Planning Board - Regular Meeting

We're live. Okay. I will call to order the city of Ellsworth planning board meeting for January 7th, 2026. Board introductions. Lisa Laroo, member. John Deo, chair. Rick Lyles, assistant chair, vice chair. My K board member. Matt UT. Am I alternate tonight or my voting? No, you're the Okay. Can you handle the pressure? I I think so. Okay. Seeing as you're the uh expert in one of these topics. Yeah, it's all yours. It was fun watching the replay. Shouting at my phone. No, he's okay. I swear. And staff introduction. Uh Daniel G, uh urban planning and development director.

Britney Merrill, city planner, Thomas Canon, fire inspector. Item number two, adoption of minutes from the December 3rd, 2025 regular meeting. Any additions, deletions, comments from the board? Not move that we approve the minutes from the December 3rd meeting. Second. All in favor? I guess just one question on other minutes going forward. We're basically just keeping up with the past meeting or are we still going to go as you shake your head? Eventually those will get done and posted. Oh, what's that? Oh, well eventually the previous minutes that have not been Yeah. They will get done.

So you must have what? Six or eight months of I got a list. It's on my list. List of new list. It stares at me every week. Oh, good. Please do these. So you become you figured out how to ignore the list that night. Just hide it under other lists. Um we we are hoping to um bring on an assistant assessor that will also help with administrative roles within planning and code. That's what we're hoping, but I have no idea the timeline for that. So, okay. Yeah. But thank you for continuing to ask. Just so you know, we care. Thank you.

Item number three, election of officers. Nominate John Deleo for all offices. Second. A little more specific. You got a second? Yeah. For chairperson. Okay. you check. I'll second. Okay. Any other nominations? Okay. All in favor? I'll vote for myself. Okay. Okay. So, I'll nominate Rick Claus for vice chair. Second. Any competition? All in favor? And nominate Mike Haney for secretary.

Let's second that. Are you guys accepting these nominations? Sure. Okay, I accept. Thank you. Do I have to say that? Yes, fairly. All in favor?

Okay. Item number four, final plan review of a major use site development entitled Kingsland Storage Center for applicant owner Bulmar Commercial Ellsworth LLC. The proposal to construct a 29,200 ft² self-s storage building. The subject property is approximately 1.9 acre lot located at Kingsland Crossing Tax Map 16, lot eight in the commercial zoning district. Someone here representing the applicant. Rich Trot with Bark Commercial. And can you hear us, Jim? I think Jim's with us.

Yes, I I can. Jim Kaiser, uh, consulting with Chick. Okay. Uh, your audio is a little spotty. Your video is a little spotty, too. But we'll try to manage. Okay. I apologize for that. Oh, that's a Is it just I can turn it up. JP audio maybe. Oh, it's loud enough. It just kind of cuts in and out. Uh, do you want to give us a a preview of the plan, Jim? and Rich was going to do that since he's there and uh is able to uh probably communicate a little more directly with you.

Okay, sounds good, Rick.

All right, thanks for having us again tonight. Um there's some minor uh revisions to the plan um in relation to the board's questions on storm water more specifically. I think we covered uh most of the items. Of course, we can recover them tonight as well, but uh essentially just uh similar to what we've done in the past at the 1A site and um uh the current three buildings on Kingsland aesthetically uh in terms of size is a little different uh being one bigger building, but in terms of the the aesthetics and and uh similar structure, etc. is is all the same. Um Jim's provided a nice sight plan here uh adjacent to our existing buildings um that accommodates for uh two different main entries. Uh and then a small office with a bathroom as well. Um so um I think we've crossed all the tees and dotted all the eyes, but happy to field any questions in regards to any of the aspects of the plan here.

