Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Right. I'll call to order the town of Mount deserved planning board meeting for November 12th, 2025. Welcome aboard. And I wanted to first say I think it's great that we're at a point where we've in the 10 years of being on the board, we have a full planning board now. We have five regular members and the two alternate member positions are filled. So all of you out there that are itching to join the planning board, I guess you'll have to wait until somebody steps down. We have one coming up uh very soon though.

Yes. So we we shall see. But right now we're all set. So thank you for everybody that's made that commitment. And with that I'll make some introductions. I'm William Hanley. I'm chair. We've got Daniel Burke and Dalton. Tracy Loftess Keller vice chair Gail Marshall and Alan Kimberly. And um I don't believe Meredith is joining us tonight, but she also came back on the board. So we're tight in a group here. So moving on. Um first item on the agenda is really the approval of the minutes tonight. We had minutes from the 22nd and that was the Dodge Point Project.

I move approval. Second. Right. All those in favor I I and let's keep going. So item three on the agenda tonight. May I just do something? Yes. Because we're being recorded for Heidi Gail Marshall made that motion. Alan Kimly seconded. Thank you. Our fantastic recording secretary Heidi Small is not with us tonight. It's her birthday. So, okay.

Just want to be clear and make sure everything's there on the record for her when she transcribes it. So, item three on the agenda tonight, we have subdivision approval application. It's a public hearing and Kim, do I have to technically wait 60?

All right. I have to technically wait two minutes. All right. There's Meredith. Welcome aboard, Meredith. And so we're just waiting for the agenda item number three to start at 6:05. We've got two minutes left. Um, anything you guys want to chippy chat about? How about the big snowfall? Yes, the big We got that out of the way. We did. We made it.

And there's a sign over here in the corner for the comprehensive plan meeting that's tomorrow evening at the neighborhood house. Um, 5 to 7. And you're all encouraged to come and participate and voice your opinions on things because that's like snacks. we want to hear is where what your stance is on several different topics.

And while we're talking about public meetings, next Wednesday night at the neighborhood house at 6, the reorganization planning committee will be presenting their proposal to reorganize the school system and I urge every Mount Dert voter, whether you have children in school or not, to attend that meeting and learn what the proposal is. It will affect everyone and we should care about the educational system anyway. Yes. Yeah. Did we get to 05 yet? More announcements. Bill Oh, great. Um people

Yeah. Can you come sign in the people's names that are just coming in the door? Okay. Yeah. Thanks. So, almost there.

I just think about it being quiet. All right, let's do it. 605 item three. We have a subdivision approval application. We have a public hearing. This is section point section. This is section 5.13 plan revisions after approval. And what that says is under 5.13.2, applicants for revisions shall submit at least eight copies of a proposed revision. If the revision involves the creation of additional lots or units or extends the boundaries of the subdivision, emphasis added, a public hearing shall be required. Otherwise, the board shall determine if a public hearing is required. Tonight we have subdivision 02205. Owner name is Sydney Roberts Rockefeller. Prospective buyer is Nathan Donaldson and Vanessa Little. Agent is John Whitten Jr. of Haley Ward. Location is 15 Blue Bell Lane, Seal Harbor. Tax map 4, lot uh 011-2. zoning district is village residential tr two and the purposes modifications to a previously approved and reported subdivision. It's amendment three of the bicesentennial subdivision original plan file 24 number 188 recorded December 31st 1991 amendment number one file 30 number 22

recorded October 16th 2000 and amendment number two file 30 number 145 recorded December 12th 2001 and I'll first ask if there's there's any conflicts of interest on this one?

Um, I will disclose that my wife and I are uh good family friends with the prospective buyers uh as are our kids. Um, I know I'm just the alternate this night with no vote, but I wanted to disclose that and see what y'all thought. none here. I don't have any issue with that. Okay.

And I should clarify that Daniel and Meredith are um currently alternate members. Uh they're not voting on any of the items tonight and an Tracy, myself, Gail, and Allan are the voting members and not hearing any. I'm sorry, I'm having trouble hearing you. Sorry, I'll speak up. I've heard most of that, but I don't

I got it. I'll project. So, the voting members tonight are Ann, Tracy, myself, Gail, and Allan. And Daniel, and Meredith, who's online, are the alternate members. So, we have a quorum. No conflict of interest. I think we can get rolling on this one. And um before I get into it too, I just want to clarify that like tonight we are just here to review a a very specific um application and that's relative to the reo proposed reproportioning of the subdivision. We're not talking about any of the potential future development of the lots or anything like that. just a very specific task before the board to it. So, just wanted to put that on the table first. And with that, I'm gonna turn this over to the applicant.

Oh, yes. Yeah. Thank you. I always You always get me on that. So this uh this particular meeting was advertised in the um Mount Dert Desert Islander and Bangar Bangor Daily News and a letter dated October 27th, 2025 went out to of butters and um there's a very long list of butters here. So I think everyone has been given uh sufficient notice, right? And um with that uh I'm going to turn that this over to I I assume Mr. Whitten. Would you like to Wait, hold on.

Sorry, hold on a second. There's also the the Bangor Daily News was October 28th and the Mount Desert Islander was October 30th. So it was I misspoke. Well advertised in a butters duly noticed. All right. So, Mr. Whitten, I'm gonna turn it over to you then to introduce the project. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, can you hear me? Okay.

Yes. All right. Um, so, thank you for having us tonight. Uh, I am representative uh, well, as you said, I'm I'm John Whitten Jr. I'm a civil engineer with Haley Ward Incorporated. Um, and we are the representative representing agent of the prospective buyers of this uh change in property. Um, Nate Donaldson and his wife Vanessa. And um we're here just to talk about a relatively simple amendment to a subdivision that as you said was created back in the '9s and has been updated uh along the way. U I'm going to try to share my screen here. Um and hopefully that works. Are you seeing the subdivision plan?

Yes. Okay. So, I highlighted the lot that we're talking about in red. Um, it's it was originally uh listed as Sorry, get it on the Zoom here. Um, under Emily and Albert Allen and uh was a little over three acres in size. This lot has been amended uh at least once since its original creation and has obviously sw uh switched ownership names and is now currently um owned under the Rockefeller name. Um who is you know Mr. Donaldson and his wife Vanessa are currently under a purchase sale agreement with Mr. Rockefeller to buy a portion of this property. And I will switch up to the blowup version of this. Sorry, there we go. Um, and so this this plan shows the uh little over 3 acre lot with the boundary out here um down to the corner and then around these two lots and then out to um was shown as Centennial Way. and uh eventually over to Wetland Way to to finish off. Uh as you can see, Sydney Rockefeller owns uh this parcel now and Nate Donaldson and uh Vanessa Little own property that is directly abuing it and runs along Centennial Lane uh out to Jordan Pond Road. and um but they they do not have access off of Centennial Lane uh with that property. So, the proposal is for uh Miss

Rockefeller to retain a complying house lot around the existing uh residence and residential buildings on the property and for Mr. Donaldson and his wife to purchase the remaining land around that. uh what will be conforming lot um and transfer that ownership um basically to an abuing owner and uh that would be the change to the subdivision is is the change in ownership of this uh around 3 acres to be Mr. Donaldson um and Miss Little. So that's that's the change that uh they are proposing to the subdivision. There are no other changes at this time. Uh there is no newly created access to this property because it is getting uh combined with property that currently uh is owned by Mr. Donaldson um that is conforming at this time. So that is it's it's really just a a change in property um and the creation of some new interior lot lines uh within that property. So I guess that's that's our presentation and we're open to questions.

