Planning Board - Regular Meeting

All right, I'll call to order the town of Mount Desert Planning Board meeting for April 22nd, 2026. Welcome aboard in person and online in Zoom world. Hello Meredith, how are we on mute? Good, good. How are you all? Fantastic. So, here we are. No heavy heavy agenda tonight, but Oh, you just wait. No, just I just jinxed it. But

all right. Well, I'll make introductions for us that already know everybody. And I'm gonna start with Daniel Burke. just got that. Yes, I see I'm on a roll. Our alternate member and we have Ann Dalton and regular member and Tracy Loftess Keller, our vice chair and myself, William Hanley, chair and Gail Marshall and Alan Kimberly and online we have Meredith Rand there's no one else that just showed up. No, no,

it's just us. So, I'm going to kick it into gear and first ite well second item on the agenda tonight is approval of minutes and we had minutes from April 8th. So moved. Second. Great. All those in favor? I right. Item three then is other and we have an update from the land use zoning ordinance advisory committee. burn. And what's the

it was p published uh this meeting this particular meeting was published in the Mount Desert Islander on th the April 9th 2026 um newspaper. Sounds good. Just like it is. Yep. Right there. All right, you're on. You want to give like a short summary nails on it? We we well Gail's always

we we started we started this discussion last night because we had a truncated lo meeting because we had the slug board coming in at 6 during that time. So we got an hour most of an hour out of it and um I must say it this was the first time we'd seen these documents and I'm easily confused. So I got kind of lost in terms of what we were trying to do but I think I eventually caught up. We started probably with what we're not going to start with tonight. Is that is that we're not going to go too deep into it.

Okay. So, what we're probably going to spend the most time focusing on is what's going to happen that we're going to have to respond to with regard to LD1829 and LD 2173, which is first they passed the bill and then they passed the fix bill the next session. And together they're all things that have a lot to do with density. And there are also some other issues that that Kim brought up that it's time to review. Um, the thing that we were dealing with with all these maps with circles and arrows and paragraphs in the back of each one was there are shorand zoning commercial shorland commercial districts uh zones. They're kind of here and there and here and here and here. and they have on either side of them shoreline residential lot requirements that may vary depending upon we're not clear what but some of three some of five some some so if somebody wants to build a residence in a shoring commercial zone which they can do which adjacent zone applies it's not it's it's a piece of confusion so if you start talking about that then you start getting into the policy issues. What are we trying to accomplish? What's the town want to accomplish with respect to shoreland zoning? What does it want to accomplish with respect to lots and sizes on the on the on the water? What happens when you've got 250 ft that kind of can't be used? And on and on and on and on. So, it becomes it starts out as a simpish sounding issue and then the more you actually think what are we trying to accomplish here or not accomplish here, it gradually gets a little more complex. But we kind of got so complex and then we left that to briefly touch on 1829 and 2173. Um, and I'll turn it over to

um, Matt at this point to fill you in on all the details of what's going will be these documents right here. And this is the map that goes with it.

The packet um, see a handout maybe one side or maybe two pages. I think the one that's one first page you'll see a split gives an overview of 1829 which was the original bills and 2173 um like two the pix bill which made amendments to 1829 provisions. Um that was the biggest bill from this past session that had land use implications. It was an omnibus bill. Now on the back of that is um really so this is actually not just LD 1829 2173 um because there were other laws that got passed that got dragged into 2173 that had nothing to do with 1829 because they tried to fix a bunch of bills in this one new bill. Um, so like LD997 and LD427 or other bills, but for our purposes, I just put all the requirements from bills that were touched by 2173 into the table in the back um because they all become land use related. And so right now, so currently I'm working through a table which I didn't sprint because it's not done yet, but it has essentially this table on there with a third column of like areas where the town is already in compliance and areas like I'm typing up like kind of here's a policy question we need to address or like we just need to stick this language and like it's not really a policy discussion, but we just need to include this in the ordinance somewhere. Um, and you know, something that kind of makes this a little bit more interesting is that, uh, you know, LD 1829, and I'll just call L1829, but also it's including 2173, but just for simplicity sake, stick with one bill. Um, it was based

off of growth areas. And so, the town is currently updating its comprehensive plan. And so, the growth areas will likely change from what they currently are. uh in this new comp plan. So, as we're thinking about kind of where in town is affected by this bill, um we kind of don't actually know because we don't know what the growth area is going to be after the comp plan, but uh I think so the map that's included in the packet too is just of Northeast Harbor and Steel Harbor because those are the only places in town that are currently both areas or have parts of birth area within them. and also are both served by water and sewer because LD1829 uh has requirements for lots that are in a growth area but aren't served by water and sewer. Uh lots that are outside of the growth area but served by water and sewer and then areas that are within the growth area and served by water and sewer. And so those are like kind of the three areas of town that are affected. But the biggest impact is definitely to places that are in the growth area and have water and sewer. And then the next biggest impact would be the areas that are outside the growth area but have water and sewer. However, when I looked in town, I think the golf course is actually the only place that's technically outside of the growth area but has both water and sewer because it's zone is not included in the growth area.

Well, that doesn't mean anything. No. What about the places that's only shore? We have a lot of that. We don't have water, right? Yeah. So, like if the new comp plan believes those should stay growth area, then you'll have to look at those. But if they're not growth area, then you they're not affected by LD29. So, obviously, as I keep saying, Zville is current got in the prior plan got rated as a growth area, but it does not have water. Y and and you have sewer right along this road, but that's it along the main road. Yep. Um, so

so that's why the map has just yeah northeast urban seal harbor because those two will be affected I mean regardless of if they're all growth areas again or not because they both have water and sewer. So there will be some type of impact for them uh after the comp plan anyway. And so on that map the orange lines are sewer and the green lines are water. Um, we're working on muslin group uh because working on a new map, but kind of right now they're on top of each other. So, it's hard to see necessarily where like they go all the way. Some of them don't bend as far as the other one does, but you can't really see it because uh they're on top of each other. So, just making a new map where they're side by side. You can actually see like exactly how far sewer and water extend. But interestingly, like there are a lot of gaps even in these areas where there are no water and sewer amongst the rest of the water and sewer. So like we'll have to kind of figure out how to address that. Um the sewer ordinance does already have like connection requirements or like if you're so many feet from public sewer and you're developing a lot, you have to connect into that the public sewer infrastructure. Um but I couldn't find anything like that in the water documents that I had because the district runs that, not the town. Um, so I don't think they actually have connection requirements. That might be a discussion that we want to have with them about if that's something they can build into future user agreements or something like that.

