[0:05] Planning Board, I call to order. Tuesday, August 4th,

[0:09] 2026, at Westbrook High School, Room 114,

[0:13] 125 Travelor Street.

[0:16] This meeting will be offered as a hybrid meeting accommodating both in-person

[0:20] and remote participation. The link and phone number to join the meeting

[0:24] through Zoom is located on the Planning Board agenda, which can be found on the

[0:27] City of Westbrook website,

[0:29] westbrookmaine.com/agendacenter.

[0:32] Where public comment is permitted, members of the public attending remotely will

[0:36] also have the opportunity to provide remote testimony.

[0:39] If you wish to speak during a public hearing or a public comment,

[0:43] use your raise hand function through Zoom or dial nine

[0:47] on your phone when instructed by the Planning Board chair.

[0:50] Comments will only be accepted during a public hearing or

[0:54] public comment period and should remain specific to the application as being

[0:58] discussed.

[0:59] With that, roll call, Jenna, please.

[1:04] Karen Axelson?

[1:06] Here.

[1:09] Jason Frazier?

[1:10] Here.

[1:11] Nancy Lichochapies?

[1:13] Here.

[1:14] Kevin Price?

[1:15] Here.

[1:16] Robin Tanebaum?

[1:17] Here.

[1:18] Oriana Farnham?

[1:19] Here.

[1:20] Lucas Shrake?

[1:21] Here.

[1:22] Larry McWilliams?

[1:23] Here.

[1:23] And John Turcotte.

[1:24] Here.

[1:26] Thank you.

[1:27] With that, we'll go into regular business.

[1:29] Orlando, can you read the first item in the record, please?

[1:33] Item number 24-000632:

[1:37] Site Plan Approval Extension Request, 4 and 7 Kitter Lane, Quaker

[1:41] Lane Associates, LLC. The applicant is requesting an extension on their

[1:45] site plan approval in a phased project schedule.

[1:48] Tax Map 032, Lot 107, and Tax Map

[1:52] 032, Lot 109, Zoned City Center District.

[1:57] Thank you. With that, can we have the applicant presentation, please?

[2:11] Good evening. My name is Craig Burtis with Acorn Engineering.

[2:15] Looks like I have the wrong project up here.

[2:18] I don't know if I necessarily need presentation slides tonight.

[2:21] As mentioned, this is for a site plan approval

[2:25] extension. It was originally approved last year and then

[2:29] amended in September. So the client is looking to actually

[2:33] start construction this fall,

[2:36] and he's looking at performing the work in a phased approach.

[2:39] Phase one will include the initial site

[2:43] setup,

[2:44] which will involve demolition of

[2:48] existing buildings, pavement, gravel, utilities,

[2:52] installation of all the erosion control that's shown on

[2:56] the civil plan drawings,

[2:58] and then also installing a lot of the heavy utility work.

[3:02] That includes

[3:04] installing the conduit for the gas main,

[3:08] the sanitary sewer connections, as well as

[3:13] some of the three-phase electrical work.

[3:16] Also included in the phase one is all the

[3:20] main storm drain runs. So there's storm drain runs that go from west

[3:24] to east across the site, as well as replacement of,

[3:28] there's a 48-inch pipe that runs right underneath Dana

[3:32] Street out toward Presumpscot River.

[3:34] So phase one includes replacement of that pipe, that 48-inch

[3:38] pipe, as well as a lot of the main storm drain runs.

[3:41] Not included in phase one are all the

[3:44] storm tree filters and the rain garden.

[3:48] So those will be constructed in phase two.

[3:51] So in your packets, there are construction cost estimates

[3:55] for both phase one and phase two. Phase two is anticipated

[3:59] to start next spring,

[4:03] weather dependent, as soon as the site contractor can get in there.

[4:07] Likely March, maybe April. So they're looking to start the phase two

[4:12] next year. So there's a lot more work in phase two.

[4:16] And then

[4:17] the erosion control will have to be

[4:20] reevaluated in spring. So as part of the phase one, they'll

[4:24] install the erosion control. There'll be a lot of double layers of silt

[4:28] fence installed along Presumpscot River.

[4:30] That will likely sit during the wintertime while the site is dormant.

[4:34] And then when they come to the site next spring, they'll have to revisit the

[4:38] erosion control, and then the city will likely have to do

[4:42] inspections to make sure that's up to par, and then they'll go ahead and initiate

[4:45] phase two.

[4:46] We understand that there's some work before construction starts this fall,

[4:50] including the pre-con meeting. There's still some minor

[4:54] site plan changes out there that Acorn Engineering needs to

[4:58] address, including depicting how the river walk connects

[5:02] over to the Saccarappa Park parcel.

[5:04] So we intend to do that, and construction is supposed to start this

[5:08] fall. So I'll leave it to the planning board.

[5:12] I'm here to respond to any questions that you have. Thank you.

[5:15] Thank you, Craig.

[5:17] Staff response?

[5:19] Yep. So as Craig stated, this started with a site plan approval extension

[5:22] request because the approval would have been set to expire in September.

[5:27] But then with that, in talking with the development team

[5:30] and coordinating with the Saccarappa Park project, which is also

[5:35] working towards getting ready to start, there was a desire to phase the

[5:39] development out. How the conditions are currently written, if they were to start

[5:43] with the utility work this fall, they would have to put in the full performance

[5:47] guarantee for the overall project, as well as have the site work contractor

[5:51] to do the pre-con and things that they weren't necessarily

[5:55] ready for now, although there's benefit for getting the

[5:59] demolition done now and the utility work in the Saccarappa Park side of the

[6:03] project in coordination with that side.

[6:05] So that was the impetus to the phased approach,

[6:09] was to separate that out so they would provide the performance

[6:13] guarantee for just that site work, be able to proceed with that in the fall,

[6:17] and then have the full performance guarantee for the overall project when they're

[6:20] ready to move forward in the

[6:22] Spring, ideally.

[6:24] So with this, as Craig said, you have the separated

[6:28] cost estimates in your packet. We also slightly amended the conditions

[6:32] to allow for a call-out for the commencement of work in phase one and of

[6:36] work in phase two. But there weren't any substantive changes

[6:40] to the conditions other than what would be required before the commencement of each

[6:44] one of those phases.

[6:47] Thank you.

[6:50] This is open to the public comment.

[6:52] Do we have anybody in the public that wishes to speak on this issue?

[6:56] I see none. Any through Zoom?

[7:00] If there's anyone participating via Zoom and would like to speak, please raise

[7:03] your hand.

[7:07] I'm seeing none.

[7:08] Okay. With that, I'll close the public comment.

[7:11] Any

[7:12] board members, any comments?

[7:17] Through you to the planner. The amendment from last September, that was just an

[7:20] amendment. That was, in itself, an extension, correct?

[7:23] That was just an amendment to the subdivision, but with that, it inherently kind of

[7:27] restarted the clock-

[7:28] Okay

[7:28] ... for when the 12 months is. But yes.

[7:29] Okay, so this is their first extension request?

[7:31] Yes.

[7:32] All right, thank you. I think everyone gets one extension. It's a big project.

[7:35] I don't have a problem with it.

[7:37] Thank you, John.

[7:39] Anyone else?

[7:42] Okay, I see none. The only thing I did see, just by looking at some

[7:46] of the paper, I'm still learning all the grading and the underneath work and

[7:51] so forth, but what I did notice was on the 48-inch pipes, they're now going to

[7:54] plastic-

[7:55] Yes

[7:55] ... versus concrete. How long has something like that been going on?

[7:58] And I guess it's more cost-effective.

[8:01] Yeah. It's more cost-effective. It lasts just as

[8:05] long. It's easier to handle on the site.

[8:08] It's easier to just move around the site. The concrete pipe, it's a lot heavier.

[8:12] So yes, a lot of the bigger pipe now is the HDPE, the

[8:16] high-density polyethylene plastic.

[8:18] Yeah, I saw that. I was interested in that just because it looks like it'd be a lot

[8:22] easier to work, and it does have the same lifespan as concrete, so.

[8:25] Yes.

[8:25] All right, cool. That's my only question, so yeah, I have no other problems with

[8:28] that.

[8:30] With that, we have a motion on page two

[8:33] of our memos.

[8:36] If somebody would be so kind.

[8:37] Mr. Chair?

[8:37] Yes, John.

[8:39] I move to approve the request from Quake Lane Associates for a one-year extension

[8:42] in phased project schedule on the site plan approval, dated April 15th, 2025,

[8:46] and amended September 2nd, 2025, for the demolition and redevelopment

[8:50] of the parcels located at the end of Kidder Lane to construct a

[8:54] multi-story, mixed-use complex to include 110 residential units,

[8:58] a commercial use, and a westerly expansion of the Riverwalk Trail

[9:02] located on the parcels identified as four and seven,

[9:06] Kidder Lane, Tax Map 32, Lots 107 and 109,

[9:10] Zoned City Center District, Village Review Overlay Zone, and Shoreland

[9:14] Zone. All previously approved findings of fact and conclusions of approval

[9:18] associated with the September 2nd, 2025, approval

[9:22] remain applicable. Wow. Approval

[9:26] also includes the following conditions, as stated on page two through four of this

[9:30] staff memo dated July 31st, 2026, which are adopted in

[9:33] support of this approval.

[9:35] Thank you. Can I get a second, please?

[9:37] Second.

[9:37] Thank you, Kevin. Roll call, Jenna.

[9:43] Robin Tannenbaum?

[9:45] Yes. Oh, sorry.

[9:48] Nancy Litwak Abes?

[9:50] Well, so formerly, I recused myself from this project, but it's an

[9:54] extension, so I don't know, do I vote or just recuse?

[9:57] If you feel that you can be impartial to the extension and the board is

[10:02] okay with that, then you can stay on.

[10:05] I'm in support of the extension.

[10:09] No problem. Thank you.

[10:12] Jason Frazier?

[10:13] Yes.

[10:15] Karen Axelson?

[10:16] Yes.

[10:17] Kevin Price?

[10:18] Yes.

[10:20] Lucas Shrake?

[10:21] Yes.

[10:22] Oriana Farnum?

[10:23] Yes.

[10:25] John Turcotte?

[10:26] Yes.

[10:28] And Larry McWilliams.

[10:30] Yes.

[10:31] Seeing unanimous. Thank you. With that, we go into new business.

[10:34] Orlando, can you-

[10:35] Thank you

[10:35] ... read the next item in the record, please?

[10:38] Item number 26-000527, site

[10:42] plan, 3 Saunders Way, WWS Properties, LLC.

[10:46] The applicant is requesting a renovation and an expansion to the existing Bill

[10:50] Dodge Kia automobile dealership, including a 2,160

[10:54] square foot addition to the service area and a 3,850

[10:58] square foot addition to the showroom.

[11:00] Tax Map 042B, Lot 113, Zone

[11:04] Gateway Commercial, use automobile dealership repair service.

[11:08] Thank you. With that, applicant presentation.

[11:13] All right. Good evening. It's Dustin Roma with DM Roma Consulting

[11:16] Engineers.

[11:18] There we go.

[11:20] I'm here tonight representing WWS Properties for this proposed

[11:24] expansion at the Bill Dodge Kia auto facility on 3

[11:28] Saunders Way.

[11:33] Just trying to get organized here.

[11:37] So we were here as a sketch plan workshop item

[11:42] at the last meeting, and since then, really just been working

[11:46] closely with Kia on a review of the proposed

[11:50] renovations. This building is one of the buildings on

[11:54] the complex here, which is essentially one of the older buildings that's there,

[11:58] or the one that

[12:00] is

[12:02] most in need of renovations as far as

[12:05] kind of a new facelift on these projects.

[12:07] So we're excited to be able to work with Kia and Bill Dodge to kind of make some

[12:11] improvements to this one building facility here.

[12:15] Pretty much all of the improvements are really the main part that you

[12:19] see as you come into the property. So it's the sales and

[12:22] service area that's kind of

[12:25] For

[12:26] right in the front of the building there.

[12:28] So that's going to be the location where most of these improvements are being made.

[12:32] We do have a small service area that's being expanded

[12:37] on the backside of the building to kind of square off the structure.

[12:40] And then we'll be doing some pavement improvements around the perimeter of the site

[12:44] as well.

[12:46] We'll be putting in some new vehicle charging stations for the electric

[12:49] vehicles outside the building.

[12:53] And then we've got some improved landscaping areas that'll take

[12:56] place at the transition between this property and the Infinity

[13:00] property.

[13:02] So we've got some landscaping improvements there.

[13:06] And then other than that, the major circulation components of the

[13:09] site are pretty much unchanged.

[13:12] This property has access from essentially two

[13:16] adjacent building areas, so there's a site access

[13:20] from

[13:22] either side, and that's going to remain.

[13:26] Let's go here.

[13:29] So there's a site plan there. So as you can see, this particular property by itself

[13:33] doesn't have its own curb cut, but there's curb cuts on either side.

[13:36] And we've just had some discussions with city staff just to make sure

[13:40] everyone was comfortable with the vehicle circulation around the building, and

[13:45] really nothing substantial will change there.

[13:48] Additional sidewalk areas and concrete

[13:52] vehicle display areas will be kind of prominent in the front part of the

[13:55] site.

[13:58] And as far as the lighting on the facility,

[14:01] there's one existing light pole that will be removed

[14:06] to make room for the building expansion,

[14:09] and there's a second light pole that'll be located inside the

[14:13] landscaped island area that we're retaining, so that light pole will

[14:17] remain.

[14:19] So no real changes to the lighting.

[14:21] We're not upgrading any of the fixtures or anything on the pole-mounted lighting in

[14:25] the facility, so it's going to basically stay as it is.

[14:29] The last item that we've been working with the city on is the signage.

[14:32] We do have

[14:35] a updated signage that'll happen.

[14:37] The Kia logo has changed, so updated

[14:41] signage on the building as well as a new pylon sign.

[14:44] So there was some language in the memo which just

[14:47] outlined

[14:50] our request to basically replace that existing pylon sign that's out front with a

[14:54] new sign. So those details, again, will be worked

[14:58] out through code enforcement. As far as the size of the sign, what's allowed, we've

[15:02] got a few options that we're working through with Kia now.

[15:06] And we're satisfied that whatever sign we choose, again, we'll just make

[15:10] sure we work through codes and that it's

[15:14] no larger than

[15:16] is permitted. So,

[15:19] with that, I've got some additional graphics here just showing building elevations

[15:22] that I can skip to if we need to. Otherwise, happy to

[15:26] answer your questions if you have any. Thank you.

[15:29] Thank you, Dustin.

[15:31] Staff comment?

[15:33] Nothing to add from Dustin's presentation.

