Planning Board - Regular Meeting

We'll call to order the Tanamount Desert Planning Board meeting for July 8th, 2026. Welcome aboard. Here we are in another beautiful July evening.

Happy to be inside.

Happy to be inside. See the sun shining through the window. And I'll kick it off with making some introductions. So in person tonight, we have Daniel Burke, Tracy Loftus Keller, who's the vice chair, myself, Chairman William Hanley. We've got Alan Kimmerly and Gail Marshall. And online we've got Meredith Randolph. And I still love the idea of having, like, little name plaques. We can do it. Hello, my name is. As I am well into my senior years.

Just for everyone to introduce their names.

You know what? That's an excellent idea, too, Tracy. Like, everybody.

The trick is, why don't we go around the table and introduce ourselves.

You know, like, on these low energy days, and you've got to remember all these names. You know, it could be a challenge. but here we are all right we made it through that and um uh second item on the agenda tonight is uh just we've got some approval in minutes and I believe those are the minutes from the hearing on the 24th is that right I think so that was where we had the one peer and two owners it's june 24th minutes right uh i'm of approval 24th minutes yeah the discussion everybody good right all those in favor hi hi and uh i guess i didn't vote because i wasn't at the meeting that's right yeah may 24th june 24th june no june 24th sorry yes Right here in front of us. So we've got Alan, Gail, me, Gracie.

And I move that we make Daniel Burke, unless you'd rather do.

Boy, I figured. I think it goes by rank, doesn't it?

Yeah. I know that we make Daniel Burke. It's catching. Boarding member for the nice meeting.

Check and talk. All those in favor?

Aye.

Okay. Yes, Kim?

Unfortunately, Alan's not going to be able to participate tonight. The reason being is he did not come in and do his oath. So, technically, he's not a legal board member right at the moment. Well, Alan, you received an email on June 30th from Claire. And I did, I mean, maybe I did board manual does state that before performing any official duties as a board member, they need to do their oath.

I move we make Meredith Randolph a voting member of the planning board. Second. Nice meeting.

Can I just ask a question? Yeah. Alan has suspended both minutes and making Dan a voting member. Do we need to redo those?

We'll redo those.

We'll redo that one.

Make a motion to make Dan a voting member. Second.

All right. All those? I will sit in the audience. All those in favor? Aye. Aye.

All right, Dan, the approval of the June, I move approval of the June 24th minutes.

The 2nd, yeah.

Yeah. All right. All those in favor. All right.

I move. We make Meredith Randolph a voting member of this meeting.

2nd, where we just came in at 5 until. Yeah, I would have all those in favor.

Hi. Okay. So. Meredith, you're on board.

Got it. Thank you.

All right. Moving on. So item three on the agenda tonight, we have a conditional use approval application. This is conditional use approval application 11-2026. Owner name is Ken Winokur and Katherine Ramey. Location is 5 Red Spruce Way, Mount Desert, tax map 9, lot 120-10-001. The zone is shoreline residential 2. The purpose is sections 3.4 and 6C7, marine structures, piers, docks, wharves, bridges, or other structures, and uses extending over or below the normal high water line or within a wetland. And it's for the installation of a two section 41 foot 10 inch by four foot and eight and a half eight feet five inches by six feet and a quarter inch temporary seasonal dock and we had a site inspection at five and was this one advertised and a butter's notified it's definitely advertised here in the mount dessert islander on page 15.

Great. Where are mine? Yes, right here. Page 15. The publication was Thursday, June 25th, 2026. And?

Butters.

Butters were notified by letter dated June 23rd, 2026. Thank you.

So any conflict of interest on this one? Any board members? Not you.

Not I.

Got it. All right. Well, we had a site visit at five. Meredith, no conflict of interest.

No conflict of interest.

right thank you we had a site visit at five and gail would you care to report on your observations from the site visit um this is a wooded lot what looks like a relatively new small residential structure and a half isn't the lot that leads down to a short distance down to a smallish pond that is heavily kind of vegetated with lilies and pickleweed and all sorts of other things. at the and the shore edge is earth it's not like rock or anything like that and at the edge we observed a dock approximately the dimensions that appears to be of the dimensions that you've already described looks like it's metal or aluminum and in a t configuration and so we saw all right anybody want to add anything else

No further observations then. Right. Well, let's turn it over to the owner, Mr. Winokur, if you'd like to elaborate on any of those observations or just for the record, explain your project.

So it's a seasonal dock, so it's removed every fall and it gets put back in in the spring. And it's just for

enjoyment of the water so it's a seasonal dock and very shallow water and we're here tonight because it's a after the fact the reason why it's before you is Mr Whitaker unfortunately had it installed prior to receiving planning approval he was unaware that he needed approval But we did get in contact. I'm Kim, by the way. Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you. We did. And I did write a notice of violation. He immediately contacted me and I worked with him with the application process. Because I can only issue a permit up to 10 feet in the morning. Anything beyond that has to come to you guys.

Got it. All right. In fact, seasonal dark, super shallow water.

Nice. I like the rock to the construction. The doc. Was observed to be an aluminum frame.

dock with the drop in wood surface to it. And it comes out in sections, I presume. And it's stored on the shore. You ask your question.

I'm just going to say this out loud because I wasn't too clear about it. Want to find out if, so with a 10 foot dock, you're able to approve it, but if it's larger than that, does that require a DEP approval?

No, where it's freshwater, it doesn't require DEP approval and it's temporary. Okay. So they have no jurisdiction.

Okay. I just wanted to get that in the record.

Question. and and it doesn't matter that little echo lake is is a dam controlled body it's man-made yeah um and obviously marine structures you know rely on water you know dependency so obviously there's no setback from the water yeah um just from the side property line uh as far as the development that is don't really doesn't have anything to do with you um instead of 100 foot setback they were allowed 75. but that was changed after he built his house oh there you go all right well i will open it to public comment if there is anybody out there in the zoom world

I think Meredith is the only one online. Yes. I'm not seeing any other members of the public here tonight. All right. I'm going to close public comment then and let's get on with this. How do you guys feel about finding the application completed? So moved. Second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye. All right, thank you. And any thoughts on potentially using.

