Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Right. I'll call to order the town deserve planning board meeting for September 24th, 2025. Welcome aboard. Kick it off with some introductions. Uh I am William Hanley, planning board chair. We've got vice chair Tracy Lis Keller. Gail Marshall and Alan Kimberly. And tonight we're missing uh Ann Dalton uh and our alternate um and yeah, that is the hardest part of the meeting is remembering everybody's names.

You have you have my empathy actually. Even after 10 years of this gig. You got a name tag I can start bringing. We should wear name tags, Alan. That's an excellent idea. I'll be back at Morris Yachts, though. So, um, not seeing anybody online tonight yet, but, um, item two on the agenda, we had approval of minutes, and there's no minutes yet. Bill, yes, you should probably take your agenda out of order just to vote in, Meredith.

Yes. Thanks. So, um Kim's reminding me we were talking about um earlier having an an additional item on the agenda tonight under item four other um item C. Uh we were going to add a motion to rem recommend to the select board uh Meredith Foster and I would suggest Yeah,

yeah, right. Meredith Randolph. And um why don't we take why don't we get a motion to take that out of order and move that up to uh ahead of item three and after item two. Some move, excuse me. All those in favor? I

I. So just a for the record just a quick recap and just where the superior court had remanded the heel way subdivision back to the board for reconsideration of the open space requirement of the application. the we need a quorum for that. And the the original quorum was myself, Tracy, and Meredith. And Meredith has since um stepped off the board. Um, after consulting with town council and Andy Hamilton and Kim, I reached out to Meredith and asked her if she would so kindly come back on the board as an alternate member. And she immediately said, "Sure thing." And we need to vote Meredith vote Meredith on as a ormen

recommend to the select board that the that she be appointed as an alternate member to the board. I move we recommend that to the select board that they appoint Meredith Randolph to be an alternate member of the planning board. I'll second that. All right. All those in favor. Okay, I will let Claire know to recommend that to the select board and um I'll give Meredith a preemptive Thank you. Yeah. Yes. Motion.

Yes. So, all right, let's continue on. I guess that was item 2.1. Uh item three tonight, we approve and sign the final plot plans for Area 51 subdivision. So, do we need a final? Yep. All right. Do we have a motion to approve the area 51 subdivision applications? So moved. Second. All those in favor? I. And now we

and lands are here. And now we sign in the second. Yeah.

Someone's in the Someone's in the You're paying attention. Maybe it's easiest if I just get out of the way and then you guys can come around. JTR JTR. Yeah. Yeah. But I can't see. So

that's cuz I'm paying so much attention to And how long does the applicant have for those colds? 30 days. 30 days to record it.

30 or 90. They got 90 days. 90. Okay. from the date that you sign it. Make sure you leave it on the bottom 24. And we've had applicants that haven't expires, then they have to go to us again. Thank you.

Congrats. Thank you for enjoying the process. Yeah, looks like

stick around and help us change the subdivision order. Thank you. Good luck. Kimberly, is something up with the Looks like it's focused on the back of your computer. It's pointing down at at a computer, I believe. No, it's not. No, it's not us. It's up top. It's pointing at the back of the screen. Somebody who's on Zoom is pointing the camera at the back there. Yeah, it's not. It's not us. It's not. How do How do we see our Turn off this camera

or turn Yeah. Can we Can you click on Panama Dessert? Does that matter this live performance? I'm just making stuff up here. Yeah. Kim, can you can you click on view and switch it to us or Yeah, change it to speaker. Yeah. Go to view speaker. It should change because we're the only ones talking. Yeah. Can you Yeah. Turn off his camera for that. No. Is it ours or is it him? There you go. Click on that. [Music] Stop video. Yeah. Right there. Stop.

Well, that's helping. Yeah. Now it's just black. Are we getting photo? Yeah. There you go. ever works. Yeah. All right. Moving on. Item four, other

item 4 A. We have an update from the land use zoning ordinance advisory committee. Well, the land zoning um advisory committee zoning advisory committee isn't hasn't really tackled the subdivision ordinance because we've done such good work on it all summer. And we spent time at our last meeting going through the that portion of it that we did work on last spring before LUO broke for the summer and that is the the mobile home provisions that would be part of this So we went through that again and I encouraged anyone who was uh so inclined who was present at that meeting to consider coming and sitting in on this meeting so we didn't have to keep reinventing the wheel. I I personally don't think that what I don't think that this has to go through the the Luzo.

It's ultimately the the planning board's responsibility and the LUO is there to try to help get stuff done. They don't have any role in like putting it before the public or so. My intention will be that that committee not reinvent the wheel by going through the subdivision ordinance. We can once we're done with it, we can have certainly explain to them what we're doing and see if anybody has any other ideas about it, but um to workshop it twice is a big job and it didn't seem like it was going to be particularly productive. Um we frankly don't get a big turnout at that meeting.

So um it's not like there's lots of voices that we're missing at the moment. Um, but so that's where we stand with that. And um, any questions for Gail?

All righty. Well, thank you. So, moving on under other item 4B, discuss and review planning board applications, subdivision, and land use zoning ordinance amendments. and believe we have someone from no mus office here tonight group. Yep. Well, great. I am gonna turn it over to you and you have the floor.

