Planning Board - Regular Meeting

video, right? I'll call to order the town of Deserve Planning Board meeting for February 25th, 2026. And welcome aboard. All right, here we are. We are getting Zoom organized and I'll kick it off with some introductions first. So tonight we have Daniel Burke, myself, William Hanley and chair. We've got Gail Marshall as well. I thought we were gonna have Ann Dalton. Hang on. We got one more online.

Um can you uh where Dan's an alternate you can't vote him in? Yeah. How is this guy a member? Because each of us Huh. He can participate but he can't vote unless you vote him in. We don't and we don't have a quum to vote you in. Wait. So we're waiting on Ann and I thought Yeah, I thought Tracy is joining us too. So let's just wait for So it's not likely to not be here. Oh, let me

There's no way to see us talk. All right, here we go. Well, first item of the night tonight and is we need to vote Daniel on as a regular member. So, I I move that we add Dan Burka as a regular member and can second that. I'll second that. All right. All those in favor? I I woof. All right, we're official. All right. Um, first thing tonight then is uh minutes for approval.

Um, do you have in here? I move approval of the minute. Do we know which February 11th? Thank you. There you go. Is there a second? I'll second. All right. All those in favor? There you go. I I said I

She said I All right. All right. See, I'm not used to seeing us online, so bear with me. All right. Let's do this. Item three on the agenda, we have section 4.3.5, relocation. And bear with me as I read through this. zone. And what that speaks to is that a non-conforming structure may be relocated within the boundaries of the parcel of which the structures located provided that the site of relocation conforms to all setback requirements to the greatest practical extent as determined by the planning board and code of officer. In no case shall a structure be relocated in a manner that causes the structure to be more nonconforming. Then we also have section 4.3.4 foundation. Whenever a new enlarge or replacement foundation is constructed under a non-conforming structure, the structure and new foundation must be placed such that the setback requirement is met to the greatest practical extent as determined by the planning board or code enforcement officer basing its decision on the criteria specified in section 4.3.5 relocation. And tonight we have the Seal Harbor Yacht Club and the agent is Tim Brochu from Haley Ward. Location is 29 Steamboat Warf Road, Seal Harbor. Tax Map 29 lot 03004 zone is Shorland residential one purposes relocation of non-conforming structure. New foundation under a nonconforming structure. We had a site inspection at 4:00. And was this one advertised?

This was advertised in the Mountain Desert Islander on Thursday, February 12th, 2026. And of Butters were notified by a letter dated February 6, 2026. Right. And I'll ask if there is any conflict of interest on the board here. No. None for me. And so you know there was more than one notification. I wanted I I only saw that one. Is there another one? Yeah. Have it in there. Where? I'm not used to the same where you found the other one

together. Oh no, the letter's notice just there was two separate because the applications. Oh, that there were two applications because of the use was notified and then the rec the non-conforming structures. Yes, I see two letters to that same date to that effect. Sorry. No, it's okay. All right. Well, we had a site visit today at 4 o'clock and uh Gail and I attended and Gail, would you care to share your observations from the site?

That's it. The um Tilhary Yach Club is adjacent to the Steamboat Wolf Road in Seal Harbor and it's an exist we saw in an existing structure that has been in place apparently for many years and um it is currently located below um below the I forget the exact term. It's it's the high water mark um the the floor that is and they want to move it laterally on this narrow strip of property which is um to and to also elevate it and place it thereby placing it up out of that danger zone. Um, and we saw the location that they plan to move it to, which is essentially a down below the road level is a flat surface that is treed by mature trees of various sorts. Then um that are in the location where them that the move would where the move would place the building. So,

all right. Well, with that, I'll turn it over to I'm sorry. We also I should also say we should also say that the we saw the area where the building currently is is the location where the second part of this applical use approval plate relates to the dock that will remain in the current in the location it's currently in. Got it. Right now, we're just talking about the uh Yes. All right. So, Mr. Brochu, you're on. Uh, so we're just going to go through the section.

Yeah, we'll we'll let Kim, are you Well, with that, we're just reviewing first the relocation and the foundation of the Yach Club. We'll get a decision on that. And then we have a separate conditional use approval application for the pier. Yeah. structure extension and the operational necessity structure that's being proposed on. Right. So, we've got two separate applications here.

Uh, for the record and those on the line, I am Tim Brochu. I'm with Haley Ward. We're the agent for Seav Yach Club. Um, and I thought it would be good because this kind of a little bit of a complicated project to just kind of go through a brief overview of of the property and and what we're doing, some of the logistics to it. Uh, basically, as Gail indicated, property is is basically a strip of land, very narrow. It's less than a half of an acre. The current structure sits right here which this is the high water line. You can see most of the building is actually in the water right now. It's on piles and post and the tide goes in and out underneath. The COS was constructed around 1920 prior to any natural resource regulations. This is and is considered a grandfathered non structure. uh with the recent changes in sea level rises and increased storms, they've experienced a lot of damage over the years, which uh brought them to the conclusion, we need to do something with the building to keep it here or uh it's probably going to get washed out to see. After considering all the options, uh the best option they came up with was to relocate it up into an area up into this location here and maintain the existing docking facilities and everything in there separate from the building. And justformational plan would be here's where the existing building is. You know, there'd be a series of crib work that temporarily goes through here. Building would be

lifted in this direction. is in this position and it's jacked up again and slid up the slope into this location here where they would have the foundation already prepared for the building. And it is important to note that moving it to this location will not make it 100% conforming. However, it will significantly reduce several of the existing nonconformities in its original position. in that this being basically in the water in this position we gain a 25 ft set back. We maintain a 25 foot set back. Uh building heights will be actually less here than it is here. Um and lockbridgeidge in those same place are within the zoning gra. As Gail alluded to to this building is currently located about 5 ft below the 100redyear flood elevation. Once we move up to this location, this will put the building 6 ft above which is also a critical component for the move. One of the big things with moving it in in here is because this is a narrow strip of land, it has mature trees on it and it's not very big to move the building up in here. It's going to require significant amount of tree. So, we must subscri have to build a construction road from

down near the town of Warf that comes into the site this way so we can get on trucks, excavators, and things to effectively build this. Is it temporary construction?

That's temporary. Yeah, this is this is all temporary here to be able to build because there's can work off of the steamboat war road and there's a steep slope right along into this area here. So, as part of this relocation plan here, we've developed a pretty robust uh landscape plan which includes a lot of tree rese where the building is and one for where the access road is. We're taking out about 88 trees and section 4.3.51 of the ordinance states trees removed in order to re relocate a structure must be replanted with at least one native tree fruit height for every tree removed which would indicate we would need eight trees. Um, and it says also continue to say if more than five trees are planted, no one species can make up more than 50% of the number of trees planted. And I think if you look at these two two plans, this one and this one here, which have plant list above with trees noted in the top, we're proposing 90 trees which meet or exceed the size requirement of 3 ft. Some of these trees are uh up to 10 to 12 feet high. Uh some of them are noted as caliper trees which are also probably in the uh six to 10 ft height as well. The intent is to really, you know, build this entire site back up in so that it's it's landscaped. It's got bigger trees. It's got trees,

too, that are going to grow and get bigger and larger. Obviously, we can't replace, you know, a 20-in spruce tree. Uh I think this plan provides good basis for you know future tree growth. Um it's also supplemented which with a lot of shrub and ground cover cover plantings to really uh make this as dense as possible and not keep it as open at all. So I think it's very robust plan and it meet or exceeds the ordinance requirements. And I think in regards to the building, that's just kind of an overview of of the highlights of those items. So I could answer any question in regards to the the building.

Now Gail's got a question.

I have questions about the plantings because it looks like it's going to be lovely, but it doesn't look native. Um, and not in its entirety. I mean I and and when I say that I want to I want to make clear that I'm not offering evidence or information for I'm just I may say it declaratively but I'm actually asking a question and it's up to you to tell me that a western cedar is actually an an eastern main cedar or that that's that meets the requirements of a native planting and that hydrangeas meet the requirements of native plantings and stab and all that stuff. And so I

focus on trees because that's what's in the ordinance.

