The Docket · Government Meeting · DKT-2026-000968

On the agenda: Eliot meeting — data center (Apr 21)

Past ⚠ Agenda Watch Eliot, Maine · Tuesday, April 21, 2026 — 5 months ago

About this record

The published agenda for this April 21 meeting contains: "data center". The meeting has passed; the record and its outcome live here permanently.

WhenTuesday, April 21, 2026
Check the agenda document for the meeting time.

WhereEliot, Maine

Money$10 was at stake

On the record“data center”

The agenda, word for word

Government public record — the full text of the published document, archived August 18, 2026. Gold highlighting of key terms is ours, not the original’s. Read the original document ↗

53 pages · scroll to read

Page 1 of 53

TOWN OF ELIOT, MAINE
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA

TYPE OF MEETING: IN PERSON WITH REMOTE OPTION
PLACE: ELIOT TOWN HALL/ZOOM

DATE: April 21, 2026
TIME: 6:00 PM

PLEASE NOTE: IT IS THE POLICY OF THE PLANNING BOARD THAT THE APPLICANT OR AN AGENT OF THE APPLICANT MUST BE PRESENT IN
ORDER FOR REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION TO TAKE PLACE.
1.

ROLL CALL
a) Quorum, Alternate Members, Conflicts of Interest
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. MOMENT OF SILENCE
4. 10-MINUTE PUBLIC INPUT SESSION
5. PUBLIC HEARING
a) 419 River Road (Map 25, Lot 7), PB26-04: Shoreland Zoning Permit Application – Permanent Pier, Seasonal Gangway
and Float
6. NEW BUSINESS
7. OLD BUSINESS
8. REVIEW AND APPROVE MINUTES
a) February 3, 2026
b) February 17, 2026
c) February 24, 2026
d) March 24, 2026
9. NOTICES OF DECISION
a) PB 26-01 4-15 Shipping Lane - Amended Subdivision Plan/Request for Planning Board Action/Minor Amendment
b) PB 26-02 514 Main Street - Shoreland Zoning Permit Application /Structure Footprint expansion
10. OTHER BUSINESS / CORRESPONDENCE
11. SET AGENDA AND DATE FOR NEXT MEETING
May 5, 2026
ADJOURN
NOTE: All Planning Board Agenda Materials are available on the Planning Board/Planning Department webpages for
viewing.
To view a live remote meeting: (Instructions can also be found on the Planning Board webpage)
a) Go to eliotme.gov
b) Click on “Meeting Videos” – Located in the second column, on the left-hand side of the screen.
c) Click on the meeting under “Live Events” – The broadcasting of the meeting will start at 6:00pm (Please note:
streaming a remote meeting can be delayed up to a minute)
Instructions to join remote meeting:
To participate please call into meeting 5 minutes in advance of meeting start time. Please note that Zoom does state that for
some carriers this can be a toll call. You can verify by contacting your carrier.
a) Please call 1-646-558-8656
1. When prompted enter meeting number ID: 991 5486 9311

2. When prompted to enter Attendee ID
3. When prompted enter meeting password: 999930
Members of the Public calling in, will be first automatically be placed in a virtual waiting room until admitted by one of the
members of the Planning Board. Members of the public will be unmuted one at time to allow for input. Please remember to
state your name and address for the record.
b) Press *9 to raise your virtual hand to speak

Page 2 of 53

PB26-04: 419 River Road (Map 25, Lot 7): Shoreland Zoning Permit Application – Permanent Pier,
Seasonal Gangway and Float

To:
Planning Board
From: Jeff Brubaker, AICP, Town Planner
Cc:
Applicant or Applicant’s Representative
Shelly Bishop, Code Enforcement Officer
Kim Tackett, Land Use Administrative Assistant
Date: April 14, 2026 (report date)
April 21, 2026 (meeting date)
Re:
PB26-04: 419 River Road (Map 25, Lot 7): Shoreland Zoning Permit Application –
Permanent Pier, Seasonal Gangway and Float
Basic information
1. The record owner of the property is: ___________________ [to be included in findings].
2. The applicant is: ___________________ [to be included in findings].
3. The applicant’s representative is ____________ [to be included in findings]. An agent
authorization letter is provided in the submittal.
4. The property is located at: 419 River Rd. and is approximately 0.2 acres.
5. The property can be identified as: Assessor’s Map 25, Lot 7.
Zoning
6. The property is in the Suburban zoning district.
7. The property has Resource Protection and Limited Residential shoreland zoning
overlays fully covering it.
Overview of proposed development
8. Per SLZ application: “The applicant proposes to construct a residential pier, gangway, and
float as shown on the attached plans to have greater tidal access for recreational boating. The
proposed float will be 8 feet wide and 14 feet long, with an associated ramp measuring 3 feet
in width and 40 feet in length. The permanent pier structure will be 5 feet wide, 60 feet long,
and 9.32 feet in height. The applicant will be re-using his existing float. He currently owns a
26’ power boat.”
Right, title, and interest
9. An old 1993 warranty deed is in the packet. Staff downloaded the most recent deed (2019;
B17940; P692) from the Registry of Deeds website.
Uses and definitions
10. Permanent residential piers are SPR uses per Section 44-34.

Page 3 of 53

PB26-04: 419 River Road (Map 25, Lot 7): Shoreland Zoning Permit Application – Permanent Pier,
Seasonal Gangway and Float

Section 44-35(c) review
Section 44-35(c) has standards for piers, docks, wharves, bridges and other structures and uses
extending over or below the normal high-water line of a water body or within a wetland. The following
table reviews the application under this section. Paragraph numbers under 44-35(c) are in parentheses.
For brevity, some standards are summarized. Clearly inapplicable standards are omitted.
4435(c)
para.
#

Summary of paragraph

Evaluation of application

Developed on appropriate soils so as to control erosion

Appears to be met. Erosion &
sedimentation control (ESC) plan
included in packet, including both
temporary and permanent measures.
N/A
Appears to be met.
Met.

(2)
(3)
(4)
(6)
(10a)
(10b)

(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)

Location shall not interfere with beach areas
Minimize adverse effects on fisheries
No new structure built on/over/abutting pier, except where direct
access to water body required as operational necessity
Pier shall not extend beyond MLW or be wider than 6 ft.
Pier (+ temporary float) length restricted to 200 ft. (measured from
NHWL), or a length that will provide 6 ft. of water depth for
outermost float at mean low water (MLW), whichever is shorter;
shall not extend more than halfway to mean low water deep channel
centerline
No structure (including temporary ramps/floats and pilings) shall
extend more than halfway to the deep channel centerline at mean
low water
25 ft. setbacks from riparian lines for neighboring properties (with
lesser setback allowed with mutual agreement with neighbor)
Temporary/seasonal floats which sit on the bottom at low tide must
be built per DEP guidelines to minimize harm to marsh
grass/marine life living in the mud
Required reflectors on piers and floats: 3+ in. diameter, not more
than 12 in. from each corner. At least 1 per 20 ft. on each side of
piers >40 ft.

Recommendation
Approval with shoreland findings and conditions

Appears to be met. Pier is 5’ wide.
Appears to be met. Combined
length is 60’ + 40’ + 14’ +14’ = 128’.
Float sits at bottom at MLW.
Met.
May be met but needs more visual
clarification during meeting.
Appears to be met.
Applicant communicated that they
will add reflectors.

Page 4 of 53

PB26-04: 419 River Road (Map 25, Lot 7): Shoreland Zoning Permit Application – Permanent Pier,
Seasonal Gangway and Float
Motion templates
Approval with shoreland zoning findings and conditions (recommended)
Motion to approve the Shoreland Zoning Permit Application for PB26-04 for construction of a
permanent pier, seasonal gangway, and seasonal float at 419 River Road (Map 25, Lot 7), with the
following findings of fact (in addition to other applicable findings of fact to be included in the Notice
of Decision):
1. All applicable sections of the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 44) and Shoreland
Zoning Permit Application have been or will be met.
2. Based on the information presented by the applicant and in accordance with Sec. 44-44, the
Planning Board finds that the proposed use:
a. Will maintain safe and healthful conditions;
b. Will not result in water pollution, erosion, or sedimentation to surface waters;
c. Will adequately provide for the disposal of all wastewater;
d. Will not have an adverse impact on spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, bird, or other
wildlife habitat;
e. Will conserve shore cover and visual, as well as actual, points of access to inland and
coastal waters;
f. Will protect archaeological and historic resources as designated in the comprehensive
plan;
g. Will avoid problems associated with floodplain development and use;
h. Is in conformance with the provisions of section 44-35, land use standards.
The approval includes the following conditions:

Standard conditions

Page 5 of 53

PB26-04: 419 River Road (Map 25, Lot 7): Shoreland Zoning Permit Application – Permanent Pier,
Seasonal Gangway and Float
Disapproval
Motion to disapprove PB26-04 for the following reason(s) related to noncompliance with land use
regulations: ____________.
***
Respectfully submitted,
Jeff Brubaker, AICP
Town Planner

Page 6 of 53

TOWN OF ELIOT MAINE
PLANNING OFFICE
1333 State Road
Eliot ME, 03903

PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
AUTHORITY:
PLACE:
DATE OF HEARING:
TIME:

Eliot, Maine Planning Board
Town Hall (1333 State Rd.) with Remote Option
April 21, 2026
6:00PM

Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board of the Town of Eliot, Maine will hold a public hearing on
Tuesday, April 21, 2026 at 6:00 PM for the following application:
•

419 River Road (Map 25, Lot 7), PB26-04: Shoreland Zoning Permit Application – Residential pier,
gangway, and float
o Applicant and property owner: Anthony Warren

Interested persons may be heard and written communication received regarding the application at this public
hearing. The application is on file and available for review in the Planning Office at Eliot Town Hall, 1333 State
Rd.; Eliot, ME 03903. The meeting agenda and information on how join the remote Zoom meeting will be
posted on the web page at eliotmaine.gov/AgendaCenter. Town Hall is accessible for persons with disabilities.

Page 7 of 53

CARPENTER, ROBERT
401 RIVER RD
ELIOT, ME 03903

COHEN, JOY E REVOCABLE TR
JOY E COHEN TRUSTEE
437 RIVER RD
ELIOT, ME 03903

GROCHMAL, DEBORAH A
219 S MAIN ST
NEW MARKET, NH 03857

JENNIFER S. COHEN REVOCAB
SMITH, JAMES & COHEN, JEN
51 ORCUTT DR
GUILDFORD, CT 06437

MARTIN, FRED H
MARTIN, MARY VIRGINIA
409 RIVER RD
ELIOT, ME 03903

MCGEE FAMILY REVOCABLE TR
CAROLYN M & KENNETH A MCG
445 RIVER RD
ELIOT, ME 03903

PAMELA A MIJAL LIVING TRU
JENNIFER C PRESCOTT LIVIN
523 RIVER RD
ELIOT, ME 03903

ROHDE, SHARON
413 RIVER RD
ELIOT, ME 03903

VALENTINE, JOHN C/SHAWN L
VALENTINE, JOHN C/SHAWN L
407 RIVER RD
ELIOT, ME 03903

WYMAN/WARBURG REALTY TRUS
J WARBURG/J WYMAN TRTS
402 RIVER RD
ELIOT, ME 03903

Page 8 of 53

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46

February 3, 2026
6:00 PM

ITEM 1 - ROLL CALL
Present: Christine Bennett – Chair, Paul Shiner – Vice Chair, Suzanne O’Connor –
Secretary, Carmela Braun, and Karina Hlynka.
Also Present: Jeff Brubaker, Town Planner.
Absent:

Jim Latter (excused).

Voting members: Christine Bennett, Carmela Braun, Paul Shiner, Suzanne O’Connor,
and Karina Hlynka (Zoom).
ITEM 2 – PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ITEM 3 – MOMENT OF SILENCE
ITEM 4 – 10-MINUTE PUBLIC INPUT SESSION - NONE
Ms. Bennett said that the PB is going to adjust the agenda just a little bit. We are going to
move up Item #8 Notices of Decision up to the beginning of the agenda. The Notice of
Decision was completed late yesterday. It was not received by the PB, in total, until 4PM
this afternoon. As a result, we have not had enough time to read and be prepared to work
through and approve this Notice of Decision this evening. I want to have a conversation,
now, amongst the PB about availability to have a Zoom meeting in the near future to just
address this Decision. I propose that, if we could do it this week, that would be preferable
because this application approval by the PB has been appealed and is scheduled to go
before the Board of Appeals (BOA) on February 19. Time is of the essence to complete
this Notice so that the BOA has enough time to prepare for their meeting. I am wondering
what the availability of Board members is for tomorrow at either 4PM or 5PM. There is a
Conservation Commission meeting at 6PM on Zoom so we would need to complete our
deliberations prior to 6PM.
The PB agreed to have a Zoom meeting at 4:30PM tomorrow, February 4, 2026. A link to
the Zoom meeting will be posted and sent to PB members.
ITEM 5 – PUBLIC HEARING
A. 527 Goodwin Road (Map 74/Lot23), PB25-9: Sarah Pearsall – Home Day Care
Received: September 12, 2025
1st Heard: January 13, 2026 (site plan review/HBB)
2nd Heard: February 3, 2026 (site plan review/public hearing).
Public Hearing: February 3, 2026
Site Walk: None
Approval: February 3, 2026
1

Page 9 of 53

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91

February 3, 2026
6:00 PM

The applicant (Ms. Pearsall) was present for this application.
Mr. Brubaker said that we heard the background from the applicant at the last meeting.
There is more information in the staff report. I will note my recommendation is approval
with conditions.
6:14 PM

Public Hearing opened

There was no one who spoke on this application.
6:15 PM

Public Hearing closed.