Sure. So, um I'll just break the discussion down a couple ways tonight. Um I'll probably kind of present the ideas that were discussed at the Luzo meeting regarding the mobile home parks ordinance and get the board's feedback on those ideas. And Gail, thank you for your thorough review so far because it's hard for me to find typos in this thing after staring at it for so long. So, but I know and and I I miss a lot of them, too. So, uh but you had some questions. I figured we just go over those questions and get the board's feedback letter to you,

how to handle those. And then at the Luzo committee, I went over kind of like the general timeline um for getting this on the warrant. Um, that's what the dates kind of look like and the schedule we can work with looks like moving forward and then yeah, if you guys have any general comments about the draft so far, I still have to schedule a meeting with the town's attorney um to review it. Um, but I think overall pretty good shape, you know, largely for for as many pages as it is and just the document itself will be tweaking more than painting anything. Um and there's like kind of again tonight a discussion of so 1829 got passed uh recently which is uh the omnous bill that kind of touches on density and minimum lot sizes and that sort of thing that could impact um you know how you handle some of these um specialized subdivisions like well affordable is pretty state regulated in terms of the density bonus has to be two and a half times um the base density So that it's kind of prescribed for you. But in terms of attainable or cluster um subdivisions, the town has like a lot of flexibility in the types of donores that can be granted there. So just kind of talking through policy wise what that could look like in certain areas of town. You know, getting your feedback on how you might want to handle that. um where you know you might not want to have like so if you're already getting a density bonus from 1829 maybe you don't actually need to have like as big of a bonus for some of these specialized subdivisions. So just finding out where what would make sense um with the board in terms of granting a bonus to encourage certain types of housing or if density is no longer really a good idea what other types of incentives could the town provide? Um maybe we should just pause and bring every remind everybody or bring everybody up to date on how we

broke in this proposal. We broke out the different types of housing like because it's different than it's one of the things we wanted to try to improve on. Right. And so there are now um I think it's section 4.5 on the ordinance. Yep. page number uh it starts on page 2.

Yeah, 21 start uh with cluster. So there's clusters, its own subdivision had like the most basic probably not the most basic, but like there's no like real restrictions on it necessarily except for like the physical elements of the subdivision, but there's no like income requirements or anything like that, but it does get a bonus for it's an efficient subdivision, so it utiliz utilizes less um lot coverage to achieve or like land coverage if you're splitting it into lots um to achieve housing. Um and so that that has bonuses for density in that. Um

and that encourages open space. Yes. And so that is necessarily some of the others. Yes. That's always requirement for clustering is open space of some sort where you're trading off again if you're not developing the land right

for the structures themselves. You can either make it common recreational area, save it as like protection or something like that. uh but it has to be something that's like usable or benefits the community that you are building along with. Uh then there's the attainable housing subdivision which um is it follows a similar model to affordable housing in terms of having to reach a certain uh sorry having to reach a certain uh income requirement but uh the town has listed that as 250% of AMI for um purchasing or for both uh purchasing and rentings. And

definition for that is on page 37. Yes, there's affordable housing. Definition for that is on page 36. And those are standards with 80% AMI for purchasing then 120% AMI for rent in and that's what we're now calling workforce housing. No, that's affordable housing. Attainable housing is what was workforce housing. Oh, okay. Workforce was 250. No, we there was no like percentage like that. We created that in our discussions. Okay. Um I didn't know what number was really right. So we had a discussion. I think I only had it 180% and we discussed putting it up to 250s.

So those are the specialized subdivision. Again they are currently offered at um different bonuses which you're providing for both attainable and affordable. will provide at least 51% of your units have to be priced at that level. What's the nutshell difference between attainable and affordable?

Affordable is like a separate turn of art where it's a HUD standard. You have to allow you can only allow up to a certain income level or attainable is kind of like a town's definition of if someone wants to build housing that's like reserve you know you still would allow people in theory that could afford attainable or affordable housing but it increases the income level to allow like workforce housing workforce that makes more than what the affordable housing would allow but not like for wealthy people like a household or making like 100k a here would still be able to live in attainable housing. They want to be able to be eligible for affordable housing. I think being a partisan recognition of the reality that when it's going to be very difficult to build things at the 80% level in this environment and actually have it helped,

right?

It's like Yeah. And construction on the island in particular, but this part of Maine is super high. So like anything you can do to incentivize or give developers more options I suppose in what they're developing but still trying to get them to target the types of housing that the town wants to encourage. on mobile home parks as really the last subdivision types and functional land divisions are also under here even though they're technically not subdivisions but like a unique specialized term that really only dessert has. And so um yeah, those were all the specialized types and the was working on the mobile home part portion of that. Um so most of what's in there is state required. Um but some ideas that came out of the um discussion last week were that um I just I misunderstood my conversations with Kim previously that the town didn't allow centrally managed septic systems but in like a case like home park it would. So it reinserting I had taken out the state's provisions around um minimum lot size and lot width for centrally managed shared septic systems and I have to just reinsert that um into the ordinance and then so that would go under if you're looking at the mobile home park section it's 4.5.4 for uh B that will become B3. There's already a couple lots served by public sewer and then lots by individual subsurface systems. Um and then there was a discussion on um you know most of the state's language CAM language is about mobile home lots as if the mobile home park will be split into separate lots um but then making that applicable to mobile home park

sites as well. Also, in case the mobile home park is all still one lot, they're splitting the sites, they would still have to follow these rules as if they were lots. So, kind of spelling that out. And then, uh, if you look under, that's just a general comments for most of the section because it comes up in a few places. And then if you look at section D, do we have any mobile home? We have one in Creek. Yes. You know,

um yeah, it kind of came up in Loer. It's just probably very unlikely that someone would look to build a mobile home park in Mount Dert now just because land's so expensive, but it's not impossible, I suppose, like if someone really wanted to do it. Um and then but if you look at section D1 and four underneath car ports, um that's a state requirement. you have to allow carports um to not be subject to sideyard setbacks. But then there was a discussion about deciding defining car ports and then maybe putting like a side limit to them just so they're not taking up too much space on the lot. And then also um it's not being used for additional storage aside from cars or like well if other trash cans under there is fine but that they're not storing a bunch of extra stuff.

Can I ask you to back up for me because I'm slow and catching up with you. Where is in the in the mobile home park uh provision is this stuff about septic and joint septic? Uh it's not in there yet what we discussed. Yeah. So I noticed that it's in the cluster housing but common water and sewer. Yes. And is it not possible to just do something similar?