Well, there's other woody and herbaceous vegetation and so so there's two there's there's number one and number two. Um and um and that talks about um must consist of similar native vegetation and um so I I have I have some concerns about that. I went through that list of plantings and looked through it and I have them the MDI um plant book that I used and even lists the one of them the fisa carpus as in their opinion invasive. So um you know I use this um so I I have some questions about that. I'm sure that it could be resolved but I have I have questions about that. We do have

Why Why don't I uh Rob Craig is here who's a landscape architect. Why don't I let him address that for you? I do. And I just for everybody online, we I see Mr. Midland has his hand up, too. So, after we get through Gail's question, I'll open it up to public comment. Go forward.

Hi, Gail. I'm Rob Creek, landscape architect at Lark Studio. prepare the plant list uh and planting plant for this. Your questions are a good one. Um one of the things we've done here is we've got about 98 to 99% of this is all native. We did take a few plant materials and you might consider them non-native. One in particular was the western cedar you referred to. We found we use the the native one, the eastern cedar um and some of its derivatives is absolutely decimated by deer predation. The western arboright we found to be virtually deer proof. So it's really worked well on many jobs over the last 20 years that we've used it on. Um it's very difficult to tell that from a native in terms of its looks, its habits,

and the deer just stay away from it. So that's what we elected to do for that. Bisoparpus is considered an improved native. Um and I've not come across the fact that it may be invasive. I've not seen that. Yeah, I just Well, that it was the different variety of it that was listed as coming from a container somewhere, somebody's planting, and that it escaped and it's considered native. So, what is it's not Diablo, but it's No. Yeah.

But what what we try to do with all our all our plants that we specify is that they are if they're they're native um and they most of them come from New England anyway. We try very hard not to get things from Carolina sort of out west or things like that. I I guess my when you when you look in that area in particular,

what's striking about it is and I only tend to see it from the road, but what's striking about it is how completely sort of main native it is. There are a few large roodendrrons that you encounter as you're walking along and that sort of thing, but by and large it's purely a main landscape. And I hydrangeas seem to be having a moment in some parts of Mount Desert Island, but and maybe northeast Harbor, but I think that's a very different place. And that's another example where I'm wondering where a plant that may be native to China or some place like that fits into this. I know they grow they're grown in yards everywhere, but I understand makes them native.

I think one of the other things that we can look at your point about looking at the um the property, the proposed relocation from the road is a good one. I think we what we try to do is any type of ornamentals we've added in that we know we've seen around the area. So, palm trees or something crazy like that. But where we've located these flowering species you're referring to is more down towards the water in and around closer to the building and entrances where you want to accent a few things just to add a pop of color. But it's not it's a very judicious use. It's not a heavy use in it light touch.

I appreciate that. I assume that people viewing it from boats would I mean that's a that's a view that people have perspective that people have concerns about how the landscape appears as as well. So, I I I just throw those concerns out because it really broke my eye that there were all these sorts of plantings that were probably going to look lovely, but was not going to be returned in my eye to what a native that native hillside looks like. That's all. I I'm one person.

I understand. I will say one other point I'd like to make too is that all the ground cover that Tim referred to down towards the water, that's awful lot of puffle and burn and bayberry and things like that. I gave those all gold stars. All right, I'm going to open it for public comment. Mr. Midland, you had your hand up.

Uh, yes. Thanks for recognizing me. I'm here with my wife, Abby Simpson. Um, we are property owners. um uh adjacent to the yach club at 193 and 11 Steamboat Warfro. Um thank you Tim for your presentation. Unfortunately us on Zoom we couldn't see anything um that you were showing but thanks to Kim and her wonderful responsiveness we uh she did send ahead um your package so we were able um to look through and get some idea. Um we have two uh main cons concerns uh about the project um which uh if you could explain a little bit it would would be helpful to us. Uh we understand that the project suffered the dam the yach club has suffered damage and they want to move um this the structure up um beyond the this 25 foot setback. Um it's there what is curious to us is why there's a necessity for a full height lower level in the um reconstructed building. Um it number one um makes the building much taller than it would have been um as seen from the road. Um but um also uh by my calculation is uh adding significant use abilities to the nonconforming uh building where presumably that would be in question. thought

2,000 square foot. I came up with about 2,000 square ft of lower level space and a full height area. Um that's labeled storage room and then there's a mechanical room, bathroom. Uh I can't remember what else is down there. I'm not looking at it right now. Anyway, so the the question number one is uh can the building be built on a foundation that is not a full height fullstory um structure and um if it cannot or there are significant reasons that your client doesn't want to do it um what are the uses for that addition significant amount and basically doubling almost doubling the square footage of the structure and are there any limitations on that use? Thank you very much for your responses. Well, I think I can answer the question on the uh the lower level basically is enclosing the uh what is now currently the existing building where it's set on piles. And the reason why we need to move it up in there is because of the slope of the land. Uh trying to build it into the slope, the back of the building would be, you know, into the the road. Um, and to be able to build it and maintain the road there, it had to be built up. The space underneath is is only going to be used for storage. I think if you've been there in the summer, you may have noticed they they store pile a lot of boats in that that wooded area at times

and that will just put their boats underneath in the in the basement. Right. So, what what you're saying I mean, yes, you're right. I built rebuilt a house right next door and my lower level does face into below the grade. Uh part of the yacht club's current building faces below uh grade as you know. Um, so the um, and I don't know that I'm reading the um, usable.

I I don't know that I'm reading the site plan correctly, but it it seems as though it could, you know, you you could have much lower foundation. You don't need 12 feet of additional um lower level in order to site um to site that building. And um so that's one concern. The second concern is of course is it's um it's not easy for me to see anyway. on the the plan. I see the word storage, but you're adding you're putting in the mechanicals down there. You're putting, you know, bathroom and other things down there, and you're there's a stairway, the internal stairway that's going directly down there. So, I'm not sure what would stop the yach club from converting that space from a storage space to a party space or a learning space or some other use. Um, as as you know, there's high at certain periods of the year, there's very high intensity use of the yach club and the parking along the road and you know that whole area and um it concerns us that there'd be an opportunity for even

greater intensity of use um unless there is a particular reason it seems seems you're taking a a building which is very nice that they're keeping the building because it's architecturally historic and and precious but I'm not sure unless there are other reasons why it needs to be it was put on pilings because there was water but it's being set into the hillside and where you're uh you're taking all the trees down and regrading. So, um I mean I I'm not sure that you can answer and I won't keep repeating my question, but I just more for the the the planning board to sort of keep these these two issues in mind. I don't think the building needs to be as high and as prominent and I and the the concern is with no restrictions on uh creating all this other square footage that there's going to be other issues that on other unintended issues that come along with the the use of this property. Anyway, I'll stop talking now. But

to the building height, if we were building a new building, brand new building, yes, we probably could incorporate something. But we're taking an existing structure and moving it up onto the hill where if we wanted to lower it because of all the slope coming off from the road, the back of the building would basically be 8 feet into the dark. You know, we we couldn't. We've got it as low as we possibly can from the road right now uh and still maintain the existing structure as it is. Do I presume correctly that you'd have to move it forward to the towards the water with the water. Exactly.

And we've got the setbacks that we're trying to deal with. We're right up against the uh right away of the road and we're at the 25 ft setback from the highest annual tide line. Bearing in mind that the concern is is obvious that this will be from the road this would be a much higher goal. That's that's a different question than whether or not it's too tall for planning board purposes. But but if you look through uh as part of our application package too, we have gone through and done u the building height calculations and it meets the it's below the maximum building heights.

Yeah, I think we should talk about that too for the record because there is a building height requirement that 25 foot is 75 foot setback and yeah, but they've got a current non-forming structure that exceeds the height, right? and they're allowed to it's a non-conforming condition on the property. They're allowed to relocate that and maintain that height or lower. Yeah. Says whichever is greater. So they are going a little bit below what currently that height is in its current location even with the new foundation proposed.