[15:35] Okay, thank you. With this is also a public comment.

[15:38] Does anybody from the public wish to speak on this

[15:42] addition? I see none. Any through Zoom?

[15:46] If there's anyone participating via Zoom and would like to speak, please raise your

[15:50] hand.

[15:52] I'm seeing none.

[15:53] Okay, thank you. With that, I'll close the public comment.

[15:56] Any board comments?

[16:01] Seeing none.

[16:03] I've got a question.

[16:03] Yep, sorry. Go ahead, Robin.

[16:04] Thanks. And Dustin, I remember asking about this last time.

[16:08] Planting plans, and I know there's not a lot of

[16:11] area for that, but there's that little corner area that I think already

[16:15] exists, or actually maybe it's new.

[16:17] Can you talk about any plans for planting or any street trees?

[16:21] Yep.

[16:22] So we do have existing

[16:25] street trees that run along Saunders.

[16:27] But yeah, this area right here in this front corner is really kind of our prime

[16:31] spot to be able to

[16:34] add some decorative landscaping.

[16:36] So we do have some trees and shrubs and perennials

[16:40] in that landscaped area there, which right now it's pretty much grass.

[16:44] There's a few just evergreen shrubs, no color or anything.

[16:48] So it looks a little different. When you look at the Infinity building, which is

[16:51] one of the newer ones that we've done, we've got daylilies and color and things

[16:54] around the perimeter, so we're trying to kind of match that in the front of the

[16:58] building here.

[17:04] Thank you. With the sign, I know on the board or on the

[17:08] building itself, the front, is that going to be lit up, the Kia s- the...

[17:11] Because-

[17:11] Yeah

[17:12] ... is it already now? Because I don't

[17:16] go down that direction, but

[17:18] on the side of the building, so that it just looks like it would look nice

[17:22] if it was lit up at night, especially with the glass in the front.

[17:25] So I didn't know

[17:26] if that was going to be illuminated all the time.

[17:28] Yep.

[17:28] Okay.

[17:29] Yeah, they'll be internally illuminated, especially it's very helpful in the winter

[17:32] months and stuff when it's dark out at 4:30, and...

[17:36] Oh, yeah. No, the building looks nice.

[17:38] It's going to be a nice addition to

[17:42] the upgrade. So,

[17:44] with that, we have a motion

[17:47] on page...

[17:52] Mr. Chair?

[17:53] Yes.

[17:53] I move that the planning board approves the site plan application for

[17:57] WWS Properties LLC to renovate and expand the existing Bill Dodge

[18:01] Kia automobile dealership, which includes a 2,160

[18:05] square foot addition to the service area and a 3,850 square foot

[18:09] to the showroom. Tax Map 042B, Lot

[18:13] 113, Zone Gateway Commercial. Approval includes the following findings

[18:17] of facts, conclusions, and conditions as stated on pages five through seven

[18:21] of the staff memo dated July 31st, 2026, which are

[18:24] adopted in support of this approval.

[18:26] Thank you. Can I get a second, please?

[18:29] Second.

[18:30] Thank you, Karen. Can I have a roll call vote, Jenna?

[18:35] Robin Tannenbaum?

[18:37] Yes.

[18:39] Nancy Litokapes?

[18:41] Yes.

[18:42] Jason Frazier?

[18:43] Yes.

[18:44] Karen Axelson?

[18:45] Yes.

[18:47] Kevin Price?

[18:48] Yes.

[18:49] Lucas Shrake?

[18:50] Yes.

[18:51] Oriana Farnham?

[18:52] Yes.

[18:54] John Turcotte?

[18:55] Yes.

[18:56] And Larry McWilliams.

[18:57] Yes.

[18:58] Seeing it's unanimous, thank you.

[19:01] Orlando, can you read the next item into the record, please?

[19:05] Item number 26-000275, site

[19:09] plan subdivision conditional use, Marco Commons, MTR

[19:12] Development LLC. The applicant is proposing to subdivide a parcel of

[19:16] vacant land located between 547 and 563 Saco

[19:20] Street into three lots and develop two of 12-unit

[19:24] multifamily buildings which will be accessed by a shared private driveway.

[19:29] Tax map 004, lot 013, zone residential

[19:33] growth area 2, use dwelling multiple family.

[19:37] Thank you.

[19:39] With that, can we have the applicant presentation?

[19:41] Sure. Yep, me again.

[19:43] Hi, Dustin.

[19:44] Dustin Roma with DM Roma Consulting Engineers, representing MTR

[19:48] Development for this proposed project at 547 Saco Street,

[19:52] which we've been referring to in the plans as Marco Commons.

[19:57] So the plan that I've got in front of you here depicts

[20:03] what we've been calling the first phase of this development.

[20:06] There's some language in the

[20:09] packet here which kind of talks about a multiple-phased approach that

[20:13] we've been working on in this project.

[20:15] So, this initial phase is going to

[20:19] divide the property up into four lots.

[20:24] One of those divisions has already occurred.

[20:26] So the existing farmhouse that's on the property has been

[20:29] separated off on its own lot, and that property has since been

[20:34] conveyed.

[20:36] And then what we're proposing is the creation of essentially three new

[20:40] lots on the remaining land.

[20:42] One lot will be created around an existing barn

[20:46] structure that's on the property.

[20:48] The intent is for that building to stay

[20:52] currently. At some point in the future, the plan would be for

[20:56] that to be a single-family residential lot

[21:00] if that building were to be knocked down, but that isn't anything

[21:04] we're looking to do anytime soon. So we want to kind of keep the barn up there and

[21:08] utilize it for

[21:10] whatever uses are permitted in the zone.

[21:14] One of the lots on the

[21:16] left-hand side or the Scarborough side of the property, we'll be

[21:20] creating that lot that is of adequate size for a

[21:24] duplex. And then the remaining land,

[21:28] we're currently proposing two 12-unit

[21:31] buildings for residential use on that remaining

[21:34] piece.

[21:36] We did include an overall master plan in our

[21:40] packets here, which just kind of lays out

[21:43] what our goal is for an ultimate build-out of this

[21:46] property. But it's certainly nothing that we're

[21:51] asking the board to comment or commit on at this time.

[21:54] We're really just seeking approval for these first two 12-unit

[21:58] buildings and the division of the property to create the duplex lot and the single

[22:01] family.

[22:03] But we did think it was important to continue the discussion with the board so that

[22:06] everybody can kind of see the vision as to where we hope to end up with this

[22:09] project here at some point.

[22:12] But again, what's here tonight is just the two 12-unit buildings on this larger

[22:15] lot.

[22:17] This plan shows the extent of a trail network that

[22:21] we're going to be enhancing and improving.

[22:25] There are some trails that kind of work their way through the property, but

[22:29] this shows an area that we're looking to enhance those trails.

[22:33] So this will be a walking area for the residents of the development,

[22:38] and this is something that we had presented to the Recreation

[22:42] Conservation Commission as part of

[22:45] our open space design requirements, which they've

[22:50] accepted as being suitable in conjunction with a

[22:53] off-site sidewalk that we're also proposing as well.

[22:58] So the off-site sidewalk piece of this is something we've had kind of extensive

[23:02] conversations and discussions with city staff on, because

[23:06] it's something that's kind of being

[23:10] done at the front end of the project.

[23:12] A lot of times these off-site improvements get done kind of later on, but we

[23:16] do have some timing constraints with the repaving project that's occurring on

[23:20] Saco Street, so we've been working kind of closely with the city just to make sure

[23:23] we're getting all the pieces put in place to work through those time

[23:26] constraints.

[23:28] But what's outlined in your proposal here is that we're going to be building

[23:33] all of the sidewalk out along the frontage of the property as part of this

[23:37] initial project phase. So it will extend down the

[23:41] road heading towards Elm Maple Drive, up until

[23:45] the existing driveway entrance that is at

[23:49] 521 Saco Street. So we'll build up to that location now complete,

[23:53] and then we'll also head north and bring the sidewalk

[23:57] up to a point where we're going to be painting a crosswalk across the street, doing

[24:00] tip downs, and putting in a rapid flashing beacon at that

[24:04] location to allow people to cross the street there.

[24:07] So we think these are benefits that'll help the residents of our

[24:10] neighborhood, but we also have The Hamlet and other neighborhoods around

[24:14] where folks are coming down. There's a bus stop across the street from our

[24:18] development. So the thought is that all of these things will

[24:22] help the pedestrian movements around this area, make it safer,

[24:26] make people feel like they can use the amenities that are there.

[24:31] As far as the development itself

[24:36] Here's a landscaping plan that we're proposing for the project.

[24:39] So

[24:41] we've got a single entrance driveway coming in.

[24:44] That driveway will also serve as the entrance to those other two

[24:48] lots that we're creating. So the duplex lot and the single-family lot will both be

[24:52] accessed off this Marco Drive shared

[24:55] private access way. So no new curb cuts on Saco

[24:59] Street. The two curb cuts that exist currently that provide kind of a loop

[25:03] driveway for the farmhouse, one of those will be closed off,

[25:07] and that existing barn structure will be accessed from this new

[25:12] driveway.

[25:14] One of the comments that we received when we had our neighborhood meeting, as well

[25:18] as when we were last here in front of the planning board for our workshop, was

[25:22] the proximity of these two proposed multi-family buildings to the

[25:26] adjacent property to our south at the 521 Saco

[25:30] Street lot.

[25:32] So what we did is we've moved the whole project as far away from that

[25:36] property line as we could. We do have the existing pond and some wetland

[25:40] areas that are on that northern side of the property, so we basically

[25:43] pulled everything as far away from that property line as possible.

[25:46] And this is substantially more

[25:51] separation there than what it was previously.

[25:54] We've also angled the development a little bit, so it's not

[25:57] necessarily looking right straight into

[26:01] the property,

[26:03] just so that you're not looking directly at the backside of those buildings.

[26:06] In moving those buildings away from the property line, we're also able to

[26:10] retain all of the trees that are along that property line currently.

[26:14] With the old design, we could have retained them as well, but we would have been

[26:18] very close to them. This way, we've got plenty of space pulling those

[26:21] away from that property line.

[26:26] Let's see.

[26:33] I think at this point,

[26:36] again, we appreciate staff working with us up to this point

[26:40] with all the upfront planning.

[26:43] And I know the applicant is

[26:46] ready to start this project here

[26:49] as soon as approvals are granted. So this is kind of their next project to

[26:53] move into. So

[26:56] I think we've addressed the comments that have been brought to us to date.

[26:59] There are a few things in the memo here just in regard to how we're going to

[27:03] separate the subdivision plan, the site plan,

[27:08] putting notes on those so we can kind of have separate recording plans and separate

[27:11] approval plans. So all that information's got some good instructions here

[27:15] in the packet that we can incorporate.

[27:20] And we're prepared to do that, and

[27:23] it seems pretty straightforward.

[27:27] I think there was a couple other things in the memo just in regard to the

[27:31] city's involvement going forward with the sidewalk area.

[27:34] But I think maybe I'll just let

[27:38] Rebecca elaborate a little bit on that just so I don't misspeak on any of

[27:42] the things that the city is proposing to step up and assist with on that end.

[27:46] So

[27:47] with that, I'll turn it over and we're here to answer questions.

[27:51] Thank you, Dustin.

[27:53] Staff response with that, would you?

[27:57] Yeah.

[27:58] So what's before the board right now, there's actually kind of two applications

[28:02] happening, so I just want to reiterate that what is up for looking for approval

[28:05] tonight. There's the land subdivision, and then step into what's

[28:09] being identified in the plans as lots one, two, and three.

[28:12] As Dustin said, there is technically a fourth lot, but that was carved off

[28:16] previously. Per subdivision law, it's a subdivision once

[28:20] a parcel becomes three parcels within a five-year period.

[28:24] And so legally they were able to carve off one lot, but as soon as they're

[28:28] creating a second lot, that's what triggers the subdivision review.

[28:31] So the lot that's been carved off is already legally a separated lot, and

[28:35] before the board is the creation of the three now new lots.

[28:40] With that, as Dustin said, lots one and two are proposed to

[28:44] have shared access off of Marco Drive.

[28:47] They will not have separate curb cuts onto Saco Street.

[28:51] And

[28:54] then lot three is a separate site plan subdivision, which is

[28:58] currently the two 12-unit structures that you see before

[29:01] you. A couple other points I wanted to touch on.

[29:04] So the Recreation and Conservation Commission, as Dustin said, reviewed

[29:08] this plan. The overall

[29:11] open space plan here is a little unusual for how we typically do things.

[29:16] But given the design here, clustering, we looked at

[29:20] the overall master plan. We really didn't want to separate this out into phase one

[29:23] when we knew the overall master plan was coming, and generally planning and

[29:26] development is better when you look at the overall.

[29:28] So they clustered the development as close as they could towards Saco Street to

[29:31] preserve that 12 acres towards the back.

[29:34] They're also proposing a small loop trail back there.

[29:38] And then along with that,

[29:40] given the extensive public benefit and improvements

[29:44] of the Saco Street sidewalk, although it is a

[29:47] general requirement for any development to provide pedestrian access,

[29:52] we felt it was reasonable to include the efforts being made here where they

[29:55] are sort of above a standard sort

[29:59] of requirement and development, include that in with the open space given the

[30:03] sidewalk is public recreation for the general public.

[30:07] So those three elements together is what went to the

[30:11] commission. The commission supported this, but did include a recommendation for

[30:15] public access to the rear of the property.

[30:19] Staff reviewed this afterwards and found that

[30:23] where this parcel doesn't abut another public property,

[30:27] an existing trail system, historically we've seen just some

[30:31] conflict that can occur when public is walking through a private development

[30:35] and the private development doesn't understand why they're there, they're not

[30:37] there. So without some kind of a connection

[30:41] to an existing system, staff would support this remaining a benefit for the

[30:45] private development, and then the public benefit is that sidewalk along

[30:49] Saco Street.

[30:53] Also, I wanted to touch on the Saco Street sidewalk a bit.

[30:56] This is a little confusing, so I'm going to try to explain it, and if you have any

[31:00] questions, please jump in.

[31:03] Oh,

[31:05] I'm glad you have the building elevations.

[31:06] I was hoping you could-

[31:07] Yeah

[31:07] ... show those to the board as well again.

[31:10] Some of the challenges facing with this, it's about 1,300 feet

[31:14] of sidewalk from the Spiller Drive to the existing Elm

[31:18] Maple where the existing infrastructure ends.