I mean, one of the other things about the comprehensive plan is if we actually if the town actually wants to have more growth areas, then I turned it on.

Okay, no worries. There's the seat going up. Sorry. If the if the town wants to have more uh growth areas, then then the comprehensive plan could flesh out ideas for how the town should be figuring out how to provide those utilities and you know how how would you get to if you want if you actually wanted Stonesville to be a growth area, h what would you have to do to you know the comprehensive plan could have decided that they want the town to work on trying to develop um the capacity to do that. So that's that's another layer, but but that's not for immediate that's not going to change anything with response to this.

Right. Well, I mean I mean it just ties into the point that like you know no other time really had the state used comprehensive plan growth areas as a basis for like right zoning or legislation. And so now like like when I was in Ellsworth like the year before this law came out, we finished the comp plan. Our growth area was just based off of how growth areas were treated previously. But now like in my conversations with the city after I've left it's like you might want to go back and look at the growth area because now it doesn't make sense to have it as big as it was. But again we just finished the complaint like then I got to go back and it so should we remind people what what will be required in a growth area with water and sewer and then

yep I can walk through the whole table pretty much really. Um so first thing is regardless of growth area and everything regardless so a lot has to allow three units whether attached detached or an accessory um by right and then if you're in a growth area with public water and sewer you have to allow four units by right that doesn't necessarily mean or as a use I should say not by right so you can't say like triplexes aren't allowed as a use in like most like the town at all you have to say triplexes are technically allowed, but you could still set setback requirements and that sort of thing. So someone might not end up having enough space for a triplex or three units on their lot for other reasons. You just can't say like as a use can't do this. Um and so for growth areas with water and sewer, it's now bolex is essentially four units on a lot. You can't say that you can't do that as a use. You know, again, if the setback requirements can't be met or minimum lot size requirements can't be met, that might still apply. like for density purposes, but as a user you just can't say you can't do this.

Um, so if if I'm in another in another part of town, if I'm in rural woodland too or or three or four, do I do I h do I have permission to put does this apply to that? Yeah. So again, like I So if you're Woodland area two, isn't the minimum two acres? Is that why it's two? Yeah. Like how we do that? You can have two acres and still require two acres for every unit. So if they don't have eight acres, they can't build more units. But as a use, you can't build them. They can build an ADU. Well, they can they can build an ADU because that's separate 2003 allowed people to build an ADU regardless of density, but with a single family dwelling.

Well, that's going to change. Yeah. LE 2003 said with a single family dwelling, but this bill says with two or three unit dwellings, you also have to allow an ADU. So if you have a duplex, you can have an ADU. Yeah. Or a triplex or a triplex ADU. If it's a duplex condo, can do you get to have an ADU for every unit? It's um a lot if you have two or three units you're sold at. It's not by the per structure. It's for the number of units sold the lot.

Um yeah, so there's other restrictions again like that will prevent necessarily a lot from having four units, but you still have to technically allow it. Like if someone had an 8 acre lot, they would then have to be allowed to be able to build a quadlex. One building needs enforcement, three four different dwellings is planned for. Yes. Um so skip around. Sorry. Sorry. Oh, yeah. Another Well, actually, I'll just keep going over because the table we'll get to that. Sorry.

Okay. So, accessory dwelling units, just to add on to that to the fact that they're now allowed on lots that have a two or three unit structure. Um, you also can't have an owner occupancy requirement, which the town doesn't currently have. And you also can require additional dimensional standards for an ADU, which, um, I feel like the town already is in compliance with that one, too, because I thought that was from LD 2003. They kind of repeated some things.

Yeah. But I think the account's already in compliance with that as well. Um, actually I couldn't tell you because I have my language in it which isn't public because I curse a lot. I type.

No. Um, yeah compliance with this one. And then so the really complicated piece is really the next several which is the change to you know lot size and then volume density requirements. Um depending again like if you're in the growth area with public water and sewer and then growth area have private septic or if you're in the growth area or outside the growth area public water and sewer. Um there is now decreased minimum lot sizes for each of those um depending on the zone I suppose. But like if you're a lot size, you're outside the growth area public water in Sierra, which again we really don't need to talk about because it's just the golf course, which we should talk about, but we haven't spent a ton of time on it. It just kind of is what it is for one lot. Um, but like if you're in I don't know the VR1 zone and you're or uh you're allowed to have like a smaller than 20,000 foot lot size. If you don't have public water and sewer, you would still have to meet 20,000 anyway, even if the code's currently written, you allow a smaller lot size technically, but the state still requires if you have septic to have a 20,000 foot lot size. Um, and then yeah, so like I guess is it the R1 that allows like 10,000 square feet?

Yes.

Yeah. But that will probably have to be brought that will have to be brought down to 5,000 square feet. And then the density part's kind of a confusing one because the town doesn't currently have um unit breaker density across the town which again this is a bigger discussion that we could have about maybe it makes sense to start incorporating that in every zone and uh like doing the map and figuring out where the good density per acre is. But on the 5,000 ft that you have to allow now, you have to allow 1,250 ft per unit density for the first four units. So essentially, again, they're telling you like you have to allow four units on a lot by right. And that's where in this part of town, they are kind of not allowing you to have other requirements that prevent four units on a lot. Um, and then for every unit, it's not an actual stable, but every unit after the first four, um, you can only require 5,000 square feet per dwelling unit. So on a 10,000 foot lot, you can fit five units. And then 15,000 square foot lot, you can fit six units.

That's crowding if you spread it out. If you go up, well, yeah, you'd have to really go up. You'd have to go up. Good. You can have larger buildings next to yours. Well, I don't know because like the town especially 14 more feet town 54 year is a thing the town site still is in play unless it's an affordable housing development which is then you'd have to allow the bonus

god but yeah though like again all the regulations in the town would still apply so maximum height So again, someone can't make six units on a 10 or five units on a 10,000 square foot lot work with those other requirements. They can still only do four. Um and then yeah, for the growth area with a septic that's 20,000 square feet minimum lot size. So again, you're most zones in that area of town currently already allow a lower lot size by the town standard. is 20,000 the state's just saying because that's the requirement that kicks in for the private septic. And the third area again doesn't really affect the town too much. was just the golf course that I I mean the map I saw that had both water and sewer and was outside of the growth area because the way that they did the growth area in the last comp plan was by like the zoning map kind of shows where it was where anything that like a VR1 VR 2 VC that was all like growth area and all the R1's and R2s were growth area. Um so anything that's like in your zoning map of the water and sewer that's not those zones is essentially not growth area. But they can go from like you just said R1 and R2. So instead of one acre or two acre they can go down to a minimum of 20,000 square feet

if they have right if they have se they could be able to go down to 20,000 and then but there was no real density for that one. It was just kind of one volume unit per 20,000 square ft which again would be the fall anyway or the least restrictive law. Um, just to be clear about this because what's driving the legislature is a desire to make more housing available for residents, but nothing in this law requires any of these more dense densely built properties to actually provide year-round housing.