I move we approve the use of the short form for the processes application. Is this for?

Yes. Okay. Second thing.

I will second that as well. All right. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye.

I move we approve the application.

Okay, 2nd, we press the pause button and then we go through the review of the application. So we got the short form. Right here, I've got the application. I've got the land use ordinance in front of me. And let's do it.

All right, so we're looking at going through all that.

We're going through Section 6A, General Performance Standards, and the first one is compatibility. And under compatibility, the applicant states the physical size, again, the 41 foot 10 inches long by 4 feet wide by the L of it is 8 feet 5 inches by 6 and a quarter wide. Visual impact, they talk about that it's a temporary doc and no visual impact from the Road other property owners on little echo lake will see it. There are other temporary docs on the same lake. Proximity to other structures. They've got a site plan attached the lots that a, but the lot that this exists on are vacant. Density of development see again refers to the attached site plan. The lots that about. His lot are vacant, so C application.

And we also have a map that shows that the adjourning lots are respectively 7.68 and 5.01 acres and his lot is 3.10 acres. So that's the space.

So, erosion and sedimentation control. The applicant says N.A. Highway Safety, applicant says N-A. Impact on Town Services, applicant says N-A. 6A-5, Land Suitability, applicant says C, Attached Soil Survey. So, C application. Lighting Outdoor, N.A., there is none. 6A7, stormwater. Applicant says N.A. 6A8, vegetation. Applicant says N.A. And 6A9, dust fumes, vapors, odors, and gases. Applicant says N.A. So the findings of fact are as presented by the applicant in the attached application, and the conclusion was that the proposed use is in compliance with all standards of Section 6A for which the standard has been met.

So moved. Second.

All right. All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All right. Section 6B. I can say that section 6, all of section 6B is in A. That would be agriculture, 6B1, 6B7, excavation and filling, 6B16. Yeah, there's fences and walls, NA. 6B16 sign regulations, NA. 6B18 wireless communication facilities, NA. 6B19 animal husbandry 2. There's no chickens, 6B20 mobile food vendors, 6B21 rooming house, 6B22 hotels and motels, and 6B23 solar arrays. So the findings of factor that the proposed useful include none of the specific activities land uses described in section 6B and the conclusion was section 6B is not applicable. So moved.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

All right. Well, second. Yup. We got it. All right, Section 6C, since we are in the shoreland zone, we are doing shoreland zoning standards for review by the planning board. And moving ahead in the application to Section 6C, we have Section 6C1, Agriculture and Animal Husbandry, NA, 62, Archaeological Sites. There is an attached archaeological map.

Are we supposed to have a letter from them?

Oh, you got a map in there. That's good enough. You got the map showing that. That's not an issue. It's not even in the area that's regulated by them. OK. Good.

There you go. So the C application, 65 essential services. NAs, my bad. 66 parking areas. And a. And 67, why we're here tonight and that would be because it is a marine falls under marine and freshwater structure standards and. Let's just go through these. So.

Can I just ask a quick question?

Go for it.

Is there anything in the code that's any different because it's on a manmade structure? I know that there was some reason that somebody uncovered that this was a manmade, not structure, a manmade pond.

No, there's nothing. We've just, what happened was, and why this is now regulated as a 75 foot setback and not it's mandate. Is that the, that a property owner next to Mr. Lineker wanted to develop their lot and I had said it's a 100 foot setback because it was in the ordinance plus it's part of Echo Lake as a whole to the pond. So it met over the 10 acre. Uh, requirement, which was 100 foot setback. Well, Roger saying I'm on was hired by the property owner. Um, and determined through the state and historical files. And 2 dp representatives determined that it's a man made on because it's damn good. It was damn control.

So, it doesn't affect anything about what we're reviewing. Like, we're just.

Yeah, no. There's two other docs on this anyway. Also, just to let you know.

Yep.

So it changed from 100 to 75.

Yeah, that's what changed as far as I went from what it was designated as 100.75. Actually, all of that code 82 is 75. Awesome.

So going through the performance standards of section 6C7, access from shore. The access from the shore shall be developed on soils appropriate for such use and measures shall be taken to minimize soil erosion. This is a seasonal marine structure, so it's... Can I ask a question about that?

Notice as you walk down onto the dock, it's just kind of spongy. forest floor, and it is very soft. And there's no ledge, obviously, so we can't require a ledge. But is there something that we could or should be concerned about with respect to that being eroded?

Which is from trees that were grinded on your property. So he put trees, like tree stumping or grindings along the pathway, which is what we want and DEP wants. They don't want store-bought wood chips because apparently they have chemicals, but these are trees that would, if I'm not mistaken, because I could tell when you had them chopped, I could see that he was using those. He could have used erosion control mix if he wanted to, which is ideally grind stops as well. So what he has there is what the

Dp, and the talent wants to see, I just didn't think it actually went all the way to the. Edge whether there was a section of it, this just kind of has the potential to just be money. Yeah, that's all I was wondering about whether it should be maybe sort of protected a little better. So it doesn't wash away there. Thank you.

So, interference with existing uses and beaches. The marine structure shall not interfere with developed or natural beach areas nor access to existing marine structures and point of public access. I mean, you're coming right off the shore into the lilies. Three, effect on fisheries and wildlife. The marine structure shall be designed, sited, and constructed to minimize adverse impacts on fisheries, significant wildlife habitats, or unique natural areas, including but not limited to fin fish and shellfish fisheries, salt marshes, eelgrass bed, thorn bird, and nesting habitats, critical fish spawning, and nursery areas.

I have a question, but how do we assess that on this pond? I mean, it's obvious that you're going right out onto a heavily vegetated and right over a heavily vegetated pond in order to place this. Do we have, do we need to have concerns about that impact or advice about how that we regard it?

Let me come back to that. Somebody asked that because I wanted to, I thought I sent them that.

