Augusta Planning Board Approves Major FedEx Expansion and Agricultural Storage Project

[6:03] Chair, Planning Board: Welcome to tonight's Augusta Planning Board meeting. Thank you all for silencing your cell phones. A reminder to everyone who will be speaking this evening to speak directly into the microphone so we can clearly hear your comments. Please address all questions and comments directly to the board members, and we'll attempt to have all of your concerns addressed. There are two items on our agenda this evening, and both are public hearings. The procedure for the public hearing will be as usual. Betsy and Eva will present the application. The applicant or representative will speak next. We will then take public testimony. If you choose to speak, please state your name and address. And a reminder to address your comments to the board. We'll first hear from those in favor of the proposal, then against, then neither foreign or against. Once all public testimony has been heard, the applicant will have final say. The public hearing will then be closed, and the Planning Board will deliberate. No further testimony will be heard unless specifically requested by a member of [6:58] Eva Nielsen, Assistant City Planner: the board. Betsy and Eva, we're ready to begin. Good evening, Planning Board members and members of the public. My name is Eva Nielsen, and I am the Assistant City Planner. The first item on the agenda tonight is a public hearing for a major development application of Rockwood Development Corp. to amend a previous minor development application to add truck parking spaces behind the existing building. This is Assessor's Map 91, Lots 2 and 2A, located at 162 Whitton Road in the Regional Business District, or CC. As the Planning Board has reviewed and conditionally approved Phase One on September 8th, 2026. i'll reference some of the applicable materials from that review and note any supplemental materials submitted for the phase two review tonight the applicant established right title or interest in the form of deeds for all parcels the applicant submitted an application for an amended major development review and supporting materials including an additional narrative a letter of authorization for a consultant representation stormwater analysis traffic report and amended site plan site plan Details a parking letter and fees for the application, public notice, and a butter notification. Staff completed again for phase two direct mailings to abutters within the required notification radius of 500 feet. We posted legal advertisements in the newspaper, we notified City Council, the Planning Board, and the Board of Zoning Appeals, and other interested parties, and we installed signage on the property again. So based on this review, Augusta City Planning staff we recommend that the Planning Board make a positive motion regarding the applicant standing to apply the completeness of the application and the sufficiency of public noticing to move forward with the substantive [8:49] Planning Board member: to have a review. Sure, I didn't see where the applicant had even signed the application. [9:17] Eva Nielsen, Assistant City Planner: Find the application? I have a pen if you need. Yeah, okay, thank you. [10:09] Planning Board member: Would you like to see it? I saw him sign it. The only reason I raised that is because there's certain certifications that he's actually signing to. Mm-hmm, like access to the property for City staff. I [10:34] Chair, Planning Board: move that we find the [10:36] Planning Board member: application is complete as the applicant has sufficient right, title, and interest to apply and has submitted all necessary materials. Staff has provided the butter notifications as required by the ordinance there. [10:49] Chair, Planning Board: A second. Okay, thank you. All in favor? Very good, thank you so [10:58] Eva Nielsen, Assistant City Planner: Planning staff, we have provided the applicant in the Planning Board with a Planning Staff review, Engineering Bureau review that covers both phases, and an amended draft findings of fact and conclusions of law document, which we also posted online, as I said. The phase one application was reviewed and conditionally approved on September 8th of 2026. The project is now before the board for review of phase two, which includes the truck stalls and the associated stormwater improvements. So with both phases, the project includes 47,300 square feet of ground disturbance and is classified as a major development, and all the site improvements are driven by company changes at FedEx, including some increased security measures. And because the overall project is a major development that crosses over into Hollowell, Section 304-03, Subsection D of the Land Use Ordinance, joint municipal review also applies, thus an authorized Hollowell representative, Granya Shah, is present tonight for phase two review. So now I'll go through the presentation for phase two. FIRST, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS seen some of these photos and aerial images, but I will breeze through those. The satellite image here includes the greater vicinity of the project. The proposed and existing use are services permitted in the CC district, and there have been some previous approvals. Subdivision plan in 1988, subsequently some changes to that plan in 1991, 1994, and 1997, and the existing building HAS BEEN ON THE PROPERTY SINCE 1987. HERE IS AN AREAL OF THE MAIN PROPERTIES INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSAL MAP. 91 LOTS 2 AND 2A, with minor grading on Lot 2B and Whitton Road and I-95 kind of run parallel north to south. YOU CAN SEE TO THE WEST OF this parcel is hollow wall where some of the project extends into going on to some photos this one was taken before the phase one review so this is an image of the front facade of the building facing north within that front parking area as we noted in the phase one review there may be a little bit of an increase in traffic due to more package handling and then this is a view from of the northern gated area with the driveway northern driveway access behind the vantage point here and then a little bit closer into that area there is some temporary fencing here just in front of the proposed truck stalls this is a view kind of from that northern abutting property