Thank you. Um any questions from the board? Mr. Whitten? So Tim, tonight are we essentially voting if this is to have a public hearing or don't even advertise as a public hearing. So we are extending the boundaries of the previously approved subdivision. I'm merging this land with the Donaldson lot which is not part of the so we don't have to do like what we have done in the past is determine if this does require because it's it's pretty self-evident yeah

reach the approved submission so we are technically here in the public hearing so I should be allowing the public to comment on this y relative to this specific application I'll open this up to any public comment on this application then. State their names and please state your name for the record so Heidi can transcribe it properly.

Keeping rout um in order to do this they're saying that the existing property that Mr. Donaldson owns will be incorporated into the bicesentennial subdivision. Right. Is that a requirement? Could he purchase this property without incorporating his existing property into the subdivision? Uh it should, but it would be creating a new lot within the bicentennial subdivision. So regardless, it would have to have a public account. But that's not what they want to do. They want to merge it because it's law.

Is merging it a requirement of purchasing it? No. No. So why why would they do that? Ask them. Ask right there. Mr. Whitten, can you speak to that? or Donaldson or or

um uh it was somewhat unclear to us if it was needed to to be part of this subdivision um or not. and we thought it was going to be the simpler route to just incorporate Mr. Donaldson's existing land into the subdivision um to basically cover everything uh in a conservative way. Uh rather than taking this removing this property from this portion of property from the subdivision and leaving Miss Robert's leftover house lot within the subdivision but not connected directly to the subdivision would would be uh odd. So really that's the only reason that we chose to to have the subdivision be extended into Mr. Donaldson's land.

Do you need Mr. Donaldson's land for access into the remainder portion of that lot.

Um the there Donaldson lot wasn't in the subdivision. Could you access this lot still? you you can um it technically has frontage on Centennial Lane and Wetland Way. Uh and I'm not sure that those are current road names. Those are the names that were on the subdivision plan. Um but um so there is there is frontage for the lot via those two roads. Um but it's my understanding that those roads are limited. So he um for access for any new the the land itself could be accessed by potentially vehicle and pedestrians things like that with with those rightways. I believe there as I remember there are restrictions on the use and of those roads such that um any any use of the land would uh benefit from the frontage that Nate Donaldson's land has on Jordan Pond Road. May I ask to the north to the north of Donaldson's property is a rectangular

parcel that Centennial Lane so-called Centennial Lane is on. Who will own that small parcel after the Nate and Vanessa purchase this lot? Is that is that rema who owns that now and who will own that after? Can you see I'm talking about the rectangular section around Centennial Lane itself?

That that's a a that's a set line. Yeah. So there's uh let me zoom in here. I don't know if you're looking that. So, this this is a a 16 ft uh pedestrian access rightway that was established years and years and years ago. Um to I'm talking about to the just to the north of it that Centennial Lane is actually on. Is that Yes, I believe that's a shared uh right ofway with four or so lots that are on the north side of Centennial Lane. So rice and

and and lots closer to uh to the west that are closer to Jordan Pond Road and and the Rockefeller lot currently has access over that roadway as well. So, I think there's four total lots that have shared access over Centennial Lane and they own that strip of land uh together.

And would by purchasing this uh lot, would the Donaldelsson's and Little acquire a right ofway over that as well or do they already have that? So, one, they do not we have not found any deed access for Mr. Don's land to Centennial Lane. Um, again, he he will be purchasing some frontage along that private right ofway. Um, but that private right ofway has a provision on it that says that only four single family homes can be accessed by that right ofway. Um, so even though he may have frontage on that, it is it does not represent traditional road frontage. um you know for a conforming lot to actually build on if that were

so there are contemplation there are already some or all of those four houses who that are serviced by that is that what you're saying yeah there's already four houses that are serviced by Centennial Lane thank you

sir Eric Selton 5 Jordan Pond Road. Um, just for my own clarification here, the notice we got was about Blue Bell, a Centennial Blue Bell. Is that the same? And how many is there a plan already in place to build houses on these lots? No, not the the board has seen. The BL the board isn't acting on that because the board has no plans before it for consideration. So, that's another step that would have to take place. You don't know. Yeah. Yeah. For from our perspective, yes.

If we say yes to the if you guys say yes to this and then they come back and they say, "Okay, now we're going to put four or five houses here." Does that have to come back to you guys or Yes. Yeah,

sir. Steve, is it Wetland's way blocked off from access to that property? At least I know it is when I plow it. Uh, you can't go through there. Maybe Sydney could answer that. No.

Uh, correct. I uh I don't believe that it has been built out to its its rightway limits, right? But these this represents the end of the the property lines. Uh I I believe there's probably close to 100 ft anyway of of woods between the end of the road and uh and the property line that's shown on this plan. that used to go up Centennial Lane right through between uh Albert Mimi's house and Elbert Mimi's garage apartment and around that was a boat in and out of there. Now I see it's been blocked off though. That was a circle, not a circle, but a Now I see it's been blocked off for some years now.

Okay. Pew, uh, resident of Seal Harbor. So, when we're looking at your your map, which is incredibly hard to see from this far away, um, uh, if this does go through, is the access to that parcel, uh, going to include access off of Wetland's Way and access Thanksg some sloth.

How how would there is no planned access to this property that's different than it is today? Uh so technically there is some frontage on Wetland Way and on Centennial Lane due to property lines. Um would be off of wetlands because Centennial has already maximized the utility of that road. Correct.

Yes, I believe you're correct. So that's whe when you say access, you know, I I don't want you to think that we're due to this this purchase in this amendment that we're doing any road construction or or you know, doing any anything really different um for road frontage here than is already there. Um and then Mr. Donaldson can now that you know if this if this property is is owned by him on both sides of this line then then he can access it you know through his property uh whichever way he can do that. if he's wants to walk or uh mountain bike or or what have you, he can he can access the property through his property.

What Seal Harbor? So if he was granted permission to do this, he could also develop that entire area. potentially. Yeah. Uh with with housing or whatever, rentals, Airbnbs, all that. Well, yeah, potentially any any land within the zone that complies with the zoning ordinance can be developed in certain ways. Absolutely.

Has to develop this and he needs this um to be approved so he can develop this property. is what you're saying. What I'm hearing, right?

