Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Let's get some name plaques. All right, I'll call to order the town of Mount Desert planning board meeting for August 12th, 2026. And I'll first welcome everybody aboard. So here we are, gorgeous night. We will be as efficient as possible and let me kick it off with some introductions and say that we're missing. 3 board members tonight, but we have a quorum for both items on the. agenda tonight. Alan Kimmerly isn't here, Daniel Burke and the alternate member isn't here, and Meredith isn't here. But you've got Anne Dalton, Tracy Loftus Keller, myself, Chairman Bill Hanley, and Gail Marshall. And we don't need to vote anybody on because we're all voting members on the board. So let's do this. See, 1st item on the well, that was the 1st item 2nd item on the agenda tonight. We've got the minutes from July 8.

So, I move approval of the minutes of July 8.

2nd, that all those in favor aye aye aye. Right? So the quorum is 3 on this board. So we got, we can approve those and then, um. Let's get into it. We've got item number three on the agenda that is we've got two conditional use approval applications. And the first one tonight is conditional use approval application 1226. Owner's name is the GST Exempt Trust, FBO E. Reid. Agent is Georgia Balduck from Pierce Atwood. Location is 6 Whoville Way, Seal Harbor. Tax map 31, lot 61-002. The zone is Village Residential 1, purpose of section 6B8, fences and walls exceeding CEO's authority. We had a site inspection at 515 and was this one advertised?

Yes, it was advertised in the Ellsworth American on publication of July 30th, 2026 and Butters were notified by letter dated July 28th, 2026. All right.

And then I'll ask if there's any conflict of interest on the board. None heard. And we had a site inspection at 515. And Anne, would you like to report your observations from the site inspection?

We met at 6 Whoville Way. And we observed a fence already installed six foot to seven foot in places. And it is adjacent to the right-of-way road of Whoville.

Gail.

Wood construction fence.

Wood construction. Gail, Tracy, anything else to add?

There was no vegetation on the roadside of the fence. It was on the inside. And it's a solid stockade type fence.

All right. There you go. Well, I'm going to turn it over to the applications agent, and you're on board.

And you're welcome to come up here and speak if you'd like to do that.

Thank you. So some of this information will feel consistent with what I said on the site walk, but I'm happy to give. So I'm Georgia Fulldick. I am an attorney at Pierce Atwood, and I am working with Selecta Reed, who owns the property at 6 Whoville Way. And we have submitted an after the fact conditional use permit application for the fence. So, just sort of for context here, the fence is 6 to 7 feet tall. As you said, it's about 30 to 40 to come on. And it sits along the edge of Google way in a corner of electros property. Um. Just have notes to go away as sort of 1, part of the property, but the other part is 21 Jordan Congress electoral owns both of those properties and the fences intended to provide some visual privacy for both. Um. The fence was erected earlier this summer and. A little who did not think that hermiting was required. So, again, we are trying to correct that. Can I get you to sign on please?

So what she is.

As you know, MDI has a land use ordinance that requires permitting for fences of a certain height. So, fences that are more than 6 feet tall and or are located more than 6 feet are located within 6 feet of a road are required planning board approval as opposed to code enforcement officer approval. So we are requesting this after the fact, conditional use approval, because the fence is between six and seven feet tall and sits along the edge of the billway.

Okay. Can I bug you? It won't change. It won't change. Even if you click on the grid, it doesn't change. It's clicking on the screen.

Gallery is all of us.

What about speaker?

It goes to her.

OK.

Sorry.

Sorry.

It's a dynamic.

Dynamic gallery?

It will, maybe. I don't want to lose.

Nice speaker.

If you click on the up arrow by video down at the bottom left corner, you might be able to change.

There? No, over there on the left.

One more over. That might give you an option to do something. That's already clicked. Thanks. Sorry. That's my go-to.

Do we have a name?

Yeah. Who's the other participant? Is that us? All right. We're good. We've heard from the...

I'll be here for you in case anybody had it. No, I just didn't see them. Thank you.

So we've heard from the applicant and let's open it up for public comment. So if there's any public comment about this project, now's your chance. So, sir, please state your name for the record.

My name is Burke Branch. I've lived on Whoville Way since 1979. The lightly traveled little private road. Never really needed any kind of visual impact screening other than a tree here and there. And if what wants to have a 6 foot fence, I don't really have a problem with that. But I think out of fairness to the other property on this. They all setbacks and. Screening schedules and permitting. Could be adhered to. I don't think that those should be waived. The setback is six feet from the edge of the right of way. It will hamper snow removal if it's crammed right out there, like it is now. And so I think that out of fairness to the neighbors, if she wants her fence, that's fine, but she should adhere to the other one. rules and regulations. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

All right. Laura, you're on deck.

