The Docket · Government Meeting · DKT-2026-000939

On the agenda: Eliot meeting — data center (Mar 24)

Past ⚠ Agenda Watch Eliot, Maine · Tuesday, March 24, 2026 — 6 months ago

About this record

The published agenda for this March 24 meeting contains: "data center". The meeting has passed; the record and its outcome live here permanently.

WhenTuesday, March 24, 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 17, 2026. Gold highlighting of key terms is ours, not the original’s. Read the original document ↗

71 pages · scroll to read

Page 1 of 71

TOWN OF ELIOT, MAINE
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA

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

DATE: March 24, 2026
TIME: 4:00 PM *note early start*

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
6. NEW BUSINESS
7. OLD BUSINESS
a) Ordinance amendments: Mixed Use, Commercial/Industrial (C/I), housing, parking
8. REVIEW AND APPROVE MINUTES
a) February 3, 2026
b) February 17, 2026
9. NOTICES OF DECISION
10. OTHER BUSINESS / CORRESPONDENCE
11. SET AGENDA AND DATE FOR NEXT MEETING
April 7, 2026 – PB retreat topic discussion/update
12. 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: 996 2832 4913
2. When prompted to enter Attendee ID
3. When prompted enter meeting password: 823553
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 71

Proposed Town Code Amendments of Chapter 1 – General Provisions and Chapter 45 – Zoning,
Related to Mixed Use Zone and Commercial-Industrial Zone Standards and Compliance with
State Laws on Housing and Parking Regulations
Planning Board recommends _______ (#-#)
Select Board recommends _______ (#-#)
March 24, 2026 Planning Board DRAFT
Title
Proposed Town Code Amendments of Chapter 1 – General Provisions and Chapter 45 – Zoning,
Related to Mixed Use Zone and Commercial-Industrial Zone Standards and Compliance with
State Laws on Housing and Parking Regulations
Warrant article – Annual Town Meeting/Referendum – June 9, 2026
ARTICLE #__: Shall an Ordinance entitled “Proposed Town Code Amendments of Chapter 1 –
General Provisions and Chapter 45 – Zoning, Related to Mixed Use Zone and CommercialIndustrial Zone Standards and Compliance with State Laws on Housing and Parking
Regulations” be enacted?
(A copy of this ordinance is available in the Town Clerk’s Office)
Background and rationale
These ordinance amendments add and update new definitions to Section 1-2 of the Town Code,
establish new civic space and wetland mitigation standards in the Mixed Use zone, change
minimum lot size and street frontage standards in the Commercial/Industrial (C/I) zone, and
modify parking requirements to comply with recent state legislation.
The Mixed Use zone was established by ordinance amendments enacted by voters in November
2025. These amendments created new dimensional and building form standards for the zone,
which generally runs along Route 236 from Beech Rd. to the Kittery line. These standards are in
Sections 45-405 and 45-424. The amendments now proposed would add civic space standards to
45-424, under subsection (m). Civic spaces are outdoor open spaces designed to support social and
recreational activities. There are four proposed civic space types: common, park, square, plaza.
Each type has 3 sizes: small, medium, and large. There are dwelling unit number thresholds for
when developments must include a civic space, as well as exceptions to the requirements.
The amendments include standards for each civic space type, addressing landscaping, hardscaping,
permeable surface, lighting, seating, and other topics. They also introduce standards for accessory
civic spaces [45-424(n)], which are amenities that might be part of a civic space – for example, a
skating rink, dog park, or bandshell. Civic spaces may be publicly- or privately-owned but must
be open to the public and ADA-accessible.
The amendments also implement a new wetland conservation program in the Mixed Use zone
under Section 45-425. These standards reflect that Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Goal 1,
Policy 1, Strategy 2 recommends the Mixed Use zone as a significant growth area but balances
that with a recommendation to preserve most of the large wetland complex in the middle of the
zone, which can be an asset to the development on each side. Section 45-425 allows limited
alteration of wetlands in the zone paired with payment of a wetland mitigation fee. This fee can be
reduced by 50 percent if a development includes certain wetland placemaking amenities, such as
civic spaces or trails that are generally around the perimeter of the wetland. Fee revenues could be
used for preservation of wetlands elsewhere in Eliot or environmental projects that benefit
1

Page 3 of 71

Proposed Town Code Amendments of Chapter 1 – General Provisions and Chapter 45 – Zoning,
Related to Mixed Use Zone and Commercial-Industrial Zone Standards and Compliance with
State Laws on Housing and Parking Regulations
wetlands. These amendments are consistent with Comprehensive Plan Water Resources Goal 1,
Policy 5, Strategy 1, regarding establishing a local wetland regulation program.
The amendments also make changes to the C/I zone that respond to the upcoming completion of
the Route 236 Water-Sewer Extension Project. They reduce the minimum lot size from 3 acres to
1 acre for C/I lots served by both water and sewer. For these lots, they also halve minimum street
frontage from 300 ft. to 150 ft., but only for certain streets other than Route 236. These changes
address Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Goal 1, Policy 1, Strategy 4. Relatedly, a heavy
industrial definition is added to Section 1-2 to differentiate between heavy and light industrial,
which is already described in that section.
The amendments respond to mandates in LD 427. This bill limits the parking spaces a municipality
can require of a residential development in a growth area to no more than one space per dwelling
unit – the Town already complies with that – and requires municipalities to allow developers to
satisfy parking requirements with agreements for off-site parking within 0.25 miles of the
development site. The amendments update Section 45-490 to comply with this requirement. They
stipulate that this quarter-mile distance should be measured along lines of suitable pedestrian
access, ensuring that there are dedicated sidewalks, paths, and crossings for people walking from
the off-site parking spaces to the building.
Finally, the amendments add or modify definitions in Section 1-2 to support the above-described
changes or otherwise respond to state law or rulemaking. On the latter, the definition of accessory
dwelling unit (ADU) is updated to clarify that an ADU can be associated with a multi-unit
residential structure, not just single family. And the definition of affordable unit is updated to
clarify the housing costs that apply to a calculation of affordability. Both of these changes reflect
state rulemaking.

