Planning Board - Regular Meeting

alternate but soon to be promoted. Wow, you moved fast. The fast lane. Actually, considering Mark is not here, you'll be voting tonight. Okay. And I'm Vince Messer and uh I'm a council member. Board member. Board member. Okay. Whatever. Today I'm a board member. Yes. He's moving up. I'm a member. John Deo, chair. Rick Liles, vice chair Kangi, board member. Matt UT, new person number two. There you go. Hi. Hia. Hi. First day on the jobs. Remind you Matt too is although you're not voting tonight, you're more than welcome to chime in, ask questions. Absolutely. Participate fully. Yep. Staff Britney Merrill, assistant city planner. Robert Grant, code enforcement officer. Okay. Adoption minutes from May 7th, 2025. Do we have that? Apologies. Do you know? Okay. When we have pull up when we get a new city planning, we'll have minutes again. I promise. Okay, we'll table that. Item number three, preliminary plan review of a minor subdivision entitled Spring Lots for applicant Tom Benson and the owner, the Anchorage irrevocable trust. The proposal is divide the 14.5 acres into three lots. The subject property is approximately 14.5 acres located on Bayside Road Tax Map 1, lot four located in the rural limited residential shoreland rural zone and a limited residential shoreland zoning district. Is there someone here representing the applicant? Tom Benson. Okay, the floor is all yours. You pretty well summed it up. Uh I've added I submitted the plan and we had the wetlands guy showed up. He did soils test and the wetlands. You have in supplemental information summarizing both, but I've

updated the map and uh tried to make it as complete as I can. I think about all I have left on here is we'll set pins once I get your blessing on the general layout. We'll set the new pins, mark the lines, and I feel we're ready for final review, final plan. Yep. Uh I mean, just to point out to the board, I mean, this was originally a roughly a 23 acre lot. They they broke off one lot about a year ago uh to Miss Bennett, 8.2 acres, and now they're subdividing the rest into three other lots. two lots have shore frontage and one is just road frontage. And at this point it's just it's just a subdivision of land. Uh not here to get permission to build anything. That's they're just going to sell the lots and I don't believe they have any plans to do any developing. The current owners what happens after that I you know you don't know. And I mean the current owners just for your information own the house right across from this piece of property uh and like about 126 acres. Yeah. The Bennett the southerntherly 8 acres. He owns the farmhouse right straight across the road. Yeah. Which is he's one of the trustees straight across Bayside or where. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's the old farmhouse. And if I'm not mistaken, I think they've owned that for at least as long as I've been in Ellsworth. So since at least 76. It's been in that family quite a while. It was a virgin forest back then, right? Might have been. Any questions? Not a one. I mean, you're just have a big piece of property and you're cutting into smaller pieces, right? And all those pie pieces are

reasonable size based on the ordinance and that's it. on the wetlands map the hatch doesn't match what you've got on the map in legend are these you mean it's not color just look is it so the majority of the wetlands on the site are the special significance or not of special significance well I what I did is change the legend I changed it to black and I kept the map green I know the registry I don't know how particular they are on color. They used to be no color at all, but um those are the same patches. I just the top one is should be green as well as the bottom one. Uh but yes, they're mostly uh wetlands of special significance is most of there's a summary of the wetlands in your information that explains more specific. I'm that's not my expertise area. I have no expertise in hashmarks. But uh I'm wondering in the upper right side lot one uh what is the difference between those I assume wetlands and the others. U well that's the lower hatch in the legend. Those are wetlands not of spec special significance. Okay. But you'll have I can I think it's because it's so small. Refer you to the his summary, Roger's summary here. So I have a question. When you were talking, you said it was splitting off two lots. Isn't it splitting off three? So Bennett was the one they pulled off last year. Yes. And so then they're going to make one, two, and three out of the one lot. Okay. I just want to make sure. Um can I ask a question? Certainly. So,

