Planning Board - Regular Meeting

All right. You don't want to switch the gallery mode. All right.

I'll call the order the what day is it?

May 27th, 2026, um, town of Mount desert planning board meeting. Welcome aboard. All right. We've got, um, him online here, but it's showing two participants. Is Meredith on there too?

No, the participant is the town and then me.

Okay.

Do you want me to identify people?

Yeah, so we've got, yeah, we've actually got three on board.

Julia Rush. One of the town of Mount Desert, that's me.

Yep.

And Kim Keene, code enforcement officer.

Yeah. Yeah, so we're...

Still wayfinding through our technology here, but all right. Looks like we're good to go. I'll start off with introductions. I'm William Hanley. I'm chair. We've got Tracy Loftus Keller, vice chair, Ann Dalton, Daniel Burke, Dale Marshall, and Alan Kimmerly. And the voting, I'm not seeing Meredith Randolph online. And so I think the voting members tonight are Anne, Tracy, myself, Gail, and Al. So I didn't screw anybody's name up. We have a quorum. The quorum is met. So I guess one of the first things we need to do is just talk about the agenda tonight. And I think we've got an agenda adjustment where, and Kim, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Under item three, the conditional use approval applications, item 3A and 3B have requested to be continued to a date certain.

Yeah, yesterday we received word that there was an emergency, and so they have asked to have their applications continued. So we're going to ask that you have a vote and approval that these get continue to the meeting on June 24th.

All right. Sounds like we should probably do that first to get the agenda amended.

I move we continue items 3A and 3B from tonight's meeting to the meeting on June 24th, 2026.

Second that. Right. Any discussion? all those in favor aye opposed right so we have our amended agenda approved so then um let's go on to item two we have approval of minutes and this was for april 22nd as we did not have a hearing the first second wednesday of the month

I move approval of the minutes.

Second. All right. All those in favor aye. There you go. Minutes are out of the way. So then. Back to our amended agenda item 3, and we are jumping down to. Item 3 C. and this is a conditional use approval application and that's number 008 2026 owner's name is acadia outdoor center llc agent is robin hansen location is 18 main street seal harbor tax map 30 lot zero zero eight dash zero zero zero The zone is village commercial purposes section 6B16.7.2 sign regulations, restrictions and limitations on signs, size limit. We have an installation of an 8x8 painting. Slash mural published, right? And we had a site inspection at 445 and was this 1 advertised in a butter's notified.

They were advertised in the mountains or Islander published on Thursday, May 14th, 2026. and let me look here to see about the. Butters portion. Yes, there was a notice went out to Butters dated May 13th, 2026.

So thank you. And I'll just quickly remind everybody to hold on to their applications for items 3A and 3B for June 24th. And thank you, Tracy. And maybe, Ann, you could report on your observations.

Hey, Bill?

Yes? Is there any conflicts of interest?

just gonna do that so thank you is there any conflicts of interest on the board here i i will add that i don't know if it amounts to anything since i'm not a voting member but my son will be working for robin this is this summer it's not a pecuniary interest to me i won't see any of it but i don't know if it precludes me from being even at the table discussion this is the down here Dale, Renee. No issue here. No. You're good to go, Daniel.

All right. So four of us visited the site this afternoon. We met Robin there. She showed us the storage shed where she keeps the bikes. And on the side of the shed, there's a mural being painted that will be installed eight by eight right on the side of the shed. Beautiful picture of Acadia Mountains. And that was a pretty simple visit.

we saw and we observed all right anybody got anything to add to that we did also observe that there are existing signs that are also at that business which may become relevant when we discuss them all right thank you robin anything to add um

Pretty straightforward. I guess I'll open it up for public comment. If there's anybody out there in the public realm that would like to comment on this application, now's your chance. Going once, twice. Everybody good? All right, I'm going to close public comment.

Just to follow up on what you said, the existing square footage is about 25, 25.5 square feet of signage in addition to what's being proposed.

Right, it's, yeah, it's just that in the application.

Yep.

5.5? Yep, 25.5 square feet. Great.

Anybody, any thoughts on finding the application complete?

I move we find the application complete, sir.

Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye.

Aye.

All right. Any thoughts on maybe using the short form?

Use the short form to process this application.

Second that. All right. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. And then our weird little thing. Anybody?

I approve this application.

Second that.

All right, now we're going to press the pause button and we're going to go through and review the application. So I've got the short form in front of me. I have the application. I've got my land use ordinance just in case. And let's do this. Kim, are you ready? I am.

Let's roll.

All right. Let's do it. So here we are. Section 6A, General Performance Standards. All right, and compatibility, they say physical size is 8 by 8 visual impact. Yes, it will be a hand painted mural proximity to other structures. It's attached to a bike shed in the photo north of the main building on the property. There are no structures on the budding property of the north. And density of development, no new development is proposed. So see application 681, erosion and sedimentation control. Thank you. 682, thank you. So that would be NA. It's a mural. 683, highway safety, NA. It's a mural. 6A4, impact on town services. They say no impact on town services. So I'm going to say, see application. They put something. 6A5, land suitability. Afghan says no impact on soil or water. See application. 6A6, lighting outdoor. There was no lighting proposed, so N-A. 6A7, stormwater. N-A. It's A8, vegetation, NA, 6A9, dust, fumes, vapors, odors, and gases. And it says NA. So the findings of fact are presented by the applicant and the attached application and the inclusion of laws that the proposed use is in compliance with all standards of Section 6A for which the standard has been met. Yes?

I have a concern about that.

Okay.

Because I think we need to address 6A1 compatibility physical size.

All righty.

And I don't know how to address that. I'm looking forward to somebody explaining to me how we can prove an additional 64 square feet of signage when we're close already with existing signs to the 32 square foot limit that the ordinance contained. And I mean, our job, and I just want to explain to you, our job is to just interpret the ordinance as best we can, not make the ordinance or not bend the ordinance, except within the boundaries that we're allowed. And it has nothing to do with the quality of the mural or the, it's just like, we have to apply the ordinance as faithfully as we can. And I personally don't know how we do that. I mean, we're allowed a certain latitude, But that's got to have some boundaries and I don't know how this fits with those boundaries. So, it might, I'm looking forward to hearing a reason why it does.

So this sign is 8 by 8, 64 square feet. They've got signs on the building. Yeah, you can see on page 226 of their application, they've got a sign that's four and a half square feet. And then they have another sign that's 21 square feet and.

And Kim, I'm just.

Pardon the question before I even ask it, but why is this thing even considered a sign?

It's considered a sign because the ordinance under the definition states that a sign. Um, hang on. I gotta get to my sign is an, any outdoor sign display device, figure painting, drawing message, place, card, post poster, billboard, or other figure, which is designed intended or used to advertise or inform. This is a Katie outdoor center. This is mountains in Acadia national park. Um, it's clearly representing the business. Um, and I thought she was going to add her name below it, but I don't, I don't know if she was intending to, that's a question you'll have to ask Robin, but she had mentioned, she might add the name of the business below the mural as well. That's why it's before you.

Because it's a painting.

Correct.