Say, understand that approval of this change to the subdivision would only be approval to this change of the subdivision. It may be that any property owner could come before us and then say, "Here's what I want to do with my land." And then there's the question of whether or not that as a separate matter complies with the current land use ordinance and the subdivision ordinance. And that's a whole another question again which we can't even begin to form an opinion about because we have nothing before us. But under the current zoning, um if that land were purchased, there would be the potential if the had access, there would be the potential for x number of housing units based on the current zoning within the town amount deserve.

Well, I can't form an opinion about that, but I would say that that would be no different than what the current owner could possibly do. So, it's that hasn't changed anything. It's different. a different owner. And then the only thing we're looking at tonight is the reorganization in the wildlife. Oh, what's that? Mer Meredith got her hand up here. Our other planning board member. Welcome, Meredith.

Thanks. I just have a question or an observation, I guess. Uh if we're if the proposal is to merge it with um the uh u Nate and Vanessa's lot, why is that lot that it's being merged with not shown on this plan? It's just a little corner of it. But it seems to me that it would be important to have a document that shows the entirety of what we're discussing here rather than only only being focused on Sydney's property. They're on the map. Yeah, it's on it's on the broader subdivision.

They're on the newest post. Is it only the corner? I mean, right. But that's not the entirety of the lot. Uh, correct. Right. So,

yeah, we can we can show Yeah. Mr. Donaldson's uh complete lot um on this on the new subdivision plan. Absolutely. It just seems like the conversation that I'm hearing it would be relevant information to see the entirety of the lot, the access and everything else is that we then you need to see what the access of the lot is and we don't we can't see the entirety of that lot.

Would it be fair to say that those lot lines run pretty straight out to Jordan Pond Road? on Donelsson's property. Do you know? Uh, yes. There's a there's a small kink in it. Uh, you twothirds of the way down. Um, right. Right. whereas house basically is now there's a there's a kink in the lot lines but yes it in the general sense it's it extends all the way along Centennial Lane until it it meets Jordan Pond Road

you can you put that up on the screen you have that document that you can uh yeah let me find sorry find that um can all be looking at what you're looking Well, I was just sorry I was just going by memory, but um I will in in the second revision to the bsentennial subdivision, is that by any chance shown as lot number 13 or is that something else? Am I looking at something else? I may be turned around. Uh on this plan here, it's it's showing as lot 16 60. There's only a partial. Oh, I see.

Okay. Harry Jordan before it was Yeah. to Kevin Smith or Rodney Smith. Then Centennial Lane. Harriet Rodney the social I think I'm pulling up.

Yeah. Okay. Here it is here on a text map. Can you see that tax map? Yes. So, this is lot 42 is uh Mr. Donaldson's property now and then we would be adding about 3 acres of land behind it. Why does Donaldson's property where it meets Sydney's property now? That's right there. 97 ft. Oh, how wide is it?

97.54. No, I did.

9 Yes. 97.54T. Can you enlarge that tax map just to make it a little easier for everybody to see? So, the road frontage on Jordan Pod Road is 97. What about the very east end of Donaldson's property?

Where that arrow is? Where the arrow is. Well, this is where tax maps get a little survey showing that full lot, I would presume. Yeah. So, on our on our survey plan and by the deed, there's 97.45t four or five feet of air of of back line on Mr. Johnson's property. So, I I think the uh the property line should really be more like this on the tax map. You got 97.5 on Jordan Pondro. That's

it's half that. That's what he's saying. Well, not there. But if you look at the road, so who the triangle?

No, this is this triangle here. You just got to imagine that that orange line is is gone. Um, here I have a this is an old survey of Mr. Johnson's property and it shows a 97 and 1/2 ft wide, 98.66 at this turning point and 97.9 ft along Jordan Pawn Road. So it's it's pretty uniform in width all the way from Jordan Pondro to the back line.

And this is many years ago. But um and then yeah, this is where

this is where they uh meets up with the Rockefeller property on the on the right side of the page here. So it his property extends all the way down Centennial Way until it meets Jordan Pond Road which is about 520 ft and 36 ft from from Jordan Pawn Road to the Rockefeller line or or the end of Centennial Way.

Ma'am, so which state your name again please just for November. Thank you. So he wants So what's the proposal to change what boundary? That one. So because he's got a purchase and sale agreement already on the rock, but I understand from the newspapers that I've been reading that's going to be null void if he doesn't get this pass today because he'll have no access to develop that entire is that right? Am I reading into this? I don't think the board's prepared to I mean

no Mr. Donaldson owns this lot 42 now today. If he doesn't buy this back piece, this property does not change.

The the lot 42 does not change. Um, it's just if if he doesn't purchase that property, then it would just stay Miss Rockefeller's property, this this law, and we don't need to then amend the the subdivision. But both parties are in an agreement to sell and purchase a land that is directly abuing property that Mr. Donson currently owns. And so that's what they're trying to to finalize.

Right. But I understood you to say or somebody to say there wasn't enough access for him currently to do something with that property the way it is now. Yes. Um the four homes that were originally put in there and that's the way that it was written for that subdivision. Is that correct or am I all wrong? Just don't just call spade a spade and just just tell me. I don't mind.

Well, I'm not hold on a second. He's he's got to answer that here. So, Mr. when could you?

So, I was I guess I was trying to explain that we're not um with this amended subdivision, we are not creating or changing any access to this property that's within the purchase of sale agreement. And I was trying to be sensitive to the fact that this private road, Centennial Way, um has a limitation on its use uh to four single family houses. And so I didn't want to uh make the insinuate that any more access of buildings or people or anything um were going over this roadway than today uh because of this purchase. So that that's what I was trying to explain is that there's no no proposed change to uh the Rockefeller property as part of this amended subdivision plan.

Not yet, but there will be. can't access that back property from Centennial Way because it's it's already maxed out in terms of the number of resent

Sophia. You have your hand up.

Hi, I'm I'm um Heather Rice. I abuse me. I'm uh I'm on my granddaughter's computer, so that's why it's um she helped me get on this. So, it's under that is my granddaughter Sophia Leone. But I am Heather Rice. I own uh zero, what is it? 035001 right beside Sydney. And I'm wondering if they cannot come off of Centennial Lane, they will have to build another road besides Centennial Lane to get to that property through his property. I'm just concerned because the back of my property just became a subdivision and uh it wasn't understood that that was going to happen that two houses could go in back there. So I'm wondering if they can't come off to Centennial, they will build another road beside parallel to Centennial to get into that property. if

garage because why would they buy it if they're not going to develop it

if this so I guess the simple answer here is that if this property were to ever be developed that ex from what I've seen in the deeds needs, then a an alternate access road or way would have to be established to be able to to develop Yeah. this property or any property adjacent to it. Um, right. because these these private roads don't offer any um developmental access as far as

Wetlands Way. I understand. So, wetlands way can't be come off of either even if it's been a a new subdivision. I'm not I I know more about Centennial Lane, honestly. Um I'm not sure of the provisions of wetland way if there's any if that's like maxed out or not. Um because I haven't I just know the Centennial Lane has that provision because it is directly adjacent to Mr. Donaldson's lot and I happen to to look at that during this process. Um

is there access into Sydney's lot now? Is there a road? Yes, she she she currently has improved access from Cent Centennial Lane into her she's one Hold on a sec.