facing SOUTH INTO THAT REAR AREA. AND THIS IS A VIEW FACING NORTHWEST FROM THE SOUTHERN END OF THAT PAVED AREA IN THE REAR. AT THE PHASE ONE REVIEW, THE PLANNING BOARD ADDED A CONDITION THAT THE ON-SITE DUMPSTERS SHALL BE EITHER RELOCATED BEHIND THE BUILDING OR SCREENED WITH DUMPSTER ENCLOSURES IF VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC WAY. So the applicant recently has shared some comments via email regarding this condition, stating that the intention is to retain the existing dumpsters in this location without any additional screening. He explained that there is limited visibility from the road and that it would be eventually located behind a gate. so the Planning Board can discuss the direction they want to take with the possible waiver we wrote options into the draft findings of fact and conclusions of law and then this is a view facing west from the southern driveway access and you can see where the proposed gate would be and maybe not so much here, but there is a small view of the dumpster from this angle. So to the left or to the south here would be the new 58 space parking lot for employees, which was approved in phase one. This is a view facing south within that front parking lot area. At the phase one review, the planning board granted a waiver for the driveways, allowing them to continue to be full access with a condition regarding additional signage to facilitate safe traffic flow also the planning board granted a waiver for a parking for parking allowing less parking than what the ordinance requires for the sites and the applicant submitted a landscaping plan to staff to screen THE NEW PARKING AREA FROM THE ROAD AND THIS DID MEET OUR STANDARDS FOR THAT AREA BUT HE'LL NEED to submit an additional plan or a portion of the plan for that area that would potentially screen the parking spaces in front of the building. And existing vegetation on their property can count toward that total. This is just for context facing south on Witten Road, and then from that same southern driveway access there facing north on Witten Road. And I included the amended site plan and elements in phase two are in those hashed areas and as we said it includes the six truck stalls and stormwater detention Basin that's closer to the Witten Road which together is about 8 300 square feet of ground disturbance and you can see the town line a little bit kind of moving diagonally through the Western or upper portion of the parking the truck stalls here and we do have other page of the pages of the site plan if there are questions I'll just mention too there was an approved condition regarding updating all existing non-compliant lights to full cut off fixtures and since then as included in the responses from the applicant the applicant expressed an intention to keep the non-compliant noncompliant fixtures on the west facade or the rear facade. Keep them as is because he stated that the full cutoff fixtures would be insufficient for the operations taking place behind the building. And they also own that abutting property in Hollowell. So any resulting glare would spill over into their property. The applicant stated that they're fine to update the other fixtures that might may be non-compliant, and we included a reference to section 305.11 sub a in the ordinance, which reads luminaries shall be full cutoff design unless otherwise required by state or federal law or allowed by the Planning Board, so the Planning Board can discuss this as well. Otherwise, there's not a lot of change from phase one, the stormwater report, and erosion and sedimentation control measures, and the site plan details. apply to both phases I'll just go over a couple of changes in the draft amended findings and the conditions of approval we included any items of discussion in italics for the board and once everything has been discussed and decisions have been made we'll keep what's remaining and make it regular text so we've covered the waiver is already granted for the driveways in the parking looking at the number three and number four listed findings due to the recent requests made by the applicant we have number three the planning board grants slash does not grant a waiver from the full caught off light fixture requirement for the rear or western facade of the building number four the planning board grant DOES NOT GRANT A WAIVER FROM THE REQUIRED DUMPSTER SCREENING MEASURES, INCLUDING RELOCATION OF THE DUMPSTER OR SCREENING WITH AN ENCLOSURE. And then we maintained the conditions that were approved in phase one, just listing an option under condition one to eliminate the requirement to update existing nonconforming lighting to full cutoff fixtures on that western facade, if that's what the Planning Board chooses. And for number two, if the Planning Board grants the waiver for the dumpsters, then And number two, requiring the screening or relocation of the dumpsters would potentially be eliminated. So all other conditions are maintained as they were approved in phase one. And that's all from staff, and we're happy to take any questions that the Planning Board may have. I... [20:20] Planning Board member: have a question. What I recall from phase one when we reviewed it last time was that there were possibly two permits that were required before work could start. [20:30] Eva Nielsen, Assistant City Planner: Start there was like a general construction permit, and usually I believe the applicants can speak to this. It's more of like an authorization; there's not necessarily like a letter that they would receive, but I thought... [20:47] Planning Board member: There was another one from the state that they said would take two weeks to 21 days to receive, and I was just wondering if I can't remember now what it was that was the general construction. That's the general one. You have received it, okay? I. have a question this is more about the process i guess but with the lights and not being compliant i understand from a health and safety perspective that makes sense but when the light is going on to another property that is currently owned by the same owner what if that property changes hands in the future do we have concerns about things like that [21:33] Eva Nielsen, Assistant City Planner: or yeah and that is that's hollow L property as well and with waivers I don't know if this helps but looking at the language