Bangor Planning Board approves Arby's renovation, warehouse project, and rental code changes

[0:46] Jonathan Boucher: Good evening and welcome to the applicant staff, board members, and members of the public. This is February 3rd, 2026, meeting of the City of Bangor's Planning Board. It's 6.59. My name is Jonathan Boucher, Chair of the Board. Other board members in attendance this evening include Ted Brush, Tricia Hayes, Greg Hobson, Ken Huynh, Vice Chair Janet Jonas, Ross Whitford, and alternate member Justin Cartier. Board members are volunteers from the Bangor community. City staff members in attendance this evening include Planning Officer Anya Collette, Assistant Solicitor Grace Innes, City Engineer Jefferson Davis, and Planning Analyst Matthew Altiero. We thank them for their help in preparation for this meeting. So the agenda for tonight starts us off with some old business. First we'll be looking to discuss the meeting minutes for the gen January 20th 2026 meeting. Are there any modifications or comments on the minutes? If not we'll take a move. Yeah I heard member hewn moved to approve the minutes and remember brush seconded and let's take a roll call vote. We'll start with member brush. Yes. So I'm gonna skip over remember hayes because you weren't here for the minutes. Remember hobson? Yes. Number june? Good. Number jonas? Yes. Number whitford? Yes. The chair votes yes. So on to the next item was the adoption of findings and decision for 861 broadway map lot r21-009 push our road and we wanted to see if we have a motion to approve those findings. Member jonas move to approve. I get a second member brush again. Member hayes will skip over because you weren't here for that one. So roll call vote. Member brush? Yes. Member hobson? Yes. Remember jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. And the Chair votes yes. That brings us up to new business and I have a section to read here just to give some background on it. The Planning Board has two main roles. First we review the amendments to the Land Development Code which typically include either changes to zoning districts or changes to text within the Code. Our review of these amendments includes adherence to the Comprehensive Plan as well as considering any applicable concerns from the public. public. Our vote on these items is in the form of a recommendation to the City Council as to whether the item ought to pass or not to pass. The City Council makes the final decision on zoning and land development code changes. There is one item on the agenda this evening that's a proposed code amendment. Secondly, the Board serves as a regulatory authority for land development permits, commonly known as site plan review. Site plans are review to ensure compliance with city codes as the parking driveway storm water management lighting landscaping and buffering as well as building location environmental impacts and shoreline zoning as may be applicable. We also ensure the plan meets the dimensional requirements the project zoning district or the project zoning district. We review larger site plans that trigger site location development for the main dep as well under their requirements. Some uses are conditional uses that have specific conditions and requirements and we use to review those projects. State statute also outlines requirements for subdivision review and the city has additional standards as to roadway and utility specifications. The board ultimately endorses a plan that will go to the registry of deeds if the plan is approved and there are two items on the agenda that are land development permits this evening. Further information on the city's codes and standards and the comprehensive plan can be found at the city's website site. It's gonna take a breath that was a lot. Review of each new item will be as follows for the land development permits. We will first consider and vote on the applicants applications readiness for review and any concerns for conflict of interest and for all items that the for all items the applicant or their representative should then come forward to the podium provide a brief introduction to the proposal and then should stay at the podium while we consider any questions from the staff or the board members for code amendments the staff would for code amendments the staff would make the presentation. Once the item has been presented the applicant may be seated and we will allow time for public comment. For public comments the person should come to the podium introduce themselves state if they're a bangor resident or an abutter to the property as applicable and indicate if they are for or against the proposal. It's also helpful if you present your thoughts Based upon the city's codes and standards and the comprehensive plan, as they are the primary documents used by the board to make our decisions, all comments and discussions should remain respectful and considerate of others. Once public comments are completed, we'll close that item for public comment. Board will then deliberate on the proposal using the applicable standards. For clarity, when considering land development proposals, the code standards are typically read and voted on separately. The final decision is then read and voted on. If the applicant disagrees of the land development permit decision the board is made, then they may appeal the decision to the spirit court of Maine. Once a project you're interested in has been reviewed, you may leave the meeting, but please be respectfully quiet so as not to disturb the review of other agenda items. That's everything. So our first item is to amend the land development code by section 165-139 development requirements to allow short-term rentals in tiny home parks and amending short-term rentals in tiny home parks and manufactured home parks. Before [6:53] Kenneth Huhn: we go to that item, I just have two things. Did I miss it, or did you do the adoption of findings and decisions for those two projects? Let's go back. [7:04] Jonathan Boucher: I did the, we completed the adoption of findings for the 861 Broadway and Map Lot. We read that [7:11] Kenneth Huhn: that section. Okay, sorry, I thought you just did minutes, but maybe I, we did. I did it out of order. I did minutes first and then the adoption. I think I was reading this email, so I missed the findings part. Sorry about that. The email I wanted to go over, I should have emailed this, but I got a member of the public who emailed after our historic preservation commission meeting and just had a couple reminders for people from that. Number one, when we have members of the public look that comment, we need to make sure that they come up to the podium to speak. It's just kind of a reminder for all of us, just because if they speak from back there, the microphone won't pick them up. And then for members, just a reminder that if you turn your head away from the microphone, it might have trouble picking up what you're saying, and just to make sure to speak, you know, close and directly into the microphone when you're speaking. So I just want to make sure you won't do that. Okay, so on the land development code. Amendment we had a workshop on this I think it was December last year might have been November but the change is to allow short-term rentals in tiny home parks and cap them at 30 percent of the park or five homes whichever is less and to make those same rules for manufactured home parks. The reason being that when we first came up with the tiny home park ordinance it was before we had short-term rental regulations so