Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Very good. Not allowed to start the meeting. Sorry, folks. All right. So, anybody have a motion perhaps that switch the agenda around for tonight? I move we take the direction I take out of order conditional use approval application B or uh direct uh directional signage for the applicant is Maria Mara Rasi second that all those in favor I okay so there we've got the agenda adjustment so that's technically item three and item three. Um,

do we want to make sure we can we move to continue to a date to February 11th? Brian, get that in the record. We can should we do that now or should we get through the Okay, that's fine. Whatever. Okay. So, we've got item one, call to order, approval and minutes. We have minutes to approve from the 14th. We'll do that after.

All right. So, all right. Let's let's jump to the DOT signage request. So tonight we have I'm just going to read what's before us tonight. We have directional signage is the MDOT signage request in accordance with section 6B.155 of the land land use zoning ordinance. directional signs at intersections of two or more state roads within the town of Mount Desert are permitted with the approval of the of the board of selectment and the prior recommendation of the planning board which shall be forwarded to the selectman by the applicant with their application for a directional sign. So tonight we have applicant Mara Roskin uh doing business as Vital Pilates and Yoga. Property location is 1049 Main Street. That's the Kitridge building there. Um here in Mount Desert Tax Map 10, lot 147 zone is Village commercial. And was this advertised?

Uh yes, it was advertised in the Mount Desert Islander on Thursday, January 15th, 2026, right? And um any conflict of interest on the board with this? None here. Uh, we've got a little thing on the signage request here. I hope everybody's looked at, but um, Mara, I'll turn it over to you to just give us a quick overview of your your signage request.

Okay. Um, I have a studio on the upper level of the I didn't realize it was called the Kidage Building, but that building across from Freshies in Stonesville. Um, I do mostly private and semi-private um, politis instruction um, in the studio. So, I'm looking to point in my direction. Got it. You guys know where the signs all going here by the school? Y community school. Yeah. Uh,

all right. I'll ask if there's any public comment on the signage request. I'm not seeing any public comment on the signage request, either online or in person. So, I'll close public comment. Um, any I guess uh how about we find the application complete? So, moved. She's shaking her head. No, just we don't do that. Okay. All right. Then how about we just make a recommendation to the board of selectmen for the adoption

the for the signage request to consider the signage request. Is that the wording for make a recommendation to the board of selectmen for the consideration of the signage request for 1049 Main Street. So moved. Second that. Oh. Oh, sorry. Allan's got it. Allan's got the second. All right. All those in favor I Congrats. And what do I do now? So, Kim, do I do I reach out to the Yeah. What you do, Bill, is you send an email to Claire

uh requesting that the DOT request sign request be placed on the agenda for the board of selectman and then the application that's in the file uh needs to be signed off by the board of selectman and then she needs to get that application after they sign it and she send needs to send it to main DOT. Got that? Sure. So, I make the request to the the board. They they review it. They sign the request. You take that request and give it to the DOT. Well, they send that to me. How does she get that, Kim?

She can come in the town office after the um planning board meeting. uh sorry after the board of selectment meeting in February, the first meeting in February, which is the first Monday in February. Um provided that gets on this agenda. So, Bill, you're going to have to make sure you send an email uh to Claire. Yeah. Requesting to have that placed on the next board of selectment agenda. I could just suggest you could just call the town office and ask Claire or the whoever in the clerk's office answers when this when this they anticipate this item will be on the agenda and then you can attend that meeting. Then it'll be be right here. Okay. You can attend that Monday.

Well, it may or may not be. I'm I'm not sure what their agenda is. They may have already set that. I would think they've already set that agenda. Is this for weeks? It would be for two weeks from now. February 11th. But check with the town office because they'll be able to tell you when it's going to be put on the select board's agenda and and then come to that meeting. Come to that meeting and answer any questions they have. It could should be about as complicated as this is anticipating, but that's their board, not ours. And then and they will hand me something that I then send to DOT. Yeah. You may have to go to the clerk's office to get it or something. They'll they can tell you. They can tell you for sure. So, and then you should then you got to take it to DOT where wherever they live.

Yeah. Where do they live? Know where they live? Well, I there's got to be I know where their trucks are. No, there's got to be an address. There's got to be an individual or an address you took it to, but I bet they'd probably know in the town office. It's a bit of a bureaucracy, don't you think? But there it is. I want you guys to like me and pass it. So, I'm not going to say AUF. Okay. So, I'm done. Yeah, the the the DOT application that's in front of you should have an address where you would mail that application once it's been approved and signed by the board of selectman.

I guess this doesn't happen very often. It does. Not all. I think the last one was mini golf. Yeah. All right. Okay. Southwest. Main golf. Yep. Main golf. There you go. Golf. And I not seeing it. Oh, here. There. There you go. There's a there is an address here uh at the top. There. Yeah. To mail it to. Okay. 16 State House Station, Augusta. I'll be attending that meeting. Oh, that's their meeting. Okay. All right. Congrats.

All right. Moving on. Uh, did we approve our minutes from the 14th? I move approval of the minutes. Second. All those in favor? I I the minutes approved and now we have a public hearing and that was how long? 25 minutes. All right. I was uh eight minutes over. My apologies to the public if Oh, I think we're good.

All right. Uh tonight we have a public hearing and this is the for the subdivision ordinance, road standards ordinance, land use zoning ordinance amendments and reorganization of the town of Mount Deser zoning board of appeals for the 2026 annual town meeting on May 6, 2026. Which one do you want to do first? Well, I defer to I would Why don't we take it in as it's listed here? How about the group? I'll kind of go through start with road ordinance first. Just

absolutely. Just hold on one second. We just want to confirm that public notice was given. Yes. Uh pub uh this was in the uh Mount Desert Islander on both January 8th and January 15th. Great. Thank you. you're on.

Yeah, let's start with the road standards ordinance. Uh so this kind of came from this uh saga of the changes of how to review new extended or modified roads inside of the city or inside the town. Um, I know Nol's been here in the past with amendments to 6B11 particular, which talks about access to lots. Um, and there have been tweets made where a typical town's attorney and Kim for a while now. Um, but recently you had a project before you that there was a house that wasn't actually in the town but was in Bar Harbor, but the access road to get to that house or the access driveway, whichever you want to call it, uh, came through Mount Dert. And so there was question of access and it was very old um access way. So there were a lot of places where it was particularly narrow. It had been built to sustain emergency vehicle particularly fire trucks. Um there weren't any like turnarounds. It was pretty long. And so it kind of came up with exactly like how do we review this? Like what's the most effective way to review projects like this? Um because like a road by itself again like they were just building a single family home and a road was the problem in terms of compliance and the only mechanism the town had was to send all the roads to the planning board to be reviewed under the subdivision ordinances road standards. Um so essentially create a meeting that maybe there didn't need to be one for like a project like that where and so with discussion with staff uh committee and uh and Andy we kind of came up with creating a mechanism for like certain things that need to go through planning board will go through the planning board but if there's a road or driveway that doesn't isn't part of a project that has a large impact on the town like there's ability for him to be able to have the authority to approve