Thank you so much for recognizing me. So I'm Laura Whitehouse. I'm the owner of the property at 5 Whoville Way. So I live directly across the street from Electra. as mr branch stated it is a private road it's a dirt road it's relatively narrow and there's not a lot of travel on the road except by the residents as an abutter to um to electra um like mr branch i have no problem with her wanting to erect a privacy fence um i'm not particularly bothered by the height of the fence but my concern is that um she's not adhering to the six foot um setback from the road And I do believe that that's a concern for the health and the safety of the other residents on the road. It's very difficult when there are visitors parking in the road for other cars and trucks to be able to get by. And I would just have the concern that there might be an emergency need for ambulance or fire equipment to get past. And my concern is that the way could be obstructed and it would be difficult for emergency access. I'm a healthcare provider myself. And so I always think about health and safety as a main priority, but that would really be my main concern is that the fences really sitting at the edge of the road, it makes the road that much more narrower and that much more difficult for the safety of all of the residents or any of their visitors on the road. I don't have a problem with a privacy fence. I don't have a problem Even with the height of the fence, even though it doesn't adhere to code, my concern is the safety issue and the ability of emergency vehicles to be able to pass effectively either to people on our road on Whoville Way or people needing to access Jordan Pond Road or, you know, any of the other, you know, parallel, you know, abutting roads, the horizontal roads, excuse me. Thank you very much for letting me speak.

Thank you.

May I clarify something?

Sure.

If you read the ordinance differently, please tell me. But my understanding is that a fence does not need to have a six-foot setback or be under six feet if it obtains planning board approval. Those requirements only apply when you're sort of trying to obtain code enforcement approval.

Go ahead.

Well, we can get into this when we get into discussing it in more detail. I have some comments about that, but I think I'll hold them until we actually get into discussing that.

I would agree with this. And just that, yeah, we're almost there.

Yeah. So are there- Well, I can answer that for you guys. The area, the section of the fencing that's six feet high, has to adhere to the six foot setback. And it has to have a 20% vegetation within it, in front of it, over seven feet. This plan is why you're here ideally too, is because it exceeds my height limitation, but they can waive that six foot setback within that area of fencing that's six feet high. And that's also why you're here. Yes, we're here for the entire- The vegetation and the height.

Yeah, yeah. Just as a point of clarity, we are trying to get planning board approval for the entire fence, and so we are asking for approval for the six-foot piece and the seven-foot piece.

So technically, they're asking for a waiver and approval of the fence.

Right.

Well, so I actually don't think that that's what we're asking for. So the requirements, I think, only apply for code enforcement officer approval. If you look in the ordinance, there are specific requirements when you're getting approval from the code enforcement officer. And I think the purpose of that is because when you get conditional use approval, you're looking at a wider variety of factors. You're looking at erosion control, you're looking at sedimentation, you're looking at whether a development is consistent with the neighborhood that it's located in. um so you're i think trying to account for uh a larger number of factors when you're approving a development here kim has a sort of a a list of three or four factors that she's looking at and those have been limited to the height of the fence um and it's set back but there's no setback requirement when you're obtaining conditional approval which is what we are trying to do here i would say you are correct but and we'll get to that yeah because

Okay, is there any other public comment tonight regarding this application? Going once, twice. No one else is online. I'm going to close public comment and let's roll into the review of the application and first let's Have a motion to use the short to find the application.

I'm going to find the application complete.

I did that all those in favor.

I. I move we approve the application. No, you don't want to do that next.

No.

All right. All right. I move. We use the short form process. The application.

All those in favor of using the short form.

I now. I move you approve the application.

Someone's going to second that.

Oh, I can second that.

Then we press the pause button and now we go through the review of the application. So I've got the application before me. Let's get the short form checklist.

I'm trying to get there. Get this part. Not sure if that's what.

Right in the front. It's the story.

Oh, no. Okay.

All right. Let's see. We're not in the shoreline zone. And that's the signature page. Right? Short form. Application lose, though. let's do this so here we are and we are going through section 6a first and that's for general performance standards and the first item on in general performance standards is compatibility and and under compatibility we're looking at things like physical size visual impact proximity to other structures and density development. I'm just going to bore the record, wade through the application. And the applicant talks about for physical size that the fence is between 6 and 7 feet in height, approximately 35 to 40 feet long, and located at one corner of the property at the edge of Whoville Way. Its physical size is modest and consistent with residential fencing in the district. The visual impact, the fence is located at 1 corner of the property along Whoville way. The visual impact is limited and compact compatible with the residential character, the surrounding area and plans to grow climbing hydrangea on the street facing side of the fence to further limit visual impact. Proximity to other structures. The fence is situated at the edge of the property along Whoville Way. Density of development. The fence does not increase any density of development. So I'm going to say compatibility is C, application.