Okay. Um are there any questions other than storm water? I mean, what Jim and Matt has done for to get get us up to speed on the storm water from the questions we had last time, I'm all set, but I I have some other questions, but I don't have any issues with the storm water, but just to kind of educate me and and the board on this particular area because I think there's going to be more development in this area. So, I'm just trying to get a better understanding of the storm order. I mean, this is kind of different storm water than other projects we've had because those projects are pretty much a storm water just on a specific lot instead of a half mile stretch of road. So,

and does anybody have any questions on anything other than storm water? Okay, Matt, and you review Jim. I no issues. I understood what what they're doing. I mean, it's basically master plan for for the drainage there. He's not exceeding uh the impervious amount that was planned for. Um so he's handling the the water quality side of things. Um and then the quantity is already accounted for. So Okay. As long as he gets his permit.

I I guess Jim, uh some of the questions I have is when Kingsman crossing was built, they had a stormwater plant, correct? Okay. U now does does that stormwater plan cover all the lots on Kingsland Crossing from Beachland all the way down to to Lowe's or to Jackson Lab? Does it cover the whole road? Um, off the top of my head, I can't say for sure. The watershed uh drainage area does cover the entire road and uh lots along Route Three and further down Kingsland Cross. That's not to say those lots are included for additional development areas. They're just included because they're they will drain to the pond that was proposed. Uh the lots that were included for um development potential were the ones that were included in the original subdivision for that property out there, which includes um this W Darlings. I believe it was Dunkin Donuts uh uh and Jackson Lab which was originally developed under Lowe's. Uh so those lots were covered and if I think if the board recalls when we did the adjacent lot we actually did uh rate

control also on that because at the time uh the city did not uh think that was included in the watershed. So we did do rate control on that. uh in the assist of uh on this lot when we got the actual storm water calculations um from the city files. Uh we understood that this lot phase two uh that's before you tonight was included in that pond development and thus had rate taken care of. Not so much quality but rate taken care of. So I believe that all the subdivision lots have now been developed. So, I don't believe you'd see any more complexity like uh we've kind of had to go through on this particular uh site development plan.

Okay. J I mean, a couple of years ago, John Bates built his motel uh apartment building and if I remember correctly, and I think it was in your calculations, that piece of property is tied in to the storm water system for Kingsland Crossing. Is that correct?

That is correct. has the uh development existed prior to him doing his major project. And then if I if I understand from what I've seen in the files on that project, they took care of storm water quality and runoff rates as part of their approval process with the the city. Uh, and I don't know offhand if they got or were required to get a D permit also on that, but I I believe when you approve his development, it was for both rate runoff and uh quality runoff,

but as you said in in in the paperwork and and you just mentioned that that at this point the the detention ponds, the storm water system is maxed out for what's there now for any future future developments in that area. I believe that's the case is yes,

but I I and I just kind of want this is more kind of directed towards staff is that you know just to the south of of John Bates property. I mean, you you have Curtis Shoe, which a small piece of property, but then after that, then you have two pieces of property owned by a couple uh the old Sunrise Home in Hearth and the Restaurant Barn, which are probably bigger more acreage than than John Bates building. And so, you know, just thinking if if they sell those lots and something else gets developed, you know, does that end up going into the storm water system? And by the same token, I think uh to the uh north of Dunkin Donuts, you have a vacant lot uh where Hilltop House Restaurant used to be. And then just to the west of that, I think there's there's a lot that again is owned by a that hilltop, former Hilltop lot is owned by a Ellsworth uh developer and I believe he bought the final lot in the King subdivision that's uh oh like oh 1.8 acres. It's right on the corner of Kingsland Crossing. So, you know, there's like 4.5 acres of prime developable property right on top of the hill next to Dunkin Donuts. And it would seem like if that got developed, that would stronger would flow in the same direction as the the detention ponds that are next to low next to Jackson Land. So, but at this point from understanding everything that the system is maxed out, I mean, can those detention ponds be enlarged to accommodate future growth? Jim,

uh they could it would have to go through a agreement. There's basically easements that cover the utilization of of that those two ponds for storm water purposes. Um, when I say that's maxed out, what I I guess I'm explaining that in that it's maxed out so that the development that was on the land that was under the subdivision approval that prop those properties have been maxed out. All those other properties would then uh unless they do something, they would have to take care of their storm water quality and run out of uh rate control individually on their own site uh to comply with both uh the city's ordinances and uh um D if that would be a applicable to the size of their development. So I mean right now

some of the water very well may still run through that pond. I mean those detention ponds have maintenance agreements. Correct. Um yes they have it's incoded in an easement. I think we provided that uh into the city in the package that we we submitted. I'm just curious, does anybody happen to know who legally is responsible for that detention upon? I mean, considering now that many businesses put their storm water into a piece of property that's I don't know, Jackson Lands property.