that road with influence from the public works department and from the fire uh chief as well to make sure it meets safety standards. So that's why we drafted the road standards ordinance um because the only place where road standards existed wasn't a subdivision ordinance which is why you were using that as your tool to review them. And so now by putting them in a separate ordinance that spells out that both the planning board and code office have the authority to review roads under certain circumstances it won't necessar a road a road by itself may not have to come to the planning board for review which is kind of burdensome again for like just a road. Um so you can see and the the authority piece is really just legally it's saying it's under home rule powers. Um the administrative piece um breaks out when the planning board would review the road or driveway and then when the code office would review the road or driveway. The planning board will still review all roads or driveways that are subject to conditional use review. Um and you also will review driveways and roads that part of subdivision projects, but it doesn't need to be in this ordinance because the subdivision ordinance also houses the road standards. So uh the authority to review the subdivision projects is just in a different ordinance. Um but you still will review those and then the code office will now review uh new roads that are not reviewed by the planning board, modification or extension of existing roads and then any roads subject to a CEO permit or road standards review and then any new modified or extended driveway within the town and that way and the code office can now review some of these smaller projects um where you know like there's a pretty robust EEO permit process in But there are already projects that might have roads, small roads or driveways that Kim's already been reviewing. The CU has office. But so there's just options for more flexibility to work with the town staff

like the fire chief who's really the expert on the safety aspect of it. Let's have that approval go through that. Uh so if you go down to uh step two, design standards. Um, this is really the same standards that are in the subdivision ordinance. They're just now again in a new place that gives authority to the code office to review certain roads, driveways. Um, during this process, we did get input from Brian ankle, the public works director. So, there have been a few minor changes to the standards themselves. Um, particularly with um, regard to street materials. Um I have no idea what exactly those changes entail. The type of rock being used or gravel being used is my understanding of it is but Brian just asked to use terminology of um the subbase course should be main department of transportation type B and C and they have a schedule of types of material you can use for that and that's what type B and C are what's allowed and then for the crush aggregate base course the main department of transportation type A which would be uh crushed rock of no less than three inches in size. Um so yeah, that was the only change really to the standards. There was one formatting change in section D, the dead end streets. Um, you'll see it's broken out into a subsection of one, two, and three where previously two and three were one paragraph, but it made like more sense uh for them to be broken out into two separate sections where if you read it as them combined like the only way three would be triggered if it was a culdeac and an ordered area, but now they're separate. Three is triggered regardless of that fact. Um, and so that's it for the technical standards. Nothing else changed within those. So those are the same that you've been working with before. Um and then for the new section is about fire and

life safety. Um this specifically mentions NFPA standards have to be complied with. You know that already is the rule. It just clarifies it and gives more guidance to someone who's applying or has to go through this process. Uh and then it gives them some flexibility and you you're viewing a specific road under conditional use some flexibility where if NFPA can be pretty strict um but the NFPA gives the fire chief uh or the AHA so the fire chief or their designate um the ability to be flexible with those standards but the planning board itself doesn't actually have the authority to be flexible with those standards. So if the flex so prior to coming to you, the applicant will have to have gone to the fire chief and met and gotten the road either approved because it does meet FPA standards or they'll have had an engineered plan created um that the fire chief has looked at and approved so that you know that it's already reviewed for safety. you know, it has to come to you or Kim will also know the same server that meets all of the required fire safety standards down and then uh the rest are so storm water is the same as what existed before. Um driveway standards so a just points applicants to section 66 of the land use ordinance. That's something you're already familiar with. That's just the driveway standards as they are. But I did add that if um a driveway extends beyond 150 ft, it also must go through the tri fire chief approval because NFPA states that if a access way is 150 ft or greater, that's when turnarounds are required. So that's the fire chief would have to approve like that unless it's grandfathered. But if you're extending it or modifying it, you have to use updated code. Anyway, um just a note about shoreland zoning, you know, still have to comply with

shoreland zoning regulations. Um and there is a waiver um section that would allow again due to physical um nature of the site or you know something that comes up where again like the specific road standards can't be met due to something really either outside of the applicant's control like right ofway width or something like that that might not have such an impact on the project. on like the impact of the road. Um both you and the code office will have the ability to wave down those standards. So it requires forget like a 40 foot right of way but there's only room for a 35 or 30 foot right of way. You'll have the ability to wave that down. If they you know the applicant has to request it and show why they can't meet that standard, but you'll be able to do that. And then just a general appeals provision. Uh and then more legal use that's pretty boiler plate. Then all definitions for this ordinance are using the same definitions as the loss.

I had two questions. Well, one comment but u the comment is in the appeals in the last last sentence. Actually, it's pretty clear to me that the board that you refer to in the last line is probably the board of appeals, but you mentioned both the board of appeals and the planning board in that paragraph. And so, would it make sense to just say the board of appeals to to eliminate any possibility of ambiguity? Yes. Okay. Now, the waiver section, yes, it's a very broad it's very broadly written.

Yes. And you said at some point that we they have to get approved approval by the fire chief. Um and I I read the waiver section as giving the planning board the ability to overrule the fire chief. Um so you know

I wouldn't I'm not eager to do it. But but but why why that waiver is is is broad. It's broad. I don't know that I I read it the same way just because it says you granting a waiver would not adversely affect the general health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the town. And I don't really know how the planning board make an argument that the fire chief knows less about safety for the town than you do. Um, so I mean, I understand your argument. I don't think you're strong that someone could read it as we can just wave the fire chief's requirements.

Well, we had that situation. I mean, here with the application that sort of brought this on, it wasn't clear to me that the fire department was really thrilled about not being able to require width and a lot of turnarounds and all that kind of stuff. And yet, we went ahead and crafted that at that meeting. And I didn't come away I didn't come out of that meeting clear that that was that that that they felt that satisfied their requirements but we did it because of the exigency of the circum totality of the circumstances for the parties and the and the great hardship that that and we satisfied ourselves that there probably was an ability to pull trucks over and they had developed this other culde-sac at the top and so forth. So, I'm I would like clarity for myself about whether or not the fire I I'm happy to have the fire department have the last word on it, but I don't read this to be saying that.

Yeah. And I can try and word it a little clearer. Um you can just wave any of the standards in section specifically the construction widths and stuff like that and not have it be waved. I don't know what other people think about that in terms of what scope of authority that the planning board should have on that that subject but

not much or I don't want to get into the other project but so it's really two levels of review so like NFPA exists and much of that not all of it but a lot of NFPA has been adopted as state law um and I'm pretty sure access ways is part of that you probably know more about this than I do Um, but if you go through because uh that process like I don't know if the board would have had legal authority to wave from NFPA standards if that's what the fire chief was trying to enforce because the fire chief is the authority in NFPA. So it's like really two reviews that have to kind of coincide with each other. And then even now, well, in that case, planning board had like local authority to approve the road, but then the fire chief still would have had their avenue to get what they needed through the NFPA process, which is part of the building.

Yeah. I mean, in that case, as I understood it, it the position of the fire department was a for me was a little muddled. It was like you need to do this, but if you don't do this, we're going to put a letter in the file that says you haven't done that and and for insurance purposes and so on so forth. So there was for me there was a little ambiguity about where the fire department Meridith Meredith has her hand up too. Go for it, Meredith.