I'm looking at this where the existing road is that leads to the house at the bottom on the water. Is that the road that these lots are going to use and have a rightway or are they going to have to develop their own? You're talking the lot that go a road goes through lot three. Yes. that the Jones lot has a rightway to the road and in the deed it says together with a rightaway from the main road. It doesn't really The Jones lot does not specifically meets and bounds locate that rightway. But this has been used this roadway to Jones has been used for such a long time. I think that's the accepted rightway for Jones. But I think what I said, well, yeah, I'm correct. I think that the current road you're going to use that to access lot too. Correct? because I believe I read that in the no the lot two we would like to use the road on the north side which they have a rightway over starting okay on lot the corner of lot one will come in and to a point to the uh west line of Ray maker they would have the option of going in anywhere there and then making their own driveway on there so you have create your own road from that point on. You would? Yeah, that would create your own road. Lot one has two options. They can come in that driveway or I would, you know, I'm just guessing they would probably make their own driveway off Bayside Road for lot one. It could be that lot three may with the the wetlands they may come in near their south line of lot three come down through that

would be less wetlands impact because they're going to have to cross if they use this existing driveway depending on where they build they use the existing driveway they want to build down near the water which is pretty sure bet they'd probably just come in the driveway and get uh south of west of the wetlands and then go into their a new driveway spurring off. Yeah. So, I guess I just want to make sure that each of the lots has a methodology either one or two methodologies to have a right ofway or direct access. So, one could have direct access off Bayside. So, now you have a new driveway off Bayside or come in on that northern road. They do have a rightaway there. one. Well, that is what you said. The beginning part of that northern road is on the property. Okay. And then two has to two will come in across lot one down along the existing roadway and they will have a right of way in their deed to do that. Yeah. And then three can do three can either turn down the existing driveway that they'll own or they can come off Bayside Road and Jones won't be prohibited from that in any way. No, you can't can't prohibit him from Okay. access. You said that uh I mean the the owners at this point are just doing this to sell them. Yes. And so I mean at this point I mean depending on if somebody buys it and what they decide to do with it is I mean what they decide to do with is out of our purview at this point. Well it would be between you know the code enforcement officer they get a building in permit. Yeah. Well depends on what they I mean there are things that they could build on these lots that would need plent approval but if it's

just a single family house obviously obviously it falls to code enforcement. Yeah. Yeah. We're not dealing with that issue. They haven't told me of any plans. I think they just like to sell things out. Are these looking to that kind of future thing? Are these lots subdividable? Uh what is the they they could be I think the minimum lot size would allow actually several lots in addition to what's shown here as long as they meet the ordinances. Oh, right. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, but but the thing is that they Yes. Okay. I I believe so. Yeah, there are ways you could draw the map up and subdivide this out again. Got without having to worry about shorefrontage, too. I guess it would depend. I mean, the owners could specify in their deeds that the lots are not subdivided. I mean, that's all dependent on what they want to do. Yeah, they can put restrictions on it. I can ask about restrictions. And are they having any kind of um desire to have any kind of deed restriction on the size or type of dwelling at all or they haven't said anything but I will I made a note to ask them if they want to put any covenants on it. Yeah, that would be important. Yeah. If they want to do it, now would be the time to do it. Yeah. Yes. Especially if you know if they don't want to see half a dozen houses and between the the farmhouse and the water. Yeah, the farmhouse lives across the road. So, I he may have a vested interest in what he wants to see because once you sell them, you lose all control. Yep.