So, yeah. So, hold on a second. Um to Mr. Thompson, you've had your hand up for a while, too. And just let's let's go to you, sir. Yes, thank you very much. I live at six Blue Bell Lane. My wife and I were neighbors to Heather uh who just spoke and uh we would strongly support, you know, maintaining the status quo. Uh, Centennial was designed for the four homes that are currently on it and uh it would be uh impact our standard of living, our value to have uh more traffic on that road. So, uh we would be firmly against any alteration uh that would allow uh access via Centennial. Okay, thank you. Lely right, sir.

Yeah, Eric Seltzer, Angel Pond Road. Um, earlier there was a reference made to Donaldson's accessing this property to hike or to mountain bike or whatever and that was it. But the reality here is we're talking about developing houses here. Okay. So, well, I know we're not, but that's that's the cutting through it. That's maybe that's the elephant in the room here. Okay. So, can So, you know, if he was just going to hike in there and walk around, great. Knock yourself out. If he's going to go ride a bike in there, knock yourself out. Right.

But what we're talking about is another road or or somehow cutting through Blue Bell, I'll call it. Okay. Or um wetlands to access what is going to be a development of four houses. And as you guys consider this, and I realize I'm jumping the gun and it's not, you know, procedurally correct here, okay? Is that the people who live on Jordan Pond Road have been dealing with construction vehicles for major projects for years. Okay? And you can ask any of the people who are on here. Heavy trucks are going up and down. Now we got the bikes going up and down. Okay? And as you guys sit there and think about what's really going on here, I hope you will think about the fact that at some point there's going to be a real problem there with bike riders and dump trucks speeding up and down that street. And this is this is contributing to that problem down the road. And I get I'm jumping the gun. I get them out of procedure and all the rest of it, but that's the reality here. If he wants to hike there, knock yourself out. Buy the property. Great. I'm done.

Thank you, ma'am. Wendy Seltzer, I hate to admit, but let me just maybe I would like to just summarize and it might be so obvious. We are to believe that the buyers of this sub this piece are buying it and with no guarantee that they can do any plan at all after it's purchased. They're going to purchase it and then take their chances as to whether it can be That's not what it said. Excuse me. Excuse me. Just excuse me. Gota be careful. If you're saying nothing for this today,

uh then we're just to believe that that's the only thing getting decided today and he's on that the next step is a complete crapshoot for them as to whether anything more can happen.

Yeah. I mean, if they're going to develop the slot and they're going if there's and there's going to be multiple structures on it, they got to come back to us. I mean, that's not a slam dunk. the and we can't speculate on the potentiality of of development. I mean, we we've got to have it before us. So, and and it will have to be before us. So, you know, and when we've we've I mean, we've got a very tenured board here and we've been through the drill. Um, we our ears and eyes are open and we're going to drill through the, you know, the the requirements of the subdivision ordinance and make sure that it it it it adheres to that. So, I mean, there's a whole another level to quantify something like that. And right now just we're talking about again just the reortioning of these lot lines and whatever that could potentially lead to. We'll get there. Ma'am

Leslie Watson Harbor Wwood way. Uh it one article I read notification in the newspaper said that he had a purchase and sale agreement on this but pending the outcome of this decision whether he'd go through with it or not. All right. Well that's fine. That's so if the board agreed to reconfigure this then he would proceed to step two. If the board says no, then he's not going to buy it. According to what the article, what I read in the paper,

um, I think one thing that people need to understand is that the board is not in a position to make value judgments. The board is in a position to have to enforce to the best of our ability the ordinances as they have previously been written and voted on and approved by the voters of the town of Mount Dessert. Our personal opinions can't and shouldn't come into play. our suspicions if whatever they may be about what may or may not be behind this cannot come into play and it's sort of like we don't make the rules

I mean we have to do the best we can uh we are not we will never be unmindful of the implications of our rules um but we have to play it as straight as we possibly can I just want to check. Is there anybody else online with any ma'am? Hi. Um, Heather,

I don't I don't feel like my my question was answered. To get into that property, if he chose he wants to drive through the property, he would have to put another road parallel to Centennial beside it. Is that correct? Mr. Whitten, that is one possibility of providing an a new or alternative access to that property. Correct. To that back piece. And what's the benefit of this to the town?

I don't know if it does get developed. There's there's There's no there's no question. Uh I don't know how to answer that. It's not it's not a uh it's not relative to this to this application.

I just wanted to know if behind me they had to put a big road in because of the subdivision. So, if this road does go in, um, would it have to meet specifications of the town? Would it have to be big? Would it have to be wide? Uh, would it be plowed?

I mean, so that all of that would be again have to be quantified on the next level of application. I it's, you know, again, we we got to be careful and not getting into the weeds here of speculating on potential development. If there is a proposed development, it's got to be detailed and it's got to conform to the ordinances, the relative ordinances of the town. I mean that's

right and and like it or not if any one of us bought a piece of property and prior to buying the piece of property had looked carefully at our existing laws and our existing ordinances and in their in our heads we had figured out how we thought we could do something in up to and including development of that property. It would be within the right of any one of us to do that. And I don't again I don't make those rules. That's we make those rules at no meeting. So So who is who is deciding this tonight? Just the four of you.

Uh the five of us. The the five. So the planning board.

And what do you base your yes and no on? Well, are they No. So, they're here. Are they extending the boundaries of of the subdivision and reaportioning the lot lines of the pre-existing amended subdivision? It appears they are. and um essentially art we're they're seeking approval to do that. And relative to the subdivision ordinance section 5.13.2, two, which we're looking at. That's all we're looking at tonight is is the proposed reproportioning of the lot lines according to that section.

I don't quite understand.

I mean, and so, you know, we're it's a very limited review that that we're looking at tonight. And I'm sorry I keep repeating myself about that. I mean, we're talking about lot lines tonight. And Mr. Thompson, you have your hand up again. Yes, sir. Uh, so am I to understand reaportionment means that the existing Centennial four lot subdivision is being expanded to a fifth lot. No.

So, what what exactly is the what are you being asked to approve if you put it into uh planer language? What what are you being asked to do here tonight? We are being asked to approve the amendment of the current subdivision to allow the sale of however many acres of what is currently Sydney Roberts Rockefeller's land in that subdivision to the Donaldson Little um and in the process attach the Donelsson Little property to that existing subdivision. And and so this would be initially this would be one large lot. You're not

uh actually creating an additional buildable lot. You're just making Donaldson's lot much larger. Oh, we're making the subdivision lot lot larger by adding the Donaldelsson's. I think that's because we're being asked to enlarge the subdivision. I see. and and there's statutory authority to to do that. I know you've talked about discretion. Do you have the discretion to do this or uh is it just a matter of statutory authority and he applied for it and he gets it?