Page 4 of 71

Proposed Town Code Amendments of Chapter 1 – General Provisions and Chapter 45 – Zoning,
Related to Mixed Use Zone and Commercial-Industrial Zone Standards and Compliance with
State Laws on Housing and Parking Regulations
New text underlined in bold
Deleted text in strikethrough
[Text in brackets, bold, and italics introduces a large block of new text:]
[Text in brackets and italics is a temporary explanatory note]
[Revision annotations at the end of sections may be omitted – to be updated accordingly by
Municode during codification]

Sec. 1-2. - Definitions and rules of construction.
[abridged to only show changes]
[…]
Accessory dwelling unit means a self-contained dwelling unit located within, attached to
or sharing a wall with, or detached from a single-family dwelling unit or multi-unit residential
structure located on the same parcel of land. An accessory dwelling unit must meet the
requirements of section 45-459.
[…]
Affordable unit (as applied to an affordable housing development) means a dwelling unit
in an affordable housing development that is priced so that:
(1) If it is a rental unit, a household whose income, at the time of initial occupancy, does
not exceed 80 percent of the median income for the area as defined by the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development under the United States Housing Act
of 1937, Public Law 75-412, 50 Stat. 888, Section 8, as amended, can afford to rent the
unit without spending more than 30 percent of the household’s monthly income on
housing costs (i.e. the cost of rent and any utilities the household pays separately
from the rent); or
(2) If it is an owner-occupied unit, a household whose income, at the time of initial
occupancy, does not exceed 120 percent of the median income for the area as defined
by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development under the United
States Housing Act of 1937, Public Law 75-412, 60 Stat. 888, Section 8, as amended,
can afford the unit without spending more than 30 percent of the household’s monthly
income on housing costs (i.e. the cost of mortgage principal and interest, real estate
taxes (including assessments), private mortgage insurance, homeowner’s
insurance, condominium fees, and homeowners’ association fees).
State Law reference— 30-A M.R.S.A. § 4364(1).
3

Page 5 of 71

[…]
Civic space means an outdoor open space designed to support social and recreational
activities.
[…]
Heavy industrial means the assembling, fabrication, finishing, manufacturing,
packaging or processing of goods, or the extraction of minerals, where such use has potential
impacts to adjacent properties such as obnoxious or noxious odors, smoke, or noise that is
either high decibel, frequent, or outside normal business hours. Examples include, but are
not necessarily limited to, chemical manufacturing, large-scale power generation using
combustion, refining, smelting, and large-scale, often outdoor, salvage or waste transfer
operations.
[…]
Parking agreement means a legally binding agreement between a property developer
and the owner of an off-site parking lot or facility to provide required parking spaces within
0.25 miles of a development site, measured along lines of suitable pedestrian access.
[…]
Wetlands, mixed use zone means areas in the mixed use zoning district that under
normal circumstances have hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology, as
determined in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual — Waterways
Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1, January 1987 (1987 manual) and the Regional
Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and
Northeast Region (Version 2.0, 2012) (Regional Supplement).
[…]

Page 6 of 71

Proposed Town Code Amendments of Chapter 1 – General Provisions and Chapter 45 – Zoning,
Related to Mixed Use Zone and Commercial-Industrial Zone Standards and Compliance with
State Laws on Housing and Parking Regulations
Sec. 45-405. – Dimensional standards.
[DRAFT]
(a)
Lots and structures in all districts shall meet or exceed the following minimum
requirements:
(MU = Mixed Use; C/I = Commercial-Industrial)
District
Rural Suburban
Min. lot size,
3 ac
2 ac
acres (ac) or
square feet (ft2 )
Min. street
200
150
frontage (ft.)1
Min. street
m
m
frontage: back
lots
Min. area per dwelling unit, acres (ac):
1 unit
3 ac
2 ac

Village
1 ac
0.5 ac (WS)

MUw (WS)
No
minimum

C/I
3 ac
1 ac (WS)

100
75 (WS)
m

300
150 (WS)y

No
minimum
No
minimum
No
minimum
No
minimum
No
minimum
No
minimum
No
minimum

—

30p
25p (WS)
20p
15p (WS)
30p
25p (WS)

20 max

50a, p 30

20o

25 max
100b
5 min
100b

20p 100b

20o

20p 100b

10o

50a 30a

20 100b

—

35
15q

35
20q

x
90

55d
50q

35
50o

N/A

2 units

6 ac

4 ac

Each additional
unit
Accessory
dwelling unit
Assisted living
facility
Elderly housing

3 ac

2 ac

1 ac
0.5 ac (WS)
2 ac
1 ac (WS)
1 acg
0.5 ac (WS)
u

—

Life care facility

—

Min. yard dimensions (ft.)
Front yard
30
30p
Side yards

20p

Rear yard

30p

Accessory buildingc
Front yard
30
setback
Side and rear
10
yard setback
Accessory
u
dwelling unit
Max. height (ft.) 35
Max. lot
10
coverage (%)
Setback-normal 75
high water mark
(feet)

MHP
6,500 ft2 n
12,000 ft2 n
20,000 ft2 n
50/75/100n

Page 7 of 71

Proposed Town Code Amendments of Chapter 1 – General Provisions and Chapter 45 – Zoning,
Related to Mixed Use Zone and Commercial-Industrial Zone Standards and Compliance with
State Laws on Housing and Parking Regulations
Dwelling units:
Min. size (sq. ft. per unit):
Accessory
u
dwelling unit
(ADU)
Assisted living
—
facility
Federal or state
—
elderly housing,
other than
assisted living
facility
Mobile home
—
park units
Tiny home on
r
wheels or
foundation-built
tiny home
All other units
650
Max. number of h
principal
structures per lot

(b)

—

300

—

No min.

—

650

—

650
h

No min.
v

650
v

—
1

Signs in all districts shall meet or exceed the following minimum requirements:

District

Rural

Suburban

Village

C/I

MHP

Max. sign area (sq. ft.)