So, now Tom, I mean, we got a a little little packet of additional information tonight. Do you anticipate anything else coming in between now and the final? Uh I'm waiting on inland fisheries letter. Uh I have the other two state agencies, uh forestry and historic. We're okay with everything, but I'm still waiting on inland fisheries. I submitted them all at the same time, but just haven't heard back from them. got the well well drilling opinion PL Jones and I've got Roger's wetland summary and his soil summary in the additional I just didn't have them when I initially submitted. I just wanted to give you guys as much as I could as soon as I could. Okay. um based on what he still has left to give. Um does that complete the package as far as um as far as I know? Yeah. Oh, I have another question. Just curious. Um is there any intention to let the new lot owners have any access or right of way to any of the frontage on the river or no? as a condition of the sale that they get access to an area. Uh I guess it would only be lot one that would be affected. Lot two and three have road shore frontage. They have frontage. Y they have frontage. Uh I'm not sure. I can ask on that, but uh I know they're working with a realtor, so we'll figure out covenants and see if lot one will have any access to the

water. Any other questions? No. Gnarly one. I'll open a public hearing. If there's anybody here who'd like to address the board, please come up and introduce yourself. My name is Katherine Ray Maker and my husband Edward and I uh live at 775 Bayside Road on the property immediately abudding lot one and part of lot two in the proposed subdivision plans. And I want to tell you that I've am very um my brain is spinning because I've spent the last two weeks trying to find some legal counsel to take a look at my deed and to assess the um easement rights and obligations that befall us as the abuing property owners there. And it was only today at 12 noon that I finally found an attorney at the Acadia Law Firm who is going to take a look at my documents and try to tell me if legally there are any problems for me or I assume not for the um the sellers of of these properties. He did take a look at a statement I'm going to read you in a few minutes and I have copies for you later. And he did say that judging from what I put on here, he would say yes, there are going to be issues for my husband and me and very impactful issues. And he felt that we did need to have some legal advice on this. But he also said and I kind of suspected

that it's not the purview of your board to judge this what I'm what is you all here is probably a legal matter and I want to address Tom Benson before I start because I wanted to come to you but I was struggling because I didn't know if there was an issue and I didn't want to bother you until I got legal counsel and also it's not a I thought I didn't know if it was ethical either. No, to approach you. This is your right. So, this is your first time hearing it. And even though it's something the board probably can't deal with, it is something that I was told by the lawyer and his name was um Daniel Pelgi that um it this is a time to bring it up if it was ever going to be brought up. And I will I would love to speak with you privately if we could, Miss Benson. Okay. Forgive me reading it, but I I can't trust my memory at this point. Ma'am, do you have copy? We get copies. Yes, you do. You do get copies, but but you know, if if you're reading it while I'm Please make sure Mr. Hanging has this um this whole whole packet is Mr. Hanges. This is my testimony and this is the testimony I'm going to read and I'm also going to reference an an easement. Mr. P uh Mr. Benson. That's for Mr. Benson and it's got everything in it. This is for the board. This is a quote unquote easement that I'm going to refer to that's in our deed. And yes, and this is a co I don't know if I made quite enough. And this is a copy of what I'm going to speak to you about maybe making little aids if it comes up. Okay. All right. As I said, my name is

Katherine Ray Maker and we live at 775 and um we abut lot one and part of lot two of the proposed subdivision plans. Now, the right of way described in the easements that are contained in the application runs mainly through our property except except for that small triangular piece of land at the northeast corner of the proposed lot one. That little triangle right in front of our to our to one little side of our front yard is the section of the rightway giving access to Bayside Road. Now, we have lived at that address for the past 47 years. This is our first and only home and our first and only real estate. During the time, we have always used the triangle as the exit driveway from our residents and as an access to the rest of the side road, that right away on our land, believing we had the right to do so. It's also the safest way to exit our property along a very dangerous stretch of Bayside Road. There have been many accidents in front of our house. Our pet was killed out there. There's a blind hill and it's very hard to see any cars coming from Ellsworth and the cars going from Trenton can't see over that hill either. Hence, lots of accidents. Okay. And during the time those 47 years that we lived there, we we've never been contacted by the owners of the property immediately south of ours about this matter or any other matter.