Just take a moment to respond directly to the concerns that we heard in there. Joshua Buck is the owner's representative for the project been part of this all the way through design and planning. The primary drivers that were explored when we started talking about relocating this building first and foremost were reducing nonconformity. So we've established that we have tweaked and turned and and maneuvered this building to a place where it is you can't move it inches without it being encroaching upon that 25 foot buffer. So we've painstakingly done our best to reduce that point of nonconformity. The second driving uh factor that we looked at was accessibility. So we have a standing membership across all age groups. There's a large older age group demographic in the membership and so accessibility of the building is very important. Uh currently it's not easy. We do have an elevator which will be removed. The tower on the back of buildings that's not being incorporated. That would be another additional major height component that would building up. So we removed that to reduce the height of the building. Um, and then navigated accessibility ability to the building and engagement with the slope by finding the lowest possible condition as Tim noted for where the building is now. To set it lower into the slope, we'd have to essentially rebuild the back of the building as a retaining wall, which wouldn't be retaining the building. We'd be basically reconstructing the whole thing. Um, and we also wouldn't be able to to preserve and improve accessibility to the building. The interior stair that was noted, that's to give a safe walking condition through the building and downstairs. So, if it is raining, if it is wet, that same demographic can maneuver through the building and out, not have to go down landscape steps, which will be wet and paled and average conditions up here. So, that was also taken into consideration. There's no planned or prescribed change of use for the building whatsoever. No change in membership plan or program for the building. As Tim noted, all of the

storage for the building has to occur outdoors. So, they're making regular investment in the gear, the boats, the equipment that they use for uh children's sailing uh lessons in schools, which is an important part of the community here. And so, the goal here is to preserve that investment um and get those inside the building on an annual basis where they can store it. I'll note that the height for the basement is not just dictated by an arbitrary number. We figured out to the best of our abilities how to get the building beyond 25 ft. How to make it accessible coming from it's now two different locations how we're going to get to it. I'd also note that when the building is relocated, we have to preserve all the existing structure under the building. We can't remove that and thin up our floor plenum. So, we have to navigate all of the existing structure under the building. And then in order to set it anywhere, we have to put a whole new structure underneath that. about two feet of that more than two feet of that is going to be basically absorbed by structural existing and new structural to support the building in its place and then at that point um the rest of the foundation is is really part of it set into the hill and then part of it is uh proud on the south side I think that you're noting I'll also note that we have sliding barn doors this is a non-conditioned space so these are not like weather sealed doors this is made for storage so this is big doors that will slide and open so we can move equipment in and out. It's not a place that can be sealed up or years used year round for other programs that were noted there.

Mr. Midland, you have your hand up again. Yes. I'm sorry. I just want to clarify with with Kim because we were sort of confused by this that um when they took the heights they used the existing height they use the top of the elevator shaft as opposed to the top of the building. Well, I guess that is because it's part of the building. What you're saying is because it's already part of a non-conforming use, then even though it's not the whole roof line, it's that that can be their starting point.

That's correct. Because that's part of the building. Yes, that's the highest point of the building. I see. Okay. Thank you. Welcome. So, if I Kim, we have 4.4 for non-conforming uses. And so if they were going to try to expand the use of this facility to do other things, significantly different things with that downstairs, wouldn't that wouldn't they have an issue with that anyway? Um,

now well the use would not be a non-conforming use because you guys would classify it the same as you classified the northeast fleet but would be commercial uh recreational facilities. Okay. For boating outdoor boating though it's not a non-performing use. But I I I mean, but there's there's a general concern here being expressed about how this lower level might at some point in the future be used for something that wasn't previously anticipated. If they change the use of the ground level, yeah, other than what they've stayed here, if they want to use it for additional use for the yach club, like I don't know what they would use it for,

right? Um they would have to come back to you guys,

right? That's what I'm that's what I'm saying. That's that's what I'm wondering. Okay. Thank you. I had a question just about kind of the the history of how the project evolved where maybe you could speak to kind of the how you arrived at the plan of current attack with just the logistics of of moving the structure like you know what I I understand like okay we've got the structure it's riding out over the water liter literally and we're moving it laterally onto its new foundation up to the site and you're essentially going to evaporate everything between the existing structure and the the new location and then we're on top of it then we've got to have the construction access on the south side then coming in and just was curious I mean what can you guys talk about like some of the I I'm sure you you've uh you waited through all the different possibilities, but if I mean talk about that, talk about how you arrived at this plan of attack for moving the structure and and just hey, I'm all for um historical structures and precious things and did you ever just consider like putting the foundation in and maybe architecturally dismantling ing the structure and reconstructing it on the new foundation instead of just moving the whole thing intact. So

speak to it. Yeah. So our initial initial fors of exploration and internally the only discussion was keeping the yacht club in its existing location

and so we explored essentially a vertical lift for that building. The primary driver here is storm water impact over the past several years that really indicated that despite all the reinforcements done on that building and changes to the interior floor and structure. It was an absolute necessity to preserve the structure. So we started looking at lifting it. Um I'll note just one point of context here the existing dock area that we saw today and that we get to that dock from that building and that dock is a complex and it's put in a very specific place and it's accessed there. So there's there's submarine topography to be navigated and there's a reason that dock is exactly where it is. So as we started to look at lifting the building, then we look at the structures for how we lift that building. So we can go up on stilts, we can do steel, we can do concrete, we can do granite, and even even a moderate lift, a mild to moderate lift was going to essentially create a tower of posts andor um granite structure that was going to be underneath this. So this is just part of the engineering that we're looking at. And then we now as we get higher have to navigate transitioning from the road to this building currently. We come down the existing landscape steps right near down to the building. And so it's not just the building itself, but it's the associated landscape that has to be altered. And then because of storm water management, because of how we're integrating with that ledge, there's the back of the building. So our initial explorations were lift and can we move it back towards the road? And it became an engineering complexity that I think is could be ultimately solvable. There is a threshold of juice first squeeze, cost versus reward for doing that. Um largely untenable what it would take to lift the building, hold it there, and then build a structure of that magnitude underneath it that was going to be stable and resilient and perform what we needed to do and then tie in the landscaping to it. In addition, we have to do something with the building while we're lifting it. In some cases, you can lift it in place. Our earlier explanations into what we need to do

with that structure and what we need to do with the ground prep wasn't going to allow us to leave that there and do that work. And so there was an option to potentially crane this whole thing onto a barge or large barges or a recommendation to us was actually to crib on site. And so initially the conversation was we can clear that spot and we can temporarily stow the building on site and rebuild this whole place and put it back. You can see the initial part there of we lose landscape almost no matter what we do we need site access coming from the east no matter what we do here. So we saw right from the beginning no matter what happened we are going to have substantial environmental impact just to get work done here because we can't perform it from the road. Some can be done by the barge, but those two considerations, the site access and how we were actually going to navigate this building were part of that early conversation. We did look at potential for dismantling or uh compartmentalizing this building into pieces um because of its build typography, because of its age, it's essentially completely cost prohibitive. I think environmentally cost prohibitive. the amount of work and time that it would take, the impact of local community, the way that we would be getting that apart and taking it out of there, all of it netted out from a cost and complexity standpoint, environmental standpoint as being far less than favorable. And so when we looked at no matter what we do, we're going to impact this site in a heavy way. We know we want to reduce nonconformity. We know we want to create an enduring resilient structure and we want to keep it as close to the water as possible so it has and maintains the character that it's always had at Seal Harbor um and the character that the membership know and love. We found after many many variations of this looking at exactly what you asked that the current proposal was is the best of all possible scenarios.

Yes, it's complex project. One, I did note the dock. The other issue here is that when we go up, we have to get down to that dock. We'll get to it in the part two of this, but a major issue there was that once we lift that building up, getting people down to that dock actually would require us requesting to expand our non-conforming use. we would need to build out over the water in order to navigate down to safely for public access to that existing dock complex. And so there's a whole component. Yeah, we could keep it where it is. We could lift, we can move it back, but we'd actually be increasing our non-conformity to do so. Yeah, I think I mean we're not here to tell you how to construct your project, but I would think that you know and this in this moving it seems to make sense in a lot of different ways and um you know the primary thing is God you guys are below the hundredyear flood line you know and the other thing is that you know I I think it's you're in many ways they're decreasing the nonconformity by getting it back behind the 25- ft setback. And the 0 to 25 ft setback area is probably most the most regulated area on any shorefront in the state of Maine. And you know, and hats off to doing that. Um, you know, I and it's always you're looking at the means to the end and I like your phrase, the juice to the squeeze. You know, it's I mean, at the end of the day, you know, despite those pluses, you're still going to evaporate the site to get it over

there. And, you know, Lark's got a fantastic reveation plan here. and you guys are dotting your eyes and crossing your tees. I just I don't know from an architecture standpoint. I I I I you know, and I'm again I'm not telling you how to construct this thing, but I would think that a an architectural reconstruction of this where you dismantled this thing and set it on your new foundation over there would would maybe get you some more juice from your squeeze by not evaporating the sight But that's that's a uh an opinion and we have a quantitative review to go through here. But just for the record, I wanted to put that out there and you very artfully explained why you guys arrived at this approach to the project. Just wanted to convey that.