looking at section 304 14 variances and waivers so a variation in the strict application of the subdivision regulations may be permitted when in the opinion of the planning board and city engineer topography soil conditions and or special project design features warrant such variation provided that the public convenience safety health and welfare will not be affected adversely and the general intent of this part four is not violated did you say that was pertaining to subdivisions this is all in the division right so it's part for subdivision and site plan review and site plan review okay I think thank you [22:34] Planning Board member: that was helpful I was just curious any [22:38] Chair, Planning Board: other questions for Eva okay you can hear from the applicant if there's anything additional you'd like to add you have a chance to if you have any questions for sure notice sure and does anyone have any questions okay thank you hand me by the word so does anyone have any questions for the applicant fine bob's [23:09] Planning Board member: got his hand go ahead bob in regards to your response from jeff or someone in regards to the surety bond just the city and that's between you and the code enforcement officer coming forth of those surety bond but i just want to make sure that the city is moving forward if this work is not completed in 2026 as of 2027 that surety bond would have to be put forward but then again i just want to make that factor because it's there for a reason and i leave that into the code enforcement office that's it i have one question is there a reason why there's no extra lighting being put in that rear area you've got six trucks back there and no extra lighting other than what's on the on the building which is required to be full cut off that's a [24:09] Applicant representative (Rockwood Development/FedEx): question for you regarding lighting is there you're not hearing is there any reason why you're not putting additional lighting out back here I guess in the opinion first of all we're not responsible sorry I am NOT responsible for the lighting so I'm kind of in the same class you are but from what he's saying is the lighting on the building would be adequate to handle [24:36] Planning Board member: that if those through to go through 618 wheelers to the last truck in the dark that's their calls is the club is the client who's installing the lighting actually FedEx not the owner of the property correct it's it's a yes FedEx [24:55] Applicant representative (Rockwood Development/FedEx): Is the one that's authorizing the lighting, correct? They're the one that's... [24:58] Planning Board member: And have they been made aware of what the city's requirements are? [Applicant representative (Rockwood Development/FedEx): Yes, correct.] And they said they don't want to? That's their response? [25:08] Applicant representative (Rockwood Development/FedEx): I don't know. Has FedEx said that they don't want to provide the lighting that's required? Personally, I'm not familiar with the standards. [25:18] Planning Board member: So how did we arrive at a decision not to add any lighting back there if FedEx hasn't said anything about it and he just says he doesn't want to? I... [25:32] Applicant representative (Rockwood Development/FedEx): Don't know. I guess I'm not sure if the lighting is adequate. I haven't read the lighting. I'm not familiar with the ordinance at all, so I'm not sure what level of lighting is required for that. Obviously, I think you're implying that you'd want lighting where the tractors themselves, the trucks, would need to be lit. But I don't think it necessarily needs to have lighting at the back end of the trucks. I'm not sure if that's helpful or not. [25:57] Planning Board member: Well, it seems to me that what we're asking is that you meet the ordinance. And if that means you need one more light in a better place rather than violating the ordinance by leaving the lights as they are, then it seems to me that's a reasonable ask in... Reference to your want to remain having the dumpsters located not moved to stay where they are. Is that my understanding? That's what he's asked. You're asking that the dumpsters remain there and not be moved and not be enclosed, right? Correct. Okay, but you can't see them from the street. It's been changed from the shot and everything else. [26:41] Applicant representative (Rockwood Development/FedEx): Right, you can. There are about 250, 260 feet from the street. There will be a chain link fence which will give some, you know, as much level as a chain link fence gives. They'll be visible. They'll be... [26:52] Planning Board member: Visible, right? And it's an it's a requirement. Our ordinances, everyone else meets it. Yeah, okay, acted... On it already. We're... Act again tonight on the request, okay? And then the other piece is the landscaping piece too. One of the underlying rules of our ordinance about landscaping is that the planting must be maintained. And if plantings are lost by being planted this fall, the requirement is that they will be replanted next spring. And we're running right into the end of the series, the season, right? It makes more sense to wait and put up the surety. Did... [27:47] Chair, Planning Board: You want to take a minute and convey any message? I know he asked you a question. Yeah, he's having trouble hearing. That's okay. I want to give space for right. Thank you. Before we move on, so just for me to, I guess, make... [28:01] Applicant representative (Rockwood Development/FedEx): Sure I understand what you're saying. You're concerned about... she's concerned about anything you do for plantings not lasting through the winter and then therefore having to plant in the springtime again. Or and just questioning whether or not you should just wait until the springtime and hold your surety until then to make sure that everything is covered. It's... [28:25] Chair, Planning Board: Not our preference to plant this fall, okay? Rather wait until the spring, okay? That's fine, but... [28:33] Planning Board member: It does mean then you have to give the city a surety to make sure that those will be planted... [28:38] Applicant representative (Rockwood Development/FedEx): In the spring. She's just saying if you are going to wait, then you need to make sure that you give the city surety to