►
From YouTube: June 13, 2019 Planning Board Meeting
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
A
A
C
A
C
So
the
the
first
part
of
this
1,300
is,
of
course,
just
bit
more
administrative
saying
that,
yes,
we
have
a
zoning
ordinance,
and
this
is
how
it
generally
set
up.
There
are
a
few
things
I
noticed
in
the
the
top
part
relative
to
the
interpretation
of
the
codes
and
also
the
zoning
map,
and
so
I
recommended
some
language
in
there
about
the
interpretation
aspect
of
it.
C
Anyways,
that's
basically
what
that
is
saying.
These
are
the
minimum
requirements,
the
Soaring
ordinance
itself.
Some
of
this
as
we
go
through
that
I
have
been
going
through.
Some
of
us
is
just
reorganizing
it
so
that
there's
better
flow
in
the
and
the
overall
document,
for
instance,
this
13
201
didn't
need
to
be
its
own
section
in
the
code,
and
so
it's
it's
been
raised
up
the
previous
section,
but
there
was
no
text
change
to
it
under
the
zoning
map
areas.
C
This
is
where
I
started.
Looking
at
things
are
more
closely
he's
going
to
make
sure
that
we
were
changing
our
process
a
little
bit,
so
the
zoning
map
itself.
The
way
it's
currently
written
is
that
we
have
to
have
this
static
map
somewhere
in
the
offices,
and
we
are
supposed
to
actually
write
on
the
map
whenever
there's
a,
but
we
have
the
technology
now
that
we
can
do
this
all
electronically
and
have
it
updated
in
the
system.
D
C
C
Initiating
amendments
wanted
to
make
it
clear
that
the
City
Council,
the
Planning
Board
Development,
Director
or
citizens
property
owners,
whoever
they
can
all
initiate
changes
to
the
zoning
map.
You
don't
have
to
be
a
very
special
person
to
be
able
to
request
a
change,
so
anybody
can
do
that.
As
far
as
the
process
is
concerned,
we're
calling
out
that
the
city
charter
outlines
the
process.
The
state
code
has
a
process
and
we're
utilizing
both
of
those
not
just
the
state
codes.
C
And
some
of
this
again
is
procedurally
striking.
No
amendment
to
this
section,
which
involves
a
matter
portrayed
on
the
official
zoning
map,
shall
become
effective
until
signed
by
the
chair
of
the
City,
Council
and
attested
by
the
city
clerk.
We
already
have
in
our
processes
that
there's
ordinances
that
get
adopted
and
we
handle
those
ordinances
certain
ways.
They
don't
need
to
reiterate
that
information
in
here.
C
Again,
we're
already
very
clear
that
it
can't
be
changed,
except
through
a
certain
process,
and
we
have
a
bit
of
redundancy
there.
The
last
paragraph
I've
added
there
under
Corrections,
is
that
the
development
director
may
make
the
corrections
if
it's
identified,
that
something
was
not
in
putting
there
properly
reporting
through
the
way
it
was
adopted
and
that
we
don't
have
to
go
back
through
all.
Thank
you
process,
public
hearings
and
meetings
just
to
make
a
correction.
If
the
documentation
is
there
that
we
can
just
make
the
corrections.
C
Instead
of
referring
to
the
latest
edition
of
the
Maine
geologic
survey
will
just
note
that
those
are
going
to
be
constantly
changing,
or
they
may
be
out
of
date,
and
so
it'd
be
better
for
us
to
refer
to
unofficially
prepared
engineering
and
study.
With
regards
to
the
delineation
of
special
overlay
district
boundaries,
such
as
the
flood
hazard
areas
or
the
wetland
areas.
A
C
Well,
in
this
case,
with
paragraph,
are
this
special
protection
overlay
districts,
we
kind
of
jumped
the
gun
and
that
we've
said
these
are
our
special
zones
and
we're
going
to
throw
all
of
this
into
the
Nitori
aspect
when
we're
just
trying
to
identify
with
his
owns
are
right
here,
so
simplification
is
to
take
all
the
way
that
one
aspect
will
pull
them
out
in
a
separate
section.