we didn't allow them at the time then we came up with the short-term rental regulations but we didn't include tiny home parks so as of now we allow them we allow short-term rentals in tiny home or manufacturing parks but not tiny home parks so there's a discrepancy there so that's the gist of it. Are there any questions on that member Jonas [9:02] Janet Sanborn Jonas: Just a quick question. So I know that we don't have this in Bangor yet, but I have actually visited a tiny home park where some of the properties are individually owned. They're not actually owned by the tiny home park builder. So how would this restrict or enable them to participate in short-term rentals? [9:24] Kenneth Huhn: So that would be treated like we treat condominiums we don't have a cap on like a condominium building we would have the cap on an operator so if somebody in that condo owned other short-term rentals they would be capped at five. Okay so okay thank you any [9:42] Jonathan Boucher: other questions so we have our staff presentation no questions from the board so we would open this up for public comment at this point any members from the public then we will close public comment and I'll ask one more time that there's any additional review from board members or for ready to go for a motion on the proposal and a reminder that it should be phrased in the positive as I move that this blank ought to pass and then we either vote yes or no as we want just to keep it clear yeah the member here yes sure I moved it [10:33] Edwin Brush: we amend the that we recommend that amending the land development codes section 165-139 development requirements to allow short-term rentals and tiny home parks and amending the short-term rental licenses code section 254-4 licensing to kappa to add a cap for short-term rentals and tiny home parks and manufacture home parks and I recommend that we pass this with a [10:58] Jonathan Boucher: Ought to pass to City Council. Thank you. Hi. Any second? Thank you. So I'll take a roll call of all vote on this. Number Brush? Yes. Number Hayes? Yes. Number Hobson? Yes. Ever Hewn? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Number Woodford? Yes. And the chair votes yes. All right, that brings us down to the land development permit applications. The first item for tonight is the land development permit application for a minor site development and conditional use for the renovation of an existing 4128 square foot commercial building with a drive-through service and associated site improvements at a property located at 57 Bangor Mall Boulevard, Map Lot R61-015, in the Shopping and Personal Service and Stream Protection Districts, SMPS-SP. The applicant is an owner is Jason Cole. Do we have Jason or their representative on Zoom? If you promoted them to Jamie Pierce is up there, is that Jamie Pierce [Kenneth Huhn: at this point] we'd start by doing a staff has indicated the completeness of this application and it's ready for board review. The fees are documented and paid. The applicant standing is confirmed. Does the board have any concerns about these issues? Or if not, can we go to can I get a motion on the completeness and readiness of this of this item? Yep, member here [12:49] Edwin Brush: yes, sure, I moved that the applicant is deemed to complete on complete on February 3rd 2026, they have been paid all applicable fees, which is exhibit four, and a proposed project is a minor site development and conditional use. Thank you. Do we have a second? I remember [13:12] Jonathan Boucher: Brush. We have a second, and so let's take a roll call vote on this one. We have some member Brush? Yes. Number Hayes? Yes. Perhaps in? Yes. Every human? Yes. Remember Jonas? Yes. Remember Woodford? Yes. The chair votes yes. All right, so I should have asked if there were any conflicts of interest as well. I'm sorry I didn't bring that up. Does anyone have any conflicts of interest with this item? Thanks. So now for the applicant over Zoom, if you'd like to give us your presentation on the project. Yes [13:52] Tanner Reef: absolutely, can everybody hear me? I hear you. Yep. Okay, all right, good evening everyone. My name is Tanner Reef. I am a project manager with Design and Engineering, representing our client Jason Cole. So we're here to request, as mentioned, conditional use and minor site development for the renovation of an existing vacant 4100 square foot commercial building to a new Arby's restaurant with drive-through. So our project location is 57 Bangor Main Boulevard. I'm going to share my screen real quick. Can everybody see that as well? Didn't [14:44] Jonathan Boucher: Take myself off mute for that. Yeah, I see it. Everyone else can see it fine. Yeah, okay. [14:54] Tanner Reef: So this is our project location at the intersection of Bangor Mall Boulevard and a private drive. So our site access points and improvements include reducing from three to two access points, closing off a middle access point with a landscape buffer and required street trees within the site. We are proposing minor pavement and curb modifications around the building perimeter, restriping of the existing parking lots with full site circulation, providing 49 parking spaces with two ADA compliant parking spaces, a new dumpster enclosure and directional signage and bollards. No building expansion or increase in impervious areas proposed for this site. As far as utility upgrades, we are proposing a new water line, one and a half inch water line service to the building, new gas service to the building. The reuse of existing electrical service that is our currently on the building, and an installation of an underground grease interceptor on our site. That is the scope of work regarding the site improvements and modifications. Any [16:36] Jonathan Boucher: other comments before we go to staff comments? Anything else, Tanner? No, thank you guys. I heard him say it was going to be an Arby's. He said it was going to be, is that correct? That is, that's correct. Okay. [16:52] Edwin Brush: That's what it used to be. Do [16:57] Kenneth Huhn: we have any staff comments? Yeah, so first I'll just go over the conditions that we had requested you make. So the first one being that they have an approved traffic movement permit before they start construction. Then also I had emailed you some lighting conditions. I realized after the fact, one of the conditions in the email I listed was about the building mounted lighting. And then I realized here that we had a condition already regarding that. I would just use the condition that is in the findings for that. So the condition and I'm, I would be asking you to add is about having them submit modified plans that show the new light poles on the sub, their property, the subject property to illuminate the area that's currently being illuminated by the poles on the other property. Does everyone have that language? [17:51] Jonathan Boucher: That I emailed out, sure everyone had a chance to review it. You guys all, does everyone understand the context behind why this is being requested? Were you able to follow through in the email? Yeah, okay, so it's somebody else's property, yes, right. Anything, any questions for staff or for the applicant or any other comments? I should ask playing officer Colette. I don't have any other comments. Any questions heading officer? Any questions for the applicant? [18:28] Tanner Reef: No questions for the applicant are. [18:35] Jonathan Boucher: You all set member Cardi Tanner? [18:39] Public commenter: Thank you for taking on this project. It's