No, they could be rentals. Correct. Um and so like town in theory can build out again like a more broad uh requirement for any housing built that like a certain percentage has to be attainable or portable like through the subdivision definition. Um but the state doesn't so the state's not preventing a requirement for that from happening. They just didn't put one in the bill. Well, those subdivision requirements that we put in there don't require any of the they're just saying if you do, you can build more densely. Yeah,

I think they punted in a major way on the effectiveness of this to accomplish their goals. Um maybe I mean I think certainly in areas like ours. Yeah, I understand not when again this bill already did a lot. So I think they were trying to just allow the creation of housing to happen and then you know maybe address some other things later or they're thinking well at certain points there's still going to be a saturation maybe not here but you will have a limit of how many rentals that make sense for your economy and then the rest let me know when you figure out what that is

I think here maybe doesn't quite apply as this area but for most of the state I do think there is a limit on how many rentals people would actually Hamptons

and then yeah and so then really is tied into all that if you already have four dwelling units on your lot and somehow this bill would give you additional density um you're not you don't actually like the town can decide to not actually provide that additional density or you could be more lenient and say yes actually we are going to let you have additional density just don't really know again if they don't have the lot size and the density is already met I don't really know how they would require more dens like more bonuses, but the state did put that in there. The next one is density for affordable housing. That's already in the ordinance. That's from again a repeat. They repeated I feel like they repeated certain things. Maybe there were some discussions that I just wasn't a part of or didn't hear about that made sense to repeat some of this stuff from early 2003. But you have to allow two and a half times base density for affordable housing projects and that was already law as I understood it. But then there's the height bonus that we talked about. If it's an affordable housing project connected to public water and sewer in a growth area, you have to allow a 14 foot height bonus. Um, but you can make it conditional on the fire chief. Well, really the municipality is approval, but the person who makes the most sense to give that approval is the fire chief because like if it's the real sticking point from the original language was that a lot of fire departments didn't have um equipment that could serve taller buildings in their communities, like a lot of volunteer fire departments and stuff. So, they just said like the municipality can grant approval before that it's actually granted. And so it just makes sense as the fire chief is the person to decide if it's if they have the ability to put out a fire and safely serve a structure that tall. So like in town here it'd be like a 54 foot tall building because the would be the tallest because the height maximum again is currently 40 feet uh outside of the shorter land zone and so

the basis for denying a permit. Yeah. I mean yeah they'd have to sprinkle that or can they sprinkle they sprinkle it like they sprinkle it guess you take that mean yeah that

stop from I mean typically you have to sprinkle buildings multi anyway it's 50 it's 55 5 that and the number of units too. Okay. Yeah. So generally I think if it's three buildings or struct that share walls you have to sprinkle anyway and right or yeah

then uh the plan board review. So this is what uh yeah Kim was alluding to earlier where so they did change the language between LD1 1829 and 2173. The last time we talked about this it was it was much clearer which was three or four units. I guess I have to go back because this they changed the definition of subdivision. So subdivisions used to be three or more splits or three or more dwelling units created on a lot in a fiveyear period. They changed that to five or more dwelling units on a lot in a 5-year period. So connected to that, three or four units on lot in a 5-year period is no longer a subdivision. And so they said planning boards cannot review three or four unit structures um anymore. It has to go through administrative review through the code office. Well, they didn't say the code, but code does administrative review. Um and so that was much clearer. Then they changed the language to saying that municipality may not require planning board approval solely because a project establishes four or fewer units within a single structure or for ADUs. So, I mean, I guess in theory, you could try to find a way to still send those projects to the land or I just think it's easier to still stick with the old language kind of wanted say like I mean I guess there are other triggers like if it's in the shoreland zone and like that triggers it to go to planning board or like um something like that or if it's a large enough building that triggers a site plan review which this hous doesn't currently have but like structural wise like the footprint is big enough you could I can imagine a town having a trigger like that that looked at the planning board. So they were saying I guess that's still open for discussion but for four units again I don't even think you could really hit a threshold like that typically.

Has that passed the subdivision law applied now? Yeah, this is all law in effect now. Oh, no. Like that they shouldn't take effect until July 27. And then um so I guess the gap that was kind of left too, they changed that subdivision for all dwelling units no matter how they're constructed to five in a fiveyear period. Both towns kind of what to do with three or four units in one structure, but then tell towns what to do with three or four units in separate structures. And so again, you could

create a use where that just comes to you guys as a site plan review and not a subdivision review. Uh or again, you could just let the code office handle this. Kind of a discussion we have to have on what makes no sense for a project like that. And then talk about two, three unit structures, sprinklers, and ADUs. We don't have to really get too much into the town already doesn't really require them. They kind of already the state does either. Well, they just essentially made this match on FPA rules which they should have had to match anyway. But guess one or two.

Well, right. They So, I guess maybe some towns just don't have like a fire chief around or like someone who does fire type inspections. So, they just really kind of clarify that you can't require the sprinklers for them. Um, but FPA only requires them again if it's three or more dwelling units. And that's they're just some some towns have a nor regardless of like even single families that requires so well mount didn't have all like mount which should just continue to follow an FBA rules which you do. Yeah. But we could stick in language that just says you can't start doing this.