[31:21] As part of this phase, Dustin created a sidewalk design, and that sidewalk

[31:25] design identified several areas where there would need to be

[31:31] easements on private property, either for grading or a couple feet of the

[31:35] sidewalk in order to maintain the five-foot shoulder that is on

[31:39] Saco Street. There could have been an option where the developer reduced

[31:43] that five-foot shoulder, and everything was able to remain within the right of way.

[31:46] However, staff find that shoulder is important for the use of

[31:50] bicyclists and didn't support reducing that below five feet.

[31:54] And so, that is what resulted in, there are two locations

[31:59] where there would be right-of-way impacts.

[32:01] So, that's how we got to this place of proposing

[32:05] to phase the sidewalk installation.

[32:07] The development is satisfying the pedestrian connectivity element

[32:11] by extending the sidewalk towards Spiller and installing the

[32:14] crosswalk to the existing sidewalk on the other side of Saco Street,

[32:18] and also installing the curb all the way down to Elm Maple.

[32:22] And the reason that's important is because once Saco Street pavement goes down,

[32:26] there's a moratorium, and you can't disturb the pavement even to put curbing down.

[32:29] So the curbing is down, which means the sidewalk can go in whenever it's ready.

[32:34] With that, the city is going to take on the responsibility to work

[32:38] with the individual private landowners and finalize

[32:42] whatever needs to be made in order for this sidewalk to move forward,

[32:46] where

[32:48] we see a strong public benefit here, and an overall goal to extend

[32:52] this sidewalk eventually down to the neighborhoods

[32:55] towards the Scarborough's town line, The Hamlet.

[32:58] So, the city has agreed to take that conversation on.

[33:02] And then with that, the development would be required to actually

[33:06] install the infrastructure and the sidewalk as part of their next phase of

[33:09] development.

[33:11] We found this to be a fair private-public partnership,

[33:15] understanding that the actual request right now is just two

[33:19] multifamily. We're not talking about the full build-out.

[33:21] So for the two multifamily, we are achieving that pedestrian connectivity.

[33:25] And then for the overall build-out, when that comes back, that's when the heavier

[33:29] lift of the full sidewalk installation would

[33:32] occur.

[33:34] That's if you get the right of way, is that correct?

[33:37] What if there's opposition for the right of way?

[33:41] We'd have that conversation at that time.

[33:44] I don't know, maybe there are other options.

[33:45] Maybe there's an area where the sidewalk would be reduced in si-- I'm not really

[33:49] sure what that conversation would be, but it seems like a conversation that

[33:53] was more appropriate for the city to have with the individual landowners instead of

[33:56] the developer.

[33:57] Okay.

[33:58] Thanks.

[33:59] Mm-hmm.

[33:59] I'd like to see what that update would be, for sure.

[34:02] Putting the curb in, for one thing, is a plus-

[34:04] Mm-hmm

[34:04] ... with the moratorium, because then it can be added on.

[34:07] And with the phases, what type of timeframe are we

[34:11] even talking about phasing on this?

[34:14] Yeah. I think the goal is to do two buildings a year,

[34:18] so we'd be back probably sometime,

[34:22] maybe in the spring or over the winter to come back and talk about the next phase

[34:26] of development.

[34:29] So yeah, that's our intended schedule.

[34:31] Okay. Thank you.

[34:35] This is also a public comment area as well.

[34:37] Does anybody from the public wish to speak on this project?

[34:43] I see none. Anybody on Zoom?

[34:46] I think that there's-

[34:50] You want to come up? Yeah, come on up. State your name, your address.

[34:55] You have three minutes to speak, so...

[34:58] Got it.

[34:59] My name is Kathy Gorham,

[35:01] and we have lived at 521 Saco Street for

[35:06] over 49 years.

[35:09] When I was here at the previous meeting, I realized I'm in the older

[35:12] generation here and got a little overwhelmed with what all was going

[35:16] on. I have to say, I do appreciate some of the accommodations

[35:20] that I heard about tonight. It would've been nice to have known about a little bit

[35:23] more ahead of time, because that was part of what I would be

[35:27] talking about. But, he's already addressing some of the

[35:32] concerns that I had, and we had

[35:35] before.

[35:37] I know one part of when I was here before, that a big

[35:40] concern about affordable housing, which I think everybody is concerned

[35:44] about. I think Westbrook is doing more than their share in providing

[35:48] it.

[35:50] Our concern is that Saco Street's been the location

[35:53] of single-family homes from the 1700s

[35:57] up to recently built

[35:59] new developments. And,

[36:05] I have my notes here tonight. So, over the years,

[36:09] various differences of intrusions have been allowed to

[36:13] complicate it, kind of like the mix.

[36:14] It's been residential, and then not residential, and then residential.

[36:22] One concern that I know probably isn't even appropriate here is that that

[36:26] farmhouse that got sold is going to be, I believe, some sort of a halfway

[36:30] house, which would definitely have an impact on our neighborhood.

[36:33] And that apparently doesn't come under any type of

[36:38] logic that needs to come up into public

[36:43] interest other than to us.

[36:46] Now, the total, I believe, is 172, although we've heard

[36:49] 184 planned units out back.

[36:53] I'm sure everybody can do the math and figure out there are going to be

[36:57] Equal or more than those numbers of vehicles

[37:02] entering and leaving Saco Street,

[37:05] which should be renamed Saco Speedway, because

[37:09] we've got a 45 speed limit out in front of our house, and believe me,

[37:13] they go then and above all the time.

[37:17] So then if you're going to have another 200 vehicles going on and off right

[37:21] there,

[37:22] that is going to be a problem for I think everybody who lives on Saco Street.

[37:30] A lot of people have

[37:32] built homes and bought homes in that area with the

[37:36] idea that

[37:38] they would have a long-term residence in a desirable area, and

[37:42] I don't think this particular project is going to really

[37:46] enhance that. It's not really going to be considered what

[37:50] people bought into in a desired area at the time.

[37:53] I realize it's late in the project and probably nothing anybody's going to do

[37:56] about, but you need to understand that the people that live there,

[38:01] it's a big deal.

[38:02] It's a big deal to have that happening.

[38:05] It seems like we've considered

[38:09] housing, we've considered developers, but nobody seems to stop

[38:13] and think about the people.

[38:16] Am I up with my three minutes already?

[38:18] Just keep it short-

[38:19] Okay.

[38:19] ... and if you can, I'll allow you to still speak.

[38:22] All right. Thank you.

[38:25] I've lost my train of thought. It happens a lot.

[38:31] Anyway,

[38:34] I've lost my notes, but anyway. We

[38:38] know that that place wasn't going to stay vacant.

[38:40] It was a

[38:42] farm for many years. We knew it wasn't going to stay vacant.

[38:45] But we were hoping there'd be something more compatible with the neighborhood,

[38:49] because it's a neighborhood. It's been there a long time and it's still a

[38:51] neighborhood. A lot of families living there.

[38:54] A lot of new homes have been approved to be built there.

[38:58] And

[38:59] we just are disappointed that hasn't been given more

[39:03] consideration to those of us

[39:06] that still live there. Probably will live there a little bit longer.

[39:10] And

[39:12] that's pretty much it. And I

[39:16] just know from talking to my neighbors and myself having lived there for a long

[39:20] time, that it's disappointing that that type of a

[39:24] project is being allowed, and that would've been

[39:27] a better way of approaching it.

[39:31] Probably a done deal at this point, but just so you know.

[39:35] Thank you.

[39:35] Thank you, Kathy.

[39:38] Anybody else?

[39:42] Is there anybody through Zoom?

[39:45] If there's anyone participating via Zoom and would like to speak, please raise your

[39:48] hand.

[39:51] I'm seeing none.

[39:53] Okay. Thank you.

[39:57] With that, I'm going to close the public comment, public hearing.

[40:01] Dustin,

[40:02] would you like to address a couple of these issues, maybe

[40:05] affordability? I don't know how many might be

[40:09] affordable part of the housing. Is there rumors of a halfway house with the

[40:13] barn being taken down?

[40:15] This is the first time hearing it, so.

[40:17] Yeah.

[40:19] And I know with traffic, its traffic concerns are

[40:22] all over the place, and I know we're trying to, at the council

[40:26] meeting last night, it was even mentioned more and more.

[40:29] I know we don't have any control here with the speed

[40:33] control on any of the streets in Westboro.

[40:36] It gets out of control, and I don't think that anybody is

[40:39] really taking the time to slow it down.

[40:43] So, I understand your concerns with the speed limit at 60 mile an hour.

[40:46] I see people do on Saco Street sometimes.

[40:50] But yeah, maybe you can just address some of those concerns.

[40:55] Yeah. As far as the

[40:58] existing farmhouse, all I know is that the applicant,

[41:02] they divided that off, and they did

[41:05] donate it to his church.

[41:09] So, that was a donation that was made.

[41:10] And as far as what the church will use it for, I don't know.

[41:15] But that's the limit of what I know about that.

[41:20] And then, as far as the units themselves, I know

[41:26] some of the neighbors, I

[41:28] know they have a preference for

[41:31] single-family development. And they had expressed

[41:35] their desire that they would've preferred if this was like another L Maple

[41:39] Drive or something like that, that kind of continued through and had all

[41:43] single-family homes.

[41:46] Certainly,

[41:48] different options were kind of

[41:51] considered a little bit here in the beginning.

[41:52] I know this particular builder,

[41:55] when they look to purchase properties throughout the city and do

[41:59] development, the intent is to do these projects where

[42:03] they build them and keep the properties and maintain them themselves

[42:07] and create these rental units.

[42:11] So, that wasn't something that they had purchased the property

[42:15] with the intent of pursuing as a single-family type residential neighborhood.

[42:20] That would be something where they would buy it and develop a bunch of lots and

[42:24] sell them and then move on. Instead, this is one where they're looking to

[42:27] make a long-term investment in Westboro and continue to maintain this

[42:31] property. And they've got a lot of other nice properties

[42:35] around the city where they've maintained them very nicely.

[42:38] So, I

[42:40] understand the skepticism going into this, and I'm hoping we can prove

[42:44] everybody wrong, that this is a very nice addition to this neighborhood and it'll

[42:48] complement what they've got going on as opposed to being something that

[42:52] they look at and are disappointed in.

[42:53] So,

[42:54] I do think it is helpful to at least look at the buildings as well.

[42:58] I know there's some developments around the city that maybe

[43:02] folks look at and wish the buildings maybe were a little different, and I'm

[43:06] hoping that this style of development with the

[43:09] large pitch roofs, the half stories above,

[43:13] this, I think, will fit in very nicely on this property and certainly

[43:17] lends itself to that residential character

[43:21] type of development. So,

[43:23] I think this is

[43:27] I think a nice, attractive looking building, and I think it'll fit well in the

[43:30] area.

[43:36] And how about the affordability standpoint?

[43:39] I know with a development of this size,

[43:44] with a percentage going to low income or more

[43:47] affordable housing, is anything on

[43:50] the proposal to give some marketable rates?

[43:53] Or is it going to be all market rate rentals?

[43:58] Yeah. There wasn't a plan, per se, to

[44:02] designate a certain number of units as meeting the federal standards of

[44:05] affordability and going through that whole HUD process of pre-qualifying

[44:09] and all of that. I will say that this project incorporates

[44:14] some one-bedroom units.

[44:16] I think what we've heard from some people is that there's a lot

[44:20] of folks out there that really only need a one-bedroom unit, and that's kind of the

[44:24] price point that they'd like to be in.

[44:26] But due to the lack of inventory, or maybe

[44:30] they're only in buildings that only have one unit or are single-bedroom

[44:33] units. For them to be able to be in a neighborhood like this

[44:37] one with a one-bedroom unit that's a little bit more affordable, if that's all the

[44:41] space that they need.

[44:43] The entire third story of these buildings, they'll have

[44:47] the four

[44:50] single-bedroom units, which would be reduced rent compared to the two-bedroom

[44:54] units. So it does introduce an affordable option

[44:58] for folks that may not need the extra space, where they can still get into the same

[45:01] neighborhood as somebody that's going to be paying the two-bedroom rate, but they

[45:05] can be in at a lesser rate for the one bedroom.

[45:07] Right. Thank you for that.

[45:10] Do we have any other board comments?

[45:13] Robin?

[45:16] Thank you. I want to recognize all the work you did to move this around on the

[45:20] site. I don't remember specifically, but I know it was much closer to the other

[45:23] neighborhood, and I think it's a nice solution.

[45:27] And I do think it's among the more attractive multi-family buildings for sort of a

[45:32] big box that we've seen. It really is, around the city.

[45:35] So I want to thank your applicant for that.

[45:38] And because you know I can't resist,

[45:42] so looking at the plans,

[45:45] the way the entries work, they're actually on the sides is what I realize.

[45:48] You walk

[45:50] on the sidewalks, and the face that faces the parking

[45:54] lot is kind of the back. And the entries, there's two

[45:58] corridors, are the sides.

[46:01] If you guys look at

[46:05] GU-1. If you look at the plans and look at the site plan, you see that.

[46:08] And what I want to point out on that is that the mechanical shed, which is the

[46:12] utility shed, faces the parking lot, and it's the public side.

[46:15] And it's private property. I

[46:19] don't know if there's a design guideline that speaks against it, but I would

[46:22] certainly recommend, because it's a really nice building, that you find a way to

[46:25] put that. Just flip it so that's on the back.

[46:28] It's probably for access for service.

[46:30] It would mean adding a sidewalk, but it's a very

[46:34] nice building, and you're going to drive in and see the mechanical shed.

[46:39] Do you see what I mean? Those bays on the gable end, those are

[46:43] actually the sides, not the front and back.

[46:48] So the face of the building. I think there's another one.

[46:52] Go to the elevations.

[46:56] Go up one.

[46:58] Yeah. These are the ones here.

[47:01] Go up one. Do I have actual elevations in our... Oh, maybe you don't have them.

[47:03] Oh, yeah. These are separate slides, so I didn't-

[47:06] Yeah. It's two different-

[47:06] I didn't bring the all four sides.

[47:08] Okay.

[47:08] But yeah.

[47:08] Yeah.

[47:09] Sorry.

[47:09] If people look at their packets,

[47:11] it's the west elevation as it's shown.

[47:14] And again, it's never going to be the front elevation facing it, but it feels

[47:18] like a shame for such a lovely

[47:21] building. That's what I have to say.

[47:24] Thank you, Robin.

[47:26] I can echo on that, too. The building's not square.

[47:29] They've not plain. They put

[47:33] some architectural skill to it.

[47:35] And I know it falls within city ordinances,

[47:39] so we basically have to follow the city ordinances as far as

[47:43] what is allowed to be put into a certain

[47:47] area.

[47:49] So

[47:50] with that, we can't tell you to put in single families.

