Planning Board - Regular Meeting

And I'll call to order the Town of Mount Desert Planning Board meeting for June 24th, 2026. Welcome aboard. And I'll kick it off with some introductions and first say hi to Meredith Randolph here online. Hi, Meredith. Then we've got Daniel Burr. We've got Ann Dalton, myself, William Hanley, chair, our vice chair, Tracy Loftus-Heller. It's not here tonight. And we've got Gail Marshall and Alan Kimmerly. I got everybody's names right. Yep. And I think... Move, remake, Alan.

I mean, Daniel, that's... Daniel Burke, a voting member of this meeting.

I'll second that. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Welcome aboard again, Daniel.

Thank you for being here.

All right. And one thing before I get into the agenda tonight is, is there any way these first two ones, we can do them in tandem or something, like combined?

We've done that for a lot.

Yeah.

But they are sharing a peer.

They're sharing a peer. I don't know why.

We could fill out two separate forms at the same time. However you want to do it. You are the board and you're the chair.

You know, we always consider opinions and I hear you.

You are the guru. You are the guru.

Yeah. So, all right. Well. Could I make a motion to combine the two for one? Can we get to it now? Yes. We're almost there. First, we've got minutes to approve from the 27th of May.

So moved.

Second. All those in favor? Aye. So moving on to item three here, Alan, do you have a suggestion for item three on the agenda tonight?

My suggestion would be that we combine these two into one. soon as they share an existing doc.

If I may, we can find A, Eleanor Ward.

Item 3A and 3B. And they are two separate applications, however, sharing the same doc that we are going to review in tandem.

Yes.

Yes.

So, we'd be doing them in tandem. We're going to do them.

No.

Yeah, and that was Alan and I'll 2nd.

Yeah. Great any discussion.

All those in favor does anybody from the parties have concerns about that?

Yeah. Any objections to that? Right. All right, so we had a motion, a second, discussion. All those in favor? Aye. All right. Now it's story time while I introduce them both, so. All right, item three tonight, we've got conditional use approval applications. And item 3A, this is continued from May 27th. We've got conditional use approval application 006-2006. Owner name is Eleanor Waddour. What does DEC stand for? Anybody know? Declaration of trust. Yeah, so Eleanor Waddour, Declaration of Trust is the owner. Agent is Kevin Smith. Location is 49 Harborside Drive, Northeast Harbor. Tax Mat 26, Lot 34-000. The zone is Shoreline Residential 1 and the purpose is section 3.4 and 67 marine structures, piers, docks, boards, bridges, and other structures and uses extending over below the normal high water line or within a wetland. And this is for an addition of 28 by 28 foot floats to an existing 352 square foot communal marine structure and we had a site inspection at five and this is going to be reviewed in tandem with the neighbor and that is yeah that is um conditional use approval application 007 2026 and the owner name there is Eliza L. Gray. Agent is Kevin Smith again. Location is 47 Harborside Drive, Northeast Harbor. Tax map 26 and this is lot 35-000. The zone is also Shoreland Residential 1 and the purpose is also the same. It's for section 3.4 And 6 seed at 0.7 marine structures, pure docs, boards, bridges and other structures and uses extending over below the normal high water line or within wetland. And this is for the 8 by 28 floats being added to an existing 352 square foot communal marine structure. And again, we had a site inspection for at 5 o'clock and. And myself, Gail and Alan were there for that and. alan would you notice yes and notification public notice was given previously did we have that this was continued so there was no problem and there was no voters thank you and i'll ask if there's any conflict of interest on the board with this one not here not here unheard and uh alan would you like to

let us know about your observations at the site visit there's uh walkways going down from each of the property to a single dock going out over the harbor and of course they meet at where the start of the dock is and obviously these two neighbors share a dock which is uh very good and everything looked uh very very nice and they're just gonna add some two more floats to it to uh i assume help uh handle uh each property owner's stepper boat it sounded like the floats are not extending further out into the harbor kind of parallel to the shore

Well, they can tell us that.

Yeah. I guess they're kind of like finger floats going off to main float. 8 feet by 28 feet.

Right. Well, I am going to turn it over to Mr. Smith then, the agent, and would you care to just summarize anything else about the project for the record?

Basically, that's it. Just expanding that doc. from basically 400 square feet to the 800 square feet allowed.