Ms. Bennett asked if there were any questions from the PB to the applicant or to the
Planner.
Ms. Bennett said that she would like more information about the egress/ingress at the
curve; that you’re situated on a curve.
Ms. Pearsall said that the driveway comes in at a 90-degree angle as opposed to the 45degree angle that it was. That third spot is actually a little longer so we have included a
turn-around in that so that people aren’t backing out onto Goodwin Road.
Ms. Bennett wanted to know the width of her driveway at that point. I was wondering
because that ingress/egress will be happening around the same time for pick-up and dropoff.
Ms. Pearsall said that, initially, coming in is a little narrower but widens as you come
onto the property. We had a family yard sale there this summer and cars coming in and
out and they were able to go around each other with that widened curve in the driveway.
Ms. Bennett said that she was wondering if there was some way you could demark for
people coming and leaving that there is a pattern that you should adhere to when you
come onto your property and when you leave, as well.
Ms. Pearsall suggested a ‘keep right’ sign. I just asked because it’s a notoriously crazy
series of curves there, almost an S-curve with Brixham coming down nearby.
Ms. (Linda) Pratt, real estate agent who sold the applicant the house, said that I was there
today visiting. I think what they did is great because the driveway used to be more on the
corner and they moved it down, so it’s not on that sharp corner anymore. I think it speaks
to common sense when you pull in what you need to do. It’s pretty wide.
Ms. Bennett said that my concern was the busy road, business hours, and people coming
in from the north and the south while also having people trying to leave.

Page 10 of 53

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136

February 3, 2026
6:00 PM

Ms. Pearsall said that I placed a sign at the entrance to the driveway that says ‘please go
to the right’.
Ms. Bennett said that that would be helpful, adding that the applicant might want to give
the family members an orientation on that.
Ms. Pearsall said as there will be only a few kids, it will be easy to tell the parents.
Mr. (Terry) Pearsall, father, said I can speak to the driveway because I mostly built it. My
sister built it back in 1970 and it had a 35-degree angle going back into that road. Back
then there wasn’t as much traffic on Goodwin Road. The criteria for my daughter was
that, when we built this driveway, we would cut down ‘these’ trees to make the driveway
come 90 degrees to Goodwin Road because that is an absolutely dangerous corner where
Brixham Road ‘Y’s and people don’t stop. I made the driveway so that you have to go 90
degrees to that. It is fairly wide, wider than most driveways, probably 1½ driveways wide
at Goodwin Road. And it does widen as you go in because of the curve; that I have to
back my trailer up in there. So, I made it much wider as it goes in and there is a driveway
down towards her playground that, when you leave, you can back into to be able to face
Goodwin Road as you come out versus backing onto Goodwin Road. My grandkids have
to get on the bus there and traffic has to stop in every direction. I do feel it is much safer
than it was.
Mr. Shiner commented, as he drove by the property, that with the big snowstorm, I saw
that it was plowed out nicely and saw the turn-off area at the south end along Goodwin
Road, which is a great idea because it gives you access. My only comment is, from a
safety standpoint, it’s better if you keep the snowbanks pushed in as much as you can
with the sight lines around that corner. Otherwise, it looked clean, it looked accessible to
me. I wouldn’t have an issue there.
Mr. Pearsall said that we have taken down some of the dead trees and that makes it a little
easier to see out that corner when you’re coming around.
Mr. Brubaker said, regarding egress, I don’t know if anyone feels more advanced signage
is needed along that stretch. It is DOT’s road so we would have to reach out to them. If
there are any ideas for advanced signage, especially as now we’re transitioning from just
a home to a daycare.
Ms. O’Connor said that that is a really great idea, particularly because it’s a bus stop, as
well. So, if there is some sort of generally accepted, such as ‘children crossing, caution’
or ‘Yield for buses for children’ kind of sign, that might be really nice.
The PB agreed.
Mr. Brubaker said that he would look into that.

Page 11 of 53

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181

February 3, 2026
6:00 PM

Ms. Bennett said that, if they could do it on both sides of the road, from the north and the
south, that would be good.
The PB recognized that DOT agreement might take some time. There was no more
discussion.
Ms. Braun moved, second by Ms. O’Connor, that the Planning Board approve the
Home-Based Business Application for PB25-9, a family childcare provider, at 527
Goodwin Road (Map 47/Lot 23), subject to the following conditions:
1. The property may be developed and used only in accordance with the plans,
documents, material submitted, and representations of the applicant made
to the Planning Board. All elements and features of the use as presented to
the Planning Board are conditions of approval and no changes in any of
those elements or features are permitted unless such changes are first
submitted to and approved by the Eliot Planning Board.
2. The permit is approved on the basis of information provided by the
applicant in the record regarding the ownership of the property and
boundary location. The applicant has the burden of ensuring that they have
the legal right to use the property and that they are measuring required
setbacks from the legal boundary lines of the lot. The approval of this
permit in no way relieves the applicant of this burden. Nor does this permit
approval constitute a resolution in favor of the applicant of any issues
regarding the property boundaries, ownership, or similar title issues. The
permit holder would be well-advised to resolve any such title problems
before expending money in reliance on this permit.
3. The applicant authorizes inspection of premises by the Code Enforcement
Officer during the term of the permit for the purposes of permit
compliance.
4. Applicant shall provide a copy of the state childcare facility license, when
received, to the Code Enforcement Officer.
VOTE
5-0
Motion approved
Ms. Bennett said that the application stands approved and there is a 30-day period from
which the PB decision can be appealed by an aggrieved person or parties – move
forward but move forward cautiously.
Ms. Pearsall asked if, at the end of the 30 days, the permit would be available.
Mr. Brubaker explained that, typically, since you need that zoning compliance
certification with the State, I typically write a letter on Town letterhead that says you’ve
been approved by the PB and that tends to suffice before we actually get the Notice of
Decision (NOD) finalized. I can send that to you and you can include that with your

Page 12 of 53

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227

February 3, 2026
6:00 PM

submittal to the State. Hopefully they find that sufficient. Otherwise, we’ll have to wait
for the NOD. Once you get the license, just send us a copy.
ITEM 6– NEW BUSINESS
A. Ordinance Amendments – Mixed Use Zone updates, wetland program, compliance
with recent State legislation (LD1829, LD427 relates to parking requirements,
LD997).
Mr. Brubaker gave an overview of the ordinance updates. We talked about beginning a
wetland protection program starting with the Mixed Use Zone wetlands and this is a
simplified adaptation from Kittery, with help and insights from Jason Garnham (Director
of Planning & Development). There is ‘purpose’ language regarding the importance of
wetlands and the Comprehensive Plan regarding the wetland in the Mixed Use Zone. This
applies only to the Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) but could be applied to the rest of the Town
in the future. Covered are wetland boundaries/delineation; permitting requirements;
regulated activities, allowed and prohibited; permits required by other agencies; regulated
activities in wetlands (permitted and prohibited); snow dumping; wetland alteration
criteria; mitigation activities; fees, and the like. We have the hot topic of tree removal and
forestry and will have to figure out how to develop that. Impact to wetlands will be kept
very limited and appropriate. There are pockets of little wetlands, as well, and could be
an opportunity to frame those smaller wetlands to a place-making amenity, like a civic
space, or the like. Then use of revenue wetland preservation fees.
Ms. Hlynka said that this is specifically for the Mixed Use Zone. What sort of codes do
we have for the rest of the Town about protecting wetlands?
Mr. Brubaker said that we have nothing specifically for non-shoreland zones.
Ms. Bennett said that we are piloting this in the Mixed Use Zone for a variety of reasons.
The wetland area in the MUZ was not designated as Shoreland Zoning in our ordinance.
The Comp Plan recognizes that these wetlands are in the MUZ and could be impacted,
wanting an impact fund to offset that. We currently do not charge fees for wetland
impacts, although the State does, and this would be the first time we would be starting to
do that.
Ms. O’Connor asked if we could use the money to purchase other land, possibly open
space, conservation land, or build our land bank trust?
Ms. Bennett said yes. That is possible.
Mr. Shiner thought of this pilot as being used to work out the mechanics of applying this.
I think there needs to be a blending capability with larger projects where you may have a
vast area where 20,000 feet is small compared to what needs to be done. 20,000 is a good
number. It’s not the only number. This is wetland-specific but there could be a
conservation component where it isn’t wetland but otherwise a desirable tract of land
5

Page 13 of 53

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273

February 3, 2026
6:00 PM

you’d like to leave in a natural state. I think there’s room for a subset conservation, not
just specifically wetland.
Ms. Bennett said that I think I saw discussion in this draft about riparian areas to
wetlands, so areas adjacent to wetlands, as being something that could be used to
compensate. The money could be used to permanently protect and conserve wetland area
but also upland that is functionally related to that wetland.
Mr. Shiner suggested descriptive language to create a scenario for better understanding.
Regarding land-banking/land bank trust, if in the course of doing projects there is
something that happens in an area that is going to either take a wetland or some other
wetland that may be that desirable upland but yet it’s a project. We’re looking at a
development in a MUZ and it could work out that we said that you can’t tough anything,
so that means you don’t touch the zone, so it’s kind of a non-starter but there may be
some potential taking. If there is some taking, then there was the question that the giveback doesn’t necessarily have to be exclusively right there in that zone, as well. It can be
back to using another place throughout the Town that are desirable and that can be for
either wetlands or for conservation land.
Ms. Bennett said that I am hearing that we would take mitigation money for wetland
impacts, but then, you would like to be able to use it for non-wetland projects somewhere
else in Town.
Ms. O’Connor said potentially. It would be good if it could be used more broadly than
just the MUZ wetlands.
Ms. Bennett said yes, that I’m saying throughout Town. I am asking the question because
I am very familiar with the Kittery program and it mirrors the State program in a lot of
the rationale and the application in that it tries to be, as much as possible, one-to-one. If
you impact ‘this’ amount of wetland here, you are going to protect ‘this’ amount of
wetland somewhere else. What I’m hearing from you guys is that you would like our
program to be broader than that.
Mr. Shiner said that I would cast a broader net and decline from there instead of not
having the flexibility of not being able to step up into it
Direct in-kind mitigation exchange by applicant, additional option suggestion:
Take has a value.
Mitigation (remedial) has a value.
A little take from here, add to there in exchange without actually doing the
money.
Remediation project done in order to tie it as you’re taking, in the first place.
Craft conditions to allow for an applicant to do a like-kind exchange.
Could allow the Town to bundle some of those exchanges together for a bigger
piece of conservation land. Use our small pieces of conservation money to
preserve something bigger, even though we are not administering it.
6

Page 14 of 53

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319

February 3, 2026
6:00 PM

Specify that it would go into the Land Trust Reserve for use of conservation
projects.
Town Manager reluctant to have code specify Land Trust Reserve, (LTR) to
actually name the LTR in the code although everyone has the same goal.
PB very supportive of naming the LTR as otherwise would go into the General
Fund, and they were not supportive of that. Concern for use other than specific
mitigation/remediation.
Funds are meant to be a compensation for the taking. Our current in-lieu fees are
applied very specifically. The State level calls it the in-lieu fee. Elements healthy
for the rationale nexus test. If imposing a fee for something, the money needs to
be used for something similar.
Planner commented that, in California, there were several court cases that
involved town entities getting into trouble historically with impact fee revenues
going into the general fund. Some of the rationale nexus key with land use cases
in California were communities not staying within those bounds. An important
aspect to just not put it into the general fund.
Ms. Bennett said that I think that will make us stronger and an important piece to do.
Mr. Shiner commented that is worth fighting for.
Ms. O’Connor agreed. There are people who care about the conservation of the wetlands
and will want to know that they could go somewhere and see articulated that this new
piece of Great Works Land Trust was funded by the Town of Eliot through the Land
Trust Reserve.
Mr. Shiner said that I think that may be a key for collecting the kind of money you need
to create spaces for public gathering with the wetlands environment around it. The whole
thing we talked about early on with the Maine Design Workshop on placemaking, not in
concrete buildings, in that MUZ environment.
Ms. Bennett said that that language is clearly in here, the placemaking.
The PB agreed this was good; that we could put more meat on the bone and make it really
good.
Ms. Bennett said that under ‘Wetland, mixed use zone’ definition, which language comes
from Kittery, I would like to strike the last phrase because, since 1997, the Army Corps
has come out with regional guidelines delineating wetlands and are in the process of
changing the wetland delineation models. I want to put a pin in this so we can do some
more research so we know what we are buying into.
The PB questioned putting a hard stop on the wetland delineation models. It takes away a
local rights use kind of review because it meets a national standard that could be a terrible
standard for us.

Page 15 of 53

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364

February 3, 2026
6:00 PM

Mr. Brubaker said that he could look into that, also check with Jason Garnham, and brush
up that definition. We need these definitions because they are Shoreland definitions A
wetland is sometimes not a wetland in our Shoreland Zoning.
Mr. Shiner said that the Wetland Inventory website for all those wetlands tells you
exactly what’s there and how they classify them for the type, such as stocky material that
grows to six feet, a lowland grass, and so forth. It’s all there; that we just don’t reference
it.
Ms. Bennett asked if we would want to reference Beginning with Habitat data layers? Mr.
Brubaker might talk to Jason about the possibility of using national wetland inventory or
Beginning with Habitat characteristics for characterizing wetlands. The same wetlands
delineation model I flagged in wetland boundaries is cited again.
Mr. Brubaker said that he would change it there, too. Did we want to narrow it down to
really just be conserving land with wetlands? Where do we fall on uplands next to
wetlands or projects that help existing wetlands? Admittedly that’s where I strayed from
Kittery’s and kind of thought up stuff that seemed reasonable, but if we want to tighten
that up, I can do that, too.
Ms. Bennett said that I like what you put in here. It starts with the idea that we’re striving
toward permanent conservation of land that includes wetlands but you have also included
“or provided an upland buffer”. The two go together. There’s a wetland feature that may
not even be on the property but the fee revenues could be used to support that or
stewardship of wetlands that are existing Town-owned and permanently conserved land
by the Town or could it be permanently conserved land by others.
Mr. Brubaker said yes, as long as it’s a qualified holder or an established conservation
entity, like a land trust.
Ms. Bennett asked if we could say stewardship of wetlands on existing Town owned?
Mr. Brubaker said yes, or a land trust or conservation agency-owned, or something like
that.
Ms. Bennett added maybe just stewardship of wetlands on existing Town-owned and/or
permanently conserved lands.
Discussion of stewardship categories.
Suggestion was to cut out the Town-owned portion and say “stewardship of wetlands on
permanently conserved land”, which blocks off the loophole of saying io someone in
twenty years saying there is a puddle over there by the ballfield and I want to use these
impact fees to build a boardwalk over it, or something like that.