And I do have questions about numbers of these, so I don't know if I have them on hand.

So if your questions are relative to compatibility right now, let's hear them.

Well, they are, and they're also the provision of the ordinance itself. The modesty of the physical size, I think, is a bit of a stretch. I think I'm hearing neighbors saying they don't mind that it's high, but it is high. And I'm not sure how consistent it is with residential fencing in the district. With regard to planting and growing climbing hydrangea, this and its location, this appears to be so close to the edge of a gravel road that I question whether or not you actually can plant anything between that fence and the road and have any chance of it surviving and also not have it because climbing hydrangea can become quite a structure. And I worry that that is going to further encroach upon the edge of Whoville Way. So I have some questions about those items and how compatible it actually is. With respect to the right to request and the right to be granted if circumstances warrant a fence closer than the six feet, that is accurate as I read it, but there has to be a reason why we do that. The six foot standard that, as I read it, the six foot standard that the code enforcement officer has to adhere to is there for a reason. It's kind of like a minimal distance that she's gotta be able to assure. It's gotta be cut and dry. And we can deviate from the cut and dry, but there seems to me that it there has to be. Because we're making exceptions and the exceptions carry precedential value for other properties there's to be a good reason to do that, so one of the things i'd like to have addressed here and later in the application is. why does it have to be inside of six feet from the road? And with regard to the fact, it's already there, but in regard to that fact, my understanding is that we would process this application as if it didn't already exist. You don't get disadvantaged in terms of our consideration, but you also don't get an advantage. You don't get us saying, well, it's already there. Why would we? So I look at it as if it's just like strings and stakes in the ground. And I know you've already landscape behind it, but I wonder Why it was why what's the argument to the planning board that we should put this right on the edge of this lane. Somebody's raised a very good question about snow plowing and that sort of thing. So I'm not sure how compatible it is with the other needs of the road.

So the intent of the fence is to provide, as I've said, a visual buffer. And I think the closer it is to the road, the better it's able to do that. If we were to move it back, I think we'd have to think if it makes sense to lengthen it or do something like that. So the purpose, again, is to provide a visual buffer. And it is most effective, I think, the closer it is to the road.

I think from that side of the, from the inside of the fence, not. That that's the consideration from the inside of the fence, not from the outside of the fence.

Yeah, so for for the record, you know, the, the fence is pretty tight to the edge of the road, but there are plantings on the. the owner's side of the fence, nothing up against the road. And just as Ms. Whitehouse was saying earlier, in terms of compatibility, like if someone else were to come along and have an after the fact, Conditional use application for a fence on that property right up to the road. I think you could have a serious issue in there about getting through there. And I think about all the concerns before the board over the years about emergency vehicle access and plowing and all that stuff. And, you know, I think you could really create a very narrow corridor through there if, you know,

if this were to continue especially if a waiver were granted can i ask a couple questions if you know do you know is it is it a 50 foot right of way do you know and do you know where the edges of the road actually are didn't it has anybody looked at that on the ground nobody the lack of clarity about

width of the road i've looked at several deeds and a survey um and the intended width has been described as anywhere between 16 and 20 feet 25 okay 25. i think 25 is on the tax map but i think what i've seen i got a survey here portion of a survey that shows us 25 feet but yeah okay I think the actual width of the road varies, so in some places it's wider and in some places it's closer to the 25 or the 16, but there's actually a lack of clarity about the intended width of the road.

From Jordan Pond on the left side, it goes 20 feet according to the deeds, 20 feet, 25, 25, 25, 16, 16.

Yeah, we're actually planning to work with a surveyor to sort of clarify that point. I believe under the ordinance, and then correct me if I'm wrong, I believe the required minimum width for emergency vehicles is typically 20 feet so we do have a little bit of actually right here and also i want to just as a point of clarity i i also believe that for fences that are shorter than four feet you don't need plant you don't need any approval and i don't think that there's a minimum setback requirement for those so i do think there are fences that do sort of sit close to the road um because they haven't required permitting well wouldn't you have to have a six foot setback or Yeah, so this, so, you know, I think there are probably fences around the island that are probably up close to the road if they're sitting under 40.

But also the public works director might have issue with somebody putting a fence within the town right away.

And get this straight, the six-foot setback applies to the portion of the fence that's taller than six feet?

No, six feet.

Six feet. There's two separate fences. The section that you see under 1A, which is the setback of six feet, can't obstruct visibility, and you need a 20% screening within that six-foot setback area.

But those are standards we're not asking you to look at. We're asking you to look at the conditional use standards, which apply to any fence that is over seven feet. So we're asking that this entire fence be considered as a conditional use of the goal.