No. Um, mostly because you could just put a line in there saying you're allowing it for this type of use, but you so similar to like the one and two under section B for mobile home and parks. Um, the state has like minimum lot size. So like the minimum lot size for a shared set for mobile home parks is 12,000 square feet and the minimum width is some other number. Um, so that just has to get added. So we're constrained by the state. You could make it less restrictive than the state does, but uh I'm pretty sure 12,000 square feet is based on a best practice. So like you might want to just follow that. Could it's just packing a lot of septic systems. Yeah.

Well, if you have an individual septic system, it's 20,000 square feet, but it's a shared septic centrally managed system that goes down to 12,000 square feet. Right. Right. Right. Right. Yeah. Okay. And the same thing with water. It doesn't talk about water. So like they could do any type of water system wells or centrally managed like system or if they're if they're not assuming they're not on right they're not tying into the town system. I got a question. Um there's a little development up in Townill where they took I guess you call them sheds. I know.

And Yeah. and they made a little rental area out of that. How would we classify something like that? You know, it came in on a on wheels, but then it got flopped down. Would that be like a mobile home park or just a cluster? That's probably not a mobile home. The state has like a very specific definition for could be a cluster or attainable or affordable. Depends how many is that. Again, it kicks in early year round. Yeah. Okay. That that would be an avenue that would be easy for There's two of those in Barber. Yeah. There's one down from

Huh. Are they all fortune? Can't do it. They can't do not not not a vacation rental unless it was for the ordinance, right? Yeah. I don't know. Some people are exploring. I mean, some of those manufactured homes, the micro homes are coming in on they're trailer based and they're manufactured in a warehouse, right? So, I don't know if they have a stamp or not after 20 if they're after 20 2020 or 22, they have to be certified through the state,

right? Well, there's a lot of like like terms here. So, like the state has very specific definitions for manufactured homes. They've got specific definitions for modular homes, and they've got specific definitions for tiny homes. So like I don't know what this development technically is like the size of everything but it probably falls under one of those definitions because it can't be a mobile home and a tiny home has to be one or the other because tiny homes Oh yes to be like uh or are able to be on a chassis but they just aren't motorized but neither is like a mobile home technically. So some of them are manufactured in warehouses as opposed to

yeah people's backyard. So if you you know I've seen pictures out west of people who have the the mini homes on trailers and they bu basically built it's not a cluster but it kind of looks like a trailer park. Yeah. With a subject system. What happens if you build them in place though? Is that if you if you stick build them in place? Well that's just Yeah. Yeah. They have to meet the code that but what happens if they're under a c like they're under a you have there's certain specifications for tiny homes like it's got to be a certain size

um and then it has to have certain other it's got a whole list of stuff under appendix C under the IRC code we're doing one at Bar Harbor right now and it's been curious like and they want to rent it and I not familiar with that and I don't think they can. They can live in it and rent their primary dwelling, but you you can't get a VR1 anymore. VR2, which is non-residential, non- homestead rental for Vegas. Yeah. Because that's I think that's exactly what they're doing. And and for us, they needed I think it was a minimum of 500 square feet to be able to rent it.

Yeah. I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if Harbor had a a dwelling unit minimum of 500 square ft across the board, but then yeah, I don't know. Yeah, it's a curious and I won't get sidetracked, but it's a curious project type because there's no there's no efficiency to it with being with it being pre-manufactured or anything like that. like they just want a tiny little 500 square foot stick built house. And so it's like an accessory dwelling unit or something.

I But it but they don't have another they don't have another house on the property. They're building that first and they're going to live in that and then come back later, I guess, and build the primary residence. And I think when they build the primary residence, then they lose their ability to rent that thing if I No, they can they can rent it year round. Yeah. But if they want, you know, you can rent your homestead as a vacation rental in Bar Harbor. Mhm. But so a lot of people are thinking about using the LD 2003 to to build an ADU that they live in in the summer

while they're renting their primary dwelling, but the main house, the one that they have the homestead exemption on, but you can't rent an ADU and you in Bar Harbor anymore. It's nice to move into a campground, which a lot of people have done for a long time. Yeah. Afford it. Mhm. Have we seen any impacts of the new 80 ADU law here? I think 2003 from Yeah. always allowed it. I mean, before this even became a mandate, you know, we allowed the eight, but with that at that point though, you had to have at least a minimum lot area. Now you don't. The one that came into effect a year ago in July, that's

Yeah, that one you don't have to meet the minimum lot area. Yeah. like you like outside of the shoreland. Well, yeah, that's different. In the shoreland zone, you got to meet the dimensional requirements for a principal and an ADU. Doesn't matter. But if it's inland, um before you had to at least meet the minimum lot area before it changed last year. Now you can have it even if you don't meet the minimum law area. In all in our town, do all these little tiny and micro and manufactured homes qualify as ADUs? Yeah. I mean, you're limited to a half of the principal building size, right? By the living area, 75%. Yeah.

That be at least a minimum 190 square feet, but then it can't exceed 75% of the principal building of the living area of the main house. If we could back up for a minute on the subdivision ordinance. Um, what page are you heading to just

when we're done? May I ask one question? What can backpedaling a little bit? Can you just in lay terms too just update us on what the what the law the 1829 was? Uh I mean it was a loss on me just sad to say.

Uh so there were quite a few things again they're not some of them are going to get challenged. Some of them are there's going to be changes in the um emissions and revisions bill that probably going to get put in front of the legislature in July July January. Um and so like some of this might change but as it got passed and signed um you're looking at minimum units per lot. So all residential lots must allow three units and then like a camper but a triplex is pretty much one lot and then you're connected in a growth area connected to water too where you have to allow four units per lot. And again like you know if you have a minimum lot size that matches what the state requires.