Well, that's uh that's all part of the review process. I mean, we're going and again, nothing's a slam dunk, you know. We're we're taking all the, you know, we're making sure that it's it's, you know, from a sidewalk take on it to its compliance with the subdivision ordinance that what we're reviewing here is compliant. And, you know, it's essentially a a subtraction and an addition to an existing subdivision at this point. And I get the addition. What's the subtraction?

This this whole thing, right, was the previous one along with that along with Sydney's along with Sydney. Yes. And Cindy's proposing to separate out her parcel. She's That's the subtraction. Yes. And this is the addition. Well, but this is going to remain in the subdivision. But if they combine it with the Donaldson lot, that's the addition, the additional acreage of it, right? Sydney's property in the subdivision. Yes. Yeah. Technically in the subdivision. So there would be no addition square footage to the subdivision. It just moves to a different

a different lot as a join to the existing lot. Mhm. Kim, are you aware if uh in addition to these maps, are there any other documents that created the subdivision that would that you know of it would be relevant to? They have copies of the centennial subdivision through the years, right? The maps. Yeah. There were no other restrictions about transferring there were no other there a declaration or anything. So, question for Mr. Do you wanna

Meredith, you've got your hand up, too?

I Yeah, I just um just to clarify, the question at the beginning of the meeting was why they were merging the two lots. Uh, and uh, am I incorrect in thinking that they couldn't um, break this new property off from Sydney's property without merging it because you have to have access to a lot. I mean, if they didn't merge the two, you'd have a lot with absolutely no access to a road. So, that I don't believe that's allowed. This whole whole thing is you're adding the Donaldelsson little property, merging those two together so that you're creating a lot that has access to a road.

Any comments on that? Kim,

they leave it as a separate lot. They're creating a new law within the subdivision. It still needs your guys's review and approval. But if they create a new lot, then they're going to have to have a road that meets the subdivision ordinance requirements, unless you guys grant waiverss when they if or when they submit an application for development. So instead of a 25 foot wide wide rideway, they would need 50. Then they would need it's a deadend street unless they connect them. You would have to have a 65 foot radius culde-sac on the end. by a truck.

But isn't it isn't it just would they just besides all the subdivision stuff, could they create a lot that had no access to it from a road? They could, but they wouldn't be able to develop it. Well, you can make a a lot that's locked in lot. You will never get permits to develop it.

Okay. Celtzer. I'll try to be more civil. Um, so McDonald's couldn't take down his house, right? The road running through there be a driveway, not a road. It would be a driveway. But that it's only serving the one law. So he could not take his house down to build access to that lot that we're talking about. He could tear his house down. Put a driveway. Four houses. However, you have to put a road in.

It's a driveway. So how many houses? Two or less. Two or less lots. The driveway, right? Not buildings, lots, right? But if he sub But if he came before us to subdivide that lot. Yes. If he divided and created lots. Yes. You're going into road standards. Yes.

Hand up over there. Back me back. Oh, in the back. Yeah. Where Jordan Pond Road. So, the access road would have to start from Jordan Pond Road, run parallel to Centennial Lane, but it would be a driveway, not a road. It'd be a driveway and it would just be one lot if the two if this would merge right lot but that one driveway could serve the five or six other buildings. A driveway is two being served for two or less lots not by buildings. Two or less

lots of driveways. So you could have so that one driveway can serve the potential subdivision that we're not talking about tonight. That one driveway would give everybody

access in that subdivision. So in fact that's why as was mentioned earlier the concern over this decision because this isn't just a pro fora decision. This decision that's not considering the subdivision is actually fairly crucial to the potential of a subdivision. any leverage to get more information about

Well, I think Meredith brought up a good point is the screen shared plan we're looking at isn't isn't necessarily telling the broader picture, you know, and I think having a plan showing the Donaldson lot going back to Jordan Pond Road is a is a document we should probably add. Absolutely. We we can get that to you uh before the next meeting. So why don't So we're an hour and five minutes into this.

Let's um correct an hour. We started at 6:05. I just wanted to say is there anybody for this other than the do we not relevant not it's not relevant yeah we're not we're not that's not relevant yeah we're looking at the subdivision that's all you're looking at tonight so let's let's try to bring it back to the board bring it back to the board let's get some direction here I'm going to make a final call on public comment on this ma'am.

Watson. So again, I heard the words reproportioning for development. I think that's the crucial impact right here. And like the paper said, I wish I had a copy of it. I wish I brought it. If this is denied, he is not going to buy the Rockefeller Rock. That's what it said. Because he can't develop it. hasn't got anything to do with walking on it. I'm sure she let He walks on it all the time. She I don't think it's the problem. And you can't ride a bike on it. You know that. Okay, we're gonna last round of public comment here. Miss

Yeah, Mr. Wear, you have your hand up. All right. Yes. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes. Great. Um, thank you for the uh session tonight. Yeah,

I think my question relate I'm a a resident on Jordan Pond Road, in fact, right across the street from the Donaldelssons. Um, my question relates to expanding the Centennial subdivision versus not. Um, I understood in the conversation tonight that the proposal is to basically absorb the current DonaldElsson property into the subdivision as opposed to having a separate lot or keeping the subdivision separate from his current lot. And my question is, you have shown on the map that's on the screen now a right of way that basically divides his property from the subdivision. How is it that you can absorb the subdivision in or the Donaldelsson lot into the subdivision through that right of way? that

I'm gonna

that that right of way um is for foot traffic and as long as foot traffic is allowed to my understanding of it anyway is as as long as foot traffic is allowed to pass uh along this stretch of land however that may be uh then there's no there's no provision vision that would stop him from owning both sides of of that and and combining those those properties. It's it's over the land. It's not, you know, through it's it's a it's a layer above the actual ownership of the land. It's just an access right. So, does Nate do Nate and Vanessa currently own the land that that right of way is on?

Yes. Okay. So, basically the the the boundary of that property is is uh their their boundary abuts the subdivision now. And correct.

And is there a difference in terms of what can be done? This is maybe a question for the planning board. Is there a difference as to what can be done on a separate lot that abutts the subdivision versus what can be done on the subdivision? Because that's the alternative, right? They basically they want to include their property into the subdivision. It sounds does that provide uh different rights and and privileges versus two separate lots. Thank you. Kim, that's just relative to the provisions of the subdivision really, isn't it? I mean, unless the bsentennial has some

development covenant or something like that or

it it may be that there you know is some limitation on that. I think we should probably get clarification. A lot of these, you know, will limit development to one house per lot. Yeah, that's that's so what I'm so Are there any covenants or restrictions on the bsentennial subject?