cover that in the spring. Willing... [28:49] Chair, Planning Board: To do that either, okay? I think... [28:54] Applicant representative (Rockwood Development/FedEx): Probably going to put the plants in this fall and if they don't grow, they'll be under their... [28:59] Chair, Planning Board: guarantee anyways anyone have any further questions okay we'll open it up to the public hearing portion to see if anybody's here to speak about this public hearing thank you 're welcome you'll have the last word is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak for the project or in favor of the project all right is there anybody who would like to speak against is there anybody who would like to speak neither for nor against sure thank you good I'm right here where the applicant was Sitting is fine. It's just gonna ask if she... hello... [30:01] Eva Nielsen, Assistant City Planner: my name is Grainne Shaw I am employed by Katie cog but we are contracted with the city of Hallowell to offer planning services I presented this project to the Planning Board last week we discussed it we don't see any major concerns on behalf of Hollowell this fits within the zoning that this trickles over to over to which is the business B district parking lots are an incidental use to what that is zoned as and we don't have any site plan review [30:30] Planning Board member: For that type of project, so thank you, thank you for sharing us, thank you for coming to is [30:44] Chair, Planning Board: there anybody else who'd like to speak, neither for nor against? Okay, that closes the public hearing portion. Did you have anything else? You'd like to add? Okay, all right, the Planning Board will deliberate. [31:03] Applicant representative (Rockwood Development/FedEx): Obviously, you have some concerns with the plantings and the lighting and so forth, and whatever you feel like you need to do as far as conditions to make to make sure you're comfortable with the fact that lighting and plantings will be installed according to your ordinances certainly would be reasonable, okay, thank you all. [31:29] Chair, Planning Board: Right, Bob, would you [31:33] Planning Board member: like to start? Certainly, I'm for the project. I think it needs to be done. I think it's a betterment for both Augusta and Howell to see this project approved. I am against waiving any requests on the two waivers in regards to the full cutoff light. I think we're not going to grant that waiver to do with it, and we're still going to require the dumpster screening measures to be included in that. And I think also that it needs to be shown that if the plants don't survive for 2026 because that's his choice to put them in now, then a bond needs to be effective January 1 to meet the requirement until they're replaced. So, Kathy, I agree with Bob. I don't think it's sufficient to simply say, "I don't want to do something" when the ordinances require it, especially since we've been down this road once with phase one and now we're in phase two, and they're telling us now that they don't want to do what we required the first time around. I just think that's inexcusable for an applicant. Thank you, Kathy. Kevin, yeah. I'm also not in favor of granting the waivers. I know they said that for the lighting, it's they need the lighting as it is for their purposes, but I'm just not seeing how they can do this without conforming to our ordinances, okay, thank you, Maddie. I agree with those who have spoken. Before me, I am a little bit less concerned about the dumpster since it is far away, but it should comply with our ordinance. As for the lighting, I agree that it should be brought up to our code, and if that means that they need to add extra lighting, that needs to [33:43] Chair, Planning Board: happen. Thank you. I'm [33:50] Planning Board member: I guess in agreement with everybody else. I think the lighting definitely needs to be addressed in that back corner. Trying to back a truck in there, I think it's gonna be real dark. The dumpsters, it's city, the ordinance, it needs to be screened, but [34:11] Chair, Planning Board: other than that, and for the project, okay, thanks, Allison. [34:15] Planning Board member: Yeah, I'm for the project as well, but against the waivers like everyone else. I think we do need to [34:20] Chair, Planning Board: ask that they meet the ordinance. All right, any further discussion? It seems like everybody had [34:26] Planning Board member: I do have a question on the suggested conditions where it talks about the applicants on submitting a landscaping plan. When does that have to be submitted by? Is there a drop-dead date? Since this is planting season, I [34:53] Eva Nielsen, Assistant City Planner: guess we didn't add any sort of deadline. If you'd like to [34:59] Planning Board member: it needs to go in before they do the planning to get to your approval, right? So [35:09] Betsy Poolen, City Planner: let's say like a requirement to have a landscape plan submitted prior to the building permit would be typical. But if you wanted the plantings done in a certain time frame, I guess you could have that written into the approval. Otherwise, usually there's two years to start a project and five years to complete. [35:33] Planning Board member: So you're suggesting prior to the issuance of a building permit? [35:36] Betsy Poolen, City Planner: Just to have a plan, a design. And [35:44] Planning Board member: what about the lighting plan? Do you want to see a lighting plan in that same time period? [35:50] Eva Nielsen, Assistant City Planner: I suppose that's how it was written where it says the following conditions shall be met prior to issuance of a permit from the Code Enforcement Bureau. But if there's a different timeline that you all would like to see, then we can add that in. [36:07] Planning Board member: I think that's probably sufficient for me anyways. IS THERE ANY CONCERNS SINCE FED EX IS DOING THE LIGHTING AND IT'S NOT THE ACTUAL APPLICANT? NO. It's they don't have to provide what's said right, and he volunteered that they were going to do that. They would give them make sure they saw the city ordinances. So I think that we can safely assume, hopefully, that they do so. I [36:36] Chair, Planning Board: just need a motion. Thanks. [36:55] Planning Board member: bob pursuant to the provisions of the city of augusta