Yeah. uh and they just don't meet that. You don't have to allow them to have four units, but you just can't stop them in theory from having four units otherwise. Like you can't say this is a residential lot, like in a residential area for residential, you can't say you can't have like four units on a lot. You know, dimensional requirements may prevent them from having four units, but you can't outright say you can't have four units. Um next is accessory dwelling units. Town already does this, but you have to allow one ADU per single family lot. um in all zones and then no owner occupancy or dimensional standards or additional parking can be required. Um so again like this town already doesn't allows the forgo the dimensional standards. Um I'm pretty sure you would allow them forgo the additional parking too, right? That's the same as

we don't we don't calculate parking for coverage and we don't there's no specific as to how many parking spaces are required on our property. And then uh the only one and I don't think town does this but you couldn't then start to enforce ADUs by requiring that they have an over occupancy requirement um on the lot. So someone who doesn't live on the lot um can still build like an ADU on it. If they have a primary dwelling unit but they just don't live in it. They can't be required to live there and to have the ADU. They can still build an ADU on that lot. Are they required to have the dwell, you know, have a single family dwelling or a one family dwelling on the lot to be able to have an ADU or can they

build and add like build a single family house and then add an ADU? They have to be allowed to do that. You can do that.

And then so separ from that is minimum lot sizes in both areas. You're connected to public water and sewer. Um minimum lot size will have to be allowed to be 5,000 square feet. Northeast Harbor, Seal Harbor, I think it was both water, right? Yeah. So, those areas could be impacted. Um, again, I think probably a growth area too. Town's currently going through a comp plan update. Uh, and so I think Nol and Suzanne are where they should have a discussion on again like maybe what layman's terms maybe make sense as like a growth area. I think they were talking about like making sense as like an area could be a growth area but um based on some of these changes you might want to come up with a different name for the comp plan just like

well right now when the p comp plan some identified so there are going to be so you tell me this seasonville in someville no I think that needs said, "Build the water system and then talk to us." I appreciate and like even like doesn't have water and sewer so it wouldn't be subject to the same these standards I just read. But like we have sewer on the main street but that's all water or portion of the main street.

Yeah. And then um the state's basing all these new changes off of growth areas all of a sudden then you don't necessarily want to make everywhere a growth area. you're gonna want to limit that and then just kind of plan for development in a different way in certain other areas, right?

Um because you don't know what to say to come up with next for growth areas you're required to do. Um, but so in addition to the 5,000 ft of your growth area and connected to public water and sewer, you have to allow a density of 1,250 ft per unit for the first four units, which again goes back to that four units required if you're in a growth area and have water and sewer. Um, 5,000 ft divide by four is 1,250 ft. But then if you uh but the density after the next the first four units uh can't be greater than 5,000 square feet per unit. So again if you have like a 10,000 square foot lot you can at minimum you have to allow five units on that lot because there' be the 12 1,250 for the first four then you could allow 5,000 for the fifth unit.

That's with sewer and water

with sewer and water. Yep. Um, and so related to that, um, with different scenario, if you have a minimum lot size for if you're in the growth area, but you have to use a private septic, it has to follow, uh, title 12 standards, uh, which right now, and it probably will stay that way, is 20,000 square feet per unit. Um, and that's if you're using a private septic. And then if you have uh the density for that scenario where it's a growth area but you're private septic, you cannot require a minimum lot size of greater than 20,000 square feet. Um, and so again, the third scenario that they present is if it's a minimum lot size outside of the growth area, but you are connected to public water and sewer, you cannot have a greater minimum lot size requirement of 5,000 square feet, but the density requirement um is 5,000 square feet per unit for the first two units. Then it could ex increase it after that. And then that's the most complicated part probably. Um and again the town already does this um but if not it's in the subdiving ordinance drafting the density for affordable housing has to be two and a half times the base density um or what the town provides for any other development in that same zone or same area. And then the height of affordable housing, you have to allow a minimum of an extra 14 feet or one story um and height to an affordable housing project. So you have to allow these 14 ft extra. You could allow more. Um I'm thinking the subdivisions I just went with the 14 ft. Um and then planning board review. This changes what the planning board has to review. So, if a project that technically is a subdivision, but it's four uh four or three dwelling units

within the same structure, they now don't go to the planning board. Kim reviews them as an administrative review um through code. But again, it's only if it's three or four units within the same structure. If you're building three or four units on the same lot, but they're separate structures, uh you it still comes to the planning board for review. And then there's the accessory dwelling unit allowances. They have to be allowed on non-conforming lots. So what does that mean? So means if you have a non-conforming lot, yeah, you can put an 80 have another dwellings on it. What happens if you can't meet the dimensionals like the setback requirements to

Yeah, it doesn't. You just have to meet the setbacks and we have distance between buildings. Does that that would apply? You have to meet the if yeah for fire purposes first. So say if it's a nonconforming lot and there's no buildable area can you still put the ADU on it? What do you mean no build? Well like say all the setbacks don't really allow for a used build variances. Yeah. Setback variances you can get those but those are hard to unless you get the setback at least from your neighbors. Yeah, waiver for your ADU on your nonconforming lot is a neighbor.

Well, I mean, you could in theory lot where like you already have a single family home on it and like but it's like grandfathered in for so long and like maybe you just want to like split your house then into a duplex but one of them's technically an ADU. Now would have to allow it even though you might not have like technically the lot area for it, but it would still meet suspects and you're not really expanding the uh developable area. You're just changing the structure or up over a garage or something like that.

There's smart ways to do it. Someone could try and be foolish and push the limits on it, but go a variance and everything like that, but again, I don't think the town would have prevented like and with the way the ordinance is currently written, if you wanted to add an ADU to your garage while nonconforming a lot, I don't think the ordinance reads in a way that that wouldn't have been allowed because garage was nonconforming on a nonconforming lot, can you convert it into a ADU? Like if the that would be a change of use of a non-conforming structure. So if it's technically just a garage, yeah, right now for storage, but you want to convert it to an ADU, you'd have to go to planning for the change of use of a non-forming structure.