My husband Ed is very friendly and he has met um the two trustees of the Anchorage Trust and he's met Charity Phillips way back in the old days. So he's he last year they were even nice enough to um let my husband learn about their wedding that they were having in a field and even invited him to come down into the field. So we've had he's had a little bit of social contact with them and we feel they are very nice people and that might impact on what I'm going to say too. All right. And so when I said no contact I meant official contact or any other but but that we have had some contact. Okay. When we got notice about this hearing we reviewed the documents we have pertaining to the purchase of our home in May 1978. specifically what obligations and rights we have regarding that right of way. We then here I put in that we had tried to find legal counsel and we didn't well by now we have. So the evening, this evening, we're going to tell you the facts as we understand them, but we still need to get legal interpretation of what we are telling you and we're going to sign an agreement with the law firm in order for them to do that for us. All right. First, let us assure you that we're not going to dispute the subdivision. We we have Let me see. We're not going to dispute the subdivision of the parcel of land being considered here this evening. Our main concerns are really for the two things that matter most to us. Safeguarding our ability to use the little triangle of land, not only for ourselves, but for whoever eventually inherits or buys our property. And hopefully it will be our

daughter Carara someday. And then also I'm going to hand you a document later. Um well no yes it'll it'll come up later but I also would like to clarify that demarcation of a 30foot right of way for all purposes of away over the other the other land that we own which you'll see doesn't appear in a document we were given. Okay. So, I need clarification and hopefully some kind of a safeguard for our exit and use of that little triangle. And then it says, "If it happens that there's a legal issue involved, we would like to appeal to the present owners to allow us to resolve the matter before the deed for lot one is drawn up. We would much prefer discussing this with the present owners who we have at least met a few times than beginning our relationship with new neighbors with a property negotiation. Okay. And here is my story of why we have these concerns. These are facts as they unfolded for us sequentially. And I do have documents supporting all of these facts that I will give you on request. All right. We were officially deed our property on May 12th 1978 in book 13 and 1 nine pages 155 56 and 57. Now during all the pre-sale discussions and negotiations with the then owners the existence of easements by and for charity Phillips Wolves never was mentioned. Their existence was also not noted in the title search conducted by an attorney assigned to us by bank or savings bank knew we said oh well we don't know anybody in Ellsworth so they assigned this lawyer and the results

were never conveyed by mouth but by a letter to us which I do have the map of our property we were given also did not indicate a right of way all right now here's the sad tale of the stupid naive people on the day of the closing Neither the sellers nor supposedly our attorney was present. We were there by ourselves. We signed all agreements without reading the deed. I admit it. How stupid can you be? Because we never suspected any problems ever since moving to Maine two years before. We had been treated so decently that if anything, our trust was at high levels. Okay. When we went to our new home and read the deed, we found this paragraph in exhibit A. Quote, subject to a right of way over the private driveway running along the southerntherly bound of the premises herein described from the granters herein to Charity Phillips Wolf by instrument dated January 31st, 1978 to be recorded in the Hancock Registry of Deeds. Okay. Next step. When we confronted the former owner about this, he provided the document we are distributing copied to you this evening. Britney, have have people received that copy? Thank you. Okay. Please note in that copy, the document has the same wording as the easement recorded in book 1331, page 330 that's in the application. except the document we were giving is missing the paragraph describing the 30foot right ofway. He also told us verbally that the right of way had been given to Charity Phillips Wolf in exchange for use of the driveway which he had constructed on her land without prior permission and is within the easement