great to see some more development coming to Bangor and another restaurant returning. The private drive that this Arby's is going to be on, who's going to be charged with maintaining that? I know that's been a huge deficiency probably over the past five or ten years for the city and the people who travel over by Best Buy there. I know Best Buy did pave there that side. I don't know if there was any plans to pave this or who's taking care of that private [19:10] Tanner Reef: drive there are no plans for repaving in our scope of work and I believe the private drive is maintained by the city as far as i understand our client does not have will not have ownership of that private drive for this project thank [19:32] Public commenter: you sir. City [19:37] Jonathan Boucher: engineer, do you want to chime in on that? [19:39] Carollynn Lear: I don't believe the city has any ownership or maintenance responsibilities for that private drive. We would, it's a private drive, we don't maintain or repave or take care of or whatever you want to call it, private facilities like that, unless there's a long-standing agreement that I don't know about, but there was no, never one submitted to us during this process. Jeff do [20:03] Kenneth Huhn: you know if that's under the Bangor Mall like the rest of that loop there? No, it's outside of it. [20:08] Edwin Brush: I guess [20:14] Public commenter: that's something I would ask that the city might try to find out who's, who does have ownership of that private drive as an access road for many of the businesses over there by the mall and the size of the potholes many times are larger than the vehicles that travel on them. I think it's something we should look at for the people of the city. Well, it clearly shows [20:35] Carollynn Lear: On the plan in front of you, that it's owned by the landowner of that applicant, it's their section of roadway for that entrance. The Best Buy lot owns the pit, the section that was paved. The lot above 57 Bangor Mall Boulevard is, oops, sorry, is owned by the app, the abutton property owner, which is the 49, Bangor Mall Boulevard. So all those app, all those landowners are responsible for maintaining that private drive. So to [21:26] Edwin Brush: see a judge, it's a the abutting property, you know, they each [21:33] Kenneth Huhn: own their own segment. So yeah, I'm not sure you can make it part of the land development because there's no, we don't have anything in the land development code that refers to that. It's more on them. Like if a customer, you know, has blows out their tire, you know, it's on them to deal with that. So yeah, it's not, we can't make it part of a condition of land development permit. Understood, just was curious whose ownership [22:03] Public commenter: there was of that, because it's been an issue for so very long, hoping to just get some clarity for everyone involved here, and I'm sure for Arby's as well, the new restaurant there would, I'm sure, prefer to have a smooth sailing for their customers into their new and shiny new business that I look forward to bringing people to. Thank you. Any other questions? Oh, member [22:28] Janet Sanborn Jonas: Jones, I have a quick question for staff about traffic, because you know we want to see the traffic site for this particular location, and this is just for my personal thing, because I'm still getting up to speed on it, but so there might be overlap between the businesses along this private road that are the same individual, perhaps traveling between those, are those counted as separate trips, or those counted as related, and I'm not even sure there's actually any way to know, but it's just a question or for the drive-through itself, well for the drive-through or even for the business, so somebody went to Best Buy and then they stopped the place across the street and then they went to Arby's, is that one trip or is that three trips? No, it's only if it's [23:17] Carollynn Lear: you're going to that destination on that property, so you don't count if somebody's going to Best Buy, that's its own destination, if they come to Arby's, that's another, that's so it is individual. So [23:28] Janet Sanborn Jonas: okay, all right, thanks. Any [23:35] Jonathan Boucher: Follow-up question, or any other questions? Can I get clarity on the conditions that you mentioned? So what, when we come to the decision, if you would like us to include the condition that modified plan be submitted to the planning division within 30 days, that bullet, but also the other one, the build to build the mounted, yeah, exterior lighting, so what [24:00] Kenneth Huhn: I had highlighted there, number two, proposed building mounted light fixtures meet the standards [24:04] Jonathan Boucher: in 165-81 and 114e, it's already referenced as a condition within it, so we don't have to bring it back, so scratch the second bullet, is that what you're saying? No, I'm saying keep bullets one [24:17] Kenneth Huhn: and two, and then you would add a third condition about them submitting modified plans with the light poles. So are you looking at my email, or are you looking at, looking at your email? Oh, sorry, I'm looking at the decision, I have that up too, so I'm done, so under the decision I had two conditions. So you would keep both of those, and then you would add modified plans. [24:48] Jonathan Boucher: Okay, thank you. Yeah, I'm sick. I see now. [24:54] Janet Sanborn Jonas: Yeah, just a quick question. So in the decision, I'm sorry, before the decision, in the standards where I was yellow, those are all unmet. Yes, I mean you can do it one of 2 ways. [25:09] Kenneth Huhn: You could, when you get to those standards, you could add those conditions in then. And then when you get to the final decision, you could just say refer back to those particular standards where you have those conditions, just to shorten things a little. Or you could vote on those standards without the condition. And then when you get to the final decision, then you could add the conditions in, whichever you would prefer to do, we [25:40] Jonathan Boucher: want to talk about that any further, you guys, you're following, okay, then I think at this point we've answered our questions, we would open it up for public comment. Is there any public comment on this project? Not, we will close public comment, and so I would look for, we're gonna get started on going through the different, the different items, the provisions and findings, starting on part 1, that the project meets requirements of articles 2 through 12, so under part 1, finding number 1, do I have a, do you have a [26:29] Edwin Brush: motion, number brush, Mr. Chair, I move that the board finds that based on exhibit three and eleven, the applicant satisfied section 165-33.1 of the land development code requirements surrounding erosion and sediment control, thank you, do we have a second, thank you [26:52] Jonathan Boucher: Number one, roll call vote number. Brush? Yes. Remember Hayes? Yes. For Hobson? Yes. For Huynh? Yes. For Jonas? Yes. For Whitford? Yes. Chair votes yes. On to number two. [27:05] Janet Sanborn Jonas: Number Jonas. Chair, I move the board finds that based on exhibits two and seven, the applicant satisfied section 165-72 of the land development code requirements, a required number of parking spaces for a restaurant, section 165-73's requirements for parking area location and screening, and section 165-74's requirements of design, construction, and maintenance. Thank you. Do we have a second? So roll [27:35] Jonathan Boucher: call vote