Luzo Advisory Group - Regular Meeting

go thank you very much this is the loser advisory committee meeting and we are only meeting until shortly before six because there happens to be a select board meeting at six this evening so we uh this was advertised um we will um Get down to the general business. The only thing I'll say about the general business is that this, having to shorten the meeting is, I think, the third that I can think of in the course of our already short number of meetings that we have, because we don't meet in the summer. And that's like the last warrant committee meeting, this meeting, and then the Mount Luther King meeting.

day which bumps the select board over.

So if there's any, if anybody wants to think about whether or not there's another Tuesday or some other way to do this so we don't constantly kind of run into or frequently run into this, let me know. But it's not the same thing we need to decide today, but we should think about whether or not this is the most effective use of our time. So review existing circumstances of shoreland commercial zone and discuss how residential uses within zone should be handled. And I assume it probably has something to do with this.

Yeah, so your bigger packet, the zoning part of it.

If you get one, yeah, you can do it.

I don't want to keep this one kind of handy the entire time because it has the zone and then the square and rectangles, there's numbers kind of poorly to the other parts of the packet. I did kind of realize after I printed it that I could have labeled these better, but in each tax map, you'll find another number, which is the one that correlates to the zoning map. So one, and then one, and it's like where it's shaded in purple on the tax map, and that's the area of the shoreline commercial zoning. If you turn the page, there's also a satellite picture. Lots that are throwing Marshall. So, for 1. Lots that are surely Marshall, the tax map, you can see there's 2 of them. That's the precious and a lot just north of the precious as the house on it. I mean, those are both zones for land commercial. Then I repeat that two is also two, there's three watts or three areas that are on the same tax map. So two, three and four are all on the same tax map.

This is map eight, right?

Yes. And that's the way I could just tell you that. And so, but so the first picture there, the front and back is number two, the second front and back is three and the third front and back is four. And so you can see it's, Two current uses. I guess I kind of wish the other one had kind of popped up. I don't think Google Maps had a name on it, but they're both active. The second one is Able. That's number three. Then number four is just north of John M. Williams' stuff, but not that.

That's the camera. I mean...

I was going to say, it doesn't have a new name.

I'm having a hard time keeping up here.

There's a close-up picture of the lot itself or the lots themselves.

Can we stop for a second? Because I'm lost. We'll find map 8.

He's on the 2nd, right? Okay, so what you're mapping?

Yes. And if you open it up. Yes, I do have that. What are we. Considering here.

So last time we were discussing that there are some areas in shoreline commercial that. The provision in the ordinance, it said that if you want to do a primary residential use in shoreline commercial and use the dimensional requirements of the neighboring.

Residential right and there are differences, depending on which side of these you're on sometimes.

Yeah. So, like, in, I think. Number 2 is an example where that's a lot that's full and commercial zone of butts.

Well, I guess number 2 is on this page, right?

It was number 3 to the problem that has tables as 3 on 1 side and then 5 on another side. And that 1 is 1 law. And so, or there's 1 lot that touches, but and so it's like, well, what do you do? in that circumstance if you're trying to do a primary residential use on that lot. And so we were looking at kind of what the surrounding area would look like for, I did it for all commercial, but really the point was to do it for the areas that have the conflict. And so like Ables is surrounded by pretty large residential lots. It's not like super heavily developed outside of Ables itself.

So the question is, what if somebody wants to develop a house on Abel's lot?

So we also discussed potentially the resolution of that being like, you know, depending on where it's at. The idea was if you'd say like, well, then you can use the dimensional or standards or the zoning standards for the less restrictive residential zoning near you. But then the committee wanted to see what was...

So it's not just Abel's, it's Beale's beside it too, which is residential.

Strictly residential, and so if whether or not you'd say, okay, well, then if you're developing. And something on the labels ladder, if they split something a lot off and hasn't been developed. But it'd be the 3 or the 5 and then I make, you know, I start 3 is slightly. More dense, I don't call it 10,000, but slightly more dense. Where the minimum lot size is.

Yeah, versus 5 and 5 is 5 acres.

Is it. How justifiable is it to have SR3s or 5s to begin with?

That would be a much different conversation.