Page 16 of 53

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410

February 3, 2026
6:00 PM

Ms. Bennett said, regarding fees, that Kittery’s $10/sq. ft. is double what the State
assesses for impact fees. That’s why it’s been so successful at doing local, specific
conservation in Kittery but I wouldn’t go lower. With 500 sq. ft at $1,000 is only $2/sq.
ft. The State is collecting $5/sq. ft. and land values in our area work out to a range
between $3/sq. ft. and $20/sq. ft., depending on where it is. If you want to do like-to-like
and conserve the same amount of acreage that’s being impacted, we need to collect a fee
that will allow us to buy the same amount of acreage.
The PB agreed to keep it at $10/sq. ft.
Ms. Hlynka discussed section (f) permitted activities, asking if there was a definition for
‘low-intensity recreation’.
Mr. Brubaker said we have ‘non-intensive recreational facilities’ but it would be good to
clarify what Kittery says about that.
There should not be motorized vehicles, with the exception of motorized wheelchairs.
The last part of 4) is blank, regarding forestry, because it pointed to a specific process in
the Kittery code. This meant as a placeholder to decide what to do with that. Forestry
practices are typically allowed on conservation lands but there are differences in
intensity. Suggestion to have specific definition of ‘clear-cutting’ versus ‘selective timber
harvesting’; FON (forest operation notice) to be sent anytime anyone is doing forestry
tree-cutting or timber harvesting to the Planning Office from the State. Staff a challenge
to enforce a general tree-cutting ordinance but the baby step to take would be that local
notification requirement.
Certain items under would be removed because they are not applicable to the MUZ. They
may be applicable in the future outside of the MSU and should be remembered.
Suggestion in (g)(4) prohibited uses within regulated wetlands is to add ‘topsoil
additions’ to ‘topsoil removal’. Concern with importing foreign fill (such as PFAS
contaminated material) but also not prohibiting allowed materials. Incorporate ‘stockpile
of foreign fill’ into the prohibited list. Edit (g)(7) to say ‘introduction of non-native
plants’.
Mr. Brubaker said that the next things are a grab bag to not only getting to implementing
compliance measures for State statutes but also fine-tuning the MUZ wetland program,
and other things the Comp Plan recommends. As a placeholder is the question on
minimum lot size in the C/I Zone, which would allow acreage of business lots on Route
236 in the C/I Zone served by sewer and water reduced from 3 acres to one acre, with
agreement by owner to cover cost to connect. It doesn’t have to go in this election cycle
but probably prudent to tackle that soon. Regarding parking, we need to amend some
things. In the MUZ, residential availability through leases with other businesses as long
as it’s within ¼ mile and parking agreement in place for residents to legally use.
Suggestion is to have that residential parking along lines of suitable pedestrian access, not
9

Page 17 of 53

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456

February 3, 2026
6:00 PM

as the crow flies (concern for crossing Route 236 disallows crossing over Route 236 as
too dangerous). Add ‘safe’ for ‘suitable’ and ‘ADA-compliant’. Elevations, illumination,
etc. also discussed. We are seeing Housing Opportunity Grants funding (LD1827, etc.)
for future consideration, that we work to get a $10,000 grant in Round 2, which would
help us get a consultant on-board to help us with this. One thing we should do now is the
subdivision change, which is just amending the definition to say it isn’t a subdivision
unless it is more than four lots.
ITEM 7 – OLD BUSINESS - NONE
ITEM 8 – REVIEW AND APPROVE MINUTES
Ms. O’Connor moved, second by Ms. Braun, to approve the minutes of November
18, 2025, as amended.
VOTE
5-0
Motion approved
Ms. O’Connor moved, second by Ms. Braun, to approve the minutes of December
16, 2025, as amended.
VOTE
5-0
Motion approved
ITEM 9 – NOTICE OF DECISION
A. PB25-06 53 Hocoka Path
This was already taken up at the beginning of the meeting.
ITEM 10 – OTHER BUSINESS/CORRESPONDENCE
Mr. Shiner asked a general question for clarification. In a recent review of which there is
a NOD being developed for Beech Road, I found that the 2019 application was not a
Shoreland application. Therefore, Shoreland standards were not applied and the land use
selection that was made came out of Chapter 45. I think that it was acknowledged, is
what happened, and what it is. In this most recent application, we asked that the
application be upgraded to a Shoreland application. That’s why we gave it the review for
Chapter 44. Having noted that, what does that mean in terms of that original application
not having gone before the PB as a Chapter 44 application but a Chapter 45 application
which, at the time, was a Shoreland Limited Commercial District parcel. What does that
mean, if anything.
Ms. Bennett said that I don’t know. I don’t know what the statute of limitations is on
appeals. To go back in time to a decision that was erroneously made, that the application
was not properly vetted by the PB.
10

Page 18 of 53

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502

February 3, 2026
6:00 PM

Mr. Shiner said that, at a minimum, the NOD could be a repository of the Finding of
Fact. That would be a clear notation that it’s an after-the-fact Finding.
Ms. O’Connor said that what we found was that the 2019 decision was made using an
incorrect application and, therefore, an incorrect application of the chapter ordinance.
This was discussed during the most recent review and was why the applicant was asked
to come back with the correct Shoreland application, not a Request for Planning Board
Action. I think that’s an important addition to just keep the record straight. Not that we
can go back and open the past books and say ‘shoulda, woulda, coulda’.
Mr. Shiner said that I think it would give clarity to the succession that has occurred on the
property.
The PB agreed to add this as a Finding of Fact.
ITEM 11 – SET AGENDA AND DATE FOR NEXT MEETING
Training with Attorney Saucier February 24th.
The next regular Planning Board Meeting is scheduled for February 17, 2026 at 6PM.
ITEM 12 – ADJOURN
Ms. Braun moved, second by Ms. O’Connor, that the Planning Board adjourn.
VOTE
5-0
Motion approved
The meeting adjourned at 9:08 PM.

________________________________
Suzanne O’Connor, Secretary
Date approved: ___________________
Respectfully submitted,
Ellen Lemire, Recording Secretary

Page 19 of 53

February 17, 2026
6:00 PM

ITEM 1 - ROLL CALL
Present: Christine Bennett – Chair, Paul Shiner – Vice Chair, Suzanne O’Connor –
Secretary, Carmela Braun, Karina Hlynka. and Anastasia Azerovo-Moore (new alternate
member).
Also Present: Jeff Brubaker, Town Planner.
Absent:

Jim Latter (excused).

Voting members: Christine Bennett (Zoom), Carmela Braun, Paul Shiner, Suzanne
O’Connor, and Karina Hlynka (Zoom).
NOTE: Mr. Shiner acted as Chair for tonight’s meeting.
ITEM 2 – PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ITEM 3 – MOMENT OF SILENCE
ITEM 4 – 10-MINUTE PUBLIC INPUT SESSION - NONE
ITEM 5 – PUBLIC HEARING - NONE
ITEM 6– NEW BUSINESS
A. 4 to 15 Shipping Lane (f.k.a. 771 & 787 Main Street) Map 6, Lots44-1 to 44-8),
PB26-01: Subdivision Plan Amendment – sidewalk, stormwater, and drainage
changes.
Received: January 6, 2026
1st Heard: February 17, 2026 (subdivision amendment plan review)
Public Hearing: None
Site Walk: None
Approval: February 17, 2026
Mr. (Michael) Sudak, E.I. (Attar Engineering, Inc.) was present for this application.
Mr. Brubaker said that this is a subdivision (Clover Farm) that was approved in April,
2023. A minor amendment happened in July of the same year to re-locate a fire hydrant.
It is currently under construction. The current subdivision proposed amendment is to
shorten the sidewalks. Recall that subdivisions in growth areas need to have sidewalks
serving them and they did have a sidewalk in their approved plan. Since it’s a cul-de-sac
plan, the sidewalk wraps around the cul-de-sac part way. All they’re doing is shortening
the sidewalk back from the radius of the cul-de-sac. The subdivision, as a whole, will still
be served by the sidewalk alongside Shipping Lane but it will just wrap around less of the
cul-de-sac. Also provided are updated plans to reflect as-built conditions. Some changes,
1

Page 20 of 53

February 17, 2026
6:00 PM

which I would consider pretty minor, are to the locations of catch basins and underdrains,
sewer main and manholes, driveways and culverted crossings, driveway and house
updated locations. Subdivisions are only need to provide a suggested house location. It’s
understood that, once the homes are actually developed, they might shift slightly. There
has been property monumentation installed, which are shown in your packets. §41-182(b)
allows for pretty simplified approval of subdivision amendments, if the PB wishes. These
seem to be pretty modest changes so my recommendation is to approve with conditions.
Mr. Sudak said that Mr. Brubaker did a good summarizing it. It’s a pretty simple plan set
that is in front of you. The sidewalk for Shipping Lane, as approved, runs a long the north
side of the travel way and extends around the entirety of the radius of the cul-de-sac. Our
proposal is to shorten that by about 240 linear feet, effectively taking it from the Lot 7
and Lot 8 sideline and bringing it all the way back to the Lot 5 sideline, what is looking at
the river. So, just a shortening of a little over 200 feet of sidewalk length. Lot 8, as you
can see, has to cross Shipping Lane to get to the sidewalk north of that so that’s what Lot
7 is going to have to do, now, by this proposal. Lot 6 still has access to it on their sideline
with Lot 5, with their shared driveway. That is the scope of this amendment. We’ve
provided all the as-built documentation as it’s been constructed. It is still in flux. We’ve
got two buildings constructed and occupied. Another three under way, I believe, and
seven out of the eight are spoken for. We will continue to update you as the information
becomes available. I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Ms. Braun asked what the reasoning was for shortening the sidewalk.
Mr. Sudak said costs. A little extra length in the means of egress to it is something that
the PB already granted for Lot 8. They’ve got to cross the street so Lot 7 can do the same.
That’s our thinking.
Ms. Braun said okay; that it shouldn’t be a heavily traveled road.
Mr. Sudak agreed. It is a dead-end road unless people are coming from the river.
Mr. Shiner said that this request is somewhat counterintuitive for me simply because
there is such a push in Town to dive into sidewalk discussions, about how few there are
and how desired they are. If this was not a dead-end cul-de-sac, I would be strongly
against it.
Mr. Sudak said nor would I likely have proposed it because it wouldn’t have met the
merit of ordinance requirements, anyway.
Mr. Shiner said so, as a cost-saving measure; that the whole premise when the original
plan was approved based on an understanding that that sidewalk was going to be there,
are you saying you would like to move the sidewalk with no other improvements to
replace it. So it’s just a straight minus from the project budget. Nothing else happened.

Page 21 of 53

February 17, 2026
6:00 PM

Mr. Sudak said yes. That’s the substance of the current request. We have the sidewalk
that’s accessing all of these lots and we still have our 5-foot easement reservation along
Main Street for when sidewalks eventually come up that travel way.
Mr. Shiner said commented that I am troubled by it.
Ms. O’Connor asked if Shipping Lane is a Town road or private road.
Mr. Sudak said that it’s a private road.
Ms. Bennett said that I understand your concerns, Mr. Shiner, but functionally I don’t
think that it is much of a deviation from the intent of our approval for the subdivision.
Mr. Shiner said okay. He asked for the pleasure of the PB on this request.
The PB was ready to make a motion.
Ms. O’Connor moved, second by Ms. Braun, that the Planning Board approve the
subdivision plan amendment application for PB26-01 to reduce the sidewalk length
and make other plan updates consistent with as-built conditions in the Clover Farm
Subdivision (4 to 15 Shipping Lane, formerly known as 771 and 778 Main Street;
Map 6, Lots 44-1 through 44-8), subject to the following conditions:
1. The property may be developed and used only in accordance with the plans,
documents, material submitted, and representations of the applicant made
to the Planning Board. All elements and features of the use as presented to
the Planning Board are conditions of approval and no changes in any of
those elements or features are permitted unless such changes are first
submitted to and approved by the Eliot Planning Board. Copies of approved
permits from Maine DEP, Army Corps of Engineers, if applicable, and State
shall be provided to the CEO before construction modification on this
project may begin.
2. The permit is approved on the basis of information provided by the
applicant in the record regarding the ownership of the property and
boundary location. The applicant has the burden of ensuring that they have
the legal right to use the property and that they are measuring required
setbacks from the legal boundary lines of the lot. The approval of this
permit in no way relieves the applicant of this burden. Nor does this permit
approval constitute a resolution in favor of the applicant of any issues
regarding the property boundaries, ownership, or similar title issues. The
permit holder would be well-advised to resolve any such title problems
before expending money in reliance on this permit.
3. The applicant authorizes inspection of premises by the Code Enforcement
Officer during the term of the permit for the purposes of permit
compliance.