Uh I I don't need to interrupt. I just um I've been felt like for a long time that uh it'd be great if we had a standard for houses up to you know roads that access five or less houses or something like that. That's this two lane road that they need is in a lot of situations just seems absurd. I've been seeing them cutting down all the trees behind the graveyard. Uh, and it just um it doesn't seem to me that the standard should be the same for a 25 house subdivision as it is for, you know, possibly even only three houses. uh and the whole waiver issue and stuff like that might be helped in clearing that up if we had a definition of um you know driveways that could just have a pulloff uh every certain amount of length or something like that. So you don't have to have a two-lane highway into three houses.

Well, there are driveways and there are roads first of all. Well, yeah, I know. But that's why I'm saying three houses cuz then it's a road, right?

And that that that uh definition when they flip when they said it becomes a road as long as there's three houses is making a lot of people's basically their driveways have to go up to the standard of being a road. And it just it's destructive. It and it's it is destructive with the aesthetics. you know, you don't have a charming entrance way or even people get frustrated at how many people pull down their driveway because they were required to make it so wide that it looks like a road, you know, and and so they've got tourists pulling into their their private little lane. and you know if they were allowed to make it uh a one lane road that had occasional pulloffs for fire truck you know to get people out of the way for fire trucks. I don't I don't see if it's a short distance if it's not to very many houses why we can't have a second standard

under this waiver section. Could someone come before us potentially and and argue that like it's just

um I mean again like they should have gone to the fire chief before even coming to the planning board. So hopefully this discussion happens or it's you all. Um that's kind of what the hope is with this requirement that people will know they have to go talk to the fire chief first and work through whatever that process is before even getting to the planning board. Um, but some MP requires a 20 foot wide paved access way like it's a road or a large driveway like a big apartment complex or something. Um, so again like I don't really think you could get away too much with not following that. Like again the fire chief could make a waiver down to like 18 ft or something like that. But the whole goal is that fire trucks

I'm not saying from a policy perspective I disagree with you. I do think it is overkill to have a paved access way that's 18 to 20 feet for three houses, but the whole public safety idea is that two fire trucks will be able to pass each other uh during an emergency. Like one's going to like a spring water and the other one's coming to refill and get more water and then go back, right? But they'll be able to do that safely without uh a problem. And so like that's kind distance. That's just not not necessary. I mean, if if it's not if it's not to a lot of houses and not a very long distance.

Well, so again, like that that I mean, at least I'm pretty sure I don't know if as well as some codes, but I think it's only if it's 150 ft or more that they would really care about that. If it's shorter than that, then the HJ would also have the ability to be like, okay, it's really a short road. Like, it's not a long distance for us to transfer water. Like our hoses, we could be on the road and pull our hoses out the fire. Uh, so I think I think it would be really helpful to have that as a clearly defined option that like if your road is under 150 ft, here's what you're required and is not up to the standard. I think that would help a lot of people.

Yeah, I was trying to reference NFPA so they could use those standards, which is where again that conversation would kind of happen uh with fire chief and then fire chief would say, "Right, this road's less than 150 ft. We're fine." And like if you're again like without having the full 18 ft and they can grant that waiver because otherwise if the board approved it and granted a waiver, but then it went to the fire chief for an FPA review, they'd be like, "No, this isn't good enough." Then they'd have to redo their whole road and then come back to the planning board again essentially with a whole new road. It's just an order of operations that the conversations happened because there's two different authorities going on. And so you get one out of the way, which is probably this bigger hurdle, which is talking to the fire department about what they're comfortable with with safety and what they need for their equipment. And then that conversation settled and then it comes to the planning board for review as part of the fuller review process. But I don't really want to like stick all of an FPA in here um when it exists.

Go for it. Anytime we have encountered something like this in my short tenure on this board, the fire chief has accommodated the people who were concerned about not having to cut a bunch of trees down, including the one up in Hall Quarry, which I thought was creative on the part of the fire chief to say that we were going to actually be able to get trucks in there and turn them around. we could barely get our cars in there for the site review to be able to turn around and but he found a way to wave the strict requirements of that and I I don't envision or presume that a different philosophy is going to prevail. I think that that there's one I know one for sure. I think there's been two since I've been here in which the fire chief has worked well with um and they were trying to work hard on this road which is a lot longer than 150 ft by the way. This the oak um oak road is that road. Um so I I I don't know that there are lots of people I don't know how many people there are who would feel this is an impediment. I I I haven't

so like to Gail your point I'm happy to just put that you can well let the planning board can only wave the road design standards A which is this everything or the grade and I could do B and C too if you want it's just as long as it's not E just the fire safety part if the board does want the ability to leave And I think it would complicate things if you did, but again, like you shouldn't have to if the fire chief's already reviewed it, come up with a plan that the okay with and then it comes before you, right? And part of the application for you is that the fire chiefs approved this road.

I mean, the problem is nobody wants to cut that pine tree until a house is on fire and then it's too late and then, you know, does the town have liability because they couldn't get the trucks up in there because when they were supposed to or other burned? I mean, there's there's lots of counterveailing considerations. It's not just I mean, I live on a road that's a private road that's not two-way, but it's been there a long time.

Um, so I I get it. I, you know, I wouldn't want the whole 50 right away used, but I I don't see this as presenting anything particularly ownorous. Um, it really is trying to clear up a specific problem we had. Maybe having the waiver section will help us get through those three house areas, four house areas. It also takes things off your plate that were on your plate before. Now the code again roads will just work with the code office and the fire department directly to get them approved without having to come to the planning fire department always is part of the discussion.

So if they're adamant about it then I guess we would have to follow their recommendation. We need to listen to them. I mean, they need they're adamant about it, but you know, this is, you know, this this is going to be mainly

uh it's mainly going to affect like private roads where people aren't maintaining their roadways. Um because town roads are a lot wider and you don't see trees growing right next to the roadway typically and branches coming over. Um, you know, in this, uh, Oak Grove one, that Oak Grove had 11 lots on it. Uh, it was approximately half mile long. It is a one-way road. Um, they wanted to keep the residents in that area wanted to keep it that country looking road, but like you said, if a fire happens, you know, and the trucks can't get there, who are they going to blame? It's going to be the town because they couldn't get their trucks there, but the people didn't want to widen their roadways or didn't want to cut their trees back or cut a tree at a, you know, turning sharp turn. I think the one you're talking about, Gail, up in Hull Quarry, Mike Bender actually drove a fire truck up there.

I rode in it with him.

We, you know, we did the turns. You know, as you know, the axles of a firetruck are very different than a car. they extend more out. Um, you know, he he got that in there and maneuvered it at the end. Yeah, they had to um kind of create a turnaround at the bottom of the hill. Um, but he and and there were some trees to be cut, but also Greg Johnston looked at it too and made recommendations to the property owners. Um, but Mike, he's, you know, he's saying that he can provide access with a 12- foot travel surface with 145 clear. That's been a majority of his letters, um, which actually are our driveway standards. So, he's not asking for, you know, what a subdivision ordinance requires for a subdivision road, 22 foot with three-foot shoulders, when actually it's a 22 foot wide travel because your shoulders could be gravel or they could be grass depending on what's compacted under them, you know, and how they're built. You got to be able to withstand a 70,000 lb, you know, fire truck. It's going to be a case byase um, you know, review. I I just I think the way it's written is fine. And yes, an FPA is going to come into play. I don't think it needs to be detailed um because Mike Bend is going to have to review it and Mike Bender is going to have to give his recommendations. Gail, I had a question about you had said under the road standards the appeal. What were you saying about the appeal about code enforcement planning board? In the appeal, it talks about how you can take an appeal to the to the board of appeals and then simply says such an appeal should be t then it talks about may be taken to the board of appeals for any decision of the CEO or the planning board. And then it says such an

appeal should be taken within 30 days uh and not and not otherwise except that the board upon assuring of good cause may wave the 30-day requirement. Well, if I would think it's reasonable to interpret that as the board of appeals, but because you two boards, two different boards in that sentence, just say that. Just say board of appeals and then there's no but it's a okay well I get Okay. Yus about it because you got two boards different boards mentioned in that section. But you're talking about you know appeals are undertaken by the zoning board of appeals. Right. Right. I think it's obvious that the board is the zoning board of appeals.