triangle of land on today's proposed lot one. And when we confronted way back then that attorney who was supposedly representing us about the document, he said, "Oh, all was in order." And once again, the dummies believed them. Okay. Now, to prepare for tonight's hearing, we tried to find a copy of the document dated January 1st, 1978 at the Hancock Registry of Deeds. But even with extensive help by clerk Lori Whitney, we were unable to locate any such document. And she did a search from January 1st, 1978 right through May 31st, 1978 to looking for that document. Given that our deed signed on May 12th, 1978, which supposedly conveys all rights, easements, privileges, and impertinances belonging to the granted estate, that deed predates the easements accompanying the subdivision application. And given our inability to obtain the January 31st, 1978 document, we are very confused about the legal standing of our rights and obligations regarding the right of way. And we are wondering tonight, Mr. Benson, if you or if there were another representative, there were the owner here can shed some light on the matter from your point of view. It seems the intent was there to convey everybody rightaways. You across Wolf and your lot uh for Wolf down through your lot. It seems the intents were there. It looked like the deeds were conveyed out of order. Your lot was your lot. Your present house lot looks

like it was I've just looked at these just now. I know. I know. But your lot appears to have been conveyed first in May. Was it May 12th? So the two rightaway deeds you're talking about 1331 29 and 30. Those were conveyed both in September of the same year. 78. One was in August. All right. The first one was in August. It looks like the intent was there, but things were conveyed for some reason. Maybe uh Frank Walker forgot he conveyed the law and he said, "Oh jeez, I I forgot to convey these." Um the intent is here. It I think we've got willing participants to get it the way it should be. You've used that right away. I'm not a lawyer, but you've used that right away so long you uh the wolf cannot just go shut it off. You've got But I'm worried about my daughter. Well, don't worry. It will We'd like to work this out. I can't speak for the wolf, Mr. Wolf and Mr. Bennett, but I'm sure they'd like to work it out. uh in their mind they think this is a done deal and I haven't talked to them specifically about this right away but I will do so uh Mr. Wolf is in uh Arizona as well as Mr. the Bennett. So, I have to be careful when I pick the phone up after the 3-hour delay. So, I don't call them at 4 a.m. But, uh, I will get in touch with them and I if you want to talk after the meeting, we can and I'll get your number and so on. I would love that and I'm very reassured by what you're telling me. Well, I can't speak for

them. I know that what little bit of but I will have some legal help now. Yeah. so that you can figure out what's really going on here and try to safeguard that ability for us to use our own driveway. Well, yeah. You've used that so long that even maybe you don't have a clear deed. You have used that. You have prescriptive rights. You've used that for so 47 years and Frank used it before I assume. So, yeah, he built it. There is precedent there to continue to use that. So, Okay. And could you find out? Well, the 30 foot too is another thing that I don't I don't if it's single family homes, fine. We we already have neighbors at the shore and we find good terms with them and they have the right a right away. But if as the nightmare can be seen that that those subdivisions are going to be subdivided and subdivided, we could have, you know, a 12 unit motel down there and and traffic going by all day or 30 feet. They could say, um, we're going to dig into your septic tank. Or they could say, um, oh, we need room for the construction vehicles to turn around and take it off our land rather than theirs. I don't know if we can talk about that one because I was we were very mislead about that one. If we're going to redefine this right away, it would be a good time to make it more defined, you know, more precise. Okay. Thank you. I can work with your lawyer and you and Mr. Wolf and thank you try to figure out how to but this is something that has to be resolved between the property owners and and not really our purview here. Is that correct? No, but we we need No, no,

I get that you're No, no. And I agree with that. Yeah. But I'm just also saying that, you know, it's it is between the property owners. It's not a planning board issue really. that I I believe that's the case. But we need Yeah. We want to make sure that everybody that the subdivision gives them access and doesn't do harm to the neighbor, right? In theory, they have access because they on a road, though. Yeah. But we need to make sure we have a clear I I agree. I agree. But I'm what I'm saying suggesting is that it it's really something that has to be resolved by the property owners. Yes. Because then the next the other thing too is that in looking at that that's the roads to me are an issue only because if you're sharing a road sometimes it creates problems between neighbors and before that happens better to straighten them out first and like if they're if she's using the lot on one's right of way that she should have I mean I'm looking at the page you printed the the old tax map the old deed that talks about that. Um, and now if lot one or perhaps lot two uses the right of way that's on her property, the road that's on her property, then it can be who's maintaining the road, who's you know, if they're damaging the road now, do we have any kind of um deed restriction to have them be part of a group effort to maintain the road? Yeah, it's definitely the time to say a road association or clear language. So, uh, so I have a question on on your map that you've given us in that upper right upper left hand corner um, in small lettering. It says easement book 331, page 329 for Ray Maker Lot. Do we have a copy of that? Yep. It's in the