Yeah. Yeah. But if we're going to talk about... Another question I have is, is this currently an abstract issue or are people actually... trying to figure out how to do something with a lot that has this kind of problem. How live an issue is this?

It sounds like I think it was really in the four or five.

Four or five. Yeah. It's an active issue.

Okay. I just want to know how live you think, how important. Well, it's important that it be consistent for sure, but

I get what you're saying about the SR3 and 5. Again, I don't know how they came up with this zoning when they did this. I don't know if they just closed their eyes and put their finger down and said, let's call that one that. I don't know. Some of it makes sense, but some of it doesn't.

There may have been individual...

lobbying or persuasion shall we say even this i have no idea yeah i think like this shoreline zoning is pretty different from like the states recommended like most towns will just take like limited residential just use that same zone across the town but mount dessert does have like very we've got one more straight and specific yeah like for on residential zones so i'm imagining there was a lot of individual lobbying or

Because the minimum loss size in the shoreland zone for the municipal guidelines is 40,000 square feet or 30. It depends. So not even an acre. It's not even an acre. But if we decided to shrink back the shoreland, I mean, it's a 250 buffer regardless. But if we decide to shrink it back, we would have to make those lots smaller than that 250 buffer. And then change the zoning.

Right. So you maybe have to account for the fact that you can't use that from 250.

But I think I don't understand.

This is an issue because we're talking about trying to build a residence in a shoreline commercial. But really the larger question of What is a good lot size? What are good policies about round lot sizes in general is applicable to the whole of the town? The whole of every town, seems to me. Right.

Yeah, I think it would change how the town interacts with shoreline zoning. Right. like a lot sometimes that there's i don't think there's technically a right way to do it in the state size as long as you're keeping that 250. um a lot of towns will just have that 250 be the overlay that shoreline zoning and then everything The rest of the lot is whatever. That's a different base zone in the town might be. So like for an SR zone, it might be like R1 or R2, but then only that 250 in that overlay zone has to follow shoreline.

So you kind of subtract the 250 from your thinking about what the lot size needs to be.

I mean, like you can technically develop and it's still just... there's a lot more restrictions to develop it.

I mean, in some ways, so if you, I'm being rough here, but because every lot is going to be a different shoreland width too. So you'd have to, but I think you'd have to sort of strike an average or a balance or something if you wanted to say, well, if we want this to be one acre shoreland zoning, then it's got to be an acre and a half because of the shoreland or something like that or two. And then it's got to be.

No. So like, I mean, if, So if we went to the just doing the 250 as an overlay type of idea, right, and you wanted one acre lot sizes or 40,000 square foot lot sizes, the lot itself would still just be an entirety 40,000 square feet. But if a developer came and needed 40,000 square feet for one dwelling unit, then they would have to include the shoreline zoning in their assessment of the property. And so they'd have to develop that whole acre as part of it because they're part of land. But if it's like an acre, they happen to have like a 60,000 square foot lot and that 250 doesn't bring it below like 40,000, you can just develop it like it was the normal base zone, like the R1 or whatever that's not within the 250.

Yeah, I'm not proposing we do that. I'm just trying to understand it theoretically. Like it could be two, the number could be one or two or 20 or whatever. Because you want people to be able to have, try to design this so that people have usable lot sizes.

Right.

You know, you don't want to say, well, you've got to stay away from that first 250, and then maybe you don't have a good place to put a well or a septic system. But you only have to have an acre or something. I don't know. Okay. All right. I think I can try to keep up with you now.

difficult too because you know for development you know people you know would like to have an adu or something in the shoreline but they don't meet the dimensional requirements to have two because our ordinance says if they're wholly or partially within the shoreline zone have an adu you have to have like one dwelling it meets like say you're in two acre zoning you need two acres for the house main house then you need another two acres for the adu yep and then 200 for each So, 400 feet short of funds.

Yeah.

A lot of people don't have that. Right. That's quite a bit of land. Right. You know, but it's, the state is not budging on that either, you know, so.

I mean, that could be resolved, like, if you left the 250 out of, like, Not calling the whole lot for land and then you just have your base zone, which all of a sudden you can then they should be allowed me to you, regardless of density, but I think it's the forefront part that it shapes the sets.