Who owns the Nobody's here from from code, you know, I just kind of hear. Yeah.

Who owns the parcel that the detention ponds are on? I think it's all about the is the original developer uh from that standpoint. And I think the other um aspect of that is under the D order. I believe for the detention pond, I believe the original developer is responsible for that in the long term. Uh because his name's on that permit. Um the wet pond I believe that that was solely under Jackson Lab at this point in time. So I mean it was the King family, Associated Builders, whatever their company names were that that originally developed that that whole development. So, I I guess kind of curious to know if it's

I have a I have a copy of the original approval order that I can uh submit in. If you if the city would be interested in having it, I can submit that in. Um I think actually it would I um I got that from the city staff files. Uh uh I believe you. So, it should be in the files, but like I say, if it's easier, I can provide a copy at the pling either way. I'm sure it's in a file.

I mean, I think that kind of clears up uh you know, my questions and and thank you for letting me ask Oh, yeah. Real Jim. And you're talking to the right guy. I mean I mean this certifically doesn't you know affect your your development and uh but I I do appreciate you allowing me to ask these questions to educate myself and other members of the board. So on that what you're trying to what you're trying to find out is like so if this gets added into an already approved something that was an easement for the drainage and this and if the drainage easement and the drainage maintenance isn't up to snuff and now you're adding more into it. Is that going to cause problems? Right.

But if it has a drainage easement and a maintenance agreement, then that's their responsibility. But maybe in the future we should be asking like is it has it been maintained? Is it up to snuff? Is it prepared to take the additional flow that I don't know how long ago that was done? How long ago was the uh drainage basin created? Yeah, it was about 20 years.

20 years ago. So, a 20-year-old drainage basin may not be acting the same way as it did when it was originally constructed if it's filled in with a lot of debris and silt and vegetation. And so, maybe in the and maybe we should be asking like are these add-on drainage areas and easement areas in correct maintenance at the time when we add to it? I mean, what do you what do you think about that? Because over time, don't they degrade if they're not maintained? you get a little sediment in there, but I mean the amount of water we're talking is is very slight. Okay. Compared to the

but it might not be in the future on a bigger on a bigger project for like the overall thought process and stuff. Something we should be checking or asking or having the developers engineer maybe report to us that yes, it's in a good enough condition that it's it meets the standard that was accepted 20 years ago, 10 years ago, whatever. So,

and it kind of sounds like Matt and June could answer this that I mean other properties in that area, like I say, the the restaurant barn and and the Sunrise Home and Hearth and where Hilltop House used to be. The the lot behind that is is part of Kingsland Crossing lot. It which is like I say, it was 1.8 acres, but it sounds like at this point the storm water system has max been maxed out. You'll need an engineer to look at that when they're ready to develop that for sure. Just to handle that delta, that change in change.

And and like a couple of those lots outside of the Kingsland Cross and subdivision would have to then get permission to empty into those storm u ponds. Correct. Uh or if they're already maxed out, we they say we can't handle anymore. they'll have to treat and handle their own water on site instead of letting it discharge. Just something to think about for future. I think the important part is is that we haven't crossed the our allocation for that. Right. Exactly. Right. Right. We everybody every lot is allocated and to say that it's maxed out I think

in terms of the the the the definition of maxing out our allocation right not we're not taking anybody else's allocation that would have been used for that so that 1.8 will have its own allocation based on the analysis they do. Your responsibility is for what you're putting into it, right? They set aside a certain volume for that lot. We're not exceeding that. Yep. And I think that's should be good to go. That's uh from the global perspective. And then each individual lot has their own allocation and due diligence that they need to follow from an engineering standpoint to fall within their allocation. Making sure their impervious areas aren't too great that they're exceeding