Yeah. Did you hear that, Mr. Whitten? Uh yeah, we have we have not come across any uh bylaws or covenants uh or any restrictions uh associated with bsentennial subdivision in our our surveyors have not come across that in their research.

Seal Harbor. Um, we get copies of the vote documents for the board and for the public and shouldn't we look at those before a decision is made by the board of uh, of what documents of the documents you just referred to that you didn't find any covenants in?

I I guess I can't provide documents that we don't have. I I I was trying to say that we have not come across any covenants in our survey research looking at the registry of deeds and through our files. Shouldn't documents have been created when this subdivision was initially created back in what I believe was an somewhere.

There's a subdivision plan. The the absence of bylaws would suggest to me that there were no bylaws created at that time. almost gonna close the public comments, but Lily, you had a comment.

If you still harbor, I was just asking the same question that, you know, when you create a subdivision, I would I would be shocked if there wasn't a deed or covenants or something because just about every other subdivision in Sil Harbor has some type of deed or covenants. So, and nobody has a copy of any of that, including the board or in the files. Mr. Whitten, there was nothing attached in the registry of deeds to the subdivision recording. Uh, no. And uh, you know, my surveyors looked uh just a couple weeks ago again to see if they could come up with anything and they they did not. Um, obviously there's deeds for the lots, but we didn't find anything that was restrictive to uh you know subdividing lots uh altering lot lines uh limits on development things like that. No,

originally the bsentennial was part of the day mount subdivision which has evidence deeds and restrictions on it and got taken out of there because it the property could not be used for the day mountain subdivision. So then Miss Rockwell obtained the property where my boundary is with with the bicentennial in the day mountain subdivision. Then he turned in turn sold it to Albert Allen and uh there was no restrictions on it cuz I have a piece of land that came out of that piece of land from Albert Allen which where I live now at 31 up Dunar. So all the restrictions of the subdivision were on the day mountain side not the bossentennial side.

I'm so glad to have a historian here. Thank you. Right. So, Mr. Weir, I do you have another question or is just your hand up symbol not turned off? No question. My apologies. All right. No worries. Thank you. So, I'm going to close the public comment now. And I think we need to um the public comment is closed and let's um let's get a consensus here from the board on where we're going with this.

Well, there's been a suggestion that we need a completely wrong map of the relevant properties. I would agree with that. Is that a motion or do we need it in the form of a motion? Well, that's, you know, let's keep talking here. What else? I think it would be a good idea to have copies of the deeds like in the chain of title for this property. I would give the board a better idea of whether there are restrictions that might carry forward to this. Okay. So, there's

there's two things. Trust or Steve. I mean, I don't know that we're in a position to be asking a prospective owner to tip their hand about what they propose to do with the land once they buy it. Oh, thanks. I don't think that's we have that right. We don't. I I understand the desire to know. Believe me, I do. But know that we have the authority to do that.

I want to see more foundational um info from our ordinance in changing boundaries within a subdivision before I could have a opinion on this. 513. Okay. Page 16 on the map.

I mean so just If you guys will bear with me as I just for the record, Heidi, read through some of 513 here. This is 513 talks about plan revisions after approval. And 5131 talks about no changes, erasers, modifications, revisions shall be made and any final plot plan after approval has been given by the board and is writ and its written endorsement has been recorded on the plan unless the plan is first resubmitted and the board approves any modifications. In the event that the final plot plan is recorded without complying with this the sh it'll be considered null and void and the board and shall institute proceedings that have the plot plan removed from the records. 5132 says that so that and this is in in the application description. Applicants for the re revision have to submit eight copies. If the revision involves the creation of additional lots or units or extends the boundaries of the subdivision, a public hearing shall be required. So that's what we're doing tonight. We have a public hearing. Otherwise, the board shall determine if a public hearing is required. Well, a public hearing was required because the boundaries of the subdivision have been extended. And 5133 talks about that the revised plan shall refer to the original plan and state the specific nature of the revision. So there's there's technically no checklist here for us, right? in 513. We're tasked with having a public hearing about this, you know, um

you know, getting the temperature of this. And um in terms of, you know, strict compliance checklists, we don't have one. It's 5.13. sound to me like from what you read that it would be the developer of the subdivision that would come and ask for the change. I'm a little unsure because it's only one property owner that's coming to ask for the change, not the whole or the developer of the subdivision because that's what I'm just asking the question. Yeah, but aren't your ar no

this is me again specific requests are really 5133, right? Yes. So refer to the original plan and yes state the specific nature of the revision being proposed right now which is simply which enlargement of the which technically they've done however I think it would have been clearer if we would have had a broader plan submitted and it sounds like the applicant is willing to do that

and we need to know fully if this I mean the real question is whether or not this change to the subdivision runs a foul of the terms of the subdivision. Yeah, that's what I want to know. The existing subdivision. So then you get into the question of the deeds and you know obviously if there's something on the plot plans but also whether there's anything in those deeds that would suggest that this is not

well let's let me gauge the board's temperature on this like we continue this to a date certain and we ask that the applicant come back with the broader plan and then the clarification of the deeds and uh relative to any potential covenants or restrictions. Yes, I agree. Yeah. When's the next planning board hearing? December 12th, maybe second.

What's the We have a We have a sense on the agenda that night or I know what kind of films If not result, if we continued this to that date, would they then be at the beginning of the agenda or

continue to a date certain? So, no butter notices will be sent, no publications. Everybody's aware of that. When we continue to adate certain, we don't resubmit notifications and all that. So, so I Meredith, you got your hand up.

I'm just um wondering I kind of always had the impression that um the owners of properties of the properties within a subdivision had some I guess authority over the definition of the subdivision. you know, the changes. Say this wasn't a land change, but a a covenant change. Um, and somebody wanted to change the rules of the subdivision. It's not up to to the PL, you know, I guess, don't the participants of the subdivision have the right to say we don't want that change to happen to our subdivision? Well, I think that's one of the key the key elements of the public hearing is that if there was opposition to it or comment or input, they've got the opportunity to do that within that context. But I guess the way way I've heard it's sort of a well do do you have any town ordinances that this doesn't jive with and people can express their opinion but we as a planning board have to follow the town code as Gail is saying so they can come and say that they don't want their subdivision to change. And I guess I think of like, you know, you're not allowed to have chickens in your subdivision. And somebody says, "I want chickens." And they come to the planning board and say, "I want to change the covenant to say that we're allowed to have chickens." And everybody else in the subdivision says, "We don't like that." Does the planning board say, "Well, there's nothing in our town ordinance that says you can't all have chickens, so you can change the ordinance or the covenant." It

the the board doesn't have purview over subdivision covenants. Correct. Who does I mean there has to be some the members of the subdivision. So, I guess that's why I'm I see it as like isn't the definition of the subdivision somewhat controlled by the members of the subdivision? That this isn't solely a matter of running it through whether it's okay with the town that that a change to the subdivision needs to be it doesn't it doesn't not isn't that part of that we're getting approval from the subdivision all the participants in the subdivision. That's a good point.