Well, it says, well, our says it's a lot of holes partially.

Right.

You can't, it's the wholly impartially that's messing us up because you can't meet the dimensional requirements. That's too typically on a lot.

Right. Because if you're developing in the shoreline zone, you have to follow those types of strict guidelines.

I mean, the guidelines just say that you have to same thing, but theirs is different. Like they have the 40,000 square feet. So 40 and 40, we have less, they have less.

Right, but like the way, so the way Alzerus had done it was you had your limited residential shoreline zone in the 250. Yeah. And it was usually like a much more development friendly zone because there was no shoreline restrictions on the rest of the lot. Right. So if you were building your house on your ADU and out like without being in the 250, you just had to follow that original zones rules. And so like- You can build your house and radio without being like, because you're not affecting the shoreline because you're not building with them. They're not going to have the whole thing partially.

Yeah, but they, but you would you have to have at least 40,000 square feet and then 200 feet of show frontage.

I don't think you'd have to have the short furnished part because, like, again, you're only using the density for the. Because again, it's not the lot that they don't have the language about fully or partially the lot itself. It's only if you were developing in the short length. So, like, if you're outside of it, then it was fine. Like, you could just have that extra ADU because you're following the rules of the others.

Split zone.

Yeah, split zone.

We don't have that. So, if I'm not on the shore, I'm in a village residential one, and I want to put an ADU, I don't have to have two acres to do that, right?

No, I mean, you could have one acre, say, well, you're in VR1, say you're on town sewer.

Yeah.

So as long as if you have, well, if your lot was a lawful pre-existing non-performing lot of record, you could have an ADU.

Right. But if you have a lot, like I think, or just use my separate, I think I'm VR1.

I'd have to look for sure.

But if I'm VR1 and I've got a little over an acre, I don't have to have actually two acres in order to put an accessory dwelling unit on it, do I? No, you can have... So, but when we get to the shoreland, that's what we're requiring because there's shore frontage, right?

Right. Yeah, that's... I don't know the full history of ADUs in that desert, but I'm pretty sure LD2000 was allowed to put an ADU free of density requirements. Yeah, you don't have to meet... That was a state law. And so like the town It's a trolling zoning still applies. If you're in trolling zoning, you still have to follow density rules.

So if you're in VR2, so if you're on sewer, so 20,000 square feet is your minimum loss size, you have an acre.

Yeah.

Just an acre. So 43,560 is an acre.

Yeah.

You can have another house and not an ADU. Yeah. You're not limited to the size cap like you are with an ADU with your main house. Right. because you can meet the dimensional requirements for each dwelling unit. Right. But then you don't get an ADU, because now you have two houses on that block.

Right. So that, and so, but it's when you have shorefront that you're not allowed to do that.

You've got to meet the dimensional requirements like you would two houses.

And that's not because of our ordinance, it's because of how the state's interpreting the shorefront ordinance.

Because ours says wholly and partially, the state guidelines don't say.

So we could, so.

We're being more strict.

Mm-hmm. Is there, what's the legislative history of this? Do we know? Why are we?

I don't know. Is there a request? Are you receiving requests often enough to think about changing that, take that away or not?

Do they not want the shorefront to.

I think that's what.

Yeah. Is that what it is? Maybe I was thinking on the island.

I mean, maybe. Yeah. But like I say, I don't know the history, but also we have shoreline zoning, like a long pond, for instance. Yeah. Yeah. That's a water source. Yeah. So they made it. But that shorelands all goes back 1,000 feet. So there must be a reason why they wanted that to go so far back. It's probably to restrict the development, would be my guess. But I wasn't here when they did that. That would make sense.

You're saying we're not peppering the island with houses along the... And now you have a housing model. Yeah, well, right now we're not.

Yeah, but those would never be attainable.

Yeah.

Four land homes might not be attainable for the average. Yeah. Correct.

Yeah. I don't think.

No matter how many we build. Probably not.

Nope.

Heelway is probably the closest one you're going to get to the ocean or one of the. That's across the street.

Yeah. Look out your window. Yeah. Yeah.

Do you get one of those houses? Yeah.