right. We're not superseding or race to fill the volume so somebody else can't. We're just we're just allocating what on the allocation. That's good. I'm glad you brought that up because I think in in your paperwork, Jenna's paperwork, did it say that at this point there's like 0.1 acre. It's just for that lot capacity still to to go into the tangent bonds. Correct. Just for that lot. Oh, just for their lot, right? Okay. So, that's how I understand it. Yeah. I mean, this lot down next to where Hilltop House used to be. Lot. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So, they would still have some,

you know, it's just a small lot. Uh, but theoretically, they could empty into the Yeah, I think they still have their allocation. Okay. That is sized for for their law as well. They would still have to come here and plead their case, too. So, but now we we're all familiar with how it worked and should go a little a little bit easier for that last parcel. That's good because I thought that onetenth of an acre was for the whole subdivision. No, just for that allocation. Okay. Yeah. The only person that can use that that is is uh rich. He's he's the one that's been allocated that one10enth of an acre,

right? So if that premise, if there was something that he needed to do, whatever it happened to be, he'd have to do it under one/10enth of an acre so that he could uh not exceed his allocation for that lot. If he's increasing the parking lot or adding an out structure, more roof, then he'll need to make sure that's under 0.1. And with this addition, I mean, you correct, you're using all of your property, correct? I mean, do you have any more buildable area? No. Okay.

This is it. So theoretically that one remaining lot to the west of the old hilltop lot could empty into those detention ponds but they couldn't use I'm not sure I'm not I'm not sure elevation wise they could actually go into the detention pond but that would be like you have said that would be there for their engineers to determine and bring and present before the staff and board. Okay. Yeah,

I guess I would I think I'd be more concerned that if sort of storm water coming out of the old hilltop lot at this point could not go into the tension ponds because it's not part of the not part of the Kingsland division, right? Uh Jim could answer that better than I could. I was under the assumption that it was, but I don't want to speak out of turn. Jim would know better on that side. Jim, would any storm water from the old hilltop house restaurant lot be able to Which lot is that? Well, it's right behind Duncan to the north to the north of Dun. Is it this one? That's your Dunkin Donuts. Yeah, that's one right in there somewhere.

They would not be able to go through the detention fund is feasible. What would happen? how it would go through the detention pond would for to satisfy their on-site storm water requirements would say they can't run you know run off any faster than what it does in its existing condition and also they would have to treat anything that's developed on their site. So after they do all that, if that water does go through the detention pond and was planned to go through the detention pond, then they would they would be continued to allow it allow that to happen. It's it's kind of complex and and I think you have to look at each individual area that goes through that detention pond to make the determinations like we did on this lot and determine that, you know, we're not exceeding our allocation. So therefore, we're good. All those other undeveloped areas or areas that could be expanded would need to do all their own

Yeah. calculations and evaluations to determine that. Okay. It's not on this developer to figure out the rest of the Well, develops. Yeah. No, they Yep. I have a whole box of files based off of this development if you want to come look at that. There's a challenge for you. Yeah, I think I've seen enough of them. You want to ask questions here. I got an idea may come up in the future, but just give me I'm good for now. Give me at least an hour's heads up so I can find the box. Okay. Okay, I'm good. I appreciate it. Rich and Jim, thank you very much. I mean, anybody else have any question?

Thank you for those additional details on those J drains. I always like seeing the latest and greatest in drainage technology. So, some people get turned on by weird stuff. Like traffic. like traffic, right? At least everybody understands it was actually needed. That's the thing. I wasn't here. Well, see, this is the way we should deal with traffic, though, too, is that you should dole out how much traffic each site can produce. Oh, man. Oh my gosh. Just saying. Can of worms. Okay. Uh, any other question? All kinds of fluid flow analogies in transportation. Any other questions from the board? I am not

not open public hearing. We'll close the public hearing. Somebody would like to make a motion. Sure. Motion to approve the final plan of a major use site development entitled Kings Kingsland Storage Center for the applicant owner Bowmark Commercial Ellsworth LLC. And I will second because I'm a voting member today. Oh yeah. And you had like stuff to say. I got stuff to say. Yeah. Okay. All in favor? There you go, gentlemen. Excellent. Well, thanks for having us tonight. We're excited to get started and Ellsworth's been a great partner for us and we're really excited to Well, I'm excited to see what's coming also down the road a bit.