back of the book. is in the very back of your deeds. I included all the deeds uh charity conveyed to her sons in 114th interest. So the 14 deeds and thank you for that. And then after at at the end of that is the two rightaway deeds 1331 29 and 30. Does that 329 or P 329 clarify the easement issue any or is it still muddied? It's muddy. It's a description. I wouldn't say it's crystal clear either one of those, but it does describe a rightaway and okay, it's perhaps could be clearer. Okay, if I think we have a order of recording issue, but again that's lawyers. Okay. area. So to put your mind at ease, Mr. Ray Maker, this is only a preliminary. Okay. So he still has to come back again and hopefully within that time you can get this squared away to to kind of help settle your concern a little bit. You've got you still got some time to work with them. Okay. Thank you, Mr. I have a question for Robert because I'm not familiar yet with stuff with a 30-foot ride ofway and if that's the maximum that the rightway has, doesn't that sort of limit the amount of growth potential? Unless that was like for 30 feet wide, you can't build Yeah. You couldn't build a highway there or anything, right? So, it limits it to pretty much small residential type construction because it's only 30 feet wide. It's not 60. It's not 50. Yeah. So that that in itself might keep things Yeah. I with only a 30 foot rightway. I mean I again I'm not a lawyer but I I don't foresee that causing a have a huge housing

development in there with a with a a 30 foot rightway. Right. The wetlands too. Yeah. And also the wetlands on the map do also huge uh limit a lot of what's able to be built in there. Uh especially on lot two. Um, so Tom, I' I've got a question on the easement that's on the north end of lot one that goes down like along the boundary line. I mean, it starts in lot one and goes into the Ray Maker lot and then So, does the Wolves have right away over the entire length of that? They dotted to the end of Ray Maker. Okay, that was the intent. the the distance kind of overshoots it, but um yeah, it would go to the west line of Ray Maker. It says in that deed 420 ft. Yeah, it's a little further, but you can't go beyond Ray Maker's line. That's okay. Okay. But then it also has easement number two between looks like between the road and one of the easements is specific to the road and then the other one describes the gap between the road and the line because you said lot two would be able to access an owner lot two would be able to access that lot through this easement. Yes. Because there's actually two easements. The road and a wooded easement basically. Yeah. There's the road. It's the easement is in two parts. The road itself and then the area from the between the road to the line boundary line. Yeah. Yeah. It it was I think that was done without the benefit of a survey. It was just written I'd say the attorney probably just wrote it. Sounds like that was done in 1900. Well, no, it was 19. Well, I'm surprised that the title report couldn't do, you know, catch these things quite frankly because they when it when you do title reports,

you catch a lot of stuff. Well, that's the whole purpose. Yeah. Exactly. Right. And it's kind of like this is sort of a blatant miss that way, but it kind of sounds like and Britney, maybe you can facilitate the meeting between Mr. Benson and and the Ray Makers to it seems like this is a simple problem to solve. Yeah. Yeah. And we certainly want to make you you folks happy with, you know, with what's proceeding. Thank you. It's comforting to hear that. Is there a statute some place about I'm sorry. Go ahead. Is there a statute someplace about how long something has to be in use to, you know, to kind of be there forever, if you will. I think I think it's 20 years. You talked about prescriptive rights. I think it's 20 years. An exercise to cement prescriptive rights. I think you have to go to court. But the fact they've used that so long, the wolves can't get somebody to put rocks there. They've got precedent for using that right away so long that Yeah. But I think I think I think if they use it for 20 years and go to court and say, "Hey, look at we've used this piece right could even be a piece of property uh not just a road, but it could be, you know, oneacre piece of property." They said, "Well, we've used this as our home for the last 20 years." and they can get it and it is and it is it 20 years I mean that's I'm not sure the time frame it it could be less than that but they definitely they they've used it 47 years and Frank Walker was there before that so so and that was in use then before they I assume so it talks about the rightway across okay Wolf going to Frank Walker's So that's got to be defensible. But they get they get to keep it right under the access. Well, I'm not a lawyer, but I