[47:53] Yes, but I'd like to see more single family homes as well.

[47:56] I know that they're almost unachievable now with the price range of where they're

[47:58] at. So more and more people have to find rentable places, and trying to

[48:02] get density into the city is

[48:06] definitely a help to bring workforce and so forth in.

[48:09] So with the design aspect of it and the phasing with the

[48:13] sidewalks, I

[48:15] can't see anything wrong with proceeding with this project.

[48:20] Does anybody else have any other comments?

[48:23] Karen?

[48:23] Yeah. I just had a question. On here, and you said

[48:27] they donated the property to the church.

[48:31] Mm-hmm.

[48:31] Is that zoned?

[48:34] Would it be able to work as a church?

[48:36] There's already a Calvary on Spring.

[48:41] Because one of the plans shows Calvary

[48:45] Church.

[48:46] Calvary Church is the property owner, but the use of that church is actually still

[48:50] being utilized as a residential structure, a single family structure.

[48:55] It is

[48:57] being used...

[48:59] It does not meet the definition of a treatment facility that would require

[49:03] any kind of approvals. I guess it is not part of

[49:07] this

[49:08] application, but where it came out, I can share.

[49:10] I did reach out and I did speak to the church.

[49:12] That specific church does run a

[49:16] faith-based program where they meet with

[49:20] people who are struggling with addiction.

[49:23] And

[49:25] they all live together and kind of learn the faith of that church.

[49:29] It, again, does not meet the therapeutic threshold to be a treatment

[49:33] facility because it is more this just faith-based

[49:37] residential living.

[49:39] But it is

[49:40] being used as a residential facility.

[49:42] So it doesn't need the medical component either?

[49:44] No.

[49:45] Okay.

[49:45] There's no medication

[49:47] Okay. I was just curious because I saw that and I-

[49:49] Yep

[49:49] ... I'm just trying to get my bearings there.

[49:53] So yeah, the buildings do look nice.

[49:56] It is unfortunate with a property this size that we cannot seem to

[50:00] utilize more single family. We're doing nothing to generate wealth or

[50:03] generational wealth. We're just a rental town, and that's

[50:07] what's unfortunate.

[50:09] But these do look more like homes and not-

[50:14] ... boxes. You didn't allude to any price point on a one-bedroom or two-bedroom.

[50:17] I know that's probably really far out to kind of dictate that, but market

[50:21] rent right now, ballpark?

[50:25] Yeah. Yeah. I'm honestly not sure where they're going to be at with the twos and

[50:29] the ones.

[50:30] When they're done, it'll be prevailing rates at that point.

[50:34] Right. Okay. Thank you.

[50:37] Thank you, Robin. Yes, Ariana.

[50:40] Justin, I'm saying this to you because we see you so often here.

[50:43] Respectfully, saying that a one-bedroom apartment is going to be cheaper than a

[50:47] two-bedroom apartment is not affordable housing.

[50:50] I hear what you're saying about offering a mix of different size units for people

[50:53] who have a lot of different needs. I completely appreciate that, but I

[50:57] expect that these one bedrooms will be at least $2,000 a month for rent, and that's

[51:01] simply not affordable.

[51:04] And that's okay.

[51:06] This doesn't have to be affordable housing because we need a mix of housing for

[51:10] people at all income levels, but I just want to say that for the board

[51:13] and for the future.

[51:16] And I just had a question. I really appreciate the thought that was put into the

[51:19] sidewalk project, and I think that's a great

[51:23] use of the public space requirement.

[51:25] But can you just elaborate on the conflicts that have come up when there is

[51:29] access to a trail that's within a subdivision?

[51:33] The only place that I'm familiar with this is on RE Drive, where there's two public

[51:36] parking spots for the trail up there, and I was just thinking, why not have two

[51:40] parking spots for this trail per the Parks Commission's recommendation,

[51:44] but would defer to the city's... If you could just elaborate on

[51:48] what the problems have been other than

[51:50] people who live there don't like seeing somebody they don't know walk through their

[51:54] driveway, which to me is like,

[51:57] I'm not too worried about that.

[51:59] Well, that is part of the problem-

[52:02] ... is that I think,

[52:06] to be fair, less so in a rental

[52:09] complex because it's being

[52:12] governed as one, and so it's a lot harder

[52:15] if somebody... Like if it were an L Maple, just for example, this did

[52:19] not occur there, but I'm just using it as an example, where a developer came in and

[52:23] they built the road and the individual lots, and then other folks came in and

[52:26] bought them. So the people who are living there didn't realize maybe that there

[52:30] was a public access easement on their property when they bought it, and then that

[52:33] can become a strong point of conflict.

[52:35] And then we get lots of calls about that, and then people get frustrated when we

[52:38] can't do anything, and so it ends up just being a conflict.

[52:42] Mm-hmm.

[52:43] In this one, the RE Drive is a good example,

[52:47] and I'll touch on this later, but it doesn't

[52:51] end up getting utilized that much because people don't know it's there.

[52:55] And then once people don't know it's there and it's not being utilized,

[53:00] the fact that it's there gets forgotten by everybody, and it does end up being

[53:04] something that is on everyone's mind at the moment of approval and then kind of

[53:07] falls off the table.

[53:08] Mm-hmm.

[53:09] So where there's a situation where if there were an existing trail along

[53:13] the back, I think that that would make sense to continue it, but where the entire

[53:15] trail is and then the existence of entering the property, doing the loop, and going

[53:19] out, that's where it didn't seem

[53:22] like it made sense in this instance.

[53:24] Okay. That makes sense to me, too, but thanks for explaining it for future

[53:27] projects.

[53:27] Mm-hmm.

[53:29] Lucas.

[53:30] I'm just curious, Dustin, do you know if the donated parcel,

[53:34] the oversight of that, will be given to the same entity

[53:38] that runs the sober living parcel abutting the

[53:42] property?

[53:46] So, the ownership of

[53:50] the farmhouse? So the one that's already been conveyed off, are you talking about

[53:54] the other two lots that are being created? Yeah.

[53:56] You'd mentioned the part had been donated and just wondering if it's connected to

[53:59] the abutter.

[54:01] No. So,

[54:03] the one that's already been conveyed,

[54:08] the intent is not for either of these two lots that are being

[54:12] created to also be managed by that same

[54:16] owner.

[54:16] Okay.

[54:18] Yeah, there's no intent there.

[54:19] Mm-hmm.

[54:20] I think there'll be, again, a residential duplex constructed on one of the lots,

[54:24] and then that existing barn building,

[54:28] I think

[54:29] in the beginning might just be used for storage during construction and everything.

[54:33] They might keep some of their maintenance equipment in there and stuff like that.

[54:38] Okay. Yeah, just clarifying because it sounded like the two components had been

[54:41] conflated in the previous abutter comment.

[54:45] Thank you.

[54:48] Anybody else?

[54:51] Jason.

[54:53] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[54:57] Just curious about if there's been traffic counts done out there for

[55:00] Saco Street?

[55:03] So we didn't do site-specific traffic counts to generate

[55:07] what the background traffic is going down Saco.

[55:10] We did trip generation calculations just for this project,

[55:15] but didn't necessarily

[55:18] analyze the whole corridor.

[55:21] Okay.

[55:22] With the

[55:24] amount of units, does it require a traffic study?

[55:27] No?

[55:28] Not that I'm aware of, no.

[55:30] No.

[55:31] All right. Okay.

[55:33] Design.

[55:35] I really like the design. I think it looks really nice.

[55:38] But I agree, the mechanical shed

[55:42] should not be the front. That's the first thing you see.

[55:48] Looking at this

[55:50] and those pictures there, if you rotated building A 180

[55:54] degrees, put the shed in the back, and then building B rotated it 90 degrees

[55:58] clockwise, it would look like Kind of like that up there.

[56:01] It'll look like two different buildings, but it's the same building.

[56:04] And, it would hide the sheds.

[56:07] But,

[56:09] nice design.

[56:11] Parking lot.

[56:13] That is a lot of asphalt.

[56:17] I mean,

[56:21] it is what it is. But

[56:25] if there's any chance to soften this up a bit,

[56:30] that would be

[56:32] definitely beneficial.

[56:35] Because that is a big parking lot

[56:37] coming into the entrance.

[56:40] One of the things we did is

[56:42] we narrowed up the driveway entrance coming in.

[56:45] One of the things, by moving the development further back into the lot and

[56:49] not having parking up in that first few hundred feet, we're

[56:53] able to go with a narrower-

[56:55] Mm-hmm

[56:55] ... driveway section up until the point where we have to do 90-degree

[56:59] parking. At that point, we need to provide enough space so you're not backing into

[57:02] vehicles and causing damage. So we tried to keep it neck

[57:06] down for as long as we could, and then eventually we kind of got to the spots where

[57:10] we had to have parking, so then we had to widen it up at that point.

[57:20] Yeah. Is there any discussion about putting a fence between the

[57:24] farmhouse and

[57:27] Building A?

[57:29] I assume that's the farmhouse, the

[57:33] kind of like the S-

[57:34] Yeah

[57:34] ... kind of like that L-shaped one there.

[57:36] Yeah. In that case there,

[57:42] that's already a big building. It's probably as

[57:45] tall as these new buildings that are going

[57:49] in.

[57:51] So it didn't look like something where something on the ground per

[57:55] se would

[57:56] do much for the buildings, because of kind of how close they are and

[58:00] the fact that all of the buildings are pretty large.

[58:03] So we looked at, basically, we also

[58:07] have some drainage that runs in between,

[58:10] kind of around the backside of the farmhouse heading towards the garage.

[58:13] It kind of breaks in two directions there.

[58:17] So there's a few things going on there where just trying to create a physical

[58:20] barrier there didn't make a lot of sense to us.

[58:23] Certainly going forward, if the church feels like a fence

[58:27] is required, we kind of have a strip in between-

[58:29] Mm-hmm

[58:30] ... the church property and the retained land, this

[58:34] Lot 3, where that

[58:36] single-family house lot kind of, it's like an L shape there.

[58:42] So I think doing a fence along that line too, we'd have to kind of figure out kind

[58:45] of where it would go. But certainly opportunity to do one, but at this point-

[58:50] Okay

[58:50] ... I don't know that it's needed.

[58:52] Right. Yeah, and it

[58:54] sounds like

[58:55] it was owned by the developer.

[58:58] Yes.

[58:58] Yeah, so.

[58:59] Correct.

[59:00] Kind of up to them. So.

[59:01] Yeah.

[59:01] All right. Well, thanks.

[59:04] Thank you, Jason. Anybody else?

[59:07] Go ahead, Rebecca.

[59:08] If the board's all finished with their comments, I don't mind if I could say

[59:11] something quickly.

[59:11] Yeah, go ahead.

[59:12] Yep. I just wanted to speak to Kathy for a minute

[59:16] and acknowledge the

[59:19] concern you're feeling about the feeling of the multifamily next to the single

[59:23] family, and that that can feel very jarring when it hasn't been

[59:27] built yet. And it will be different.

[59:28] We cannot deny that having development next will be...

[59:31] Some of the previous iterations of this did include more duplex style,

[59:35] but the trade-off to that was then it went all the way to the back, and so you were

[59:37] clearing all the way in the back.

[59:40] So there's the benefits of this kind of being clustered

[59:44] up front, maintaining the back as a vegetated wild area versus

[59:47] clearing in the back and losing that habitat.

[59:51] There's also topographical challenges in this particular parcel that lent

[59:55] its way to this development.

[59:58] But I wanted to

[1:00:01] let you know that the board, I was going to remind the board of this later, so I'm

[1:00:05] just going to remind you now. But the board's going to be holding a

[1:00:07] post-construction site walk, specifically to take a look at a couple

[1:00:10] developments that show the integration of multifamily and single-family

[1:00:14] homes. Because one thing that I think a lot of people don't realize is that

[1:00:18] we are very much a mixed housing type

[1:00:22] city, really. We have a mix of single family, duplexes, triplexes,

[1:00:26] multis, all over the place. And I think a lot of times people don't see

[1:00:30] them because once they're built, they really nestle in and they just settle out.

[1:00:34] One of the sites we're going to be visiting actually is the same developer

[1:00:39] and has a similar building style that might, if you are

[1:00:42] interested, you may enjoy coming and seeing.

[1:00:45] If you are interested in that, please reach out to the planning department and we

[1:00:49] can let you know the information of that, what time, where to

[1:00:52] meet. We're going to be visiting three different sites and just meeting at

[1:00:56] one and kind of going on to the next one whenever we're finished at the one.

[1:00:59] But it could be an opportunity for you to just sort of see that

[1:01:03] integration once it's constructed.

[1:01:07] Do you want to say anything?

[1:01:09] No.

[1:01:11] Yes. Come on up.

[1:01:13] For me?

[1:01:14] You have to come to the microphone.

[1:01:14] You have to come on up to the microphone.

[1:01:16] Oh, sorry.

[1:01:16] Sorry. They can't hear you on record.

[1:01:20] I think my main concern is more with the numbers.

[1:01:23] The numbers of

[1:01:25] units, and the number of cars that are going to be there, and

[1:01:29] the access, and the diagram. I mean, I am not

[1:01:32] 100% single family homes, if there were

[1:01:35] duplexes or something like that. It's just the sheer

[1:01:39] numbers of what is going to be in there.

[1:01:43] And, well, 172, but we've also seen something that

[1:01:47] referred to 184 units going in there.

[1:01:51] And I've seen that on some paperwork.

[1:01:55] Thank you for saying that again. I had that down.

[1:01:56] It's not 184, it's 84. So

[1:02:00] there's seven 12 unit buildings, so the

[1:02:04] full build out, the full master plan is 84.

[1:02:06] Yeah, 84. I'm sorry. Yeah.

[1:02:07] No, that's okay. I just wanted to-

[1:02:07] I'm sorry.

[1:02:08] Yep.

[1:02:08] But it's just the sheer numbers of

[1:02:11] People and vehicles, and where are you gonna

[1:02:15] park all the vehicles? People are gonna live there.

[1:02:17] A lot of people are gonna live there. There are gonna be people in and out.

[1:02:20] They're gonna have company. You're gonna have deliveries.

[1:02:23] And I don't think any of us really

[1:02:27] expected that it was gonna be all single-family homes.

[1:02:30] It just wasn't realistic at this point in

[1:02:33] time. So-

[1:02:35] We have parking ordinances, so each

[1:02:38] building that has to be maintained in the city, no matter what it is,

[1:02:42] whether it's a house, whether it's an apartment, whether it's a duplex, has to

[1:02:46] have the standard amount of parking spots per

[1:02:50] unit. So any time there's a unit being built, whether it's a

[1:02:53] multifamily, they have to abide by the city code of

[1:02:57] ordinances, the amount of parking to be able to

[1:03:01] handle the amount of units that are gonna be developed.