All right. Well, I'll open it up for public comment if anybody's here or online. Now's your chance. Any questions, Meredith? I don't think so.

Sorry, I couldn't my screen. No, I don't have any questions. Thank you. Right.

I'm not seeing anybody up. Well, who are the we have three participants online that there's anybody else online that has any questions about this application? Not hearing any. I'm not seeing any hands up here in the room. All right, let's close public comment then. So public comment is closed. And see, why can't we keep this view going on?

Because then we have to look at ourselves.

It keeps us all sitting up straight.

Mess it up.

Yeah, don't mess it up.

All right, so first- May I move we use a short term?

Well, that's a great motion, but how about we find the application complete first?

How about that? I move we find the application complete.

Second time. Right. And in this case, we're finding both applications complete.

Yes, I'm sorry, both applications complete.

All right. All those in favor? Aye. Aye.

And then- I move we approve each application.

Well, now- Now is your motion for using the short form, right?

That's the way. The order in which you'd like to proceed. I move we use the short form to process each of these applications.

Two short forms. Two short forms in tandem for the common peer. Yes. All right. All those in favor of doing that? Aye. Aye. And now?

I move we find each application complete. I mean, approve each application. Now you've got me.

And then we press the pause button, and now we go through the review of both applications in tandem. So let's... Do you have any of that? Both checklists.

Yeah.

I've got to switch gears here.

All right.

Like everything in here, except that.

Yeah, and this is.

I mean, not it's not in that in the yellow 1.

Nothing.

It's not in this because this is. June and May, so it should be maybe you can.

Maybe way in the back and. I'll put it all that. Docs chart closed.

Yeah, maybe it's in the in there because it was continued. Correct. Yeah.

Right. So, all 2 applications are these. They're in there.

Well, there you go.

All right.

Yeah, here we go.

Hey, there you go. New checklist.

So you have to get on your own.

Yes.

Eight forty nine harborside forty seven harborside to checklist. Two applications. Got my pen. Here we go. So we're going through section six standards for uses, permits, and approvals. And the first section is 6A, general performance standards, and 6A1, compatibility. And the applications both talk about That is, it is an expansion of the existing shared floats, the 800 square feet, and there's a diagram here of what they're doing. So, see application. 682, erosion and sedimentation control. Applicant says it will not involve any disturbance of soil. So I'm going to say C, application. 6A3, highway safety. It will have no impact on public roads. I'm going to say C, application. 6A4, impact on town services. They say that there is no impact on town services. 6A5, land suitability. The application. There are written responses to all of these in the application. And the 6A5, land suitability. The applicant says project does not entail any soil disturbance or adverse environmental impact. C, application. 6A6, lighting. They say N-A, there is no proposed lighting. 6A-7, stormwater. Applicant says N-A, it doesn't entail any impact to existing stormwater on either parcel. N-A. 6A-8, vegetation, they also have N-A marked. And they also say it will not involve the removal of any slash deposit near town or state roads. Thus fumes, vapors, odors, and gases, applicant has it marked N.A. The findings of fact are that the findings of fact are presented by the applicant and attached to application, and the conclusion was that the proposed use is in compliance with all standards of Section 6A for which the standard has been met.

So moved.

Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. So let me just catch up here. Okay, and now we're going to flip it over and we go to Section 6B, Specific Performance Standards for Activities and Land Uses. So, 6B1, Agriculture is an A. 6B7, Excavation and Filling, an A. 6B8, Fences and Walls. N-A. 6B-16, sign recommendations. N-A. 6B-18, wireless communication facilities. Not building a cell tower. N-A. 6B-19, animal husbandry II. N-A. No chickens. Thanks. 6B20, mobile food vendors. NA, we're not doing food trucks. 6B21, rooming house. No rooming house. 6B22, no hotel or motel. And 6B23, no solar arrays. So the findings of fact are that the proposed use will include none of the specific activities or land uses described in Section 6B and that the conclusion of the law of Section 6B is not applicable. So moved. Second. All those in favor?

Aye. I'm going to put that page right there. There.

And now, since we are in the shoreland zone, we're reviewing section 6C, shoreland zoning standards for review. And first one is section 6C1, agriculture and animal husbandry, NA. 62 archeological sites. The applicant says they have approval from the state that this will not affect any archeological site. So see application. We want to have them amended. Yeah. Do we have that in writing anywhere or an email?

It is in the packet.