There's no pocket views.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

As long as there's no leak. That's the way to write it. I have seasonal views of Mountain Cat, Cadillac Mountain, not Mountain Cat. Okay.

So, yeah, so, I mean, I think we've stopped at three, or three, yeah, it goes forward in the same text. Four is probably one to look at closely. And there's been some requests. That should be the last.

Is that the campground?

Campground.

I don't have a house down.

I think really maybe five might be the one that you've gotten requests from Kim. They're like kind of in the same room. Blank commercial, but there's only two different text maps. So we have four would be the campground above John Williams and five, which is text map.

Thank you.

Thank you. John Williams, both yard.

And that's the one we just dealt with not too long about divides a lot. But more or less, it's over. It's Math 8 that I've had.

It was Math 8.

Yeah, but I mean, but Math 19 was a potential buyer for a portion of John Williams Law. He was looking to create a lot off of this 10 tier. But they wanted to create a 1A, but That would be adjacent residential zoning.

Wasn't that one that was also like in the flood zone?

Yeah. You couldn't count that land under the floodplain.

Right.

But they were trying to use the residential district behind instead of along the shoreline.

I don't know what the Beach Hill Farm Food Distribution Center is.

I didn't know I saw that too. I was like, what?

That's down there?

Maybe it's old.

I saw that. I knew where that was. I didn't either.

I don't know if I get to an answer to that tonight. The Shoreline commercial makes sense where it is currently at. Seven is a lot, which is really the only one where I was like, I don't really know why this is... commercial at all. And I have no one he knew. But it's a bunch of houses, but apparently it used to be like a coal or fuel.

It's a coal war.

Yeah. And now it's just residential estates.

But they've moved lot lines to get that third lot. I mean, they've manipulated this parcel a few different times and massaged it.

Yeah.

Yeah, I'm going to change the short front.

It was the black and white because I ran out of coloring.

Which one are you looking at? Map 23, 25. I'm sorry. Yeah, because I sold them that lot.

And they changed.

No, no. They had a very slick lawyer.

I mean, it doesn't make sense as a commercial necessarily anymore. It's residential.

The residential. Well, the zoning hasn't changed.

All right, because everything needs to change because no, that is on the map. It's so.

Yeah, so 7 probably ought to be just changed to residential.

Probably the rest of the yeah. Yeah.

Would that change their tax status or their assessment at all? No, no, no question.

I mean, it shouldn't, but just to get the assessor would probably know for sure.

No, I don't do that.

I'm not sure. Camp County. Isn't there a house in there? There is.

There's three buildings. Yeah, there's one.

There's one. It's a big house.

Like, here's the office. It's a Kate. Hmm. There's one in there that's a cape, which that lot was divided out from the campground before we did the change.

Okay, so I'm thinking, yeah, isn't there, like, here's the office, and off to the right, if you're looking at it, yeah.

But then you go back, and you have that cape. Okay. And if you go all the way down to the bottom, there's two other houses. Oh, okay. That's a good thing.

Yeah.

When they got divorced, Debbie got them, and they got the campground.

Yeah. No, I'm talking about Mount Desert campground.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I thought you were talking.

Yeah, no. Yes.

There's a house. Like, here's the opposite to the right. The Craig head. Yeah. Parents live in. Yep.

Yep. There's a house. Yep. Yep.

I mean, yes, I guess the go to the original question, which was. Would probably do any harm to say, like, you can. primary residential uses are actually allowed. They have to be, but most shoreline commercial, or commercial, yeah, shoreline commercial zones, you can't have regular commercial zoning, exclusively shoreline commercial. I think you're still allowed to not allow housing, but the point is to not allow them. It's supposed to be just commercial activity. Well, that's like, I guess there's no reason why they couldn't just do the most, the least restrictive shoreline zone closest to their lot. I think saying the one closest to the lot.

What about just changing the zoning extended to just all the lots that are currently residential and leave the commercial commercial.

Well, I would fix the current, I guess.

But if somebody wants to build a house on a commercial lot, then you're still stuck with the same.

Or like, yeah, so if they did split the lot.

Yeah, but that's, I meant, you know, like the current ones that are residential, you just extend the SR3 or 2, whatever it is that's on either side.

All right, for those ones, you could just change.