Yeah, we appreciate that. We looked at that genuinely very deeply. We are we consider ourselves stewards of the environment. I know the membership does too. And we take very seriously this work when we do these projects. If you recall, we've been here before discussing actually quite the opposite, attempting to save trees um and save vegetation on shoreline with an eyesight of this. Um it's something that we focus on and we attempt to preserve in every project. I will note that there is nothing that we can promise as it relates to that, but we've discussed early doors with our building mover methods for moving a good fortus building over the water and then bringing it off of the site such that there is opportunity for at least exploring preservation of some matures in some locations. And the reason why it, you know, you you can't pick it up and travel it down steamboat warf road and set it on is because that's the I mean that's just the primary access to the dock and just you're going to

actually looked at that as well considered it. Yeah. the geometry of the road, utilities, uh getting it up and then trying to get it actually then down and moving a building isn't exactly a quick affair either. So, but I think too it to your point about disassembling the existing building and reassembling it in this location. Um it might save us a few trees on the shoreline, but we would still need to do our access road. He's still going to fill their foundation.

I I get that. I you know, it's going to save treat if you were to reconstruct it. It's going to save the vegetation between the existing and the proposed location and probably something at the shore. But yes, you still have to get down there from the south and and build your your new foundation and whatever else you need to get down there for. So, understood, sir. Sanford White House. I'm a representative from the Yach Club. Um the building is actually also not going entirely laterally across the property. Uh it is going to come out towards the water a bit and then to the south. So a lot of that vegetation, the garden planting area that's all there around the walkway and whatnot is not necessarily going to be wiped out. And

can you talk about that just a little bit more, Tim? For the record, just you're building crib work with a rail system out in the water to move it. I'll pull that up. I put it in this. This comes down to the timing of the move and discretion of the moving company. We have several different strategies we've explored. The one that we're currently focusing on is what Sanford just mentioned is that we bring the building out over water

with the hope that we can preserve some of the vegetation. It also makes sense for the way we want to bring it onto the foundation. So, we get underneath the existing building, uh, put in crib work. We bring in steel rails and get the building jacked up off its existing foundation and connection so that it's free to move. And then what would happen is they would probably do this move here would be this would be a move right here where we have this on rails. Another set of rails would be set over here. And then this slides over, catches these rails, and then they get it set over until they're completely off out of this one. And then they would do the same thing moving this way. So it slides on on these rails across from this

now. And that's all on land. Not that's not well this this here is all a lot of this here is is ledge and and cobbles. Yes. So what they would do is they just build these temporary How are you getting it up to the elevation of the proposed structure once it's in this location here. You can see that there's additional and then you jack it up again. You jack it up again and and it might come over like a staircase. Mhm.

It comes. It'll be in one location. Once we get it here, we'll probably bring it up four or five more feet. Slide it over probably half of the building length. Rebuild the crib work underneath it. Jack it up again. And be building a series of crib work to get it to go this way. So, these are the arrows how it goes that way. Has that been structurally like checked to make sure that raising it? Is that going to just cause it to Yeah. No, we both with any building move you you do as you know you do a lot of uh securing um and I think of the duress that structure is going to be under

you know I mean pay attention to windows we got to pay attention to a lot of different things to make sure that everything is secure there'll be internal bracing that will go in that it's temporary you know that's all I just I again I love the phrase the juice and the squeeze. I can't just how much the logistics of that versus compartmentalizing the building and architecturally moving it, you know, just wow. Well, there's a ship of thesis debate there. Yeah. Once you do take something apart, your ability to get it apart is a huge part of it. Yeah.

And then the second part, your juice to squeeze is time and money largely there. and then the end product what you get plus the fact that we still need to be up on a foundation. The other thing I'll note here uh we have aerials for this project and others of the area and how the forest and the vegetation in this zone alone has changed on a less than a decade basis to a point where you almost can't recognize or you think they were 50 60 years apart the way that forest management has been done across properties here. So I'll note that we do have mature species here. Those trees are not these aren't hundreds and hundreds of year old trees. They will recover. This is a consciously curated and wellthought through planting structure. I know that we need to in order to achieve this, we do have to wipe this out. But a really quick survey of photos of Seal Harbor, areas of Seal Harbor will show you this has been done time and time again and it's completely regrown and this is being thoughtfully planned in advance. So it does factor into our juice for the squeeze. We love the vegetation there. It's a huge part of the character. We know it will take time to reestablish itself, but a good portion of the planning budget right now is being allocated to the most mature species possible.

Any concerns with the removal of the trees or landsliding into the ocean where the root system? So part of our landscape is is accounting for that in our chaining structure. Truth is, it's it's almost a miracle those that the slope that substrate and the trees are all hanging on by prayer as many of the the items along or the the vegetation along the coast here. I think if it wasn't if it wasn't going to happen naturally like if you cut those down and left it, it would be a concern because we're working on such a tight site. We're basically going to disturb that whole area anyway and put it all back in a more stable way that then the future vegetation will not be trying to hang on to. Because if you cut half of them down, probably the other half would fall over.

You have some pockets, like put in pockets. Yeah, some areas we might too. It depends on how successful we are at stabilizing the grade that packs up against. I was going to ask if the landscape architect could talk to that about just like planting depths and you know you've got a very robust reveation plan here but you know we're still on the side of a cliff here and um you know how are you going to sustain like 10 to 12 foot trees of you know and all the other all the other plantings.

Oh it's a great question. So what we've done in our planting design here is to have 10 to 12 foot trees, six to eight, four to fives, three the four foot height trees and we varied it because of aesthetics but most importantly for ecological reasons so that the slope doesn't fall down. So where we have pockets in closer to the building where we know we have the soil depths we have our larger material and where we think we may not have that much material we have smaller trees 3 to four feet high. and then the judicious use of um native sods that you can literally pin right down to the soil that won't that won't go away.

What are the diameters of trees proposed? Well, some of Yeah. So, in terms of um evergreen trees, there's, you know, 10 to 12, six to eight, four to fives, five to six foot high generally. And then um the diameters, we've gone anywhere between two to three and sometimes 4 inch caliber on this particular species on this. So, there's nothing really small

where we do have smaller trees is where we're to your point was where we really want to um cover the slope. um in two, three and four foot high trees, both deciduous and uh evergreen. And what happens you you get them in small pots or sometimes even bare root. And what that does is that tree is much more adaptable rather than a big root ball to establish itself very quickly on the land. I will note that um we've also have an irrigation system in here too. So that always critical for the first five years of plantings, really the first two or three and then beyond. Make sure that these things are watered and well taken care of and established as quickly as possible both for ecological and aesthetic reasons. We really want this to fit in with the neighborhood as quickly as we can.

How do like the ground covers and smaller shrubby things hold up like in the in the marine environment? Very well. because we're using the same plant materials that are all the way along the the coast. Now, you've got, you know, bay berries and blueberries and huffberries that will hug right up right up to the ocean edge. So, nothing there is is precious or non-native earth. You said fur grow anywhere.

Great. So in terms of um removal between the hose building and and the road pretty much everything between the road and the building is going that that exists. There's no potential to use existing things to screen. So uh everything in this straight along with here

where we know the existing trees and vegetation remain understood. There's there's there is quite a bit of vegetation on this all trees and stuff that we will be able to maintain everything site being removed between the road entry. That's everything.

Yeah, we're we're assuming No, if we get in and we can actually do this work and not have to take some of these, we've accounted for them in case. However, we don't necessarily have to take those, but when we go in and build this road and start digging this foundation, we're going to be getting into the root systems of these things. Uh so, it's likely those will be casualties of economies for it. But if we get in and and this this 12-in maple here, if we don't have to take it, we won't. How are you guys handling like an erosion and sedimentation control during construction? Well, that's helpful.

During construction, we'll we'll build this road first, then down a slope of it, and we will follow standard MD uh regulations, and we'll have probably silk fence in here. We'll have socks. Um, we're not going to have a tremendous amount of uh exposed soil because the site's so small.

We'll be digging for this foundation fairly quickly and then right after it's going to become foundation. Well, the foundation won't be exposed for long at all. Then this will be basically a concrete foundation and we'll just really need to kind of maintain this area here and go immediately in and and stabilize any of this area here that's disturbed from moving the building from here to this location. Do you anticipate having to blast for that foundation?