100

Max. sign area (sq. ft.),
commercial establishments
only

100i

Max. sign area (sq. ft.),
new residential
subdivisions

50j

Min. setback (ft.)(front lot
line only)

(c)

50l

Affordable housing developments (AHDs) may seek a density bonus of up to two-and-ahalf times the dwelling unit density otherwise allowed in the zoning district. This means
that the minimum area per dwelling unit in subsection (a) may be divided by up to 2.5 to
determine the allowable number of dwelling units for a given acreage. AHDs shall meet
the minimum lot size requirements in subsection (a). Applications for AHDs shall include
a calculation showing the number of dwelling units that would be allowed for a non-AHD
development in comparison with the number of dwelling units proposed for the AHD. This
calculation shall also include the number of affordable units consistent with the definition
of "affordable housing development" in section 1-2 and the standards in section 45-464.
The density bonus may not be applied in conjunction with (that is, in addition to) the
6

Page 8 of 71

Proposed Town Code Amendments of Chapter 1 – General Provisions and Chapter 45 – Zoning,
Related to Mixed Use Zone and Commercial-Industrial Zone Standards and Compliance with
State Laws on Housing and Parking Regulations
density bonus provided in this section for an assisted living facility, elderly housing, or a
life care facility.
Notes:
a.
A front yard abutting a state or town road shall have a minimum depth of 50 feet from the
right-of-way line. A front yard abutting an interior street within the proposed site shall have a
minimum depth of 30 feet from the right-of-way line. All parking areas shall conform to setback
requirements.
b.
In the C/I zone, all side and rear yards abutting an existing residential use shall have a
minimum depth of 100 feet from the side or rear lot lines. In the Mixed Use zone, all side and rear
yards abutting an existing residential use outside of the zone shall have a minimum depth of 100
feet from the side or rear lot lines.
c.
Accessory buildings shall be located no less than 30 feet from any principal buildings on
adjacent property.
d.
Rooftop antennas and other telecommunications structures shall conform to the
requirements of sections 33-185 and 45-460. Steeples and spires shall be exempt from maximum
height requirements. In the Mixed Use zone, building height is measured to the eaves or base of
parapet.
e.
Setbacks and setback measurements in shoreland zones shall follow requirements of
chapter 44.
f.

Reserved.

g.
The minimum acreage for elderly housing in all districts, where allowed, shall be one acre
for the first dwelling unit and one quarter acre for each additional unit. Minimum acreage
requirements shall revert back to dwelling unit requirements if elderly housing is discontinued.
h.
In the rural, suburban and village districts, more than one principal structure may be located
on a single lot, provided each such structure is located in such a fashion that it could be separately
conveyed on a separate lot in compliance with all dimensional requirements of the district (except
that any lawfully existing structure which does not meet all minimum dimensional requirements
may continue that nonconformity).
i.
See section 45-528(c) for other requirements applicable to two or more commercial or
industrial establishments under separate ownership on one parcel within the commercial/industrial
district.
j.
Signs identifying subdivisions of ten or more lots shall be posted at the entrance of the
subdivision and shall be approved by the planning board. Signs shall contain only the name of the
subdivision.
k.

See section 45-532 for additional sign placement requirements.

l.
Street frontage shall be measured along one street. The planning board is authorized to vary
frontage requirements for new subdivisions according to section 41-255(g). Such lots shall be
treated as conforming lots for the purpose of this chapter.
m.

Back lot requirements are contained in section 45-466.

Lots within a mobile home park shall be a minimum of:
7

Page 9 of 71

Proposed Town Code Amendments of Chapter 1 – General Provisions and Chapter 45 – Zoning,
Related to Mixed Use Zone and Commercial-Industrial Zone Standards and Compliance with
State Laws on Housing and Parking Regulations
6,500 feet2 if served by public sewer. Minimum lot width is 50 feet.
12,000 feet2 if served by central subsurface wastewater disposal approved by the state department
of human services. Overall density of park, including road rights-of-way and buffer strips shall be
20,000 feet2 per dwelling. Minimum lot width is 75 feet.
20,000 feet2 if served by onsite subsurface wastewater disposal. Minimum lot width is 100 feet.
o.

See section 41-276 et seq. for specific requirements.

p.
Elderly housing, nursing facility, assisted living facility and life care facility shall have
setbacks of 50 feet from lot line or 100 feet from residential dwelling unit, whichever is greater.
q.
Life care facility shall have a maximum lot coverage of 50 percent. Elderly housing,
nursing facility or assisted living facility individually shall have a maximum lot coverage of 35
percent.
r.
Tiny homes on wheels shall conform to the requirements of section 45-137. Accessory
dwelling unit tiny homes and foundation-built tiny homes shall also conform to the requirements
of section 45-459.
s.
One acre for the first dwelling unit and then one-fifteenth acre for each additional dwelling
unit provided all other dimensional requirements are met.
t.
One acre for the first dwelling unit and then one-fifteenth acre for each additional assisted
living facility dwelling unit plus one-fourth acre for each additional elderly housing dwelling unit
plus district acreage requirement (1-village, 2-suburban, 3-C/I) for each single family dwelling
unit provided all other dimensional requirements are met.
Example: A 15-acre suburban district lot could contain three single family dwelling units (five
acres) plus 61 assisted living facility dwelling units (five acres) plus 17 elderly housing dwelling
units (five acres) plus a nursing facility (0 acres) provided all dimensional requirements are met.
u.
See section 45-459 for requirements. Additional lot area per dwelling unit is not required
for an accessory dwelling unit.
v.
In the C/I and Mixed Use districts, more than one principal structure may be located on a
single lot which meets the minimum lot size and street frontage requirements for the district.
Each such structure must maintain required yards adjacent to the front, side, and rear lot lines.
Such structures need not comply separately with the minimum lot size and frontage
requirements, but the aggregate of all the structures on the lot shall not exceed the maximum lot
coverage requirement. Nonconforming lots of record, with existing commercial structures, at the
time of adoption of this section change may also contain more than one principal structure
provided the setback and expansion requirements are met. In the C/I district, separation of
structures shall not be less than 20 feet. In the Mixed Use district, structures need not be
separated unless required by NFPA code requirements or by Section 45-424.
w.
The dimensional standards marked by “WS” apply to lots and buildings served by both a
public water system and a public sewer system.
x.
See Section 45-424 for standards specific to the Mixed Use zoning district. The Planning
Board may grant a waiver from a design standard by up to 10 percent of a stated metric, except for
those design standards contained in the Building Standards, Thoroughfare Standards, and Use
Standards, so long as allowance of the waiver is consistent with the purposes and intent of the
district and the waiver arises from a legal or practical necessity for unique conditions applicable
to the lot, use, building or proposed development. The Planning Board may allow buildings in the
8

Page 10 of 71

Proposed Town Code Amendments of Chapter 1 – General Provisions and Chapter 45 – Zoning,
Related to Mixed Use Zone and Commercial-Industrial Zone Standards and Compliance with
State Laws on Housing and Parking Regulations
Mixed Use zone to be set back from front, side, and rear lot lines by up to 75 ft. to account for
topography, wetlands, other regulated environmental resources, and other site constraints,
provided that they are set back no greater than necessary to account for such site conditions.
y.
Lots abutting a qualifying street other than Route 236 may meet the reduced 150 ft.
minimum street frontage requirement with their front lot lines on those streets. If a lot has
front lot lines on both Route 236 and another qualifying street, the minimum street frontage
of 300 ft. continues to apply to the Route 236 front lot line, and there shall not be an increase
in the number of access points for the lot to and from Route 236 as a result of this provision.