And the mural submitted doesn't have their name on it. It's just a painting of some mountains and a body of water and rock.

But that was discussed at the site visit.

That their name may be added to it.

And there's nothing saying they can't add their name to it.

Does it matter if their name is on it or not?

No, I still consider that a painting. It's representing their business.

Robin you had your hand up yeah yeah I originally wasn't going to put the store name on it um I don't feel that every picture of Acadia represents or advertises my business I know the ordinance says a sign or painting whatever has to advertise or inform I don't necessarily consider any picture of Acadia like the ones in here necessarily advertising my business but um when when it when it was said that this would count as a sign, then I was like, well, I should probably add my business if it counts as an advertisement. I don't have to add my business on it. I don't care if I add it on or not.

It sounds like adding the business name on it doesn't change anything one way or the other. So, Kim, how does this work if they're only allowed 32 square feet and we've got a proposal for 64 square feet?

Plus 24.

Plus another.

Well, if you look at section, hang on a second, 16B7 with size limitation that no sign except banners shall exceed 32 square feet. in area nor shall the aggregate of all signs on site pertaining to any business exceed 32 square feet in the area unless conditional use approval of the planning board is obtained. So that's why she's here is she's exceeding the limitation of the 32 square feet in aggregate And also the size of the sign is eight by eight or excuse me, the painting is eight by eight. And it says no sign shall exceed 32 square feet. So technically a four by eight is your limitation for the most part. so she's here for two reasons that she's doing the mural painting that's eight by eight which is uh which the ordinance says no sign shall exceed 32 square feet and she's also an aggregate adding 64 plus the additional i mean plus the existing 20 whatever it was 25 so she's well over the 32 square feet would it make any difference if there was no writing on it

And it was just a book called Painting?

No, I consider it a sign. If you guys disagree, you can certainly disagree with me.

Writing on it says, Acadia is calling.

and you consider this pertaining to the business i did yes it is okay are we gonna i i certainly don't don't mind the painting i like paintings i'm worried about if we

start approving stuff that's way over our limit yeah then the next person comes in and says you did it for them why aren't you doing it for me is there anything in the ordinance that allows you to look at a sign that's like out in the road like um you know in front of the business versus on a building of a side of a building that already exists like what if they painted the sign directly onto the building would we be here if someone did a mural on the side of their building It seems like there's much less impact to a business or to a community around it when the sign sits on a building than when it's on top of a roof or out front of the driveway. I'm just asking if there's any way to look at that.

I don't think there is according to the definition. Any outdoor sign, display, device, figure, painting, drawing, message, placard, poster, billboard, or other figure which is designed, intended, or used to advertise or inform. So you have to decide if it's used to advertise or inform. I think it would be a stretch to say that it's not, at least. And it's difficult because none of us, I mean, we all like the sign, but we can't substitute our aesthetic opinions about the mural for the reading, our understanding of the ordinance. And that's what's difficult about it for me. And I think the precedent issue is a real one too. I mean, we had a discussion a bunch of months ago where another business in town that wanted a slight increase in the square footage of the signage that they wanted to replace. And we said that was going to be a problem. Try to keep it within the 32 square feet.

And they were already over the limit.

Right.

Yeah. Well, the planning board has reviewed signage that has exceeded the 32 square feet. Just take a look at Somersville One Stop, for instance. That came before the board and they approved it with 110, I think, square feet. So you're not setting a precedent. The precedent has already been set.

I don't know. I don't want to get off into the weeds, but I'm not convinced that this is so directly pertaining to the business. You know, like the Somsal sign had the big Freshies logo and the tomato. I think we made them take off the side of it. And, you know, the name of the business was on there. And here we have a mural of... You know, it's some mountains and it's like Jordan Pond and maybe the big boulders.

I know we're supposed to stay with our limitations.

I mean, would it change anything, Kim, if it was like a painting of a cat? No.

Clearly unrelated to the purposes of the business, that's what I'm getting at.

It'd be better if there was not any writing on it to make it less like a sign, even though it is a sign.

And then you could argue it's not designed or intended to use or used to advertise or inform if it didn't have writing on it.

it is on the storage building well that building is part of that yeah absolutely is is that building permitted kim as part of the operation kim

Yes, I said it's permitted. You couldn't hear me?

No.

I'm sorry. Yes, it's permitted and used for the business.

Got it.

So what's the pleasure of the painting?

Yes. What's the pleasure of the board? So, you know, the freshest one was an interesting one because one, it exceeded it. And two, the board asked for a modification of the sign.

And what I hear you, what I think I interpret you saying is that if we asked for a modification of the sign to simply have it be a painting without words, that it would be, if we could find that it is not designed, intended, or used to advertise or inform?

Just to decorate. Yeah. To decorate.

I don't know. Are we going to offend an artist if we take the... Yes, please.

I know that Acadia is in my store name. And so if that's the word that makes it an advertisement, I mean, personally, I would love if everything was Acadia, but what if it was changed to nature is calling? That has nothing to do with my business.

It does. It does. I mean, your business is like renting recreational equipment to go out in nature, right? I mean, that's

And that's kind of a weird phrase.

I mean, if you want to do it, that's fine with me. Word is great. But I think we're trying to thread the needle for you here because we are restricted by this ordinance.

I also just did a quick drive around town and like our creek market and Barber Bank in Sloanville and the community school all have way more than 32 square feet of science, and I didn't even notice freshies obviously on this to I just missed it, maybe school does sorry.

School does now it doesn't serve something, I think.

Community school doesn't but yes, but i've been making the trust has more and also that went before the board for approval.

it's good to have a story.

Yes. Certainly the larger signs of the more overt commercial message that Katie is calling.

Oh, 100%. I mean, I think, not to pick on freshies, but I think that one was a lot. A lot in terms of size and just like the optics of it. Perfect.

They want it. Oh, yeah.

And all 3 elevations and. I think the content again, and the sign was in question and.

I feel better if there was no writing on it, it was just a piece of artwork.

Well. The question is whether Acadia is calling is designed, intended, or used to advertise or inform. I think saying it informs is a stretch. But the question is whether it adds an element of advertising and therefore makes it even more non-conforming than a straight sign.

I think it's a stretch to say it's advertising. It's decoration.

I would agree with that. I feel with this one and our past signs, I mean, there's been a much more direct correlation between the business and the sign.

So I think someone should move to find that the standards of Section 6 have been met.

I'll move to find that the standards of Section 6 have been met. Any seconds? I'll second that.

Right. Any further discussion? Then we'll just take a person-by-person vote. Anne?

Yes.

Tracy?

Yes.

Me? Yes. Gail?

I think I'm going to take a pass on this and say no.

I just think it's too much of a stretch. I'll say it's artwork, so I'll say yes.

So there you go.

Okay.

So we can move on. We can move on. Thank you. So we're getting there.

We're getting there. We're not done yet. The bureaucracy must roll on us.