land use ordinance the city of augusta planning board has considered the application of rockwood development corporation care of jeffrey schustak including supportive data staff reviews comments public hearing testimony related materials contained in the record the pointing board makes the following findings of facts i was looking for a shorter description but there is one the project description is the applicant proposes to expand and Improve the existing Federal Express, FedEx parking area in response to the consolidation of Federal Express and FedEx Ground operations and Transportation Security Administration TSA security requirements related to air transport. Amended major development review includes both phases of the project. Phase one, which included approximately 38,950 square feet of ground disturbance for a new parking lot with 58 employee spaces and associated parking and stormwater provisions, was approved by the Planning Board on September 8, 2026, along with requested waivers for parking in the two full-access driveways. Phase 2, which includes approximately 8,350 square feet of additional ground disturbance for six semi-truck spaces located at the rear of the building within the gated area and associated stormwater improvements, is now included in this review. the waivers for the dumpster screening measures and the full cutoff lighting for the rear vacate has been asked for the applicant is wrote rockwood development corporations care of jeffrey's shoe stack the owner is kind of the county register of deeds book 341 pages 314 14-316, Plots 2 and 2A, End Book 7903, Pages 173-174, Lot 2B, The Owner, Rockwood Development Corporation, Carrier Jeffrey Susick, Plots 2 and 2A, Ritten Road, LLC, Carrier Jeffrey Susick, Lot 20B, Location 162, Ritten Road, Zoning is Regional Business, CC, Map 91, Lodge 2, 2A, and 2B. Existing land use is permitted. The permitted land use is permitted. Acreage is 4.46 acres per the assessor's records. Previous permitting was appointed. I do not need that. In view of the above actions in the application, supporting documentation, and the record, the Planning Board makes the following conclusions of the law. Therefore, the planning board hereby approves the application of Rockwood Development Corporation operation care of Jeffrey Zustak is described in the findings of facts and conclusion law above with the following additional findings. The planning board grants a waiver to allow two-way access of both driveways per the city engineer's recommendation. The planning board grants a waiver to reduce the required parking from 97 spaces to 72 spaces per the city engineer's recommendation. The planning board does not grant a waiver from the cutoff light fixture requirement for the rear rest and fixate of the building. Number four, the planning board does not grant a waiver from the required dumpster screening measures, including relocation of the dumpsters and screening within the enclosures. The following conditions shall be met prior to issuance of a permit from the Code of Enforcement Bureau in order to satisfy land use ordinance criteria and planning board requirements. Number one, the applicant shall submit a lighting plan to the planning staff identifying the proposed fixture types and locations and shall upgrade all existing non-conforming lighting to full cut-off fixtures, Section 300-603E6D and 300-404B21. 2. The applicant shall either relocate the existing dumpsters behind the building so they are not visible from the public way, or install a dumpster enclosure to screen the dumpsters on Winton Road, Section 300-603E1A6 and Section 300-603E6E. 3. The applicant shall coordinate with the Augusta Fire Department and install a lockbox for the emergency access to the proposed gated area in accordance with the Fire Department standards, Section 300-603-E3C. 4. The applicant shall coordinate with the City Engineer to implement appropriate signage and other traffic control measures to promote safe on-site circulation, Section 300-603-EB. b the applicant must submit a landscaping plan to the planning staff that meets buffy yard a requirements section 300-603 e6e prior to the building permit from the city of a code enforcement officer on that and number six the security for the landscaping will be required january 1 if the planning has not been put in put in prior to that date the project shall commence within two years of this approval and shall be substantially completed within five years of the date of the planning board decision unless a permit extension has been granted by the board. Deviations from this approval is subject to Code Enforcement action and potential legal proceedings for Section 300-601 of the Land Use Ordinance, second. [43:07] Chair, Planning Board: Thank you, Captain. Any further discussion? All in favor? Thank you, thank. [43:17] Planning Board member: You gentlemen, okay. [44:02] Betsy Poolen, City Planner: My name is Betsy Poolen and I'm the city planner. And the second item and final item on the agenda tonight is a public hearing. It's a minor development and conditional use. It's the application of Kelly and Sherry Rogers to construct a storage garage for agricultural cultural land use. This is Assessor's Map 5, lot 185A and 185E, located at 345 Mount Vernon Road in the Rural River District, RR. So this, the applicant has provided an application for this, which was posted online as well, and as staff, we reviewed the application and determined that what they submitted was complete, so we provided public noticing to obviously to the Planning Board to the Board of Zoning Appeals and City Council and put actually three legal ads in the paper for this and I did mailings to property owners within a thousand feet of the property so staff we feel the board will need to make a motion to determine that the application is complete and the noticing was completed prior to doing a substantive review of the application I [45:24] Planning Board member: Don't see where we have anything on financial capacity of the applicant. In fact, their application says it's not applicable. So. [45:34] Betsy Poolen, City Planner: They have already, they own the land. For it? Would you like to have the applicant say something to you? Sure. I think that would be fine. Okay. [45:59] Kelly Rogers, Applicant: Could you give your name, sir? I'm