It's a belt and suspended suggestion on my part for sure, but it's a quick change. So, yeah,

no action on this tonight. Getting it back with discussions. Yep. What's next? I guess quickly go over the 6B11 amendments that tie into this which is um 112 uh it's used to reference the subdivision ordinance. Now it will reference the red standards ordinance.

Then we're removing uh SB123 entirely um because it's not necessary anymore. like any new or modified road will go through this or driveway will go through this new standard new uh new ordinance. Um but just so I get clarity does the board want me to reduce the waiver to only the physical parts of the site? Now again that waiver would apply to this code office too since the code office can wave anything and then the plan board currently wave

there's a reviewing authority so that's either Kim or right now it would be if I change it would be changing it for both that your waiverss are limited to just or I could just actually say you can wave everything except for ease that's probably the better way of wording That way you have the flexibility to change anything else in the ordinance except for the fire safety standards.

Can I just point out to situations that I think uh were there's the there's a road driveway off of the Whitney Farm road that goes into Round Pond. It's the Richardson farm. Uh anyway, it's massive. It's uh it fell underneath was years ago. Um and they had to make the entry to basically their driveway up to the road standard so it's paved and everything and they have to put a saworse in the middle of their driveway so that people clearly understand that it's not actually a road. Um, and I just the fact that we're only giving them the option of seeking a waiver like for new things and seems to me that the um road going behind the graveyard now to Rick Savage's house is getting all widened out. And I know they're not very happy about that. And there they weren't offered any, you know, reducing it to the driveway standard or anything like that. So people have to seek out a waiver and as far as the code is written, they're going to understand that they have to build it up to road standards. If it's a driveway,

well, it's it's a road, but a lot of these things when it's only going to three lots, I would, you know, it's it's in more recent years that is it two or more or I think it's two or more houses that it becomes a road. I think in the land use ordinance and maybe in more than two lots more than two lots

trigger subdivision or used to trigger subdivision review. Well, three lots still would. And so it's pro it's saying that if you're creating a subdivision, you have to build it to an actual road. Thought was also that if you're doing a three lot subdivision, there's a really high likelihood you're going to divide it even more in the future. Um and the towns would be responsible for taking over those roads at some point. And so you should build them up fully to town standards. Um

the other thing to consider in that regard is that because the state is requiring us to allow greater and greater and greater density, something where you're in an area where you've only got you've only got a house here and a house here. Now all of a sudden you're permitted to put an accessory dwelling unit on or you're permitted to put multiple units on a lot. um by law. And if you've only got if you've got one driveway for that each one of those houses, you may have multiple residences. So So you could end you you could end up the situation where it looks like three driveways, but it's actually serving more uh dwellings than that. So that's another factor it seem. Unless I'm misunders not understanding

trying to think like you could put a a specifically a paving waiver. think I don't know that would be a convers because like when I ask staff to look at it there was never like a consideration of waving whether or not it's a paved way like there should be a waiver for paving I would understand like if a road had like less than 50 trips a day or something like it probably doesn't need to be paved but or like you could get away with not being paved it'll probably end up becoming really crappy in a couple of years unless someone really takes care of it. But

well, like Kim said, you know, each one of these is unique and I would hope that with the waiver ability, we can address the uniqueness of each situation. Well, I'll also repeat I think some of these unique situations, unless it comes for subdivision review or conditional use, you guys won't even look at it. It'll be the code office and the fire chief. They're looking but has to be part of a subdivision or a conditional use for it to come before the planning board anyway. Now, it can still be unique though, right?

A lot of times you you know, you know, just from the the size of the lots that is there's not going to be a ton more development. You know, it's going it's an access road to three lots and there is a lot more potential for development. I guess I just I just think it should be clearer that there are other options uh that you that we have. I definitely agree about paving. I mean the we in the United States are always buil oversizing everything because of the whatifs and it's destructive and you know paving is not uh good for the environment and groundwater and all sorts of reasons why if we can do without the paving where it's sensible we should allow for that. that's responsible.

You have that authority to do that under the waiver. But people have to come and ask for that. I mean, as far as they read the ordinance, they think they have to do that and they have to push push against the ordinance. And I think it should be laid out more clearly rather than saying you can seek a waiver because seeking a waiver indicates that there's some reason why you can't do it. And I want it to be clear that it's that they they have the option of seeking a waiver just because it's not necessary.

I I do I don't want to repeat myself too much, but I I do want to say that we cannot assume anymore because there are three lots. We're not going to end up with multiple dwellings in that more more significantly more than three on those lots because state law is now allowing that to happen and it's going to become more obvious. Um, everybody can put one other dwelling on their lot now. And so three lots becomes six residences even if it's just three driveways. So it's it's not it's not any more clear it seems to me what the development potential is of a particular area or that it's as limited as it may appear may have previously appeared. That's all I don't um and I I told Matt before the meeting that I really wanted to have a session with him to try to more completely understand that because I'm not entirely getting the the upgraded density requirements. They're pretty intense.

Yeah, I'm trying to think there probably there probably is a way to get to what you're maybe not exactly what you're looking for but something that's closer. Um, clearly when they developed the Richardson farm, they didn't understand that there was any alternative. I mean, that that is right now only going to one house and there is a massive road basically going why why did they why they have to build their driveway like that if it was just going to serve the one lot?

Well, it does it it gives access to another undeveloped lot. I think they I don't know what the story is. It's been there as long as I remember, but I know I've heard lots of people, you know, say to the owners of it like, "Why did you build a highway into your house and everything?" I mean, it's and but it persists to be a problem for them. They they have to put a source. Well, the only way they'd have to, you know, had to have done that is if they were either going to serve more lots or they had plans maybe down the road to divide it or create a subdivision. I because otherwise, you know, you we wouldn't make one lot, build a driveway as big as that because I I know what you're talking about and I see the saworse. Um, but there had to have been a reason why they had they built it like that. it. I think it does access more than one lot. It's just there's only one one lot was developed. Um but I don't think it's more than three.

Are they part of a subdivision? Do you know? I don't I don't know. I mean, it's been there. I I don't remember when it was. So where are

the thing I can suggest that because again like I do think that you should make your standards the worst case scenario and then that's what the waiver is for is that not everything needs to be built to that. So you can wave it down but you need to have the standard what it is because the board can't ask much harder for a board to ask for more in the ordinance than for them to reduce what's in the ordinance. It's really easy to if you have a waiver process, it's easy to reduce what's in the ordinance. But it might just be anformational educational sheet for all types of development, not even just roads, explaining the tools and options that are available to a developer who's working on a project that kind of is lives on code website and with the code office that they can hand out to people that get applications. Uh but the ordinance does have to be written with the standards that you need for the maximum because it's again like it's much harder to ask for more than what's in the ordinance uh once a project comes before you than it is for you to wave down what's in the ordinance based off of evidence provided by the applicant as to why they should have less than what the ordinance asks for.