It's
always
very
clear
if
you
want
to
see
what
the
regulations
are.
This
is
the
section
we
go
to.
C
These
again,
the
language
that
we
have
here
for
the
sand
and
gravel
overly
this
trait
as
well
an
infection
district
and
the
husband's
ghost.
In
this
way,
these
captions
are
already
in
the
document
I'm
just
highlighting
them
as
these
are
our
zones
and
we'll
have
all
that
in
details.
Regulation
details
later
on
in
the
document
yeah.
A
C
C
A
Getting
down
to
table
13
203
I
have
no
questions
about
all
the
different
strike
outs
between
CEO
and
yes
and
planning
board
that
we
saw
that
for
a
few
years
right,
but
at
the
heading
it
says,
P,
V
and
you're
suggesting
use
requires
planning
board.
It
doesn't
say
what
the
Planning
Board
is
going
to
do
for.
C
Our
impact
considerations,
so
this
is
a
land
use
table
right,
we're
just
saying
that
these
are
all
the
way
in
juices.
We
anticipate
and
we're
saying
it's
either
not
permitted
or
administrative
leave.
The
CEO
can
look
at
it
if
it
has
P
B
on
this.
That
means
that
the
Planning
Board
is
going
to
have
to
look
at
the
design
juices,
so
I.
A
C
Would
not
be
a
site
plan
review
designation
here.
This
is
this,
would
be
a
land
use
itself,
you're
gonna,
look
at
the
land
use
and
a
lot
of
public
hearing
on
it.
Public
will
be
invited
to
come
home,
discuss
the
land,
use
and
potential
impacts,
and
this
would
be
a
new
section
of
the
code
that
you're
in
looking
at
and
it's
gonna
be
tied
highly
to
the
general
plan
and
the
goals
that
are
in
the
general
plan,
as
well
as
the
distinctions
of
the
zones
themselves.
E
A
A
A
E
F
C
Let
me
jump
that
process
jump
quickly
to
the
our
current
processes
element
of
things.
So
what
what
you're
seeing
unfold
before
you
is
the
current
regulatory
process
that
we
have
that
if
it
goes
through
the
code
enforcement
office
that
somebody
can
go
through
a
concept
review,
they
can
go
through
a
final
review
and
get
a
kickback
to
them
if
it
has
to
go
over
the
planning
board.
C
D
C
Code
is
not
it's
unclear
about
the
review
of
uses
themselves.
It
just
simply
says
that
if
P
be
meeting
site
plan
review
process,
this
would
make
it
so
that
the
Planning
Board
can
look
at
the
specific
use
of
the
property
and
then
we'll
also
have
a
site
plan
review
process.
In
addition
to
that,
also,
like
you
say,
it's
a
gate
system.
E
Basically
see
I've
been
on
the
Planning
Board
before,
and
my
understanding
is
that
when
we
have
the
Planning
Board
come
in
this
land
use
table
that
we
do
a
site
design
review.
If
certain
changes
are
occurring
and
there
are
certain
other
things
that
don't
need
the
site
design.
Are
we
changing
that
a
site
plan
review
process
that
doesn't
always
the
Planning
Board
doesn't
always
have
to
do
the
site.
C
C
If
it
does
and
the
Planning
Board
has
a
public
hearing,
you
discuss
the
impacts
and
you're
able
to
look
at
the
gym.
The
plan,
the
city,
colleagues,
the
proposed
in
panics
or
the
anticipated
impacts
and
say
that's
a
yes
or
no
answer
where
we
have
such
a
warranty
on
whose
table
many
instances
where
this
picture.
C
C
C
F
C
A
B
Asked
that
question
many
times
yeah,
because
it's
fruitless,
it's
just
an
opportunity
for
people
to
vent,
because
if
the
applicant
is
within
the
land-use
and
the
ordinances,
you
can
have
a
thousand
people
opposed.