Yeah. Yeah. Big plans. Thanks again. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Jim.

Public comments on something. agenda item. Yeah, I still want to know who Britney. It's Britney. That's you. Thought about putting up. Thank you. Thanks, James. Okay. I was thinking I haven't put up a satellite photo for that area. Okay. Oh, hey, by the way, I'm going to leave this for you. There's a couple of uh spelling errors and stuff like that from that last thing. I mean, they're not worth doing anything with, but I mean, in terms of official stuff, but thank you, professor. Staff comments. Don't be a wise ass.

Like, yeah, we have a little bit of an update on training. Um, apparently the legislation is unclear about the required MMA trainings. So until they work that out, we are kind of in limbo. But we've decided to kind of move ahead anyway. And we are going to purchase the latest training video from MMA so that we can all watch it together as a group. So I need dates and times for people's availability for next month. Why don't you do a uh you know, one of those one of those grid things. One of those grid things. What's the program called? Just do it online. Oh, no.

If you could do a doodle. Send out a doodle. I think that's Yeah. Let's do a doodle. Yeah. So, but you know, City Hall is open Monday to Thursday. Is there a specific day that does not work for somebody? Look at that. What do you say? Three hours or Well, I know not everyone is jobless. Not Thursday the 5th. Not the day after planning board. Oh, no. I would not do that to you guys. Thank you. or the 19th. So, we can do under like a 5:00 thing. We can do before. I'm We're open to whatever works best. Wednesdays and Thursdays are my favorite days to do meetings. Okay. Not Monday. Oh, never do it on Friday night.

I don't think you're going to see anybody. That would be a different meeting. No, but I just had meeting for meeting the first Wednesday. I can't do any other Wednesday. I'm busy. Sure. So, we'll look for a Thursday. It sounds like the 12th or the 26th. I would say try How long are we talking? Thursday. Two hours. Between two and four. Okay. So, not Yeah. So, not Stay away from the 19th if you would. I mean, how many we think of two, three hour, three hours max. I say three hours probably. Oh, you saying four. Close four. It depends on how chatty you guys get and how many questions. Who's bring Who's bringing food? So,

you point Alisa point. No, she said well not asking questions. I was like, yeah, we can also break it up into chunks if you wish. Um, but uh I mean I just said pull pull the band-aid off. And we could potentially do three hours max though. If you wanted to do a longer two, we could do a longer session on a on a week day or and sorry like a Saturday or Friday if I would go you legit. I mean you actually think in four hours

the video I think is four but they do include breaks. And I think it it so the one that we did also included board of appeals training which we would stop training. You mean put that in the minutes live. I didn't say anything derogative like and I can't remember. I think it started at 4:30 and ended at 8:30 was the time frame for when we did it but the last hour was definite plus was board of appeals. So it shouldn't be more than three hours. Yeah, this is the same training that they've done in the past. Yeah. Uh it wasn't 4 hours. Well, we I did that on YouTube. Okay.

Yeah. And I think a big chunk of that was question and answer. I know the the four where I saw the 4hour video, it was an inerson one and they had a lunch or a dinner break in there. So, I think that was why. So, I'm So, we're going to try. It won't be more than four hours. One three-hour session. Yeah. Yep. On a Thursday. What are we thinking for a start time? I'm flexible. Well, I mean, we got some worker bees here, right? As long as I know about Well, I don't have my work phone in front of me, but it's far enough out. As long as I know about it, I can plan around it. Okay. Most likely. Okay. Probably not before five. I mean, yeah. Tuesday or Thursday at 5. Come up with a couple do a doodle poll and see what happens.