Yeah, great. And on the... They don't have any applicable standard met or non-met marked on the application, so they should – we're going to check it. Gail, I'm organized here, so remember we've got to come back and we're going to check that on the original application. Okay. Okay, so then we jump to 6C5, essential services. African says NA, no essential services will be installed. 6C6, parking areas, they say NA again. there's no parking involved with that and then why we're here 67 marine and freshwater structure standards and here the applicant talks about to rebuild the existing float and expansion to 800 square feet allowed and this is a shared dock of the two property owners at 47 and 49 harborside road who are felon or dolore and eliza gray And then when you go down to Section 6712, it's got the dimensional limits of the marine structure, and it talks about that the maximum square footage of floats for communal marine structures is 800 square feet. The application has noted that they are proposing 448 square feet.

I think it's an addition of 448 feet.

Right.

Because that's from here, basically.

Yeah, so they're adding 448 square feet to the... To make it 800.

To make it 800.

Because they're currently at 352. You do the math. There you go. And so they're allowed 800, so they're not proposing more than 800. And the applicant has applicable standard met checked. And they, again, noted that the project entails expansion of the floats for communal marine structure to a total area of 800 square feet. So I'm going to say C, application. And then we jump to 69, which is roads and driveways, and that's NAA. And 6011 water quality. And this talks about that no activity shall deposit into the ground or discharge in waters that state any pollutant.

So they have NA marked.

So the findings of fact are that the pros use will include none of the specific activities or land uses described in Section 60 except for 62 and 67. And the conclusion of the law is that Section 60 is not applicable except for Section 62 and Section 67 for which the standard has been met.

So a moment.

All those in favor? Aye. All right. And because we're in the shoreline zone, we get to do section 5.9. So here we go. Section 5.9 standards. 5.9.1 will maintain safe and healthful conditions. The applicant says N.A.

uh everybody okay with that i mean i think they will but yeah i think it's simply going to be bringing in floats to attach to the existing facility so but i think it probably should say c application i think it should probably say c application for the record so there's another one to change yeah so

We're going to say C application on 591. 592 will now result in water pollution, erosion, or sedimentation of surface waters. Now they say C application. 593 will adequately provide for the disposal of all wastewater, NA. 594 will not have an adverse impact on spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, bird, or other wildlife habitat. They say sea application.

There are maps.

Yeah, there's maps attached. 595 will conserve shore cover and visual as well as actual points of access to inland and coastal waters. Sea application. 596 will protect archeological and historic resources as designated in the comp plan. Say sea application. 597 will not adversely affect existing commercial fishing or maritime activities in a shoreline commercial district. They're not in the shoreline commercial district. 598 will avoid problems associated with the floodplain. Let's see application. And 599 is in conformance with the provisions of sections 6A, B, and C. And they have standard met checked. And the findings of fact are see above and conclusion was that requirements for section 5, 9 have. Been met so moved. All those in favor. All right. All right. And are there. Permit conditions with this. No permit conditions. All right, and then we circle back to Gail's aid track player. Press play on the approval vote. All those in favor of approving the application as submitted.

The applications.

Applications as submitted.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. All right. now there you go i like that edition congratulations now we're going to sign yep they have to and we're going to mark those things yeah and five nine one the original

Hey, new signatures.

Have to initial those things that we did. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. We've got it. Okay. I got to keep things straight or I'm gonna.

Yep.

Yep.

What the. But in the town office, you don't have me.

Do you need them to find. And we'll have to do it. Yeah. Yeah.

You know, you're the staple.

Did they use

uh they left so we needed them to just edit can you get it okay you'll do it yeah okay all right so we're not doing that you want us to note on it somewhere which sections need i mentioned our recording secretary okay all right yeah i do i'm just writing what you guys Section 62 and 591. Okay, they're back in here.

Okay, these are going back in the folder.

All right. That's from last time. Okay. There you go. We polished off section for item 3A and 3B in tandem. And now we're on to item 3C. And this is conditional approval application 010-2026. Owner name is Clifton Dock Corporation. Agent is William B. Gartley. from Gartley and Dorsky Engineering and Surveying. Location is 9 Clifton Dock Road, Northeast Harbor, tax map 22, lot 001. The zone is Shoreland-Kamar-Sherrill. And then purpose is section 3.4 and 6C7, marine structures, piers, docks, wharves, bridges, and other structures and uses extending over or below the normal high water line or within a wetland. and this is to raise and reconstruct a permanent pier dock reconstruct gangway section 3.4 excavation or filling greater than 150 cubic yards section 6b8 fences and walls section 4.3.2 non-conforming structures no yes yeah F right section 4.3.2 F nonconforming structures elevated nonconforming structure to be consistent with the local floodplain management elevation requirements. and are located in an area of special flood hazard. We had a site inspection at 530, and was this advertised in the abutters?