Um talk about subdivision the planning board ordinance. We will have to put language that all new members must attend training within 180 days of appointment. Um and board of appeals members I should say central planning board both both both their ordinances we have to put that the training should put them under what if no training is offered well there always is because you know saying it's within 180 days. No it's so like you the town would have to schedule it either by calling like a lawyer and being like can you provide training to like our we might as well do for the whole playing board at that point just like come in and provide training for our planning board. Um, we have a new member of offering anything. Well, they usually

that's occasional though. I mean, well, so I do know as a result of this like Mocha, the new office of affair, a community affairs and then MMA are working on trying to provide a like you can access a training like digitally whenever and providing more resources that way. Like what kind of training does like Robert's rule stuff or this kind of stuff? because in my discussions I've been having with them, I've let them know that most of the plan boards I work with need top to bottom training. So I think they were kind of thinking like um they were trying to focus it more just on like

this stuff that's on LD 1829 and it's like no like a lot of these smaller towns need like help like they do. I mean as far as how to run meetings, right? I mean that and so I think they're trying they're going through now kind of discussing what the training will actually include but the law does not require anything specific except just has to be landing training and so I think eventually there will just be kind of like a library of training materials available to planning boards and boards of appeals uh because like right now MMA training in person doesn't really cover much it covers like foyer requests and that sort of thing which is helpful but it's just a small very small amount of plan for actually deal with

there's so much foundational stuff to sitting on a board. I mean, and again, like I think and it's kind of interesting like talking to the people at the state level where they like kind of had no idea where they're like, "Well, aren't towns like getting attorneys to come in and talk to their boards about it?" Like not regularly like sure like they don't really have that much money like and you say disconnect, right? The next one throws me child. So, this was one of those ones I mentioned where there was another law that was completely separate from all other stuff that went What are they thinking? Um, well, I don't know like I mean in a residential area.

So, hold on. Let me walk you through it.

All right. So there the state law that they were amending identified two types of child care facilities that they said needed to be allowed in residential zones which were uh small and did I put them yeah I didn't spell it out right in here but they have small child care facilities and then family child care providers which both of those in the state definition are capped I think it was like 12 kids being served within them. So essentially what they're saying is that they want someone to be able to have a child care daycare out of their house. And they're saying that 12 kids can be served out of like somebody's house and have a home occupation as like a daycare. Um and so like this that's what the original bill essentially said. I actually didn't pay enough attention to the original bill to know what they fixed in 2173. 2173. Uh I think they had the zoning part about having to only allow the same requirements as a single family. So you can't have like more setbacks for a daycare or something like that. Like

parking spaces. Well, that's not You can allow more parking or ask for more parking unless it's home occupation. You got the Well, I I mean, I just have to say that I actually truly love the fact that I have neighbors with small cats right now. There's two of them who are in the active runaround phase, but they make a tremendous amount of noise, which I find joyful, but multiply that by six every day and that's a considerable impact on the neighbors. Yeah, I know. I'm not going to disagree.

And I have foot thick walls. A lot of these were made like you can tell that a lot of these changes were made like with more urban areas in mind like poor of course. Yeah. But that's what I point. Yeah. Well, and so I guess you know you may end up not deserve maybe with like one person who tries to do this and then Yeah. Sorry. No, I know. I know it won't be every other house. I know. That too. And we do definitely need trackare. I mean it's not I'm not debating that. And you know, a family is one thing, but most families these days don't have 12 kids. All are worth like three or four. I'd be surprised if there's like more than 12 kids in Mr. at all. But well, I don't know. Maybe in preK. I don't know.

I mean, but again, they'll be in school, too. Like a lot of these kids in the town, like I don't know how many of them actually need to go to like a daycare provider. Like anyway, like Kim was saying, we do have to add them either as one use like small childare facility, but also just wrap the family childcare provider into that same definition and make that an allowed use in the table um in the residential areas because right now there is no use for child care at all on the table of uses. I mean, we do have M nursery, but they're not they don't they're not like right next door to too many houses, but that and anyway, I just it's if it's a if it's a small facility, that's one thing.

Yeah, the idea really was for these was to allow a home occupation of that sort. Okay. Are we allowed to require that they go to planning board? Yeah. Uh well, no. you. So you can't require um more requirements than what you ask for from a single family home just because of the use. So they have to be licensed by the state. Yeah. There's a whole separate license. So that's like bathrooms and all that stuff they got to deal with that. Yeah. Okay.

And so that one that one is going to take more conversation too along with the density stuff. um just figuring out that use, figuring out, you know, it can't really require more requirements for it than a single family home. But then maybe like in a way it's kind of you're splitting into two again like where there's the home occupation piece that you might you really can't acquire more than a single family home, but like probably require other things for a business like have a sign. Single family home never has a sign. So like they're going to have to do that sort of thing anyway. Address broke, right? So like there's common sense things that they're going to have to do that are extra. Um but you can't it's more of the zoning stuff. You can't ask them to do like have greater setbacks.

What about Sorry to interrupt you. Highway safety or traffic impact coming and going. I mean a normal single family dwelling isn't going to have the wear and tear of coming and going morning and day like a daycare will. Yeah. I mean again part of the um review whether it's through your office or through planning board you can't go through planning board because I do one family dwellings well right I imagine that no like uh right so then you could require them to provide traffic information any for single family so sorry like you have to

in in reality a single family home is never going to require traffic study. However, code officer always has the authority to ask for more information if they think there will be an impact due to a project. And so that won't go away. So like if Kevin appeals at a daycare, like if they're going to serve all 12 kids or maybe someone comes with a daycare and is like, I'm only going to have a capacity for like and they can make money off of that. The four one you might be like, well, I'm not going to ask for traffic information for that because that really isn't going to be too different from a single family home. But if it's 12 kids, you might be like, "Yeah, like I need to know some type of traffic information for that because it will cause more traffic on that during peak hours and that facility on that road."

And that's just traffic safety, not the impact on the neighbors. Quiet enjoyment of the crop that ability. Oh, success. My favorite. I'm warming too. But so yeah, again it's more of the zoning requirements and like I think it you I guess it doesn't explicitly say you can't send a daycare to planning board. I would just be surprised if you did in some I think well I think a larger one versus a smaller one I would think would need to go to planning board because you're only saying small ones

like up to four kids or whatever you know and then from there over four requires planning board because that's more looking at more maybe a commercial use the traffic like we said the kids outside you know running around and so I mean we might create a use for a larger daycare facility too if you ever think one would be built in. But I mean, you might as well. And you can pick the zones when that one goes into. You don't have to allow that one in all residential, which honestly like if you're I don't know how much it would, but just having that use might actually encourage them to think about building a larger one. And then you'd have would have had more control over where it went as opposed to a smaller one.