Yes. So, I'm happy to do that info sheet and like talk to Kim about how to incorporate that into how people get applications and that sort of thing. Sounds like a plan.

What's next? Let's do the subdivision ordinance next. A lot of work into this one

already. U so I don't think I need to go through a ton of the physical like the actual ordinance itself. I believe you all have seen really the full ordinance already. Uh and I made the same road changes I made in the road ordinance to these standards near so that they're the same in both places and I I guess there's a bigger overview for anybody or stuff afterwards. Um so we took on this task of developing a new subdivision ordinance. Um for a couple goals it seemed to be goal of reorganization and clarity. Um there was a specific goal of creating a solid difference between cluster workforce we now call attainable housing that they had their own standards and were clearly identifiable. These two separate types of projects. Uh, I included updates to mobile home or mobile home provisions, mobile home park provisions specifically, sorry, in here as well for mobile home parks. Uh, and I think they were their own ordinance. I want to point out they live in the subdivision ordinance. And then there was also a little bit of like LD1829 stuff in here, but not a ton, not like everything, but just enough to that I thought was necessary for the framework from LD 1829. I changed the definition of subdivision for the state. So I changed it in here too. Um, and then trying to think of the other big things. We create major and minor classifications of projects. I think that's something that can be looked at even further in the future. But just again just building the foundation for that now. Um that's particularly because when I started this

LP29 haven't been passed but change the definition of subdivision. And so now it kind of makes honestly parts of the subdivision ordinance no longer necessary because three and four unit subdivisions are no longer considered subdivisions as long as there is within one structure things like that. So we could probably even streamline that more in the future once L20 they're doing an amendment build 29. Once that's actually finalized, like those edits are worked on, we might be able to make more edits to this in the future. And then I guess did you guys sketch plan before? I can't remember if I had sketch plan or that was always an option. There's sketch plan for vinyl. Now

said sketch plan. Sketch plan for larger projects or projects involve land and buildings. for larger land subdivisions. I think sketch plans really valuable you know for

right what makes your as unique as we talked about you want require three meetings for larger projects which sketch plan would be one of those so it's not but yeah so that's included in here believe that's kind of I spelled out a waiver provisions you already had waivers before I just reported Um, just a couple questions.

I always Well, uh, okay. I guess if you have questions about this, but I was also going just go over the Luzo parts that changed just to come and comply with the make the two the new ordinance speak to the Luzo better. So, I just replaced workforce housing wherever that was mentioned with attainable housing.

Yeah. Then I removed put note K or no K called the table because it no longer applies because cluster and attainable housing have their own standards bonuses and then like yeah attainable housing development does not need to follow cluster development for follow their provision. That's pretty much it for Gandaloo changes that related to this.

Well, I have a couple of questions. First of all, do you happen to know just general information, what is the current median Hank County income? Uh, all park. Yeah, I can't I think I know Ellsworth. I'll stop my head, but Ellsworth was about 55k. So, like I can't imagine the county is probably higher than that. probably like 60 some K. How come how come 452 says attainable housing subdivisions and 453 says affordable housing subdivisions?

There are two different types of projects. So obtainable or affordable housing it has to be built to allow for a certain average medium income percentage which in the definition section it tells you what the difference is. Uh so for affordable housing it must be able to uh be afforded for uh rent by someone or a household that makes 80% of the median income and for ownership it's 120% of the median income but because in our discussions like that low of a threshold doesn't also serve like a missing middle kind of uh demographic. with uh the attainable housing has a higher income threshold where either purchase or rent has to be able to serve a 250% of the median income uh for the household. So two families making I think we had talked about it. I just double check it was like two families making 50k two partner sorry two people working and making money making 50k a year could still get this attainable housing but they weren't qualified for affordable housing. And the reality is the the affordable housing is pretty much the state require the state law.

Correct. Yeah. And there and there's very little likelihood that people are going to be able to afford to build or be able to build much in this community that actually meets that. And so the desire is to try to give other opportunities that that are a little more reflective of the realities in in in this community. Um and that's why you've got the attainable.

So median income for Hancock County in 2023 was uh $69,000. Okay. Um, you're not going to be able to afford much in those

in this county in in this town on that. Um, I did have in 453 affordable housing subdivisions. It says this section applies to affordable housing developments as defined in the ordinance that were approved on after July 1, 2024. Can you explain to me what that the significance of that date because that's when LD 2003 was passed and that's when the affordable housing provisions were asked like had to come into law.

They became came into law then. Okay. Because I I I just we don't want to set up a retroactive situation here, but um and then the affordable on the next page 26. Um they're constructed within a growth area of the town where single family and multif family housing is permitted. I guess that's a state law. That's the language in the state law, but I think I answered that for myself.

26 26. I think I answered that myself. um in the dimensional nodes. Um and the the lo the minimum the when you when we say C and D cluster subdivision with sewer are we being clear because we only talk about attainable subdivisions and not affordable subdivisions. What are we being clear enough here that to get out from under the confusion that has existed previously about whether cluster subdivision cluster requirements apply to these types of this type of housing because we're trying to se cluster is defined in this this proposal as an entirely separate matter. Yes. And so do we do we are we clear because it's it's not doesn't seem to be a change that C and D only relate to cluster and not to affordable or attainable housing. Is that your intention? Uh I don't think I so I just left so I separated cluster and attainable into their own things

but in terms of like where they're allowed or the dimensions of or lot sizes that are allowed in each of those projects I didn't change any of it because you know cluster I left whatever it was then attainable was just regularly state minimum which it would have to be anyway and affordable I just left off because again like that I think having again it spells it out I guess that attainable needs to be state minimum but I also think it's redundant when you have to follow the state minimum anyway so I just left affordable off because I didn't see a need for it in there. Are there many state minimums for attainable housing? I mean there are

lot size if you have a if you're using um a septic system because you have to uh supply for 20,000 square foot minimum for private theftic system but does the state define we're defining attainable is the state define that as well only it's a that term is just a town the so why Does this the state didn't regulate workforce housing either, but you have a separate section for that?

So, it's the state septic minimum. Okay. functional land division question. Can you what is the relationship of a functional land division to nonconformity?

So I mean Ken might have a better answer than me uh because I just don't like that these are good but it is n nonconforming. I mean, I I actually don't know how it would practically work uh if someone had the point of the functional division is you have one lot with all these dwelling units on it and now somebody wants to split that lot that's historically had like a bunch of estate houses on it or um into multiple lots. And so I'm presuming that they would have to meet minimum lot size requirements in order to do that. They just don't count as a subdivision. But Tim, I don't know if you can. How are you enabled to create nonconformity like that?