sorry, Kelly Rogers. Sorry, this was not, I felt that this wasn't filing for a building permit. This was his own change. So there was really no financial obligation at this point in time. Although at some point in time, which I am going to apply for a building permit or is in process, I didn't feel there's any need for this. The financial obligation is not an issue. Can. [46:34] Planning Board member: you give us something a little bit more than that i mean it's i know this is a small project that's part of the application process and so in my mind we've been focusing more on this because people tend to kind of bypass pass, explain to us how they're going to finance it. I mean, are you going to finance it? Do you have... I'm not financing it, no. So you're going to pay it out, right? Okay. Thank you. That's all I needed. Oh, no. Do you want me to get out of here or are you going to stare at me? [47:05] Betsy Poolen, City Planner: Thank you. If you want. It's fine. [47:11] Planning Board member: On that basis, I can make a motion if you'd like. [47:16] Chair, Planning Board: Sure. Sure. Well, was Betsy, were you done here? Yes. Okay. [47:21] Planning Board member: I move that we find the application complete, that the owner has established right title and interest and the ability to implement this project, that the staff have issued the appropriate notices to the public and all the fees have been paid and, therefore, the board should find that the application is complete. Second. All in favor? [47:45] Betsy Poolen, City Planner: Very good. All right, so as this is sort of, as you've sort of gathered a little bit of a non-traditional application for what the Planning Board would typically review, this is an agricultural land use out there. The applicants say they have a tree farm, and which you'll see in the photos, Christmas trees. So this is a storage building that would go on that property. As part of the Planning Board review, we knew it was a conditional use from the start, but then we were looking at the size of the building, and it triggers minor development review so it's another is this that it doesn't quite it fits weirdly into the planning board it's the one half a dozen of the other it's sort of a yes we've been working with the applicant to get through the process but anyway so as I said this is a minor development and conditional use review the applicant Kim proposes 1200 square foot single story storage building on the property to support tree farm operations. The building would house equipment, machinery and tools and other materials used for the cultivation and continued maintenance of the farm. Expansion of the existing gravel driveways proposed adjacent to the proposed building and electric lighting, water and or septic system may be installed in the future. So I say the property owners own this lot. It's in the rural river district and the Resource Protection Shoreland Overlay District. So up here on the screen I have an image that shows kind of where the property is located. So this right here is Mount Vernon Road. This is Manchester over here. So a lot of there's a lot of gravel pits kind of out in this area of the city. If you keep driving in here you'll hit Layton Road in the city so the Veterans Cemetery is out this direction too, but this out here in yellow is the outline of the property. Our aerial photo does not line up super great with what's out there on the site, so really you know this line here, you can see where the edge of the property is. Really the line should be shifted a little bit more. They also own, there's a lot in here that they own as well. Right here is a Spring Brook that comes through the property, and it's a little hard to see on here, but I have turned on some hatching for the shoreland overlay district, so there's some a purple overlay in here which is the resource protection district, which is that 250 feet from Spring Brook, so that goes into the property. But, as I noted in the staff review, a lot of the areas that are within that 250 feet are either wetland or steep slopes, and the proposal is up kind of in this area, which is fully outside that resource protection, so it is on the property but the proposal is not within that area this photo of the site also shows the lot and some of the overlays that come into the review process here so the purple here is the shoreland overlay I have turned on some of the contours so these are two-foot contours so there's a sort of a high point in the middle of it which you'll see in the photos then it drops off down to the brook and it drops off down to the road so it's sort of a high area here this these are the brooks so that's spring Brook right here. The green is a wetland area, and there's also a 100-year flood area that's in along the stream. So, if you look at the elevations of where the building is proposed versus the elevation of where that 100-year flood is down here, there's about a 50-foot difference in elevation, so it's definitely well above the flood zone. Here's some pictures out at the property, so here I am looking north on Mount Vernon Road, and you're gonna pan over towards the west, so you get some context. There's some gravel pits that are across the way, and you can see it's a lot of more kind of rural agricultural trees, fields, that sort of thing. So I've got the road behind me, looking up the driveway here, so an applicant purchased the property. This driveway was already in place going up the hill. There also had been some earthwork that had already happened out on the property, so there's a mention of erosion in the in the staff review, and a lot of that was the prior owner of the property. And we say erosion. You can see the rills of where the water's been flowing, but walking on it, 's just hard-packed. So it's not actively causing an environmental concern, but it is something that would need to be remedied and also, during construction, have, obviously, erosion and sedimentation control. You can see in here, I'm looking more sort of towards the northeast. You can see those little tiny Christmas trees out here. And they go up over there, and so this is sort of at the top of the driveway, so there's some gravel that sort of extends over this way, and about here's where the building would be. This is panning over more towards the West, so on the other side of Mount