number. Brush? Yes. Number Hayes? Yes. For Hobson? Yes. Mr. Yeah, I remember him. Mr. Hume, you said yes. Thank you. Number Jonas? Yes. Number Woodford? Yes. Air votes yes. Number three, you have a motion. Oh [27:54] Edwin Brush: Chair, I find it, I recommend that the Board finds that based on Exhibits 3, 5, and 9, the applicant satisfied 165-79 of the Land Development Code requirements for providing adequate utility services, and 165-80 requirements for using public water and sewage services when possible, and 165-83's requirements regarding providing adequate electrical service. [28:21] Jonathan Boucher: Thank you. Do we have a second? I'll second. Member Hobson. Let's do a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Jonas? Yes. Whitford? Yes. The chair votes yes. On to number four. [28:39] Edwin Brush: Do we have a motion? I move that the board finds that based on Exhibits 2, 7, 17, 18, and 20, the applicant satisfied 165-81's requirements of providing adequate outdoor lighting and preventing late trespass and pollution right and we [28:59] Jonathan Boucher: have a second with member brush. So for a roll call vote, member brush? Yes. For Hayes? Yes. For Hobson? Yes. For Jonas? No. Never would person well might consider a point of order on that since we're going to be covering this in a condition further on. Is there an issue on voting yes or no? I guess one of the legal [29:28] Tanner Reef: questions I [29:35] Kenneth Huhn: wondered if we got to the yellow if you would prefer and to make it cleaner and feel better about voting for it, you can just add these two lighting conditions to the standard and then when you get to that final decision you can just say also with the conditions that were mentioned earlier on lighting [30:03] Jonathan Boucher: so at this point we're in a bit of a tricky situation. We've had all these votes on the motion that was made and I've disrupted it. We have a member of Woodford and myself on it. You have a Recommendation on how we clear this. Well, I don't know. I think that the best way to do it, since there's a motion on the table right now, is to complete your voting on it and then go from there. So finish your voting and then we'll go. Thank you. On to member Whitford. No. And the chair votes. I'm gonna, oh, I know the spirit of where we're going with this, because we're gonna tuck it in with, I'm gonna vote yes because I know that we're gonna cover it in the conditions at the end. Do does anyone who voted no want to explain their vote? I know that's typically what we do, so [31:11] Janet Sanborn Jonas: yes, thank you. Remember Jonas? Well, yes, I voted no because I don't feel that the con, that the applicant has met this standard at this point, and so I do appreciate we are going to add a condition, but I feel like a no vote is appropriate. Yeah, I see where and [31:24] Jonathan Boucher: then is it member Woodford? Yeah, the same reason. We are going to be covering it, but as per the motion as made, I don't feel like yes vote was appropriate. All right, thank you. And solicitor NS, are you? Yeah, well, it does pass, so but are you satisfied with where we are on that one? Yeah, so it passes and then you'll be covering the conditions in the final part, so I guess either way you're you're good, but it passed. So okay, that was item four. Moving on to, and is the expectation that we cover the condition at this point coming off of that, or we'll handle that at the point of the decision? I guess it might be cleaner at this point [32:17] Kenneth Huhn: when you get to the land development origin, you get to that lighting condition, lighting standard, [32:23] Jonathan Boucher: you could add the conditions on then. So that's coming up later on in part four, number three. Yeah, so we'll see how that goes. So that concluded number four of part one. Can I get a motion on number five of part one? Member, Hayes, I [32:45] Kenneth Huhn: move the board finds that based on exhibits three, five, and eleven, the applicant satisfied section 165-84 of the land development code requirements regarding providing adequate storm drainage and storm water offset, and section 165 dash 86 is requirements on compliance with sewer [33:07] Jonathan Boucher: regulations. Thank you. Do we have a second? Member, remember Jonas? Yes. Do a second. Do a roll call vote. Remember Brush? Yes. Remember Hayes? Yes. Remember member Hobson? Yes. Number Hune? Yes. For Jonas? Yes. Number Woodford? Yes. And the chair votes yes. That concludes part one. We're on to part two. The project meets the district site development standards under article 19. Do I have a motion? Remember Brush? Mr. Chair, I move the board finds [33:38] Edwin Brush: That based on exhibits 2, 5, 7, and 10, the applicant satisfied section 165-135 of the land development code regarding impervious surface ratio and buffer yards. Thank you. Do we have a [33:54] Jonathan Boucher: second for Hobson so let's do a roll call vote remember brush yes remember hey remember Hayes yes over Hobson yes over Jonas yes over Whitford yes chair votes yes that concludes part two on the part three the project meets the requirements of section 165-101 shopping and personal service district snps do i have a motion for number one member hewn here i'll move with [34:21] Edwin Brush: the board finds that based upon the findings in the parts one and two of this document, the project meets requirements of 165-101 uses within the shopping and personal service district. [34:33] Jonathan Boucher: do i have a second oh do we have a second on that one remember hayes we'll do a roll call vote member brush yes remember hayes yes remember hobson yes remember yes for jonas yes for whitford yes and the chair votes yes onto item two part three oh remember hewn yes chair i move that [35:03] Edwin Brush: the board finds it based on exhibit two, the project meets the requirements of 165-101d4 for drive-in businesses uses within the shopping and personal service district. Thank you. Do I have [35:15] Jonathan Boucher: a second? Member Jonas, and we'll do a roll call vote. Remember Brush, yes. Number Hayes, yes. Number Hobson, yes. Jonas, yes. Woodford, yes. Chair votes yes. That concludes part three. We're on to part four. The project meets the requirements of section 165-114 land development approval standards. Do I [35:37] Janet Sanborn Jonas: a motion for number one? Remember Jonas, chair, I move the board finds that based on exhibits 2, 5, 7, 11, and 16, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114b's requirement that the proposed parking and loading layout are arranged in a reasonable and safe configuration and section 165-114c's requirement that all proposed access drives are reasonably necessary [36:03] Jonathan Boucher: necessary and safe. Thank you. Do we have a second? I'll second for Hobson. The roll call vote. Member Brush, yes. Member Hayes, yes. Member Hobson, yes. Member Huynh, yes. Jonas, yes. Member Woodford, yes. Chair votes yes. On to number two. Oh, for Hayes, sorry, I move the board finds that based on [36:30] Kenneth Huhn: Exhibits 2, 3, and 11, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114d's requirement that the proposed development will not have unreasonable adverse effects on abutting or downstream properties or protected resources such as wetlands, lakes, streams, or brooks, and that all downstream channels or municipal storm water collection systems have adequate capacity to carry [37:00] Jonathan Boucher: the flow without significant negative effects. Thank you. Do we have a second? Member Brush, and a