But then and you guys got to look at obviously will the change of use do an adverse impact to the area? And then if you approve it then it can be converted. This is like a law school class. What if the guy was holding the flag? See, right. So then just again you have to allow occupancy and construction of an ADU unit if the unit does not reside on the law. Uh the last three parts it's this training thing.

Yeah. Well, we'll get to that. The last one. can't require sprinklers and ADUs um that are attached to one or two familys. Um so again, if there's like a triplex, someone wants to put an ADU is attached to one of those. Um they will have to sprinkle it or a town can't require sprinklers. If it's a single family home or a duplex and they're putting an ADU attached to, they wouldn't count that as like a triplet multi multif family. So state fire marshall wouldn't require that. I think the state fire marsh bill firewall could still require a firewall but not a sprinkler. Yeah.

And then they changed the definition of the subdivision that kind of come in line with the uh new review process where again if you create five or it's for units only, dwelling units only. If you create five or more units in five years uh within the same structure, it's a subdivision. But three or four units within the same structure now is no longer a subdivision. So we have until June of 2026 to make changes 27 27. Yes. So the discussion at the Luzo was actually how active should we be in generating language for all of these things given the the scuttlebot that a bunch of them are going to be changed. One more plan board has to receive training within 180 days of

Oh you had a question back. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um, but yeah, so like that's like the MMA stuff though, isn't it? Well, it could be any type of training, but MMA probably the most easiest one to access. And you don't have to do it every year. I mean, it's like I think you have like continuing education credits or Yeah, the state does not require continuum education. Okay. We learn on the job.

Yeah. Point. It's hard to tell which of this like is going to get challenged and survive or which of this will get challenged at all or what is going to get changed in the um the emissions and revisions bill that will probably go forward in January. Um so again there's things that if a town's like uncomfortable with they may want to wait um to implement but again it's a policy discussion like if there are these items that's like well we may want to encourage this anyway. Um, some of it you can't wait for like the sprinklers and ADUs that has to go because that's technically in effect today. Um, and like the change in definition of subdivision that sort of and the training piece I think are the three pieces that were today. Um,

so I would anticipate the lo committee is going to try to sift through that with you and figure out what we need to present or what changes now. Yeah, I mean some of it I mean like we might not even need to do anything technically or just a line and the ordinance like the sprinkler piece like right there's not like a ton of discussion on that like the planning board training piece it's not going to go in an ordinance it's not just a policy that you have to right to do I mean there is a planning board ordinance you could just put a line in there requiring that but as long as you're keeping up with it and have records that you're keeping up with it um you're in compliance. Is there anyone here who hasn't done one of those trainings at some point? The MMA trainings. It's been a while. Yeah, I know.

I went to two, so I don't think they changed much. Seemed pretty static to me when I took it. Um, but yeah, that's so I think the biggest piece that would change is the review process for three or four dwelling units, which again, like I could just move forward and make the change in the subdivision or um for your guys to review,

which wouldn't change much. Do I change the definition? Uh, you know, actually it would probably make it easier and shorter because like minor uh structure subdivisions essentially go away. Um, because that definition of that is creates four or fewer dwelling units that trigger subdivision review. Um, so actually this is what I wanted to ask us to go back to was was just reminding people how we've broken out the different types of application processes for different types of projects. So maybe we could just like hit all of those so people are sure up to date on that.

Yeah. So there's two ways that's getting broken down now. Can we before we jump into that I have a question on the top of page 25. Yeah. where it says the minimum density shall be 50 units per acre.

Y that's one of the things that might change with LD1829. Um yeah, so if you're So the benefit was you allowing a minimum lot size of 4,000 square feet for a attainable housing uh subdivision. You're changing you're then adding a minimum density of 50 units per acre. Um, and then again like you get development bonuses past them. But if you have a 4,000 foot lot, that's about a tenth of an acre. Um, so you'd be allowed to have five units on a 4,000 foot lot at the start or a attainable housing unit. And this says 50. Yeah.

Well, 50 units per acre, but you have a lot size of 4,000 square feet or bigger. So if it's 4,000 square feet, you get five units, right? Okay, I could just say that, but yeah, that's a lot of studios. I was like that that was completely in the town's control. There's nothing saying you have to keep it at that. Um, and you think the ghost of town vote and people are going to see that and freak out. I could probably think of a less scary way to write it. It's 50 units. I understand number you're not doing the math back and forth.

Yes. Um so I can think of a way to rewrite that. Well, we do need to have a good way to explain the math because I find my head start spinning on it pretty quickly. It's confusing without a doubt. It' be nice to see a you know like a an example attainable. Yeah. And then affordable and showing block size and how many units and how you break it down. Yes, not a bad idea as well. That would be very helpful, I think, to a lot of us. Ultimate. You are you are here.

And throughout my notepad pages I had where I was drawing rectangles and splitting them up and writing lot sizes on them and saying like what would this actually look like if we got fill I think that would help.

Yeah, because I think there's a minimum density. There could also be a maximum density. And um so again like if you do have like a huge lot for some reason get connected to waters uh that's doing attainable housing there would be a maximum number of units that could go on the lot too. Um but good point. Um so back to the types of review. So on page two,

yeah, there's the um so you're breaking out land and structure reviews. So minor and major versions of both um minor land subdivisions are defined as a review um that creates four or fewer lots. So it's typically three or four lots um in a subdivision. And so again, generally very small even for a land subdivision. And then there's the major which would be five or more units on a lot or sorry in a project and then five or more lots sorry in a project. And then you go into structure subdivision. Uh minor was defined as four or fewer dwelling units. Um this could exist that just have to be a line added that says it's four or fewer dwelling units on a lot that are not part of the same structure. Uh because that is the piece that the state has removed from the subdivision. definition.

