop or other proceeding to answer the questions that have come up, not to exceed a month.

[4:39:20] So, tabling the current item for at most 30 days?

[4:39:27] Yes.

[4:39:28] Still seconding it with Councillor Ellis.

[4:39:30] Discussion on this motion.

[4:39:31] on this motion to the table.

[4:39:36] Councilor Rehm, we're discussing just to clarify my the reason

[4:39:41] I put it as vague as I did initially for further consideration is to leave it to the chair

[4:39:46] and the task force to figure out the right forum for further discussion whether it's

[4:39:52] a workshop or some other forum that do you think is appropriate. Okay,

[4:40:00] discussion

[4:40:02] I'd like to know from staff I hit as I understand it the deadline for some important financing for I guess at least maybe doryards proposal has already been passed for this year so we're not like running up against crunch time on this are we

[4:40:20] Thank you.

[4:40:22] No.

[4:40:22] Thank you.

[4:40:25] Councillor Eker.

[4:40:26] Yeah.

[4:40:27] Just a clarification.

[4:40:28] I want to make sure I heard Councillor Weis' motion.

[4:40:30] It was to look at the top three.

[4:40:33] Is that correct?

[4:40:34] Okay.

[4:40:34] Thank you.

[4:40:36] Councillor Wilson.

[4:40:38] Don't we already have a motion on the table?

[4:40:40] Yes.

[4:40:41] This is to table the current motion.

[4:40:45] Okay.

[4:40:46] I just didn't know what we had to vote on first.

[4:40:49] Yes.

[4:40:50] I got confirmation. Councillor, did you have something?

[4:40:55] No. I'll just say I think we should just be moving forward with negotiations and playing it out through that process.

[4:41:03] I don't think that going back makes sense. Also for some of the timelines like Doryard has the first building ready by 2027 that delays that whole process.

[4:41:14] us. I don't think that it's in the best interest of the town to do that. But I'll call the

[4:41:23] vote. Councilor Ellis. Yes. Councilor Acker. Yes. Oh gosh. Oh gosh. Hold on. I need to

[4:41:31] keep tallies. Councilor Anderson. No. Councilor Perl. I'd really love it if you come back

[4:41:39] to me, but I'm very conflicted. I'm going to say yes.

[4:41:49] Councillor Hicks. No.

[4:41:51] Councillor Teamey. No.

[4:41:53] Councillor Weems. Yes.

[4:41:56] Councillor Wilson. No.

[4:41:58] The Chair doesn't know the motion fails five to four. We're back at the motion. I would,

[4:42:06] yeah, I'm going to officially amend my motion just so that way we can get that over with.

[4:42:10] So I'm going to change my motion from motion to select the Hawthorne School

[4:42:15] redevelopment project to Joryard to move forward with negotiation. I believe who's

[4:42:20] my seconder? I did it. Oh, are you still second? Yeah, whatever. Okay. Yes. Still

[4:42:26] seconded. Is there further discussion on this motion?

[4:42:33] Not seeing any.

[4:42:34] I'll call the vote. Can I ask for counsel from the town clerk? From a

[4:42:43] Voting perspective, if I wanted to register no vote, how would I go about doing that?

[4:42:47] No vote.

[4:42:48] No, not a no vote.

[4:42:51] Neither.

[4:42:53] Let me be clear about that.

[4:42:54] Hey Fran, who's on first?

[4:42:57] Apparently not me.

[4:42:59] What's on second?

[4:43:00] But if I wanted to not register a vote, either pro or for this.

[4:43:03] You would have sane.

[4:43:04] You would say your reason for abstaining was that you were not part of the discussion.

[4:43:08] That happened.

[4:43:09] Sorry.

[4:43:10] We ready for the vote?

[4:43:11] Yes, Councillor Ellis. I will abstain. Why? Because I was not present for the discussion

[4:43:17] although I watched you very vigorously on my time off. Great. Councillor Aker. Yes. Councillor

[4:43:24] Anderson. Yes. Councillor Perl. Yes. Councillor Hicks. Yes. Councillor Teeming. Yes. Councillor

[4:43:30] Weems. No. Councillor Wilson. Yes. The Chair is a yes. The motion passes 7-1 with

[4:43:36] one of such. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Oh, wow. Moving on to item number

[4:43:46] 112. The town council will consider appointments to town's boards and committees and will take

[4:43:50] any appropriate action. I'm going to turn this over to Council Anderson to report out.