Page 22 of 53

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181

February 17, 2026
6:00 PM

4. Applicant shall prepare a final copy of the amended subdivision plan,
consistent with this approval and in a finished state, to be recorded in the
Registry of Deeds.
VOTE
5-0
Motion approved
B. 514 Main Street (Map 4/Lot 59), PB26-02: Shoreland Zoning Permit Application
– structure footprint expansion.
Received: January 8, 2026
1st Heard: February 17, 2026 (site plan review)
Site Walk: None
Approval: February 17, 2026
Mr. (Nick) Gray, applicant, was present for this application.
Mr. Gray said that we are doing a heavy remodel on the structure, which is that we are
basically tearing it down and re-building it up from the first-floor deck, up. With modern
floor plans, we’re looking to remove a side porch and deck because there’s no longer a
door there. We will also remove the front porch and deck and just slightly expand a
bump-out that is currently 4 feet by 7 feet but add a 4-foot by 5-foot expansion onto that,
then just covering over the porch going over the front door. This actually removes the
setback from the side setback and actually meets the front setback so that the front stairs
and landing meet the setbacks.
Mr. Shiner said that that foundation stayed, didn’t it.
Mr. Gray said yes, the foundation and first floor.
Mr. Shiner asked for comments from the Planner.
Mr. Brubaker said that, since it’s less than 75 feet from the normal high-water line
(NHWL) from Spinney Creek and it’s a non-conforming structure, it needs PB review for
the small footprint expansion as well as the ‘greatest practical extent’. It seems very well
within the footprint expansion allowance. In terms of ‘greatest practical extent’ is pretty
straightforward. It is really hard to move the building closer to Main Street as it is a pretty
small lot. The front lot line setback gets in the way and on the other side you have the
power line easement. I think it meets that standard, too, so my recommendation would be
approval with Shoreland findings and conditions and a motion template is in my staff
report.
Mr. Shiner said, for clarification, this bump-out or filling in of the area on the other side
of stairs, this is just all within a single story.

Page 23 of 53

February 17, 2026
6:00 PM

Mr. Gray said that the 4-foot by 5-foot expansion will be two-storied on the front of the
house. Then, it’s just a single step out, which we want to cover for snow over the front
door. In one of the drawings, I kind of depict that. It shows a bunch of yellow markings
that show the expansion, and a small landing for the front door with a granite step.
Mr. Shiner said that it is a small addition facing the opposite side of the resource, which
is good. I don’t think there is any issue. As the Planner said, it is within the guidelines of
the Shoreland Zoning regulations. He asked if there were any other comments from the
PB.
Ms. Braun said that I drove by there yesterday and it really is the best way they can do it
because of the size of the lot.
The PB had no more comments.
Ms. Braun moved, second by Ms. O’Connor, that the Planning Board approve the
Shoreland Zoning Permit Application for PB26-02 for construction of a replacement
single-family dwelling with expanded footprint at 514 Main Street (Map 4/Lot 59),
with the following findings of fact (in addition to other applicable findings to be
included in the Notice of Decision:
1. All applicable sections of the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 44) and
Shoreland Zoning Permit Application have been or will be met.
2. Based on the information presented by the applicant and in accordance with
§44-44, the Planning Board finds that the proposed use:
a. Will maintain safe and healthful conditions;
b. Will not result in water pollution, erosion, or sedimentation to surface
waters;
c. Will adequately provide for the disposal of all wastewater;
d. Will not have an adverse impact on spawning grounds, fish, aquatic
life, bird, or other wildlife habitat;
e. Will conserve shore cover and visual, as well as actual, points of access
to inland and coastal waters;
f. Will protect archeological and historic resources as designated in the
Comprehensive Plan;
g. Will avoid problems associated with floodplain development and use;
h. Is in conformance with the provisions of §44-35, land use standards.
3. The project is within the footprint expansion allowed by §44-32(c)(1)c1, and
the replacement meets the shoreline setback to the greatest extent practical,
per §44-32(c)(4). The footprint expansion is approximately 2.5%. The
replacement house is being built mostly on the previous home’s foundation,
and the small expansion is on the landward side. The font lot line setback and
power line easement constrain the ability to move the house further from the
water
The approval includes the following conditions:
5

Page 24 of 53

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272

February 17, 2026
6:00 PM

Page 25 of 53

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318

February 17, 2026
6:00 PM

Public Hearing: _______, 2026
Site Walk: None
Approval: _______, 2026
Mr. (Matt) Hughes, applicant/property owner of WIN Waste Innovations, Ms. (Ellen)
Rathbone, Project Manager/St. Germain, Patrick Coughlin (St. Germain), and team were
present for this application.
Mr. Brubaker said that this is a proposed larger-scale solar energy system. The first one
we are reviewing under our new ordinance. It is a 1-megawatt solar array and will be on
the WINN Waste facility and is to be leased to a separate operator. The development
comprises two lots that are approximately 96 acres. The back lots on WINN Waste’s
collection of properties on the west side of the Seacoast Airfield. The array is to be
located pretty much on Lot 4, which is in the Suburban District. It has Shoreland Zoning
on it but the proposed development is outside of the Shoreland Zone. The former use is a
bulk bark mulch storage and processing yard. So, it’s been very much degraded, graded,
elevated, up on a hill. There are berms. There is contaminated fill that is compacted and
encapsulated under soil. I think that’s something that would be good for Mr. Coughlin to
address further in his presentation. The PB may want to know more about that. The last
approval was PB23-17. Mr. Coughlin was before the PB who needed to approve earth
material removal, which basically graded the site for this solar array. Under our zoning,
larger-scale solar energy systems (SES-LG) are SPR uses in the Suburban Zone so
require site plan review and they have a variety of standards they need to follow, as well
as site plan rules for what the applicants need to include for the PB under §33-191. We do
have exemptions when the solar array is already on a degraded site or brownfield, which
appears to be the case here; 90%, or more, of air space over land with significant grading
because that is what our ordinance encourages, solar arrays on already developed
degraded sites. That means they are exempt from providing certain environmental
information in their application packet unless the PB decides to require that. So, it needs
an affirmative requirement from the PB, assumed exempt. Nonetheless, they’ve provided
a lot of environmental information in their application because, as I think Mr. Coughlin
can talk about, they have been in discussion review with both the Maine DEP and Maine
IF&W (Inland Fish & Wildlife) about this proposal, too, and permitting at that level. This
facility has licenses with the Maine DEP so it works closely with the DEP on licensing. I
have a comprehensive review of performance standards in my staff report. They appeared
to be met or not applicable. You will want to hear more from the applicant and ask
questions. But consider a completeness motion tonight unless you feel there are some
pretty glaring holes in information to be provided. Also, decide on a site walk. I do think
the application is pretty much complete except for some minor clarifying information.
Mr. Shiner said that it was about 6 or 8 months ago that we actually had the permit for the
grading take place. I don’t think anybody has been out other than the CEO to see the site.
I would like to go see the site but it’s not good conditions right now. It backs up against
the airfield. It backs up to some residential houses over Littlebrook and I would like to
get a sense of how close is close and nothing substitutes for actually seeing the site. So, if
we get a break in the weather in, say, the next 60 days and even though I don’t think we
7

Page 26 of 53

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364

February 17, 2026
6:00 PM

can schedule a site walk today, could we put a placeholder for that if the weather is
favorable as I would like to go out to see where you are sited relative to those abutting
lands.
Mr. Coughlin said sure, understood.
Ms. Bennett said, regarding scheduling a site walk, I believe that I and Ms. Braun are the
only members currently on the PB who have been on this site. It’s a very large site. There
are a lot of things that have gone on and continue to go on. I think it would benefit the PB
to actually go out there but, given the current conditions, viewing will be very limited.
So, I like the idea of a placeholder, if the applicant is amenable to that, because I think
it’s important to know the whole site.
Mr. Shiner said that what’s prompting me to say these things is, in reading through the
catalogue, is to ask what’s next. The life expectancy of the solar project is notated as
2055 and then what. It’s not like we’re looking at a project that is poured foundations and
buildings and that’s the way it’s going to be. So since it’s a fluid site, if you will, that’s
not the reason which I think is in support of always good to get current site conditions as
they exist for the benefit of the next PB so that they have some record of what has
transpired.
Mr. Coughlin asked if you are looking out for the PB in 2055? I applaud your forwardthinking.
Mr. Shiner said that we are at that crossroad and there is absolutely no reason why we
shouldn’t assess and document what we see, and think about it, because the Town
especially in that area there is quite a bit of infill happening. It’s also at the edge of the
industrial/commercial area and the complexion of that area is changing, as well.
Mr. Coughlin said that I definitely want to talk about schedules as part of my
presentation. We do have some external factors that are pushing us to try to get started
sooner rather than later. So, I can go over that and we can talk about what benefits the PB
and the Town.
Mr. Shiner said sure. I would love to see your presentation.
Mr. Coughlin said that I am just giving you an overview mostly as a placeholder so that,
if you have further questions, we can dive into any topics you have. Mr. Hughes is on
Zoom and invited to speak.
Mr. Hughes said that we took ownership of this site back in mid-2020. There has been a
lot of history that I think Mr. Coughlin will get into but I’m real excited to come back. I
talked with Mr. Brubaker a few years ago; that we got a call from a contractor over the
summer and it has moved pretty fast. We are now trying to move this forward and I think
it will be a beneficial project and have some good impacts.

Page 27 of 53

February 17, 2026
6:00 PM

Mr. Coughlin said that I head up our civil engineering and permitting group and I’ve been
working on this particular site probably for about 20 years with the previous owners and
then helped transition to WINN Waste. So I have a bit of site history with the site and can
answer questions about that. Ms. Rathbone is, I believe, on the phone, as well, and put
together much of the details of the application; that we had a pre-op meeting January 14th.
Showing the site on the screen, he said that this is the big picture. The four placemarks in
the middle of the screen are the properties owned by WINN Waste, which was formerly
known as Wheel-A-Brator. To the north is the Rollingwood Road neighborhood. When I
say to the north, this site is fairly isolated. It’s on top of a hill and a good distance to
nearby properties so you can’t see the operations on the site pretty much anywhere. To
the east of the site is the waterfowl and wading bird area down the slope. Then beyond
that is Route 101 to the west and south is Dow Highway. Then, of course, the air strip
(Seacoast Air, formerly Littlebrook). So those are in the immediate vicinity. Zooming in
to the immediate site, with the blue lines showing the property boundaries but the work
areas don’t encompass the entire property. In taking you through a basic overview, the
upper yard labeled ‘bark mulch yard’ and is in the center portion of the site. It kind of
looks like a baseball diamond, if you will. That’s where the facility had a license to
process and store bark mulch and they did that for many years, then the operation ceased.
To the north of there are some stormwater ponds and that whole bark mulch area had
berms around it that would protect anyone from seeing it. I’m not even sure the berms
were needed because even that hill up there is so high it’s hard to see that from anywhere
else. To the left (west) of that is the former soil processing area. It’s just a paved area and
you can see some small piles in the middle of that area. What the site used to do under
Arc is similar to another operation called Commercial Paving & Recycling in the
Portland area. They would take in non-hazardous soils that has some petroleum
contamination associated with it. So this would be if we’re changing out the storage tanks
at a gas station, some of the gasoline leaked, and it got into the soil. It would come to this
site, generally in lower concentrations, and what they would do is put it through a pump
mill and spray an asphalt mulch onto it. It sounds really complicated but, if you’re
familiar with how pavement is made, you’re taking dirt and aggregate and adding asphalt
to it. This is really kind of making a pavement but not adding so much asphalt that it’s
sticky. It’s just adding enough asphalt to bind the material in the soil. This material would
then be given to contractors to be used as fill on commercial sites. So, there are
commercial sites, up and down, from central Maine to southern Maine that have this
material placed on it and then typically covered with pavement or loam and seed and has
proven to be very stable. A good re-use of a soil that otherwise would have to go to a
landfill and take up valuable landfill space, which we are losing rapidly. The southern
portion down to the bottom of the site is really the waste operation. You have municipal
waste transfer consolidation. You have an area for construction and demolition debris,
various aggregate materials that come in. There is an office building, and maintenance,
and that’s the heart of the current operations, that lower portion. And that’s part of the
whole WINN Waste facility network. WINN Waste has been a great client to work with.
They are professional waste management folks and they know how to operate facilities
well. Pointing to the screen, you can see in this picture, just to the left of the bark mulch
yard tag, it looks like some piles of material. As the operation to process the soil under
ARC kind of came to a close, they were left with some amount of the soil on-site. There
9