Cross reference(s)—Requirements unique to mobile home park subdivisions, § 41-276 et seq.;
other district regulations, § 45-286 et seq.

Page 11 of 71

(m) Civic Spaces
1. PURPOSE
a. To ensure a variety of functional, well-designed civic and recreation spaces that
enhance the characteristics of abutting properties, contribute to a range of civic
activities, and add vibrancy to the community.
b. To provide opportunities for community gathering, access to nature, and public life
through the provision of a variety of civic space types.
c. To provide a range of civic space types within proximity to homes and businesses.
d. To contribute to a finely grained network of publicly accessible civic spaces and
address deficiencies in the public space network.
2. APPLICABILITY
a. Projects that create 24 or more new dwelling units
b. Any project that elects to provide civic space
c. Building groups are exempt from civic space standards
3. GENERAL
a. Projects may be required to provide small, medium, or large civic spaces based
on the district, the size of the project, and proximity to existing civic spaces.
b. Civic space types are grouped into 4 categories that range from more landscaped
to more hardscaped, including common, park, square, and plaza. These 4
categories share common characteristics such as paving, landscaping, seating,
and lighting.
c. All 4 civic space categories include 3 sizes – small, medium, and large – each with
their own unique size requirements.
d. Each of the 3 civic space sizes has a unique geographic catchment area, called a
parkshed, which reflects the distance people are typically willing to walk to each
civic space size. See Table 1 – Parkshed Radius Table.
Table 1. Parkshed Radius Table
Civic space Max. radius (ft)
Small
1,320
Medium
2,640
Large
5,280

Page 12 of 71

Proposed Town Code Amendments of Chapter 1 – General Provisions and Chapter 45 – Zoning,
Related to Mixed Use Zone and Commercial-Industrial Zone Standards and Compliance with
State Laws on Housing and Parking Regulations
4. CIVIC SPACE SELECTION
a. All dwelling units within a project area must be located in whole or in part within
the parkshed of a required civic space, or additional civic spaces must be
provided to meet this requirement.
b. Projects with 24 or more new dwelling units, not including exempt units described
in subsection 2 of this section, must provide a small civic space. If all dwelling
units within a project are located in whole or in part within the parkshed of an
existing small civic space, the Planning Board may waive the requirement to
provide a small civic space and may require the project to provide a payment-inlieu pursuant to paragraph e.
c. Projects with 96 or more new dwelling units must provide a small and medium
civic space. If all dwelling units within a project are located in whole or in part
within the parkshed of an existing small or medium civic space, the Planning
Board may waive the requirement to provide whichever civic space size currently
exists and may require the project to provide a payment-in-lieu pursuant to
paragraph e.
d. Projects with 192 or more new dwelling units must provide a small, medium, and
large civic space. If all dwelling units within a project are located in whole or in
part within the parkshed of an existing small, medium, or large civic space, the
Planning Board may waive the requirement to provide whichever civic space size
currently exists and may require the project to provide a payment-in-lieu pursuant
to paragraph e.
e. Payments-in-lieu from a project shall be calculated based on the common civic
space type (small: green; medium: town common; large: town farm) and may be
used for capital expenditures for accessory civic spaces within, or other
improvements to, the civic spaces within whose parkshed radius the project’s
dwelling units are located, or for walking or bicycling access from the dwelling
units to those civic spaces. Before disbursement, payments-in-lieu shall be held
in escrow by the Town. If a payment-in-lieu is to contribute to a civic space that is
owned and-or managed privately, a funding agreement with the Town must be
executed to furnish the payment-in-lieu amount from the escrow with conditions
to ensure that the civic space remains open to the public.
5. OWNERSHIP
a. Civic spaces may be managed privately or publicly, but must be open to the public.
6. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
a. Civic spaces must be engineered and constructed as required by the standards in
this section and as otherwise required by the permit-issuing authority.
b. Civic spaces must be accessible for persons with disabilities pursuant to
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards.
c. Civic space lighting shall be dark-sky compliant. Lighting post types are shown in
Figure 1.
7. LINEAR CIVIC SPACES
a. Any of the medium and large civic spaces in this section may be deployed in a
linear fashion to follow a natural landform or thoroughfare, having a regular width
and an undefined length, provided:
i. Any linear civic space over 10,000 sq. ft. in size must have a minimum
width of 20 ft.
11

Page 13 of 71

Proposed Town Code Amendments of Chapter 1 – General Provisions and Chapter 45 – Zoning,
Related to Mixed Use Zone and Commercial-Industrial Zone Standards and Compliance with
State Laws on Housing and Parking Regulations
ii. If a linear civic space incorporates an accessory civic space, its width must
be greater than or equal to the smallest dimension required by that
accessory civic space, if applicable.
8. SHARED PRIVATE SPACE
a. Shared private space provides site design flexibility by allowing additional paved
areas.
b. Shared private spaces must be publicly accessible during daytime hours.
c. Shared private spaces may not satisfy the need for a required civic space.
d. A project providing shared private space must select and comply with all the
standards of a permitted civic space type, except that the shared private space
may be smaller in size.
e. Shared private space must remain in private ownership, administered or
maintained by the owner of the associated development.
f.

Shared private spaces remain private property and may be developed.

9. ACCESSORY CIVIC SPACES
a. Accessory civic space standards are in subsection (n) of this section.
b. When an accessory civic space is denoted by “special review” in this section, the
permit-issuing authority may request additional information about its placement,
function, access, operation, and integration into the larger civic space to ensure
that the accessory civic space is in harmony with the larger civic space and its
context.
Figure 1. Civic space lighting post types

Page 14 of 71

Common

Description

Standards

An informal civic open space meant to provide
unstructured public recreation space

Ground Cover
Hardscape

15% max

Landscape

85% min, 100% max

Permeable Surface 90% min

Size Classification
Green

500 sf

Small

Town Common

½ ac. min

Medium

Town Farm

3 ac. min

Large

1. A common should provide a
substantially
sized
and
uninterrupted open space that
is landscaped with smooth
ground covers, large trees,
and little to no understory
plants. Large canopy trees
should be used in an informal
manner to spatially define the
perimeter while also framing
views
of
neighboring
buildings from within the
green.
2. A
common
may
be
surrounded in a low wall or
split rail fence in keeping with
its rural development pattern.