Right now we're hoping not to blast. We probably will have to do some hammering. Um, but we are doing a geotech investigation right now to determine what that level will be. Due to the proximity to the road and everything else, it's highly highly unlikely we'll be able to pass because we're so close to the road, right? When we did when we did the utilities water line through here, everything was we didn't Are you guys gonna have to support like the road edge or the

I think during construction we we will have we will go outside of the foundation slightly and then once the foundation's in, we'll back fill immediately right after. So it it's not going to be exposed for very long. Yeah, not at all. And then we'll have, you know, drainage around the foundation and everything to get everything up. Right. Well, we still have the review of the project ahead of us. Yes, we do.

I am everybody's all right with it online. I'm going to close public comment for now and we're going to soldier on with the project review. Now's your chance if you got anything to say. This is Michael Strawbridge. I just want to thank you for the opportunity to be able to comment, but I have nothing further to add. Thank you. Yeah, thank you.

All right. Well, thank you to all the public attending and I'm going to close public comment and let's get into this circuitous review of this nonconforming structure. And when I say circuitous, it is because of and Kim please steer me straight here, but we start with 435 and then go to 434. Yeah, because 434 is a It bumps us back to fourth looking at relocation to the great standard with the foundation and with the relocation of the building. Right. I'll be right back.

Yes. So we are well let's first get a motion to find the application complete. So moved. Okay. Right. All those in favor I I right got a complete application. We don't have a short form for non-conforming structures. Unfortunately, we barely got a check list for them as well. So, you know, definitely one of the more complex project types to review for the board and everyone's different. So,

but you guys have a very organized uh application here. So, thank you for that. First off, um I'm going to wait till Kim gets back, but no, we're we're going to kick it off by going through section 434.3.5 of our land use ordinance. Left that open. We want to do what we usually do as a motion to approve.

Yeah, I I want to ask him about that. There's one more procedural thing I need to ask Kim about when she gets back. But um I can make it story time and read section 4.3.5 in the meantime though if you guys want.

Yeah, just for the record. So here we are at section 4.3.5 relocation. What that talks about is that again the non-conforming structure may be relocated within the boundaries of the parcel which the structure is located provided that the site of relocation conforms to all setback requirements to the greatest practical extent. That's a key phrase in all of this. uh as determined by the planning board of code enforcement officer provided that the applicant demonstrates that the present subsurface sewage disposal system meets the requirements of state law and state main subsurface wastewater disposal rules. That doesn't apply here because you guys are on town sewer or that a new system can be installed in compliance with the law and said rules. And in no case shall a structure be relocated in a manner that causes the structure to be more non-conforming. Another key phrase uh in determining whether the building relocation meets the setback to the greatest practical extent. There's the key phrase again. Uh the planning board or code enforcement officer shall consider these criteria. The size of the lot, the slope of the land, potential for soil erosion, the location of other structures on the property and adjacent properties, the location of the septic system and other on-site s soils suitable for septic systems, which doesn't apply, and the type and amount of vegetation to be removed to accomplish the relocation. And then of course, it continues on, you know, where we're in the shoreland zone. And this only applies to the shoreline zone. And when it's necessary to remove vegetation within the water wetland setback area in order to relocate the structure, the planning board shall require replanting the native vegetation or recompensate for the destroyed

vegetation. In addition, the area from which the relocated structure was removed must be replanted with vegetation. So obviously, they got to put some plants back on the former footprint. So, you know, just we're getting there. So, just three other points. You know, it talks about that the trees removed in order to relocate a structure must be re replanted at least one native tree 3t in height for every tree removed. If more than five trees are plant are planted, no one species can make up more than 50% of the number of trees planted. replaced trees must be planted no further from the water or wetland than the trees were removed. Uh the other point is other woody and herbaceous vegetation ground cover that are removed and destroyed in order to relocate um must be reestablished. An area at least the same size of the area where vegetation and or ground cover was disturbed, damaged and removed must be reestablished within the setback area. And the vegetation and or ground cover must consist of similar native vegetation and or ground cover that was disturbed, destroyed or removed. And then lastly, where feasible when a structure is relocated on a parcel, the original location of the structurals has to be replanted with the vegetation which may consist of grasses, shrubs, trees, and or a combination thereof. So here we are in section 4.3.5 and um first off procedurally Kim do we you know with this like we do with conditional use approvals do we go ahead and approve it and then press the pause no we don't do that

no we just go through those sections right so we within the context of 435 Five, we're going through the review criteria, right? And having a findings of fact on No. No. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. And no. Exactly. Right. Yes. Yes. You're going through you're doing your findings of facts conclusion law on each of those section and in the end is when you vote. Right. So what we're talking about here are those um um that's a lot. Yeah. the the review criteria I just read through in front of you there that

um is in the folder. There we go. That helps you go through those sections. You kind of have a checklist. Yes. Once re relocation the foundation I did do both conditionally use allow for mention for so but I'm just starting right now on 435. I got the checklist and this and what the checklist is is just section 435 and just broken out in sections. Right. And what that starts with is the size of the lot.

Size of the lot lot the records indicate the position indicates is 047 that right 47 acres. Yes. Yep. What else do you want? I don't know. I mean, maybe we talk about like the geometry of a lot. Okay. Is a 47. The record indicates that it's a 47 parcel of land that is long and lean. It the dimensions are in here somewhere. Um, where is

this? Look at the Steve 101 that gives him the second third gives you the proposed acreage and footage. Like you would have a long narrow lot. You had a long narrow building. of the geometry of the lot.

This is perhaps conducive with the geometry of the geometry of the lot is notated on the first page of the project descriptions. It is approximately 400 ft long. Uh that width ranges from just a few feet to Yeah, there it is. that one section where the building is going to proc.

So the the record indicates that the the narrow strip of land is approximately 400 ft uh of road. Um the width of the parcel ranges from just a few feet to approximately 85 ft. There is one location where the existing structure could be moved which would provide a 25- ft setback from the highest annual tide line and be adjacent to the road roadway right away line. And that that area is approximately a is a similar shape to the this to the building itself. So, the building has the potential to fit in that flat area um as far back as it can. It does get a couple feet closer to the road. Uh it goes I think from 10 ft to 7 ft.

Correct. But the bigger advantage is that it's 25 ft back from the shore and it's it is making it more non-conforming on the roadside but not in a way that makes it worth moving it closer to the shore. Um, and if you look at the other properties along that strip that are already there, it's not going to be appreciably closer to the road than some of those other properties that already exist there. Um,

take that ball of clay and mold it into a motion. Well, do you want a motion just for the size of the lot? Yes. Okay. So, we need findings of fact and

Yes. So, so those are the findings of fact. So the findings of fact is that this is a if you want this way Heidi you want it this way. This is a long narrow piece of property. It's a relatively long and narrow building and the property itself is approximately 400 ft long on the road and the width ranges from 85 to just a few feet. And the the location that's being proposed is 25 ft back from the shore, but which is great improvement over the fact that it's currently out over the shore, but it's 3 ft closer to the road. Um so in that regard um the conclusions of law is that this proposal fits the size of the lot to the greatest practical extent.

Are you happy with that? Sounds very thorough. Gail. All right. Is is Heidi happy with that? Yeah, I got I got uh most of that. Yes, I'm good. We're good. All right. Thank you. Don't make me reread it. Don't make me repeat it. All right. We have a findings of fact inclusion law and Kim and then we're just gonna vote on this all at the end. Correct. Okay.

All right. So the next review criteria is we've got topography and slope of the land. Right? The slope of the land is that there is one flat area flatter

flatter area roughly the size of the existing building that is the proposed building site. The land itself does steeply drop from the edge of the road. um which will be which the application indicates will be dealt with by putting a foundation underneath the existing building that lifts it up to make the use of the building viable.

Um proposed relocation is cited on the less steep portion of the existing lot. Yes. Um thus minimizing potential sight impact.

Yes. and also um accommodating a well I want something about moving it back you know from the 25 foot setback um I think should be mentioned with respect to the foundation or is that a

yeah that the the topography of this location allows them to better site the structure with less impact to the site and also increase the distance to the greatest practical extent to the greatest that's the phrase I looking for well I'll make that motion if you'll allow me to do it that way right you Well, findings of fact and that's the findings of fact. So, the conclusion of law is that the proposed relocation of the building um to the greatest practical extent uh conforms to the existing slope of the land.