don't see I understand that take it away. Yeah, there I'm sure there's no intent to take a right away. Okay. But you'll get it resolved. I think Yeah, we want to have it resolved before we come back. There you go. The word is there. The intent is absolutely for sure. It's just not spelled out clearly. That's all. And lot two won't have any problem since there's no direct. It's just past their property line. You're going to make sure that that's clarified too because lot two is it doesn't touch their property? Well, the easement number two of uh page 330 that takes in the area from the road to the line. Okay. I just want to make sure lot two is protected. Yeah. Just as a as an aside that you might know this as a as a surveyor, it's still okay to sell landlocked lots, right? Or not. I don't think you can. I don't know who'd want to buy a landlock. No, I don't either. But, you know, I've got 50 acres in Trenton. if anyone's interested in landlock fees. So, so conversely, you know, we're dealing with the Ray Maker access to their property, but lot two, I'm not sure how this deed reads or whatever, but in order to access lot two, um, whoever going to own that is going to have to traverse on the Ray Maker property, that road that's there. So, is there a deed that says that lot 2 is going to be able to traverse their property to get access? I mean, is that something else that have to be addressed? It it's this same issue with Yeah. with the Ray Makers. Uh there was

kind of a reciprocal easement. Yeah. uh Ray Maker or Walker crossed Wolf to get to his house and then in exchange uh Frank intended to convey to Wolf uh just did it I guess in the incorrect manner right away from across Ray Maker down to the Ray Maker's west line. Yep. and the road and the gap between the road and the line. That's why it's split up into two different descriptions in book uh page 330. Okay. So somehow you'll figure out all these errors and emissions and get them straightened out so that lot one, lot two, and the ray makers end up with the right terminology and the right of ways and the right whatever to satisfy that nobody's landlocked and nobody's 10t away from accessing their property and stuff. Yeah, the the only we'll straighten out the Ray Maker uh both rideaways and the other two have road frontage. So yeah, three and Jones will continue to use the existing road like they have for quite some time and Jones is the one that's always the little water. Do you have anything else, ma'am? No. Okay. Thank you. So this looks all resolvable and in an amicable fashion. Sounds like it potentially. So, ma'am, after the meeting, why don't you uh give you your phone number to Britany and then she'll facilitate a meeting, you know, between you and Mr. Benson. Well, I can talk to them for a minute. Okay. No problem. Exchange. Yeah, I'll make sure they connect. Yep. Not a problem. Sounds good. I guess as you guys review this

plan, if you see anything else needs to be changed or added, let me know. When I come to the next meeting, I'd like to have it be as final as I can. as would effort to to not go into extra meetings because I forgot something. I don't see take care of this and there should be no problem. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I don't see any other questions from the board. I'll close the public hearing. Anything from code or planner? Okay. Make a motion that the preliminary plan review be accepted for completeness for a minor subdivision entitled spring lots for applicant Tom Benson and owner the anchorage the anchorage Jesus revokable trust never mind that's easy for you to say yeah well it was but you know you get it out there so that's my motion I stick it to it though all in favor thank you folks And I hope that's makes you happy or he seems so. So she's smiling. So I I think our work here is done. No. Okay, then. I haven't set anything on fire. Nothing's exploded, so we're good. Any updates on whether we're ever going to hire a planner? Potential. Um Sarah usually handles that, and I'm not sure how much I should say, but we did have a second interview with an applicant in person, and it seems like she would be a good fit. So, we'll see if uh we offer and she accepts.