Page 15 of 71

Planting
Tree Plantings

Accessory Civic Spaces
1 tree per 2,500 sf min

Furnishings
Seating

1 resting bench per 300
linear feet of walkway

Lighting
Illumination

0.5 lumens per sf max

Post Type

Post, pole, lamp

Recreation
Fields

Special Review

Landmark

Permitted

Swimming Pool

Special Review

Community
Gardens

Permitted

Skating Rink

Special Review

Skate Park

Special Review

Dog Park

Permitted

Playground

Special Review

Botanical
Garden

Special Review

Band Shell

Special Review

Page 16 of 71

Park

Standards

Description
A civic space comprised of mostly planted area, but
with a significant portion given over to areas outfitted
and programmed for specific activities

Ground Cover
Hardscape

15% min, 50% max

Landscape

50% min, 85% max

2. Town parks must provide no
fewer than 2 accessory civic
spaces.
3. Regional parks must provide
no fewer than 3 accessory
civic spaces.

Permeable Surface 85% min

4. All permanent outbuildings
greater in area than 144
square feet must meet the
requirements set forth in
subsections (k) and (l) of this
section.

Size Classification
Pocket Park

500 sf

Small

Town Park

1 ac. min

Medium

Regional Park

6 ac. min

Large

1. Pocket parks must share at
least one property line with
an abutting lot unless
occupied by a landmark.

Page 17 of 71

Planting
Tree Plantings

Accessory Civic Spaces
1 tree per 2,000 sf min

Furnishings
Seating

1 resting bench per 300
linear feet of walkway

Lighting
Illumination

0.5 lumens per sf max

Post Type

Post, pole, lamp

Recreation
Fields

Permitted

Landmark

Permitted

Swimming Pool

Permitted

Community
Gardens

Permitted

Skating Rink

Permitted

Skate Park

Special Review

Dog Park

Permitted

Playground

Permitted

Botanical
Garden

Permitted

Band Shell

Special Review

Page 18 of 71

Square

Description

Standards

A formal civic space comprised of paved and
unpaved areas providing room for unstructured
activities, and public gatherings.

Ground Cover
Hardscape

35% min, 85% max

Landscape

15% min, 65%max

Permeable Surface 85% min

Size Classification
Pocket Square

500 sf

Small

Square

¼ ac. min

Medium

Large square

1 ac. min

Large

1. Pocket squares must share at
least one property line with an
abutting lot unless occupied
by a landmark.

Page 19 of 71

Planting
Tree Plantings

Accessory Civic Spaces
1 tree per 2,000 sf min

Furnishings
Seating

Min 1 resting bench with
seating for 2+ people, plus
1 seat per 250 sf min, up
to 50 seats

Lighting

Recreation
Fields

Special Review

Landmark

Permitted

Swimming Pool

Special Review

Community
Gardens

Special Review

Skating Rink

Special Review

Skate Park

Special Review

Dog Park

Special Review

Illumination

0.5 lumens per sf max

Playground

Special Review

Post Type

Post, pole, lamp

Botanical
Garden

Permitted

Band Shell

Special Review

Page 20 of 71

Plaza

Standards

Description
A civic space comprised mostly of pavement and
open formal areas.

Ground Cover
Hardscape

85% min, 100% max

Landscape

15% max

Permeable Surface 70% min

1. The perimeter of a plaza
should be well integrated into
its surroundings and free from
fences, hedges, and other
barriers that would impede
movement into the space and
obscure
visibility
from
abutting street or building
frontages.
2. Piazzas and piazettas must
share at least one property
line with an abutting lot

Size Classification
Piazzetta

500 sf

Small

Piazza

¼ ac. min

Medium

Central Plaza

1 ac. min,
4 ac. max

Large

Page 21 of 71

Planting
Tree Plantings

Accessory Civic Spaces
1 tree per 800 sf min

Furnishings
Seating

Min 1 resting bench with
seating for 2+ people, plus
1 seat per 250 sf min, up
to 50 seats

Lighting

Recreation
Fields

Special Review

Landmark

Permitted

Swimming Pool

Special Review

Community
Gardens

Special Review

Skating Rink

Special Review

Skate Park

Special Review

Dog Park

Special Review

Illumination

0.5 lumens per sf max

Playground

Special Review

Post Type

Post, pole, lamp

Botanical
Garden

Special Review

Band Shell

Special Review

Page 22 of 71

(n) Accessory Civic Spaces
1. PURPOSE
a. To ensure a variety of functional and beautiful civic spaces that enhance local
development patterns, contribute to a range of civic activities, and add vibrancy to
the community.
b. To provide opportunities for community gathering, access to nature, and public life
through the provision of a variety of civic space types.
2. APPLICABILITY
a. The standards in this section apply to:
i. Projects that contain 24 units or more
ii. Any project that elects to provide civic space.
3. GENERAL
a. Landscaping, lighting, and furnishing standards for the portion of a civic space
occupied by an accessory civic space must be determined by the standards in this
section.
b. The portion of a civic space occupied by an accessory civic space may not be
counted as part of the total area of the civic space for the purposes of determining
plantings, seating, and lighting.

Page 23 of 71

Recreation Field

Description
An accessory civic space designed for active recreation, athletic activity, and competitive sports

Dimensions
Contiguous Size 7,500 sf min, 20 acres max
Standards
1. Recreation fields must provide regulation field and court sizes tailored to the needs of the
specific user groups the space is intended to serve.
2. The materials and construction methods of any recreation field, including the choice of
natural turf or synthetic fields, must be designed to accommodate the projected carrying
capacity of the field. Particular attention must be paid to permeability of subsurface
materials, soil compaction, and drainage.
3. Playing fields’ ambient lighting may exceed illumination limits if nighttime use is
anticipated.