roll call vote. Member Brush, yes. Number Haze, yes. Robson, yes. Remember Jonas, yes. Remember Whitford, yes. The chair votes yes. Item three, we have, when we read this one for clarity, we're suggesting including the condition, or the, this one's related to the lighting, so that would be the condition, that's the second bullet on planning officer Collette's email, but it's also the second option in the decision if we want to read that at the same time, and then we can vote on that. I think is what we're suggesting. Everyone agree? Okay, thank you. So I'll take a [37:49] Edwin Brush: motion remember hewn i'll give it a try yeah i'd move that chair i move that the board finds it based on exhibits 2 7 17 18 and 20 they have been satisfied the land development code 165-114 ease requirements that all outdoor lighting shall be designed installed and maintained to avoid unreasonable adverse effects from light pollution that the building that the building mounted exterior lighting fixtures be downward pacing and full cut off in compliance with the city's code vote and that's a condition. Okay. [38:26] Jonathan Boucher: I followed, thank you. And do we have a second? Member Hobson seconds, and we'll do a roll call vote. Member Brush, yes. Member Hayes, yes. Member Hobson, yes. Member Jonas, yes. For Woodford, yes. The chair votes yes. Item number four, member [38:45] Edwin Brush: Brush. Mr. Chair, I move the board finds that based on exhibits two, five, seven, and ten, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114 F's requirements for landscaping. Thank [39:03] Jonathan Boucher: you. In a second with, member Jonas, a roll call vote starting with member Brush, yes. Member Hayes, yes. Number Hobson, yes. Remember Jonas, yes. Number Woodford, yes. The chair votes yes on [39:16] Greg Hobson: to number five do I have a motion chair I move that the board finds that based on exhibits 2 3 and 11 the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114 h's requirements regarding preventable excuse me preventing unreasonable adverse environmental impacts and section 165-114 eyes require required preventing unreasonable adverse effects on nearby water resources [39:42] Jonathan Boucher: Thank you, Member Hobson. Do we have a second? Member Brush. And a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Hobson? Yes. And Member Hyun? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. And the chair votes yes. That concludes part four, which brings us to part five. So that's the pro, that the part five covers that the project meets the criteria for the conditional use under section 165-9a. Can I get a motion for number for item one? Member Hayes. [40:18] Kenneth Huhn: i move the board finds that based on findings made in parts one through four the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-9a1's requirements on not requiring a variance of [40:33] Jonathan Boucher: development or other standards thank you in a second number brush thank you we'll call vote number brush yes number hayes yes number hobson yes number hewn yes number jonas yes number member Woodford yes and the chair votes yes okay a motion for number two member Jonas chair I move [40:53] Janet Sanborn Jonas: the board finds that based on exhibits 2 5 11 and 16 the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-9 a part 2's requirements of not creating unreasonable traffic congestion or hazardous conditions on contiguous or adjacent streets do we have a second okay member [41:12] Jonathan Boucher: Member Brush. Thank you. And a roll call vote. Member Brush. Yes. Member Hayes. Yes. Member Hobson. Yes. Member Heughan. Yes. Member Jonas. Yes. Member Woodford. Yes. And the chair votes yes. On to item three. Can I get a motion? Member Brush. [41:28] Edwin Brush: Mr. Chair, I move the Board finds that based on the findings of Parts 1 through 4 of Section 4 of this document, the applicant satisfied Land Development Code Section 1659A3's requirements for providing and maintaining adequate and appropriate utilities, fire protection, drainage, parking and loading and other necessary site improvements thank you can you have a second [42:02] Jonathan Boucher: I'll second remember Hobson and roll call vote member brush yes Reyes yes number Hobson yes or Jonas yes member Woodford yes chair votes yes and number four can I get a motion on [42:19] Greg Hobson: number four chair I move that the board finds that based on exhibits two and five the applicant satisfied land development code section 165 dash 9a fours requirements on the proposed use being appropriate for the location in which it was sought thank you member hobson may have a second [42:35] Jonathan Boucher: For Hayes and a roll call vote. Member Brush, yes. Member Hayes, yes. Member Hobson, yes. For Hewn, yes. Remember Jonas, yes. Whitford, yes. Chair votes yes. That concludes part five. Onto the decision. We've covered the second item. Do we need to repeat it at this time when reading the decision and the conditions? I think you can just refer back to the condition made [43:03] Kenneth Huhn: earlier on building mounted light fixtures. If someone prefers to just to read it, I think that'd [43:07] Jonathan Boucher: be okay too, right? It might be simpler if you guys don't want to, and then we still do need to read the condition number one. It's the option to read condition number two or refer back to it, and then the modified plans be submitted item. That one needs to be read from the email from planning officer Colette. Am I did that capture all three? Do we have someone who'd like to read the decision and the with the conditions referenced? Remember [43:37] Janet Sanborn Jonas: Jones, Chair, I move the board finds that the project meets the requirements for a land development permit for a minor site development and conditional use, and therefore, the board grants the land development permit for the proposed project with the following conditions. Number one, the applicant must provide evidence of an approved main DOT traffic movement permit prior to construction. Number two, to reiterate what was decided above, the proposed building-mounted light fixtures meet the standards in Section 165-81 and Section 165-114E. And three, the applicant must submit modified plans to the planning division within 30 days of approval, which show new light poles on the subject property to eliminate the area currently being illuminated by poles on the adjacent property, and which show the light fixtures will be full cut off and downward facing in compliance with the city's code. Thank you. Can I have a second? I'll second [44:34] Jonathan Boucher: second. Member Hobson seconds. Let's do a roll follow vote. Member Brush, yes. Number Hayes, yes. Robson, yes. For Jonas, yes. For Woodford, yes. Share votes, yes. Congratulations, the all items have passed and the application has been approved. At this point you can reach out to the code enforcement office for any more guidance. Any final statements from City staff? Thank you for your presentation. You're all set. Any questions for from you from yourself for the applicant Tanner? No questions here. Thank you guys Yep, thank you. All right, we're moving on to our second land development permit application. This item is a land development permit application for a major site development and planned group development for the construction of two 250 foot by 60-foot warehouse facilities, each with 10 individual warehouse units, with a single shared driveway, at a property located on Auden Road, Map Lot R10-010-A and R10-010-B in the