So if it's four unit, four or fewer units in the same structure, it's going to go to king. Yes. Okay. How about if someone builds like four single family homes in the same lot, it'll still come to the planning board.

And then there's the major structure subdivision which was five or more dwelling units on a lot. And again, whether that's in the same structure or not, that would still come to planning board under the state's name. Um then there was the discussion of simultaneous subdivision of land and structures. So I mean they can be small projects in theory but just because it's a complicated nature of subdividing land and structure um that will always come to planning board. And so like even if you had one lot or you had a lot split that into two lots and then build a duplex on the new lot that would still have to come the planning board even though it's in theory still a small project but you're splitting both land and subdivision in the same or structure in the same project.

But the real difference that we're making is that if it's a major project you have to do three steps. I do the site plan, preliminary, and final review, but you don't do the the sketch plan if it's a small project. Well, yeah, you don't have to. Like, Right. Right. Right. Yeah. You're not required to. Yes. But for major projects, um there would be a three-step process. And I I go back and forth about how necessary that is for Mount Dert. I mean like in a town like Ellsworth where they do get like large like 70 unit apartment buildings and stuff like that

it is very helpful and I think it's helpful to developer too to have a sketch plan um preliminary and final. Um but again I don't with the largest subdivisions that come here maybe it's not really about the size of the development but maybe it's more about the politics of the development where you might want to have three meetings three chances for the public to come and provide comment. Um that was kind of the thought there. But so in in theory you under state law you could simply have state law only requires two meetings. You're allowed to have up to three but there has to be two at least two. And do they define what has to be in those meetings? Yes. Which is like the review that

So it's the preliminary and the final. Well, yeah, you can have so no technically the state only requires a sketch review and then a and then a final final there has to be the final public hearing. There has to be two meetings and then I think a better way of doing it is a preliminary and a final both with a public hearing. What's different between the preliminary and the final? So preliminary are focused on completeness. Um, so in theory, like an applicant technically turns in the complete application, but there are still questions or things that aren't necessarily addressed very well. Okay. And that's the board's opportunity to say, well, we'd like more information on this because

you haven't mentioned burn proof really. If this were a final, we wouldn't have been able to vote through because the burn proof has. So I presume that what you could do instead instead of having the preliminary, you could have somebody submit the plan. You could do the sketch, you could have somebody submit the plan and if it and but then have a provision to be able to move it to a subsequent meeting if the board finds it's not complete or not ready for action as opposed to making everybody do it. That's I guess what I'm trying

if I were going to get rid of a required meeting, I would make I would get rid of the sketch. I think preliminary like essentially has to be required and then because I just the way the state uses sketch is essentially preliminary but because they can allow for a three meeting process like the way that I've seen it like in towns that do have three meeting processes sketch is like super low stakes just like come talk about your project and draw that's what we do thing right and then there's preliminary which would then be like the completeness check that sketch is defined defined as in the subdivision or state law. And then there's the final which is the same as

I guess the one thing that I wonder about about the sketch is that come on in let's talk is we're expected to p we're not making decisions but we're expected to offer aodite opinions about what you're going to need and somebody's bringing in something on the back of a piece of paper and with some other things I just wonder

I wouldn't how ready we a planning board actually is in that situation to pass to give opinions that's as informative as they informed and informative as they could be. I wouldn't say at a sketch plan you should be giving opinions on what they need because it's always the applicant's job to provide the information at sketch you can ask questions about the project as you see it like if they haven't addressed something in their sketch you can be like well how are you going to address x y or zu and then they have they can either say I don't know yet and you're like well you should prepare an answer for that when you come back for preliminary

or um if they do have an answer you know I wouldn't say I want no I want to sort of give an opinion one way or the other but say okay thanks you've already thought about that like that's good what okay would you would you uh suggest a site visit to the property the project I mean huh it would depend on the project I guess like or what's that issue in the project I wouldn't do a site visit for every project

you wouldn't that's what we got it they do familiarize with the area well I mean so like uh the only reason I say I wouldn't It's really been just my experience in Ellsworth like it's already like very largely developed and like as I knew like most of the areas of the town. The only time I had I had two site visits scheduled. One was they were just making a long road that went to private property and the board had never seen that area or that part that land before. So we did a site visit to see what the road track would be like. Well, these guys don't give properties. Yeah. Yeah. You could you could in theory I mean I wouldn't require it in the ordinance but the board does have a practice of requesting site visits. I like being able to visual

I like having a site visit because sometimes the sketch plans are the sketch plan reviewed process is pretty sketchy, you know, and it's hard to kind of put it in context sometimes. Yeah. And so yeah, I mean you can schedule them whenever you want. Um that's not going to change then the process that we're trying to I mean I mean the one we just the simple one we just did for example you go there and you go like oh okay oh it's not acres and this is here and this is way over there and yeah I mean again like the board where the other properties like for a site visit you just have to post it and treat it like a regular meeting. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's allowed.

We're very diligent about waiting till the exact moment of the meeting. Yes. or five minutes extra. All right. Um, can I ask a question? Under the um, sorry, Gail. No, no. The administrative procedures and fees at 3.1.3 where it's minor structure subdivision plan for less. Yeah. Where it was minor. Okay. Structure subdivision plan of four or leure. Yes. Last sentence. It says a minor subdivision structure sh subdivision shall undergo a preliminary and final review before the planning board. Okay. Isn't that me? Did you just

No. So, I'm going to keep this definition the way it is. I'm going to add a line that says well part of I'm going keep part of that definition the way it is, but at the end of it says creates four fewer dwelling units. I say that are not part of the same structure because then they would still go to the planning board. But then we'll change the definition of subdivision to reflect that if it's it's one building. Oh, probably it's like a note or something. Yes, it's one says like if it's in the three or four units within the same structure, it is not a subdivision.