Page 24 of 71

Landmark

Description
An accessory civic space designed to commemorate an important event or important person

Standards
1. Landmarks can take many forms including stone or metal memorials and monuments,
statues, plaques, signage, or landscape designs.
2. Landmarks must be designed as permanent fixtures and made of materials that will
withstand all weather conditions and the test of time.
3. Landmark design, size, and placement should be appropriate for the site.
4. Maintenance of landmarks, including any associated lighting should be considered in the
design.

Page 25 of 71

Swimming Pool

Description
An accessory civic space to accommodate facilities for swimming

Standards
1. The design of public swimming facilities is required to meet the standards set forth in state
statute.
2. Swimming pools must provide facilities tailored to the needs of the specific user groups
the space is intended to serve.
3. Swimming pools must always be encircled by a fence or wall of at least 3 ft in height.
4. Swimming pool ambient lighting may exceed illumination limits if nighttime swimming is
anticipated.

Page 26 of 71

Community Garden

Description
An accessory civic space designed as a collection of individual garden plots available to residents
for agriculture purposes, including storage facilities for necessary equipment

Ground Cover
Permeable Surface 90% min

Standards
1. At least 12 individual garden plots should be provided.
2. In every group of 12 plots, a minimum of one plot must be accessible.
3. The minimum size of individual garden plots should be 25 square feet.
4. Informal buildings, water hook-ups, compost bins, and other related structures are
allowed.

Page 27 of 71

Skating Rink

Description
An accessory civic space characterized by a large smooth level paved area intended for use with
ice or roller skates

Standards
1. Skating Rink ambient lighting may exceed illumination limits if nighttime skating is
anticipated.

Page 28 of 71

Skate Park

Description
An accessory civic space characterized by a collection of ramps and other obstacles intended for
use by skateboarders

Standards
1. Skate Park ambient lighting may exceed illumination limits if nighttime skating is
anticipated.
2. Each Skate Park must have a permanent sign, stating the hours of operation, rules, and
regulations for the skate park.

Page 29 of 71

Dog Park

Description
An accessory civic space designed for dogs and their owners

Ground Cover
Permeable Surface 95% min

Standards
1. A dog park is not permitted to be less than 15 feet in any dimension, with contiguous area
being no less than 10,000 sf.
2. Dog parks may be fenced to a minimum height of 60 inches. Fence footings must be
buried to a depth of 1 foot and fence panels must be buried to a depth of 6 inches at all
locations except at entrances/exits.
3. One litter receptacle and 1 dog valet must be provided near each entrance/exit.
4. One tree must be planted every 30 feet along the perimeter of a dog park, outside of the
fence.
5. Each dog park must have a permanent sign, stating the hours of operation, rules, and
regulations for the dog park.
6. For every 2,000 sf, seating for 2 people must be provided (min. 2 seats).
7. Dog parks must have a separate fenced area restricted to smaller dogs.

Page 30 of 71

Playground

Description
An accessory civic space primarily designed as a play area for children

Ground Cover
Permeable Surface 85% min

Dimensions
Contiguous Size 2,500 sf min, 25,000 sf max

Standards
1. One tree must be planted every for every 500 sf.
2. For every 1,000 sf, seating for 2 people must be provided (min. 2 seats).

Page 31 of 71

Botanical Garden

Description
An accessory civic space designed specifically for the cultivation of specimen plants

Ground Cover
Hardscape

50% max

Landscape

50% min

Permeable Surface 85% min

Dimensions
Contiguous Size ½ acre min

Standards
1. Botanical gardens should be curated by an institution with experience managing
collections of plants, or associated with a school, public committee, or private club.
2. For every 10,000 sf, seating for 2 people must be provided (min. 2 seats).

Page 32 of 71

Band Shell

Description
An accessory civic space designed to provide an outdoor venue for musical recitals and plays

Standards
1. A deciduous tree canopy is recommended to provide shade for viewers of the band shell
or amphitheater, as long as trees do not obstruct the view.

Page 33 of 71

Proposed Town Code Amendments of Chapter 1 – General Provisions and Chapter 45 – Zoning,
Related to Mixed Use Zone and Commercial-Industrial Zone Standards and Compliance with
State Laws on Housing and Parking Regulations
[Add a new section:]
Sec. 45-425. – Conservation of wetlands in the mixed use zone
(a) Purpose
(1) Wetlands are a fragile natural resource which, in their natural state, directly
and indirectly benefit the public by serving valuable functions such as
pollution filtration (e.g., retention of suspended solids, phosphorus and
other nutrients), control of floodwaters, erosion control, groundwater
recharge, educational and scientific study, wildlife habitat, open space, and
recreation.
(2) The mixed use zoning district is a designated growth area where substantial
growth is envisioned, as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and Section
45-424. The Comprehensive Plan recommends preserving most of the large
wetland complex in the center of this zone as an environmental asset and
placemaking amenity, with any impacts to it minimized, mitigated, or
compensated by preservation of other wetlands. There are also smaller,
isolated wetland areas in the zone. The Comprehensive Plan encourages
most of the growth in the zone to be centered on two nodes generally located
on either side of the large wetland complex. While wetland avoidance is
encouraged, the Town recognizes that limited wetland alteration or impacts
may be acceptable, depending on the site, to facilitate the growth vision of
the zone. In such cases, the alteration and impacts should be minimized andor compensated for in accordance with this section.
(b) Applicability. This section applies only to wetlands in the mixed use zoning district.
The wetland definition in Section 1-2 specific to the mixed use zone shall be the
operative definition for this section.
(c) Wetlands boundaries
(1) Applicants seeking to alter wetlands shall show, in their site plans, all
wetland boundaries as delineated, at the applicant’s expense, by a qualified
wetlands scientist or a Maine-certified soil scientist; the areas of wetland
alteration; and the square feet of alteration.
(2) An area which has been disturbed or modified such that natural vegetation,
hydrology or soils are altered or removed may still satisfy the wetland
criteria. In the event disturbance of a wetland causes the wetland boundary
to be altered, a new boundary may need to be delineated in order to
determine if the wetland is a regulated wetland.
(3) If there is a dispute regarding the existence or boundaries of the wetlands,
the boundaries of the wetland are to be determined, at the expense of the
applicant, by a qualified wetlands scientist or a qualified Maine-certified
soils scientist agreeable to both the permit-issuing authority and the
applicant.