Urban Industry District UID, the applicant owner, Bernard Holdings, LLC. Staff has indicated the completeness of this application and that it's ready for board review. All fees and documents, all fees have been documented and paid. The applicant standing is confirmed. Does the board have any concerns with these issues, or is there any conflicts of interest before we move forward? Not then. I would look for a motion and a second to accept the completeness of this application. Do we have a motion? This is found on the h2 or page 26, I guess, is what is references. Remember him. Every human, I'm muting. I'm sorry. You mind putting your [46:41] Edwin Brush: mic on? I moved it to the application was deemed complete on February 3rd, 2046. The applicant paid all applicable fees. The proposed project is a major site development in a planned group development. Thank you. Can I have a [46:57] Jonathan Boucher: second? Remember Jonas, and we'll do a roll call vote. Roll call vote on this. It's a member Brush, yes. Remember Hayes, yes. Remember Hobson, yes. Remember Jonas, yes. Woodford, yes. The chair votes yes. All right, so at this point we would like the applicant or the representative to come up to the podium and give a brief and give a presentation on the project. All [48:13] Justine Drake: right, thank you for that introduction. My name is Justine Drake. I'm a civil engineer with Hinkley Hill Designs. I'll be representing Bernard Holdings this evening. Unfortunately, the property owner couldn't make it. I think he was having trouble logging into Zoom. But if you have any follow-up questions for him, I can always make that connection. But let me pull this back. I'm going to be pointing to the site plan throughout the presentation. So please just let me know if you have trouble seeing anything or understanding what I'm pointing to. But the north is up on this plan, so you understand the orientation. And for reference, just north of this property across Odlin Road is Eurovia, the gravel pit. Thibodeau constructions lay down yard is just to the west of that. And if you were to move east and continue on, you'd be end up on Union Street for reference. And again, as mentioned, this is two parcels and the grade, the existing topography kind of heads in three directions. Just on the south side of the properties is interstate 95, so part of the existing topography it drains toward the interstate drainage. And then at the driveway entrance here, which is existing, If there is a high point, so also in this direction towards Union Street. So we're trying to maintain that in the site design. There are existing utilities at the street on Oblin Road. So we're proposing water, sewer and overhead electrical connections. The building on the west would have its own water connection. The building on the east would have its own water connection, but the two buildings would share one sewer connection. They would also each have their own overhead electrical connections. For parking, each warehouse unit, again, there are 10 in each building, each warehouse unit would have its own parking space that would also be the loading zone. So each unit has access through a man door and an overhead door. And then that overhead door, that space in front of the overhead door would accommodate parking as well for each tenant. Project was required to meet the DEP stormwater management law. So, just as of late, the city now is delegated authority to review those permitting requirements, so that was part of this application process. So in order to manage the quality of stormwater that runs off impervious area and developed area from the site, we're proposing to construct drip roof drip edge filters on the south of each building. So that would, that would treat stormwater runoff from the south half, it split exactly in half, and it would just run directly into those drainage trenches. And then all other impervious area, or the amount that is required to meet the application, would be treated by two separate underdrained soil filters. So, again, trying to stay true to the existing topography, the west building would be treated with an underdrained soil filter on the west, in front of the west building, and the east stormwater runoff from the eastern side would be treated by an underdrained soil filter on the eastern side of the property. They'll share an entrance, and I'm not sure I mentioned this, but this would be a planned group development, just to make it clear that if ownership were to be conveyed in the future, that access and right to use shared facilities would be maintained. The lighting is limited to lighting attached to the building, and again, it was proposed to meet the city's requirements to have downward facing full cut off wall pack lighting around the perimeters of the building. I believe that's it. If you guys have any questions, please let me know. [52:37] Jonathan Boucher: Any questions for the applicant? Remember him? Yeah, so they have separate water. Do you mind your mic? [52:44] Edwin Brush: I'm sorry to bother you, but your mic. Yeah, so they're going to have, they have separate water. [52:48] Justine Drake: But they're going to share electrical, they're going to share a sewer outlet, but they will have separate electrical and separate water services. You mentioned in case they sold it later on, sell it separately, and yeah, and that's a benefit of being a planned group development, is that would, that's made clear in this approval process, is that right to those utilities would be, that would continue. Thank you. [53:17] Jonathan Boucher: Questions? Yeah,, member, just a quick one, I'm a little [53:24] Janet Sanborn Jonas: confused about the geography, because you said it drains, the property drains toward Union Street, but Union Street is pretty far away from there. I think, if I know where this property is relative to [53:38] Justine Drake: you, not even Hammond Street, the Hammond Street is still pretty far away, right? Thank you for making that distinction. So I did mean Union Street, but I just meant in that general direction, to the east. Oh, to the east. Okay, thank you. Because Union Streets, it's far. That's correct. But the driveway, it, the driveway will match the existing topography, and there are ditches on either side, and they split. So, and just to make a further clarification, each underdrained soil filter that everything drains to will then convey again to those ditches via a pipe outlet. [54:14] Jonathan Boucher: Any other questions for the applicant and comments from the staff? [54:21] Kenneth Huhn: I don't have any comments on the project but just on the findings. Standard two under part one, you can just ignore that because at the time when I included that, I thought this was on one parcel, so it's not relevant since they're on separate parcels. So you're saying [54:38] Jonathan Boucher: standard two under part one, that's where it says the board finds and then it's talking about exhibit two, yard space for group buildings. Yeah, you're saying that should be removed. Yeah, you can just ignore it and we'll remove it. So remove item two, I'll skip over that. Okay, any questions for staff? Thank you. We're gonna, I'll see if there's any questions and then we're going to start reviewing the findings. Thank you. Any additional discussion before we review the findings? Anything [55:18] Janet Sanborn Jonas: from board members? Member Jonas. Okay, so I just have a question. I'm not really used to many storage having bathrooms, so what's, what's the, what's driving that particular [55:29] Justine Drake: accommodation? Sure. Yeah, that's a great question. So this would be a, each building has 10 individual warehouse units and they would be leased, so different tenants will have access and the purpose is they'd have, you know, the right to, I want to say, use it how they wish, because if there was a use outside warehouse, they would have to come back to the city for permission, but they would have access to facilities and more autonomy over the use of that space. [56:02] Kenneth Huhn: Any follow-up questions? It's kind of a unique use. It's not strictly warehouse or storage, but in the zone that they're in, UID, the very first permitted use is commercial industrial uses. It's very broad, so it's kind of a unique use that fits in that broad category. [56:24] Janet Sanborn Jonas: So could something like a cottage industry or light industry use be permittable in this space? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. [56:34] Jonathan Boucher: All right. Any other questions or discussion? We'll open it for public discussion or public comment. Is there any public comment? Any public comment? If not, I will close the public comment and then at this point we can move on to two motions on the findings, which we're gonna start with part one, the problem that the project meets the requirements, or excuse me, the requirements for articles 2 through 12. Can I get a motion for [57:11] Edwin Brush: number one? Member Brush. Mr. Chair, I move the board finds that based on exhibits 2, 11, and 17, the applicant satisfied section 165-33.1 of the land development code regarding best management practices of erosion and sediment control. Thank you. Do we have a second? Number Hewn has [57:34] Jonathan Boucher: A second roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Number Hayes? Yes. Number Hobson? Yes. Number Hewn? Yes. For Jonas? Yes. Number Woodford? Yes. The chair votes yes. We are skipping over number two as it's not applicable, and we're moving on to item number three. Can I get a motion? Remember Hayes? I move. [57:54] Kenneth Huhn: The board finds that based on exhibit two, the applicant satisfied section 165-68 of the land [58:02] Jonathan Boucher: development code regarding minimum lot frontage. Thank you. Do we have a second? Robson. Roll call a vote. Member Brush? Yes. Remember Hayes? Yes. Number Hobson? Yes. Remember Hewn? Yes. Remember Jonas? Yes. Over Woodford? Yes. And the chair votes yes. On to item number four. Can I have a motion? Number Brush. [58:22] Edwin Brush: Mr. Chair, I move the board finds that based on exhibit two, the applicant satisfied section 165 has 69 of the land development code roman code regarding requirements for planned group [58:36] Jonathan Boucher: group developments. Thank you. Do we have a second? Member Hune. And a roll call vote. Start with member Brush? Yes. Number Hayes? Yes. Number Hobson? Yes. Remember Hune? Yes. Remember Jonas? Yes. Or what member Whitford? Yes. And the chair votes yes. Can I get a motion for number five? Member Jonas. Chair [58:57] Janet Sanborn Jonas: I move the board finds that based on exhibits 2, 5, and 15, the applicant satisfies section 165-72 of development code regarding the required number of parking spaces, section 165-73's requirements regarding parking area location and screening, and section 165-74's requirements regarding parking area design construction and maintenance. Thank you. Do we have a second? I'll suck [59:22] Jonathan Boucher: Remember Hobson seconds. And a roll call vote. Remember Brush? Yes. Remember Hayes? Yes. Number Member Hobson? Yes. Member Huynh? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. Chair votes yes. Item six. [59:35] Edwin Brush: Member Huynh? Sure. I move that the Board finds that based on Exhibits 2, 5, and 17, the applicant satisfied 165-79 of the Land Development Code regarding providing the necessary utility services required, 165-80's requirements regarding providing adequate water and sewage services, and 165-83 requirements regarding providing adequate electrical service [1:00:01] Jonathan Boucher: thank you do we have a second number brush a roll call vote member brush yes number Hayes yes perhaps and yes remember him yes remember Jonas yes remember Woodford yes and the chair votes yes I get a motion on item 7 [1:00:15] Edwin Brush: Member Brush. Mr. Chair, I move the board finds it based on Exhibits 2, 5, and 10 the applicant satisfied section 165-81 of the Land Development Code regarding providing adequate lighting and preventing light pollution and trespass. Thank you. Do we have a second? [1:00:38] Jonathan Boucher: And we'll do a roll call. That was a member Hewan with a second to a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Member Hewan? Yes. Member Jonas? Yes. Number Whitford? Yes. The chair votes yes. On to number eight we have a motion. Member Jonas? Chair, I move the board [1:00:57] Janet Sanborn Jonas: finds that based on Exhibits 2, 5, and 18 the applicant satisfied section 165-82's requirements regarding having adequate fire protection. Thank you. I'll second. Member Hobson with a second [1:01:09] Jonathan Boucher: and a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Number Hayes? Yes. Number Hobson? Yes. Over Jonas? Yes. Member Woodford? Yes. Chair votes yes. On to Item 9. Member Heughan? [1:01:25] Edwin Brush: Chair, I move that the Board finds that based on Exhibits 2, 5, 9, 11, and 17, the applicant satisfied 165-84 of the Land Development Code regarding adequate storm drainage and stormwater offset 165 dash 85 requirements regarding anticipated type and volume of sanitary flows and 165 dash 86 is requirements regarding compliance with [1:01:50] Jonathan Boucher: sewer regulations. Thank you. Do we have a second? Member Hayes and a roll call vote. We'll start remember Brush? Yes. Remember Hayes? Yes. Remember Hobson? Yes. Remember Hewn? Yes. Remember Jonas? Yes. Remember Woodford? Yes. And the chair votes yes. That completes part one and brings us to part two that the project meets the district site development standards under article 19. Can I get a motion on the first item? Remember Brush? Mr. Chair, I move the [1:02:20] Edwin Brush: board finds that based on Exhibits 2 and 22 the evidence satisfied section 165-135 of land development code regarding height limits floor area ratio impervious surface ratio and [1:02:38] Jonathan Boucher: buffer yards. Thank you. Can we have a second? I'll second. Member Hobson and a roll call vote. Member Brush? Yes. Member Hayes? Yes. Member Hobson? Yes. Number Huon? Yes. Number Jonas? Yes. For Woodford? Yes. Chair votes yes. That concludes part two. We're on to part three that the project meets the requirements for section 165-69 urban industry district UID. Can I get a motion on this one item? [1:03:04] Kenneth Huhn: Yeah, member Hayes. I move the board finds that based on the findings made in parts one and two of this document the project meets the requirements of excuse me section 165-96 166 c 1 for uses within the urban industry district UID. Thank you. Can I have a second? [1:03:27] Jonathan Boucher: A second, number Hobson. And roll call vote. Member Brush, yes. Remember Hayes, yes. Remember Hobson, yes. Every human, yes. For Jonas, yes. Member Woodford, yes. Chair votes yes. That brings, that completes part three and brings us to part four, that the project meets the requirements for section 165-114 land development approval standards. Can I have a motion for item one, member Brush? [1:03:53] Edwin Brush: Mr. Chair, I move the board finds