Yeah, just change the zoning. Like Jock Williams, the ones that are actual commercial, keep them commercial.

But would the working waterfront people be upset? Because even though it's currently residential, historically, it was a working waterfront piece. And now you're really going to never be a working waterfront piece again. Would that rock anyone's world?

I don't know, because if they're residential.

Well, I mean, like, seven would be an example of, like, I doubt that one would probably bother anybody, because I don't think that would ever become working waterfront again. But maybe if, like, the through five areas.

So much pull over to side to mine. Looking better and better. More like it. I... I suppose the broader policy issue is similar to your question about protecting commercial waterfront. Is there a policy argument that we should make the requirements actually the largest abutting size rather than the smallest?

Just to preserve that a lot of places.

To help preserve. The implications of that is that the people who own those lots get more flexibility to convert them and to sell them probably at a higher price, potentially at a higher price, if they can divide them into smaller pieces. But as a matter of policy for the town itself, Do we want to, is there a reason to not encourage that by saying, well, if you've got five on one side and three on the other, let's just go with three or something else, as opposed to saying it's going to be five.

Yeah. I mean, I think it really is just a, we didn't talk about six at all, but that's just the town. That one is the only commercial over there. Um, Yeah, I mean, I don't know what the likelihood is of some of the stuff staying, like, working waterfront forever, like the campground. I think that's the only reason. Again, like, preppies and the campground are really not working waterfront, but there's a shoreline commercial so that you can do more commercial activity within the shoreline zone. So you really have maybe three.

Yeah, I would say that that campground is... is a form of working waterfront because you've got a lot of people who go to that campground and put kayaks in. I mean, they're using the waterfront.

I think it depends what you mean by working waterfront. And a lot of traditional working waterfront people that are fishing.

People that are fishing.

It's not boating.

It's not recreation. Yeah. Yeah. But by the same token, is ABLES or... That's a working waterfront.

That's a marina. I was going to say a bunch of lobstermen are there right now getting there.

But we're making some judgments here by saying that a marina is a working waterfront, but a business that allows people to access the water.

Okay, what I say is a lot of recreation that's water-based is allowed in every shoreland zone because it's need to be there in shoreland commercial to happen, whereas like a lobster or a marina has to be in shoreland commercial.

Thank you.

What have we I, I'm slow enough that I need to like, see these for a while to look at before we start diving into talking about them. So that's difficult for me, but I'm me. I'm not necessarily everybody here. So

Well, I do think we've had some good questions. I do think I hadn't really thought about the larger zoning conversation about shoreline zoning, those lot sizes. So I think that's a good question to take time to think about. Again, I think the purpose of shoreline commercial is to preserve working waterfront. So again, just thinking about that policy decision of, okay, well, then maybe it does make sense to be more restrictive if it's going to be used as a primary housing because then you are Preserving at least the space to revert it back to working waterfront if that ever. You know, became the landowners desire.

Um, I think that the. Well, having a show and commercial. The concept means that you want there to be a working waterfront. But how these individual parcels came at some point in time to be labeled shoreline commercial was probably because they were already there. And when the zoning was designed, it was like, all right, well, that little postage stamp is going to be shoreline commercial because that boatyard is there, and this is shoreline, and this is... So there's no... there's no logic to where they are, except for how they were at one point in history. So, and Nicole Dock is a perfect example of that. So sure, we want there to be some concept, some concept of commercial and commercial is a useful one, but in going forward from 2026 or seven, What does that mean for a town? What does that mean for the town's future? I mean, what does the town think about what that should be? Is that a Harbor Committee question?

Maybe.

Maybe. I mean, I don't think it has a lot to do with places like Able's Marine. I mean, sure, it's useful to get their thoughts on it, but I don't know. It's useful to get a lot of people's thoughts on this, seems to me. I guess all I'm saying is that I don't think somebody had a grand started with a clean slate and said, we want to preserve working waterfront and these are the areas we want to, we think it should be done. It's like these areas are already there. And so there's no, I don't know that there's any inherent logic to where those lots, shoreline commercial lots are so that it needs to remain shoreline commercial in perpetuity.

What is the fleet and what is the swim club?