Yeah. so here we go section 6b specific performance standards for activities and land uses again following along in the application here 6B1, agriculture, NA. 6B2, reserve. 6B7, excavation or filling, NA. 6B8, fences and walls, NA. 6B16, this is why we are here. Sign regulations. This is where it says that signs should not exceed 32 square feet in area, nor shall the aggregate of all signs on site pertaining to any business exceed 32 square feet unless conditional use approval of the planning board is obtained and we are not in a shoreland area. And the applicant says, see photo for current signage, total square feet of the store. Name sign is 21 square feet. The total square feet of the small item. Name signs on the side of the building is four and a half square feet. The mural will be 64 square feet. So I'm going to say see application.

And just as we're rolling through that, as my weak math tells me, that's a total of 89.5 square feet and 32 square feet are allowed, and that leaves an overage of 57.5 square feet.

There you go.

But you should check.

All right. 6B18, wireless communication facilities, NA. 6B19, Animal Husbandry 2, NA, 6B20, Mobile Food Vendors, NA, 6B21, Rooming House, NA, 6B22, Hotels and Motels, NA, and 6B23, Solar Arrays. So, the findings of factor that the proposed use will include none of the specific activities or land uses described in Section 6B, except for 6B16. And the conclusion of law is that Section 6B is not applicable except for 6B16 for which the standard has been met. This is the usual language.

There a second? I'll second that.

No, I'm not making a motion. For the record, the chair should not be making motions.

So if someone believes that the standards of 6B have been met, you should make a motion that binds that the standards of 6B have been met.

Do we need to say anything about We're thinking of the mural versus signage.

You got somebody in the waiting room.

Do we know these people?

James Horton has entered. James Horton, H-O-R-T-O-N. We know that person. Don't we?

We've had issues with people signing on and they're not people.

But the images they capture when they enter are fairly graphic. So that's why we're trying to be careful about that.

So here we are at motion, potential motion language.

So I move that the items in 6B are not applicable except for 6B16 in which the standards have been met.

There is a motion. Second. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Gayle?

No.

Got it. All right, moving on. We go on to Section 6C, and that is for shoreland zoning standards. We are not in the shoreland zone, so I would say that Um, this is all in a, and the findings of factor that the proposed use when food, none of the specific activities or land use is described in section 60. And the conclusion was section 60 is not applicable because they are not in the short. So. All those in favor? Bill? Yes?

I'm sorry. I meant to say something earlier. Solar arrays, you never actually gave a.

Solar arrays.

I don't believe it was not applicable. 6B23. I just wanted to. I did.

I heard it say solar arrays, but maybe it didn't say that.

I didn't hear the finding, which was not applicable, I would guess.

Yes. And that is what I have marked on.

OK, great.

All right. Are there any permit conditions?

Do you want to knock off 5.9 too?

We only do 5.9 if we are in the shoreline zone. We are not in the shoreline zone.

We don't want to officially rule that out.

Sure. 5.9 doesn't get triggered. Are there any permit conditions to this? Kim, no permit conditions?

No, she just has to get a building permit prior to doing the mural.

Did she want to talk about words, words on the sign or anything?

Yeah, does she want to put her name on the sign, the business name?

Or do you want to make it a condition that she not put the business name on the sign?

If she decides she wants to, that'll have to come back. So if she wants it, she better say she wants it now.

Robin, what would you like to do with your sign?

I was just going to put a little sticker across the bottom with my name if it counts as a sign, but again, I don't have to.

So I think we just reviewed a very specific sign design.

It is a sign. You guys have approved it as a sign. And if she wants to add her name to it, she's got to let you guys know that.

Doesn't she have to modify the application then?

Doesn't she have, doesn't it have a name on it or no? I wrote that I would be putting the name on. She wrote it. She just wrote it. If it's on the mural, I mean, regardless, it's an 8x8 mural, so if she wants to add her name to the bottom of it, she can just add her name, plus it's in the description.

Yeah, a small spot at the bottom.

Yeah, so the picture doesn't show that in the application, but the signed description on the first page of the application does.

Yep. Okay. Then she can add it to the sign.

There you go. All right. We're going to circle back to the 8-track player, and we're going to press play. So it sounds like there are no permit conditions. And so back to the approval vote. All those in favor of approving the application? Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Gail?

No.

Got it. You made it.

You made it.

Do you need anything more? Yeah.

we're just signing the check sheet here worksheet whatever we call the short form so do i sign that no i don't think so and alan signs it yep

I don't have any agreement. I just couldn't do that.

So, Tracy, you want to make sure we. Stay on top of our file there and there. All right, I think we have another sign. Oh, boy.

This 1 less than 32 square feet.

All right, tonight we have Conditional Use Approval Application 009-2026. Owner name is Henry R. Abelco, LLC. And we have the agent, Christian Paul DeFeo. Location is 13 Ables Lane, Mount Desert, tax map 8, lot 078-002. Zone is shoreland commercial. Purpose is section 6B, 16.8, sign regulations, restrictions and limitations on signs, sign limit. Replace the existing 8 foot by 12 foot business sign and the site inspection was 515 and. Let me 1st ask if there's any conflict of interest with this here. None heard and was this advertised and yes, it was in the desert Islander on. may 14 2026 and hold on a moment and we'll find my way through here to be here when the thing is fixed like this you can't see if someone's raising their hand or it should show up at the bottom yeah okay so raise hand got it

Here is this, but it should be.

Okay, there you go. Thank you.

Okay. Yes. Butters were notified by a letter May 27th. Oh, no, hold on. That's today. There it is. May 13th, 2026.

Yeah. Gail, would you like to report on your observations from the site visit?

Sure. At Abel Maroons, at the very top of the hill where it intersects the 198, there is a pre-existing wooden sign that is well the dimensions and the document we've been given is there's 120 inches by 60 by 72.5 inches um it's a pre-existing sign and what they want to do about that is something that we can discuss the only thing i want to point out is that the agenda says it's a 8 foot by 12 foot sign and

It doesn't feel like a foot by 12 foot sign and that the. The applicant has said that the existing size is 74 and a half by 122.

the structure that hangs on the sign that's on top of the wood, if that's included, it could be considered 8 feet, but the sign itself is certainly smaller.

So we're talking just about the sign versus the whole thing, the posts and all that stuff?

Well, the whole post would be much larger. There's a cross-member that the sign hangs on. And if you count those brackets, that would add a couple inches. But just a personal measurement, it was about, I think, 75, about 75 inches, the actual sign itself.

So this is a pre-existing sign. And they want to alter the pre-existing sign without changing, well, we'll have to find out if they want to change the size. But we observe the sign.

Yeah, so technically it's getting a little smaller relative to these dimensions of the new sign relative to the existing sign dimensions.

So this sign is actually, I mean, I guess in a way you could consider a little bit of a maintenance item, but it's going to go on the current sign, but fit inside the frame of the wood. So this sign might be slightly smaller than the, the actual sign dimensions uh just what's on the sign right now isn't properly advertising the businesses there so um it's i think it could kind of be a maintenance item where you're not actually putting in the correct advertisement for the businesses without changing the whole structure or building from the ground up and just trying to keep that same sign that's the decision process so if it's done the way you want to

In terms of size, it will look the same in terms of from the posts in. And it will look the same. It may just.

It's just it was different. Exactly. It's different lettering and design.