Because it actually already exists. I mean, yeah, because the properties were utilized as such, you know, like the buildings were all residential. Um, you know, the lot was the lot size, excuse me, uh, is what it is. So you with functional land divisions you're it's already non-conforming but the property has been utilized um let's say as as residential like for I don't know for like families um and now like say family members want to divide the lot um functional land divisions allow you to create um lots and you know with as as much yard around them to be equal or symmetrical uh when you create the new lots. They don't have to be conforming lots because they're already non-conforming. Um these I mean they're rare. I've never I mean there's only been a couple that I've seen. Um you know it's the historical use of the property. um you know the buildings were there you sometimes the buildings had to predate uh if you go under like section four of non-conforming

yeah predate huh yeah of the land use zoning ordinance section 4.6 Six, they predate it.

Yeah. It says that the dwelling units located on the property all predate the adoption of the ordinance or any amendments thereto which made the structures non-conforming. The structures located on the property together with the appropriate curtilage which is yard area used with and around structures were separately occupied and used by tenants at the time of the adoption of the ordinance or any amendments there too which made the structures non-conforming. The proposed use reflects the nature and purpose of the use prevailing when the zoning legislation took effect. And then there is not uh created a use different in quality or character as well as in degree and that the current use is not different in kind and the effect on the neighborhood. And then you can also and then we added section two for reconstruction replacement to allow these buildings to be reconstructed after they've been approved for functional land divisions. All with the addition of um requiring that people be allowed to have a second dwelling on every single family lot. Is that a path by which people are going to put the second dwelling on their lot and then years, you know, number of years later come and say I want a functional division so that it's kind of voiding our minimum lot side lot size.

I mean, you can you don't have to have I mean, a non-conforming lot today can have an accessory residential dwelling unit on it if it's not in the shoreland zone, right? But because now now it's a newer thing that we're we're allowing everybody to have an accessory dwelling on the lot. So now you have two dwellings on it. And then can they then put up the second the accessory dwelling and then come to this? I'm I just wasn't familiar with this section of the code. So now can they say uh we want to divide lot so that the um accessory dwelling unit now is on its own lot because They can't do that. Okay.

No. No. You have to have a single family dwelling on a lot to be able to have an accessory residential dwelling on a lot, right? And you do that and you everybody moves in, but then years later they say, "Well, I don't want to be on the same lot anymore." Yeah. No, you can't do that. Okay. Okay. Mhm.

And after LD1829, you'll have to allow accessory dwelling units uh on lots that have multif family one dwelling unit, one accessory, but still can be like an apartment. So has a triplex or something, they'll be allowed to add a accessory dwelling unit either attached or the back uh somewhere. So they will have a fourth unit on that lot. So as it stands is that's something I think we ought to be able to explain to people like as we understand it. We can't anymore require more than or we won't be able to require more than 5,000 square feet for a lot in an in a growth area with

well with public water or sewer or a comparable like shared water system. Is that is that a state change? Because it was be at least my understanding before was that if you had a duplex, you couldn't do an accessory dwelling. Like you could either you could get more than one dwelling on a lot on a single family lot by doing duplex or you could do accessory. That's correct. Do both. That's correct. That's what it was. But it sounds like it's changing with LD. Is that the state that they're now? Which means now now we're taking single family lots and saying you can have three units on up four I believe.

How do you get to do you how do you get to four? So as I said

so it's not so people I think so there's two provisions. So one of the provisions in L1 1829 is a town in your growth area you can't prevent as a use four units on any given lot and outside the growth area you can't prevent more than three units on any lot. However, like if dimensional requirements prevent like setbacks or that sort of or density prevented three or four units on that lot, they're not allowed to just smash three or four units in there. It's just that you can't tell them like, yeah, your lots. It's more like if you have a huge lot that could have supported three or four units with density and dimensional requirements and all that, you have to allow put four units in. You can't say like you're capped at one or two. But if their lot still wouldn't allow three or four because of other like dimensional requirements, that sort of thing, they still have to follow those. They can just fit up four units, however many they can fit that still meet those requirements with on that lot. Then they also created the change that lowered the minimum lot size requirement different ways across the town based off of infrastructure and place if it's a growth area or not. And then there's the accessory dwelling piece where you have to allow them on lots of multif family now. And I mean you could still only allow one per lot, but you still you have to allow them on lots to have either single family or multif family.

Yeah. I that's this is the stuff that I talk was talking to you about before the meeting that I I really want to understand and I want to be able to the other thing I want to be able to do is if if we're at the town meeting and somebody says well you've got all these upscale density requirements for these affordable and attainable housing. What does that look like? What does it what does it mean you can put on how do you calculate what you can put on a lot? I know that that's been a topic of conversation on this board, some of which I've not been involved with, but I think we owe it to people to be able to explain.

Well, let me explain it real quick. Um, but so state laws, what the affordable housing is, you have to require what's written there. Um, that's what LD203 put place. Um, that's so that's that bonus. So, two and a half times base density, right? I think that's what it was off top of my head. Two and a half times. Yeah, 2.5 times greater base density. That's state required. That's why that's there. But aren't they changing the base density as well, right? Eventually, but not right now. So, if anyone has to do about Yeah.

Uh, for attainable housing, we kept the warports housing bonuses that already exist. We didn't change those because it was getting too complicated and LE29 was coming around. So it was like we'll just leave them as they are now and come back and revisit it. That's something the cluster has a 25% density bonus rounded up because you could flip to it and say okay step one you take this times that you do it this way that the really complicated density stuff isn't in so when that

yeah that'll come up the 29 work page 36 right here base calculation It's confusing. It's and the state's making it worse. I mean, we should just we just should just throw out our minimum lot area requirements. Just keep the setbacks, distance between buildings, lot coverage, planning philosophy that agrees with you. I mean, it's just Well, it's just it's making it very difficult to determine what people can do on their properties.

Yes, 1829 definitely does do that. Yeah, because I'm, you know, is has that gone through yet? 1829, it's law, but you it doesn't go into effect until till 27, right? Yeah. End of last day of June 2027.

Yep. Can I just ask another getting off that topic for a minute and 4.3.24 common area provisions. It's on page B. It's on the page top of page 19. The board may require the subdivider. This is just in a general subdivision. Reserve an area of land as common area or recreational area for the use property owners in the subdivision. is there doesn't seem to be any any limit on the board's authority to do that. What's the what do you about this little do last month?

So, and I and so my interpretation because this was an existing provision from the current ordinance. My interpretation of it is so you have the same thing in cluster subdivisions because clusters always require yeah they always require openly

I think the reason it's out in just the general review requirements is because there may be med life they might not be technically public areas or public goods but there's going to be areas maybe like shoreline or like trails that could end up being bought like if someone buys a lot that has them on it and they're not public land that but people the public uses them as like a public good that could be acquired and a subdivision is coming through. And so then it's just the board's way of preserving something like that in a project that's not necessarily a cluster subdivision. You know, I don't know how many of those types of instances would have come up in, you know, town in particular or where someone subdivided.