But hopefully we'll have someone new in the planning department by the end of next month. And the development director starts on Monday, right? Monday. Yes, Twilight starts on Monday. We're very excited. The offices will all be filled at this point. I What's the next step in the res uh recreational marijuana? Uh we got another meeting coming up on that. So nothing that nothing that that the board is required to go to. Uh on the 24th of June, we do have a meeting tenatively scheduled for uh a public listening session with uh the office of cannabis policy. Uh they're going to have two members showing up via Zoom. Uh I'm inviting um business owners that are have potential interest in opening shops in Ellsworth. Uh, and we're also going to reach out to the public uh to have people come in and give their feedback if they'd like. Um, and no one's there's no required attendance for that one, but we also we don't have a schedule yet for July, but that will be the second combined session. Okay. So, what time the 24th? What time is that? Uh, I probably be six o'clock, I would imagine. We don't think we've set a time yet for the listening session. I'm sorry. Yes, I believe it'll be six. And have you started to, you know, gather ordinances from other towns? Yes, we have. And what do you figure on doing with that? I mean, distributing all them to us or probably by mail them before you buy us. We'll we'll have a packet together for the second combined meeting. Okay. And no date yet on that. I know I would imagine near the end of July because no no one's going to want to meet around the beginning of the month because it's the holidays and so but I would imagine somewhere

around the end of the month in in July. That would be the second set the second meeting. Okay. Combined meeting and somebody will make sure if these have to be public meetings to correct. They they don't they don't technically have to be but we will we will have them uh posted. I mean, the meeting we just had, I don't think technically had to be a public meeting. No, it didn't. It didn't, but we we we will make sure that they are so that everybody has a chance to attend if they'd like. Okay. Sounds good. I think and this is literally just listening. This one, yeah, it's it's to whoever's interested uh from the planning board and the city council come in. There's not going to be any uh real anything actionable they're going to do, of course, but it's just to hear what OCP has to say, the uh prospective business owners that would like to come in, their experiences in other towns, you know, what works, what doesn't, where they where they would like to see the businesses allowed, how many, that sort of thing. I'm sure I'm sure business owners are going to say we want a hundred of them. OCP might give a different story of what works for a town and what doesn't. You know, limiting these certain areas or how many you can have, what number works best for your population. But that's rem remains to be seen. We'll see what they say in a few weeks. We'd like to have it all wrapped up uh hopefully by September at the latest. So it might be if if yall have nothing else to do on the 24th, I would suggest it might be a good idea to come to the listening session. You you can attend in person or online. We we we will live better. We will live stream it on YouTube. So just like tonight, okay, not Zoom. It's Monday, right? What's not Zoom but YouTube? Well, you you you can

attend if you would like uh to have via the Zoom or meetings, but yes. Uh but you could watch it and not have the ability to participate via YouTube. Yeah. And it's all high. You could you could participate in the comments but not live in the meeting. Understand the key area. And Britney, you'll send that information out appropriate time soon as I can. Yes, we can. Okay. Anything else? That's all I've got. We have plans from uh 59 Franklin to sign to. So, please sign them. Stick around. That'll be it. Then it'll be done. I hope so. For now. You're on record. It's like swearing. You know, I almost said that too. That's why you you say for now. I'm still need more practice. I guess I got one other question. U any other feedback or from the Poland alley project? I They talked about coming back, splitting it up. Have you heard anything back from them? No, I have No, I haven't. I should check in. Okay, I will check in and see. They can proceed as as they got approved if they have the financing for it. That's up to them. They were the ones that brought up coming back and changing it. Yeah. Nope. It's been radio with silence. So, okay. Okay. Okay. We good. Motion for adjournment. Motion to adjurnn. Second. Thank you very much.