Right. Size, the facilities shall be no larger in dimension than necessary to carry on the activity and be consistent with the surrounding character and uses of the area. A temporary pier dock or wharf shall not be wider than six feet for non commercial uses. Oh, wait. Not very wide, is it not? Yeah, we're 6 and 1 quarter of an inch.

Oh, jeez. Well. No.

Is it? Well, so do we count in one direction? Yeah. The way it's configured, it's 4 feet by 6 and 1 quarter. So that's 10. So the first. Wait a second. So the, when let's, let's have the applicant explain the dimensions, you know, the first dimension written on the, on the application is the 41 feet, 10 inches long by I can't read that by four, but eight,

But 5 inches long.

So it's 41 feet. 41.10 by 4 feet wide by 8 feet.

8.5 inches long by 6 and a quarter feet wide.

Yeah, the L at the end. And the whole thing is 6 feet and 1 quarter of an inch wide. Yes, yeah, I think the 4 foot section is side by side. With the 6 and a quarter section figure, so it's 1031. Yeah, it's 10. no, it's 4 plus 6 and a quarter. 10 feet wide so you mean you're asking the question what is width and what is length oh yeah i guess that's what we have so he's got the 41 feet 10 inches is the total length of it right from the l all the way out right it's going out that's the pure part yeah and then you've got a separate piece that you have yeah that you measure it's on the side it's an l right it's not a

But is the part, the L shape added onto the side of the four foot long, or is it, I mean, the drawing looks like it's 41, whatever, by four foot all the way out to the very end. And then the part that's added on, if it's six feet wide, then it is making that section of the dock 10 feet wide.

I mean, Kim leads the room. Yeah.

Yeah, but I look at that as like two sections of length.

Yes, two different pieces.

I know.

I mean, I'm...

When you stood out at the end, wouldn't you have said that the float, that the overall dock, like rather than just, you know, it becomes one unit, it doesn't have different levels or anything, so it all becomes one, and you've got a section that's 41 by 4, and then it attached to the side of it at the end, if it is, in fact, that the other square is 6 foot wide by 8 foot 6, actually the side of it, then the overall width at the end is 10 feet wide.

Can we account for all these other that we have out on the pond, sir?

Are they never more than feet wide?

The seasonal ones can be.

That's what this is. Yeah.

Does the side section butt the end of the pier or is the pump attached to the side? Like if I walk down the 41 foot piece, is the side piece at the end or is it on the side? I forgot. On the side. So the end, so it's not adding length to the pier itself, right? No.

Is it possible to just simply rearrange the dock and take that section that's eight foot six by six feet wide and put that out at the end rather than putting it next to it so that it's not so that it meets the code and it stays six feet wide.

I want to hear from my guru before I personally start recommending he has to reconfigure it. Well, I just didn't know if it was easy to do. Yeah.

Hey, yes, we'll come back to that. What's. 13, yes, you know. I guess no, no, no, we're in 5, so no new structures. No new structure shall be built on over or abutting a pier, wharf dock, or other structure extending below. You're not building a structure out on the seasonal dock. 6, no permanent piers and docks, new permanent piers and docks. New permanent piers and docks on non-tidal waters shall not be permanent unless it's clearly demonstrated to the planning board that a temporary pier dock is not feasible. Well, you do have a temporary pier dock, so. That covers that. Seven, conversion to dwellings, no existing structures built on or abutting a pier dock wharf or other structure extending below the normal high water line shall be converted in a residential dwelling. You're not doing that.

This is the habitat map. Hard to read. So I enlarged the area, which is right here. So if it had this or this on it, then it's a habitat protection area. Okay. So this is inland wading bird habitat. This is tidal. So as you can see, there's nothing there, so it's not a protected area. I'm sorry about that. Thank you.

Great. Well, we developed another question while you were out. I want to see that. When you were out, we developed another question and that was the size.

Yeah.

A temporary period of time should not be wider than six feet for non-commercial uses. We get tangled up on the width versus length and the way you've got this configured and whether or not it is actually violates that provision the way it's configured.

I mean, you could maybe the dog system and the walking portion is only 4 feet on.

Yeah.

I mean, I don't know if you want to consider the 8 by. 8 and a half by 6 and a quarters is a. A flow, because you can't access it from the 8 by 14. you have to walk up the 4 by. 4 by 41 session.

so that piece on the other end is afloat it's not up here doc award i'm saying okay thank you 50.67535 yes thank you thank you for doing this all right so performance standard number eight heightland

Make a finding on 67.

Yeah, I don't, we're not, I'm just, yeah, we're still. Yeah, so we're just going through the performance standards of 67. Yeah, the height limit is not in, except in the shoreline commercial district. You can't build stuff over it. It's not doing that. Nine, interference with natural flow. Interference with natural flow of any surface or subsurface water shall be minimized during construction and use of the marine structure. Again, it's a temporary structure. Encroachment on navigation. The marine structure shall be designed, sited, and constructed so it's not encroached upon officially designated navigation channels. I don't believe there are any on Little Echo. 11 mooring area. There's no mooring area in Little Echo. And then 12 dimensional limits. And we've got the chart here. And just going down, the maximum length of the entire marine structure is 225 feet.

He's got 41 feet, 10 inches.

Now, they're nowhere near that. Maximum length of permanent structures, those aren't allowed. Maximum length of all non-permanent structures, 75 feet. And he was, he's 41.10. Maximum width of pure walkway is six feet.

And am I catching that correctly, that you're trying to say that the end of the doc we're counting is a float?

Yes. But it doesn't float.

How do you call that a float?

I still consider it a float.

As long as we're consistent, I'm good with it.

Okay, are we good with that still?

Do we have like, is there a definition in the definite? I guess I just, I don't want it to come back and bite us in the future. I don't have what he's got there. It's just.

Is that piece also. Is it to it as well? It doesn't.

No, we don't have a definition of flow.

Yeah.

which just says the piers, docks, floats, wharves, bridges, and other marine structures extending over or below the normal high water line of the water body or within a wetland. I'm okay with it.

Maximum width of pier walkway is six feet and he's four feet, right? Maximum width of ramp is six feet. They don't really have a ramp. Maximum square footage of floats, that's for the 50.675350 square feet came from and 400 are allowed. And then this is not a communal pier dock.