Page 34 of 71

Proposed Town Code Amendments of Chapter 1 – General Provisions and Chapter 45 – Zoning,
Related to Mixed Use Zone and Commercial-Industrial Zone Standards and Compliance with
State Laws on Housing and Parking Regulations
(d) Permits required from other agencies. Compliance with this section does not
eliminate the need for the applicant to seek jurisdictional determinations and/or
permits from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the United
States Army Corps of Engineers when required. In this section, unless otherwise
noted, the “permit-issuing authority” refers to the Town entity or entities
responsible for review and permitting of a mixed use development pursuant to Ch.
33 and Ch. 45.
(e) Regulated activities within wetlands; exempt and maximum areas of alteration.
(1) Unless otherwise specified in this section, all new structures and activities
within mixed use zone wetlands, including but not limited to dredging and
filling and expansions of existing structures and activities, are subject to
these regulations.
(2) Wetland alterations of 500 square feet or less, and which do not involve
activities prohibited by this section or by state or federal law or regulations,
are exempt from the regulations in this section
(3) Except as follows, the maximum area of wetland alteration that may be
approved by the permit-issuing authority as part of a mixed use zone
development is 20,000 square feet. This maximum area shall not be
exceeded for any one development or site through phasing or otherwise
sequencing development where the permit-issuing authority finds that there
is intent to avoid compliance with this paragraph. The maximum area may
be exceeded if the proposed alteration is:
a. for one or more harmonious, low-impact uses in the wetland;
b. part of a master plan that makes recommendations for the
preservation of the wetland generally, including its functions,
values, and habitat; and,
c. permitted by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection
and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, as applicable.
(f) Permitted activities within regulated wetlands. The following uses are considered
to be compatible within regulated wetlands and are permitted within regulated
wetlands in the mixed use zone without approval by the permit-issuing authority,
provided they are in conformance with all local, federal and state regulations and
have received all applicable state and federal permits or approvals:
(1) Agriculture, including pasturing, farming, haying and harvesting of wild
crops. Such agriculture must not cause or contribute to surface water or
groundwater pollution by use of pesticides, toxic chemicals or other
pollutants and must not cause soil erosion;
(2) Conservation areas;
(3) Education and scientific research;

Page 35 of 71

Proposed Town Code Amendments of Chapter 1 – General Provisions and Chapter 45 – Zoning,
Related to Mixed Use Zone and Commercial-Industrial Zone Standards and Compliance with
State Laws on Housing and Parking Regulations
(4) Forestry, tree farming and timber harvesting using the best management
practices in order to protect streams from alteration, sedimentation, and
erosion.
(5) Repair and maintenance of existing ways, roads, driveways, or utilities.
Such repair and maintenance must not negatively impact the wetland or alter
the existing watercourse and related hydrology;
(6) Repair and maintenance of existing permanent structures requiring the
addition or removal of 10 cubic yards or less of earth material to (form) a
water body or wetland;
(7) Placement of drainage outfall pipes requiring the addition or removal of less
than 10 cubic yards of material;
(8) Repair in kind, maintenance and necessary upgrade of existing drainage
facilities;
(9) Repair in kind and maintenance of existing transportation facilities;
(10)

Wilderness areas and natural wildlife refuges;

(11)
Piers, fences, blinds, footbridges and shelters to enhance wildlife,
provided they do not involve draining, grading, filling or dredging within
the wetland. All such structures must be constructed of nontoxic materials
and designed in such a manner to permit the unobstructed flow of waters
and must preserve the natural contour and hydrology of the wetland;
(12)

Emergency public safety operations; and

(13)
Any other activity as determined by the permit-issuing authority that
does not result in a measurable alteration of the wetland
(g) Prohibited uses within regulated wetlands. The following structures and activities
are considered to be incompatible with protecting wetlands and are prohibited
within wetlands:
(1) Disposal or storage of waste and/or hazardous materials;
(2) Manure stockpiles;
(3) Road salt stockpiles;
(4) Topsoil removal or filling with off-site earth material, except in the area
permitted for alteration, pursuant to this section, to facilitate the approved
development;
(5) Bulk fuel storage;
(6) Herbicidal spraying;
(7) Introduction of invasive, nonnative plants;
(8) Snow dumping; and,
(9) Operation of motor vehicles;

Page 36 of 71

Proposed Town Code Amendments of Chapter 1 – General Provisions and Chapter 45 – Zoning,
Related to Mixed Use Zone and Commercial-Industrial Zone Standards and Compliance with
State Laws on Housing and Parking Regulations
(h) Explanation for wetland alteration. Applicants seeking to alter more than 500
square feet of wetlands shall provide a written justification for the wetland
alteration that addresses the criteria in Subsection (i).
(i) Wetland alteration approval criteria.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, the permit-issuing
authority shall approve a wetland alteration of more than 500 square feet as
part of a proposed mixed use zone development if it finds that:
a. The alteration does not involve or facilitate activities prohibited by
this section or by state or federal law or regulations;
b. The public benefits of the alteration clearly outweigh the detrimental
environmental impacts, when accounting for mitigation pursuant to
this section; and,
c. The proposed alteration will not:
1. Unreasonably impair or diminish the wetland’s existing
capacity to absorb, store and slowly release stormwater and
surface water runoff;
2. Unreasonably increase the flow of surface waters through
the wetland;
3. Result in a measurable increase in the discharge of surface
waters from the wetland;
4. Unreasonably impair or diminish the wetland’s capacity for
retention and absorption of silt, organic matter, and
nutrients;
5. Result in an unreasonable loss of important feeding, nesting,
breeding or wintering habitat for wildlife or aquatic life; all
crossings must be designed to provide a moist soil bed in
culvert inverts and to not significantly impede the natural
migration of wildlife across the filled area;
6. Result in a measurable increase of the existing seasonal
temperature of surface waters in the wetland or surface
waters discharged from the wetlands; or
7. Result in a measurable alteration or destruction of a vernal
pool.
(2) The permit-issuing authority may approve a wetland alteration of more than
500 square feet as part of a proposed mixed use zone development, without
issuing findings required by paragraph (1) of this subsection, if such
alteration has already been permitted by the Maine Department of
Environmental Protection, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and
other agencies, as applicable.
(j) Mitigation activities