So image, so just from the material we've received. the new sign is 72.5 inches by 120 and they make mention that the existing sign is 74.5 by 122 so just in terms of numbers the numbers it sounds like it's slightly smaller yeah it'd be like you know a picture frame behind you yeah we're gonna put the picture inside the sign and just keep the frame and the base of the old sign

Everybody's there on that. All right.

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

If anybody's out there in the ether wants to ask about the sign application, now is your time. All right, I'm not hearing anybody wanting to ask anything. I'm not seeing any hands being raised online, so let's close public comment. get on with this and see if the board first thinks this application is complete. I move the application to be complete. Second. All those in favor? Aye. How does the board feel about using this?

I move we use the short form to process this application.

Second, Beth. All those in favor?

Aye. Move we approve the application.

Second, Beth. Let's press the pause button. get out our short form checklist, the application, the land use ordinance within arm's reach. And let's go through this. So here we are, Section 6A, General Performance Standards. All right, 6A1, compatibility. They talk about the physical size, and they say C-attached details. They've got detail sheet on the sign, visual impact. None, other than looking a lot better and cleaner. Proximity to other structures. It's 13 feet 9 inches from the edge of the travel way. And density of development is NA for sign proposals. So, C, application. And erosion and sedimentation control, 6A2, NA. 6A3, highway safety. The proposed use shall not cause unreasonable congestion on highways or public roads or unsafe conditions with respect to the highways or public roads existing or proposed. The applicant says it won't.

Is this the point at which I could ask some questions about that?

Yeah, wait, one more thing, because these answers are great. Sufficient off-street parking shall be available. And the applicant says, yes, no change. And Gail, you had a question?

The existing sign has and had on it today a bracket for a flag on the outboard sign, in other words, closer to the roads. And it's an open flag. And I would like some assurance. I would like some understanding of whether or not, first of all, that's allowed. You're allowed a certain distance from the DOT to the road. And that's about three inches, as I read it, three inches more room to play than what your sign currently is. And that flag certainly exceeds way beyond that. I'd like to know, first of all, if we consider those kinds of flags, part of the signage, if not, why not? And then the other question is, I would like some kind of assurance that that flag fluttering out there, given the circumstances of that road and the main road does not present a safety issue.

So let's first ask what kind of flag is out there.

open open flag so kim how are flags handled like that like open flags um i haven't really had anybody um have any issues with that um but if you consider the flag as a signage then flags are not you know, signs I should say, or not, you know, can't have moving parts. Um, I mean, like I said, nobody's, I've never had anybody complain or have an issue with an open flag.

My concern about it is that it, uh, it juts out further towards the road in a place where traffic is moving fast and getting out of that driveway because of the sharp angle at which it connects to the main road is already we heard squealing and some horns blaring while we were standing there was somebody exiting from that road and i my concern is that that flag not the sign itself but the adding the flag to it first of all maybe run a file of dots requirements and secondly because it may create a safety hazard because it restricts visibility of the driver coming out of that road and i would want to make sure that that doesn't happen that that somebody can tell assure me that that doesn't happen if you want to keep putting that sign flag there you don't put the flag you're out there you just have a blind corner of that Oh, yes, please do.

I will say manual, the restaurant puts that up when they're open. So during the winter is when the business closed that sign that opens like not there, obviously in the morning or late at night, that flag is not there.

There's no traffic. It's a big difference.

It'd be better if the sign was on the other side of the post opposite the roadway, the flag away from the flag. Yes. Because it is tough getting in and out of there.

I have that experience, but I don't want to have my facts because I'm a member of the board substitute for you assuring me that it's not going to be a safety hazard. You see what I'm saying? I don't want to be like asserting the fact that it's a problem. I worry that it is a problem and would like you to have some information, whether it's from an engineer or whatever that assures me that if that open flag is there, it's not a problem.

Well, the 1st thing we need to be mindful of is if the flag is even part of the application. So.

Yeah, no, it's not on the application, but.

But the bracket is there, and it was up today.

But, you know, and I think of the immortal words of Joe Tracy, who sat on this board for 22 years. We got to stick to what's in front of us, and I'm not seeing a flag in front of us.

Hey, Bill.

Yeah.

So in the submissions, Google Street View, was submitted as part of the application shows the flag uh with the you know with the existing signage i mean you could if you feel that this is like a distraction there's general safety you know standards under the ordinance um number six it says no sign whether new or existing shall hereafter be permitted to cause a site traffic health or welfare hazard or result in the nuisance. But it says due to illumination, placement, display, or manner of construction.

And I guess I would point out that that Google sign from 2011 shows the bracket for the flag all the way at the top of the structure, whereas now it's halfway down that structure. And therefore, it's more likely to be dangling in the face of a driver trying to exit there. So it's there. It has been there. And I'm just concerned about that. It's not about the sign itself, but about the addition of that To the sign, so we're going to prove the sign. We need to make sure that the sign and its uses. I mean, again, if you look at, I think it is relevant, because if you look at the permit, they've included from. They, the condition of approval is that it's any additions or changes to the sign that move it closer to us 198 right away will be deemed to be a violation of 23. MRS 1914 sub 4, so that I would argue is an addition to the sign that moves it closer to 198. And we could certainly approve the sign and make it a condition of approval, but they not. That they not violate that condition that dot is establishing.

That's all that's all I'm trying to get allowed to make requests.

Application to right that's what that's all I'm hoping for. I'm not trying to blow this up. I'm just trying to. make sure that it doesn't, in its totality, it doesn't create an accident.

Okay.

Thank you.

So, here we are. So, we were 683, highway safety, say C application. 684, impact on town services. The applicant says they agree it won't. So C, application 685, land suitability. They again say agree it won't.

Just be NAs?

yeah how do you guys feel about that because usually if they write something in the section i say c application as opposed to them a sign doesn't have anything to do with public water or sewer so it feels like it should be any you guys want to change that to n a sure 685 is not c application we're going to say n a

Have we changed impact on town services and land suitability or?

Right now I heard just we're changing 6A5 land suitability.

I was actually referencing 6A4 when it comes to water and sewer.

Right. 6A4, you want to change that to N.A. as well?

There is no opportunity to write N.A. on the form.

So there isn't.

I mean, it just gives you a space to provide.

So I'm saying 684, impact on town services, 685, land suitability, 686, lighting outdoor. Here they talk, there is existing lighting on the sign and The applicant says, standard lighting maintenance will be done to the current fixtures. If deemed unusable, they'll replace with identical fixtures. If no longer available, we'll replace with similar style within town code.

And at the, yeah.

Yeah, it does, the lighting is working fine. You don't anticipate a change.

They say applicable standard met. I'm going to say see application.

May I ask a question online? Yeah, go for it. If we wanted to in the future, add lighting from the ground. To shine at the light, is that possible or is that.

Well, we've got a really specific lighting ordinance, and the lights have to be first and foremost dark sky compliant. And that's tough to do when you've got a fixture low aiming up. And I'd refer you to the lighting section of the ordinance. It's super specific.

And shining down. Yeah. And certain wattages in color. Or lumens. But we can help you.

Yeah.

Right. I'm not planning on doing anything right now.

Usually they're aimed down, not up.