But my position is that we need to be able to peg our assessment of reasonability and compatibility to something. And I think as a starting point, at least we look at what's expected You know, the six-foot setback, for example. And then we have to have a compelling reason to deviate from that. At least that's how I would want to make these decisions. Rather than just my own personal, oh, that looks nice. I'll leave it.

You know, I don't think we can do that.

I'm trying to ground it in something.

All the decisions we make are based on the foundation of the code. We have to look to the code.

Yeah. Fences under four feet can be right up along the road. So there is some, I'm sure there are fences around MDI that are right on the road.

The fence we're talking about is not under four feet.

No.

It's six to seven feet.

It is six to seven feet.

So one thing, just for the board's clarification, did you guys understand the construction of the fence, how that works? You know, it's just the, it's got the round pipe that's just drilled into the ground, and it's wrapped, and then the wood fence is attached to that. Right. It does not have, like, an intricate, you know, foundation system. Correct. It's a relatively... you know simple structure right and you know um so we've we've been at this juncture before with other applications where we we we get into the review of the application and then we start you know having some serious discussions about you know the first section of reviews 6a1 compatibility and before we forge forward, I think we should discuss if we forge forward on this.

Well, if there were a way to review 6A1 and then get into the specific requirements so we can get to the specific fence provision, then we could pause the motion on that particular section and get to 6B8.

can our procedurally can we do that without having a findings of fact in a conclusion of a law on 6a1 march through where the relevant section is 6b8 get to 6b8 and then four yeah you've done that right right so that's why you can't you can't fully

answer the compatibility question without also first answering all the particulars.

I agree. So I think what we should do is, look, let's wade through the remainder of 6A with the intent of, you know, Getting a consensus on where we're at relative to the relative section, which is 6B7. So, but let's then do that. And then if we get there, then we'll come back to the findings of fact and conclusion law in 6A. Is that everybody clear on that? So, right. Reading glasses back on. Right, 6A1 for compatibility, all we said was C application. 6A2 is erosion and sedimentation control. The applicant says that the fence was already erected in a manner designed to reduce erosion and sedimentation. As erected, the fence contributes very little to erosion and sedimentation. And additionally, the owner has installed vegetation about a foot behind the fence to further limit erosion and sedimentation. So saying C, application. 6A3, highway safety. The fence should not cause unreasonable congestion on highways or public roads or unsafe conditions with respect to the use.

Does not.

Should not cause unreasonable congestion on highways. I probably read that wrong. Should not cause unreasonable congestion on highways or public roads or unsafe conditions with respect to the use of public roads.

And I think that's another area of potential contention.

Yeah, so sufficient off street parking shall be available and it's not off affecting off street parking. And here, you know, I'm just marking C application and noting for the record that 681 and 683 are still points of concern. 684 impact on town services. The fence does not unduly burden the capacity of town's facility, including public water and sewage, refuse, collection, parking, fire, and police protection, because it's a passive structure and places no demand on municipal services. So I am saying C, application.

The town doesn't plow that, do they? No. Okay, thank you.

6A5, land suitability.

Can I check out there? No.

The fence is located on soils where it can be established and maintained without causing adverse environmental impacts, including severe erosion, mass soil movement, and stormwater pollution. The fence has already been constructed without any such adverse impacts. I'm going to say C, application. Lighting, outdoor. N.A., there is no proposed lighting. 6A.7, stormwater. applicant says na it's a linear vertical structure doesn't create significant pervious service area doesn't materially alter stormwater runoff patterns because the only the fence posts touch the ground additionally mature evergreen trees have been planted behind it you say na but have an explanation uh they should be amended Probably should be amended and to leave it as NA.

Maybe not.