Page 28 of 53

February 17, 2026
6:00 PM

is some on the lower area and then more of it up in the upper area by the bark mulch
yard. We worked with WINN Waste and the ME DEP closely in deciding what could be
done with this. So, we hatched the idea that we could level this pretty innocuous material.
It raises the whole area about 15 feet and then put solar panels on it. Top of a hill plus 15
feet would be a great place for solar panels and re-use of a commercial site. That’s really
the 10,000-foot view. The next screen shows the zoomed-in version. On the outskirts
you can just start to see the berms to the bottom and left that surrounded that bark mulch
area. The piles you saw in the previous screen have been graded to a more level surface
suitable for placing solar panels. Our plan is for a 1-megawatt project. It’s about 3 acres
within the fenced area. It works out well in terms of the area we have and putting in a 1megawatt facility works out well with funding opportunities and connections with CMP.
We are partnered with some experts in this, Sustainable Energy Platforms (SEP). They
are providing the expertise on the design and installation and will be leasing that from
WINN Waste. As Mr. Brubaker mentioned, solar is an allowed use in the Suburban Zone
and we are not taking over agricultural land, that it is not an area suitable for agriculture.
We are working closely with the DEP. I’ve been working on this particular aspect of this
project for about 10 years and we’ve really ramped it up over the last three years. We are
expecting a permit from the DEP in March. That is what they are promising us and just
very excited to get to this point. The DEP has a very stringent process for assessing
whether or not a ‘beneficial’ use is beneficial and does not harm the environment. We
went through a very exhaustive analysis plan, then submittal of an application, getting
comments back and forth with the department, and they have indicated that they should
be ready to give us a license in March. The next picture shows the leveled soils hydroseeded and ready to go. In working with the DEP and working with this material,
wherever we are using it, previously and for this purpose, it is suited for a cover of 6” of
loam, which can then support a vegetated cover. In accordance with the Town
ordinances, DEP, and good practices we’re focusing on a pollinator-friendly seed mix,
and in accordance with Eliot’s guidance. This was loamed and seeded in November and I
don’t think we got much grass growing before the winter settled in. We may have to go
back out and do some more if that doesn’t take. There are no visual impacts, no odor, no
noise. There is some good wildlife up there but the area we are proposing has been C/I
space for some time. There are very minor changes to stormwater. The existing system
can handle it. If anything, we are reducing stormwater. We have been monitoring
groundwater for the previous 10 years, with no appreciable impacts to groundwater, and
the conditions of the DEP license will be to continue monitoring. Everywhere in Maine
we have to look at impacts on bats but we are not removing any trees, which is their
habitat. With New England Cottontail, we are in prime habitat in Eliot but there is a
really nice area between the facility and the airpark that has wetlands and habitat that the
bunnies like. They are not likely to come out to the solar panels but, if they do, we are
proposing a 7”-high gap from the bottom of the fence to allow for them to go through that
area, as well as Blanding’s Turtles. We did hear from the Conservation Commission that
they’ve heard of deer getting under those 7” fence gaps but, if they do get under there and
get stuck, this is a manned facility and the WINN Waste folks will be out to open the gate
and let them escape. You are probably aware that the federal government has drastically
cut subsidies for solar development. There’s a little bit left and this project is in line to
receive it. Part of the strings that come attached with this money is they need to show
10

Page 29 of 53

February 17, 2026
6:00 PM

substantial start of construction y the 4th of July. If they don’t show substantial start of
construction by then, they do not get their federal funding. So, backing up from the 4th of
July, that means we really need to get all our approvals in place, ideally, by end of
March/early April because SEP needs to final order material, localize, get on the site. We
think we can move fairly quickly to get that substantial start of construction but if we
didn’t get approval until late April, that starts to back things up and we are very nervous
about that. SEP and WINN Waste have threaded the needle on this. CMP had a deadline
for interconnection in December. They submitted and received favorable reviews from
CMP. CMP has made improvements to the substations in the area that can support this
project, which is not the case in all parts of the State. All the pieces are falling into place.
We should be getting the DEP license next month and we’re really hoping we can
compress the schedule to get PB approval in March. But, we understand you have a
process you need to go through to ensure that the project meets your standards. If you
want to do a site visit, I would push for on or around the next PB meeting. It’s warming
up very quickly out there and would pretty much be mud-boot season out there. That
would be the way to do it and we would request, if it’s possible, a Public Hearing and
possible consideration of project approval as soon the next meeting that is March 17th.
Again, it’s your process and we’re here to answer questions and see what we can do to
help us with our schedule.
Mr. Shiner saw that Ms. Bennett had her hand raised and asked if she had something to
discuss.
Ms. Bennett said that I have something to say about the site walk. Next week or the next
PB meeting two weeks from now doesn’t seem like it would be a good time for a fruitful
site walk. I was wondering if the applicant may be willing to allow the PB to do a site
walk for informational purposes to familiarize themselves, again, with this site. There is a
lot going on there and continues to have a lot going on there.
Mr. Shiner asked Ms. Bennett if what she was proposing for a site walk was not the
traditional notice to site walk.
Ms. Bennett said that I believe we would have to notice it because it would be more than
three PB members but I’m not saying it’s part of this process, the consideration of this
application. We should proceed with consideration. I just know that I’ve been on the site
twice. I’ve always learned more about it and I think it’s useful. It is a very industrial site.
It is setback from the road and sort of in an island of high ground within the larger
wetland complex. It has also, to be frank, the site of numerous fires. There haven’t been
any lately but it goes through some phases where some hot material is in that asphalt
recycling building. Something comes up so we should really consider what the Fire Chief
has to say or consider his input.
Mr. Hughes said that I can talk to that. Anytime anyone wants to take a visit up there. Mr.
Brubaker has my contact information and we can set something up at your convenience.
There were pretty substantial fires prior to our ownership. We had a relatively small one a
few years ago but, since then, we’ve also enhanced our fire protection apparatus that we
11

Page 30 of 53

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548

February 17, 2026
6:00 PM

have; that that is in the C&D building as well as in the MSW. So we’ve taken proactive
steps to try to stay ahead of that stuff with fire robot technology. It’s pretty incredible
where you have a sensor that automatically sets the system off that makes all the phone
calls and lets everyone know what’s going on. I can show you all that stuff.
Ms. Bennett said that that would be fabulous to have that sense of knowledge of the
movements you’ve made up there.
Mr. Hughes added that all that is very far away from where this solar array is going to be.
But, for your own edification, that’s not a problem.
Ms. Bennett said that that relates. to the fact that there is not water going all the way up
there. I know that the Fire Department has to take our forestry unit to get up there to fight
anything around it. So it’s a little vulnerable and it would be great to know what systems
you’ve put in place.
Mr. Coughlin asked if, when you say informational, this site walk could be outside the
window of this application consideration? You might want to come up on a warmer day
to see the site.
The PB agreed.
Mr. Coughlin said that I personally jink that’s a great idea. We do a lot of work at transfer
stations. The fire issue is an ongoing issue for all transfer stations primarily because of all
the batteries that are coming through the system. WINN Waste has a very good program.
An important issue about how we separate these materials at the source and not go to the
transfer station and then fire management, all unrelated to the solar project, per se, but
important nevertheless.
Mr. Shiner invited the PB to talk about the solar project.
Ms. Bennett said, regarding the actual site, that you described that there was earthmoving to create this level area within the bermed former bark mulch processing area and
I was wondering if you could tell me about the geotechnical resilience of that mixed soils
moved? Were they compacted? Because your proposal is to mount these panels on driven
piles into the soil.
Mr. Coughlin said correct. It was compacted in lifts. So as they moved the material, they
would compact that material as you would with placing any fill. In addition, that material
sat for quite a bit and we’ve driven on top of it. We had a drill rig on top of it to collect
soil samples from various locations. Now, it’s been loamed and seeded. It’s fairly stable
at this point. As that being said, as we do with any project of this nature, you have to have
Geotech analysis of the soils for making sure that they are adequate for the development.
The biggest concern would really be that the soil can definitely support the weight. This
soil has been used on a lot of commercial sites where there are buildings put on top of it,
and pavement, and heavy trucks. In my mind from an engineering standpoint, the greatest
12

Page 31 of 53

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592

February 17, 2026
6:00 PM

concern is to make sure that, when you place the solar panels, that they stay there. So you
are looking at driving piles into the ground. If you see them on the highway installing
guardrails, that’s a similar process where you are taking a steel beam and driving it into
the ground, then attaching something to it. The key on this would be how deep do you
need to go in order to make sure the panels stay during wind and rain, etc. So that part
needs to be finalized with SEP and the Geotech folks but we are confident that they will
be able to find the right depth to sink these piles into the soil.
Ms. Bennett said that I’m sure you and SEP knows this. Just around the corner is our
Transfer Station where we do have a solar array located on a capped landfill. Because it’s
a capped landfill, we mounted that array on concrete blocks, basically, and they have
proven to be very stable. The panels haven’t hardly moved an inch. I was wondering if
you might consider not disturbing the soil and working with this mixed aggregate soil to
just put some concrete blocks to float on the surface.
Mr. Coughlin said that I am not a structural engineer but, from my understanding, the
more stable long-term solution would be driving piles through it. It is also faster, which
allows us to meet our July 4th deadline and we don’t have to worry about hurting a
landfill underneath. It would be more desirable to have the piles driven than to have a
concrete block sitting on top primarily because, if you did get say a significant windstorm
through here, I’ve seen calculations where panels can lift sizeable concrete blocks with
these winds. So, we want to make sure that these piles are deep and secure and the panels
don’t go anywhere.
Ms. O’Connor said that I see it’s fairly close to the end of the airpark runway. That’s one
of the closest activities to the property. Do we need to think about anything like how tall
the top of the panels are and how low do the airplanes fly?
Mr. Coughlin said that if the airplanes were to hit the panels, they would also be running
the trucks and roll-off containers. The berms on the north side are taller than the solar
panels and they are not in the flight path. If you look at the alignment of the runway, at
the end of the runway that faces WINN Waste, the terrain drops off dramatically. It’s a
good 30 to fifty feet down to the waste-handling area down below. There is no impact
from that standpoint.
Mr. Shiner said that, in looking at the plans, I noticed there was a lead-out for the
electrical service that is on the ground.
Mr. Coughlin said that once it connects to existing, it’s above ground.
Mr. Shiner asked where it connects to existing.
Mr. Coughlin said that I believe it’s right next to the maintenance building.

Page 32 of 53

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638

February 17, 2026
6:00 PM

Mr. Shiner said that I see that from the location of the panel, traveling in a westerly
direction towards Arc Road, it indicates according to the legend that it is an underground
cable.
Mr. Coughlin said that it is underground down the hill and then transitions to overhead
electric. So, when it goes straight across and then first hits that driveway where it says
‘proposed utility pole’, then it goes overhead from there, alongside the road. By going
underground from the solar field down to the road, that allows us not to have to worry
about overhead wires for trucks, roll-off containers, and trees from falling and taking the
wires down.
Mr. Shiner said that I assume CMP is handling everything from your service connection
point, outbound. You said they had done some substation work. Did they give you any
kind of indication in terms of work that they have to do in order to accommodate this
facility?
Mr. Coughlin said that I don’t know that but, based on knowledge of other projects and
the high-level overview of this, I think they have already done the upgrades to their
infrastructure. There may be some other things that have to happen at their substation or
along the way but I believe the power lines are rated such that it already supports the
loads that are going to and from.
Mr. Shiner said that I would like to pull on that thread a little bit because my concern
with the density of the overhead terrestrial wiring where, depending on where it connects,
I envision it has something to do with Route 236. Pretty much everything does in that
part of Town. I would be interested in hearing that the way in which they are treating the
overhead wiring is something they are considering so we don’t make the Route 236
utility corridor defacto. I don’t know their amount of infrastructure and that is what
caught my attention.
Mr. Coughlin said that in the basic hierarchy of utility pole wires, the lowest ones are
your communication lines (data, phone, etc.) and the three-phase power are the three lines
at the very top of the pole. CMP would be delivering power to the facility, and receiving
power, on those top three-phase lines. If those lines are of adequate size, then there’s no
change. If they’re not of adequate size, then they would have to replace them with beefier
wires, if you will. My basic understanding is that that’s okay but that’s really a very
technical question for SEP.
Mr. Hughes said that, with the discussions we’ve had so far, there was no discussion on
having to do anything off-site or leading to off-site for this project. My understanding of
the infrastructure, as it exists, is sufficient. To Mr. Coughlin’s point, there may be some
substation work but we’ve not had any discussions about having to run all kinds of new
lines to facilitate this installation.
Mr. Shiner said that, for the benefit of the Town, I think we should have that
conversation, Mr. Planner, with the CMP folks just so we understand future growth and
14

Page 33 of 53

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682

February 17, 2026
6:00 PM

expansion. Say, for example, this facility is wildly successful and more panels need to go
in, or something else has to happen, where an increase in capacity is desirable and being
pursued, does that mean that there are large stanchion-style powers of things that would
come into play in order to wire up correctly for that. We haven’t heard from anybody on
that, and we don’t know, but because of this CMP have certain rights-of-way and it
would be good to get that out in the open, up front.
Mr. Coughlin said that that’s fine. I encourage you to reach out to CMP. In a former life I
worked at a larger power-generating facility, the Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Plant.
You have the large, large stanchion towers, the kind you see in Godzilla movies, and are
345,000 kilowatts. Then, the next ones down are typically large wooden poles for
115,000 kilowatts. There is nothing that you would put on the site, short of a powergenerating station, that would require that type of upgrade of poles. There is no room to
put more solar panels, effectively, at this point. Even if they were to take every available
surface and put solar panels on them, it would still be going out on the wires there, or
CMP would have to assess, but it wouldn’t be a dramatic change of what you’d see on
Route 236.
Ms. O’Connor said that this may be a footnote to this conversation but, a month or so
ago, we had CMP come in here and give a presentation to us about their new upgraded
transfer station (Bolt Hill) that they will be building two miles down the road, which is a
somewhat close proximity. How do we make sure that they are aware of the demand or
supply that you would be making available to them so that they can include that in all
their calculations for what they are building and receiving?
Mr. Coughlin said that that’s part of their process. That’s why you have to apply for an
interconnection agreement and this is all regulated under the Public Utilities Commission
(PUC). I don’t claim to know much about that process other than to know there are
people in Augusta who look out for exactly those issues.
Ms. O’Connor said that, so, we should have confidence that the people who ought to be
talking to each other these two things that are going to be going on within two miles of
each other are in fact talking to each other.
Mr. Coughlin said yes. Again, in the bigger picture, there are places in the State that the
planning for solar wasn’t as good and they have bottlenecks in the grid, and overloaded
areas. Not a safety hazard but it resulted in some projects not being built. My
understanding at a high level is that CMP does have additional capacity in this area
because of the plans that they have made. Frankly, every megawatt we can get onto the
system that’s renewable is of benefit.
Ms. O’Connor said that I was thinking that this would be a benefit for them but just so
that they are aware of the pluses and minuses that are available.