[1:03:04] So you're not gonna have any overflow on Saco Street as far as that goes.

[1:03:07] Okay.

[1:03:07] If there needs to be more parking, if

[1:03:12] the development gets bigger,

[1:03:14] normally we can add additional parking for visitors.

[1:03:17] And usually, the developer will do that.

[1:03:20] So we're not gonna have any parking on Saco Street per se.

[1:03:23] There's gonna be plenty of room for the residents to park within their-

[1:03:27] Okay

[1:03:27] ... complex without any...

[1:03:29] This parking lot's pretty big as it is, what we see on both sides.

[1:03:33] So there's definitely enough. It's 1.75 parking spots

[1:03:37] per unit, and that's plenty sufficient, what we've seen

[1:03:41] for any other application in the city. So.

[1:03:44] And then the other, of course, the main concern was traffic in and out, which

[1:03:48] now that you've got a new road coming in off the

[1:03:52] back end of Idex. We have another driveway coming in

[1:03:56] across the street from that. It just

[1:03:58] gets crazy. So.

[1:03:59] Mm-hmm.

[1:04:00] Thank you.

[1:04:00] I understand your concern. Thank you.

[1:04:05] With that, we do have a-

[1:04:07] Mr. Chair?

[1:04:07] Go ahead, John.

[1:04:08] Just because it's come up again, through you to the planner,

[1:04:14] Saco Street's a state road, and we can't control that. Is that how that works?

[1:04:18] When it comes to speed limits, that's a state issue?

[1:04:22] It is a state-designated speed limit, yes.

[1:04:25] All right. And

[1:04:28] is that ever affected by the amount of

[1:04:32] maybe curb cuts or cars entering it?

[1:04:35] For example, the creation of 24 units doesn't require a traffic study, but

[1:04:39] that's theoretically. Twenty-four more entries and exits onto a road,

[1:04:43] does that ever factor into speed limit designations as far as you

[1:04:46] know?

[1:04:47] It does not. Speed limit factors into the location

[1:04:51] of curb cuts and entrances in order to determine that there's an adequate sight

[1:04:55] distance-

[1:04:55] Sight distance

[1:04:55] ... in that speed, right. But the entrance itself wouldn't affect the speed of the

[1:04:59] road.

[1:04:59] Okay. Thank you.

[1:05:02] Good question, John.

[1:05:05] With that, I have a motion on page 10 of our memo.

[1:05:15] Anybody entertain? John?

[1:05:16] Mr. Chair, I move that the planning board approve the site plan

[1:05:20] subdivision application for MTR Development LLC

[1:05:24] to subdivide parcel previously addressed as 547 Saco

[1:05:28] Street into three separate lots, and the construction of an 800-foot driveway

[1:05:32] to provide access to the development of two 12-unit multifamily

[1:05:36] buildings on Lot 3, Tax Map 4, Lot 13, Zoned

[1:05:40] Residential Growth Area 2. Approval includes the following findings of fact,

[1:05:44] conclusions, and conditions as stated on pages 10 through 15 of the

[1:05:48] staff memo dated July 31st, 2026, which are adopted in

[1:05:52] support of this approval.

[1:05:53] Thank you. Can I have a second, please?

[1:05:56] Second.

[1:05:58] Thank you, Robin.

[1:05:59] Can I have a roll call vote, please?

[1:06:05] Robin Tannenbaum? Yes.

[1:06:08] Nancy Litercapes?

[1:06:10] Yes.

[1:06:12] Jason Frazier?

[1:06:13] Yes.

[1:06:14] Karen Axelson? Yes.

[1:06:17] Kevin Price?

[1:06:18] Yes.

[1:06:19] Lucas Shrake?

[1:06:20] Yes.

[1:06:21] Oriana Farnham?

[1:06:22] Yes.

[1:06:24] John Turcotte?

[1:06:25] Yes.

[1:06:26] And Larry McWilliams.

[1:06:27] Yes. Seeing unanimous. Thank you, Dustin, for that presentation.

[1:06:32] Thank you.

[1:06:33] I also need now a motion to go into workshop, please.

[1:06:38] So moved, Mr. Chair.

[1:06:39] Thank you, Nancy.

[1:06:40] Second.

[1:06:41] Thanks, Kevin. Can I get another roll call vote, Jenna, please?

[1:06:48] Robin Tannenbaum? Yes. Nancy Litercapes?

[1:06:53] Yes.

[1:06:54] Jason Frazier?

[1:06:55] Yes.

[1:06:56] Karen Axelson? Yes. Kevin Price?

[1:06:58] Yes.

[1:06:59] Lucas Shrake?

[1:07:00] Yes.

[1:07:01] Oriana Farnham?

[1:07:01] Yes.

[1:07:03] John Turcotte?

[1:07:04] Yes.

[1:07:04] And Larry McWilliams.

[1:07:05] Yes. Thank you. With that, Orlando, can you read the next

[1:07:09] item into the record, please?

[1:07:12] Item number 26-000635, Site

[1:07:16] Plan 100 Larabee Road, 100 Larabee LLC.

[1:07:19] The applicant is requesting an expansion to provide 34 additional parking

[1:07:23] spaces to the Larabee complex. Tax Map 042B,

[1:07:27] Lot 006, Zone Gateway Commercial, Use Retail,

[1:07:31] Restaurant Class 2.

[1:07:34] Thank you. With that, applicant presentation, please.

[1:07:38] Good evening, members of the board.

[1:07:39] My name's Henry Hess, Spiga Technics, representing the applicant tonight at

[1:07:43] Larabee Road. And I'm just gonna pull up my presentation

[1:07:47] here.

[1:07:58] So before the board, as stated, is a parking

[1:08:02] expansion at 100 Larabee Road,

[1:08:04] proposed parking expansion. To orient you briefly,

[1:08:09] the site centered in the picture here, Larabee Road

[1:08:13] running

[1:08:14] to the south of the site here, or Page South,

[1:08:17] Main Street to the right side, and Terminal Street

[1:08:21] to the left

[1:08:23] It's a large building

[1:08:26] with a separate building as well adjacent to it, multi-tenant

[1:08:30] commercial style building.

[1:08:34] If I go to the next page here.

[1:08:43] There we go.

[1:08:48] Here it goes.

[1:08:51] Too far.

[1:08:53] Exists today.

[1:08:55] Like I said, just briefly wanted to show existing conditions that were out there,

[1:09:00] and then

[1:09:02] if we could just get this to...

[1:09:06] What's being proposed is approximately 33 parking

[1:09:10] spaces

[1:09:11] expanded at this site. There's currently

[1:09:15] 333.

[1:09:19] The shift itself,

[1:09:22] or the addition itself is majority in that western corner of the

[1:09:26] parcel along Terminal Street.

[1:09:29] In order to find that additional parking, a lot of it entails shifting

[1:09:33] that driveway entrance to the west.

[1:09:36] That provides

[1:09:38] adequate space for a long row of parking, and then

[1:09:41] expanding the interior parking and providing

[1:09:45] parking islands in the center as well.

[1:09:49] There are a number of spots dotted

[1:09:53] throughout the site beyond that, about five

[1:09:56] on the left side of Larabee Road, one on the right

[1:10:01] side of Larabee Road,

[1:10:03] and then a few to the rear back right where we

[1:10:07] have proposed some one-way directional access.

[1:10:12] A lot of the parking, the reason that one-way directional access is proposed, a lot

[1:10:15] of the parking that comes through there and the access is one-way parking.

[1:10:20] And right now, the way a lot of the tenants use the

[1:10:24] site, a lot of drop-off happens to the rear

[1:10:28] for some of the tenants at specific times,

[1:10:31] and that circulation just helps keep some of the cars a little bit more organized

[1:10:35] in there as opposed to a lot of crisscross traffic as people drop off, either

[1:10:40] people attending either events to the rear or going into

[1:10:44] the uses into the rear as well.

[1:10:47] So the site itself is proposing minimal expansion

[1:10:51] of impervious, albeit there is an expansion of about 6,000 square

[1:10:55] feet

[1:10:56] for these parking spaces. As such,

[1:11:00] the project's proposing in two locations there, close to Terminal

[1:11:04] Street,

[1:11:06] one on the west, one on the east side there.

[1:11:08] Two smaller detention or

[1:11:12] stormwater basins there to detain and meet the flooding standards of the city.

[1:11:18] A lot of the site water today

[1:11:22] either runs into existing storm drainage and into a

[1:11:26] swell around Terminal Street and actually flows to another area

[1:11:30] of treatment offsite, or as well as there's an existing filterra

[1:11:34] system along Terminal Street that does currently treat a

[1:11:38] section of that pavement as well

[1:11:40] before outletting again to that swale that runs along Terminal Street.

[1:11:47] The reason this parking expansion is proposed is

[1:11:51] the owner of the lot has had

[1:11:54] a number of new leases with new tenants that require additional parking.

[1:11:58] They've seen a lot of

[1:12:01] well, full parking lots for their tenants recently and they're trying to,

[1:12:05] with increased programming that those tenants have, go into the evening and

[1:12:09] nighttime demands. There's kind of a new overlap in the

[1:12:13] parking that's been happening there, and they're seeing a lot of congestion and

[1:12:17] tenants that really need some additional parking there to suit their needs.

[1:12:23] So that's why we're here before you at this workshop.

[1:12:26] Part of this proposal and the expansion of impervious area

[1:12:31] does mean that there's a slight reduction in the percentage of the total

[1:12:35] or overall landscape area for the site.

[1:12:37] I know the Gateway District, there's a 25% requirement.

[1:12:41] Existing today, this site has 14%.

[1:12:45] It's a larger commercial site with

[1:12:49] a fair amount of paving. With the expansion, it'd be down

[1:12:53] to 12%.

[1:12:55] So again, a slight reduction there.

[1:12:57] There will be a few trees impacted as such, about four or five trees

[1:13:01] impacted for the expansion, and as part of the site plan that comes forward,

[1:13:05] you'd see those trees replaced and some additional landscaping there

[1:13:08] where feasible and to provide some buffering.

[1:13:12] So I guess with that, I can turn my time back over to the

[1:13:16] board and answer any questions you may have.

[1:13:18] Certainly, I know Rebecca might have a little information as well,

[1:13:22] but I'm here for the board for any questions.

[1:13:26] Thank you very much.

[1:13:28] Rebecca?

[1:13:30] Yeah, so as Henry stated, there is a reduction in

[1:13:34] the landscape on this site. Typically, that's not something that would be allowed.

[1:13:38] It's already non-conforming. You're not typically allowed to increase the

[1:13:40] non-conformity. However, in the Gateway Commercial District, it expressly states

[1:13:44] that this can be something that the board approves if it's found that there's no

[1:13:47] other reasonable alternative. There is a fee in lieu that would be

[1:13:51] associated with that. We use the same calculation as we do for our open space

[1:13:55] in determining that, and that funds

[1:13:59] are then required to be utilized within the Main Street

[1:14:03] corridor for safety or beautification improvements.

[1:14:07] So Henry has been made aware of this.

[1:14:09] We need to get the finalized number, but just running off of those basic

[1:14:12] percentages, it's about a reduction of 6,000 square feet, which would be a fee

[1:14:16] in lieu of about $13,071.

[1:14:22] And the only other staff comment here is that we kind of spoke

[1:14:25] to it briefly in the memo, but we'll need to continue to work with the applicant in

[1:14:29] identifying how that one-way maneuver is going to

[1:14:33] function. It looks functional on paper.

[1:14:37] However, in reality, that's pavement on the other side, so

[1:14:41] it's going pavement to pavement. There's no delineation of that one way, so there's

[1:14:44] nothing that's really forcing a vehicle to follow that.

[1:14:47] So, we may need to explore options of seeing, does this need to be in one way,

[1:14:51] or if it does, is there a way to delineate it or provide something in addition to

[1:14:55] pavement markings to encourage compliance.

[1:15:03] That's all.

[1:15:03] Okay. Thank you.

[1:15:06] Any board comments?

[1:15:09] Through you to the planner. I've never seen this before where the staff memo

[1:15:12] indicates that some of the proposed parking are not approved.

[1:15:16] So what happens if we approve... I realize we're not up to that, but if

[1:15:20] it gets to the point of approval and we approve something that the fire marshal

[1:15:23] doesn't allow, except for that part, it would continue

[1:15:27] forward?

[1:15:27] Well, the staff memo are recommendations, really, to the board, but it is letting

[1:15:31] you know that FD does not support it, and we do generally

[1:15:35] follow FD's guidance for safety measures.

[1:15:38] There was a concern of access at that particular location.

[1:15:41] Right.

[1:15:41] So it would be-

[1:15:41] It's right there in front of the entrance.

[1:15:42] Yep, it would be FD's recommendation to not have those located

[1:15:46] there.

[1:15:46] You know what? I appreciate that comment, too.

[1:15:48] It's something I didn't get a chance to, I overlooked mentioning in a

[1:15:52] quick presentation there. It's something that we've spoken to the applicant.

[1:15:56] That's understandable. We've heard that comment from the fire department loud and

[1:15:59] clear.

[1:15:59] Okay.

[1:15:59] So, any formal site plan that came forward at that point would

[1:16:03] be following the fire marshal or fire recommendations.

[1:16:07] Thank you.

[1:16:10] Mr. Chair?

[1:16:11] Yes, Kevin.

[1:16:12] Just a quick comment. As someone who's cut it a little close on dropping

[1:16:16] off a daughter at a dance here, I agree, this lot needs some work- ...

[1:16:19] because you have people leaving and coming at the same time.

[1:16:22] Yeah.

[1:16:22] Circulation is a challenge.

[1:16:23] Yeah.

[1:16:23] Youth, kids, it's been more than once of like, "Nope, you can't run in.

[1:16:26] Stop"-

[1:16:27] Yep

[1:16:27] ... car. So, glad to see that with this, there's some thinking about that and kind

[1:16:31] of the unique use of that building. So that's all.

[1:16:37] Anybody else?

[1:16:40] Yes, Jason.

[1:16:42] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[1:16:43] So, I assume this is the dance place there, or

[1:16:47] is this, what's causing the-

[1:16:49] The applicant before you is the

[1:16:53] owner of the lot, not necessarily the-

[1:16:55] Okay

[1:16:55] ... owner or the tenant of the dance studio.

[1:16:58] So which business or businesses are causing-

[1:17:03] Oh, yeah.

[1:17:03] The-

[1:17:03] To answer your question, yes, I believe some of that congestion, yes, in the

[1:17:06] evening programming from the dance studio, et cetera. Yes, absolutely.