SR2 and SR1. They're not shoreline commercial. Clifton Dock is.

Right, Clifton is.

But see, that's, again, that's commercial. That's why it was probably shoreline commercial. It was Clifton Dock and Ables. And Branscombe there was commercial at the time.

And the other two are clubs.

Jacques Williams and, yeah.

So even though they have a commercial entity because they sell food and sell sailing lessons and swimming lessons.

Considered commercial outdoor recreational. Because we don't have a non-profit in the permitted use chart, so we had to classify something, and that's what the planning board came up with, is the commercial.

I would say the only reason, even if there might not be a logic to it, but you'd want to keep ABLES or, I mean, CliftonDocs, if that's still pretty active as four-line commercials, so in case if they expand, they're not restricted to whatever the new zoning would be, they still would be able to

I mean, you got the town properties. Those are commercial.

So, however. Hinkley's right next to it.

Yeah. And then, yeah. And then right here. I mean, that's a marina down there. I mean, it's small areas, but, and it may be like Gail said that not knowing how come the other lots along specifically along in Hawthorne there. And maybe because those lots were really, like, small, and the zoning requirement for the lot area was small, for Charlene's commercial versus residential. Could be. I mean, we're all guessing. You know, we don't know.

Well, yeah, I think it's probably just, I mean, Gail's right. It's the zone because of what was there and not what they thought could go there in the future. And so, like, you know, the campground went to expand. I don't know. then look at what the difference in dimensional standards or how it would impact the campground if they wanted to expand.

They can't, though. Campgrounds aren't allowed. I mean, they can't expand because it's not allowed. So it's like...

So even if they bought adjoining lots, they couldn't...

They couldn't merge them and create them as a campground.

But they could use them as an office, right? For the campground. They could...

I mean, they wanted to rebuild their bathhouse and do storage and they couldn't.

They can't even redo something.

I mean, well, they wanted to add more bathrooms and toilets and showers.

Yeah, they can't.

i mean we had to go you know through the act of congress to get them a dump station there because they didn't have a dump station it's not allowed in residential zoning but again it's not allowed in residential zoning it's just there all the current campgrounds are not conforming to this I do remember, yeah.

We have three, right? Otter Creek, which is the park, Mount Desert, and Musetti.

Basically.

And so Mount Desert's like an SR or something? Probably.

Which one?

Mount Desert campground.

Yeah, that's an SR3 and RW3.

I mean, it is too bad because the town, in the same way that the marinas are becoming extraordinarily expensive, so ordinary folks can't actually use them to have boats, you know, modest boats and put them in the water. It used to be that people could come here and camp and they didn't have to own I mean, they have to own their camping equipment.

I thought, and this was me, I mean, I thought the lot, it's all a campground, right? Yeah, you get sites here and there, here and there, and then driveways, and bathhouses, and offices, and a swimming pool. I felt, which I got corrected, that if somebody wanted to put in, I don't know, a store, just say, have a campground store versus just office, I can't do that. I thought, well, the whole lot is campground use. It's dedicated to the campground. Why can't you add a snack station? Right, yeah. Some ice cream. To the campground. The whole site is a campground. And I got told I was wrong.

I think the reason is because the campground itself is just where you set up the camp. And then the accessory to that uses the general store.

Yeah, but you also can't convert campsites for RV sites. Once a tent site, always a tent site.

Yeah, apparently. Wow. You've canceled your meeting. I hope you don't know.

Yeah, because that's a change to what was, like they have certain sites that are dedicated to RV, certain size, like small, medium, large. Yeah, they do. And then they've got tent platforms. Right. Yes, yep. You know, instead of somebody laying on the dirt, they want to put a tent. They do have a few, yep. yeah can do that it's just in one there know that more than one now. Okay, they can have them. Oh yeah.

The campground in a residential zone, which is. It doesn't it's in the same spot where the direct site is. And there's a tent on it, we said yeah.

So that's a particular issue in a shoreline residential.

Both the shoreline commercial and the shoreline residential. Because the other one I want to expand the shoreline commercial zone. Okay, so I mean, like, do you think would there be an issue? Because I really want you to have to do this start saw and that problem is changing the part of the ordinance that says all campgrounds are immediately non-conforming uses. Then they could expand probably if they weren't non-conforming.