Heidi, did you untangle any of that? It's recording. I think I think I have it. Uh it might be a little scribbled, but yes, I think I I think I have that. Great. And then All right. So, I tied to that review criteria is then we have the uh potential for soil erosion, right? And that's how that's tied to that is the topography. You know, again, they're

they're placing the structure on the flatter the flat tur section of the the site. Right. Right. So the application indicates that the lo that the relocation of the building to its proposed location places it on the lattest possible portion of the lot which will have the practical effect of minimizing the potential for erosion

and their plantings. and and the the application provides a complete erosion control pro program during construction. And the application further provides that immediately after the completion of the building, the moving of the building, a reconstruction and landscaping plan will stabilize the site to the greatest practical extent. Therefore finding of the finding of law is that the potential for erosion has been reduced to the greatest practical extent but with this by this plan.

Heidi, you good on that? Yep. Oh, sorry. I left my sound on. You probably hear me typing. All good. All right. Moving on with next review criteria. Criteria is the location of other structures on the property and on adjacent properties. The application indicates that they're technically moving it away from adjacent structures. Yeah. The only adjacent would be to the west and we're moving further further away from him. Yes.

North. Right. The the application indicates that other structures that other there will not be other structures on the property impacted by the move and and and the move will in fact move the the building further from adjacent properties. So therefore, as a conclusion of law, the application has met that subsection to the greatest practical extent. And if I can move to septic, I can do that quickly.

Yeah, that one's quick. So the the septic the findings of fact and the conclusion of law is that the location of septic is not relevant to this application because the property has been and will be connected to town steer and then probably and then we get to f yes so vegetation to be removed to accomplish the relocation. The application indicates that the type and amount of vegetation to be removed will be major forget

significant however you want to say it will be major. However, the standard is to the greatest extent whether or not vegetation is being protected to the greatest practical extent and the application and the description of the moving process by the representatives of the of the project. uh indicate that no, the ve the vegetation will not be removed if it isn't necessary in order to accomplish the project. and the owners and the owners will provide for a robust rellandscaping proposal that will

want to mention the specific sheets of the

yes yes so with respect to the application regarding vegetation they moved and replaced. Um the application sheets maps L30 plan sheets L301, L302 and L303 define the removal and the replacement and rejuvenation of the site after the construction and after a the facts that have been presented both in the application and at the hearing indicate that the removal of the vegetation is to the greatest extent practical being limited despite its significant nature. Does that work for you? It's not great, but that's what it is.

By your conclusion of law. Oh, well, okay. Then the and the conclusion of law is that the provision regarding the type and amount of vegetation to be removed has been met to the greatest practical extent. All right. Do we have Well, let me check with Heidi. Heidi, was that good for you? I got it. Thanks. Are there a lot of approval conditions? This well we have to talk about the foundation. Are you that doing that separately?

Yeah, that's next. We don't need to say anything about DP or what approval conditions. DP approval. D approval. We don't say that. Yeah. anything back from the main historic preservation. It did not arch. I should be on condition. Yeah. So when as we're reviewing this and we're going down through 435, then we go to 434. Are we also doing a conditional use application? That's separate. That's separate. And that's separate because that's a marine structure and the operation

and that's only for the pier. We don't have to do a CUA for this building. No. Okay. Oh, cuz the use is already established. The use is established. They said we don't just relocating the So, go ahead. I would state that the with the hive being mentioned in the relocation that it should be verified by Savannah that's not ambrosia because that would be I believe

so that's another approval condition is that the height of the structure is verified by a surveyor that's not Yeah, I don't have to say it's not I know to to be consistent with and then the application. Yeah, to be cons. So, we've got D approval. We've got the main historic preservation preservation. No, that's right. That's that's on the condition that's on the so we have D and and and we have the survey of the structure verify the and do we need to confirm lot coverage?

Yeah, I do lot coverage too. Okay, so that's a condition because they're close to it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. 19.87 So

did one random question there. When they bring like rocks and stuff onto the site, does do those count towards law coverage? Anything that's not green. Everything that's not green. Fun stuff. All right. So, we've got law cover. The approval conditions are verification of lock coverage, verification of building height, and D approval. All right. Well, then we is main historic preservation.

That's no that's going to be under the use review. That's the next one. Next application. We have yet begun to right. So let's let's get a motion here to approve for the section 435. But what do we do with all of the things that we just That's what it Kim. Isn't that what this motion is for? Motion for all this that you just went through. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, we're just voting one vote. Yeah. We're just doing one vote. Yes.

So, why don't why don't we just say just a motion to approval. I move I move for the forgoing findings effect and conclusions of law about the size of the lot, the slope of the land, the potential for erosion, the location of other structures on property and adjacent properties, the location of septic um and the type and amount of vegetation to be removed. the um that the standards of 4.3.5 have been met to the greatest extent a practical extent and therefore the application should be approved. Second. Right. All those in favor? I

I right the foundation only if it's all against the foundation. It's the same thing. So Ann, some point you need to come in and sign that please. All right, we'll do. Thank you.

All right. The same thing. Yeah. Oh, yeah. So as a review process,

now we have a sort of a checklist for section 434. And here we go. So this is section 4.3. 24 foundation for non-conforming structures and um

just read the paragraph. Yeah, I know. We all know it needs to meet by greatest practical extent, but um in determining whether the building relocation meets the setback to the greatest practical extent um planning board, we got to look at that the site of relocation conforms to all setback requirements and greatest practical extent. Uh again, subsurface sewage disposal which doesn't apply. Uh and we can't make it more non-conforming. And that in determining whether the building relocations meets the setback to the greatest practical extent, we got to consider the size of the lot, the slope of the land, the potential for soil erosion, and other structures on the property. Same stuff we just went through. Yeah. But this is specifically for the foundation and you know so we look first the size of lot soil erosion topography other structures location of septic and then we got the clearing of vac of vegetation

can can we just perhaps say 100% that a foundation for the pro for the building moving the moving of the building that was just approved will be no greater in square feet than the existing foundation and there's some reconfiguration but by and large no greater um that it will be that it will meet the same criteria to the greatest extent practical extent as the as the section 43

4.3.5 five building relocation that this board just approved. Therefore, the findings of fact and conclusions of law is that the the location of the foundation to the greatest practical extent with reference to the prior action, the immediate prior action of this board. With regard to the size of the lot, the slope of the land, the potential for erosion, the location of all the structures on property, adjacent property, location of septic, and the type and amount of vegetation to be removed has been to the greatest practical extent, which I'm probably repeating myself on at this point, um has been met and therefore the conclusion of law is that the application for the placement of the foundation um should be approved.

Just a question for the applicant. The the foundation sits under the structure, right? And there's not anything beyond the footprint of the structure above. No. Right. Yeah. There's no expansion. That's beyond footprint. That on the basement has to be 11 feet 9 in high. Was that a question to them? Yes, it has to be. It has to be. It can't be any lower to even those dedicated storage and a bathroom and mechanical equipment.

Simple answer is yes. More robust answer is it actually we have to even see if we can get into the ground the way we want to because we're going to be scribing the ledge. So, we're the greatest possible success to move the building to that location. the the foundation height, correct me if I'm mistaken, is also based upon access into the building so that uh we don't end up with another situation where you have to have an elevator steamboat warfare going down into

the building and as you stated earlier in your presentation, you know, providing e better access into the building is a key goal of the project. So maybe we should redo that motion. Okay. So let's strike that prior motion. Well, is it they want those document they want those factors included in I think more specific. It doesn't it doesn't say that.

I think we can. So, I think you can have a general motion here about section 434 and reference the review criteria was covered under section 435, right? And maybe talk then about just the specifics of the foundation height and access into the building.

Okay. Well, all right. So with respect to section 4.3.4 as it relates to the foundation the criteria of 4.3.5 that must be met in order to prove the foundation that is applied for um are the same criteria that was used to approve the relocation of this project. And the board has already found that all of those criteria have been met to the greatest practical extent. And further the board finds that the height of the foundation is determined. It determines how the building will sit relative to the property as it faces the street and as it provides access to the main floor of the property. um that and also that it will provide um for the use of the lower portion of the property for the storage as intend storage and as intended um and therefore the conditions of 4.3.5 as applied to 4.3.4 for have been met to the greatest practical extent and uh and that we find that we find that as a finding a fact and a conclusion of the law.