This is all coming from the state, right? This wording isn't just the town, right?

These developmental requirements are town standards, not DEP standards.

Well, I, I, I don't have any problem with the idea that like the end where you hang out should be definitely allowed to be wider than six feet. And it's not, it's not really the pier or a ramp, but it doesn't float. And so it's hard to call it a float too. And I just think, uh, rather than rejecting it, that maybe we should suggest that it'd be clarified that we don't call the end of the dock a float. Cause that's what's throwing me. what do you call it yeah it's usually a float but floats float i i don't have any i think if that's the way that we've been reviewing things I think we should be fair and approve this. I just think maybe that's something that we should clarify in the wording. And when somebody has some time to think about how to call the end of a dock, that area that we allow for, if it isn't floating, what do we call it? I think in most ponds, it's going to be floating. So I get why they called it a float, but

The way I was thinking about it was you kind of like changed the direction of the peer. You're also changing where the length and width are. So like in this case, just make the L, the length is now just horizontal instead of vertical, but the width is still been enough to comply. So it's, that's the way I just kind of think of it. It's still a peer honestly, but it's just, you're just changing how you're measuring and looking at the length and the width.

so is the six feet so is the it's the eight and a half that's ended added on to the four feet so it's actually 12 feet wide at the very end no it's a it's it's a four foot uh 41 foot 10 inch straight right by four wide straight out to the water and then off to the side there's an eight and a half by six and a quarter inch rectangle That has ladders on it.

But they're directly attached to each other. So they become one. I mean, they're level and they're flat with each other. So I guess it's the... uh, if you wanted to say that the width and length and rotates, then the six feet would have to turn and be perpendicular. You know, you, the width would be four feet out and then the width would be perpendicular to the width coming out and it would be six feet. But I think that's eight and a half feet. Otherwise it's all one, one structure, one level, one, one form.

That was what was throwing me off because I look at the L configuration and kind of what we are standing on is I would expect that it comes out the forefoot and then it turns the forefeet, comes over. But it doesn't in this case. It's like a side float that doesn't float on the end of it. I mean, it's also in like two feet of water. so the side float is the eight and a half by six and a quarter dimension i think if it was floating it'd probably be it might be actually down in the mud and compressing the lilies if that were the case

Or are you saying if it's attached so that it's attached at the very end of the dock as opposed to in it right at its feet?

No, I'm just kind of...

I mean...

I look at it as like a dock with like a side element.

Mm-hmm.

It's not... And if I was thinking of the whole thing as dock, I would expect to see that forefoot width turn and go... then go East. I mean, creating the L I mean, cause in technically you, I don't think you can do that.

What's that?

You can't, if the, If the width of this is, you know, it's how Matt said, you kind of break it down. I mean, if you were to go out to four feet, you can't increase the width of that beyond six feet and turn it and run it than if it's all docked. But if it's a dock with an attached element, like a float, you can do that. So, I mean, I think what we're hearing here is that it's essentially the 4110 straight out four feet wide, and then it has this attached element that's eight feet five inches by the six and a quarter off the side of it.

When they put it in next year, can they put that element on the end of it rather than on the side of it?

Does that matter?

No.

If you want it to float instead of being fastened to the land, then ask them to remove the pet legs or do a float on that side.

Having it elevated above the water somewhat preserves the lily pad population.

I don't see any problem with what he's done at all. It just isn't quite fitting. I don't see how we fit it in the definition. I think the definitions are the problem rather than, or the words.

I kind of get where Meredith's going because, I mean, think of the precedent that could set, I mean, you could put a side element that's bigger than that.

Mm-hmm.

if I'm mistaken, but much bigger. I mean, if it's 400 square feet.

Can it be simply written in the way that they've described it, rather than saying that ramp is 41 feet? feet and 10 inches, subtract the eight and a half inches off of that so that what you see in the drawing is four feet by 41 minus 10 and 41 feet, 10 inches minus eight and a half, two foot two, would be. Do you see where I'm going? Making a square on the end and saying the ramp is just the part that goes out to the big rectangle and make it a big rectangle at the end. So we say that's what we're qualifying as float. So there's a big square at the end rather than saying that the ramp goes all the way out and then there's this wider bit of the ramp that exceeds the width that's allowed on the side of it. It just doesn't. It's not shaped like a float, it's not acting like a float, but if you say, well, that's the ramp out and there's no, we don't offer any definition for what a fixed big square at the end is. So we're going to stick that in under the qualification of float, but that means that whole end and what the end of what's now being called ramp is part of the float.

I think the thing I'm stuck on is it's not floating.

Well, that's up to you guys what you want to do.

What would you guys say about if it's going to have that dimension? And if it is resting on the bottom, on the legs, then it's got to conform to the dimensions of the... Well, he can take what he's got if he can rotate the six foot by eight and a half foot section and rotate that out to the end.

so it becomes six we'll let the quarter of an inch or whatever the hell it is go you know four feet to six feet then at the end yeah well it it goes straight out and then this the section we're debating would just go out on the end so it would be a ramp that was four feet and it would bloom out to six feet at the end but it's all fixed solid so

Any thoughts on taking that piece and putting it on the end?

You understand the problem we're having? It's like it's kind of angels on a head. Yeah.

I mean, if it helps the board. I didn't look up online. You know, there's a lack of a definition. You can use other resources. So because of the temporary nature of the side piece, I pilings so long as like the pilings aren't permanent themselves and so it could technically be afloat it's you know because it's not there all the time so for a seasonal temporary structure we can consider something connected afloat yeah because like yeah you know the gangway central is not there all the time either so in theory if the pilings aren't there throw on the ground and just sink into the mud but um i think for to protect the environment or you could say that it's worth allowing just temporary pylons to be there to support the floor so that doesn't damage the nature underneath i can buy that and i'm more comfortable with that yeah good good definition okay all right all right so we're

That was section 12 of 67, dimensional limits. There's no other sections to 67, so I'm going to mark C, application. And then 69, roads and driveways, and A, and 6011, water quality. It's a standard net. So see application. So. The findings of factor that the proposed use will include none of the specific activities or land uses described in section 60, except for. 6C2, 6C7, and 6C11. And the conclusion of the law is that Section 6C is not applicable except for 6C2, 6C7, and 6C11 for which the standard has been met.