Page 37 of 71

Proposed Town Code Amendments of Chapter 1 – General Provisions and Chapter 45 – Zoning,
Related to Mixed Use Zone and Commercial-Industrial Zone Standards and Compliance with
State Laws on Housing and Parking Regulations
(1) The applicant of a mixed use zone development involving a wetland
alteration of more than 500 square feet shall pay to the Town of Eliot a
wetlands preservation fee of ten dollars ($10) per square foot of altered
wetland beyond the first 500 square feet. The fee shall be due when the
applicant applies for the first building permit for the development that
requires the wetland alteration.
(2) The fee pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection may be reduced by 50
percent if the development includes wetlands placemaking amenities that
encourage passive recreation, community socializing, wildlife viewing, and
education related to the wetland, or where the wetland itself contributes to
the placemaking value. The amenities shall generally be placed along or
near the edge of the wetland, though the permit-issuing authority may
approve an amenity that traverses further into the wetland if it is designed
to minimize impacts. The amenities shall be designed and built
harmoniously with the wetlands, be open to the public during reasonable
hours, and may include:
a. A civic space pursuant to Section 45-424(m);
b. A boardwalk, nature trail, other trail for walking or bicycling, or
similar facility that provides low-intensity recreation;
c. A wildlife viewing platform; or,
d. Interpretive signage related to the science, conservation, and
benefits of wetlands (must be combined with at least one of the
above amenities a. through c. to qualify for the fee reduction)
(k) Use of wetlands preservation fee revenues. The Town shall account for all fee
revenues collected under subsection (j). Fee revenues shall be placed in the Town’s
land trust reserve account. The Town may use funds for preservation of wetlands
in Eliot, including:
(1) Permanent conservation of land, which includes wetlands or provides an
upland buffer for wetlands on adjacent property, through the purchase of
the land, or the purchase of a conservation easement on that land, by the
Town or another holder, as that term is defined in 33 M.R.S.A. §476(2), as
may be amended;
(2) Stewardship of permanently conserved land described in subparagraph (1);
(3) Environmental projects that provide demonstrated benefits for wetlands,
such as improved stream crossings, stormwater management
improvements, and water quality monitoring; or,
(4) Surveying, analysis, and engineering that contributes to the above efforts

Page 38 of 71

Proposed Town Code Amendments of Chapter 1 – General Provisions and Chapter 45 – Zoning,
Related to Mixed Use Zone and Commercial-Industrial Zone Standards and Compliance with
State Laws on Housing and Parking Regulations
Sec. 45-490. – Proximity to principal building or facility.
(a) Required off-street parking for all land uses shall be located
(1) on the same lot as the principal building or facility for which the parking spaces
are required, or within 100 feet measured along lines of access, except that in the
Mixed Use district, required off-street residential parking spaces may be located within
a reasonable walking distance of the building they serve.
(2) in a parking lot or facility within 0.25 miles of the building or facility for which
the parking spaces are required, measured along lines of suitable pedestrian
access, provided that the developer provides to the Town a legally binding off-site
parking agreement that demonstrates sufficient parking space supply at that lot
or facility.
(b) For the purpose of this section, “suitable pedestrian access” means the presence
of a continuous sidewalk, walkway, path, or similar pedestrian facility – compliant
with applicable Americans with Disabilities Act standards and with lighting
reasonable for its context – between the parking spaces and at least one entrance
to the building or facility for which the spaces are required, and subject to the
following:
(1) A suitable pedestrian access route, if it crosses a street, town way, public
way, or a private driveway, drive, or aisle, shall have a pedestrian crossing
design appropriate for the crossing location, as determined by a licensed
transportation engineer.
(2) In the Mixed Use zoning district, a thoroughfare designed in accordance
with Section 45-424(j) may be part of a suitable pedestrian access route, even
if it does not have a separate sidewalk or walkway, as long as motor vehicle
traffic and speed on the thoroughfare is expected to be low enough for safe
sharing of the travel way.
State law reference – 30-A MRSA §4364-D
[…]

Page 39 of 71

Proposed Town Code Amendments of Chapter 1 – General Provisions and Chapter 45 – Zoning,
Related to Mixed Use Zone and Commercial-Industrial Zone Standards and Compliance with
State Laws on Housing and Parking Regulations
Municipal Officers’ Certification of Official Text of a Proposed Ordinance
To the Town Clerk of the Town of Eliot, Maine:
We hereby certify to you that the document to which we have affixed this certificate is a true
copy of the official text of an ordinance entitled “Proposed Town Code Amendments of Chapter
1 – General Provisions and Chapter 45 – Zoning, Related to Mixed Use Zone and CommercialIndustrial Zone Standards and Compliance with State Laws on Housing and Parking
Regulations”, which is to be presented to the voters for their consideration on June 9, 2026.
Pursuant to 30-A M.R.S.A. § 3002(2), you will retain this copy of the complete text of the
ordinance as a public record and make other copies available for distribution to the voters, and you
will ensure that copies are available at the town meeting/polling places on the day of the vote.
Dated: _______________, ________
_______________________________
William Widi, Chair
_______________________________
Richard Donhauser, Vice Chair
_______________________________
Lauren Dow
_______________________________
B. Cabot Trott
_______________________________
Alexandros Orestis

Select Board
Town of Eliot, Maine

Page 40 of 71

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 41 of 71

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 42 of 71

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 43 of 71

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 44 of 71

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 45 of 71

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 46 of 71

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 47 of 71

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 48 of 71

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 49 of 71

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 50 of 71

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 51 of 71

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 52 of 71

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 53 of 71

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 54 of 71

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 55 of 71

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 56 of 71

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

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
shall provide to the Code Enforcement Officer post-construction
photographs of the shoreline vegetation 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.
VOTE
5-0
Motion approved
Mr. Shiner 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.
C. 434 Harold L. Dow Highway (Map 55/Lots 4&8) PB26-03: Site Plan Review –
Larger-scale solar energy system.
Received: February 2, 2026
1st Heard: February 17, 2026 (sketch plan review)
2nd Heard: _____, 2026
6

Page 57 of 71

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 58 of 71

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 59 of 71

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 60 of 71

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 61 of 71

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 62 of 71

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 63 of 71

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 64 of 71

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 65 of 71

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 66 of 71

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 67 of 71

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 68 of 71

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 69 of 71

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 70 of 71

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 71 of 71

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

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 17, 2026

Permanent ID DKT-2026-000939 — this record is never deleted.

Record history

Every change to this record, logged as it happened.

Aug 17, 2026 Filed on the Docket
Aug 17, 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 (Mar 24)

The agenda, word for word

Provenance

Record history

More on the Docket in Maine