Is that question? How's that sound? That sounds good. How's that sound, Heidi? I think I got it. I think we're good. Great. So that was a motion. That was a motion. Second. That was a second with the same conditions. With the same conditions. With the same conditions as noted with the section 4.3.5. Yes. All those in favor? I. There you go.

No.

Please. We always have a format. and remind me. Was that it now?

Well, for that, but now you're doing a conditioning news. I'm doing a traditional conditional use approval application. So, There's another one for you to sign. Ann, sounds good. I'll be home Monday.

All right. All right. So, the the conditional use application is a separate item on the agenda. It's item four. And uh can tonight we have conditional use approval O2 2026. Name is the Seal Harbor Yacht Club. Agent is Tim Brocher. Location is 29 Steamboat Warp Road. Tax map 29. Lot 3/4. Zone is Shorland Residential One. And this is about the marine structure. And it's for a new permanent pier section. new marine structure built over or or abuing a pier, wararf, dock, or other structure extending below the normal high water line of water body or within a wetland for direct access to the water body or wetland as an operational necessity. We had a site inspection at 4 and um was this one advertised and of others notified and we I believe indicated it was when we were previously

yes February 6 the butters were notified and the advertisement was placed in the 11th was it the 11th in the We we had a two for one special today on site inspections. So yes care to report your observations.

Sure. Well, we didn't actually go down to the location where this is going to take place. It is is the pre is basically where the preexisting dock facility is which is on the south end of where the existing building is. Um and obviously this time of year the ramp and the floats and that sort of thing are sold. Um but generally speaking, we saw the location where this is all going to continue to take place with the modifications as proposed in this application.

Right, Mr. Brochu, I'm going to turn it over to you again then. The conditional use application is associated with one section of permanent feeder which resulted shown on a sheet A 110 which shows the outline of the existing building that we just approve to move. And we also have the the existing access walkways right through here. This is a permanent section of pier and then these are all seasonals. There is a portions of this is a ramp about this much refed permanent right there. Once this building's removed be able to maintain these existing docking facilities. this existing access. We come down and we add a small ramp here and then a 21 by 23 and a half foot permanent pier section with a 11 12 by 17 singlestory operation shed. Uh the operation shed is is detailed in the descriptions in the application about the uses. Basically, they have a launch commander that organizes all of the operations down through here with all the children for their the boating schools and things. And also in here, we'll have safety equipment, some supplies. But it's my understanding that having direct view of all of this entire area

by the launch commander is extremely important to for safety reasons and organization of the uh the entire operations of the school and currently they would do that from inside the building.

Currently, yes, exactly. Currently this is all provided from inside the building. On the corner right here, there's a small office area that looks down and sees all the lifts. It also provides, you know, a staging area for the kids to come down in large groups, get organized, and then they all go down. the pier permanent sections of the pier will be uh set on hopefully maybe some of the existing work that's there if we can reuse it. We're going to try to do that to the greatest extent possible. Um but we also may have some some files as well. The shed structure will be part of the framing structure of the the deck. It's actually part of the deck or part of the decking. So it's all basically one structure. It is one requirement with the main D. We had a pre-application meeting with them. Uh and they said that this was fine as long as it was uh less than 200 square feet, less than 50 ft tall and that it was part of the structure of the pier itself. Um so one of the things in regards to the peer we have been the main DP and had a preliminary application with them. They're in full support of the entire project and uh g have given us our application directions which were to work through the the town and then uh once we get down approval to submit to them. What's the height of the pier going to be relative to the like the floor of the existing building?

The same. Same. Yeah. Because we're going to be coming off in this permanent section here that's for maintaining. So it'll be the same as as the So the floor of the building you're going to put on the pier is also going to be below the 100 year flood. This right here where it's a marine structure, this is going to be below the 100year flood. Okay. But because this is not not residential, um it's just part of up here. It is mobile.

I'll I'll open it to public comment. going once twice. All righty. I'm going to close public comment and let's get on with it. Um, we first need to Well, first ask if there's any conflict of interest here. Nobody. Everybody's saying no. Myself included. Um, you have a motion to find the application complete.

I move we find the application complete. Second. All those in favor? I I um Kim, can we use the short form? That's your vote. So that's I move we use both there. I move we use a short form for this application. Second. Uh all those in favor

I someone find the short pile because I couldn't find it but Is this it? That's it. That is it.

It's right here. Starts right there. That's the short form. Oh, six stages. Everyone's 38. So, we're doing 6 A, 6B, 6 C, and 59. Yes, that's it. Six pages. Okay. follow along these days.

It's a little tricky because it says see attached narrative a lot. This is Heidi. Before you start, do you want a motion to approve? Yes, you do sometimes. Okay. Move we approve the application.

Second. Now we press the pause button and we go through our review of the application. So all right, I got the short form section 6A B and C and 59 in front of me. I've got the application. I probably should have something other than a red pen. And uh let's go through it. So 6 6A general performance standards compatibility. The applicant says C attached narrative.

Do you want us to refer to that as we're going through it or describe it? You can sure make mention of the attached narrative. The t narrative indicates that the permanent pier will be approximately 23.5 feet by 27 feet and include wood framing and decking similar to existing peers in the area. The support system will reutilize existing granite block supports to the greatest extent possible with supplemented with additional wood or gran supports as needed. The operation shed will be 17 ft by 11.5 ft and 14 ft high. There we go.

I think Heidi got that. I refer Heidi to page two of the cover letter of the application. So, I'll send it to you. I'm going to say see application erosion and sedimentation control. Application talks about mulching and reveated. Well, they want to do visual impact and proximity to other structures and all.

Well, on the on the short form, it's just one. It's just one 682 erosion sedimentation control. The applicant talks about mulching and reveation disturbed soils, temporary runoff control such as hay bales, silt fencing and diversion ditches and threes permanent stabilization structures such as retaining walls or rip wrap. So see application 683 highway safety. The applicant says see attached narrative and the attached narrative indicates that this will not change um anything with regard to highway safety. going to say C application 6 A4 impact on town services. The applicant says C attached narrative

and the in the applica narrative indicates that there will be no changes. So C application 65 land suitability. The applicant says, "See attached narrative." And the attached narrative indicates that this will be located on in the same location as an existing structure that served similar purposes. So see application 66 lighting outdoor and it says applicable standard met and C attached narrative

and the attached narrative indicates that the lighting will conform with dark sky the dark sky provisions of the ordinance. See application 67 storm water The application indicates that standards have been met because storm water will not be impacted by this application.

See application 688 vegetation. The application narrative indicates that there will won't be any ne vegetation impacted by this proposal because it's being built over an the site of an ex existing building that will be moved because you will have already impacted the vegetation.

See application 69 dust, fumes, vapors, odors and gases. The applicant says no dust, fumes, vapors, odors or gases will be created by this project. So the findings of fact are presented by the applicant and the attached application in the conclusion law is that the proposed use is in compliance with all standards with section 6A. So moved. Second. All those in favor? I I It's section 6B.

Here we go. This is specific performance standards for activities and land uses. 6B1 agriculture is NA. 6B7 excavation or filling is NA. 6B8 fences and walls. Applicant says applicable standard met. Catched narrative. I'm not sure what that means.

Where will the fences? I think all they did not in there was that we didn't include we don't have any fences or walls greater than four feet. Okay. C application sign regulations NA 6B18 wireless communication facilities not proposing a cell tower will no or chicken

yes 6B19 there's no chickens proposed Maybe 620 mobile food vendors NA 621 Rooming House NA 6B22 Hotel and Motel NA 6B23 Solar energy systems NA

NA. So, the findings are fact are that the proposed use will include none of the specific activities or land uses described in section 6B except for 6B7 and the conclusion was that section 6B is not applicable except for section 6B 8. My apologies. Section 6B8 for which the standard has been met. So moved. Second. All those in favor? I.

All right. So then because we are in the shoreland zone, we are doing section 6C, shoreline zoning standards for review by the planning board. So section 61 agriculture and animal husbandry NA 62 archaeological sites. The applicant says NA but then they say C appendix for the main historical and preservation. That should standard, right? So, you probably should change that on your

and the application indicates that a request or ruling on that was submitted December 11th, 2025 and you're still waiting for

so section 62 is archaeological sites C application and you need to uncheck NA and put a clue. Yeah. Apple standard med um six. Then it jumps to 65 essential services. They say NA 66 parking areas. Applicant says NA 67 is why we are here. that is marine and freshwater structure standards and says see attached narrative and plants.