I hear you, Meredith, but I think that's really a civil matter.

And it, Mr. Mr. Chairman, if I may, uh, the covenants and bylaws and stuff that I have created and been a part of and read, uh, for the last 25 years has, uh, provisions within the covenants of how they are to be, uh, governed. And sometimes it's a an association that has certain percentage of members that vote. and if and and all of that. So there's there's usually provisions within the covenant of how it is governed by itself if it's however that is set up. So it it can change per per subdivision on how it's governed.

Let's let's work towards a motion here. Um I think we're leaning towards a continuation of this with some submittal requirements being asked of the applicant. I move that we continue this matter to December a date certain December 10th at 6:00 p.m. 605 605

and we ask the applicant to submit a full block plan that shows all the relevant boundaries of the properties including the Donald and the little existing Donaldson little property and asked that they provide any of the deeds copies of any of the deeds that created this subdivision vision. Um, yeah, we're all listed on the platform. Second, any further discussion? All those in favor? I

see you on the 10th. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, put on keeping track the Excuse me. We have other business to attend to. Lily, we're other business to attend. We're going to keep rolling the train down the tracks here. So, let's Thank you.

Let's keep at it. So item four on the agenda tonight, we have conditional use approval application. That's conditional use approval application 15205. And the owner's name is Hall Quarry, Granite Corp. Agent is Barbara Williams. Location is 17 Shipright Lane, Hall Quarry. Tax Map 19, lot 10. Come on, guys. Um lot 1002 shoreline commercial. The zone purposes section 3.4 boat storage repair and service to construct a new 120 foot by 60 ft one-story heated building for the storage of boats. We had a site inspection at 4:00. Was this one advertised in a butters notified? Uh yes, it was advertised in the Mount Desert Islander on uh October 30th and uh a letter went out to a Butters dated October 29th and there were 10 abutters notified. So yes, it's been sufficiently

all right published. Any conflict of interest on the board with this one? None. None heard. Okay, we had a site visit at 4:00 and Ann, would you care to tell us about your observations from the site visit?

We um met at Shipwright Lane number 17. We met with um the manager of the property and the owner and um we were showed the two buildings that this new building will um border and it's similar in size and building materials to help alleviate their um storage needs for um storage during the winter for the boats. And Meredith, you have your hand up and I can probably wager what you're going to say. Yeah, I don't see where it's relevant because I can't vote, but my husband works there, so I can't I have conflict of interest, yes, but I'm not a voting member, so it doesn't matter.

Uh, any does the board have any issue with that? Nope. Right. Anything to add on relative to Ann's observations from the site? Does it nice rocks? Thank you. I'll turn it then over to the applicant if you'd like to add anything to that. Describe the project. Say a few things briefly. We we've been we've come through a stage of development which we're very grateful for and we find ourselves in a position like what

find ourselves in a position to expand and we look for the most uh practical way to do that uh in light of what property is there and what property we might have for future development. And this is very definitely the one most practical site. And I think what what we're trying to do is increase. We have storage in various yards uh throughout the island. How many would you say about I think uh five leases, seven buildings. Yeah.

And we have BS in those buildings and it's just not that's not practical. It's not uh we have we've been doing it because we we we've attracted a lot of business. The crew is doing a very, I would say, exceptional job. And we've had a lot of boat closings, boat yards that are closed. We're older. You know, there were recordable yards that have closed and the economy has been strong and under those circumstances voting voting activities here enhanced. So we were going to go ahead now and we just we get very busy and we haven't always intended some of the bigger elements of uh of development and the business and at this point we committed to going ahead and putting up another building and it's for storage. Other words, it'll be totally just for storage and we're not planning to do any work in there other than maintenance and ball drops, you know, for painting and varnishing and things of that nature. So, that's why we've decided to come to you and ask for permission to add a building to our property bench. Right. Hold on. I guess I'll open it up to the public if there's any questions of any any questions from the public.

Nobody's online with any questions about this application. I'm not seeing any not seeing any other members of the public here with questions. So, I'll close public comment and let's get into it. Um, I think the first thing we need to find is if the application is complete. So, moved. Second. All those in favor? I um put the checklist in the file. Yeah. Sorry. Can't remember if I put it in there or not. I not sure that it is here. So, do you see a checklist? I have the application map.

We don't think it's here. This is unheated storage there. Will be yes. So, anybody care to make a motion to maybe use the short form check? Second. All those in favor? I I I move we approve the application. Second.

All right. Then let's press the pause button on the approval. And now we go through and we review the application and discuss it. So Kim's coming back with a copy of the short form checklist. Everybody should have the application in front of them. We've got our handy dandy land use ordinance here if needed. And we're going to just run through this. We go through section 6 A, B, and C. Since you're in the shoreland zone, we'll have to do section 59 as well. Glad to hear you're busy. Sometimes it's not so good.

That's boat business. Yes. Just like a wave, right? Comes and goes. I know. You're sitting on the crest. You say, "Oh, God. Don't let this go down." All too well. Yeah. Thank you. or complimentary mints on the table too.

Yes. Eva, I used to know a bunch of people that work there, but they're probably just like me, retired.

You know, it's funny. I've uh start I've been there quite a long time. Yes, you have. Five years roughly. And um a lot of the people we've had, we've had a a goodly number of local people who live here, which was the tradition in the old days. You know, you you worked at a company or a job and stayed at it for most of your life. And uh we've got Jamie, how long have you been there? 18 years. Yeah. 18 years. And uh we we got guys, you know, older gentlemen who but they don't even work a full week anymore. Semi-retired. We

we're only allowed to work uh so much and then it really dips into our social security check. Well, I'm not a 79y old carpenter that still works three days a week. Just a touch older than me. Yeah, I'm a good carpenter. I got every one of them. So, who do you know that used to work there? Uh Billy Parker. He's still working. Yeah, he he part time. Steve Blacket. Oh, he's he's there. Was great. Steve Blacket. So, yeah, he started as a purchasing agent and he wanted to get his hands dirty a little bit. So, now he's delivering boats. Yeah, he's doing a little bit. I can imagine he'd be very happy doing that.

He is. I don't like delivering boats anymore. How you doing? No, no. Will Radcliffe's not there anymore? Oh, he's still there. Okay. Yep. Back in the old Morris days. Oh, yep. Same with Billy. Uh Fern Murphy. Brian Murphy. Well, Brian, he's at Oh, okay. Yeah, he he was there with us for a while for 20 years. Yeah, he was here for a while. just said he just had to have a change. In fact, he's not Hingley, so he won. You know how he got named Fern Murphy? No.

Picking uh Phil Heads in the park. $500. He'd been Fern Murphy ever since.