We
have
to
grant
it,
and
so
the
public
hearing
is
fruitless.
Other
than
giving
people
an
opportunity
to
vent.
C
A
C
A
E
F
F
C
So,
for
instance,
what
we
have
is
a
concept.
This
would
be
the
site.
This
would
be
a
result
of
an
application.
That's
been
drafted,
you'd,
be
looking
at
one
application.
That
says,
tell
us
what
you're
looking
at.
Is
it
a
preliminary
subdivision
condominium
new
non-residential
development?
Are
you
just
modifying
the
multifamily
grading
excavating?
Basically,
developer
information,
developer,
engineer,
design,
information
and
then
with
each
application
they
would
need
to
submit
plans
that
show
this
is
what
we're
proposing
to
do.
This.
C
It's
a
subdivision
in
the
class
sheet
is
going
to
have
the
site
improvements
that
are
being
proposed.
This
stuff
gets
part
they
get
handed
this
when
they
meet
with
the
CEO
about
very
personally,
this
is
what
we
like
to
do,
and
actually
everything
you're
looking
at
here.
It's
currently
the
ordinance,
it's
just
different
places,
yep
scattered
right,
and
so
this
would
be.
C
The
keyboard
or
not,
that's,
that's
the
policy
matter
that
you
make
the
recognitions
on
that.
There
are
some
land
uses
that
you
just
think.
You
know
we
can
regulate
it,
but
there's
also
just
that
opportunity.
The
public
needs
to
have
to
voice
their
concerns.
That's
when
you
put
a
PV
in
the
land,
you
say
so
so
everywhere,
there's
a
PV!
It's
gonna
be
coming
back
to
you.
Initial
public
hearing.
A
Let's
say
we
do
that,
and
people
do
the
venting,
and
then
we
say,
but
it's
a
go
now.
Does
that
automatically
mean
that
it
has
to
be
a
site
plan
review?
This
is
well
I'm,
getting
still
confused
between
land
use,
hearings
and
site
plan
reviews,
I
mean
the
guys
gonna
come
in
and
build
a
building
on
a
piece
of
land
that
he
has
right.
Why
do
we
have
to
get
the
ball?
Even
though
these.
B
D
B
C
C
F
C
D
B
G
B
F
C
D
D
C
D
C
C
C
A
E
I
want
to
make
sure
that
this
was
done,
and-
and
this
was
done-
but
in
this
it
kind
of
removes
that
off
of
us
and
the
ultimate
responsibility
is,
you
know,
making
everything
making
sure
everything's
up
to
par
through
the
staff,
the
city
and
saying
okay,
this
is
you
know
good
with
all
the
legal
and
the
city's
standpoints.
I
think
it's
good
and
we
review
it.
You
know
you
know.
E
G
I
think
the
public
hearing
is
still
good
and
as
long
as
I
understand
the
apartment
I
felt
frustrated
before
when
people
voiced
their
opinion
kind
of
sometimes
feels
like
it
falls
on
deaf
ears,
but
they
can
voice
their
opinion
there.
If
somebody
is
upset
by
the
solar
array,
but
they
get
educated
when
they
come
I
think
that's
part
of
the
problem.
They
might
hear
something's
coming
up
and
then
they
can
say:
okay
well,
it
won't
be
as
bad
or
they're
doing
these
precautions.
Or
can
you
move
it
over
a
little
bit?
So
it's
not!
F
F
Listening
to
the
same
thing
too
and
say:
hey,
you
know
how
about
building
fence
here
whatever,
and
so
it
gets
it's
just
engagement
and
it
makes
everybody
happy.
That's
right,
one
question:
if
we're
going
to
have
a
public
hearing
at
the
beginning
of
the
process,
do
we
really
need
a
public
hearing
at
the
end
of
the
process.