You got to be careful though, too, because you have like, can we have an amphitheater? You got residences all around you. Yeah.

So you have the amphitheater in Otter Creek. There is an amphitheater in Otter Creek. Did you say amplified or amphitheater?

Amphitheater.

There is one in Otter Creek. Isn't there an amphitheater? Blackwood Camp, unless it's gone. Was that right? Back in the day, there was an amphitheater.

I've never been in Blackwood.

There's one in Seawall.

That was technically on.

I don't remember. Tell us. Yeah, they do whatever they want. Yeah. Correct. So where do we want to leave this? To be continued? Do we have any specific?

Yeah, I think to be continued.

I was having some time on this starting to become more fluid about it and understanding it.

Yeah, I mean, I would definitely review it. Just look at, because I think it is a good launching point for thinking about for land zoning in general. Just again, looking at the packets I gave out with the the satellites and just seeing like, does this actually make sense to what the town needs are versus like what is currently here?

Right, because I think we want to look at what the town would want the policy to be, not just responding to individual, I'd like to do this kind of things. What are we aiming for as a matter of policy for the future of the town? Not responding to particular, just responding to particular asks.

Right, I mean, I think it's, do you want to clarify the ordinance for the short term and then have this broader policy discussion for the long term?

Right.

But then I just talked to you about the campground stuff a little bit more separately.

Okay, what about the housing? Can you give us a short synopsis of what's happening with that? So the.

Yeah, I can definitely do that. So, 1829. I will keep referring it as for referring to it as that, but now it's technically 2 bills because it's a fixed bill. Your 2nd, part of the package is a summary. It kind of breaks down the front, so the general description of both. I'll 1829 and then LD 2173. And then on the back of that is the updated list of things that are now. Required, I handed out a list a long time ago and like a table that just had at least 29 provisions. Many of those are the same. They've just added language to all of them such as exceptions for flood hazard areas. They did change some of those, so for minimum lot size outside of the growth area, but connected to public water and sewer, they did change the square footage for that, where it was 5,000 square feet minimum lot size previously, and you had to allow 2 units on 5,000 square feet. They changed that to 10,000 square feet. You have to allow 2 units on 10,000 square feet. Then you can require 20,000 square feet after for every additional unit. I would say The affordable height bonus that got changed so that you still have to allow a 14 foot height bonus, but you can cap it at 55 feet. However, in Mount Desert, 14 foot height bonus would only give a building height of 50 feet. 54 feet at the most, because 40 feet is the current height maximum. So you'd have to allow the full 14 foot, but you could put the provision that has to be approved by the fire chief. Well, the municipality, but I imagine the fire chief.

Is that for the ladder, do you think?

Well, that's how I've been thinking about it. You have to have a basis whether you're going to approve or deny the height bonus, and so it would be based off of available fire safety equipment to be able to handle a fire structure that tall. That's why I usually suggest saying the fire chief is the one who gives that.

Well, I'm looking at the state requirement on the back. This may be relevant to our discussion about shoreline commercial. Although maybe shoreline entirely exempted from this law? No. Because no commercial only zone. All commercials must allow at least some residential uses. Industrial areas are exempt.

Right. So your shoreline commercial already allows.

It allows that. But we've been having, we had a moment where we talked about the general, what are the reasons why we want and how would we preserve shoreline commercial if we wanted to? And we make it less restrictive to build residences, more restrictive to build residences there. And that may not be possible.

You can't restrict the use, but you could continue to restrict the lot size.

Yes, yes, yes.

So just while we're on that one, no commercial only zoning, we'll have to talk about the VR3 zone. That's kind of in a weird limbo area because it's not... I'll build a residential three, even though it's not really a residential zone. And it's like really more of a commercial zone because it's meant for one business in particular. But it doesn't allow residential uses outside of accessory dwelling. And in my conversation with lawyers on other projects, they say that that's not enough. You'd have to allow at least single family housing in that zone. So we'll have to go through that zone and talk through its purpose. Again, look at that more in depth.

Can I ask you one question on that? Yeah. accessory residential to the hotel, that the accessory residential dwelling unit is accessory to the hotel. It's not to a one-family one. Like our definition says.