Yeah. Well, well, I think we probably need to talk about this some more because we haven't really described like the access from the shore. There's going to be a whole series of paths that are going to be preloaded to get from the No, we're going to make the one that's there. Okay. It's marine structure here on the marine structure and the extension and then the building on the should look at

but we have to meet performance standards as follows. access from the shore interference with existing uses and beaches. Right. And the state of the shore access state say yes. Yes. So yes. So um both of those sections. Yes.

Yes. So the application indicates that the access from the shore uh is via an already existing um a pathway and the application indicates that there will be no interference with existing uses and beaches. The application indicates that the effect on fisheries and wildlife. Do you we didn't get any documents about that but it's it's the same location as already exists. So is that so normally we get one of those maps that shows that there's no

comment in their application that says the permanent pier will be located within the footprint of the existing structure and will reuse any existing support components. That might be a good aspect to put in. There you go.

To the greatest extent possible. I'm not sure that fits with fishers and wildlife, but um the size of the facility will be no larger in dimension necessary to carry on the activity. And we're going to get to the size the proposed dimensions and and 12. Um, the new structure that's being proposed will be built on a dock.

It's 17 by 10.5 and 14 ft in height. Correct. For the application,

we have to we have to find that it is designated to function as is registered the marine department. No, no, no, no. that it requires direct access to the water body or wetland as an operational necessity. So the application indicates that the purpose of this building is to allow employees of the yacht club to oversee and supervise essential programs of the yach club, most particularly sailing programs for use. that the structure is a continuence of the o what's the phrase operational necessity the pre-existing operational necessity. Um

yes yes and it is and it is necessary because the building within which it was previously housed is being moved to a new location. All right. Um this is not non-title waters. Height limit. The height limit is that uh six and seven don't apply. The height limit is that it shall this structure built on shall not exceed 100 ft and it does not. It is what 14 14 14

um the inter the application indicates that the uh project will not interfere with natural flow of any surface or subsurface waters. Um and and that it will not encroach on navigation and it does not intrude upon a mooring area and therefore the harbor master approval is not required. And now we get to 12. The dimensional limits. And do you have those somewhere in your because they're not filled out on this form in the application? It just says see attached narrative. Can you point to me where?

Yep. I mean, all of the dimensions I think are are shown on this plan on 8. So yeah, I you'll have to help me because I don't read these things professionally. So um so for example the maximum lengthy of the entire marine structure and I um I don't want to rely on my tape measure. Mhm. Well I mean if we're dealing with an existing structure the the length is is where it is right now. What we're looking for approval on is is this here right? And that's this is existing,

right? But but it's the entire marine structure combined. So but that's not going to make this more than 225 ft. It's like it doesn't change any it at all. Right. It stays exactly the same. Okay. So you can say something about that the existing marine structure way just extended further on to here. This is just going over. because under this permanent all we're doing is attaching them to that and he's not getting a permit for this stuff. This is already approved.

The pre pre-existing ramp and float system remains as configured and and the the marine the landbased marine structure is within the pre-existing footprint of the building that was removed.

Right. So the dimensional limits um requirements have been met because almost the entirety of it is pre-existing and already approved and that which will be created is all is within the entirety of the footprint of the pre-existing structure that allowed it to perform the same um purpose as the new pier and building will quite sure that's right but um and then 13 commu and 14 communal dock and limit

12 through 15 don't apply to this so I think that's it for six Seven. Seven. I'm going to say C application after all that.

Roads and driveways 6C9 says NA 6C11. Water quality. The applicant says NA. So the findings fact uh are that the proposed use will include none of the specific activities or land uses described in section 6C except for 6C2 and 6C7. Inclusion of laws that this section 60 is not applicable except for section 6C2 and 67 for which the standard has been met.

So move All those in favor? I I All right. Because we are in the shoreland zone. Did we get a second on that? I only heard Gil's motion. Daniel. Thank you.

So, because we're in the shoreline zone now, we have to go to section 59 standards. So, 591 will maintain safe and healthful conditions. C application 592 will not result in water pollution, erosion or sedimentation to surface waters. Applicant says C application 593 will adequately provide for the disposal of all wastewater applicants. Yeah, that should be NA 594 will not have an adverse impact on spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, birth bird or other wildlife habitat. Applicant says C application 595 will conserve short cover and visual. So actual points of access to inland and coastal waters. Applicant says C application. 596 will protect archaeological and historic resources as designated in the comp plan. Fman says the application 597 will not adversely affect existing commercial fishing or maritime activities in the shoreline commercial district NA. They are not in the shoreline commercial district. 598 will avoid problems associated with flood plane and development and use C application 599 is in conformance with the provisions of section 6A B and C. Applicant says standard met. So the findings of fact are C above and the conclusion of law is that all requirements of section 59 have been met. Uh so moved

second. All those in favor I I for a permit conditions um receipt of document from the historical commission. Yeah. The historical commission DPM Do we need to verify height, structure height? I'm not concerned with versus floor elevation or anything like that or

um I'm too I've been too long at the fed to ask this question, but I I just want to circle back. What is it that you plan to do for like restoration of the buildings like where where this is going to be built and then the other area around it? What are you going to be able to do? Because like I think that that a lot of that's going to be addressed when we get our MGP permits because we're going to have to understand when we get the building out of there. There's portions of that foundation in the back that may be holding the road up and we won't know to what extent until the building is gone. Um, but we've talked with the D about that and they be busy that

they want to address that as well. They may need to leave some of that there. But as far as the other anything that's that's loose or or if there's any uh old metal um stansions or anything in there, everything will be removed. And you won't be able to like vegetate any of that. No, because it's it's it's tidal. It's just title. Most of it or or just reveate overnight. Kelp. Okay. It circled back to the A track. press play. Uh, all those in favor of approving the application, I I

I congrats. You pretty much good luck. You have really good short form. Yeah, the short form is easy. I mean, that's I mean, when I see that we have to do a section four thing, I start to like get hives. Oh, god. and need to make the changes that are done for the actual application. Yeah, they got a couple. Yeah, a couple places we need that initial place. Thank you again for the time and attention.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You see about I don't we don't have more anything to say to you about a person unless I think that is you want me to you got to go section 5.9 5.9.3 should be NA instead the application. You you know your application. Yeah.

9 three. Yep. I break that. Oh, it should say it should say um NAC application that see the check. So you want me to just change it and and just initial cross the applic.

Yeah, the archaeological section 6. Oh, that's Yeah, that was that's not so that doesn't count. waiting on a letter from on the application, not your narrative. So, it should say NA the application instead of NA historic NA historic 6A6, excuse me, 6C.2 6C on the application.

On the application. Yeah. Yeah. See, unable. The last time we called it, they did. Thank you.

Thanks. Exceed 52. NA should be applicable standard procedure if you have a CES on

43 years and Really? Same place. Wow. These days that in the packet place. So, it's all in here. All right. Any other other No, unless you want to Gail give a land use advisory group, but they on the agenda. Did you want me to say anything in particular? I mean, it took me a long We had we had a meeting recently. It took me quite to figure out why him and and u Matt were trying to get us to think about particular land uses along the shore

and but I think I got it finally and because we have some land use areas commercial areas and the question is you're supposed to use the standard if you want to build a house in that area you're supposed to use the adjacent residential that's good um requirement ments, but a bunch of the commercial shoreland stuff like in quarry and stuff like that, they have well they have on one end they have a 2acre lot minimum and on the other end they may have a threeacre lot requirement and so which one do you use and that and so then that needs and that's happens in a number of places and so we need to figure out

another way to to amend that at some point to next that's like next but other than that there's There's nothing else at the moment. That's how it's Well, thank you for the update, Gail. That's it. Last item on the agenda. It took me much longer to figure it out than it did to say it now. So, I think I got it. Is adjournment. Move to adjourn. Second. All those in favor? I Great to see you, Ann. Thanks. Thanks. We'll see you next time in person, I'm sure.

And I'll be in on Monday, Kim, to sign those documents. Right. Thanks. Thank you, Kim. Thank you, Bill. Appreciate everyone a lot. Welcome. Good luck. Thank you.

Did you ever figure out who the mystery