It was advertised in the Ellsworth American on June 11, 2026. Was it advertised twice or just this one? This one. And the abutters were notified by mail on 6-10-26. There were six of others.

Any conflicts of interest here with this one? None heard. We had a site visit at 5-30, and Anne, would you like to let us know about your observations?

We met at the parking area outside of the Clifton Dock. We observed that the elevation of the dock as it exists is below the floodplain, and the purpose of them being here is to increase the elevation of the existing building. They're not going to change the footprints according to what they described. We walked out onto the dock past the building. We talked about the granite wall footprint also remaining the same, and we observed the piping for This is the fuel for the water that's coming. The side is going to be underground. The building will be moved and put on a platform. Into the parking area while they do the construction of the underpinnings. Is that right?

The platform is going to be in the water.

Anybody any other new fuel lines going to it? And it's a. Going to have a new cupola up top, possibly?

They're going to tell us that.

And the ramp will be longer and wider, going down to the float. And it will terminate at the middle of the float, which will help spread the load of said ramp.

They're going to tell us that.

Right. Well, I'm going to then turn it over to Mr. Gardley, the agent, to tell us that.

As you mentioned, the purpose of this is to elevate the access to the pier and the pier itself and then the building on the pier to get them above the flood elevation. You could see from the photos that we included that during the storms of 1944 it was significantly damaged and partially underwater. In order to prevent that in the future and create some resiliency in the structure, that's why this is happening. We have permits from the army for the. The grant claims are going to stay. And we're going to reinforce those and pin the blocks together, kind of stack them. And then on top of that would be a concrete leveling pad and. I call to gain that elevation existing. Here is that elevation 10 and the new will be at 17.5. The flight elevation, we submitted a lower application. So they did a wave analysis study. And found that they felt like the flight elevation was 1 foot higher than it needed to be. That study gets submitted to FEMA. It's reviewed, it gets noticed, it goes out the public notice. and then comes back with a recommendation and then finally approved. And one foot doesn't seem like a lot necessarily, but in this case, going up seven and a half feet was a lot. So one more foot would have made that much more difference. So it was worth it to put them to do that. The bulkhead walls are stacked stone. And so while those are going to be replaced with cast in place concrete, There's a pump station there now that handles the sewer from the building, and that's going to be removed and put back in. There'll be a new sewer line and water line put in within the project area, not all the way up to the road. And then, as you mentioned, the fuel lines are going to get replaced. Right now they're on stanchions above ground, and those are going to be put underground. So, and the only thing I mentioned on site, the only new thing that is going to be different is that the utility pole, the powerful is going to get removed and the power is going to go underground and we're going to add a set of granted steps. In order to access the shoreline. It's most of it certainly have to answer any questions. Can you talk about, just for the record, about the permitting criteria, because there's a building out on the… Yeah, so because the entire support structure for this building is the pier and warp itself, by rebuilding that, it's considered a substantial building. Improvement, right. So once you hit that criteria, then you have to put it back in compliance with the floodplain management rules, which says that the lowest horizontal structural member needs to be one foot above the 100-year floodplain. That's because it's in a VE zone, just a velocity zone. And so that's why new flood elevation is at 15, but we have the depth of the structure.

to the 17 5. and years ago the the rules changed where if you lifted something you were you had a max ridge height and you'd have to like crop the roof of it that changed to allow the problem with that rule was it was keeping people from elevating things above the flood so that changed a few years

Yeah, to allow the height to be measured from, in this case, when it's in a VE zone, I think it's from the sill of the building with the floodplain ordinance. So the height of the building, as long as we're not changing the building, does not have to go up to that minimum required height to be in compliance.

Because you used to have these crop tops and these structures.

And they do that. So they're all going. Yeah, really. And the flat in the roof, even though it wasn't much of a pitch to begin with, but because FEMA made us elevate it,

We had the flat, it's almost a flat roof now, but that was before this came in. Our example for shoreland zoning.