that based on exhibits 2 and 17, the applicant satisfied and development code section 165-114b requirements that the proposed parking and loading layout are arranged in a reasonable and safe configuration in section 165 as well on the board sees requirements that all proposed access drives are reasonably [1:04:20] Jonathan Boucher: necessary and safe. Thank you and member here in with a second. So good, thank you. And a roll call vote. Member Brush, yes. Number Hayes, yes. Number Hobson, yes. Number Hune, yes. Remember Jonas, yes. Member Whitford, yes. The chair votes yes. Can I [1:04:36] Edwin Brush: have a motion on item two? Remember here, sure. I moved the board finds that based on exhibits 2, 11, and 17, the applicant satisfied land development code 165-114 d's requirement that the proposed development will not have unnecessary adverse effects on budding or downstream properties on protected or protected area resources such as wetlands, lakes, streams, or brooks, and that all downstream channels or municipal stormwater collection systems have adequate capacity to carry the flow without significant negative [1:05:12] Jonathan Boucher: effects. Thank you. Can I have a second? I'll second, number Hobson. The second, let's do a roll call vote. Member Brush, yes. Remember Hayes, yes. Perhaps, yes. June, yes. For Jonas, yes. For Whitford, yes. Chair votes yes. Can I have motion for item three, member [1:05:30] Edwin Brush: Brush? Mr. Chair, I move the board finds that based on exhibits two, five, and ten, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114 ease requirements that all outdoor lighting shall be designed, installed, and maintained to avoid unreasonable adverse effects from light pollution. Thank you. In a second, member Jonas. [1:05:55] Jonathan Boucher: A roll call vote. Member Brush, yes. Member Hayes, yes. Member Hobson, yes. For Jonas, yes. Number Whitford, yes. The chair votes yes. On to item four. May I have a motion? Number Jonas, chair, move the [1:06:11] Janet Sanborn Jonas: board finds that based on exhibits 2, 5, 14, and 15, the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114 f's requirements for landscaping. Thank you. And do we have a second? A second, number [1:06:24] Jonathan Boucher: Member Hobson with the second and a roll call vote. Member Brush yes, member Hayes yes, number Hobson yes, number Huynh yes, number Jonas yes, number Woodford yes, and the chair votes yes. And I have a motion on item five. Oh thank you Mr. Hobson, member Hobson, the chair of the board. [1:06:44] Greg Hobson: Fine, I move that the board finds that based on exhibit two the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114g's requirements for the building setbacks and location to avoid unreasonable adverse effects on adjacent properties or public rights of way. Thank you and [1:07:00] Jonathan Boucher: do we have a second? Oh member would, thank you member Woodford and a roll call vote. Member Brush yes, number Hayes yes, number Hobson yes, number Huynh yes, Jonas yes, number Woodford yes, chair votes yes. And for item six member Brush, Mr. Chair I move the board funds [1:07:21] Edwin Brush: that based on exhibits 2, 11 and 17 the applicant satisfied land development code section 165-114k's requirements regarding site plans needing approval under the provisions of 38 MRSA section 1420-d [1:07:45] Jonathan Boucher: as amended. Thank you and a second. I'll second the member, thank you and a roll call vote. Member Brush yes, number Hayes yes, for Hobson yes, remember Jonas yes, for Woodford yes, and the chair votes yes. That concludes part four and brings us to the decision. Do we have a, we have something [1:08:08] Edwin Brush: like the decision. Member Yun sure, I move that the board finds that the project meets the requirements for land development permit for a major site development and plan group development and therefore the board grants the land development permit for the proposed project. [1:08:24] Jonathan Boucher: Thank you in a second. Remember Brush and a roll call vote. Number Brush yes, remember Hayes yes, Robson yes, remember Jonas yes, for Woodford yes, and the chair votes yes. So this, so all items pass, and the application has been approved. So if you have any questions, you would be reaching out to the code enforcement office for any guidance you might need. Yeah, that is our second item. Let me get back to the agenda on what we have next for other business. That concludes our new business for other business. This. We have the 2022 comprehensive plan implementation update. That's our first item. Planning Officer Collette, would you like to give us an update? [1:09:17] Kenneth Huhn: Before I go to that, I did just want to give you an update on the arterials text change. I don't know if any of you followed the council process, but they had tabled that to their bed committee meeting took more public comment. And then it went back to Council the full Council and they did vote, along with planning board to reject that change, so I just wanted to give you an update on that so. But yes, the memo that I included in your packet just kind of goes over the background of the comprehensive plan some of you were with us through that process but. In 2024 we started a document that went through all those policies and talked about ways that we've been implementing those. And so we did update this recently to track additional things and then update items that we had included in the 2024 update. And so we just wanted to show that to you so you're aware and we will plan to keep that updated. And I think this summer, 2025, that'll be the two year mark. So we'll probably try and come back to you again with new updates. So are there any questions on that? [1:10:35] Janet Sanborn Jonas: We'd like to start with some questions member Jonas I just have a statement I think this is an outstanding way to keep track of things and I really appreciated reading through it was a lot it was a it was a long read yeah twice yeah but thank you for keeping this format it's easy to follow it's easy to track and I really also understand how many of the different activities that the city undergoes affects different parts of the plan and so that was also really clear so thank you okay awesome Glad to hear that yeah and just wanted to [1:11:09] Kenneth Huhn: reiterate I think I said it in the memo but we do list things in there multiple times because they often affect multiple policies so yeah anything [1:11:20] Jonathan Boucher: You'd want to call out in particular that's coming up there's trying to remember offhand well I mean the biggest one is going [1:11:30] Kenneth Huhn: To be the land development code update because that touches so many different actions so that's [1:11:36] Jonathan Boucher: The biggest thing any other questions or discussion well thank you other items for tonight were thoughts on a land development code update and land use planning you'd mentioned the findings or the outcome for the major arterial on Ohio and State Street any anything else [1:11:58] Kenneth Huhn: On that front to share I don't have anything other than the status any [1:12:06] Jonathan Boucher: Comments or discussion from any documents we need to be planning to sign [1:12:19] Kenneth Huhn: This evening, yes, the Odd Land Road plans that's planned for development, so there will be two copies and the decisions that you adopted, yes, any final items? [1:12:31] Jonathan Boucher: Before we adjourn, all right, well, thank you, that concludes the Planning Board meeting. The time is 8.11.