They're usually shielded and pointed down, not up.

Right. So. We're good with that. That was lighting outdoor. 6A6 said sea application, and then 6A7 stormwater. Hopkins says NA. 6A8 vegetation. Hopkins says NA. And 6A9 dust, fumes, vapors, odors, and gases. Applicant says N-A. So the findings of fact are that the findings of fact are as presented by the applicant in the attached application, and the conclusion of the law is that the proposed use is in compliance with all standards of Section 6-A for which the standard has been met. I will move to approve that. Second. All those in favor? All right. All of 6B is NA except for 6B-16 sign regulations. So let's Let's move over to 6B16, sign regulations. That's why we're here. I'm just marking the rest as NA. So sign regulations, size limit, this is where we talk about the 32 square feet in area. that they have to go through the conditional use approval process. The planning board, if it's bigger than 32 square feet, they're bigger than 32 square feet. And the applicant says that they are replacing current sign with the identical size, which is obviously larger than 32 square feet.

Bill, is it actually the identical size or is it slightly smaller?

I think it's slightly smaller.

I think it's the identical size. It fits in the frame that you had said. It's like the picture frame around it. Exactly. I consider the sign to be the same size.

I was just going by the numbers that were submitted, but the numbers submitted include a frame set around the sign, and their sign goes inside of that frame. I think that's where the number discrepancy is a few inches. So, everybody good with that? I'm going to say C application for 6B16. So the findings of fact that the proposed use will include none of the specific activities and land uses described in section 6B except for 6B16 and the conclusion laws that section 6B is not applicable except for section 6B16 for which the standard has been met. Can I? Please do it.

So another reason why this is before you, as you may know, is because of Section 8 of the ordinance, which was in your description of why the purpose of why he's there here. Now, as you may recall, with nonconforming signs, 8 for maintenance and conformance of signs, that no sign shall hereafter be erected, altered or changed. except in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance. Then it says, notwithstanding any provision contained hereof, however, the sign must be kept clean, neat, painted, and free of any hazards. If you may recall, this is what... Oh, shoot. Northeaster came before you guys because they wanted to replace their sign and it exceeded. 32 square feet. And so they brought their sign into conformance of 32 square feet. So you're looking at this sign. This is being altered and or changed. So you can, you know, ideally you've got to try to make them bring it into compliance if you feel it should. or you can allow it to be replaced as is, same size.

If I remember correctly, the Nor'easter discussion was not an actual application. They came before us for an opinion about whether or not they would be allowed to increase, I believe it was to increase the overall dimensions of the sign or was it to leave us up on the roof on the roof and we tried to figure out ways in which they could do it and stay in compliance but i don't think we actually processed and ruled on an actual application no you did not yeah you did not they did not submit an application they said they submitted sign details

they did not submit because they wanted to come before first before they had any money invested in you know the new sign and then there was lighting that was also being proposed which was substantially different than what they had which you guys cut back on that too so i don't think we could presume that if they tried to

downsized to fit it within the ordinance, but then came before us with an actual application that kept it larger. I don't know that we can presume that we would have shot them down at that point because it didn't comply.

They actually did not follow through with an application because they agreed to go to 32 square feet.

Right. Right. And in this application, the other question I will say is, are they two separate businesses?

So that is one thing, too. Right now, it's advertised for technically just a restaurant, which is also the wrong name. So it's a little bit of a false advertisement. But it is a sign for two businesses. So you take into effect, we got to advertise the restaurant and the marina. That would be, I guess, if we went to 64 square feet of space, whereas the current size is 68 and a half, roughly around there. And like I said, we're not changing the structure or the base of the sign. It's just an advertisement on top of what we currently have.

Right.

Without the proper business names on the property.

So arguably, you could submit an application with two separate signs if you wanted, because there's two different businesses on that location. And this actually keeps it more, it may still be large, but it keeps it consolidated. I also suspect that what you're proposing, what we have, what you've been given us as a proposal, the way it's configured is going to appear smaller because it's a dark background. It's, you know, you've got a dark blue, black background, I suspect that the appearance that it's going to present is actually that it's going to appear a little, it's not going to be smaller, but its overall visual impact is going to be but potentially a little bit less.

It's not going to become more non-conforming. It is going to remain the same.

Right. So I hear Kim's concern, but I see this in a different posture than the prior discussion we had.

And I agree that there are two businesses there. And I think one sign would be definitely better than two separate signs.

So we had a motion and a second. 6B. Yeah, where are we?

Gail moved, Alan seconded. We have not voted. Right.

Any other discussion? All those in favor? Aye. There is Section 6B. In this case, we are in the Shoreline Zone, Shoreline Commercial, so we get to do Section 6C. So I'm on page 20 of 22 of the application.

So 61, agriculture and animal husbandry.

And a 62 archeological sites. The applicant says N.A. 65 essential services. The applicant says N.A. 66 parking areas. The applicant says N.A. 67 marine and freshwater structure standards. The applicant says N.A. 69 roads and driveways, that one says N.A. 6011 water quality, that one says N.A. So the findings in fact of the proposed use will include none of the specific activities or land uses described in Section 6 except for one of them. And conclusion of laws, Section 6 is not applicable. So moved. Okay. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Right. And because we're in the shoreline zone, then we do section 5.9. So, bear with me. 5.9.1 will maintain safe and healthful conditions. Applicant says N.A. 592 will not result in water pollution, erosion, or sedimentation to surface waters. Hopkins says NA. 593 will adequately provide for the disposal of all wastewater. NA. 594 will not have an adverse impact on spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, bird, or other wildlife habitat. Hopkins says NA. 595. will conserve shore cover and visual as well as actual points of access to inland and coastal waters. Hopkins says NA. 596 will protect our archaeological and historic resources as designated in the comp plan. Hopkins says NA. 597 will not adversely affect existing commercial fishing or maritime activities in a shoreline commercial district. Applicant says N.A. 598 will avoid problems associated with floodplain development. Applicant says N.A. 599 is in conformance with the provisions of 6A, B, and C. They have standard MET circled. And the findings of fact are C above, and the conclusion law is all requirements of Section 5 have been met. So moved. Second. All those in favor? Aye. OK. So then moving a little closer to the finish line, are there any permit conditions?

I hope so. First of all, because there have been a number of different iterations of proposed signs that are in the application itself, is there a way that we can attach to this the documents that we think accurately represent what you're proposing? And to that, you provided us with this.

Yes, so that would be the actual lettering and that sort of thing.

And in your package, you have this.

Yes, so that was when I first submitted it. That was our original design.

But then, well, here's the one, isn't it?

Yeah, so I didn't know if to get the pictures of the process that we were going to do.

No, I appreciate that.

So that's why the blank photo was, you know, we're going to clean it up and then. but it's put the sign on top of that.

What I'm getting at here is back to the flag and what I would like to have to know that what we're approving, and I know that what we're approving is the placement of this sign with this signage and not sort of anything else that's in here. And that, any per the standard, especially including the standards, the conditions of approval from DOT for on-premises sign, I would like us to condition this on not adding any additions or changes to this sign that move it closer to 198. And I would also like the owner to submit to, because they're going to have to come back to Kim for a permit, submit to Kim information that shows if there is going to be anything added to that outside edge of that sign, that it not create highway safety issues. I mean, if you can, you can demonstrate that was, you know, you get an engineer there that says, oh, the line of sight is fine with a flag fluttering there. Have at it.