Right, that's because, yeah, the FEMA rules for shoreland zoning were in conflict. They were, yep.

So that's 4.3.2F, right? So you have the three feet. Well, the same statute allows you up to four feet.

It does, but obviously in this case, we don't want to go higher.

Yeah, no, no.

It's already pretty significantly changed.

Well, it does look like you were at sea at some point.

Yep, that was good. yeah wow and the other thing we did mention is that the floats and marina part of it aren't changing we don't have to change the location we're not closing the size of anything to change the gangway is going to be longer but that float that it lands on is a pretty sizable float it's 40 feet long so we'll be landing closer to the a little beyond the middle of that float opposed to on the shore side part of the Wade, that we're making up a little bit of that length is mentioned when we were standing out there there's a little bump up it's about four feet. But that gangway is attached to and we're not going to put that back we're going to attach it to just we're going to square that off so the reality is the footprint of the permanent structure will be slightly smaller.

I ask a somewhat off-topic question out of curiosity. What is a VE zone? Like, what is that?

So they've got multiple zones. You see, most of the time along the coast, it's an AE zone or a VE zone. The VE zone is that you can expect waves of three feet or greater. like the more stringent so i mean there's quite a fetch there yeah like between the islands uh it was interesting when they did the study to buy you know it was pretty accurate um it was interesting the 2024 storms though like when you see that that height and the fact so the water was probably somewhere around 12 to 13 and the and the ve zone said it was 60. so That's why we thought doing the study, and we gained a foot. All right.

Well, I'll open it up for public comment.

There is any.

We've got three people online, it looks like.

One of them's Kim.

One of them's Kim. Another one's Meredith.

All right. Still here?

All right. Any questions, Meredith?

I do not have any questions.

All right. I am not seeing any hands up in the room. I am not seeing any hands up online. All right. Let's close public comment and first hear from the board about if you think this is a complete application.

Okay.

All right. All those in favor? Aye. Aye.

Aye. Move we use the... What do you want to do? There's a short form. Do you want to do that first? Move we use the short form to process this application.

Second that. All those in favor? Aye. Aye.

Aye. Move we approve the application.

Second. Let's press the pause button and wade through this one. And just Process on this 1, Kim, just we're going to go through. 6, a B and C and 5, 9 1st. And then we circle back to 3.4. Yes, that's it. Yeah, the checklist should probably be in there.

was in there i can't remember if i put them no it's something in the front everything's in here there you go yeah right let's see what didn't work

Okay, we got our checklist. We got an application in front of us.

Got all the plans. It's going to get organized.

All right, let's do this. So we got section 6A, general performance standards compatibility. Right, so compatibility, the applicant says a couple things. So on physical size, they talked about the lot size is 30,359 square feet. Existing structures to be replaced in the same footprint. Pure structural will be elevated to elevation 17.5. And due to the elevation change of the pier, a longer gangway is proposed to the float that allows for a more gradual slope between the pier and the floats. Visual impact, the applicant says that it's going to be similar to existing, but with the pier elevated by 7.4 feet. The stone retaining wall is going to be replaced with cast in place concrete walls. Some existing utility lines are going underground. Proximity to other structures, there's no change in the size, hence the development, no significant change. So, C, application. 6A2, erosion and sedimentation control. African talks about erosion control practices are submitted as part of the NRPA application and to the DEP. In Army Corps, they've got civil details of erosion control on sheet C3. This guy.

Fold each one. There we go.

You got C3? C3 right there.

Got it? Yep.

All work is to be done by the contractor certified by the DEP in erosion control practices. So see application. 683, highway safety. African says NA. 684, impact on town services. Applicant says services staying similar to existing impact on services. See the site plan for utility notes. Those see application 685 land suitability. Applicant says proposed improvements will improve the resiliency of the structures, property and shoreline. See application 6A6 lighting outdoor. Applicant says applicable standard met. And they talk about that the three existing building mounted lights will remain. See sheet C1. For the locations and photos of the light type, the large pole-mounted light in the parking area is going to be removed. Small focus hockey puck style lights will be added to the rail posts for pedestrian safety. And there's cut sheets on the lights, right? Yeah, in the application. So, see application 6, a 7 storm waters. Now, again, says Apple standard met stormwater runoff will stay similar to existing. There's no increase in impervious area. Therefore, no increase in the volume of runoff runoff from the paved areas, directed to the ocean over existing legend rock, eliminating the potential for erosion. See sheets, see 1 and see 3. And the agent had mentioned during the site visit you guys are taking out that stormwater basin there?