[1:17:09] Okay. So I drive by here all the time, and

[1:17:12] along Larabee,

[1:17:14] it seems like it's always empty. It doesn't seem like there's ever anybody there.

[1:17:18] On the front, yeah.

[1:17:19] Not on the Larabee side. Which, yeah, you have to walk around the building.

[1:17:24] Mm-hmm.

[1:17:26] Any thought... I'd be okay if you got rid of those parking spaces along

[1:17:30] Larabee and then added those ones, kind of swap it,

[1:17:34] put in some trees in the front there, some nice landscaping,

[1:17:37] beautify the building, add more parking in the back.

[1:17:40] Yeah.

[1:17:43] Just an option.

[1:17:45] Thank you, Jason. And you know it's me with landscaping as well.

[1:17:48] The nice thing with something like this, I've never saw this where we were adding

[1:17:52] more parking spots either as well. I don't think it's ever come up.

[1:17:57] But the fact that in lieu of that, that we do have a plan in

[1:18:01] place, because I already mentioned, I already put it down, an increased

[1:18:04] plantings somewhere else in the city.

[1:18:06] If you can't put them here to upgrade to somewhere to

[1:18:09] beautification. You've mentioned beautification and

[1:18:13] safety. What is that about?

[1:18:17] So there isn't a specific project that that would be applied to right now.

[1:18:20] That's just the standard in the ordinance is that

[1:18:23] it would be required to...

[1:18:27] Because a certain fund.

[1:18:27] Safety and appearance improvements

[1:18:30] is the general terminology for the use of the funds.

[1:18:34] Okay. I would

[1:18:36] suggest on something like this,

[1:18:39] because of the plantings, to use it in a planting of somewhere

[1:18:43] else in the...

[1:18:44] The flower fund.

[1:18:46] Yeah, call it the flower fund, or a tree fund-

[1:18:49] Tree fund

[1:18:49] ...

[1:18:50] or something to that where we can add, like when we have trees that do

[1:18:54] die in the city, that I know we do a lot of plantings along the roads, along

[1:18:58] wayside, and they're looking good. Obviously, sometimes they do die.

[1:19:02] We have to replace them at a cost. So, some type of fund where

[1:19:06] we can use that money to replace the trees or

[1:19:10] do some extra landscaping. I know that Row 4 does it.

[1:19:13] I know in the middle, where they are, at the McDonald's

[1:19:17] intersection, they put the landscaping projects right

[1:19:21] in the middle of the roadway. So, I'd be up to seeing something where that money

[1:19:25] would go directly into a landscaping project versus

[1:19:29] just in a general appearance fund.

[1:19:32] Because I know where some monies go, sometimes it gets

[1:19:35] allocated in a different way or a different place, and that's where I was curious.

[1:19:40] I would certainly, if we can't do landscaping here, I would certainly encourage it

[1:19:43] to be somewhere else in the city. So, my

[1:19:47] two cents on that.

[1:19:47] Mm-hmm.

[1:19:49] Anybody else?

[1:19:49] Just one last point.

[1:19:52] What I've experienced, I didn't experience the dance

[1:19:56] studio. I experienced Jokers used to be back there, and

[1:19:59] people just rocketing straight through from Amato's, and I like how you have

[1:20:03] this turn here where they're kind of required to turn into the lane furthest away

[1:20:07] from the building. Will there be signage telling people that that's where they got

[1:20:10] to go?

[1:20:10] Yeah. The intent, and I believe it was also mentioned at staff comment,

[1:20:14] is at this scale, we didn't include specific locations of signage,

[1:20:18] but the intent would absolutely be signed appropriately and to deter

[1:20:22] ... those going two-way. It is two-way

[1:20:25] traffic to some of the comments between

[1:20:29] there, the two buildings until you get to the rear and the property line

[1:20:33] extends upward.

[1:20:35] And that creates that pinch point, right?

[1:20:37] The intent would be really from that point, you get your one-way because you're

[1:20:41] right. There's traffic

[1:20:43] for the adjacent parcel and this parcel.

[1:20:46] One is 90, one is one-way. They both use a wide

[1:20:50] piece of pavement there, and when you actually get towards that rear and you round

[1:20:53] the corner there, that is the intent of you're not supposed to be coming out that

[1:20:57] way.

[1:20:57] Right.

[1:20:57] This is in only this direction. Yep.

[1:20:59] Thank you.

[1:21:03] Thank you, John. Anybody else?

[1:21:08] I see none. With that, can I get a motion, please?

[1:21:11] This is in workshop.

[1:21:12] Oh, it's a workshop. I don't need a motion.

[1:21:15] Well, thank you for that.

[1:21:18] So with that, this is also for a public comment.

[1:21:22] I didn't give the public an opportunity to speak on this, but if there's

[1:21:26] anybody through the public that's in the audience would like to speak on the

[1:21:30] addition of parking spaces,

[1:21:32] please come up. I see none. Anybody through Zoom?

[1:21:36] If there's anyone participating via Zoom and would like to speak, please raise your

[1:21:39] hand.

[1:21:42] Seeing none.

[1:21:43] Okay. Thank you.

[1:21:45] All right. Well, thank you very much.

[1:21:47] Thank you for your time and consideration of the project.

[1:21:49] Thanks. Have a good night.

[1:21:50] You, too.

[1:21:51] Okay, Orlando, can you read the next item into the record, please?

[1:21:57] Item number 26-000630,

[1:22:00] site plan subdivision 267 Conant Street, MGM Builders,

[1:22:04] Inc. The applicant is requesting to construct three multifamily residential

[1:22:08] buildings totaling in 36 dwelling units, and to establish a pad

[1:22:12] site for a future development of a 4,000 square foot commercial building.

[1:22:16] Tax Map 031, Lot 033, Zoned City

[1:22:20] Center, Use Dwelling, Multiple Family.

[1:22:24] Thank you.

[1:22:26] And I see Dustin's up at the microphone again. Hi, Dustin.

[1:22:29] Here again. So

[1:22:32] , all right.

[1:22:36] So Dustin Roma again with DM Roma Consulting Engineers,

[1:22:39] representing MGM Builders with this application.

[1:22:43] So for those of you that were on the board five or six years

[1:22:47] ago, this project was presented at

[1:22:51] length to the planning board or a project on this

[1:22:54] property that is somewhat similar to what we're proposing here.

[1:22:59] At the time, we had worked through the development of plans for

[1:23:03] a exclusively commercial development.

[1:23:06] It had multiple individual smaller buildings.

[1:23:11] And it never went all the way through to final approval.

[1:23:14] We basically

[1:23:16] had run into a scheduling conflict with a upcoming

[1:23:20] paving moratorium, and we really weren't able to proceed into a

[1:23:24] final plan approval. So this applicant has still

[1:23:27] retained ownership of the property, and it's basically just kind of sat for

[1:23:32] four or five years now. In that time, they've kind of

[1:23:35] reconsidered the use of the property and worked

[1:23:39] through some development options.

[1:23:41] And what we have in front of you here as a proposal is a

[1:23:44] predominantly residential-use development with

[1:23:48] a mixed-use component for a 4,000 square foot

[1:23:53] commercial building that we're showing along the front of the site.

[1:23:57] At this time, we have no intended tenant for that 4,000-foot

[1:24:01] building. It's really being designed as a pad site.

[1:24:04] Certainly,

[1:24:06] we will need to make some accommodations for it so that we can discuss things like

[1:24:10] parking and traffic and wastewater disposal.

[1:24:12] All of those things, we're going to have to make some guidelines and

[1:24:15] assumptions as to maybe what might go into that building.

[1:24:19] But right now, we're just basically showing it as a pad site.

[1:24:24] One of the nice things about that building being there as well, we've got

[1:24:28] basically two kind of prominent buildings that will be up

[1:24:32] near Conant Street. So we'll have this commercial building as well

[1:24:36] as one of the multifamily buildings that'll really be what

[1:24:40] you see as you drive by the site or as you pull in.

[1:24:44] And really, all the parking is going to be in the back.

[1:24:46] So you'll just have this driveway entrance coming in,

[1:24:50] and the primary visibility of what you'll see are the buildings.

[1:24:56] We will be extending the sidewalk along Conant Street,

[1:25:00] heading to the east,

[1:25:02] and ending at the

[1:25:04] condo project that's adjacent to us.

[1:25:07] What's not shown on this plan is that the sidewalk that

[1:25:12] from the west has been extended up to that

[1:25:15] driveway that is basically adjacent to our

[1:25:19] property.

[1:25:20] That development that occurred, the 17-unit development there that was

[1:25:24] built within the last two years,

[1:25:27] that project, it did extend the sidewalk up the road.

[1:25:30] So now we're going to continue to kind of integrate this

[1:25:33] connectivity of sidewalks as we go up through Conant Street.

[1:25:41] We've got the building designs are still being worked on.

[1:25:45] As you can see from this layout, they're more of a rectangular shape building

[1:25:49] as opposed to a square. So it'll be potentially something that's

[1:25:53] a little different than what you've seen a lot of.

[1:25:56] We've got integrated sidewalks throughout the development.

[1:26:00] And then certainly the number of parking spaces will take into

[1:26:03] account that mixed-use component with the commercial piece as

[1:26:07] well.

[1:26:09] This development has a single dumpster location all

[1:26:13] the way in the back of the site.

[1:26:15] We've identified certainly a desire to have a second dumpster

[1:26:19] location. That certainly is kind of far away from some of the units, and with the

[1:26:23] number of units being proposed here, we think maybe a second location would

[1:26:26] also function pretty well here. So we will

[1:26:30] be perhaps rearranging some of the site a little bit to

[1:26:34] accommodate a second, more central dumpster pad area.

[1:26:46] Yeah, we'll be bringing sewer into the site from Conant Street.

[1:26:49] There we do have an existing gravity main that's there across

[1:26:53] the street.

[1:26:56] And then

[1:26:58] with the number of units here, we will take a look at

[1:27:02] traffic and just the traffic that's being generated from the project.

[1:27:06] Just again, make sure we're not triggering any warrants for things like left

[1:27:09] turns and those sort of things. So we'll take a look at that in detail,

[1:27:14] just to make sure that the traffic functions will adequate or will function

[1:27:17] adequately.

[1:27:19] For lighting, we will likely have some pole-mounted lighting on this

[1:27:23] project. It's not shown on this plan, but we anticipate some of

[1:27:27] these landscape islands that we have around the site, as well as around the

[1:27:31] perimeter. We do have some parking areas that are located not immediately adjacent

[1:27:34] to the building, so we do anticipate some pole-mounted lighting.

[1:27:39] We'll have

[1:27:40] landscaping put together from a landscape architect.

[1:27:44] And we'll have some nice building elevations for you to look at as well and

[1:27:48] comment on when we come back in with our full plan.

[1:27:55] So this is more of an introduction again, to kind of just get

[1:27:59] everybody back familiar with this project again.

[1:28:03] We're going to use a lot of the stormwater and

[1:28:06] utility kind of design components that we had previously.

[1:28:10] But the site layout has changed a fair amount, so some of

[1:28:14] that'll be reworked.

[1:28:17] And we'll also run some multiple turning templates through the

[1:28:21] site just to kind of demonstrate how...

[1:28:23] Because we have a bunch of little dead-end areas on

[1:28:27] this site, which a big looped configuration I think would be

[1:28:31] better, but we're also, again, trying to leave some green space on this

[1:28:34] property and not just continue on with

[1:28:38] further

[1:28:40] parking areas in the back. And trying to leave some of these landscaped

[1:28:43] islands in between all the parking areas to try to introduce some green space.

[1:28:47] So,

[1:28:48] it is kind of a balance to just have continuous loops

[1:28:52] all through the site as opposed to these kind of dead-end

[1:28:56] parking areas that

[1:28:59] end up resulting in

[1:29:02] having the right number of parking spaces, but maybe not having as much drive

[1:29:06] aisles.

[1:29:08] Looking at that kind of double-stacked parking lot that's there as well, could be

[1:29:12] an opportunity maybe to kind of push those buildings back a little bit on the rear,

[1:29:16] maybe create some landscape in between that parking area so it's not just one

[1:29:20] big massive parking in between the commercial

[1:29:23] building and to the rear of that. So again, there's some

[1:29:27] opportunities there that we'll continue to tweak this plan before we come back and

[1:29:31] have it in front of you again for review.

[1:29:34] But again, we thought this was a good opportunity to bring it back up.

[1:29:37] If you have any comments or suggestions, we'd love to hear them tonight.

[1:29:41] And we'll certainly take those into account as we further develop these plans.

[1:29:45] So, thank you.

[1:29:47] Thank you.

[1:29:48] Becca?

[1:29:50] Nothing further to add specific to the development.

[1:29:53] I'm looking forward to see this return.

[1:29:56] But I did just want to point out to the board, the plans that you received in your

[1:29:59] packet and was showing tonight, it does show that this is a split-zone parcel.

[1:30:02] This is not a split-zone parcel. There was an exercise that this board went through

[1:30:06] a couple of years ago where we looked at some of the split-zone parcels,

[1:30:09] specifically within the city center district, to try to have the

[1:30:14] zone district align with the parcel lines, and this was one of the ones that was

[1:30:18] addressed. So, this is actually entirely within the city center district.

[1:30:22] It's no longer split-zoned.

[1:30:24] Thanks for that comment.

[1:30:27] I was going to bring that up, but I remember doing that on this one

[1:30:30] as well. So,

[1:30:34] with that, this is a public hearing or a public comment section.

[1:30:37] Does anybody from the public wish to speak on this project?

[1:30:42] I'm seeing none. Anybody through Zoom?

[1:30:46] If there's anyone participating via Zoom and would like to speak, please raise your

[1:30:49] hand.

[1:30:52] I'm seeing none.

[1:30:53] Okay. Thank you.

[1:30:54] With that, can we have any board comments on this project?

[1:31:00] Robin. Hi.

[1:31:01] Hi. Thanks. I think this is a really good use of this parcel.

[1:31:07] It's a tough one, let me zoom out, to lay out.

[1:31:10] But I find you talked about that heavy parking area to the

[1:31:14] right. It's very not residential.

[1:31:18] And I just wonder what other options they can...

[1:31:20] The buildings,

[1:31:22] even in the previous project that we were talking about with the two buildings

[1:31:25] together, they had relationship to each other, and these don't.

[1:31:28] And I see some of the challenges, but I wonder, the two

[1:31:31] opposite each other, if the one at the bottom could be

[1:31:35] paired, essentially, with the top right one and the parking moved aside.