Got it. 6A8, NA. 6A8, vegetation. African says, NA. The fences not disturb any existing vegetation. In addition, the owner has planted three mature evergreen trees behind it and plans to plant climbing hydrangea. So, N.A. 6A.9, dust, fumes, vapors, odors, and gases. The fence does not emit dust, fly ash, fumes, vapors, odors, or gases. So, that's N.A. So, we're going to press the pause on the findings of fact and conclusion law with 6B and, or 6A, and now we're going to forge forward into Section 6B. And so, which all of these are NA except for 6B-8, fences and walls. So 6B-1, agriculture, NA. 6B-7, excavation or filling, NA. The 6B8 fences and walls is why we are here. And I'm just going to go ahead and say that 6B16 is NA sign regulations, 6B18 wireless communication facilities. You're not building a cell tower. animal husbandry 2, 6B19 is NA, 6B20 mobile food vendors NA, 6B21 rooming house NA, 6B22 hotels and motels NA, and 6B23 solar arrays is NA. So of 6B8, we are only looking at 6B8 fences and walls. And just bear with me here as I read through this, but what 6B8 talks about is that a solid fence as opposed to a rail or similar fence or wall more than four feet in height measured vertically from the ground directly beneath the fence or wall shall require a code enforcement officer permit or conditional use approval. Such fences or walls shall not unduly restrict scenic views. The structural side of the fence shall also not face the public view. And within that, it says that the code enforcement officer permit may be issued for solid fences or walls up to six feet in height, provided that a setback of six feet is maintained from roads, sidewalks, and right of ways. B, it does not obstruct highway visibility, and C, a plan for vegetated screening in the six-foot setback area is provided that produces a minimum of 20% cover of the fence or wall area, and the plan must be implemented and maintained. And here, the... And then item two says that fences or walls that do not meet the above criteria shall require conditional use approval of the planning board. The applicant says applicable, standard met. And the application says that the fence meets all conditional use requirements. Gail?

Give me your best arguments for why this non-existent fence needs to be where you've put it versus six coming much much closer at least to the six foot setback that would then also allow for you to bring in some vegetative screening which you're just not I can't, I'm not an arborist or I'm not a landscaper, but I've seen plenty of climbing hydrangea and I've looked at that ground today and I can't imagine how you're actually going to do that and also not come even, those get to be pretty wide and pretty intense. So give me a best argument for why this fence shouldn't at the outset have been built further, a little bit further in away from the edge of the road.

OK, so first I want to clarify that we've offered, I represented in the application that Electra plans to plant climbing hydrangea. That was simply as a way to sort of try to comply, show a good show of faith with the code enforcement standards, some of them. That does not have to happen. If that's a concern for the planning board, we do not have to have any sort of vegetation between the fence and the road. Second, as I said, the intent of the fence is to provide a visual buffer. And it does so most efficiently for the largest part of the property when it is on the boundary line. Typically, when people erect fences, they're not trying to erect their fence many feet into their property. The purpose of the fence is to define the boundary line, provide privacy, Again, visual privacy, that kind of thing. And so here, I think, especially because the width of the road is really unclear. Some of the documents Electra has suggested the road could be literally, you know, truly as narrow as 16 feet, which would mean that the fence is actually sort of set back from the intended width of the road. Here it seems like, you know, from our perspective, reasonable for Electra to try in the interest of providing this visual privacy, this visual buffer directed close to the road.

Okay. So I would say that it is the applicant's responsibility to actually clarify what the boundaries, if you want to make that argument. And I would just point out, this is probably, is this an eight or nine foot table? So length of the table. It's probably like eight or nine feet. So that's the distance we're talking about. We're not talking about miles. It would make a huge difference in a confined space, but it's not many feet into the property that would, and I would actually have to have somebody convince me that you couldn't effectively screen with that existing fence by simply having it pushed back a bit. I don't take it at face value that it's just, it's not gonna work if it has to go back away from that road at all. And I also think we do have the safety issues. We have the snowplow issues, we have, you know, We have those issues that oftentimes people don't think. I always go to that, like, where are we going to put the snow? It's one of my big things. And I don't.

Real thing.

Yeah. Again, the road is wider in front of the property than it's intended with, regardless of it's wider than that it's wider than the requirement for roads to have to meet emergency vehicle requirements which is 20 feet um you know like we have some space to work with within the confines of the road i think it's fair to to have concern about emergency vehicle access snow plowing etc but the road is sufficiently wide enough and you know in fact wider than it was intended to be

Well, maybe we could have some documentation. And I don't mean to be just. Yeah. Yeah.

Understood. We are in the process of getting a survey together, working with the surveyors. So we don't have that information and I will. There's no setback requirement for the conditional use permit. So we didn't prepare that information because there's no requirement for that. If the planning board would like that, we would need time to do a survey and then come back and change the response.

Can I ask a question? You said the fence meets all conditional use requirements. Can you name the conditional use requirements that it meets?

Yeah, so those are the requirements that we just went through. Let me just...

Did I miss something?

Sorry, it's the 6A. Oh, the compatibility. So compatibility, erosion and sedimentation control, highway safety, impact on town services, land suitability, lighting, warm water. Any questions about meeting some of those? Dust, fumes, et cetera. So those are the requirements that the conditional use permit requires the fence to meet. If we get approval, the fence has to meet those requirements.

Yeah, go ahead. I mean, the other argument, the other concern that we have is when do we deviate from the kind of standards that Kim has to comply with and why? and and what are the what are the implications of that we're not we're not free to just like make any changes that we want to it has to be based in some on the ground need or some on the ground something on the ground that you can argue should happen um and i haven't i'm struggling to find enough of that right now in this situation

Do you feel like we might not have enough data here?