I'm still there. And they they seem to be quite happy there, which pleases me a lot as the owner. Yep. I think I've made a lot of guys a whole lot of families in this community have done very well through the boatyard over the years. I just regret and I know you guys are some of you are working on housing on the island. be nice if they could live here and not have to drive 50 miles to some of us were lucky and sorry bought houses years ago. You might want to follow the only reason I can be here. I bought my house for $12,000.

I'll give you 25 for it right now. All right. Okay.

All right. I got the short form checklist in front of me and we're looking at uh section 6A general performance standards. And the first one is my favorite compatibility. And here the applicant talks about it's 120x 60 foot storage building. Looks like the other buildings there. Visual impact buildings tucked behind two other storage buildings a similar size. Proximity to other structures. The proposed building is next to two other building and respects the 10-ft setback from those buildings and density of development. The building is complying with the use standards and density requirements the shoreland commercial zone. So C application uh erosion and sedimentation control uh that's 682 the applicant talks about it's located in the area that has been quarried in the past. So it sits on naturally occurring crushed stone. Uh it's going to percolate down through the crush stone and make its way to the ocean. Uh there's there's no one downstream. They have other storage sheds and don't have they had many other storage sheds with no problem with runoff. And then um talking about that the land which the proposed building sits was quar in the past and the some of the stone has been removed. And so the applicant says NA but I kind of feel you should say C application.

Yes. Yeah. Standard met. Yeah. Um, for that one, can someone come up and make a little amendment to your application here? Just move the page page four. Highway safety. The proposed building is well away from public roads and there's plenty of parking. Hold on. Let's Which which one am I doing? That you're doing 6A2. So, change it from NA to applicable standard design. put X over that and initial it. Okay.

Yep. And you might want to say it's this one and circle it or something. Okay. Write this one and then put your initials. Excellent. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

684. An impact on town services. Applicant says they don't believe the use and construction of this building will town will burn in the town's facilities. They have their own water supplies, septic and trash is collected by a private company. So C application 685 land suitability applicant says the land is suitable for a building. The slopes are stable 3 to one grade consist of rock and cut granite and they have an attached land suitability map. The C application lighting outdoor 686 that one should also be applicable.

Yeah, I would if you are going to have outside lighting you provided specs for that. So you instead of NA you should probably do applicable change that one too and I will say C application here. Yeah. Yes. And initial that one.

Thank you. 67 storm water. The applicant talks about the water will run off the roof. Okay. Go ahead. Yep. I get it as you go along.

The applicant says states that the water will run off the roof and land on the crushed stone, rocks, and cut granite that's native to the area and then percolate down through the layers of stone and follow its natural course to the ocean. There is no vegetation or soil to erode. They say applicable standard met and checklist says see application 688 vegetation. Uh applicant applicant says no vegetation will be removed or added for the construction of this building. NA 69 dust, fumes, vapors, odors and gases. Um I would change this one too. The there will be applicant says there will be no emissions of dust, fumes, vapors, odors or gases due to the building beyond the lot lines. Um applicant is changing it to applicable standard met.

You want to do that this one and the checklist says see application. So the findings of fact are presented by the applicant attached application. So on this one seven right here. Yeah, that might and the conclusion laws that the proposed use is in compliance with all standards of section 6A for which this standard has been met. So moved. Second that. Alan Kimberly, Dale Marshall. All those in favor?

I. All right. Moving on to section 6B, specific performance standards for activities and land uses. This is like almost all NA, but let's go through it. 6B1 agriculture NA and then it jumps up to 6B7 excavation or filling. And the applicant talks about that we are planning to pour a concrete slab over the occurring crushed stone surface naturally occurring crushed stone surface and they say applicable standard met. So CP application 6B8 fences and walls NA there are no fences and walls. 6B16 sign regulations there are no signs proposed. NA 6B18 they're not proposing to build a cell phone tower and a 6B19 animal husbandry too. I don't think they're think that's chickens NA mobile 6B20 mobile food vendors NA 6B21 rooming house NA and 6B22 hotels and motel NA. So the findings in fact are that the proposed use would include none of the specific activities or land uses described in section 6B except for 6B7 and that the conclusion laws that section 6B is not applicable except for section 6B7 for which the standard has been met.

So move second that Marshall Kimberly.

All those in favor? I All right, moving on. Section 6C, Shoreland Zoning Standards. So, jumping ahead into application, the section 6C, 6C1, agriculture and animal husbandry, NA 6C2, archaeological sites. They have a attached archaeological report. C application 6C5 essential services NA 6C6 parking areas NA 6C7 marine and freshwater structure standards NA they're not building a pier 69 roads and driveways NA Okay, they're not building any they plus they're more or less there 611 water quality um you know should we change that one to see application

probably applicable so because they talk about runoff and it's going to percolate down as the others So 25 of 25 years

do right. So the findings of fact are that the proposed use will include none of the specific activities or land uses described in section 6 except for 62 archaeological sites and 6C11 water quality. In the conclusion of laws that section 6 is not applicable except for section 6C2 and section 6C11 for which the standard has been met. So move second that Marshall Kimberly.

Right. All those in favor? I. All right. Because we're in the shoreline zone, then we do section 59.

So, let's go through the 59 standards. Uh, will maintain safe and healthful conditions. C. Application 592 will not result in water pollution, erosion or sedimentation to surface waters. C. Application 593 will adequately dis provide for the disposal of all waste water. NA is what the applicant says. 594 will not have an adverse impact on spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, bird or wildlife habitat. C application 595 will conserve shore cover and visual as well as actual points of access to inland and coastal waters. C application 596 will protect archaeological and historic resources as designated in the comp plan. See application 597 will not adversely affect existing commercial fishing or maritime activities in the shoreland commercial district. I think you guys would actually be complimenting it. Um, so C application 598 will avoid problems associated with the flood plane. C application and 599 is in conformance with the provisions of section 6A, B and C for which the standard has been met. The findings of fact are see above and the conclusion laws that all requirements of section 59 have been met.

So move. Second that. Marshall Kimberly. All those in favor? I. Yep. Is this we're leaving this the way it is on 593? Well, do you is there a bathroom in this building? No, it's a storage building. Okay, that's fine. Okay. All right. So, any permit conditions on this? No. None. So, let's circle back to our eight track player and press play. On um all those in favor of approving the application,

I opposed. Congrats. The end of all that bureau. 6P23 solar energy systems every people have to bother that now but it isn't doesn't appear to be on the short form thanks unless he's just be nice to get forms anyway you got the original this is the original

line I'm sure your case very much. And you have yours, right? I I think I have all mine. I don't think I have any of yours. two of them.

Yes. Daniel, where's the original? Who is the original? She said over there. That's the binder. That's it. Goes in there. Okay. Any other business? Heard. Just a reminder of your special meeting. And our remand on the 18th. Remand on the 18th. Right. And if you haven't signed the

dismissal around tomorrow

motion to adjourn some move second all those in favor. Hi. Thank you.