You'd allow a single-family home, and you'd have to also allow an accessory dwelling unit.

But currently doesn't allow it.

I mean, I guess there is.

There are those little cottages.

Yeah, I was just going to say.

ADUs. Yeah. Nothing in Stables. They just can't have that required.

So if you have to allow single family homes in VR3, I mean, again, I don't know who owns every lot in that zone. I thought it was just. It is. It is just them. So yeah, if they ever built a single family home for whatever reason and it wasn't staff housing, if they wanted to put an ADU on that single family home, that would still have to be staff housing.

But it doesn't have to meet the adventure requirements. No.

Okay, wait, wait, wait. Say that one more time. So I'll listen this time. By the way, cottages are not single family dwellings. No. Right, right. They're cottages. Yeah. Right. What's the difference between a cottage and a single family dwelling?

They're only allowed to use.

They're like. Accessory to the hotel. Right. The rental of the hotel. Right.

Very short-term rentals.

Yeah. Yeah. They're not single-family dwellings. How many are over there? 12? 15. There's two other buildings on that lot. Right. Yes. Yeah. Those ones currently are used as Units guess I was so they could have. They can have an on this lot. But it doesn't have to meet the dimension requirement, meaning you don't need 5 acres. They need to place that in proximity. Okay, so it has to be only in the VR3 zone. It's not allowed in the shoreline. It's got split zoning. Yep, okay, I get that. So it can go into the old, yep. It's in SR2. Bird Bank. It's in VR3, so they can convert that into an employee housing or staff housing, but don't have to be The dimension requirement is similar to like. It probably will. I do in the shoreline zone to have it. Okay. Because it's the staff.

They fill a staff across the street though. And those two. Yeah. So they probably have, well, we spent out plenty of staff room.

If they want to convert. Well, that were that. Yeah. If they want to convert. Or bank into a employee housing or an accessory, they got to go to planning board.

Yeah. Oh, okay.

Because right now it's four rooms for us to go in. The other one is five rooms for us to go in, but they can't change. Right.

Shall they ever get 15 cottages on that? Okay, we're going to have to wrap this up.

They didn't exceed lot coverage?

No, yeah. One more thing, and you're back into the map that shows all the areas that have water and sewer in the town. Suzanne, who makes our GS maps, is going to make me a little bit. You're one that can send you all the keys. She's on vacation this week, so we'll make that when she gets back, but I had to cut out the E because it was the whole town very visibly, but oranges sewer and Reno's water line. And so you can see where the only section of town that has both water and sewer. There are other parts of town that have just sewer. But Seal Harbor and Northeast Harbor are the only places that have both of those structure. And so those are the two areas that are really most affected by LD 1829. We will go to the other parts of the town that Are technically growth area. However, because there's currently a constant update happening, that growth area is probably going to change the same meeting that you have to adopt. The L, the 1829 change. Yeah, changes and so.

So, I don't know.

Station, they pumped to see a lot, but there's no water out there.

I mean, that sounds filtered.

Yeah. Okay. Well, once the compliance, we get sued. idea of what the growth area will look like we can start talking about those other areas as needed but I imagine that Northeast Harbor Dale Harbor will likely remain at least they'll both have public sewer water so like they're affected by all the 1829 weather growth there here and that could be and should be a provision that says if the town then develops access to sewer and water that you can expand the growth areas into those into those

You should look at expanding those areas of service with both into growth areas.

Yeah, I mean, it's just, if the town were to expand water and sewer, they would have to come back. The town would have to go through and redo the ordinances then.

Yeah. Do I have your?

Yeah. Oh, it was behind.

Yeah. All the zoning.

And the L. I know. That's a really good matchup.

All right.

Well, that's the growth area, right?

Provision original changes, but they're not as hard as Well, I think you need to cut this off so that the select board can.

I'm working on a table that can pretty much the table that you have here that there's a column that says where you'll have to make policy changes, and then here's where you're just going to have to add language that, regardless of policy changes, you just have to add.

I'd like to work on the permitted use chart stuff this year. Sorry. We're leaving. We're wrapping it up.

Thank you. Thank you. All right, we will officially adjourn.