[1:31:39] They're

[1:31:40] so disparate.

[1:31:43] And I would think that for the lower building, half of it looks out at

[1:31:47] a potential commercial site. I just wonder if there's more work that can be done to

[1:31:51] separate the residential component from the commercial component.

[1:31:57] I don't know how

[1:31:58] you get to do that with trace paper.

[1:32:02] Just to make it feel residential.

[1:32:05] I like what you said about possibly moving the buildings back, more landscaping.

[1:32:08] It looks like whatever concept there is, it will also be this.

[1:32:11] And I get it. You actually go around,

[1:32:14] the part that faces the parking spots is not the front, it's sort of

[1:32:18] the side. And that has to do with building design and how many entries there

[1:32:22] are, instead of one big central entry. That's fine.

[1:32:24] But I think there's opportunities there.

[1:32:26] And I also would just think

[1:32:29] for that lower building,

[1:32:31] most of the parking is over to the side.

[1:32:33] So,

[1:32:34] I think there's

[1:32:36] more design work to do there to really

[1:32:39] differentiate those two areas. I also noticed, but then I saw it in the

[1:32:43] comments that the handicap spots aren't equally distributed.

[1:32:46] But I know you're

[1:32:47] You haven't gotten to that level of detail.

[1:32:48] So, I think it's a nice use of it, and I'd like to

[1:32:52] see it have a stronger delineation of uses.

[1:32:56] Thanks.

[1:33:00] Anybody else?

[1:33:02] Nancy?

[1:33:02] Yeah.

[1:33:03] I have a question in terms of the commercial building.

[1:33:07] What

[1:33:08] would be the front of that? Is it the parking lot side

[1:33:12] or is it Conan Street?

[1:33:15] Yeah.

[1:33:16] So we haven't really laid that out yet.

[1:33:18] I would anticipate that we could have

[1:33:23] an entrance on there where we have the sidewalk out there.

[1:33:25] We could potentially have an entrance that comes in the front of that building.

[1:33:30] But the

[1:33:31] idea was that the entry point for customers, employees, things

[1:33:35] like that, would be from the back,

[1:33:38] and that we would just create almost a

[1:33:41] Main Street type look on the front.

[1:33:43] So you'd have a street side view,

[1:33:46] almost like a Main Street type look on the roadside, and then leaving

[1:33:50] ample space there between the building and the road for landscaping.

[1:33:53] So we've got that

[1:33:55] wide green space in there that, in this plan, it looks like it's all

[1:33:59] lawn, but it would all be nicely landscaped in front of the building.

[1:34:03] It might be a good idea to consider a bike rack

[1:34:06] out front of that too, because it's city center and

[1:34:10] it would be bikeable.

[1:34:13] Agreed.

[1:34:17] Mr. Chair?

[1:34:18] John.

[1:34:18] Just echoing what Robin and Nancy said, that

[1:34:22] I believe we have to have businesses who face the road that at least look

[1:34:26] like the front of the building. Is there something-

[1:34:29] Not at this location.

[1:34:30] Not at this location.

[1:34:30] No.

[1:34:30] Okay. Because it never really works.

[1:34:33] Everyone tries to make it work, and it never quite works.

[1:34:35] But as long as it, like you said,

[1:34:38] you make an effort at that look, and there will be some landscaping between.

[1:34:42] Because the alternative, of course, is to have the parking facing the street, which

[1:34:45] this is going to be much better as you drive by.

[1:34:47] You're going to see the buildings, and the parking's behind it.

[1:34:51] I feel you're going to run yourself in circles with the tracing paper trying to

[1:34:54] rotate these buildings and move them back, but see what you can do.

[1:34:58] I don't have a problem with the

[1:35:02] placement of the buildings, and I can see that you're limited on

[1:35:06] where you can put them. So I'll be just interested to see how you're able to play

[1:35:10] with that. But other than that, I do like, as I said before, how as

[1:35:14] you drive by, you're going to see the buildings and the parking's going to be

[1:35:16] behind that. I think that's going to be a good look from Conan Street. Thank you.

[1:35:21] Thank you, John. Anybody else? Yes, Jason.

[1:35:25] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[1:35:26] So I do remember this site. It's where that huge red

[1:35:30] house used to be that was torn down.

[1:35:32] Yeah.

[1:35:32] I always wondered what happened to that project.

[1:35:33] So

[1:35:35] here we go.

[1:35:36] I agree with others. Your parking lot definitely needs a little feng shui or

[1:35:39] something.

[1:35:40] It needs some help, but the only thing really

[1:35:45] I think here is the single family over to the end, the home over to the

[1:35:49] left side there. I guess give them just a little breathing room.

[1:35:53] Yep.

[1:35:53] And I'm sure they'd appreciate that, so.

[1:35:56] But

[1:35:57] yeah.

[1:36:01] Looking forward to seeing the next revision.

[1:36:03] Thanks, Jason. Oriana?

[1:36:05] I'm curious who owns the land behind it down to the

[1:36:09] river, if any of that connects to the

[1:36:13] city-owned land along the river that I think is intended to be developed

[1:36:17] as a more formal trail out that way.

[1:36:20] Just, if there's any chance of connecting back there to the trail.

[1:36:24] I know we've got private ownership in between this lot and

[1:36:28] maybe what might be city land further back.

[1:36:31] Okay.

[1:36:31] There's one,

[1:36:33] the landowner that owns the strip of land between this

[1:36:36] project and,

[1:36:40] I forget what the condos are. They're called, is it Gateway or ...

[1:36:43] But yeah, the condo project that's here.

[1:36:44] There's a strip of land that comes up, and then merges in with a larger parcel in

[1:36:48] the back that's really just for a single family home.

[1:36:52] That's primarily in the rural zone.

[1:36:56] And then,

[1:36:59] yeah, it's privately owned around the perimeter, I know.

[1:37:02] So we don't directly abut any of that city-owned land, but...

[1:37:05] It's quite a bit away from where the-

[1:37:07] Yeah

[1:37:08] ... city land was. But there are two large parcels in there,

[1:37:12] and kind of looping back to our conversation earlier, I think if a

[1:37:15] project were to happen on either of those, I'm not saying it will, it's private

[1:37:19] property, but if it were, that would be an instance where I think there may be a

[1:37:22] benefit for a public easement on the back for eventual continuation of the trail.

[1:37:26] But we're quite a bit away at the moment.

[1:37:28] Yeah. And is there a sidewalk all the way to Conan Street from there?

[1:37:33] No.

[1:37:34] Basically, this would be

[1:37:36] the end of it, so we're just kind of continuing it on.

[1:37:39] Okay. I was just thinking about what are the open space

[1:37:43] opportunities, because it is close enough that you would want to walk into town,

[1:37:46] but it's not really good walking infrastructure, but not much you can do about

[1:37:50] that.

[1:37:51] Just...

[1:37:59] Anybody else?

[1:38:05] I see none. I'll just say that it is a good

[1:38:08] location to have a mixed use

[1:38:11] coming in. I like the buildings in the back, that you're not going to see

[1:38:15] the driveways as well once you're in. It's going to be a roadway.

[1:38:19] I'm assuming with all the landscape architect, you're not going to see much of

[1:38:22] anything

[1:38:23] through those back buildings with the front scape.

[1:38:28] The islands, are they going to be landscaped as well?

[1:38:30] Or is that going to be-

[1:38:31] Definitely.

[1:38:31] Is that going to be okay?

[1:38:33] Yeah, I'm looking forward to see you moving on with this project for sure.

[1:38:37] The only thing I can say is, with that other building that is on the left, with

[1:38:41] the parking, I don't know if that can be,

[1:38:45] even if it's beneficial to put that residential building back to the

[1:38:49] right and move the commercial pad To the other side

[1:38:53] and move the driveway over a little bit more towards where that pad is.

[1:38:57] I don't know if that makes any sense.

[1:38:58] That way it keeps all the residentials in one section of the

[1:39:02] parcel-

[1:39:03] Mm-hmm

[1:39:03] ... and then your commercial lot up in the front.

[1:39:06] Yeah, and I think rezoning the property the way the city did

[1:39:10] potentially opens up some doors here, because the way we understood it

[1:39:14] previously, with this being a split zone, and you can see how the zone line was

[1:39:17] running through those multi-buildings.

[1:39:18] Right.

[1:39:19] Our understanding was that the multifamily use was

[1:39:23] not permitted in that rural zoning district, which was behind it, so the

[1:39:27] physical placement of the buildings had to be up in that city center zone.

[1:39:30] So we pushed them as far back as we felt we could while still maintaining

[1:39:34] that zone boundary, because I think we could extend 30 feet into

[1:39:37] the more restrictive zone. So that's kind of how we ended up

[1:39:41] with this building placement. But knowing now that, and Rebecca had mentioned

[1:39:45] that to me previously, that now that we have open city center zoning

[1:39:49] across the whole property,

[1:39:52] there's opportunity now to continue to move these buildings back that wasn't there

[1:39:55] when we were here five years ago.

[1:39:56] Mm-hmm.

[1:39:57] So.

[1:40:00] Well, then I'm looking forward to seeing the new design.

[1:40:04] Yep.

[1:40:05] Because you got your work cut out for that one, too, before your next one.

[1:40:07] Yeah, it'll be a nice project. Yeah.

[1:40:08] Oh, yeah.

[1:40:08] I'm looking forward to it.

[1:40:12] Anybody else?

[1:40:13] No, sir.

[1:40:14] All right. Well, thank you very much, Dustin.

[1:40:16] Thank you.

[1:40:19] Orlando, could you read the next item into record, please?

[1:40:24] Yes.

[1:40:26] Item number 26-000636,

[1:40:30] Subdivision 108 Longfellow Street

[1:40:33] 108 LLC.

[1:40:37] The applicant is requesting a three-lot subdivision to create one lot

[1:40:41] for the construction of a single-family dwelling, establish a separate

[1:40:45] lot for the existing three-unit multifamily building, and

[1:40:49] retaining one existing lot with which no development is currently proposed.

[1:40:53] Tax Map 027, Lot 001, Zone Residential Growth

[1:40:57] Area 1, Use Dwelling, Single Family, Multiple Family.

[1:41:02] Thank you. Dustin.

[1:41:03] All right. Good evening. This is my last one for the evenings.

[1:41:08] So Dustin Roma, DM Roma Consulting Engineers, representing the

[1:41:12] applicant here for 108 Longfellow Street.

[1:41:14] Dustin, can you try to speak up a little bit so that the-

[1:41:16] Yes.

[1:41:16] Yep. Thank you.

[1:41:17] Yep.

[1:41:20] Yeah, so this project

[1:41:23] is, at this stage, it's a fairly

[1:41:27] straightforward application where

[1:41:30] we're really not proposing any physical development of this property as

[1:41:34] part of this subdivision request.

[1:41:36] There's an existing driveway with a shared parking area

[1:41:40] for a three-unit building on this property.

[1:41:43] It's 1.7 acres in total.

[1:41:46] This landowner who purchased the

[1:41:49] property

[1:41:51] is looking to essentially just divide it up into three lots,

[1:41:56] and kind of create the canvas for somebody to come in and

[1:41:59] propose some sort of development on this lot.

[1:42:02] So,

[1:42:04] we've got

[1:42:06] a lot created around the three-family with a

[1:42:10] parking area.

[1:42:12] That lot will utilize the existing driveway that's

[1:42:15] there to be shared with lot three, so that

[1:42:19] easement will be retained on that property for access to that

[1:42:22] three-family building.

[1:42:24] We thought it was best to have that easement be owned

[1:42:28] in fee from the future owner of lot three,

[1:42:32] seeing that there will most likely be improvements made to

[1:42:36] that driveway entrance to accommodate whatever development somebody

[1:42:40] may want to do on lot three. Under current zoning,

[1:42:45] we've estimated that nine units could potentially be put on

[1:42:48] lot three. Whether somebody physically wants to do that or whether they want to

[1:42:52] do something else would be up to them.

[1:42:56] And

[1:42:58] so again, we thought it was best to just have the ownership of that

[1:43:02] access way come in, stay with lot three, so that if they're going to be making

[1:43:05] improvements to it, that they would not be working within somebody else's easement,

[1:43:09] but they'd be working on their own land.

[1:43:11] And just making sure that that three-family would

[1:43:15] continue to have access over

[1:43:17] the current road as it exists, as well as an improved road if that was something

[1:43:21] that was done in the future.

[1:43:24] Lot number one has a very tight

[1:43:28] building envelope down in that lower area.

[1:43:31] It's been designed so it has

[1:43:35] enough square footage in there to accommodate a single family home, but nothing

[1:43:39] more than that.

[1:43:42] You can see that it's kind of hatched in on the plan here.

[1:43:44] There's a fairly steep slope that drops down into that

[1:43:48] lot

[1:43:50] from the three-family side. So it's fairly level at the three-family.

[1:43:55] And then where this property line is drawn in is basically right at the top of the

[1:43:58] bank, and then it kind of slopes down, and there's a bunch of trees along that edge

[1:44:01] there. And then

[1:44:04] so we've identified a

[1:44:07] fairly small building envelope on that lot,

[1:44:10] but something that could be accommodated.

[1:44:13] We are in the process right now of just putting together a basic grading

[1:44:17] plan that we're really just using, that the owner will be able to use for

[1:44:21] marketing purposes and stuff, just to kind of show what could potentially go on

[1:44:25] that lot.

[1:44:26] Certainly, any development of really any of these lots,

[1:44:30] other than the three-family home lot, so lots one or three,

[1:44:35] if anything were proposed to be built on there, it would require going

[1:44:39] through preparing a drainage and grading

[1:44:42] plan that would get reviewed by engineering here at the

[1:44:46] city as part of a building permit review process.

[1:44:49] So there is that level of review that will occur.

[1:44:53] But we do kind of want to just get out ahead of it a little bit and make sure we

[1:44:57] show any prospective buyers what our ideas are for

[1:45:01] how that lot number one would be developed,

[1:45:05] to kind of create a building envelope there.

[1:45:08] Lot number three is kind of wide open.

[1:45:11] If somebody wanted to do a few units or single-family

[1:45:14] house or whatever they wanted to do, that would be up to them.

[1:45:17] And you would see that plan back in front of you if somebody were to

[1:45:21] develop lot three in any manner other than a single-family home, I think that you

[1:45:25] guys would see that again.

[1:45:26] Yeah, anything to a three.

[1:45:27] Yeah.

[1:45:28] Three or more.

[1:45:28] Yeah. So you guys would see that as an amendment or as a site plan review.

[1:45:37] So yeah. So other than that's really all we're proposing

[1:45:41] at this time. So, we had a neighborhood meeting.