Vernon Road is down here and down the driveway, and then kind of back over, you know, down the stream is sort of way down at the bottom of that hill there. So this is the area where the building would be. So there's some trees over here and over here. There they are. And then down the hill towards Springbrook there. And this is Springbrook. You can see it's very, it's not a very open wide brook in this area. It's pretty, you can see the water not very well in here, but it's sort of like a shrub scrub kind of environment. This is a site plan for the sorry, the subdivision plan from 2016 of the Springbrook Estate. So it's this lot here in that lot right there. And this is a site plan that shows where the building will be located. So this orange here, and I said the applicant also owns this property here and the aerial is sort of skewed a little so they aren't it looks maybe closer to the property line than it is but it does comply with the setbacks again and then this is some elevations of what the building would look like so as i said a single story there's three sort of overhead garage doors and a person door window the applicant asked if there might be some flexibility if you know they want to move the window or that door you know in there and it didn't seem like that would be a concern but I did write that into the review and the footprint so as I said they're going through all the standards in here there weren't I didn't really see anything in particular that would be triggered for the resource protection the erosion we mentioned that on the site there were some waivers requested from the plan submission requirements to have an engineer and surveyors name address signature and seal on the plans as i said i showed you a subdivision plan for springbrook estate subdivision so that clearly marked where all the corners of the property are and had of the contours on it and wetlands though So it seemed like that was a reasonable waiver to grant. And there wasn't an engineer retained for the site plan creation due to the nature of this type of project, you know, being really just a building that's being put out there. So, and as I said, it triggered minor development because the building is over 1,000 square feet. So it didn't trigger minor development standard reviews due to the amount of site disturbance. One other thing that I noted is that it is over a significant aquifer, and that aquifer is one that feeds, kind of goes along Bond Brook, and there's a wellhead protection area for the Greater Augusta Utility District that's farther down the stream. So the utility district asked what sort of provisions the applicant had for spills, you know, any kind of protection for that groundwater. So they provided some information to address that, you know, that obviously that the spills would be cleaned up and they have plans for how to manage that. Obviously, having a building on site would help with that. So they when the equipment stored in the in a building that has a concrete floor would help. There might be some water might be brought to the well. A well might be drilled at some point in the future. Power might be brought up to the building if there was power. There might be some lighting. And there could be a possibility of having a subsurface like a septic field installed out there. So the applicant just it would be to acknowledge that those things would happen and as long as those were meeting the standards of code enforcement that the Planning Board would be amenable to those changes to the site plan in the future. I [Chair: think that's] it. We have Wayne Benno from engineering, but they had no concerns. And so as I said, I have the waivers listed in here that I already mentioned. I have four conditions on the approval, and these conditions I wrote shall be met during and post construction, so it's a little different than the regular language like prior to issuance of a building permit, which is erosion sedimentation control measures shall be utilized. Spills of materials hazardous to groundwater in the aquifer, including oils, fuels, and other substances shall be prevented and cleaned up promptly. Number three, future installment of electric service, well, septic, indoor site lighting shall be in compliance with applicable local and state requirements. In number four, location of doors and windows on the building are permitted to shift [58:16] Chair, Planning Board: locations. That's all I have. Does anyone have any questions for Betsy? I'm [58:24] Planning Board member: just looking at the language that you recommend that the conditions be met during and post construct during and post construction that you're implying would be applicable to all four conditions right okay yeah because they didn't really seem to [58:47] Betsy Poolen, City Planner: Usually we say prior to issuance of a building permit, but all these are things that would sort of apply no matter like there's no time frame like we want them to always be. It makes sense. [58:58] Chair, Planning Board: To any other questions for Betsy? All right, would you like to speak for your project or add anything that Betsy may not have added? Sure. First of all, I want to say thank you to the crew downstairs. [59:12] Kelly Rogers, Applicant: They've helped me out immensely when my wife and I started this little project. You know, we thought we're going to be putting up a little building and on our way, and oh boy, did we turn into something a little bit different. This turned into way bigger animal than what we thought, however, in the end I think this is going to work out better for us by the agricultural use so on and so forth, and again I think it's going to be very useful, and you guys have been great so. [59:43] Planning Board member: that's all i've got all right thank you thank you all right i do have a question for him and i will be showing my unfamiliarity with the whole thing of tree growth but you don't need water there to [59:58] Kelly Rogers, Applicant: water these trees so there is water there anyways because the brook is there right so if i needed to pull some out of there i certainly could use that the there is a test well also on the property that the city punched years ago when they were doing all the surface testing and that might be a use as well but this there's plenty of water there without going crazy