Yeah, there's a basin that's right at the access onto the pier. But we're changing the slope. So the pier is now going to be higher. Right now, all the water runs at the pier. Instead, the water is going to run away from the pier and then be directed both to the right and left as you're heading back up the hill.

All right, so C applications, 6A8, vegetation application applicant says NA, 6A9, dust, fumes, vapors, odors, and gases. Applicant says applicable standard met, care will be taken during construction to control dust. Fumes, vapors, odors and gases are not anticipated and they'll have a non potable water truck available to control dust. So, see application, so the findings of fact are presented by the applicant and the attached application and the proposed use The conclusion law is that the proposed use is in compliance with all standards of Section 6A for which the standard has been met. So moved. Chuck, all those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Specific performance standards for activities and land uses, 6 agriculture NA, 6 excavation or filling. And so the applicant says, see site plan C1 for grading and filling. And maybe just for the record, you could just describe the grading and filling again.

yeah we're going to need to bring in fill because we're losing the elevation of that access to the pier so any walls will be higher bringing in more gravel to support the new pavement any sense of how much you anticipate any sense of how much you anticipate bringing um. It's probably on this more than 150, especially where the. The says to the peers narrow on C2, I showed a section out at the end to see if you get a sense of the retaining wall replacement. And the reason I did that is so you can see that. And the footing the walls large to support such a tall structure that they actually. So, the footings from each side being almost a continuous footing underneath the bottom, which means all that material has to come out. And then before that, so it's definitely more than 100.

That's why we have the concrete retaining walls and on the block walls, because you're adding 7.4 feet of. Bill behind it. Okay, so C application for 6B7, 6B8 fences and walls. Applicant says applicable standard met, and they say that no new fences are proposed, but they talk about C site plan for the retaining wall location. so it's more about the wall and not fences so see application 6b 16 sign regulations na uh 6B18, Wireless Communication Facilities, NA, 6B19, Animal Husband Grade 2, NA, 6B20, Mobile Food Vendors, NA, 6B21, Rooming House, NA, 6B22 hotels and motels NA and 6B23 solar arrays NA. So the findings are factored that proposed use will include none of the specific activities or land uses described in Section 6B except for 6B7 and 6B8 conclusion laws. Section 6B is not applicable except for 6B7 and 6B8 for which the standard has been met.

So moved. Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Right. Section 6C, shoreland zoning standards for review. So first one, we've got 61, agriculture and animal husbandry, NA. 62 archaeological sites and here the applicant says applicable standard met and they say that there are no known archaeological sites the main historic and preservation commission and the state tribes have been noticed of the planned construction and they've got attached response letters So see application 65, essential services. Applicant says applicable standard met. They talk about the existing overhead. Above ground utilities will be removed and go underground, and they show that on the site plan C1. So section 65, see application. 66, parking areas. Applicant says NA. And then why we're here, section, well, one of the reasons we're here, section 67, Marine and Freshwater Structures Standards. And here the applicant says applicable standard met. And similar to historic use, they have the attached plans for compliance with 1-11. As a commercial facility, the project is exempt from 12 to 14. Yeah, so let's just for the record. what are sections 1 through 11, and they talk about access from shore. And that talks about the access from shore will be developed on soils appropriate for such use and measures, and they're minimizing soil erosion. And that whenever possible, access from the shore to marine structure shall be placed on bedrock. and we could require consultation with the Soil and Water Conservation District Office. The next one is interference with existing uses and beaches. That talks about that the location of the marine structure shall not interfere with developed or natural beach areas or access to existing marine structures or points of public access. And it shall not unreasonably interfere with the use of other marine structures. But you've got that stairs down right to the existing.

Well, it's not going to change.

Yeah, that doesn't. But they're adding new stair or improved stair with down there. um yeah most of this is covered again in section five nine so it's effect on fisheries and wildlife you know the marine structure shall be designed cited and constructed to minimize adverse impacts on fisheries and significant wildlife habitats Four is size. The facility shall be no larger in dimension than necessary to carry on the activity. There's no change in the dimensions of this. Five, no new structures. You're not proposing to build any new structures. And the ordinance talks about that no new structure shall be built on over a budding a pier, wharf dock, or other structure extending below the normal high water line.