Yeah. And I'll be happy to move it up to like in the Google image. This could be, I'll talk to Mandy over there who runs a restaurant and tell her we have to move that up so it doesn't block any visual for any driver coming in either way. Or if that still doesn't work or it is the flag, Applying closure to the roadway, where it may or may not be deemed too close to the roadway. I can have them place it on the other side of the sign.

Yeah, because you only got if I see your numbers and those numbers can be the states, but we only have 3 inches from the outside.

Addition and the ads, I don't know if that means a structure or if that means a. In actual, like, anything, but just like a page of a structure.

Sure. I think that's a legitimate question, but for me, the issue is tire safety. That's all it is.

Yeah, and I will say, if you look at the photo, there are a couple poles and our sign is technically closer to the roadway. I mean, the street sign, I'm sorry. Yeah, yeah. It's closer to the roadway as well as there's another pipe sticking out that I don't think the sign would protrude further than that, and I don't know, you know, I don't know what that pipe actually is, to be honest with you, but... you know, whatever is within regulations, you know, we certainly abide to at the end of the day. Thank you. And one thing I know I did not touch on, I know we had that, I guess the previous sign, it just came to me was, you know, it's in there as an 8x12, and I'm sorry, yeah, an 8x12, and it's currently a little bit smaller than that. i'm now thinking i don't know if that tape can affect any sign that they've hung up below prior um and if that would still be allowed as it was and i'm not adding any additional i'm not making a new sign for below but i know there has been if you look at that google the google images you can see those right uh temporary signs that mandy puts up uh when the restaurant opens

That's changing the signage. That wasn't part of the application.

There was a photo of it included in the package. That's why it got confusing about what was and wasn't included in the application.

Is it in the written description?

No, it wasn't. It is, well, it is not because I was not planning on changing the base of the sign.

So the sign that you received tonight is what you're approving?

That's what I would like to do, which would be this one right here. The sign with the dark background, not the white background.

right but the question is whether or not they could then add this little thing i think we're only approving what's within the frame of the existing side right right i gotta say however to address my concerns that's a heck of a lot safer than a flag fluttering out on you in in terms of the dynamics of that highway right there that's my i'm not the engineer so somebody can easily just prove me but I don't know how that gets sorted, but it's, I think it's a live issue that needs to be. We need to make sure we're not.

I'd like to approve this with no flags. Flag would be an additional part. Of the sign, the flag is not on this that we're approving. So, a flag would be a whole different thing.

Well, that's why I put up these.

Yes.

say what is it that we're doing here we're doing this we're doing this we're gonna call this a exhibit c can i make a comment on that of course sure i uh the flag and the the sign below is is already built into the structure um and i was not trying to change the entire I just wanted the proper advertisement within the sign for the businesses, which is why I did not think that would have been an issue or something I would have had to address prior to this application.

I think that's, I think that's understandable. I guess the thing that you get from my perspective, the thing you get hung up on is a decide overall size and B we've got a specific provision in here about highway safety that we have to try to assure that, that what we're approving is not going to contribute to unsafe highway conditions. And I would like some assurance that whatever happens here, the sign, I don't have an issue with any, a flag. I have concerns about. And they're based on driving out of that driveway many times.

We're approving this tonight.

Yeah.

Does the submission that was passed out tonight say open 12 p.m. to 9, 8 p.m. on it? I can't see it. sorry you can't see that give it to me yeah put it in front of the owl yeah does that help kim can you see that i don't see it no oh wait back up a little bit oh wait now i can't see it turn your camera on so we can see what we're you're seeing

Anything?

I don't have my camera. No. Oh, yeah. Wait. Whoa. Okay. All right. No. You moved. All right. I see that. Okay. I see what is proposed. But he's talking now about below that, an open 12 p.m. to 9 p.m. with an arrow. Is that what you're talking about, Christian?

Yeah. So that was just that particular one was just a monologue. I wasn't trying to make that additional sign. I just want to know if currently, if Mandy over at Bee Lobster Pound would still be able to use her current sign that she's been using temporarily that goes below this sign.

So the one that's currently there now that she hooks below on the hooks that says Restaurant 12 and 9, the red and white one?

Yeah, it should be on the Google.

Yeah, I'm looking at it. Yep. Yeah, so you're replacing the Abel's Lobster Pound short dinner served inside or outside with what you passed out tonight, but also Mandy wants to be able to have the opening for the season June 27th. I can't read that. Sorry. From 12 to 9 p.m.

would like to know if that would be unaffected on this approval and then additionally that original 8512 that was uh that it said that we have it measured uh less than eight feet if that eight feet included that lower sign uh prior um you know prior uh i guess measurements that were taken.

Do you know what size that lower sign is?

I believe the one we had is smaller than the one that's in these photos. I believe it's about half that size, which would probably be around a foot. The one in the picture is probably two feet.

We can go ahead.

Sorry.

What about, I mean, what about continuing this 1 and they come back with.

That added to it, but I need to add it if it's already there, they're not changing it. Yeah, it's the sign they've been using for years. They're not changing that.

So I think they want to change. The part we're open for the season. On this latest 1, they have open. No, no, no, no, no.

I'm not looking to change that at all. I just want to make sure we could still have continued to use on that.

Has been for years of the, and he had the big 1 there. Changing the big 1, they're not changing any of the. Underneath hangers.

Yeah, that's not up all the time or it's I don't think it's up right now. But I don't know. I didn't know what to. Reserve is legally of that.

I don't think it was there.

It was not up today.

And don't they need to identify that sign Kim and the total square footage for the record? Yeah, part of the showing. Is that a permit condition? Is that. Hey, you got to come back and show it as total.

I mean, you could technically, you could have them just do another mock-up kind of like what he passed out tonight, Christian with the dimensions on it. And then the one that you want to keep the open one that's below it. If the board's, you know, okay with that, um, to submit that with your application, building permit application.

Would we still be able to approve the inner sign tonight and do that a separate time or does this all have to be moved?

No, I think they should be able to approve this because you're not asking to replace the sign that is put up for the restaurant indicating when they're open and their time. You just want to be able to continue to use that sign. Correct. If you can just give, if the board's a minute okay with this, that when the building permit is issued for the replacement of the big sign, that you just show the markup, which includes that sign below that for the restaurant with the dimensions, And then that can go with the building permit as long as they're okay with that. And then no, no open flag.

Okay, with that.

Yes. Yeah. Do we need to make that a condition summarize that? Yeah. So. Conditions of the permit. are that upon submission of an application for a building permit, the mock-up presented with the application would show the proposed changes to the main sign as well as any additional temporary signage pertaining to the operating season of the restaurant that has in prior years hung below. the sign and further that there shall be no additional open flags hanging on the signage. No additional flags hanging on the sign. That open for the season tells you when it's open, what the hours of operation are. It's just.