So moved. Second.

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

Aye.

And then because we're in the shoreline zone, we've got Section 5-9, which is kind of a rehash of 6-7, but bear with us. All right. 5-9-1 will maintain safe and healthful conditions. See application. 5-9-2 will not result in water pollution, erosion, or sedimentation of surface waters. See application. 593 will adequately provide for the disposal of all wastewater, NA. 594 will not have an adverse impact on spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, bird, or other wildlife habitat. See application. 595 will conserve shore cover and visual as well as actual points of access to inland and coastal waters. See application. 596 will protect archaeological and historic resources as designated in the Comp Plan. See application. 597 will not adversely affect existing commercial fishing or maritime activities or shoreline commercial zone. And hey, you're not in it. 598 will avoid problems with the floodplain. C application 599 is in conformance with the provisions of section 6A, B, and C. They have standard met. So the findings in fact are C above and the conclusion law is all requirements for section 5.9 have been met. So moved.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Or any permit conditions, right?

So. You need a permit now. Okay, I'll send you the application.

Right, I mean, circle back to Gail's motion. We're going to press play all those in favor of approving the application.

Hi.

Hi. Hi. Congrats.

Cool. And this will be, I'll get the from it and then this will be good.

Yep.

Regularly, I don't have to do it.

Yep, you don't have to reapply every year and then, nope. Okay.

Yes.

Good to go.

Thank you for joining us on the journey. All right. All right, Matt, we've got other.

that is we are going to review and discuss the conditional use approval application non-conforming structures and subdivision application checklist yep i actually didn't bring the conditional use one because i thought we went over yeah well it brings the i'm in the shoreline zone and i brought the application for substitute and then the checklist that would go along with that i carry on the Everybody everybody get them.

I'm sorry. I need to stop asking them out.

Yeah, that 1. I just got here's the application for subdivision. And here's the checklist. Do you have non-conforming?

I have a lot of excitement.

Which one do you want to start with? Let's start with the subdivision stuff. Actually, that one's easier. Do you have the subdivision? I don't have any idea.

Which one of the subdivision ones are you starting with?

I'll start with the application.

Owner, applicant and authorized agent.

Oh, yes. Authorized agent at the top. So this would be the application that is like. Applicant basement, I mean, you would get it as part of your packets. And so it's really 2 pieces. There's like the actual application and then the. Cut off title. That's the list of things that are in the ordinance and trying to make it be more explanatory. So people know as a regular narrative kind of what's expected and summarizes parts of the ordinance as well. You know, go back and forth. I think this will just kind of be like maybe it's a separate document, not really part of the application, but kind of a guide to walk through, I guess. Cool. It might confuse them, though, because they're not going to be about everything every time, but that's what that's our lovely staff here for. Yeah, just a pretty basic application as for generalized. Property information that's for subdivisions only it just gets into well, and, you know, some lots of creative or how many are existing on your plot already. Um, that's from previous area. Um, because this thing and propose best floor area, which is this thing and propose. And then, yeah, utility information, that sort of thing. And at the bottom, there's a thing for the staff to fill out just to make sure the fee got paid. And public hearing is checklist for them. They can make sure everything was advertised properly, So I think it's pretty straightforward, but I think the equity fee is partially just a summary of everything that's in the ordinance.

Looks very helpful.

Nice to have an application, finally.

I just want to say last night, Meredith and I were at Southwest Fargo's planning board meeting, and we did a peer at .

Gosh, I'm glad that it wasn't as difficult. But I have to say that that peer was so hard to get through. I went through such misery for that peer. So the fact that the final step of going through planning board was easy, I deserved it.

You need to come in and sign this, uh,

Okay, yeah, yeah.

So, the next part of stuff that's up is the checklist for themselves, which is which. Guys will look at and reviewing them. Uh, Lance is bigger of the 2, um, you know, because. It's a new ordinance, um, there's the new created kind of like site plan, I guess review for a subdivision structure. required review criteria, which again, you can request like an applicant to review them for structures as well. It's just, it's only required all the time for land. Then there's some breakdowns of the sorts of, if there's subsections under categories like traffic or pollution, there's also a little separate check boxes to make sure you won't go over each one.

Can I ask a question?

Yeah.

So if this is land, why do you want number of dwelling

What? That's an oversight on my part.

Oh, okay.

I think that is complicated. Oh, okay. Yeah. Alright. That one should just probably be a number of lots proposed as well. Yeah. Or, yeah, to get rid of the belonging.

And then the proposed structure.

Actually, no. Because this one should also be used if it's both structure and land at the same time. So there could be belonging. If someone's doing a subdivision where you divide the land and then add structures at the same time. Just dividing the land. I could, yeah, that should stay there, but that should just change the title to subdivision of land and or land and structure.

And then just have land. Right? Because it's going to be a building division. That's right.

The way that the ordinance is set up, if you're dividing land or it's a division of both land and structure simultaneously, you go through the pool. So this one could have dwelling units involved. It's just always have dwelling units involved.

What if it's just land though?

If you still use this, you just, when they have a number of dwelling units, you put zero.

Oh, okay. All right. Now you confuse me. All right. I forgot. I'm going to sit down.

No, the title should say subdivision of lands for simultaneous subdivision. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Land and structure, this is the place to.

What's up simplicity.

Yeah, I think it covers everything. Hopefully it's clear. And I did add the notes, so, like, see attached application document entered in the record. So. You don't necessarily need to place the application every time you can check it and notes. I might write what that document is still the title of it, but. You can just put a little X mark in that box.

That's a traffic main deal to approval when applicable to that. Is there a. A limitation on when it kicks in the main.

Yeah, I mean, so, like, if they ever needed a traffic movement improvement, you'd have to like, so. that's like the 180 feet trigger. Other ones I can think of off the top of my head, but yeah, they're just times when DOT would review it anyway. And if it's required to get reviewed by DOT, you have to do that before you come to the funding board.