[4:43:57] Well, well, let's take like two seconds just while people clear out. So hold everyone

[4:44:01] hold don't go anywhere. That works. My computer's updating. Oh, beautiful. Beautiful.

[4:44:25] Okay, if please take discussions out to the hallway. Please take discussions out to the hallway discussions empty the building we're getting

[4:44:35] Nat Shedd, can you please take the discussion out to the hallway?

[4:44:41] Please and thank you.

[4:44:44] All right, turn it back over to Councillor Anderson to continue with the appointments, report and nominations.

[4:44:50] Maybe, if you need help, we can provide it.

[4:44:54] Yeah, okay, so we met on August 10th.

[4:44:58] We interviewed two individuals for two.

[4:45:00] Two committees. We are holding off on the Housing Authority committee recommendation until all

[4:45:07] candidates can be interviewed. Therefore, we are recommending Blaine Moore to a balance

[4:45:14] of a three-year term to the Parks and Recreation Commission that will expire July 1st, 2028.

[4:45:23] That's what you got for us.

[4:45:25] That's what I got.

[4:45:25] Yeah, great.

[4:45:27] Are there any additional nominations?

[4:45:30] Not seeing any.

[4:45:42] Okay, sorry.

[4:45:43] Just making sure my notes are right here

[4:45:45] because it's getting late and I don't wanna mess it up.

[4:45:49] Okay, are there any comment before we take a vote?

[4:45:53] To a point?

[4:45:54] Not seeing any, I'll call the vote.

[4:45:56] Councillor Ellis.

[4:45:57] Yes.

[4:45:57] Councillor Eker.

[4:45:58] Yes.

[4:45:59] Councillor Anderson.

[4:46:00] Yes.

[4:46:00] Councillor Perl.

[4:46:01] Yes.

[4:46:01] Councillor Hicks.

[4:46:02] Yes.

[4:46:02] Councilor Teemee?

[4:46:03] Yes.

[4:46:03] Councilor Reims?

[4:46:04] Yes.

[4:46:04] Councilor Wilson?

[4:46:05] Yes.

[4:46:06] The Chair is a yes.

[4:46:07] That is unanimous of the council.

[4:46:08] Moving on to the consent agenda.

[4:46:10] Just as a reminder, we added this resolution

[4:46:13] pertaining to 9-11.

[4:46:16] Are there any questions about items

[4:46:19] within the consent agenda?

[4:46:21] Which one?

[4:46:24] Not seeing any.

[4:46:26] I'll take a motion.

[4:46:28] Councilor Wilson?

[4:46:29] I'll make a motion to.

[4:46:31] I need you to pull down your mic, please.

[4:46:33] Oh, yeah.

[4:46:34] Oh, yeah.

[4:46:35] You can take off your hat, too, I guess.

[4:46:36] Oh, sorry.

[4:46:39] All right.

[4:46:40] Now, I will make a motion to accept the town council resolution if we will ever give it.

[4:46:47] No, no.

[4:46:48] We're a motion to approve the consent agenda.

[4:46:50] Oh, I'm sorry.

[4:46:51] A motion to approve the consent agenda.

[4:46:54] Nailed it.

[4:46:55] Is there a second on that one?

[4:46:56] Councilor Ellis.

[4:46:58] Seconded by Councilor Ellis.

[4:46:59] Any discussion?

[4:47:00] motion. Not seeing any show of hands. All those in favor. That is unanimous of the council.

[4:47:06] I will now entertain a motion to adjourn.

[4:47:11] That's part of the consent agenda. I would like to

[4:47:14] make a motion to adjourn. Councilor Ellis, move to adjourn. Seconded by Councilor Ecker.

[4:47:19] All those in favor show of hands. Oh my God, it's late. That is unanimous. Thank

[4:47:23] you everyone. Good night.

2026.9.8 Regular Town Council Meeting

Transcript