And just that particular one is not no longer in use. That's on the Google.

This one is not in use. This one.

Yeah, there's a smaller one that they use.

So is it this?

No, no, no.

This is just a mock up.

Yeah, yeah.

OK, so they do have a smaller one, but it provides information about their hours of operation.

Correct. Just open now.

then that should do it.

Gail, look at the Google Street View of 2019. That's what they currently have below the sign.

Well, that's the one we're talking about right now, and he says they don't have that.

It might have been the older one that they don't have anymore.

Just show you what I'm waving around.

It was below it. It's got a submitted. It's an updated graphic when he applies for this building.

I think they do use that when they don't use this one with all dimensions. Okay.

Okay. Yeah. So I'm referring to the 2019 Google street view included in the application. It is, you can insert that weekly in the middle of the application for the building permit.

The mock up will show the proposed changes to the main sign and. I don't know what that word is. And then we'll have the temporary sign regarding seasonal operation info, no additional flag hanging on the sign, flags hanging on the sign.

And the temporary, I would say the temporary sign as the dimensions of which are indicated in the Google Street View 2019 included in the application. If they want to repaint it to have it read something else, I guess that's the 19.

Do you want no additional open signs or no open signs? Additionally, there's one there, so you're saying no more than just the one?

Just the one.

You're allowing that one to stay there?

The opening for the season one in the 2019 view?

No, the open flag.

No, I would say that we're not going to allow the flag.

Because you're saying no additional open flags. No additional open flags. No open flags.

You don't want to move the open flag to the inside post. Yeah, I have no problem with that. It's just like, there's nothing additional.

There was a question to the structure. On the roadside of the sign flag.

The option that's fine for to ask.

i mean if there was an open flag on the sign that's got to be on the inside post not the outside post yeah that's i guess i'm fine with that and we can put that in as a condition yes go with that absolutely

I'm not opposed to open signs.

I just think about all the open flags around here right now. Are we opening a whole new?

No flag on the roadside.

It's a jump scare. It really is.

Maybe that should be a nautical burgee.

All right. Do we have that condition? Thank you.

We need a second to that. Let's let's hear it. Make sure we got it. Right?

Okay. So the condition is upon submittal of the application for the building permit. The mock up shows the proposed changes to the main sign. Uh, the temp sign regarding seasonal operation info. Uh. hanging on the sign for the restaurant the restaurant okay um as illustrated in um and the temporary sign as the dimension um in the dimensions of the google street view 2019 it doesn't it's all going to come together trust me but we do all of those things and then no flags on the roadside I'll make it more clear, but those are the conditions I heard.

Yes. Yes. No flags on the road side.

No flags on the road side.

Everybody with that. Yeah.

No open flags on the road side.

Open flags on the road side. no flags on the roadside there's your motion there's your second from alan any further discussion

We're approving the condition or the application? This is the approval of the application with those conditions. Those conditions.

Yeah. All those in favor? Aye. Congratulations.

Thank you for enduring with us.

What is this? So you need to submit the land use and building permit with our department now. You've been approved. So we need a land use and building permit application.

We can help you with it.

Yeah. Showing, you know, we'll include this and then perhaps a mock up of the temporary sign that they talked about. And we'll process that and then we'll be able to go back.

Now, are we going to. I don't know.

Are we, Gail?

I don't know. I'm ready, but I don't need to. Do we have an agenda for the next?

So, for the record, we don't have any applications for June 10th. And it's been advertised too late to advertise that there is a hearing. So. If we want to chippy chat, I'd say let's chippy chat. When? Tonight.

Tonight.

Well, I think we do it June 10th because we don't have anything else.

Because, Kim, it's too late to advertise it, right?

It is too late to advertise. Absolutely.

Okay.

So does that mean June 10th is not happening? Yeah, no meeting on June 10th.

Well, I guess we just need to have a conversation about how and when we have conversation about all these forms that you've provided us. And I sent Kim, no one else, because we're in a meeting, a write-up of my concerns or my suggestions for the form that pertains to non-consumption.

You're dismissed. You're free to go. You don't even want to hear this stuff.

Yeah, this is Ron, man. We're in the big weeds here. Yeah. And I don't care when we do it. I just. It surprises no one that I find that Section 4, dealing with Section 4 applications, is like being on one of those rings in Dante's Inferno. And I would like us to have a form that actually allows us to get through one of those applications so that at the end, a board member can say, so move. instead of having to try to torturously concoct thank you guys yeah just an hour's long convoluted motion um and i think this is a start but i think we could do more than that i i had it we've been offered i think it's mine get us close at that point and i don't care when we discuss it i'm ready to discuss it maybe if other people haven't had a chance to look at it i can send you the notes that i took today about this if you want to take some time to read it um i don't need to bore everybody depends on the board how much how interested you are in moving these things along it's not i'd always like to postpone things mr procrastinator well I tell you what, if we get an application for nonconformity before we get this done, you're going to make the motions. How about that deal?

I can make them. They may not be acceptable.

You got one coming. Just saying, you got one coming for the June 24th meeting. It's Clifton Dock.

I think I was making motions and I Use the phrase blah, blah, blah and it got rejected.

For reasons, yes. All right, I don't I don't I don't know what you want to do because I did spend some time on this today, but it's boring.

Well, how long do you think for it?

Okay. So, if you haven't, if you haven't looked at the form already, that's been proposed, it's going to be a little. it's going to be slow, but the form basically takes in order all the different provisions, but not in, in some cases, not in an order that allows you to flow through. Some of it should be moved around and some of it should be, I think should be

The form should flow according to the process sections that we have to order our review into.

Yes, and not necessarily just the way that horrible statute is worded, because you're flipping. And so my goal was to try to look at this with that in mind. And also to make sure that we understand, for example, in 432, if such additional expansion does not increase the nonconformity of the structure. What does that mean? Does that just mean it doesn't get any closer to the shore? Or are there other factors that would make it more nonconforming?

Of course.

And if it does, then maybe we should have those ticked off so that we can check them while you're doing that, not just to have this little box that meets with a tiny little scribbling space. So it's things like that. I went through. When we talked about this, there's all these provisions for allowing a certain level of expansion of a property, whether it's 25, 75, or 100 feet from the shore. And the way this form is worded, the 800 square foot expansion within the 25 zone is not worded as it appears in the ordinance, and it's not worded like the other 75 and 100. So, I think things like that needs to be looked at.

I think you should maybe have an other. Bullet point, if you're getting that specific to, because, I mean, the nonconforming could be. Some strange out of the ballpark nonconformity. Hot coverage, is it?

Right, right. And I think if we had a checklist for that, you could just zip down through that, rather than us having to then fish around in four to make sure that the generic does not increase the nonconformity of structures actually being met. Yeah.

What number are you looking at, Gail?