Page 34 of 53

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728

February 17, 2026
6:00 PM

Mr. Coughlin said that we are, as you all know, facing a power crisis between now and
2055 with the consumption of particularly data centers, etc. so that whatever we can do to
promote renewables is going to be helpful.
Ms. Azerovo-Moore said that I know this process has been years in the making and
you’re about to get your DEP permit, which is great, but I would like to confirm that you
aren’t waiting for any additional input or concurrence from local, federal, or state
agencies that may alter your design plans.
Mr. Coughlin said nothing at the federal level; that for federal, we would typically do a
wetland impact but wetlands were impacted years ago on this site. There are no other
approvals that I am aware of. Of course, the SEP would have to apply for building and
electrical permits to construct it. In terms of timeline, they are preparing/working on
those and working with the Town and the Fire Chief so that, once we have the PB
approval, those can be processed.
Mr. Brubaker said that Mr. Hughes and Mr. Coughlin have been in contact with the Fire
Chief and he’s asked some good questions and they have responded to them. I don’t
know if that email string was in your packet.
The PB said that it was.
Ms. Hlynka said that I just want to chime in to say that I like this project. I think the
citing and location make a lot of sense; that you couldn’t do much of anything else there.
I think making energy more affordable for the local people is a good idea. I am curious if
there is going to be any tree cutting, if there is anything fully cleared to make way for
power lines. And I was wondering if your fire prevention system contains PFAS.
Mr. Coughlin said that no trees are planned to be removed in the solar panel area. I don’t
believe any trees are going to be removed on that downward slope but it’s possible that
some brush and some tress may have to be removed in order to create more of a straight
path for the power lines; that that would be minimized as much as possible. As far as the
fire suppression operations, he asked Mr. Hughes if he had any information on those.
Mr. Hughes said it does not contain PFAS.
Mr. Coughlin clarified that it was strictly water-based or non-PFAS chemicals.
Mr. Hughes said that we use a liquid nitrogen blanket to put over the fire, which would
put the fire out and the nitrogen would dissipate. There is also a water mix that we use
but there is no PFAS in the material.
NOTE: Ms. Hlynka left the meeting at this time.
Mr. Shiner said buildings on the site for any equipment. Are there any kind of equipment
sheds, etc.?
16

Page 35 of 53

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774

February 17, 2026
6:00 PM

Mr. Coughlin said that, from our perspective, it’s mostly concrete pads. Concrete pads
that the transformers sit on, or other equipment. At least with facilities that I see, it’s not
so much buildings as an enclosed structure with switch gear or batteries, and it has just
protective covering, typically. I don’t have the level of detail as far as that but that would
also be something that would be reviewed in the building and electrical permits with the
Fire Chief. They are not traditional buildings or structures that would be subject to PB
review.
Mr. Shiner said that it would be like any other switchyard.
Mr. Coughlin said exactly.
Mr. Shiner said that what also caught my attention was the life expectancy of the panels.
It sounds like you put a line in the sand roughly in that 2055 timeframe; that that would
likely be when the panels expire, if not before. What’s the sentiment in terms of
continuation after that as opposed to decommissioning and removal?
Mr. Coughlin said that I think it’s like a gallon of milk. People are required to put a sellby date on. Whether or not they would go beyond that remains to be seen. The
decommissioning plan requires determining an ‘end of life’ so that you can make some
plans for it. The evolution that we’ve seen in our lifetime with solar panels, they have
gotten dramatically stronger and better constructed while becoming less expensive to
build and install. I can’t tell you whether or not they would actually last to 2050 or 2070
or 2040. That remains to be seen. It would be incumbent on WINN Waste, as the facility
owner, to work with SEP and _____ to assess the viability of those panels over time. If
the power output starts to drop off, then I don’t know what they’re going to have in
20250 for replacement for that. I’m really hoping that we come up with some other power
sources that are magically not impactful to the environment. All we can do at this point is
come up with reasonable plans for what happens but I couldn’t tell you what’s going to
happen that far out.
Mr. Shiner asked Mr. Brubaker, because there is a decommissioning component, does
this require any type of surety bond?
Mr. Brubaker said that they have a decommissioning plan in their packet and I believe
they did in their application commit to providing a surety bond where the Town can be
part of that.
Mr. Shiner asked if Mr. Brubaker was satisfied with what he saw?
Mr. Brubaker said yes. I think the question is the timing of furnishing that bond. If you
could speak to that?
Mr. Coughlin said that I don’t know. SEP would have more experience with that and, ten,
we will work with you to make sure that the parameters of that bond make sense and the
17

Page 36 of 53

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819

February 17, 2026
6:00 PM

bond people probably gave us the best guidance on that. Also, that it meets with your
ordinance. If we run into any conflicts of course we would be in touch with you. My
guess is that, with your ordinance being fairly knew and well-researched, we’ll probably
figure out the details that work for everyone.
Mr. Brubaker said that we don’t have much. It’s mainly that the Town is kind of
protected under the bond. Obligee, I think, is the right word.
Ms. Braun said that there wasn’t any dollar amount mentioned that I saw for the surety
bond so I am curious to see what the amount is going to be.
Mr. Coughlin said that is another thing I’m not sure of. I think we’ll all need some input
from the bond folks and the SEP folks on that and make sure it’s in accordance with your
ordinance.
Ms. Braun said that I would like you to do, when you get the DEP permit, is to give us a
copy for our files so we have a completed file.
Mr. Coughlin said yes. You were copied on the application and I believe that the DEP
would automatically copy you but we will send a copy, too. As part of our follow up to
this project, this application, we would provide that because that is a license that is
necessary for us to have in the end before we proceed.
Mr. Brubaker said that we did get copied on that so we have a full set of their application
with the DEP on file if anyone on the PB wants to take a look.
Mr. Coughlin said that I am not around March 17th but I will be here March 3rd and April
7th.
Mr. Shiner asked the PB members if they see anything they need in terms of information
before deeming this application complete.
The PB was very pleased with how complete the application was.
Ms. Braun moved, second by Ms. O’Connor, that the Planning Board find the
application for PB26-03 complete.
VOTE
4-0
Motion approved
The PB scheduled the public hearing for March 17, 2026.
Mr. Shiner said that Mr. Coughlin, with Mr. Brubaker and the Town regarding the surety
issue, need to come together because I think that might be your long item.

Page 37 of 53

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867

February 17, 2026
6:00 PM

Mr. Coughlin said yes. We will jump on that tomorrow and, once we find out more
information on that, we’ll talk with Mr. Brubaker.
Mr. Brubaker suggested they start and email string and also the CMP poles related
question as part of that email string, as well.
Mr. Coughlin said that I’m not sure we can address anything that CMP does. That’s out
of our jurisdiction.
Mr. Brubaker said that he would try to work with CMP to get information on that.
Mr. Coughlin added that he would pose that question with the experts at SEP because
they will know exactly what CMP is proposing on their end or have a fairly good guess
and to the extent we can share that with you to help clarify things.
ITEM 7 – OLD BUSINESS - NONE
ITEM 8 – REVIEW AND APPROVE MINUTES - NONE
ITEM 9 – NOTICE OF DECISION - NONE
ITEM 10 – OTHER BUSINESS/CORRESPONDENCE
A. Ordinance Amendments – Wetlands, Mixed Use Zone, C/I Zone lot sizes, State
statute compliance – updated transmittal only, discussion as time allows at
option of PB.
Mr. Shiner said that we have some ordinances that Mr. Brubaker has done a second spin on.
Mr. Brubaker summarized the updates for the Wetland Mitigation Program in the MUZ and
adding Civic Space standards to the MUZ, with new text underlined and bold.
Ms. Bennett said that we are under a very tight deadline. The drop-dead date for transmitting
ordinance to SB is March 6th for their March 12th meeting. We can transmit the body of what
we’ve worked through, giving them the summary, rationale, then conduct the public hearing after
the SB meeting and make any changes we would make on the 17th, then rapidly send them off to
the SB. The ballots start to be printed in April.
Definition section:
Wetlands - Added reference to 2012 Regional Supplement for Wetland d Delineation Manual
(WDM).
Deleted another reference to WDM under §(c)(1) as already included in definition.
Permitted Wetland Activities – can only do if received all applicable State and federal permits or
approvals.
Regarding forestry, tree farming, timber harvesting, use best management practices that add
guardrail against any tree operations in wetland.
Additional, prohibited uses regulated wetland - topsoil removal/filling with off-site earth removal,
except where permitted.
19

Page 38 of 53

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917

February 17, 2026
6:00 PM

Introduction of invasive, non-native plants.
Ms. O’Connor said that we talked about motorized vehicles. Was that added?
Mr. Brubaker said that I may have missed that.
Ms. O’Connor said that we talked about prohibiting motorized vehicles and would like to see that
added.
Mr. Brubaker clarified allowing an exception for construction vehicles working on already
approved alteration.
PB agreed only walking or pedal power. Exception would be motorized wheelchairs (ADA
compliance). Can refine at a later date if found necessary. If exceptions, put on signs at trails.
Regarding fee, table is removed and it is fixed at $10/square foot (after 500 sq. ft. altered). 50%
discount if do wetland placemaking amenities. Preservation fee revenue uses re: preservation of
conservation land, wetlands or upland buffers. Added ‘the Town or another holder, as that terms
is defined in State law’. Fee revenues will be placed in Town’s land use reserve account.
Suggestion to use the term ‘qualified holder’.
Definition regarding ‘parking agreement’, concern that ‘within 0.25 miles’ is not specific enough.
This is listed and specified in §45-490 – Proximity to principal building or facility at end of
document.
Mr. Brubaker clarified that LD427 doesn’t just apply to residential. This says all throughout
Town, whether it’s MUZ or out, with suitable pedestrian access. In MUZ, if low traffic, shared
street, that can serve as suitable pedestrian access.
PB agreed that lighting should be added.
Mr. Brubaker said that we have the 3-to-1 lot size change in the C/I District. Is that something we
want to do at this time? It is already listed as a change in the Table for Dimensional Standards to
one acre if connected to water and sewer.
Mr. Shiner asked if there are any circumstances where it isn’t good to reduce lot sizes?
Mr. Brubaker said, regarding that, I think we should keep the 300-foot frontage for C/I lots. We
might allow lesser frontage on streets branching off of Route 236, such as Julie Lane and Brook
Road. Access management on Route 236 is important. Incentivize secondary roads to lessen curbcuts. Consideration for the ability to build new access roads internally as new lots develop away
from Route 236. Too many curb-cuts on Route 236 already, considering the design speed.
Mr. Shiner said that the overall theme is that we do want to minimize the curb-cuts, minimize lot
size with sewer and water servicing, and not minimize the frontage requirement unless with water
and sewer and also where frontage is on street off of Route 236.
Affordable Housing definition change to clarify what is meant by affordable housing.
Started on Civic Spaces.
20

Page 39 of 53

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962

February 17, 2026
6:00 PM

Signage/sidewalk dimensions in MUZ too large for intended spaces. Suggestion for signs on sides
of buildings, in pathways, walkways, and thorough fairs because of pedestrian design. Potential
limited sandwich board signage, storefront window/shingle signage, lighting focused downward.
Develop prescriptive standards. Density/space availability considerations. Maine Market good
example.
LD997 – need to develop definition for ‘Industrial’/residential units in commercial zone.
Subcommittee meeting to develop Civic Spaces, Industrial definition.
Mr. Brubaker showed a sneak preview of civic space pictures and summarized different
configurations from the place code library. Portsmouth and Boston have good examples. PB
members will review for development.

ITEM 11 – SET AGENDA AND DATE FOR NEXT MEETING
Subcommittee meeting at 4:30PM to 5:45PM on February 24, 2026
February 24, 2026 at 6PM – training with Atty. Saucier
The next regular Planning Board Meeting is scheduled for March 3, 2026 at 6PM.
ITEM 12 – ADJOURN
Ms. O’Connor moved, second by Ms. Braun, that the Planning Board adjourn.
VOTE
5-0
Motion approved
The meeting adjourned at 8:33 PM.

________________________________
Suzanne O’Connor, Secretary
Date approved: ___________________
Respectfully submitted,
Ellen Lemire, Recording Secretary

Page 40 of 53

Town of Eliot
PLANNING BOARD/BOARD OF APPEALS TRAINING (MEETING RECORD)
(Town Hall/Hybrid)

February 24, 2026
6:00 PM

1
2

Planning Board Members Present: Christine Bennett, Chair; Paul Shiner, Vice Chair; Suzanne
O’Connor, Secretary; Carmela Braun; Karina Hlynka; Anastasia Azenaro-Moore (Alternate)

Board of Appeals Members Present: William Hamilton, Chair; John Marshall; Jennifer Himmer

Also Present: Philip Saucier, Town Attorney; Jeff Brubaker, Town Planner

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

The Planning Board and Board of Appeals held a training on land use planning, board roles and
responsibilities, the Freedom of Access Act (FOAA), and conflicts of interest. This training was held
in part to fulfill the requirements of 30-A MRSA §4364-C and 1 MRSA §412.
The training was given by Philip Saucier of Bernstein Shur (Town Attorney), and it lasted from
approximately 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
__________________________________
Secretary
Date approved: _________________________
Respectfully submitted,
Jeff Brubaker, Town Planner

Eliot Planning Board and Board of Appeals Training

February 24, 2026

Page 41 of 53

Town of Eliot
DRAFT ORDINANCE PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46

March 24, 2026
4:00 PM

ITEM 1 - ROLL CALL
Present: Christine Bennett – Chair, Paul Shiner – Vice Chair, Suzanne O’Connor –
Secretary, Carmela Braun, Karina Hlynka (Zoom late), Anastasia Azerovo-Moore (Alt).
Also Present: Jeff Brubaker, Town Planner.
Absent:

Jim Latter (excused).