If you're going to build one for 12 kids, why not build one for 16? Just put it in a different part of town. That's fact. actually 12 kids. But yeah, I mean we could always add more to our ordinance and we can be a little bit stricter, can't we? Okay. Far as because you said one family I can't we can't send it to planning board but right we can always say well planning board has you know there's six seven people on that board versus one person's you know perspective but also the butters get notified.

Yeah. I mean so this is kind of a broader discussion as I'm thinking about it. Like Mount Dart doesn't currently really have a site plan review process. So like um and again kind of tying into the three and four unit structures where like that can't be the only reason you send something to the plan board. But like if a project if you had like a site plan review process outside of conditional use and the trigger was either disturbed area or impervious surface that would go across the board. So, even though a single family home regularly doesn't go to planning board and shouldn't, if somebody were to build like a 4,000 square foot footprint home for whatever reason, like a mansion and that's a trigger for site plan review, you know, that would have to go to planning board. And so, like if that were the case, then these like childc care facilities, if they were going to be like 4,000 square foot of impervious service, that get kicked to planning board. Um that would be equal like a single family home would get picked up planning board for that reason too. So you're not like changing you're not creating more restrictions for childare

but I don't know about but a child care facility versus a one family that's so different. Yeah it really is. Okay. But I think again what they're thinking is there's just such a shortage of child care providers and people can't really afford to build their own facilities. are trying to let them do it inside of you. I just I get I get that to a point. Oh, right. To a point. Right. Right. You know, like village I mean like in the village commercial areas like in Jordan Farm area the houses are so close together, you know, that I think it would impact the neighbors. But no one wants places at home. Well, I mean it kind of comes to like

versus a rural as a any of the village residential areas would be well. So it does say allow in residential areas. So like I don't know like I guess you do have here is in village commercial. Yeah. Well, you have to think again like it might be technically allowed everywhere, but like if someone's going to do this, they might they're probably going to do it someplace that's close to jobs. So people are going to drop off their kids anyway or if they're commuting like they're going to drive by it anyway. Um and so like again like the rural more rural areas like you don't necessarily have to that's not technically a residential area.

I know one that was issued years ago and it's out on the outskirts was already issued. So before this law, I think. No, no, I know. But I'm just saying that that it wasn't near right in town. In town. It was out. A lot of money.

I don't know. They sold the property. So, can I ask a question that veers off of it based on something you just said about site plan reviews? You said that if you could have a you could potentially have site plan reviews and circumstances like somebody was building a very large house for a lot and that is an issue here in this town that does affect at times affordability um or can have a cumulative effect. How would you or what circumstances would you consider doing that as a matter of public policy that would might be of benefit or or or not?

Do a site plan review. Do have a site plan review for houses above a certain size. Isn't that what you were saying? Well, you can that's more based off of like impervious area like impervious surface. So like if someone had a house and so it's more of an environmental that's just how the trigger usually goes. Yeah. It's more about like you're creating you're taking away like undeveloped in theory taking away undeveloped land and putting impervious surface down that's going to have substantial like storm water effects and effects on

traffic probably if it's big enough you're having that much parking space for 4,000 square foot or 5,000 square foot whatever you make it. um that's enough to trigger a public hearing and have go through planning board is kind of the So that's purely a land use issue not a public policy issue in terms of yes neighborhoods

I mean like public policy you could change ordinance in a lot of ways to address those types of houses I don't know that yeah making a trigger for site plan review based on public policy would be a lot less defensible more solid like threshold Um, but you can again like there are certain I guess that's kind of when conditional use comes into play too. Like that's really when an appropriate conditional use would be is like okay if your house is a square footprint of larger than x number of square feet that's now conditional use opposed to a smaller home that gets the build permit and can go. There'd be additional probably like banners to look at for a house that large. Um, we left off at child care. Uh, this one does not really affect the town, which was no commercial only zoning. Um, so all the commercial zones in town currently allow housing uses to some degree. Um, so that one's okay.

There was um, oh, sorry. BR3 is not okay. That's the only

the um comprehensive plan committee received a letter from someone who was advocating as I understood it I'd have to go back and read it again but was advocating that we should have and there was about creek that we should have a commercial zone and I understood the letter to be advocating that we really should have separation between commercial and residential areas to to allow people to continue to enjoy their residential areas but that we are not allowing enough opportunity for there to be commercial activity to create job opportunities and that sort of thing in places like they specifically talking about creep.

What you're what this is now saying is you can't have a and I sense from the letter that it was like an ad advocating for a real separation. Yeah. And what this says is no, you can't basically you can't do that. Yeah. The commercial have to allow at least single family. And I think I would assume they're envisioning storefronts and apartments overhead. Yeah. Or this law. In this law, uh maybe I don't really know why they took this drastic of a step.

Uh because like again like in Ellsworth and we're doing their ordinances for this too. Like they did zoning right like they had commercial that was mixed use. They had commercial or residential that didn't allow commercial. But then they had a very small percentage of their land area was a commerce park and it was only commercial because it was again very small. But the point was they created all these public policy provisions to allow people to build business structures in this business park without having to go to planning board and everything and now all of a sudden they have to allow housing in that zone. Mhm.

But like there are a lot of other towns that kind of use commercial only zoning to block out housing and they do other things to like essentially make it so novel development happens at all. That's really the towns that that this law was trying to get at. Um well, it certainly looks to me like Ellsworth, you're talking about that has allowed a tremendous amount of residential f infill in the in the central core in the last decade or so. Is multifamily considered commercial? that are essentially

but you can allow that not single family homes. So like if you're trying to get to the so what you can do is you can restrict um this is what we did in the commerce park in Ellsworth is you we just said that the first floor street level floor of a business or of a building has to be commercial. If you were to add housing to it it had to be on the upper floors. So essentially would be apartments and stuff like that. And you can kind of you can also add a restriction to the number of units allowed in a development. Um but you also can just do that three or only single family. So you're essentially saying if you have commercial only zoning again sound doesn't really so like fine. Um, but you would have like a business on the first floor and you're only allowing one apartment.

I just got a mic on. Yeah.

Yeah. I was just thinking uh the the multiple uh the you know being allowed to build four houses on one property and the possibility that people would start just doing short-term rentals with all those units. Could we put uh something in the code saying that if um more than two units on a property are under short-term rental, it becomes commercial or if you know some something you know if they're not there. But it does seem to me that like if you're doing short-term rentals and there are four units on the property, you're into a a very different activity than residential activity. It's a hotel.