It just seems rather broad. Yeah. Seems to be without limit. I mean, you can we only think you should put four houses and the rest we think should be a pasture or something. I mean, I don't

Well, uh, yeah, I don't know if you can't do that legally, but I can get rid of it. I don't know if it's necessary or if it comes up for you guys often, but it just existed in a previous ordinary. So, I kept it in there because I can see a utility for it, but if it's going to cause confusion, it's not something you guys use very often or ever. I mean, I can see I can see the that the property owners may enter into a written agreement for development needs of the reserve land of reserve land, but giving the board unilateral authority to require that I I

well power, but I don't limits outside of the what's in this ordinance to so if you're ever going to do something like this, you should definitely be consulting with your the town's attorney anyway, okay? And they would be able to guide you specific cases like what's allowed, what's not. But you you can't just tell somebody taking this part of your land, you have to reserve it for something unless there's an established use that's like a public or recreational good there. Um, okay.

But like if it's just land and you're just like, "Well, we would love it if you had like a golf course over here or something like that." You can't just tell them that they have to do that. Um, but this will give you the option to preserve something of recreational value that might already exist on the lot. Okay.

So, where are we?

We're done with that. The I hope the next two will be pretty quick. Uh, we could do appeals next. Um this was really just suggestion from Andy um to updating the appeals provisions um in Deluso and then there were some well that's literally one sentence that had to get added to the zoning board of appeals ordinance to match these changes. I should say for some of the appeals I think some of it is uh one piece is notice of violation procedure enforcement procedure. The appeals portion is uh essentially the way the language was in the ordinance didn't match um both parts of it. So there's two appeals provisions within the Luzo. There's 5.8 8 which applies to the planning board and the appealing of planning board decisions. Then there's section 7.7 which app applies to the code officer the appeal of code officer decisions. Um and so basically for the appeals for the planning board most of that was kept the same. Um but Andy wanted to add that the board of appeals authority to hear and decide administrative appeals on an appellet basis where it is alleged by an agreed party that there is an error or you know some other thing an action by the planning board. And so I just spelled out that it's an appelllet basis. Um and then so essentially just saying you can take an appeal from the planning board for conditional use not for subdivision to the board of appeal. subdivision has that in that ordinance and the state requires that those go directly to court. Um for the code officer, uh we simply took out all the language that was in there already. Um it didn't really comply with state law and ambiro um new language put in here that allows it to comply with state law

but then also reduces the difference is appeals board appeal or sorry planning board appeals are appallet which means that they're not looking at all the information. They're really just looking at how the planning board made its decision and made sure that the planning board filed the ordinance and did everything properly and solving is that's the case. The like they would deny the appeal essentially but they review code off decisions on a denovo basis which means they essentially look at all the information the code officer looked at and then make a new decision or make their own decision um based on the information provided. It's not about the process really. I mean, partially, but they essentially could change the code officer's decision. Even if Kim did everything right, they may just come to a different conclusion based off of the information. But appealing or reviewing your guys decisions, it doesn't matter if they agree with your decision or not. If you they're just reviewing if you follow proper process and reviewed all the standards you're supposed to. And as long as you did that, they would be able to change your opinion.

So, in other words, they're not having a new hearing on the facts. Correct. Right. The facts are as we had decided and did we apply the ordinance correctly?

Yeah. And then uh one other change was that uh so again they can review code off position to know though but accept um any order requirement or decision or determination for failure to act in the enforcement of the ordinance is not appealable. Um, so if the code office decides not to issue a notice of violation or if they or they do issue a notice of violation and set a certain fine or whatever, like that sort of thing is not appealable to the appeals board. Um, if they really want to challenge it, they may have uh may be able to go to court on state law, but general, but also there may be times where the state doesn't allow them an avenue. Now, they just can't appeal that decision. Like if our staff decides not to move forward with an enforcement action, someone can appeal their decision not to do like move forward with an enforcement action. I want to question something you said about how they can treat Kim's actions Kim's decisions differently because as I read the administrative appeals it says they may reverse the decision of the CEO or the planning board only upon a finding that the decision is clearly contrary to specific provisions of the applicable ordinance to the extent permitted by law. The board meaning the board of appeals shall not conduct a denovo review but shall act in a purely appellet capacity and shall limit its review to the record develop before the code enforcement officer or the planning board. And so

where are you reading that? And the scope of authority page two. So I don't think that they're which section that four scope of authority powers and duties administrative appeals 4 a1. So they're not differentiating in that case. We're not differentiating between probably anchored catching something that either Andy or I saw. It's not a day over hearing on either case and frankly I don't know why it would be but

um I can answer that. Yeah, I think you just bought something that you didn't catch. So, it really should just be just take I should just take out this sentence honestly.

Reach out to Andy and public think you're right. It does make sense to have that in there. Uh the way I read I don't understand the only change was that they they don't get to dis they don't get to second guess enforcement decisions of the CEO those would go directly appeals go directly right

um yeah I don't so the reason that you want again the reason why it makes sense for some code decisions to be denovo is because that the so the board has a very formal record and keeps track of like everything that's why pellet makes more sense there where code office doesn't keep good record but there's not like an official on the record record and that's why they would review that one to no right that I I do understand that that's not what this says well no if I take out that sentence though

then I'll leave the rest of the changes in place. Uh, I'll follow up with Andy. I do think you're right that shouldn't be there at all anymore because he made his changes there. Differentiating appelllet and I have a question. Yes. Um, this is a very small thing, but uh on on the um agenda this evening, it says the annual town meeting will be on May 6th. And on your reorganization of the town of Mount Desert zoning board of appeals leave page, it says May. I saw that too. I was going to double check with their at some point because I think on the spreadsheet player gave me the May 5th but I saw May six on the agenda. Yeah. So one of the other Yeah.

Yeah. It's the fifth. It was incorrect on the agenda. Next, land use the last application to town manager that just clarifies that if there's a notice that code officer thinks that there should be a notice of violation issued the code officer goes to town manager the town manager make a recommendation on penalty or legal action should be a select word and that select word ultimately makes

that's just good process And then finally is the housekeeping provisions. Um I'm not going to go over stuff if it's just like a grammatical or like small change like the first thing is the 15 to 16. That's because there are 16 panties districts. I'm not going to like cover all those as we go through it. Um, but I will say the build residential 3 didn't have a description or doesn't have a description in the current ordinance. So, uh, we've added that to the best of our ability to like what that specific zone is meant for without being too specific. Then there is one change the table of uses that's also related to the next change after that that allows um a home occupation or home office gets a CEO permit does not go through conditional use approval. Then at the Luzo committee meeting we had a long discussion on shared floats um and when they should be allowed or so I guess in the existing ordinance there's a table for marine structures and says that the maximum square footage of floss for communal marine structures was 800 square f feet but then number 13 below it says that if two or more square lot owners choose to share a commal marine structure structure that they think may request additional float square footage. So the table tells you there's one maximum then it says but also you could just ignore this and give them more if you wanted to. Um and so just kind of unclear on what a reasonable boundary for that was. So kind of just came up with if it's two property owners, they

can have a maximum of the 800 square feet combined for a shared float because one property owner would get 400 square feet and if it's three or more budding property owners um they can have 1,200 square feet talk through it. I have no practical experience with this sort of thing but why wasn't that brought up with the harbor committee? Good question. I have no idea. Why should it be? Well, there's space limitations you always get. I mean, I believe yeah, I believe you get you always check with John with the

Yeah, commercial is exempt. You guys don't have to abide by that or the town doesn't. This is for uh residential floats and marine structures. That chart doesn't apply to commercial. They want to put in a lot more residential floats in Northeast Harbor also doesn't to allow more boats. Doesn't print the number of floats. It's regulating the size of a shared float. You're talking about wanting a lot more individual floats or communal floats. They want to put in floats so they can put in floats to replace the moorings. Oh. A float does not sure.