Moving target. Yeah. One sense was that the um the language of the process itself and the information that's required is pretty similar to the existing subdivision ordinance. So we haven't made any Yeah. Because I mean everything that was in the existing subdivision ordinance is state required. Uh well there there are a few extra things that map has but most of it is state required. You have to review those things every time you review a subdivision.

Right. Um well as far as the performance standards go you're talking about like the information on the plan that gets like it's just a very long list of things but again that's like the that is telling the applicant you know like if you do check all these boxes like in theory and all this information is in your packet on the plan you will have also answered the performance gu like standard questions um in some capacity and so that's like again completeness versus does it actually answer the question and that's what preliminary score I do think we did we I I don't remember what the current ordinance says but we made it clear

in this process that each of the meetings will be public will will be public meetings and there will be opportunities for members of the public to speak during the during the consideration of those applications. Um, and then we just talked about the fact that it would be up to us for, for example, to try to manage that and make sure, for example, people weren't just saying the same things over and over, you know, find diplomatic ways to say, um, sort of point out that the when the board hears something, the board hears something and then the board doesn't need it. It doesn't it's not an exclamation point for the board to hear it. It's like,

yeah. And I mean you could literally just have like a script that you read at the beginning of every meeting essentially where it's like yes you know if you have public comment you'll have three minutes to speak. Yes. You hear that's your comment or has already been made just like reference that's already been made. Don't go and explain it in full again. Um if you do report has the right to ask you to skip to your next point or something like that. right now. Do we antic how much would you expect us to anticipate there being a dialogue and during public comment as opposed to the public commenting? Yeah, I mean that happens. Um, but the public does void instead of

Yeah. I mean, so like they're not really supposed to ask the applicant questions, but they can say to the board like, "Hey, we've heard this presentation. You know, the plans are publicly available. I reviewed them. I still have this question and the board can be like, "Oh, that's a good question." Like maybe we should ask that of the applicant and then the board can ask. So it goes this way. Yeah. I mean like you know I've and I think a lot of planning boards if someone asks a question the chair or someone the chair usually will just look at the applicant and be like well do you have an answer to that and just streamline but like yeah um but like there really shouldn't be like a back and forth

fast like back and forth between the applicant and someone who's speaking in the public. Yeah. during the prelim preliminary or any of the publications. I mean like this conversation really they can talk to each other but like you don't want it to be like a constant like where the board is now just sitting and observing like conversation back because there may be things that someone wants information to but it's really not required and so like the board could say like well do you have an answer to that like no and it's like okay well it's really not required they don't have an answer so like go on

you know I had somebody asking like what applicant like 13 children's trouble sleeping like the light's going to get in their window and it's like probably not but like not going to make the applicant answer that question you know just jumping around is there a minimum habitable footprint requirement in the town or is that coming from the state mean habitable footprint I mean like uh yeah like something you can dwell in you know like a minimum imum dwelling unit by garden shed I don't know has one

well ads do adus do you do I mean um I think there is one for a primary think so but you still have to meet all clearances and you have to be able to fit a bathroom bedroom place to eat and cook and then IRC has a bedroom size 70 feet. You mean a a generous New York apartment? [Music] Yeah. We're running into like these weird building types people are asking about like like small footprints, but they want it like tall.

Yeah. Stair detail. I mean, sure. card. That's why there's like a split between what code would review for like a building permit and that sort of thing versus what the board approves through like the subdivision process. Well, that's an interesting thing. I mean, there's lots of places that have like lofts and ladders and stuff like that in these little houses, but you have to have stairs, right? You can't. That cuts into the You can't use a ladder way up to a loft area. I can't anymore anyway. But where is the minimum ADU footprint for? What

where is the minimum ADU footprint? Section 6B11 where we under lots and then C1 or sorry I don't go into detail 11 standards

6B 6B 114 it's might be three lots outside Three 63. That's if you're holding out 614 6 feet 33 page 6-14. Oh, there you go. Accessory dwelling in it must be 190 square ft. That's small. That's tight. Yep. It

is. Well, that's like But keep in mind too like all the egress that doesn't alleviate openings of doorways. Essentially at 190 feet allows you to like have one of those like cabin ADUs on the back of your truck or something like that. The uh you can live in that year. Odd. Bigger than my boat. Yeah. What? And why why are you referencing sprinklering of adus? No state law. The state 1829 part of that is all adus. No. No. If it's not requirement if it's attached requirement

is attached to the house and it's few of the two or fewer units in the house. You can't require a sprinkler system. Donate a unit attached to a single family home or a duplex. You can't require sprinklers. Right. But they're not required state.

Yeah. If it's a test triplex, you can require to be sprinkled. Um, what do you think the board needs at this point in order to be able to feel comfortable saying that this is about ready to go to the lawyer for his I think pencil about ready to go anyway. Yeah,

but I think for just the board's like I'll make that sharp comparison chart for the specialized subdivisions to make all that clearer. Yeah, I mean drafting I don't know if there is too much again besides tweaking it. Uh the biggest changes would be rewriting those sections as specialized subdivisions to not quite so high popping, right? I mean we're we in the original we had cluster and workforce housing combined in one and that created challenges

and so at this point everything has its own lane. Well, I think now what would be good is just to get you guys kind of I mean we could do a practice with it. So, as you can use this as if you were actually reviewing and see how it feels and like as you're actually using it, be like, "Oh, like this actually doesn't make any sense." Um, the name and then like note of that. We're gonna have just another one of these slightly updated more for the ETH. Yeah. Yep. I can Yeah, I'll make sure I have the charts by the ETH, too. So, you're going to give us a quiz. Is that what you're saying? We can use the facts.

I think that's like the most helpful way to figure out if this actually works or not. Uhhuh. Well, I think if we I think the idea of having that chart with that helps us figure out lot sizes and units and allowed and because my that's like scrambled eggs in my brain. and um as as much of that as we can have not only for us but for people who will applicants who will have to

yeah and I'm working on a checklist I start outlining a checklist for this um again it's not finished so I can't finish it but just outlining what the checklist will look like for you guys yay we like checklists yay they're very good to for everybody. Yeah. All right.