Yeah. I mean, so the town, it's a mini hotel. Yeah. And build out like uses and definitions for like vacation rentals or short-term lodging and that sort of thing. Um, well, I think if you specifically went to the like more than two units, you kind of like bypass other people getting upset about like being able to make money off of their property. Like once you go to the quantity aspect, because we've tried to put through um limits on vacation rentals and it hasn't gone over well in the town. I would say it would be very hard for code enforcement, but can you correct me to know if somebody is doing that regularly enough like you'd probably want to have a registration for short-term rentals? Know where they all are.

We talked about all that right trying to pass through. It failed. Um and then the fact so they were going to hire somebody to do that because I just would not have the time. There's no way with what I have to do with my you know I do now. I mean, I do have a deputy,

but I still think that there's value in just making a law and and the concept of like, well, we can't make a law because of that you have to register. You don't have to have it registered. If you live next door to a property that has four units on it and they're doing short-term rentals and more than two of them, the neighbors are going to complain if if that's not legal. I mean, that that's going to be an activity that people are going to notice. It's not it's not going to fly under the radar. And I'm just generally I'm disappointed that we keep thinking or and keep believing that we brought this proposal was brought before town meeting a few years ago. it got shot down and so therefore we can't do anything and we're just kind of stuck because that particular ordinance was handled in a certain way and it's always easy to organize against something and if you don't organize for it then people aren't going to turn out to support it and there's lots of reasons why things don't pass the first time and we should not assume that we're never going to be able to design a policy that's the majority majority of voters if they choose to show up to vote will will enact. I don't and because that gets to another question. I just think that if we have to do all these things, I really think that we have a responsibility to be thinking about what in as companions to that like the thing that Meredith is suggesting, what as companions to these ordinance changes that we're going to be required to do, should we also consider proposing to the town as a response to what we're being required to do? I I think we need to have that discussion with ourselves. I'm not sure where it's going to go, but we need to have We need to know what levers what we want and and how we go about trying to

accomplish it. I also think that there there's a a lot of this stuff like it gets shut down and it's like oh the town's against it and rather than saying okay people have a resistance what is it about it like people don't want a loss of their independence or it's hard to it's it's a expensive town to live in. So putting limits on rentals is counterproductive. You're telling people who in a place that it's expensive to live that they're we're going to limit their ability to make money in a way that a lot of people around here make money. So the sort of like recognizing the validity of the argument against it I think then gets you to a place where you can create a law that accommodates that. And that's where I'm thinking like if you have more than if you have four units or you have more than two units on a property and you say if you rent out more than two of them, there's some other limitation and that's when I think you you're going to get into there's a volume of rental that's happening on this property and this is when we want to start limiting it. I think then you're going to get people on board because generally the people in town don't want everything turning into vacation rentals.

What she said like maybe it's some kind of density of development calculation based on use or something like that. But yeah, I

I think it has to be looked at with empathy for the people who voted against it. Like there is there is something valid in what all those people voted against rather than people are just against this. There's there's a valid like we want to live here and we want to have the freedom to live here. We don't all want to have to register. The town of Bar Harbor makes us register our very very affordable year round rentals every year. And I really resent it. like, you know, we're providing a service to the town and they are on us to do more work and it just is so rude. But that's another subject. But for the town of Mount Zert, I think you you could come up with a code if you would validate and recognize what people objected to and try to create a code that recognized that

they objected to the cap. That was primarily what people complained about. They objected to the cap. Did you And many of them said and many of them No, it was a percentage and many of them said or something.

Um, I don't object to registering. I don't object to in, you know, to having to meet certain requirements. I don't object to this. There were many reasons, but the primary objection kept hearing was right out of the gate, they didn't want a cap. And so maybe it wasn't a wise idea to start with a cab. So, but that doesn't mean that the whole idea of the town focusing on what having the cab meant that people that weren't even renting their house at the moment felt like they had to go out and get a permit to rent their house sometime in the future. And that was a big part of it because that's what people in Bah Harbor had to do. Yeah.

Even if they weren't renting their house at the moment because of that cap, you had to get in under that date. Right. And it's a logistical nightmare for the code enforcement officer. Just going to try to keep pushing it through until it passes. Well, just like the Bangor casino did every year. Every year. Every year. Every year. And that passed. Well, I it was pretty good. I think that that's an evil approach to taking things. You can't just wear down people's resistance. I think you have to recognize I think the whole island rental property is evil too and that's the way it's going.

It's not that much different from summer people who come in and stay for five weeks and they're they have houses that empty. It's not that different. Do you limit the number of Well, we have more than one problem. Oh, I know.

We have I'm saying you've got I think you have lowhanging fruit here. If you if we're going to allow people to have four units on a on a single property, you've got an opportunity there to say, you know, and if you're going to rent out if if more than half of them are short-term rentals, then we're going to put it under you're not allowed to do that. You you know, we're going to treat it as a commercial property or something like that. Put it under some other context that limits it because that's not a cap. that that's just simply if the short-term rentals become too too much in volume on one property, we've got a different category.

Yeah. I think however we appro approach it, I think the fact that we're going to be required to do all these things gives should require us to think about the implications and how we could suggest to the town they might want to respond to it. And that's different than what we've had to deal with prior to that. So, I think you have a bunch of agreement from what I'm hearing. You're going to want to make that cuz we got to get this adopted by 27. So, that's something we got to think about this year. Working on this year for the 27 town meeting. Yep. Yep.

It should go. It should ideally it should go together. It's a big lift, but we'll have to work on enough spare time. Okay. Minimum parking. Another one of my urban centric pet thieves. That would go against it. Please. No requirement that the minimum parking thing. We've moved on. The minimum parking thing. Yes. Like if the town required to have light rail or something.

So we so we so people could actually get around without a car then these requirements of minimum parking make a lot of sense. But otherwise there's our minimum parking minimum parking area the bottom. Turn it over. Oh okay. Yeah. Yeah. Over there. It's only for residential uses and it's only area. Yeah. Only allow for one off street parking space per dwelling unit. residential uses in the birth area and no suggestion about where people's second cars are going to be parked. I mean, you could say you can't park on the street, but Yeah. I mean, again, like if someone's building like a multif family the belt in here.