A float stays stationary in water. Correct. where if you have a moing, the boat goes in a big circle. I don't think that's part of this. No, but that's also going to crowd the marina floats for communal marine structures. He's a town owner.

Well, how is a marine structure? Is a marine structure does it have to have a connection to the land? a marine. No, you can have Well, you can have a float discontinued um from the land. You can have it chained and anchored to the ocean floor, but it's not regulated under Mount Desert, the town. It'd be regulated under the um the police department and the department of for in uh forestry.

So, yeah, I think so this is really for like homes that they near the marina. Um but even if they were well it says there's so above it that's not being edited but it's related to this I suppose. So moring areas planning board has to request comments from the harbor master in cases that involve marine structures in an officially designated waring area. Then this whole section uh it says commercial and public marine structures are exempt from these requirements. So everything in 67

doesn't apply to commercial and public marine structures. So as long as the town owns it, it would be a public marine structure or private marina the commercial structure. Matt, you're going to have to um change um uh under section 3 point uh sorry 6C.7

under the performance standards are as follows. And then commercial and public marines are exempt from requirements of 12 through 15. You're going to have to change that to say 12 through 14 if you're going to reumber it and do away with 13. But you don't think 1,200 square feet makes sense. Yeah, I haven't had practical experience with this, but as a kind of discussion, we thought that that was a good maximum size for a shared float for just private residential uses. Well, I I guess I was saying my my conception of that conversation was based upon in part on the application that we processed recently and then that situation it's a float. It attached to a a peer.

Yes. And a dock and it's regarding property owners and rather than having multiple docks with all that infrastructure, you let them team up and have just one. But if we're talk but if if this could be construed to apply to allowing a bunch of large floats uh floating independently in the harbor lindu of moorings that's another matter alto together. So do you think this would apply to those structures?

I mean if they're if it's a town owned or public owned mooring it wouldn't if it's a commercial marina with floats it wouldn't apply. It only applies if it's like a private residential use putting a float in front of their house in the water in front of their house. Um, if it's shared between multiple lot owners. So, I mean, in theory, each of them could have their own individual float, but it's capped at 400 square feet. Does a float could fly here? Like, you have to have a pier for a float if it's a residential. That's like you go your boat to shore, pull it up on your beach and then row out. But that would be

Seems like there's always there's always a period. Exactly. Yeah, that would be awkward.

Would be awkward. structure. Definition of structure. Marine structure peers, docks, floats, warps, bridges, and other marine structures extending over or below the normal high water line of a water body over their wetland. So that includes an in an independent flow. Right.

Well, it doesn't. Marine structure appears, docks, floats, wararfs, bridges, and other marine structures extending over or below the normal high water line of a water body or within a wetland. It doesn't in any way say they have to be connected to one another to anything else. Extending over the low water the high water mark, right? Like extending over or below the normal high water line of a water body or within a wetland. H. Yeah. Well, maybe

could be typed up. You have to look at the whole table. Now, the top of the line says maximum length of entire marine structure and it says pure ramp and float combined, right? But then says Camille marine structures. It's only talking about float size. So I guess they're counting this entire pure ring float in float. So it's just talking about the float size that's different than the definition structure is either a ramp or float or war not necessarily all of it combines but it's extending over

extending over or below the normal head. Part of it is I had a pier with a float, but the float's a marine structure. And now I'm saying that the pier is not mun, but the float is. And then I want to build another float. I don't want to over lawyer, but you're bending over something. So you're coming from something, too. Yes. Yes. Okay. So, it prevents someone from doing something. I think just, you know, dropping a float with four anchor stones so that it doesn't move and then rowing out to it to get on your million-dollar boat and it comes back, you know, like a standalone float. What I'm saying is that a pier would be one structure float a separate structure based on that.

But do they do it through here or do they get they have to go through commercial use? Yes. It's not probably commercial use. And since it's not connected to land, but it's very common. I mean, you go to you go to Camden Harbor and it's all full of those floss for Yeah, they have them down here. You can straddle that, but you're not. Yeah, there are some out there, too. No, you should because we don't want to have some unintended consequence that we're allowing.

Thinking of a little Chardonnay. There are there are in that broad definition. Yes. Maybe that needs to be tightened up, right? Or at least here it would just be like I'll just take out maximum square footage floats for Camille Marine structures and change the campabelloo. They had instead of having a pier going out, whole thing was floats. They were all separate. And so once you got out far enough they started floating

at the Roosevelt place. So like the pier extending out over harbor the old fisherman there was a warp and then ramp down to peers down to floats that the lobster boats would come in. Right. Okay. So I think we should replace in the table in that same section with the float size. You replace communal marine structures with communal peers docks or warps and limit it to those ones. Yeah.

Because then you can't say well I have a float and I want to add another float to it. Keep changing it all the way. You might be able to do it once, but you get four. Yeah, I don't see that's a war a playing board business to I do think that's a different body that could be a whole different thing should be regulating that so bad. Stewart came up to get a float for his 164 foot sailboat that got rejected. Came to he to the land threequarters of the way across the sound.

But came to what body? I don't know. It was in the paper. Oh, okay. Who was this? Uh Stewart. Um yeah, I was I was part of that. Yeah. Yeah. He wanted to add he wanted to add Yeah. more uh float. um in front of his house there on Sergeant Drive and um he got denied by the planning board and the zoning board of appeals

because the neighbors came out of the woodworks mainly. Nobody wanted to sit and look at that big boat in that cove area. He never paid tax on it and the state of Maine told him to get it out of Maine waters and it's never been back. He owns Ables. He should just put it down there. Great. Are we done? Yeah. So, any action on our part tonight? Doesn't sound like any of them have gone through. You don't you don't vote on the zoning board of appeals one. That's that's town meeting.

No. But we this on our agenda again at the next meeting. Yep. For the 11th of February. I also had sent um today I kind of jumped the gun because I was thinking maybe these would pass either this meeting or next one. But I've also got on the radar for the last meeting in February, um the 25th. I have it that I have to I have to know tonight if we're going to meet on the 28th uh 25th, sorry, because I got to publish it in the newspaper. I don't know what process normally is, but these were all very small changes. Yes. I don't know if why you couldn't just vote them through as amended

as discussed tonight, unless you guys really need to see any of these amendments. Again,

do you think you guys can vote on these and at the 11th February 11th meeting? Yes. Yeah, let's do it then. Let's do it then. And then I don't have to post and have another hearing for the 25th. Right. Correct. So, is this being continued then? Yes. No. No, it's not continued. No, it's already published in the newspaper. It's already in the website that it's another public hearing scheduled for the 11th of February. There you go.

I just needed to know about the 25th. And uh we still need to open up the as um we need to move to continue. Yeah. For for Hankle. Yeah. I move that we continue the continual use approval application of Brian El Hankle and Gail Gladstone from this meeting to the meeting on February 11th, 2026. Second. All those in favor I There we go. I move tojourn. Well, any other

Oh, sorry. None. None here. Here. All right. I don't have any. Dale, I move to a second. All those in favor? We did it. Good. Thank you. Yep. Good night. Good night. Night night.