Yes. Can you clarify for me what you would be looking for?

So what I'm just about to. So I think a survey is necessary here and a key data point for us to Continue our review of this on and what I want to gauge the board's temperature about what about pressing asking the app to press the pause button on the application, get a survey completed and then press play when we have that back before us.

Yeah, we can certainly keep that. In terms of timing, I will have to be in touch with you about that.

Yeah.

Sure. In the meantime, I assume the fence is as is? Yes.

Yes. I'm not expecting a demolition crew in the interim. I'm not. I mean, I don't think we are. Yeah.

In some ways, that's interesting. I'll have to think about it.

Have you talked to a surveyor yet? Wait, can I ask what surveyor you've talked to?

Well, we have reached out to Sebago Technics. Yeah. And frankly, they've just been slow to respond.

Yeah. There's a number of surveyors in the area, too.

Yeah. I might reach out to Gartner. But Sebago Technics continues to drive there.

Yeah. This is one of the better, because this is a violation. This has been going on since May 12.

I'm not telling you how to conduct your business, but I think if you talk to local surveyors to the island or area and convey the condition of this, Conditional use application, they might take that under advisement to expedite it for you. So.

Yeah, and in the meantime, I think we would be looking for, uh, we're happy to show a good faith opportunity for the survey, but. It would be, I think, uh, difficult if we received a notice of violation. So is there a way for us to sort of, I'm happy to check in with you regularly to prove that we're moving forward, but is there a way? Like I said, I've got to think about it.

You know, and I don't think we should leave this open-ended, though. You know, and maybe that would be further... A month? Yeah, where we continue this to a date certain. And so there's a back end to this. And then that would help you put it in context to a surveyor.

Yeah, I will reach out to a number of surveyors so that we can expedite this. But I do think there may be limitations on our timing. So we can set a date, but we may have to be somewhat flexible.

So there's the 9th and the 23rd.

Are you guys feeling this direction? Yes. Anne, what do you think?

I still can't come up with the requirements in the code. It's not even close.

That's my, well, they aren't, they, I think she's right. I personally think she's right about that. Kim is given cotton dried requirements that have to be met. And the planning board has the authority to make it a different, to interpret the application in a different way. But my sticking point is, well, what are we basing that on? What's the argument for why it should be less than six feet from the edge of the road? And now we're getting to the question of like, where is the edge of the road? And that might impact our sense of what's reasonable about the location of the fence. But the, We have the, we have the ability to deviate from Kim's standards, but the real question is how, and when do we do that? And why don't we do that? We don't just like deviate because we feel like deviating. We have to like, I feel like I need to root it in something that makes sense for the applicant and also the neighbors and so forth.

So, yeah, I mean, I'm thinking mostly about the fire trucks.

I'm thinking about the proximity of it to the road and I feel like, okay, well, where is it? Where is the road edge? And then second of all, I think of, okay, well, listen, you know, if you can potentially have two birds with one stone here, as if these are not difficult, complex fence structures, you pull that thing out of the ground and you scoot it back six feet. And if you can main in with the vegetation that's planted there, and if it's behind it, then you've got your screening in front of it already that you're required. But in order for us to do that and given the precedent, precedent this could set. And in our past decisions on fence issues, we typically have a survey.

Or we don't have a setback issue.

Or we don't have a setback. I think there is a setback issue here. And setback issues need to be need data points to be resolved. So my opinion is, look, let's continue this to a date certain, give them a month, and hopefully you guys are back then and we can get this resolved.

And we'll be in touch with Kim to sort of keep you informed about our election.

It's the second meeting on Wednesday in September.

Oh, the first is the 9th and the second is the 23rd. So that's the second and fourth. We'll get you to the 23rd meeting.

Thank you.

Can I make a motion to move this hearing to a date certain of September 23rd?

That way anybody that's here for the public, you're not going to get another notification. Because we've got a date certain, so anybody that's interested here will know when the date is. Newspaper notice.

Put it on your calendar.

Put it in your calendar.

September 23rd.

And planning board members, hang on to your application. Second. Second. Second. Yes.

Any further discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Aye. We'll see you back here on the 23rd, hopefully with the survey.

Thank you. Sorry. Yeah.

Oh. This White House sorry. So you're.

No, no, no. I just wanted to ask, at the September 23rd meeting, is it possible, is there additional resident comment that you request? Yes.

Yes, because there'll be new information provided.

Wonderful. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Have a good night.

So this goes back in here despite us not getting through it.

This goes.

Is that it? Or was it the yellow one?

This is the elementary school. Question before we move on? Yes.

What about the partial? Do you want me to check this?