thank you no thank you [1:00:24] Chair, Planning Board: all right we don't have anybody in the audience is that okay to say or for formality should i be going through the process yes maybe your wife wants to speak in favor or against it i'm not sure yeah a little wait for that all righty so there is sincerely nobody here in the audience so i suppose i would close the public hearing portion of this and now the planning board will deliberate and we promise to ask questions if we have any all right nate i'm [1:01:01] Planning Board member: good with the project i don't see any issues allison no problem maddie good to go for me kevin i don't see any reason why we can't move forward with this kath i just have one more question has to do with somebody referred to this as a re rezoning oh yeah he did and it's not yeah it's not no well that okay that's good i'm good [1:01:29] Chair, Planning Board: And Bob, I'm good for the project. All right, all we need is a motion. You'll be happy to make a motion. [1:01:36] Planning Board member: thank you in the matter of storage building for the rogers tree farm pursuant to the provisions Visions of the City of Augusta Land Use Ordinance. The City of Augusta Planning Board has considered the application of Kelly and Sherry Rogers, including supportive data, staff review comments, and related materials contained in the record. The Planning Board makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The request is for a minor development and conditional use review as per 300-405 and 300-603.E. The applicant proposes a 1,200-square-foot single-story storage building on the property to support tree farm operations. The building would house equipment, machinery, tools, and other materials used for the cultivation and continued maintenance of the farm. Expansion of the existing gravel driveway next to the building is proposed. Electricity, lighting, water, and or aseptic system may be installed at a later time. The applicants are Kelly and Shari Rogers. The project is located at 345 Mount Vernon Road in the Rural River District, RR, and the Resource Protection Shoreland Overlay District, RP, and can be found on Tax Map 5, Lot 185A and 185E. There is currently no specific land use on the property. The proposed land use is agriculture, which is a conditional use. use. Based on the information before the Planning Board, including both the findings of fact and the conclusions of law detailed in the staff review, applicant submittals and testimony and all other related materials contained in the record, I move to approve this application with these additional findings. Number 1. A waiver is required for a survey or stamp on the plan submission. The lots are part of Springbrook Estates subdivision recorded in Plan Book 2016, page 45, which was created by a surveyor in 2016, and corner pins are set on the site. Staff support granting the waiver. The Planning Board grants the waiver as well. Two, a waiver is required for engineering stamped plans. The site disturbance is below the requirement, which would trigger development review. View, therefore, the city engineer supports granting the waiver. The planning board grants the waiver. The following conditions shall be met during and post construction in order to satisfy land use ordinance criteria and planning board requirements: one, erosion and sedimentation control measures shall be utilized; section 300-404.b4, spills of materials hazardous to groundwater and the aquifer, including oils, fuels, and other substances, shall be prevented and cleaned up promptly; section 300-404.b1 and 300-603.e5a, future installation of electric service, well, septic, and/or site lighting shall be in compliance with applicable local and state requirements. Four locations of doors and windows on the building are permitted to shift locations. The project shall commence within two years of this approval and shall be substantially completed within five years of the date of the Planning Board decision, unless a permit extension has been granted by the Board. Deviation from this approval is subject to code enforcement action and potential leading proceedings per Section, excuse me, legal proceedings per Section 300-601 of the Land Use Ordinance. [1:05:12] Chair, Planning Board: Second, okay, any further discussion? All in favor? Very good. Thank you. Good luck. [Planning Board member: Hard part's over.] All right, the minutes. Wow, nicely done, Eva. A plus. The first right? Are you feeling okay? I've been better. [1:05:53] Planning Board member: Oh, sorry. Page two of five where Harold Randy Butler speaks. No, they employees will have a card system or other method. It should be the employees. All right, there, yeah, all right, Bob. [1:06:18] Chair, Planning Board: I move that we approve the amended minutes per second. Very good. All in favor. Thank you. I know, I'll fill in. Okay, thank you, Nate. Welcome to adjourn. No, I want to ask a question first. [1:06:36] Planning Board member: Oh, okay, yeah. How is the search going for a ninth member for the board? I haven't heard any. [1:06:44] Chair, Planning Board: updates likewise I've heard it's been a little quiet yeah so I'm not sure if they're gonna look to do another pusher post something on their mmm media page [1:06:57] Betsy Poolen, City Planner: To say our website is gonna be updated soon, so maybe it can be launched with that refresh. Yeah, something like that. And also, next, not next week, the week after our quarterly reports are due, so that comes up in the city council. Okay, when they review it, so. [1:07:15] Planning Board member: I'll try it. Yeah, okay. I do know that the mayor does. He does go out looking for people. [1:07:23] Betsy Poolen, City Planner: Yeah, on that stuff, so I vouch for the mayor on that. Yeah, thank you. Also, just other, there's no October. Was it gonna be 13th meeting? Okay, so in October meetings, I don't think there's probably gonna be any October meetings really. Yeah, all right, so thank you. Happy Halloween. Yeah, it's because it would have been October 13th and the 27th. I'm not here the 27th, okay, but nobody applied for the 13th, okay, so yeah. [1:07:58] Chair, Planning Board: That's very rare, huh? So where were you, Nate? What's your turn? Any second? Yeah. All right. Thanks, Maddie. All in favor? Very good. Thanks. Thank you, guys.