So is, but there's, is there, how does somebody know that, applicants?

Yeah, I could put that in the guidance. Is there any? I think it's in the ordinance too.

Yeah, well, is that part of the, this year?

I don't think I put it in the trigger here.

Yeah, I think you should put it so that in the form of views that they're aware that this should have required maintain or team.

The applicant would therefore know that they have the information for you.

Hey, Matt. Yes, minor correction for you on 4.3.3. says me there's a me rather it's missing the t thank you me and not me so nice to have the option to say that it isn't met is not enough

So, everything helps on that 1, I think. Go through all the 4.3 requirements. And structure is the same, it's just different. Section references. Then, yeah, I guess the question is. For you guys where it says other information is needed in section 4.3. Supposing a project requires a lot of information from Section 4.3, would it be more helpful? At that point, you really could just pull out a copy of the land one and then just start marking it up as an appendix to the structure one, depending on what you're asking for. Or I could just make an actual appendix document that gets pulled out the event that you are requesting a lot of information, 4.3. It just looks like it's actually meant to be an appendix of the 4.4.

What's land subject to liquidation harvesting?

That's state-required.

State-required or something? That's it for harvesting? Yeah.

Oh, it is? Yeah.

They just say go through the Department of Conservation and Forestry.

I'm pretty sure your ordinance says that the state's EDP is responsible for that sort of thing. But then it'll just come in with the affidavit that says that it doesn't have anything. Again, I don't think there's anywhere in town, honestly, most of your unclear, like, forest is national parks. Big chunk of it, isn't it? Yeah. I'd be surprised if anybody ever came in for something like that.

Is that part of that second checklist? It suddenly had the state one. I can't remember what it is. Where's spaghetti lots coming to? But I mean, that's where liquidation sting is mentioned is in that second one.

Remember correctly, yeah, I mean, all of that stuff, it's like, that's 1 of the 1, some of these are, I shouldn't say all of these are state required, but that's 1 of the ones that the town and put it in some of the subdivision review stuff. Like, it's based on the. We look with plants up into liquid harvesting is in every town's. Well, it should be in every town subdivision, or if the state required. Like, check that marketing.

On your non-conformity site overview, do you think that it would be good to have a property address or map and lot at the top to identify the non-conformity shoreland zone application? We're not there yet. Oh, sorry. I was just... Sorry.

Segment this subdivision stuff real quick.

Oh, on the subdivision revision, is there a way to say subdivisions? Because this would only come into effect when the subdivision law came into effect, right?

Yeah, this would only be a revision to an approved subdivision.

Right, so like subdivision law came into effect in what, 71?

Yeah, so it does say previously approved subdivision. So if it's like a subdivision that was older than needing subdivision approval.

Right. But is there, I wonder if there's subdivision revision. I see a lot of times people say, oh, my subdivision was approved in 1952. Yeah, whatever. And the ordinance doesn't state that. I mean, but you have plans. I've seen old plans for planning board approved even maybe when subdivision law came into effect. So, is there a way to say, you know, regardless of the year or something or subdivision revision or, you know, I mean, is there a time, a year or that this should qualify? You know what I'm saying? I do. I'm trying to think about the answer.

If something's been approved by the planning board, like before subdivision process was involved, so like if it's 71 or later, it would have to come through this subdivision amendment or revision process. But if the planning board, like if it wasn't really a subdivision because 71 subdivision review started, but the planning board still reviewed it and approved it.

As subdivision is recorded.

Then yeah, I would say it still would come through It's a reported subdivision. Come through here.

So should it say anything like regardless of when approved, the previous subdivision was approved or?

Yeah, I will think about the best way. Okay. But it has to be filed, right? So all filed subdivision, can you just do something broader than just say all subdivision? I guess someone just says previously approved subdivision, but maybe it's revisions previously reported.

Something like that. Because there are sort of informal subdivisions, right?

Where over the years it was like random like families and stuff and then these are just natural growth.

Yeah, but it's like an exemption. They don't get the file of the subdivision. You can just split the land and report to them.

Well, sometimes people do that though. Family divisions because then courts and families, you know, yeah.

Yeah, I think let me change it to recorded subdivision and then. just think about that more so just to make sure that's right that's what approves subdivisions that's what's in the order so if we change it here i'll probably want to change it to in the order so revisions to previously approve subdivisions yeah yeah yeah i mean think about like you take more time to look at this if you want uh just email me comments but those would be the checklist. And the application too is more for the applicant themselves, but that's what they would fill out for a subdivision. And that's also what you get in your packet. So that's more like trying to consolidate like important information in one place. So it's helpful for you guys. If there's information you think that would also be helpful to have on the application and on sheet, let me know and I can find space to add it. The next one is the nonconforming and the shortlisting. Yeah, it's good. I had questions for you because you had some comments about it. Let me talk about it too. I think our last conversation, this whole concept is pretty confusing. The way, again, a lot of this information is just I was learning language, so it's not particularly well-written, but it's also not like logically organized.

Thank you.

And so as well, borrowing your words.

So I think,

you know last time you and I talked about this we kind of ended on making three separate checklists essentially a checklist every time in the order like in this review process the non-conformity like you may have a review of a structure which would only need 4.3.2 information really but then if you say relocation of a structure and foundation you need to look at or if it comes in the 4.5, and then after vegetation, you have to look at 4.3.5, as well as whatever else you're already supposed to look at. And then reconstruction or replacement is 4.3.6, which then tells you to go look at 4.3.2, 4.3.3.5, and then 4.5, so you have to look at everything when reviewing it anyway. And then it has its own checklist in addition to reviewing everything else. And so, yeah, just trying to think. So again, like this checklist right here makes sense for 4.3.6 because you're gonna have to review everything anyway. But I guess maybe Gail, your point is that rather than like starting the 4.3.6 3.6 to start with reviewing it then you get down to the 4.3.5 and you've got to put back to 4.3.5 and you get the next checklist item which is 4.3.2 and you have to put back to 4.3.2 um i think i yeah i would just need to make so like this checklist works at 4.3.6 but the title of it could just be like relocation or reconstruction replacement checklist Because you're going to go through everything anyway, but then you're not flipping back and forth because you're following 4.3.6. You're just naturally reviewing everything because you have to anyway. And then you get to the 4.3.6 stuff. So then when you get to the 4.3.5, 4.3.3, and 4.5, you've already checked it all off, so you don't have to flip back. You just hit check, check, check.