Voting members: Christine Bennett, Carmela Braun, Paul Shiner, and Suzanne
O’Connor,
ITEM 2 – PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ITEM 3 – MOMENT OF SILENCE
ITEM 4 – 10-MINUTE PUBLIC INPUT SESSION - NONE
ITEM 5 – PUBLIC HEARING - NONE
ITEM 6– NEW BUSINESS - NONE
ITEM 7 – OLD BUSINESS
A. Ordinance Amendments: Mixed Use, Industrial/Commercial (C/I), Housing,
Parking.
Mr. Brubaker said that this was reviewed by Attorney Saucier. He had only minor
comments and most were editorial then something more substantive:
 Formatting change re: WS (water & sewer) in §45-405 – no substantive changes.
o Added footnote ‘w’
 Accessory civic space “Special Review” clarification.
o Clarification to say ‘special review’ means that all will be reviewed by the
permit-issuing authority. Covers after-the-fact requests. The PB agreed.
 Wetland alteration approval criteria – public benefits.
o “(i)(1)b. The Public benefits clearly outweigh the detrimental
environmental impacts, when accounting for mitigation pursuant to this
section.” Attorney Saucier felt this was very vague. He and I agreed to
remove this to eliminate the vagueness with other safeguards in this
section to effectively achieve the same thing. The PB agreed.
 Speed/volume of traffic on a shared thoroughfare serving as suitable pedestrian
access to off-site parking spaces.
o Regarding §45-490 (b)(2) in part: Attorney Saucier thought the wording
‘traffic and speed…low enough’ was too vague so Mr. Brubaker inserted
‘traffic speeds of 10MPH or less and motor vehicle volume of less than
500 vehicles per day.’
1

Page 42 of 53

Town of Eliot
DRAFT ORDINANCE PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93

March 24, 2026
4:00 PM

Attorney Saucier and I talked a little bit about the rationale behind both the wetland mitigation fee
and civic spaces in-lieu fee. When I explained to him what our basis was, he was comfortable
with that. Those were the only changes. Remember the SB will be reviewing this on Thursday.
NOTE: This review covers the Mixed Use Zone only, with some discussion for future expansion
into other zones at some point.
Ms. Bennett said that we had had a conversation regarding sizes and elimination regarding civic
spaces (park sheds – geographic catchment areas) so we should discuss that.
Mr. Brubaker said I put it down to ¼ acre – medium and 1 acre – large.
Last discussion was 1/8 acre - medium and ¼ acre – large was where it was left from the previous
meeting.

Rationale discussion focused on the MUZ, there will not be vast spaces, give
consideration for appropriate size.
Small is consistent across all civic space types at 500 square feet. Medium and
large are different across different types.
Total district areal is a little less than a mile.
Encompasses both sides of Route 236.
How many squares appropriate and what size – tie back to # of units per structure.
One large structure could share park shed as accessory with another large
structure with payment-in-lieu.
Developer can choose a common, park, square or plaza depending on size of
structure – size of development triggers, what size civic space or combination of
spaces required.
Hardscape versus soft scape civic spaces may play roll in choices/what each type
looks like/what activities desired. Example: sitting to have coffee versus throwing
a frisbee.
Size/activity choices help developers and reviewing authority; considerations
develop roadmap for specific location/structure type requested.
Four civic space categories include three sizes. Large radius (5,280 ft.) is too big
at one mile for the MUZ. 2 Pi r equals two+ miles, extrapolating out it would be
six square miles of area. Translated into acreage, a 196-unit structure would
trigger 2,000-acre civic space plus a medium (1,000 acres) would become 2,009
acres for a large civic space. The scale is massive and not applicable to our park
shed needs. One park shed would encompass the whole zone.
Approximately 230 acres is in the MUZ.
Approximately 75 acres for the large wetland complex.
Approximately 150 acres of upland for the whole zone.
Suggestion to have one large on either side of Route 236 with 2 small/2 medium.
There is about .9 miles from Beech Road to Bolt Hill Road.
Need right size for descriptors. Big parks probably no future in the MUZ.
Goal is 192 dwelling units but may take several projects over time to meet that
goal. Development will not be one-and-done. Structures will most likely be much
smaller with fewer dwelling units within each.
Geography/cultural appetite not there for huge development.

Page 43 of 53

Town of Eliot
DRAFT ORDINANCE PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139

March 24, 2026
4:00 PM

MUZ development gives a frame for expanding (master plan) into other parts of
Town in the future but growth would be piece by piece (infill) over time.
Good example in Eliot: owner of thermodynamics has about 5 acres on Route 236
with three condominiumized buildings on it, and now has the opportunity to do
many things with that space.
Right-sizing example: 24-unit structure would require 1,800 square feet of
property, with would equal 1 acre, and seems reasonable within 150-acre MUZ
constraint. Would require small civic space, which would create a park shed.
Using the Town GIS mapping software, square footage radius (medium - 1,320)
was entered to show how much area would be included in one park shed from
right-size example. One medium at each node appears to generally service the
MUZ area, with a scattering of pockets.
Different civic space types were re-scaled to fit new park shed sizes and whether
more impervious or less impervious (paved or grass) within MUZ. Also taking
into account the description for each type.
Because of density goals, open space areas may be problematic because not a lot
of land to work with. Potential for a lot of people with small resource land for
civic spaces.
Suggested first large (192 dwelling units) developer build and reserve acreage for
park (with plan) built later. The next trigger might be the next large developer
would build the park. Can’t know if and when large developers may happen.
Potential good for medium-size developers, suggesting we keep medium size park
shed at 1,320 and not smaller. That would trigger two medium park sheds, which
overlap slightly, with the desirable three smalls.
PB agreed large civic space was not appropriate in the MUZ.
Small will go to 660’.
Payment-in-lieu fees used for enhancements and upkeep in the neighborhood.
Planner to tweak some wording in the payment-in-lieu section to not just cover
accessory civic spaces, per se, but incorporate any type of enhancement, to
include things like granite curbs, nice walkways, little trees, hanging baskets,
pavilion, etc. not just the basics of upkeep, etc.
Payment-in-lieu would be for creating a ‘common’ civic space (least expensive as
50% soft scape).
Page 11 (4e) – remove ‘large’, ‘town farm’.
Page 13 (Common size) – remove ‘town farm’
Keep ‘large’ as a placeholder with ‘not applicable’ in MUZ. Potential future use
outside of MUZ. Potentially for the mid-village transition zone.
New: small-‘green’, medium-Common’, large-‘town common’.
Regional park is 3.
Tonight’s additions are making sizes consistent relative to each other in the space
in question.
Page 12: Figure 1: Civic Space Lighting post types – move to place Figure 1
directly under 6.c
3

Page 44 of 53

Town of Eliot
DRAFT ORDINANCE PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185

March 24, 2026
4:00 PM

Under Background and Rationale, 2nd paragraph, add ‘and’ in list of types
between square and plaza.
Ms. O’Connor moved, second by Ms. Braun, that the Planning Board
recommend approval of the Proposed Town Code Amendments Related to
Mixed Use Zone and Commercial/Industrial Zone Standards and
Compliance with State Laws on Housing and Parking Regulations at the
Annual Town Meeting/Referendum on June 9, 2026, as amended. Minor
formatting changes and revisions to the Background and Rationale section
may be made prior to finalizing the amendments for the election.
Town Planner recommends.
VOTE
4-0
Motion approved
ITEM 8 – REVIEW AND APPROVE MINUTES - NONE
February 3 and 17 minutes review postponed.
ITEM 9 – NOTICE OF DECISION - NONE
ITEM 10 – OTHER BUSINESS/CORRESPONDENCE
There was no correspondence.
ITEM 11 – SET AGENDA AND DATE FOR NEXT MEETING
Annual In-House Retreat starting at 5:30PM
Bring your own food
Topics: rights-of-way, historic preservation, trails

The next regular Planning Board Meeting is scheduled for April 7, 2026 at 5:30PM.
ITEM 12 – ADJOURN
Ms. Braun moved, second by Mr. Shiner, that the Planning Board adjourn.
VOTE
4-0
Motion approved

Page 45 of 53

Town of Eliot
DRAFT ORDINANCE PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199

March 24, 2026
4:00 PM

The meeting adjourned at 6:03PM.

________________________________
Suzanne O’Connor, Secretary
Date approved: ___________________
Respectfully submitted,
Ellen Lemire, Recording Secretary

Page 46 of 53

TOWN OF ELIOT, MAINE
PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF DECISION

CASE #: PB26-01 - AMENDED
SUBDIVISION PLAN/REQUEST FOR PLANNING
BOARD ACTION/MINOR AMENDMENT

MAP/LOT: 6/44-1 TO
44-8
4-15 SHIPPING LANE

April 9, 2026

DATE OF DECISION: 02-17-2026

DRAFT

L.J.E. Property Development, LLC & Kristan Glidden
2 Punkin Town Road
Suite 340
South Berwick, Maine 03908
Attar Engineering, Inc.
c/o Mr. Michael Sudak E.I.T.
1284 State Road
Eliot, ME 03903
To: Ms. Kristan Glidden
Mr. Michael Sudak
This letter is to inform you that the Planning Board has acted on your application to amend a previously-approved
subdivision plan (PB23-13) to reduce interior sidewalk surrounding cul-de-sac by 240 linear feet, affecting Lots 6
and 7. Pedestrian egress will be maintained by crossing street, similar to Lot 8, and update subdivision plan to
reflect current as-built conditions as follows:
APPLICATION DOCUMENTS AND SUPPORTING MATERIAL SUBMITTED:
Submitted for February 17, 2026:
1. Request for Planning Board Action/Subdivision Plan Amendment to amend a previously-approved subdivision plan
(PB23-13).
a) Cover Letter from Michael Sudak, E.I.T., Project Engineer, dated January 6, 2026.
b) Warranty Deed: B18390/P222 to LJE Property Development, LLC, registered at the York County Registry of Deeds,
dated September 25, 2020.
c) Warranty Deed: B19193/P634 to Kristan Glidden, registered at the York County Registry of Deeds, dated February
6, 2023.
d) Engineer of Record: Michael Sudak, E.I.T., Project Engineer, Attar Engineering, Inc.
e) Letter from L.J.E Development, LLC and Kristan Glidden authorizing Kenneth Wood, P.E., Michael Sudak, E.I.T., of
Attar Engineering, Inc. as agents for the applications and permitting of this project.
f) CAI Tech Town GIS location map, dated January 6, 2026.
g) 150-foot Abutters List Report, dated January 6, 2026.
h) Email correspondence between Town staff, applicant and owners, dated October 2025.
i) Sheet 1: Amended Subdivision Plan proposal for Clover Farm Subdivision, prepared by Attar Engineering, Inc.
dated January 6, 2026.
j) Sheet 2: As-Built Infrastructure Plan, prepared by Attar Engineering, Inc. dated January 6, 2026.
2. Memo from Jeff Brubaker, Town Planner, dated February 10, 2026.

1333 STATE ROAD, ELIOT, MAINE 03903 PHONE: (207) 439-1813
WWW.ELIOTMAINE.ORG

FAX: (207) 439-1415

Page 47 of 53

FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The applicant is: Attar Engineering, Inc. (mailing address: 1284 State Road, Eliot, Maine 03903).
2. Owners are (L.J.E. Property Development, LLC & Kristan Glidden (mailing address: 2 Punkin Town Road, Suite 340,
South Berwick, ME 03908)
3. Engineer of record: Michael Sudak, E.I.T., Attar Engineering, Inc.
4. The property is located at Shipping Lane (f.k.a. 771 & 787 Main Street), Eliot, Maine and is 10.95 acres.
5. Property can be identified as Assessor's Map 6/ Lot 44-1 through 44-8 and is located in the Village Zoning District and
Shoreland District Resource Protection and Limited Residential Overlays.
6. Property is not located in a flood zone.
7. The applicant proposes to amend a previously-approved subdivision plan amendment (PB23-3) to amend a previouslyapproved subdivision plan (PB22-09) to reduce interior sidewalk surrounding cul-de-sac by 240 linear feet, affecting
Lots 6 and 7. Pedestrian egress will be maintained by crossing street, similar to Lot 8, and to update subdivision plan to
reflect current as-built conditions.
 Proposed shortened length of sidewalk for Lots 6 & 7 is consistent with §37-75 (Streets and Sidewalks) and §41221 (Subdivision – Traffic and Streets). Sidewalk will still extend the length of the road from Main Street and be
practicable for all lots.
 Proposed change is within the Village District only.
8. Copies of the application and supporting materials were provided to the Code Enforcement, Public Works, Town
Manager, Police and Fire Departments.
9. The Planning Board reviewed the application at the following regular meetings:
 February 17, 2026 (Subdivision Plan Amendment Review/Approval)
10. The following application fee(s) have been paid by the applicant, in accordance with §1-25:
 Subdivision Plan Amendment: $400.
11. A Site Walk was not held.
12. History from February 17, 2026 meeting:
 Subdivision approval in PB22-09, final plan approved April 18, 2023.
 Subdivision Plan Amendment approval (PB23-13) to relocate proposed fire hydrant 275 feet closer to Shipping
Lane (Main Street) entrance.
13. As-built updates:
 Location of catch basins and underdrains with updated elevations and grades.
 Water main, sewer force main, and manholes.
 Revised fire hydrant location from PB23-13.
 Driveway and roadway culverted crossing updated locations.
 Driveway and house updated locations – Lots 1, 6, & 7.
 Property monumentation.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Revisions to subdivision plans are allowed with Planning Board approval under Section 41-182 (Revisions to final
subdivision plans after planning board approval).
2. All applicable performance criteria and/or ordinance requirements have been addressed by the Planning Board in
accordance with Chapter 33, Planning & Development, Article III, Division 3.
3. The standards of Section 45-405 (Dimensional standards) of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 45) have or will be met.
4. The proposal is consistent with §37-75 (Streets and Sidewalks) and §41-221 (Subdivision – Traffic and Streets).
5. It was determined that this proposal met the requirements as a ‘minor amendment’ under §33-140(b) and §33-190(13).
DECISION:
1. Based on the above facts and conclusions, on February 17, 2026, the Planning Board voted to approve your
application to amend a previously-approved Subdivision Plan Amendment (PB23-13) to amend a previously-approved
subdivision plan (PB22-09) to reduce interior sidewalk surrounding cul-de-sac by 240 linear feet, affecting Lots 6 and 7.