[1:45:45] They had some questions and unfortunately it was a similar situation to this where

[1:45:48] it's normally we're proposing to build something and they're asking,

[1:45:51] how much of this is gonna get cut back and how much vegetation is being

[1:45:55] removed, and

[1:45:57] the answers that we've been giving people is essentially, if this is approved to

[1:46:01] split this up into three lots, all we're gonna do is basically put

[1:46:05] for sale signs out front and that's the limit of what we're gonna do with this

[1:46:08] project for now.

[1:46:11] So certainly if there's anything that you see here that you'd like us to

[1:46:15] incorporate, we are gonna try and get this turned back around for a full

[1:46:18] application here, hopefully for the meeting coming up

[1:46:22] in September. So I think we'd have to get stuff submitted for

[1:46:26] Thursday, so any feedback you can provide would be greatly appreciated

[1:46:30] so we're prepared for this next submission. So thank you.

[1:46:33] Thank you.

[1:46:35] Rebecca?

[1:46:36] Nothing further.

[1:46:37] Okay. Thank you. With that this is also a public

[1:46:41] comment section. Anybody who wishes to speak on this project, please

[1:46:45] step up to the microphone. You do have three minutes.

[1:46:48] I'm sorry Larry, one thing. I did just wanted to let...

[1:46:50] We did receive too about our notice that our, but our emails today, those

[1:46:54] were provided to the board.

[1:46:57] I just wanted to state for the record that they are a part of the overall record.

[1:47:01] Thank you.

[1:47:02] Sorry about that.

[1:47:02] And I did get an opportunity to read those as well, and we

[1:47:06] will bring those up into comments with the questions after

[1:47:11] people in-house and through Zoom speak.

[1:47:13] So with that, come on up sir.

[1:47:18] Hi, my name is Larry.

[1:47:20] My father owns the building at 80 Longfellow Street,

[1:47:24] and we just wanted to draw to your guys' attention, in case,

[1:47:28] there's been a lot of history as far as that back

[1:47:32] road, kind of right to the side of that huge slope.

[1:47:36] We've had to spend a lot of money over the years on

[1:47:40] drainage. Last year we had to spend a ton of money on drainage

[1:47:44] because that whole back road really started

[1:47:48] to deteriorate over the years, mainly because of the water that would come down

[1:47:51] that slope. So his main concern and ours

[1:47:55] was just that maybe some sort of drainage

[1:47:59] solution there would be one, maybe that doesn't put so much

[1:48:02] strain on our system.

[1:48:06] Also how close it is is a concern,

[1:48:10] because of the drainage also.

[1:48:13] Like you said, it does seem to be like a small little

[1:48:17] area there.

[1:48:19] Not only is he concerned about it being

[1:48:23] so small

[1:48:26] next to the slope, but he's also concerned it's an historical building.

[1:48:30] He just wanted to make sure preserve.

[1:48:34] If you're just gonna squeeze a single building in there, just

[1:48:38] because you can, it seems unfortunate to ruin such a

[1:48:42] nice looking building right next to it, potentially.

[1:48:45] But mainly, it sounds like

[1:48:49] the location of these buildings is his concern,

[1:48:53] specifically where they might be and how the drainage would work

[1:48:57] getting

[1:48:59] down that slope,

[1:49:00] because we're basically downhill from everything up

[1:49:04] there.

[1:49:06] They've

[1:49:08] developed kind of offsite in other places

[1:49:12] where the water sometimes... The area is really,

[1:49:16] there's a lot of water in that area.

[1:49:20] So, we have pools of water on other parts of

[1:49:24] our property because developments have kind of

[1:49:28] pushed water down a hill on the other side of the property.

[1:49:30] So I think we're just concerned that that sort of thing might happen

[1:49:34] on the other side. So,

[1:49:37] I don't know if he had anything to add.

[1:49:41] No. Well, actually,

[1:49:43] we have got that property-

[1:49:46] Can you-

[1:49:46] ... on all three sides.

[1:49:46] Yeah, come on up. Give us your name and your address.

[1:49:48] I'm Marshall Mack. I'm the owner of Mack Brothers.

[1:49:52] We have a 90-unit early housing project that's on the

[1:49:56] property around

[1:49:58] 108 Longfellow Street. And

[1:50:02] that our back road there was actually the canal

[1:50:06] that goes around and it's a high water table, the whole

[1:50:10] area down below. So it's a concern to

[1:50:15] how that's gonna play out if there's construction there.

[1:50:19] And I can visualize in that little area a

[1:50:23] house being there, but

[1:50:25] that's not

[1:50:28] something for me to decide. Also I suppose

[1:50:33] the back part of it too,

[1:50:36] we as a slope, but nothing like that one.

[1:50:39] But we got a

[1:50:41] single

[1:50:43] apartment building on one floor that's on a slab,

[1:50:47] and we have a drainage going around there too and I

[1:50:51] don't know

[1:50:53] how they're going to address more water coming down there

[1:50:57] on that part of it. But as far as

[1:51:02] Area three, I don't have a problem with that.

[1:51:07] It's the back part of maybe area three, but area one

[1:51:11] especially is a problem

[1:51:14] for us. So,

[1:51:16] that needs to be addressed.

[1:51:18] But,

[1:51:19] so that's all I want to say.

[1:51:22] All right.

[1:51:23] Thank you.

[1:51:24] Thank you.

[1:51:26] Could I clarify, Larry, is your last name Mack as well?

[1:51:29] Yes.

[1:51:30] Okay.

[1:51:30] Yes.

[1:51:31] I can hear a little bit better maybe. I think is the main thing.

[1:51:35] Thank you.

[1:51:39] Okay. Does anybody else from the public wish to speak?

[1:51:43] Seeing none, anybody through Zoom, Orlando?

[1:51:47] If there's anyone participating via Zoom and would like to speak, please raise your

[1:51:51] hand.

[1:51:53] I am seeing none.

[1:51:54] Okay. With that, I'll close the public comment.

[1:51:59] With that, do we have staff comment?

[1:52:04] So-

[1:52:04] Ms. Russ, please.

[1:52:04] Yeah, well, it is a challenging thing because as Dustin said, he's

[1:52:08] not proposing any development right now.

[1:52:11] So this at this point really is just the land division.

[1:52:14] Any kind of, the drainage design would be part

[1:52:18] of any kind of development on these, but we don't have those

[1:52:22] items now. The lot one, that would go through the process

[1:52:26] called a surface drainage plan, which is something that's required to be reviewed,

[1:52:30] where they do look at groundwater, and

[1:52:34] where, essentially, whenever a new lot is created, that

[1:52:38] lot legally needs to continue to accept the water.

[1:52:41] It's always accepted, and it can't expel water onto a different property that it

[1:52:45] didn't previously.

[1:52:47] The existing paths of water have to be maintained.

[1:52:50] So that's what the surface drainage plan would be looking at, that grading of that

[1:52:54] lot before they could go forward to a building permit.

[1:52:57] I do not disagree that the lot one that's being shown has a

[1:53:01] very small building envelope between the slopes and then the

[1:53:06] setbacks from the property lines that are being created, but it does

[1:53:10] meet the requirements of the ordinance for a lot.

[1:53:13] And then, as Dustin said, lot three would likely be some kind of a

[1:53:17] site plan that would come back to this board and the grading and drainage would be

[1:53:21] designed at that time.

[1:53:24] Thank you, Becca.

[1:53:26] With that, do we have any other board comments? Oriana?

[1:53:29] Becca, just so I can learn, where nothing is being proposed to

[1:53:34] be built right now, aside from the lots meeting the minimum

[1:53:38] standards for the zoning district that they're in, is there

[1:53:41] anything that the board... Like, there are no discretionary factors for us

[1:53:45] to... Are there any discretionary factors- ...

[1:53:48] that we would evaluate to disapprove this

[1:53:52] subdivision?

[1:53:53] Not typically. The only thing that kind of flagged for me that I do wanna run by

[1:53:57] afterwards is making sure that there's a location for a driveway that would be

[1:54:01] feasible on that lot one.

[1:54:03] Because, there have been instances where people have created lots that were not

[1:54:07] board approved, they just carved off a lot, and then come to find out that lot

[1:54:10] doesn't meet the standards for a driveway. That could be a problem.

[1:54:13] But essentially, it is just a review of the lot dimensions, yes.

[1:54:16] Yeah, okay. I note that it is the minimum

[1:54:20] size, but it can be for fronted 65 feet

[1:54:24] across.

[1:54:25] And depth.

[1:54:26] Yeah.

[1:54:27] So it meets the criteria to the T.

[1:54:31] Thank you, Oriana. Anybody else?

[1:54:33] All right, Mr. Chair.

[1:54:34] John?

[1:54:34] So I actually live on Turner Street, and I've actually been to this

[1:54:38] building, and that that is a steep slope.

[1:54:40] Yes.

[1:54:40] So but that's not before us today. That's for someone who's gonna have to go

[1:54:44] through to get a building permit.

[1:54:46] And it would need a curb cut as well, wouldn't it?

[1:54:49] Yep, that was the driveway point that I'm kind of flagging to double check.

[1:54:52] Yeah, well, that's-

[1:54:52] I think it will be fine because what the entrance to the property next door is

[1:54:56] like a private access entrance. It's not a street, but with the slope where

[1:55:01] it is, those driveways would have to be pretty close to each other.

[1:55:03] So I wanna run that by the city engineer.

[1:55:05] Sure. Okay. All right. Other than that, I mean, that, as we've

[1:55:09] all said, and Oriana underscored, we're just splitting it up into three legal

[1:55:12] lots, so

[1:55:14] I think that's where we're at.

[1:55:17] Yes, thank you. And with a lot one with a single family,

[1:55:21] it's not coming back to the board because we only

[1:55:24] see items that have a multi-family.

[1:55:27] So if there's three or more buildings proposed on any lot,

[1:55:32] that's when it comes to the board approval.

[1:55:34] If it's a single family lot, like this one, the one that's

[1:55:38] mostly concerned

[1:55:40] with the residents here, is gonna be directly going through

[1:55:45] the city, through code enforcement, through the whole

[1:55:48] application process. If it gets sold off,

[1:55:52] then the city actually will take responsibility to make

[1:55:56] sure that the water will not run off onto other

[1:55:59] parcels of property. When we have a multi-structure,

[1:56:03] we make sure that we put in places certain drainage issues

[1:56:07] on any multi, and

[1:56:10] it's being taken care of. So there's no extra runoff.

[1:56:14] Anything that I've seen in the last seven years with any of the projects that does

[1:56:18] come through with my understanding is, we

[1:56:22] follow up on all this, and if there is extra water, the builder

[1:56:26] is responsible to taking care of that.

[1:56:27] So it's gonna be

[1:56:30] something that will be addressed when it comes time to build.

[1:56:34] And if it does get sold, I don't know, does that just go directly to...

[1:56:38] The abutters won't have any

[1:56:40] say if a single building goes into play there. Was that correct?

[1:56:45] Notices are sent out to direct abutters for a building permit

[1:56:48] issuance, but it's a notification.

[1:56:51] It's not a review period.

[1:56:53] Okay. Yeah. So it'll go through the city on that.

[1:56:56] So you will get notified if somebody does buy this lot anyway.

[1:57:00] So you'll have some kind of understanding to know in what and who is gonna

[1:57:03] buy it before it does get built. So just keep an eye out on that

[1:57:07] if you see a for sale sign, and keep in contact with the city as far as

[1:57:11] that drainage goes.

[1:57:13] One other mention that I have on here is the knotweed.

[1:57:16] I know it's not

[1:57:18] part of this project now, if we're not going to disturb it.

[1:57:21] But as far as the record goes, I'll bring it up because

[1:57:24] Joanne Calderbank sent us an email, and I just want to bring it up to attention.

[1:57:28] It's an invasive species of weeds.

[1:57:31] Once it gets moved, and just like the spores go everywhere, it's challenging.

[1:57:34] So she's concerned with that development of that parcel

[1:57:39] with that amount of knotweed that was already taken down once, how it came back

[1:57:43] tenfold. Same thing with bamboo. It's going to keep coming back, and it

[1:57:47] spreads pretty quick. So that was her concern.

[1:57:50] I know we're not developing it right now, but again, it's something down the road

[1:57:53] on that.

[1:57:56] Other than that, then thank you. Anybody? Go ahead.

[1:57:58] Just one last thing, Mr. Chair. To the Max, thank you for sending this picture.

[1:58:01] It's wonderful to see how it used to be.

[1:58:03] My kids were so intrigued that parts of the canal are still there-

[1:58:06] Oh, yeah

[1:58:06] ... on the back of your lot.

[1:58:08] Yeah.

[1:58:08] Thank you.

[1:58:09] Yeah, well, you showed me that all excited, too.

[1:58:13] But yeah, it sounds like you guys know that that's going to be slow.

[1:58:17] Yes.

[1:58:17] That's all we wanted you guys to...

[1:58:19] Yeah, it'll be addressed for sure for water concerns, especially once the

[1:58:23] lot gets drawn off and where they can build them and so forth from that.

[1:58:29] But thank you for your-

[1:58:30] I can deal with that kind of speed, I swear.

[1:58:33] Right?

[1:58:34] I was wondering when you were going to crack one.

[1:58:38] Hey, I got a question.

[1:58:39] Oh, go ahead, Jason.

[1:58:40] Yeah, I got a question for Rebecca.

[1:58:42] So other than single family

[1:58:45] homes, what else could be built there with the zoning?

[1:58:50] With the zoning?

[1:58:52] Yeah.

[1:58:52] Well,

[1:58:53] any of the permitted uses in the zoning district could go there, but they'd have to

[1:58:57] meet

[1:58:59] the standards of the lot, and given the building envelope, it would be pretty

[1:59:03] tough to achieve that.

[1:59:05] Anything

[1:59:08] that's not a single family home that is more than

[1:59:12] 3,000 square feet of impervious would be back before the board as a site plan.

[1:59:17] But it's the list of permitted uses in the zoning districts.

[1:59:21] There are-

[1:59:22] It's RGA1.

[1:59:24] Would you like to run-

[1:59:26] There's a lot.

[1:59:26] Yeah, there's quite a few, but most of them would not be feasible

[1:59:29] on that size lot.

[1:59:31] Cemetery, bed and breakfast.

[1:59:32] But technically, yes, any of those.

[1:59:38] Any other board members?

[1:59:39] Thank you.

[1:59:41] Thank you. Okay. Well, thank you, Dustin.

[1:59:43] All right, thank you.

[1:59:43] With that, the meeting is adjourned.

[1:59:45] Thank you all.

8/4/26 Planning Board

Transcript