Yeah, whatever you said. And just to reiterate my hopefully simple goal, to orient the planning board and the public. I want us to be able to look at an application and look at the form and figure out right at the outset, what is this application? Is it for expansion? Is it for relocation? Is it for reconstruction? And for each of those activities, as you have been trying to explain, the ordinance requires different things. It requires you to go left and right and north and south and east and west. And what I'd like us to be able to do is sequentially, if it's an expansion, we have an application form that only concerns ourselves with what we need to determine for expansion. I mean, there may be things we have more than one aspect. I realize that. But then maybe we have to fill out two different forms. We've got the expansion form. We've got the relocation form. And that in as much order as we can make it happen, the criteria is there for relocation or reconstruction or whatever it is, but that we orient ourselves and time and place and space at the outset by, what are we doing here? We're doing this, we're doing this, or we're not doing this.

Call me crazy, but would a flow chart be?

I did make you guys a flow chart for this. I'm pretty sure I did. Maybe for something on the short lines. I don't remember off the top of my head. Because, yeah, it definitely is more of a flow chart. Or having a flow chart to accompany this would be helpful. Because my only concern with Gale is that when you do an expansion or a relocation, or any of them, they might all tie together. So you're essentially just going to have that one half sheet that's just this, one half sheet that's just this. And you're still going to be flipping back and forth to make sure you checked everything properly. But you might have an expansion that doesn't remove or relocate vegetation. And then you wouldn't need this one. So maybe the checklist really isn't the thing that I should be working on more. It's more about the application that directs you. What the process should be for each of you. Or can you take. Right. I think the checklist should contain all of it. And then you're just told ahead of time which of these sections you're actually going to need to look at so that you're not, like, you know which is N, A before you even, like, open the packet.

Correct. And then we're not sitting here doing this looking like we know what we're talking about when we're processing this application. we have it laid out for us in some form so that we can.

Well, you shouldn't have to flip back and forth, because I eventually did just copy and paste the ordinances.

Right. Right. Well, the checklist that they've been using is word for word the ordinances. Right. You know, and like 3.5, which is relocation, it breaks down, you know, size of the lot, fee removal, you know, I mean, I don't know how much easier you can make it because it's a complicated section without a doubt. I'm sure a lot of planning boards are, you know, fumbled through that section where they review non-conformities. Oh, what comfort that is.

yeah so maybe because i was struggling to split this into three separate checklists just because i was like i'm essentially making the same checklist over again i'm just reordering where 4.6 might be or where 4.3.5 might be i guess i don't have a prop and that doesn't i know it can be from the department of redundancy department but if we knew that we were doing an enlargement

And we weren't going to have to do this, and we're only going to have to do this. Well, that's 1 separate form. If you have that now.

I was wondering if the application is where the tool really that would solve the problem.

Yeah, we don't have an application. We have a checklist. But we don't have an application. Someone can use. Checklist there is a specific checklist with just 4.3.2. And then 4.3.6 also includes 4.3.5.

So when we, when individual board members, as opposed to the chair and the packet fair, when we get our application, do we, if we had, if we all had those checklists to orient ourselves as we're processing it.

Well, we might have given it to the chair only and the secretary, because she has to write, supposed to write the notes down. Um, And Bill, you know, typically, I don't have a problem giving you, it's just, it's just, it's, you know, Bill's the one going through it as a chair and he's just getting you guys' opinions and stuff. But the ordinances, your ordinances should be with you and that's, you follow those sections of what he's going through.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with that. And I think, and again, as I said at one of the prior meetings, this is like going to a surgeon who does hips or knees all the time and you're going to get a better job from someone who only does them once every six months. And if we only, if we as board members only do this once in a while, we don't develop any fluidity. And I don't, maybe I'm, maybe I should speak to myself, but I would, so I find it's,

I think, so maybe look at copies of the existing checklists. I think if you have copies of the ordinance, it's easy enough to just stick. You're not like keeping notes on them. You can just have a copy of the checklist and just pull it out whenever you need it for your types of projects to review it. But then, so you can compare this checklist with that one and just see if one suits your needs better. And then I'll work on an application that would then kind of just put a direction for the board Because, I mean, I think every board member should get it.

An applicant should have an application, too.

They'll have to fill it out, but that would then orient the board on which sections they're actually going to have to use for a specific project.

Well, when I do the agenda, I always put the section that's applicable to what their review is.

Well, I guess if it's Well, I guess, yeah, if it's a reconstruction, you're almost always going to have to go through the other sections.

You have to go from 3.5, because you're looking for where your straddle stands on this.

Right. And then you have to do that analysis, and then you have to do the setbacks from 3.2, and then .

I guess my big thing is, that I've stated before, is that like the process we just did here for this doc, I would like Bill or whoever to be able to process this nonconformity for expansion or whatever, and then fill out the form, go through it, and at the end that he's done it, a board member can say so moved as opposed to, because he's got all the information, he's got what he needs as standards in order to be able to have findings of fact and conclusions of law. And we're not in a situation where another board member is creating a a narrative, a short story motion that makes sure that you dot all the I's and cross all the T's, I would like us to be able to do it. Because that's a mess. I mean, as someone who's done that more than I want to ever do again, and I'm sure other people here have done that.

So like right now when you make a motion, it's not? I would just say all sections of 4.3.2 as applicable. And then if there are additional ones adding on like 4.3.5, if there is vegetation, the motion's not just like that.

No, it tends to be somebody is verbalizing each of the findings of facts and each of the conclusions of law. And there's, there's, as I, there's not been a form that could be just easily filled out by the person managing that. And so you don't, so someone on the board doesn't have to construct that out of. Yeah.