Mhm. They know they're going to service like a class of people that have more than one vehicle. I'm hoping they'll consider that developer and you can ask them as the board to still consider that but you can't require them to have

I mean I think we had that problem in a different venue when we approved the VR3 uh proposal um because our our parking requirements were very limited and you could see all the little you don't have any parking Right. Well, you could see all the like all the little cottages that they were building that they said could take family take, you know, generations of families coming and vacationing together in and yet they only were providing required to have one parking space for a unit and that sort that sort of thing. I mean, it's a similar idea. We don't we kind it's kind of like we don't deal with the reality of

right. I would say again these laws were probably not written for the tourist destination that is Mount Island. Yeah. But hotel motel like you mentioned with that project that is said adequate off streetet parking shall be provided for all uses on the property at a minimum there shall be no less than one 75 parking spaces for each hotel room. Right. And that's not staff and it's not that's a Mini Cooper. I was going to say what 75 75 but just not one parking spot per hotel. I don't understand why that but they had more than they were required to have.

Yeah. But you also have a restaurant and you have Yeah, I know. time stuff like when I was involved they when they did like hotels and stuff they never counted staff. Yeah. They still don't. I believe you got you know they're going to they need a parking spot when they come to work for the hotel motel. So they're taking up a spot that's probably dedicated for one of the rooms. Anyhow, I guess we're not going to solve that because it is what it is. So, have we gotten any feedback how it's worked for the COA there in Northeast? I mean, they were they were doing all sorts of silliness to come up with parking spots.

The COA building. Yep. They they have the um seven parking spots that they lease up by the church and that expire. I put it in my calendar. Five years. So when that expires, they have to either renew it or go somewhere else and get it. That was your condition of approval. Yeah. So it's one thing too that's missing from the Luzo is just a parking table where different uses have like Yeah.

minimum parking required. U we could look at doing that too. That's easy enough. Just looking at the uses that happen the most in town and bring a table for those and giving specific requirements. for things that happen less often just having a catch all category and saying they prefer the planning board to the board. Did the town lots allow overnight parking? What is that? I don't believe so. No, there's some overnight parking at Graycap. But apparently this space is open in July and August because it was studied on and there was still open spots.

I do believe was it last night on the select foot agenda or was that in the 10? There was was there discussion about parking in town, parking problems in town? Let me look at my notes. Um, no there was not. Um, there was a problem with all of the construction going on all at once, taking parking, but it was really only a temporary thing. Wasn't that the meeting before, Heidi? Uh, it was the meeting. Okay. Have those notes, too, if you want. No, that's okay. It's been an ongoing subject on the harbor committee.

Like the whole harbor is filled by 7 7:30. Is that open public parking or restricted to? Most of it is open free parking. There's one lot where you have to have a sticker. But then you have steel beach. There's like nobody's parking there if you're not in a pickup working up on those projects on the hill. But it looks to me like they're now renting some space further up the road up. Yeah. Oh, that's how it is.

Up in Har all the park. That's for That's where a lot of the contractors are parking for ringing point, I believe. Yeah. We'll take some from that. Yeah. The last requirement since these all been so popular let's is that the municipality has to allow developers to use offsite parking agreements within a quarter mile of a development and yes it's that broad. So regardless of where the development is and regardless of what that quarter mile look like to allow a parking agreement offsite parking.

So it could be a five lane highway or something sidewalks. Yeah, I bet I vote for the light rail all around town. Yeah, I would love it. Quarter mile parking would be nothing if you had a deal at Grand National. Like the law was very specific, too, because when I first heard about it, I was like, "Oh, well, like, you know, you can build in safety requirements, that sort of thing." with the law specifically says the only thing planning board can uh kind of review in determining whether or not to accept that offsite parking agreement is whether or not there are enough adequate parking spaces at the offsite place to serve the use that

so there's no sidewalks that's not a problem all your life don't care about that yeah we can't consider safety that's problem they having people parking on the sidewalks harbor side. Well, you're allowed to not let people park on sidewalk. Oh, they do anyways. They do anyway. No, I know. But it's Yeah, that's what's raising the parking issue. You mean you head out of town? Yeah. If you head out of town on

That's crazy. Road was pretty packed for a while there when there was construction going on that people were complaining. I think we really aren't any. Well, that's that. And then do you want to touch on any of this other stuff since we now have this? You mean like the Yeah. Yeah. we can um didn't print extras of the packets because there was so much paper ink and stuff but okay essentially have the leftovers from yesterday.

Well, let me ask also Kim you mentioned last night that you wanted us to also look at table of table of uses. So that's something that we had started made a faint attempt to start a couple years ago. What would you be hoping to accomplish with like a thorough and that what that basically means is us going I'd like to see more use of that to it that have been coming to us okay specifically I mean we're not going to put every use in this chart you know um and then break it out I think would you do any marginal versus and add maybe nonprofit I mean

just add more stuff and more definitions I mean like for instance we um you know added wedding venue thing would Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Mhm. Uhhuh. Wedding venue thing. Yeah. That I mean like events you know center or something or you know like in and with the Asticoo there um last night we touched on this about staff housing um that they can have an accessory residential dwelling unit provided is dedicated for staff housing. Well there's no definition for staff housing and how many can be in there. Right. So, you know, it's just just certain things that I that's comes across that would be a good one to do.

Well, we we should focus I mean, null provided us with a large list of expanded definitions and additional uses which included things like events of up to a certain number of people or that sort of thing. Um, and and if if you said that last night and there aren't many people on the land use advisory committee right now, hint hint. Um, but and it's tiring work to go through that table and those definitions, but it it is. But we need to figure out how we prioritize that. And it would be good to know what this board thinks about that. And we hear that you're concerned about it and because we don't want to keep having to jury rig um

trying to fit something in square and it's not really there, right? Um yeah, but I mean it's just we got a lot on our table with this other stuff. Yeah, I mean the wedding venue thing has become a thing and we don't have any way of responding to it in it might not be bad just to do it because we're going to have to look at the table anyway for the child care stuff. Maybe like maybe we don't finish it. But if they're like again like high priority uses that have been coming a lot in the like not like a clear way of handling them like just create a use for it and then we get some of those higher priority uses out at the same time.

Yeah. I mean just some things just but also is uh is there any shoreline zoning changes that you're aware of coming up that will affect us? Um not like for 2027 they're supposed to re look at chapter 1000 and rewrite a lot of stuff but I don't know when DPS ever actually get to that. Okay. Um, can do do you keep a a list or like when when the code fails you when when there are holes that you're coming across, do you send an email? Like is there any way that we're recording it because you're very busy? I'm sure that there are times that that Yeah. No, I work my ordinance. I come across stuff.