PB26-01

Page 48 of 53

Pedestrian egress will be maintained by crossing street, similar to Lot 8, and update subdivision plan to reflect current
as-built conditions
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
The applicant must comply with all requirements of the Town of Eliot Land Use Ordinances. In addition, to further promote
the purposes of the (Eliot Zoning Ordinances), the Planning Board has voted to impose the following conditions on the
approval of this application:
1. The property may be developed and used only in accordance with the plans, documents, material submitted, and
representations of the applicant made to the Planning Board. All elements and features of the use as presented to the
Planning Board are conditions of approval and no changes in any of those elements or features are permitted unless
such changes are first submitted to and approved by the Eliot Planning Board.
2. The permit is approved on the basis of information provided by the applicant in the record regarding the ownership of
the property and boundary location. The applicant has the burden of ensuring that they have the legal right to use the
property and that they are measuring required setbacks from the legal boundary lines of the lot. The approval of this
permit in no way relieves the applicant of this burden. Nor does this permit approval constitute a resolution in favor of
the applicant of any issues regarding the property boundaries, ownership, or similar title issues. The permit holder
would be well-advised to resolve any such title problems before expending money in reliance on this permit.
3. The applicant authorizes inspection of premises by the Code Enforcement Officer during the term of the permit for the
purposes of permit compliance.
4. Applicant shall prepare a final copy of the amended subdivision plan, consistent with this approval and in a finished
state, to be recorded in the Registry of Deeds.

PERMITS:

The Planning Board has approved your application and the Code Enforcement Officer is authorized to grant you the
necessary Permits or Certificates of Occupancy, as appropriate. It is your responsibility to apply for these permits. In
exercising this approval, you must remain in compliance with all the conditions of approval set forth by the Planning Board,
as well as all other Eliot, State, and Federal regulations and laws. Be aware, however, that Site Plan approvals (including
home businesses) that are granted by the Eliot Planning Board have expiration provisions specified in Section 41-36 of the
Town of Eliot Code of Ordinances, which states:
The approval of a subdivision under chapter 41, article I, §36 shall expire if “failure to commence "substantial
construction" of the subdivision within two years of the date of approval and signing of the plan shall render the plan
null and void. For subdivisions that include roads, "substantial construction" shall mean the completion of the road
base. For subdivisions without roads the completion of one unit and the issuance of an occupancy permit shall
constitute "substantial construction." Before the two years expires, an owner of a subdivision may apply to the
board for an additional two-year extension of the approval of a subdivision if he or she has not met the conditions of
this paragraph. The board may require that the subdivision meet any new regulations or ordinances.”
All road and infrastructure construction shall be completed per the approved plan no later than 36 months after
posting the financial guarantee. After that date, the developer shall be considered in default and the town shall, at
its discretion, have access to the funds or surety to finish construction.
The holder of an approved permit should take care to ensure that the approval granted on July 25, 2023 (amendment) and
amended on February 17, 2026 does not expire prior to commencement of work or change.

APPEALS:

This decision can be appealed to the Board of Appeals within 30 days after February 17, 2026 by an aggrieved person or
party as defined in Sec. 1-2 and Sec. 45-50(b) of the Eliot Zoning Ordinance. Computation of time shall be in accordance
with general provisions of the Town of Eliot Municipal Code of Ordinances, section 1-2.
PB26-01

Page 49 of 53

Sincerely,

_______________________
Christine Bennett, Chair

This letter reviewed and approved by the Planning Board on _______, 2026.

CC:

Michael Sullivan, Town Manager/Interim Public Works Director
Elliott Moya, Police Chief
Jay Muzeroll, Fire Chief
Donald Ferrara, Tax Assessor
Shelly Bishop, Code Enforcement Officer

PB26-01

Page 50 of 53

TOWN OF ELIOT, MAINE
PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF DECISION

CASE #: PB26-02 - SHORELAND ZONING
PERMIT APPLICATION/STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT
EXPANSION

MAP/LOT: 4/59
514 MAIN STREET

DATE OF DECISION: 02/17/2026

2/17/2026

DRAFT
Arthur Perkins
514 Main Street
Eliot, Maine 03903
Nick Gray
422 Brixham Road
Eliot, Maine 03903
To: Mr. Perkins
Mr. Gray
This Notice of Decision is to inform you that the Planning Board has acted on your Shoreland Zoning Permit Application
for a structure footprint expansion to add expanded bump-out to front entranceway and improve non-compliant distance
from the side lot property line.
APPLICATION DOCUMENTS AND SUPPORTING MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:
Submitted for September 23, 2025:
1. Shoreland Zoning Non-conformance Application and Request for Planning Board Action, received January 8, 2026.
 Drawings of site plan showing location, existing and new remodel of dwelling, and dimensions of expanded
front bump-out.
 Deed, B 1271/P 0258, registered at the York County Registry of Deeds, dated _________.
2. Memo from Jeff Brubaker, Town Planner, dated February 11, 2026.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The applicant of the property is Nick Gray (mailing address: 422 Brixham Road, Eliot, Maine 03903).
2. The Owner is Arthur Perkins (mailing address: 514 Main Street, Eliot, Maine 03903).
3. The property is located at 514 Main Street, Eliot, ME and is 0.5 acres.
4. Property can be identified as Assessor's Map 4/ Lot 59 and is located in the Village Zoning District and totally within
Resource Protection and Limited Residential Shoreland Zoning District Overlays.
5. The applicant proposes a structure footprint expansion to add expanded bump-out to front entranceway and improve
non-compliant distance from the side lot property line.
 Single-family dwelling, built in 1954. Property has an existing easement along southeast edge of property for
Eversource/PSNH power line.
6. Copies of the application and supporting materials were provided to the Police Chief, Public Works, Fire Department,
Conservation Commission, and Code Enforcement.
7. The Planning Board reviewed the application at the following regular meeting:
 February 17, 2026 (Shoreland/Site Plan Review (Minor Amendment/Approval).
8. The following application fees have been paid by the applicant, in accordance with §1-25:
1333 STATE ROAD, ELIOT, MAINE 03903 PHONE: (207) 439-1813
WWW.ELIOTMAINE.ORG

FAX: (207) 439-1415

Page 51 of 53

 Shoreland Zoning Permit Application Fee: $100.00.
 Non-conforming structure in Shoreland Overlay $75.00.
9. Deed, B 1271/P 0258, registered at the York County Registry of Deeds, dated _______.
10. The Planning Board did not hold a site walk or a public hearing.
11. Proposal for a structure footprint expansion to add expanded bump-out to front entranceway and improve non-compliant
distance from the side lot property line.
 Under building permit #2500490, issued 12/14/2025, structure was removed, except for first floor and foundation,
not needing Planning Board review.
 Applicant is seeking to expand front bump-out from 7 feet wide to twelve feet wide, expanding front entryway, which
requires Planning Board site plan review (SPR) (§44-32(c)(1)d and ‘greatest practical extent’ review (§44-32(c (4).
 Both front and side existing decks and front and side existing stairs to be removed.
 Request is to expand footprint with a 4’X5’ bump out to extend previous home’s front entryway, to include roof over
whole entryway.
 Expansion is approximately 2.5% of existing 808 square-foot footprint, which is within 30%/1,000 square-foot
expansion allowance (§44-32(c)(1)c1).
 Entryway expansion is being built landward, away from resource.
12. The subject parcel is a legal, non-conforming lot of record.
13. Applicant has grandfathering provisions for a legally non-conforming structure built before Shoreland Zoning standards
under §44-32, which allows the ability to expand new entryway on current dwelling that is partially within 75 feet of the
river as long as the applicant meets those standards.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. All applicable sections of the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 44), Shoreland Zoning Permit Application, and
Chapter 33 Site Plan Review have or will be met.
2. Based on the information presented by the applicant and in accordance with Sec. 44-44, the Planning Board finds that
the proposed use:
a. Will maintain safe and healthful conditions;
b. Will not result in water pollution, erosion, or sedimentation to surface waters;
c. Will adequately provide for the disposal of all wastewater;
d. Will not have an adverse impact on spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, bird, or other wildlife habitat;
e. Will conserve shore cover and visual, as well as actual, points of access to inland and coastal waters;
f. Will protect archaeological and historic resources as designated in the comprehensive plan;
g. Will avoid problems associated with floodplain development and use; and
h. Is in conformance with the provisions of section 44-35, land use standards.
3. The project is within the footprint expansion allowed by §44-32(c)(1)c1, and the replacement meets the shoreline
setback to the greatest extent practical, per §44-32(c)(4). The footprint expansion is approximately 2.5%. The
replacement house is being built mostly on the previous home’s foundation, and the small expansion is on the landward
side. The front lot line setback and power line easement constrain the ability to move the house further from the water.
DECISION:
Based on the above facts and conclusions, on February 17 2026, the Planning Board voted to approve your application for
the replacement of existing non-conforming garage structure that creates a smaller footprint in the same location and
improves non-compliant distance from the side lot property line.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
The applicant must comply with all requirements of the Town of Eliot Land Use Ordinances. In addition, to further promote
the purposes of the (Eliot Zoning Ordinances), the Planning Board has voted to impose the following conditions on the
approval of this application:
PB26-02

Page 52 of 53

1. The property may be developed and used only in accordance with the plans, documents, material submitted, and
representations of the applicant made to the Planning Board. All elements and features of the use as presented to
the Planning Board are conditions of approval and no changes in any of those elements or features are permitted
unless such changes are first submitted to and approved by the Eliot Planning Board.
2. The permit is approved on the basis of information provided by the applicant in the record regarding the ownership
of the property and boundary location. The applicant has the burden of ensuring that they have the legal right to use
the property and that they are measuring required setbacks from the legal boundary lines of the lot. The approval of
this permit in no way relieves the applicant of this burden. Nor does this permit approval constitute a resolution in
favor of the applicant of any issues regarding the property boundaries, ownership, or similar title issues. The permit
holder would be well-advised to resolve any such title problems before expending money in reliance on this permit.
3. The applicant authorizes inspection of premises by the Code Enforcement Officer during the term of the permit for
the purposes of permit compliance.
4. No later than 20 days after completion of the development, the applicant will provide post-construction photographs
clearly showing shoreline vegetation on the property and the developed site.
5. An approved plan showing the expanded replacement dwelling unit must be recorded by the applicant with the York
County Registry of Deeds within 90 days of approval. The recorded plan must show the existing and proposed
footprint of the existing and replacement structure heights, the footprint of any other structures on the parcel, the
shoreland zone boundary, and evidence of approval by the Eliot Planning Board. This plan shall be a single plan
sheet consistent with the Planning Board’s approval, except that it may have minor formatting changes as needed
to include the information required by this condition.
PERMITS:
The Planning Board has approved your application and the Code Enforcement Officer is authorized to grant you the
necessary Permits or Certificates of Occupancy, as appropriate. It is your responsibility to apply for these permits. In
exercising this approval, you must remain in compliance with all the conditions of approval set forth by the Planning Board,
as well as all other Eliot, State, and Federal regulations and laws. Be aware, however, that Site Plan approvals (including
home businesses) that are granted by the Eliot Planning Board have expiration provisions specified in Section 44-45 of the
Town of Eliot Code of Ordinances, which states:
Permits shall expire one year from the date of issuance if a substantial start is not made in construction or in the use of
the property during that period. If a substantial start is made within one year of the issuance of the permit, the applicant
shall have one additional year to complete the project, at which time the permit shall expire. (§44-45)
The holder of an approved permit should take care to ensure that the approval granted on February 17, 2026 does not
expire prior to commencement of work or change.
APPEALS:
This decision can be appealed to the Board of Appeals within 30 days after February 17, 2026 by an aggrieved person or
party as defined in Sec. 1-2 and Sec. 45-50(b) of the Eliot Zoning Ordinance. Computation of time shall be in accordance
with general provisions of the Town of Eliot Municipal Code of Ordinances, section 1-2.
Sincerely,
_______________________
Christine Bennett, Chair

This letter reviewed and approved by the Planning Board on _______, 2026.

CC:

Michael Sullivan, Town Manager/Interim Public Works Director
Elliott Moya, Police Chief

PB26-02

Page 53 of 53

Jay Muzeroll, Fire Chief
Donald Ferrara, Tax Assessor
Shelly Bishop, Code Enforcement Officer
Peter Egelston, Conservation Commission

PB26-02

Read the agenda documentPrimary source ↗

The government’s own published record — read it yourself, then decide what to do about it.

Data centers in EliotLocal report →

The facilities, the coverage, and the local record for this community.

Outcome

Not yet recorded. The record stays open — outcomes are added as minutes and vote results are published.

Provenance

Where this record came from. Every source is listed, permanently.

Agenda Watch · Aug 18, 2026

Permanent ID DKT-2026-000968 — this record is never deleted.

Record history

Every change to this record, logged as it happened.

Aug 18, 2026 Filed on the Docket
Aug 18, 2026 Full document archived — public record

← The full Docket · every meeting, vote, and action on the permanent record · also in the National Record Index.

On the agenda: Eliot meeting — data center (Apr 21)

The agenda, word for word

Provenance

Record history

More on the Docket in Maine