I don't know that again, as long as you're discussing it and filling it out on your findings, facts, forms of emotion, probably don't have to say like, If you have to do 4.5, like, it met lot size and that's the central soilers. And as long as it's in the record that you just tested and found out that that you can make a motion that met all of the requirements section 4.5. And then just say, like, as described in our finding the facts.

You also got to be, I hate to say this. Well, because if you get killed. You know, you always got to keep that in mind that, you know, you're thorough with your. Well, I mean, um, inclusion laws and your finance facts. Yeah. So it doesn't get kicked that.

Right. Maybe you still have to go through everything and review it.

Yeah. That's why if you have a section, like for example, vegetation or where's the one that's like, well, they're like neighbors and it's, it's, it's the, it's the rebuilding one. We can start with the appraiser, the, um,

4.3.5 is the one you're talking about.

Right, or 4.3.6. Instead of someone having, if you just go through the form, structures damaged by 50% of market values, that's because there's a document in mode. And someone doesn't have to articulate that when they're making a motion. I don't know. I mean, that's what I'm trying to hope we can get to. Do you?

Yeah, I mean, just, you know.

Yeah, I think if the making the motion's the problem, maybe, like, the lawyer's given different advice in the past, but I don't think, like, you're going to just review the project, you're going through 4.3.6, maybe you're finding a back comment, and the motion is just...

Being a visual person, you know, I think of the... in my head like okay we gotta start here and because it's this type of project then we gotta go over to here well i was gonna get back to the flow chart yeah and of course that's where i'm going with that and i you know and and i think he kind of started essentially outlining it with this but i i feel like I don't think it's as simple as us just checking it. And again, the biggest challenge I feel like we have in the world is just, okay, which path, A, B, or C? Are we going left or right or forward?

Oh, yeah, we have to do the sewer thing.

Oh, yeah. So, you know, it's kind of this circuitous path sometimes, but I feel like if we could better...

envision it based on what the right nuances of the application are and everyone's different you know and right just double check and see if I did if I make the clip chart for this one or I did something and draw the hands in but if I didn't do it for this one I can make a flow chart for this and just see if that's helpful to

It would be. Let's try it anyway, because then you've got your reviewed format is here.

Okay.

And can I ask you a. When we did a project like . Why wasn't that under any of that under Section 4? Because it's like, was it all conforming? Because it was, well, yeah.

It was. Because it was the doc. They were replacing that, and it meant setbacks. All right. Yeah, there's a structure on it, but it's grandfather. They weren't doing anything with that. They were just raising the pier, so it was going to raise the building. And they were extending the ramp. So, I mean, that was all part.

Okay.

That's why nonconforming.

It took me a while to... I kind of think that was the answer to get there eventually. Thank you.

Well, I would have thought that because there was a structure, even though it's grandfathered, that that's still grandfathered things that don't meet the code now. I thought they were still considered nonconforming.

Well, no, because while they weren't doing anything with it, they were raising the fear, which was allowed to happen. And then DEP approved the whole application, even though they were raising the fear of the building. Technically, we've also gone higher because of the fear. That's allowed.

They're not changing the building. They're moving it and then putting it back, same building. Okay.

Not different than what you did with the- They're not enlarging.

They're not moving it permanently.

They're just taking it off to do what they got to do and then putting it right back on. But yes.

So the flowchart I had then was just a general non-conforming uses flowchart. another one that's specific.

Let's see what that does.

Yeah.

We'll get there.

Good job, man. Thank you.

Thank you.

And one more item.

Okay.

Under other reasons. So as you guys may recall, I sent you an email regarding the pre-K. Gail's going to stay in school. My dad's a elementary school adding a deck and a ramp side of the building towards gilpatrick lane um and that's and then they're going to replace a window with a door from one of the classrooms um i i pulled all you guys and i got a three to three decision because i got a three to three decision This has, I need to know if this has to go to planning because it's I didn't get a majority.

So, I mean, I guess sure to render an opinion.

Yeah. And I am because I'm on the school board. He's on the board.

And I'd stayed how I voted. I didn't, I think this fell within the general context of the original application and it didn't need to come before us as, you know, they're essentially making, I mean, life safety accommodations and accessibility accommodations here. We're not talking about adding additional classroom area and all this stuff.

Now the kids apparently go out back of the building. there's a playground in the back, then they have to go through the parking lot, and then they have to go around the building, too.

This is an accessibility issue, and I think that's part of the original big picture that they came before us with, and I don't think...

They came before us, or they came before the planning board, probably before all of you, and before me in 2002, to do an addition to the building, which I... That didn't affect anything on that side of the building.

No, but again.

I just wanted to make clear that you understood nothing was being done on that side of that building.

I understood nothing was being done on that side of the building and that I considered this more of a life safety and an accessibility issue. And therefore, it did not need to come before us.

Because you felt it was a minor expansion. Yes, because that's an expansion. So. And the expansion to a use that requires conditionally, it was can technically not be expanded unless it's minor.

I thought this was minor.

Okay, but that's I still 3 for 3, unless you can convince someone here tonight that voted. They need to come before the bar.

Thanks, Alan.

It's already made, I mean, I've already got the decisions, but it's just, you know, I mean, if you don't want to count his, then I will have a three to two where it needs to come to . When did? When Alan was a minor. Dan was, it needs to come to planning board. Meredith was need to come to the planning board. Gail's abstained. And she just said tonight that it needs to come to planning board.

So then it sounds like it needs to come to the planning board.

Yeah, that's what I just needed to know to let them know.

Based upon that vote. Yeah. Got it. Yep.

Because Ann was also a, does not need to come to planning.

Got it.

So, that's why I was 3 for 3 with Gail upstanding.

So, it sounds like I'm standing, but I thought it didn't need to come to court, but I didn't just based on those.

Those votes counted that I just needed to know.

So I know how to go forward with this. 3 just was like, I have no decision.

Right any other other.

my decision okay we're good motion to return is that a motion yeah yes it is second right any further discussion all those in favor aye aye thank you thank you