Yeah, that should be in the, I think it should go in the, for the minutes for this meeting. They'll have to be combined. Yeah, just.

And then we didn't really vote on.

You didn't vote on anything. Right. So it's a few Xs. I just want to. It's considered an official part, but I will do that.

I feel like it should be. Yes.

It happened. Okay.

It happened.

Okay.

Onward and upward. Other item under item three tonight is 3B, another conditional use approval application. This one is 13-2026. Owner name is the Town of Mount Desert Elementary School. Agent is Scott Watson. The MDRISS slash AOS 91 operations quarter. Location is 8 Joy Road, Northeast Harbor. Tax map 25, lot 001, zone Village Residential 1. Purpose section 3.4, public school. Replace a window with a door. Construct a 31 foot by 14 foot open frame deck and an attached 19 foot by 5 foot ADA ramp. We had a site inspection of 545 and was this advertised in the Butters notified?

Yes, this is advertised in the Ellsworth American of July 30th, 2026. And notice written notice was sent to Butters on July 28th. Great.

And then I will first ask if there is any conflict of interest on the board.

I would suggest that I should accuse myself, not because I have a personal conflict of interest, but because I also serve on the school board, and it at least creates the appearance of impropriety for me to be passing judgment on a school board application before this place. And you might be happy to have me leave after the last one.

Any motion, thoughts, discussion?

I'll make a motion to use the short form, but I don't know.

No. And yours, no.

I think that's OK. No, you got immediate motion. Make a motion. Accept my recusal. I make a motion to accept your recusal. All right. All those in favor?

Aye.

All right, so it's you still have a quorum. We're good. Um, so. All right, so we, we, and we verified. The butter's notified and all that we had a site inspection at 545 and Tracy, perhaps you'd like to. For the record, explain your own interventions.

We went to the school and we had our meeting immediately adjacent to the playground, which is fenced. and was explained that one of the windows of the building is going to become a doorway and then there's going to be a deck and a ramp so that the children can go directly from this from the building to the playground without having to come out and have being close proximity to the road and it's a lovely little playground with shade trees and it sounded like a pretty good project

And any other observations to add?

The ash tree will be removed. A real observation. There's already a chain link fence that's staying.

All right. Well, Mr. Watson, you're on if you .

Well, like we had said, there was previously a door there that was down. Ways away, but now that's a bathroom, so we couldn't reuse that spot. So that's why we're planning on doing it in the, in the room. Take 1 of the windows out that we were going to. We move for inspection for leaks and stuff like that. The deck in, and we're actually going to go with the. Screws decking, so we're not going to be digging holes. We're not going to be doing much for. excavating except for the fact that the tree removal people will be stump grinding the stumps out of it. We're hoping to have all of this done before school starts, which is September 1st. The right line crew that is on board, they'll be removing some of the windows for the inspection. They're the ones that will be doing the deck and all that. we had to remove that one and cut the doorway in order for us to get the exact size for the doorway. But they are on board, ready to move just as soon as we get hopefully approval.

All right, thank you. I will open it up to public comment. If there's any Public here in the room or online that would care to comment about this project, now's your chance. Not hearing any. All right, so I'm just going to close public comment, and let's get on with it. So we need to first find the application, please.

Make a motion to find the application complete. I'll second that.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Then any opinions about what form we should use for this application?

Short form would be fine. Second that.

All those in favor? Aye. Aye. And then any opinions about approving the application?

I move that we approve the application. I'll second it.

Press the pause button and we review the application. So this is the. So this should go in the fence packet.

And here is the short form.

Short form, application, land use ordinance. We are ready to roll. A lot of the planning is just shuffling papers. Thank you for your patience.

It's a lot like that, too.

I imagine. So here we are, Section 6A. Uh, general performance standards, 6, a 1 compatibility. I'm physical size applicant says it's a 16 by 30 foot deck with ramp. See the site plan, which is attached.

No, that's gotta be modified to show 1431.

Okay, do you want them to. So, they've got it, we got to pull out the original application from them.

And it's the first line here to be 14 by 30?

Yeah.

Okay. You come forward. You have a pen. You strike a line through that 16 and put a 14 and a little initial next to it.

14 by 31? Yep.

Thank you.

Individual impact. African says see the site plan submitted. Proximity to other structures, AFKIN says C, site plan submitted. Density and development, C, site plan submitted. So for compatibility, C, application. Erosion and sedimentation control, AFKIN says all groundwork will have soil erosion filter math. see application uh highway safety let's say three pro's plan will stop the pre-k kids from sprinting into the road before they go to the playground going into the group going into the village sometimes they spread it's right C application, impact on town services. The applicant says NA. Land suitability, 685. Again, they refer the attached site plan. And then C application, lighting outdoor. The applicant says NA, but then they say provide exterior lighting specs, C2 attachments. So they have, yeah, they have lighting fixtures submitted that are dark sky compliant. So you circled NA, but you submitted

Yeah, we got to fix that. Come up here. Yep. We're going to break that one.