I'm trying to. I'm looking at 4.3. 4.3 is that particular thing. But then you get down further in the page, 4.3.2 when you're talking about the 800 square feet, I also had a fundamental question about the language of the ordinance and how you calculate the allowable admissions. So 4.3.2 says the structure which is located less than 75 feet from the high water line and the maximum combined total footprint has not expanded to an area greater than 1,000 square feet or 30% larger than the existing footprint in 1989, whichever is graded. Does that mean that you can't add more than 1,000 square feet? Or does it mean the combined footprint with the old plus the proposal can cannot exceed a thousand square feet. I had some real confusion in my head about what that actually, what standard we're actually applying. Um, this, I'm sure there's an answer. I just didn't know what it, don't know what it is. And I, I think it's fundamental. Um, and, um, I also find it really interesting, if you think about it, that if you've got a house right on the shore within the 25 square feet, and it's already a big pile, and you want to add to it, you're allowed to add 30% of what you've already got. But if it's a little cottage, you can't make it bigger than 800 square feet. So it disadvantages people. The smaller your house that you want to add to, the less leeway you have to enlarge it whereas some both in terms of height and because so you can make a very large house a whole lot larger

I think you need to take that to the state. Well, that's my question.

Is that the way the state words it? Or are we wording that here?

That's the state. That's the state. And also, if the entire building is within 25 feet of a water body, you cannot expand beyond the existing footprint at all. You could enclose open frame decks. And if your building is no more than 15 feet in height right now, and you can go up, but that's it. So 26 feet back to 75 feet, if you have a building within that area, you can add 30% of the footprint of the existing building, or you could go up to a certain footprint, whichever is greater as of what's there as of January 1st, 1989. And if you have other buildings on the property that are not conforming, you could combine that footprint together to add 30%. But that's it. That applies to the aggregate of the footprint of the buildings. Once you hit 30%, that's it. So if you apply that to all one building, the other building can never add 30% to it because you've used the footprint of both buildings.

Okay, but one of my fundamental questions is the way this is worded, the maximum combined total footprint has not expanded to an area greater than 1,000 square feet. That's the 75-foot one. So does that mean that if you submit an application for an addition, you get to add 1,000 square feet? Or in total, when you combine that with what you already have, it can't exceed 1,000 square feet? Can't exceed 1,000 square feet.

It cannot exceed 1,000 square feet.

total so correct okay all right and if it's greater obviously you get the 30 over because it exceeds a thousand square feet yes okay so that clears that up for me and maybe someone else i don't know but good luck um thank you um 4.3.2 d is All of the non conforming principle and accessory structures that do not meet the water body tributary stream level is not prohibited by section four by three and subsections ABC above, how do you actually fill out. That. All of what you have to do to meet 4.3.2 D in the tiny little spaces provided on this form when the form that has what I've written is this when the form has a section that references other sections. I want the criteria of those that repeated in this location. so the expansion is not prohibited by section 4.3.2 and subsections a b or c above might be easier to handle if the requirements of those subsections is provided here now i know i create a small paper I mean, we just go through applications all the time with communication towers on them and we just flip right past them. And it would be easy enough to just check the NA and move on. But if you have to stop and process that, then you've got a place right there where you can do that and then move on having completed what you need to complete for that. So I'm asking for more paper. Unfortunately, there are a couple of other places, 4.3.2DV and 4.3.2E, that are in a similar situation. Relocation of structures, one of our favorites. Where is relocation of structures? It's in here somewhere. That one, I would... I would propose that the ... What is that? Page 4-4? Yeah, I know, but I've got my picket all screwed up in there. What I would like is ... There are requirements there. There's a bunch of requirements. There's lot size, slope, potential soil erosion, impact on neighbors, and all that sort of stuff. Just list those out in the form. Check, check, check, check, so that you can do that instead of just having this old glob that the chair has to write information about. In reconstruction, I would just reorder it a bit. So, for example, you've got to establish that an appraiser was used. Well, that's way down on the list of things you've got to check. But you read up at the top, you've got to show that 50% of the appraised value has been blown in order to be able to reconstruct it. Just reorganize it so it flows better. So this is sort of like, it's not substantive, but I'm trying to get at a form that allows you to... whiz through this we have a box to check for obtaining you have to verify that they've obtained the permit with 18 months that should be a condition of the permit not like a graphic flow chart yeah like just so you can just do it and complete it in as logical and same manner as possible and just the, you know, not applicable to parts that aren't. So I think this is helpful, but I think it needs to be more keyed to what we need to actually do to do our job on the night that we're processing it, not just regurgitate the sections and put it on a grid form, which is what's been done here. So I have provided And with a copy of this, I'm going to have a chance to look for me not to look at it, and I can provide it to anyone else who wants it. But maybe we could ask our planners to spend a little more time to make it as super user friendly as we can so that.

Gail, I had sent your email to Noel and Matt and Bill.

Thank you. Thank you. That's it. That's all I did. I didn't do the others. I thought I just honed in on that 1 because that's my particular.

Point of pain, no disagreement with anything. Trying to achieve there and the feedback on that and I. Thought the form was a little cookbookish and then. And it's always tough to correlate it to this convoluted. Section job, you have to do these things. So, I think 1 of the key things is that the checklist is keyed into the process.

Yes. Now, if we did these every month. We probably wouldn't need this, because this is like, you only do an open heart surgery once a year, you probably aren't very good at it. And if we're only doing a few of these every once in a while, we're not, we don't flow with it. And we need that aid, Thomas. I do. I don't know about, I'm not speaking for you, but I do. I need as much aid as I can.

Am I allowed, Kim, to ask what the CliftonDoc is coming with?

Well, I just received that today. It's a complete rebuild. Elevation and a shoreline stabilization. It's going to be quite a lot of moving parts, a lot of sections that will apply to that.

Yeah, so we might be having

form rework in process as we wade through CliftonDAR.

But at least if you had a draft of it, you could.

So maybe we reach it back out to Noel and Matt or whoever on that side of the table and just say, here's the feedback. We'd love to get a draft before.

Well, it's my understanding that Noel would like to meet next week, Gail, if you might recall. to discuss this, to discuss this.

Oh, he wants to discuss this. I'm happy to do that. If people feel comfortable with that. I thought we were going to have a meeting about the LUSO work, but I'll do this too. Okay.

Yeah. Well, I guess it's up to you guys. If you want to, if you want to meet Gail and maybe Bill, you should be involved seeing to the chair. Um, about discussing the forms, if you want something to use for the meeting on the 24th. Sure.

Gail myself, no.

Me and Seth.

And so we just need to coordinate a time as long as it's not a Tuesday or a Thursday night.

Okay, I'll reach out to Noel tomorrow.

Great. And I just, I'm in the process of trying to, it's the Land Use Advisory Committee, which is sparsely populated at this point in time, and it doesn't have a regular attendance from anybody from the select board. And I'm meeting with David McDonald on Friday over coffee at my house to try to convince him to become Let's select board member who's engaged in these issues.

There you go. All right. We'll get a time schedule with those guys next week. Thank you. All set, Kim?

Yep, I'm all set. Thank you. Sorry I wasn't there tonight, but I got a crown today.

Oh, no. good times you deserve a crown every day for probably nothing yeah not that crown all right so all right can we move to it i think so yes i moved to russian any discussion blah blah blah all those in favor hi hi hi there you go thank you good night good night well It goes payments old stuff that mine is piled up.

Everybody switched out your subdivision ordinance.