But do you have a way of like recording that so it ends up in front of the Luzo? Like it'd be nice at the end of the year for the Luzo committee to have a list of like all the holes that you came across. No, I mean brought up I mean I they're brought up but nobody takes minutes during that meeting for that meeting. So,

I don't know if there's some way that they they could that it could be kept track of so that like when when they sit down to sit list their priorities, you've got a list of like this is what didn't work this year of what came in front of Kim or businesses that were, you know, people wanted to start but they we didn't have it in the ordinance or things like that. I just want to say that the land use advisory committee is sparsely populated now. Yeah,

it won't meet in the summer. I can't get people to meet in the summer. It meets once a month. We've had three meeting dates. Last night was one of them in which either warrant committee or select board meetings get bumped to because they have Monday holidays or because they have an big end of year

work to wrap up. So, we we are in a hard place. It is the land use advisory committee's goal as I was to try to take a lot of that load from the planning board which is ultimately who's responsible for getting these ordinances and these proposed ordinance changes done by by ordinance and by by law. Um, but I I I I am disappointed that we have so little bandwidth to actually do stuff and we keep getting thrown stuff like this that we have to figure out how to respond to um all the time, every year. It's it's something. I mean, we got this subdivision ordinance off finally this year. Well, hopefully that goes through and we got some of the pieces done there, but that took several years.

Have to amend it based off of this, too. Yeah. It gets past the picture again. Yeah. But I would love us to be able to churn out more and then you get it done and then it's like we got to find the lawyer and then the lawyer's going to change it all or maybe we're not going to get it before the time because the lawyer doesn't I mean it goes on and on and on. That's government. We work slow. It's unfortunate. No, I know. I know. And that's and that's it should be thorough. There's no question about that. Um,

but we should try the both the planning board and the Luzo should try to articulate what as much as possible what we'd like our goals to be. And my sense is I'm hearing that we need to respond to this stuff. My suggestion, and I think it's part of what Meredith was saying, is we need to figure out how in addition to just enacting what we're required to do, we we figure out what kind of public policy we should recommend to the town, we enact in response to this. And then we have the land you the land table of uses. And I don't know what we have. There's a shoreland stuff we're talking about, which is like

that's Yeah. Rewriting the shoreland stuff is a big big job. We can truncate that. I mean like that really would become a much larger zoning discussion which could wait. Um it's really just addressing one question in the ordinance about how to handle a primary residential use and shortland commercial. Right. We were going to do the larger shoreline discussion that we had last night with all this stuff. I think we should just punt the larger shoreline discussion. I mean, I'd like to hear what other people think about what our priorities should be for this next year because that's really what we're talking about. What are we going to do for this next year? We could bring back the draft and everybody has to do uh community service or your taxes double

meaning. Okay. Any other ideas? How long are your meetings typically? Well, I'd like them to be two hours. I mean, the three that we we've had to cancel some, but then last night uh we ended up with like 45 minutes. Um because we start at five and I wasn't even actually it was it was it was um um Stephanie who said, "I think there's a a slackboard meeting, too." I like what? Patriots Day. Hm. Patriots day. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

But then the next question that I brought up and and that's is maybe the Luzo should be meeting on a different night or maybe even a different Thursday which doesn't dovetail with select board meetings happen the same week as select board meetings. Tuesday. Tuesday. Sorry. I mean, could you could the Luzo committee give us like a list like a to-do list and we kind of Well, I think that's I think what I just said is the to-do list. Yeah, I think that's the to-do list from what I'm hearing. Um, to-do list is the to-do list. The to-do list is the to-do list. this stuff and I can just put together a list of

it's this stuff and it's then it's the question of how we want to respond to this stuff to check the best interest of the town or we want to propose that and table of uses which I got to tell you is like

I happen to be a fan of definitions so I don't find it I think they're like golden and important so I don't have a problem reading through all these definitions I've done it already. But it's hard to get a group of people come in off the street and say, "Okay, now we're going to go from abbittoars to cemeteries at this meeting, you know, and and we're going to then we'll do it's a hard cell. It's a it's a it's my Latin teacher used to refer to it as drudgery homework." So,

it's the two-hour meetings are kind of tough, too. You could trim them a little bit. Well, then you get less ordinance more often. Well, everybody's busy. So, I've suggested more than one meeting a month, and that hasn't been very popular either. So I I very much appreciated the fact that we had time last summer on the planning board to really the planning board took the line share the responsibility for the subdivision stuff this year and I greatly appreciated that because otherwise I don't know how if we have the time

the planning board could take the lead on having some of these conversations about some aspects of this as much fun as that would be and that would maybe together that would be a great help. If I were to suggest I'd say the planning board should handle like LD1829 stuff and Lo should do the table of uses and like the more housekeeping type of thing just get knock those out of the way that these are broader policy discussions for all the 1829 that it just sounds better coming from a planning board who ultimately has to recommend it anyway. delay, right?

Some of this stuff is kind of housekeeping too, which we could send to lo, but like I think anything that's a broader policy discussion would have to be right. So, well, we can shoot for that and I can um

so I can just type up something that splits the work kind of and send it to everybody both Luzo and planning board. If we're going to tackle table of uses and definitions at Luzo, I would very much like members of the Luzo committee to have those in a packet like at least two weeks before the meeting rather than not showing up at the meeting and then saying this is what we're going to do tonight. I mean it doesn't give anybody a chance even if they have the best of intention even if they some people will take the time to read them and it would be important as many people as possible to do that. You can't it's like when we get applications to do stuff here we can't not come to the meeting not having read stuff. That's the same thing. Okay. Sort of.

Yeah. If you happen to just send us the list of usage that he gave us what last year. Yeah. I think I've still got mine. Oh, last year. The four emails. I don't have an email on. Make sure it has wedding venues on it. You want an extra? other things. Any other other? No other other here. Other you want you want a motion? Well, we are on item four adjournment. I'll give you a motion to adjourn.

Not that I'm, you know, want to go anywhere now that my chapter works. Okay. Um, before we adjourn, before we adjourn, did you want to do anything about zoning or we going to park that for tonight? No. Yeah, you didn't bring the paperwork. So, we're on item four now. I don't think it's Yeah. motion's on the floor. We're on not debatable. I I All right. All those in and all those in favor I you. Thank you.