And we're going to say C application, not NA.

C application or standard.

Is that application standard, Matt?

Yes.

All right, sorry.

So then we have 687 stormwater. The applicant refers us to the site plan submitted. I think they need to choose a position on that.

To circle the circle.

It's on page 8.

Okay. And then 6a8, vegetation, one tree.

6a7 is C application.

C application and they should.

Just want to hear it.

And then they should circle APPL standard math.

Okay, can you step forward here and sign page 8 and circle?

Maybe I should sit up here.

This one?

They should just circle that.

Clickable standard met, just circle that part.

Then 6AA vegetation. Do I need to initial it? Yeah. Aptful standard met, and they say one tree is to be removed due to root damage. And I just had a question about that. I mean, if you guys are using the helical deck system and you're not like pouring sauna tubes or having like big, you know, big, big foot footings or something like that, why do you have to cut the tree down?

It also has, it's doing roof damage. They had black goons climbing up and getting into it. Right where, Some of those posts are going from the biggest part of that group. We had a street guy, Jamie, come in and give his opinion. Would you survive? He said, more than likely not, but we're going to be serving so many other groups.

Kids would love that. The tree coming up through the deck.

There are other trees on the playground, but it would be cool for it to come up through the deck. Are you removing the tree in the deck? Yes. I know, I know, I know.

My sketch is not accurate.

Are these engineers and architects involved on this and they couldn't? Birdbath, it was a flip.

No, go over to the birdbath.

Okay, well, there's that question. And 6A8 is C, application. 6A9, dust, fumes, vapors, odors, and gases. The applicant says N.A. So the findings of fact for Section 6A are presented by the applicant in the attached application. The conclusion of law is that the proposed use is in compliance with all standards of Section 6A.

So moved.

Second. All those in favor?

Aye.

6B. So agriculture is NA. And then for 6B7, excavation or filling, the applicant says applicable standard met. Using the helical base metal posts. God, they're so small. And these will be And will require a little to no excavation for supports. So C application. 6v8, fences and walls. You say NA, but there's a chain link fence four feet in.

It doesn't require a permit, so just leave it.

All right, leave it NA. Sign regulations, 6B16 is N.A. 6B18, Wireless Communication Facility, N.A. 6B19, Animal Husbandry II. N.A., you're not proposing any chickens. 6 feet 20 mobile food vendors in a 6 feet 21 rooming house in a 6 feet 22 hotel and motels in a 6b-23 solar arrays, NA. So, the findings of the fact that proposed use will include none of the specific activities or land uses described in Section 6b except for 6b-7. In the conclusion of the law, Section 6b is not applicable except for Section 6b-7 for which the standard has been met.

So moved. Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Aye. So on the 6B6, we are not in the shoreland zone. So the finding of fact is the proposed use is entirely outside the shoreland zone, excuse me, and the conclusion of law is Section 60 is not applicable.

So moved. Second.

All those in favor? Hi, so, because it's not in the shoreline zone, we don't have to do section 5, not. Are there any. Permit conditions with this.

Yeah, right. We get that. No.

There are no permit conditions attached to this and. We can circle back to our a track player and press play on the approval vote. All those. In favor of approving the application. All right any further discussion didn't hear your vote bill. I, that that always throws me off. So we have the approval. motion press pause review it and then okay all then we're all in favor of it and we just vote all right we're all in favor of the application congrats you did it awesome thank you very much thank you when can i break the island you didn't know the department first

And so we can be based on a few seconds.

Right. And then whatever it is, I need to know that. Okay. Yep. Just submit it. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Go on here. We have any other things to discuss sign this.

It has the packet and that's the original or no, this is the original.

That's right. This is. The journey. For that, just for that.

Really? So, I'm good.

I think we technically need to vote Gale back on.

Oh, never mind. Don't, don't.

No, we can vote Gale back on.

No, don't vote him.

Nope.

We need to put this in there.

There's nothing else. No other. Here, this application number.

Raise your pen, ma'am. We have this, but we need to put that number on.

That's fine.

It's on your agenda.

Move to adjourn. I'm just cleaned up here.

It gave me a brain only lets me do 1 thing at a time. So. Okay. All right. We're good. And it's all in there. We got the signs approval. Yeah, that's yours.

Yeah.

The originals back in there. Yeah. All right.

Yeah.

Okay. There's no other other that I'm aware of.

I want to adjourn a 2nd that any further discussion.

All those in favor.

Aye.