In any event, it's an operational necessity.

Yeah, in any event, it's an operational necessity, a structure constructed on a float or floats. You're not proposing any because that's prohibited. Item six, new permanent piers and docks. And that talks about new permanent piers and docks on non-tidal waters. Well, you are on tidal. It will not be permitted unless it's clearly demonstrated to the planning board that a temporary pier or dock isn't feasible. Seven, it talks about conversion to dwellings. Well, you already have your dwelling. and no existing structures have built on over-abunding a periodic wharf or other structure and standing below the normal high water line shall be converted. You're not converting anything to a residential dwelling. What is that?

It's a shoreline commercial district.

Yeah. There's no issue with that Kim.

Yeah.

Okay. Height limit eight. Um, yeah, that talks about that except in the shoreline commercial district structures built on over a budding, a pier dock or war for other structure, standing below the normal high water line should not exceed 20 feet in height above the pier while we are in the shoreline commercial district. Interference with natural flow. Interference with the natural flow of a surface or subsurface water shall be minimized during the construction and subsequent use in the marine structure. And at the site visit too, you talked about the construction of the crib work and how you're you're posting a top of the crib work to maintain better flow underneath the pier. And could you, just for the record, talk about that briefly?

Yeah, that's part of why I submitted that sheet C2. So you can kind of visualize what we're doing there. They've got the three existing drainage cribs that we're going to reinforce and put the concrete sap on. So instead of taking that granite, solid-grade up, we're adding the steel pipe forms to gain that extra height. And it'll just be much less structure under there and allow water to go through. But it'll also visually be a lot less cumbersome.

OK. So 10, encroachment on navigation. The marine structure shall be designed, sited, and constructed so it's not encroaching upon. It's not changing anything. It's staying where it is. And then 11, mooring area. The planning board shall request comment from the harbor master. We've got that. Um, and then I think, yeah, so that's 1 yeah, that's 1 through 11 and 12 through 14 don't apply because it's commercial. So we're going to say. See application for section 67. Roads and driveways, 6C9. Applicant says NA. 6C11, water quality. Applicant says applicable standard met water quality that stays similar to the existing use and C site plan C1. So, C application. So the finding of facts are the proposed use will include none of the specific activities or land uses described in Section 6 except for 6 , 6 , 6 , and 6 . And the conclusion of law is that Section 6 is not applicable except for 6 , 5 , seven and eleven for which the standard has been met so well okay all those in favor aye aye all right and now we go through it again so because we're in the shoreline zone the specifically the shoreline commercial district we are uh reviewing section five nine standards and Here we go. 591 will maintain safe and healthful conditions. See application. 592 will not result in water pollution, erosion, or sedimentation. Applicant says see application. They've got a whole sheet on erosion control. 593 will adequately provide for the disposal of all wastewater. See application that shows on C1 just all the utility there that's going. 594 will not have an adverse impact on spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, bird, or other wildlife habitat. How do we know that? Applicant says C, application.

So provide the written response to each one of these in the cover letter?

Yes. Thank you.

That one, I mentioned that both Department of Marine Resources and I think Inland Fisheries and Wildlife reviewed the application as part of the NRPA permit review.

Great. So C, application. 595 will conserve shore cover and visual as well as actual points of access to inland and coastal waters. It's We are on C1. We're doing there. 596 will protect our- C application. C application, yes. 596 will protect archeological and historic resource resources as designated in the comp plan. We've got the letter from the Maine Historic

And the tribes, yeah.

Preservation Commission. See application 597 will not adversely affect existing commercial fishing or maritime activities in a shoreline commercial district. I don't think we've ever had anything. In the commercial shoreline commercial district until now and. And then.

They state there's no changes to the existing use, so the upgrades and infrastructure will not affect existing.

So see application. 598 will avoid problems associated with the floodplain. That's kind of why you're here. And I mean, we've got the whole application is relative to that.

And what it says is the peer is being elevated to above the BFE plan has been approved by the floodplain management program is in compliance with the town ordinance. There is correspondence to that effect. Ms. Baker at concerns she has no issues with the project. Lomar submitted FEMA will submit a town flood plan hazard permit application for permitting.