Okay. Okay. That gives me something to go on. Is that enough? That's enough. If if we're so we thinking of starting at 5. So the city's providing the supper. Yeah. They can take out. Okay. Go to the food machine. Doesn't the bring her back lunch. Doesn't the chair you know outgoing or incoming? I will bake something if you bring your own dinner. Pack a sandwich. do that. Okay. So, do you have anything else? That's all I got for training. That's it.

Oh, no, no, no. I've got something on here. That's for me somewhere. Sorry.

Yeah. So, we have um some uh ordinance revisions that are coming your way. There are two flavors. one is the comprehensive ordinance review um and that the comprehensive land use component um and so the last we talked to the Musen group um who's working on this that's our consultant um they were aiming to do a an informational session a joint session at um the February council workshop night which is February 2nd and so it would be really great if you are available to come to that workshop as well to get that information. Obviously, if you can't make it, we'll make sure that you have the information, but if we can do it all in one time, that would be fantastic. Um, and then the process will move from there. I'm anticipating um a a vote to recommend adoption of of the ordinance revisions sometime in March or April. Um, and I'll send these these dates and this pro kind of u anticipated timeline to you all. So, there's the comprehensive ordinance rewrite and then there are two sets of performance standards that are going to come before you. We had a really good workshop on Monday with council um for the adult use cannabis stores. The first step is that they're um going to be voting to approve the licensing changes for chapter 14 um which is our licensing and permit chapter. Um they'll be adopting that at the January meeting. So this month the next step is the performance standards that go along with that and we'll be sending you a draft so you can review it for vote um from this board in February.

Um, so we'll send you the draft tomorrow um, for adult use. At the same time, we are realizing we need to update the medical marijuana dispensary performance standards as well. We want to align them as close as possible to the adult use um, and h how it is right now, it's a little too vague um, and allows a little too too much leniency in certain things that the council wasn't stoked about. And so, um, we're going to be updating those performance standards. So, we're going to send them along at the same time. Um, so you should be getting a draft of those either tomorrow or early next week because this is a a more recent development. Um, so those are things to look forward to, I suppose. Um so to recap, performance standard um review for vote upon in February and then um the comprehensive ordinance revisions. We're aiming for March to recommend approval for that.

And all that's going to be recapped in this email. Absolutely. Yeah. Absolutely. But I want to kind of give you a heads up, too. Yeah. If you have any questions or concerns about that timeline, please let me know. I tried to I have everything for for cannabis at least scheduled or like planned out through September. So, we've got wiggle room if you have concerns. Any updates on Bowling Alley subdivision? I hate to keep referring to Bowling Alley. Oh, yeah. WL Properties. No, we have not heard back from them. Interesting.

Has anybody reached out to him recently? I mean, I realize it's their responsibility, but I really hate to lose that possibility. We can follow up. We can certainly follow up. Yeah. For the holidays. Yeah. December was one of those months that just seems like two weeks of that month. No one holiday week. So, but yeah, we'll we'll follow up with them. Okay. Anything else? Not from me. I think that's it. Any questions? The board for the ladies? Got plans to sign. Okay. Yes. Yeah.

Oh, we got plans to sign. Yeah. Courthouse plans. At least sign them. We have to sign the what? We have to sign the courthouse. Yeah, you approve them. So, yeah, that was kind of interesting. We don't have to approve. We don't formally approve them, but we're formally signing them as if we did approve them. No, I want to give you Yeah. process. That is also reminding me that um actually, no, not yet. I'm good. I'm good.

Give him a heads up. Yeah, I want to know. I I was thinking if if we could give an update about the Thriving Communities Partnership, which is looking at the the High Street corridor specifically, but I want to I want to have a little bit more information before Yeah. before we share some things. Dang. I'm so sorry. You'll get your turn. Don't worry. Okay. Yeah. But we we would like to figure out a way to um I'm just working out the mechanics, but we want to involve you in the stakeholder feedback for that project, too. So, anything else? I like it. Okay. Motion to move. Second. He said quickly. All in favor?