The application. 599 is in conformance with the provisions of section 6A, B, and C, standard met. Findings of fact are C above, and the conclusion of the law is all requirements of section 5.9 have been met.

And therefore, oh, I still moved.

Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Permit conditions to this 1. well, we're going to look at.

We're going to act on 432.

Yeah, so just procedurally. Do we have a finding on this now and that and then we go to. Or 3 separately. Okay. so there's no permit conditions right and we're going to go back and press play gail you know all those in favor of approving the application is submitted all right there's the first step congrats favorite We have this fancy new.

We don't have it for now. No, we don't. Not yet. But we're only doing this one section.

Yes.

I don't think yeah, so. Everybody can flip in their land use ordinance to section 4.3.

Point 2 F page 14.

We need to flip to the application where they talk about this.

I don't think they address this particular section specifically.

Did you?

But the real issue, it seems to me, if I'm understanding it, is whether or not they're within the three feet of our base flood elevation. And it's relocated because it's relocated, reconstructed, replaced, or elevated within the boundaries of the process so that the water body or wetland setback is met to the greatest practical extent, which it is because it's a particular function that has to be in the water. And it is applicable because They are proposing to reconstruct and elevate consistent with the local floodplain management elevation requirement, and they are in an area of special flood hazard. And all of those things are contained within the application itself, all that information. So unless I'm missing something, it doesn't. It seems like all of that has already been addressed.

Yeah. In the application and specifically on sheets C1 and C2 and...

I mean, I can try and make the motions.

I think you can definitely try to mold that clay into a motion.

So the provisions of 4.3.2 have been met in that they are raising the minimum then they're elevating the structure to be consistent with uh to be less than three feet above the base flood elevation they are relocating it and reconstruction they are reconstructing and replacing and elevating within the boundaries of the parcel So that the water body of wetland setback requirement is met to the greatest extent, because it is a commercial doc that has to be in the location it already exists in it can't be away from the water. It further. It is being developed consistent with local floodplain management elevation requirements and it is located in an area of special flood hazard which makes this provision applicable. And therefore, the standards have been met. That began to work.

All that.

I'm really just reading from this.

But I thought, and I can piece this together provisions of 4.3.2 are have been met in that the, um. 4.3.2 . The provisions are met in that the elevating structure is to be less than three feet above the flood elevation, replacing within the boundary. So the boundary is met to the greatest practical extent in that it has to be near the water, consistent with the elevation requirements, which makes the provision applicable. Therefore, the standards are met.

So I would say that it is being reconstructed so that the water body or wetlands separate requirement is met to the greatest extent practical because of the nature of the structure and the services that it provides. It's a marine commercial dock.

Hold on, just one. So it's the met to the greatest practical extent because can you just read, say that it's a commercial marine dog.

Therefore, it has to be where it currently exists only.

If that was field and Alan. Yeah.

All those in favor?

Aye. Opposed?

Congrats. Thank you very much. There's nothing to sign for that. There's a form in here we signed.

I've got an irrelevant question. I assume you'll be closed for a while. Yeah, just in the off season.

Yeah, the plan is to as soon as we get the 1. September, well, right at the day, I believe it's September 8th. I believe it is the day after Labor Day is our. I don't want to say anything improper, but I usually go to die.

Start. I go to die starts.

It should go relatively so quick. We've got the same great team that we get over with and we've got throwing doors. Yeah, I made sure we've got. Uh, shea construction, Rob, she doing the land side and then doing the water side.

So after spending all this money, maybe I'll come over and get a touch of diesel.

You can do that.

I didn't put any fuel in last summer. All right, my boat's not very big. Hold on there, Alan.

I always let people borrow my boat, and they fill it, and they clean it for me, and I get upset when they make my boat, you know.

That sounds good.

Thank you very much. We appreciate your cooperation.

Thank you. Good luck. Is that a great point? I will. My best. Okay. We'll see you in the hood.

Yeah.

Thanks. Yeah, you bet. Thanks for all the help. Thank you.

Thanks everyone. Good to see you. Thank you. Signing a blank sheet.

We're just trying to sign it out. All right.

Do we have any other business?

Any other items Meredith?

Keep us here longer.

Motion to dismiss.

That's a different venue. Motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

Second that there are and got and got that.

Think about it there for a minute.

All right. Any discussion? not debated no all right all those in favor uh hi hi good to see you bye meredith