Then I mean I guess just a general conversation is like looking I guess it's hard without it in front of you guys if I can give you my list but you look at the 1829 requirements that I read. I mean like again some of them don't pass the state or don't pass challenges. like are there things that the town would want to do anyway? Again, like I think li like the three or four units not being subdivision as long as they're part of the same structure is like something the town may just want to adopt anyway for quicker reviews for the smaller projects. Yes. Yeah, I would say I would think yes.

Affordable housing stuff just makes sense to adopt anyway. I don't think those would get overturned or changed at all. You already have one of them. And then same with the ADU stuff. I doubt that that will get changed. Maybe when we're doing if we're doing a charts for, you know, figuring out calculating what's allowed on different lots if we did one that complies with all of these changes. Well, we could do that, but I wonder if we did another one that is like the or the draft is now. I don't know how different that

Oh, I can say like a lot of these changes like the density and minimum square uh minimum lot sizes. That's actually going to change the luzo and not the subdivision ordinance. The only way I would change the subdivision ordinance. Oh, sure. is if you're trying to like when you look at the specialized ones, it's like, okay, well, we now do allow 5,000 square foot lot. I changed that attainable one to 4,000 square feet because originally I had a 5,000 ft. I was like, well, now it's not a bonus because you have to allow that anyway. So now 4,000 feet was the bonus,

but yeah, could you don't get a minimum lot size bonus anymore and it is just a density bonus. So I guess my sense is then then do the chart as it would be if we followed the this and then we can then we can look at depending on your perspective the best or the worst case scenario and then figure out what we want to if we want to recommend all of it or some of it or yeah right now and then you can wait to do yeah updates to it later because it it would be lovely to if we're going to go the whole process of doing a subdivision ordinance that we present to the voters that it's in a form that isn't going to need well we can't tell what the legislation the year but

let's change I know I know but any significant changes that we have to we have to go through through it'd be nice to put it away for a while and see how it works revisions to frequency approved subdivision plans yes um so there allows there's allowing minor revisions. Yes. So, pretty much it doesn't create more dwelling units of lots. What about goes outside the boundaries of lava? That's not in here anymore. I mean, goes outside the boundaries of the previous city for sub adding a lot dwelling unit.

People might switch. Can you give me an example of a minor change to a subdivision that does not involve either splitting lots or doing? Well, it says there's times that previously approved subdivision plan needs amending. The purpose of allowing a separate review revision to an approved plan is that small changes do not force an applicant to go through an entire subdivision process. So it could be changing on their rightway location or if like they had a fire plan to use like sistns or something and they're like you know we're just going to sprinkle the whole thing they can come back okay and just say changing their fire suppression I see and that sort of thing. It would tend to be while it's under development.

No, I mean it shouldn't be at development at that point. It would be recorded and done and somebody wants No. No. Well, I mean well Oh, okay. Revision. Okay. Yeah. I mean like the only reason that I can think of that a plan should come back while it's being developed is if like I don't know they like found a ledge that Yeah. Yeah. for some reason they didn't see when they were surveying a lot or something like that. But then they sue their surveyor after that. What about like a test pit change be minor? If it was on the plan is here and now it's over here. Does that matter as long as I suppose they would be the ones?

All right. But I wouldn't make them come back for that. Like they're still doing the same number of test pits. Like if those location changed slightly, I wouldn't consider that like a reason because you're not asking for like building envelopes on the plans, right? No, they the only time they have to show floor plans uh is for structure subdivisions. Yep. Yeah. Yeah. um about the um access uh provision where it's in the ordinance and allows a planning board to for private roads. Is that our ordinance? I mean that would still apply. I mean well that only applies if it's not a subdivision, right? If it's

Yeah. If so, if like we're dealing with public roads, our access when somebody like has to extend or modify an existing private road. Right now, the land zoning ordinance requires review because they're the only ones that can give waiverss on road standards planning board. Right. But that's I mean if it's a subdivision and it's coming all as one project. No, it's not a subdivision. Right. Well, so they wouldn't go in here. Huh? Well, it wouldn't go in here. They come here. Well, if it's in the Luzo, but it won't be in the subdivision ordinance because

Yeah, but the but the Luzo kicks it to the subdivision ordinance because they have jurisdiction to modify or wave road standards. We can't do it in the land and zoning ordinance. Right. But like the process wouldn't be in here where it says you have to go use the is the process in Luzo where it says this is what you do, but you have to use the road standards in subdivision. Yes. Yeah. So that well kicks it to the subdivision section 514 of the subdivision ordinance if you have to. So it suggest to me that what you're doing is incorporating by reference the provisions of the subdivision ordinance in the lo for for those situations.

Um I mean yeah you could because like this road standards are just copy and pasted from what was in the existing subdivision into the new one. So like that's still there but like the very first section is like road standards under section 30 is not what part of the lo is it was in the front section 3 two two in subdivision one not lo right I want to read where lo sends you to the subdivision uh section 6B11 two two access yet. Um, so if a rollway modified or private

over standards for new extended modifications to existing driveway are in section 6B6. Standards for new extended modifications existing private road are in sections 5 and four of the subdivision ordinance 514 street. So it's the same as right. So this stuff is in the sub. So we just change the cross reference right in the lo to be the cross reference for here.

Yeah. Because 6.1.1 in the under the subdivision ordinance waivers is where it tells the board has authority to wave the 514 standards provided there's either like topography issued. Right. So that would be a change to the Luzo then. because these standards are in the sub be sending them to the Yeah. But that's not in the new one. Well, the standards are in the new one. Yeah. Yeah. No, but like the front um section look in the subdivision or say like 3 again that's the 5. Yeah. Read standards road standards. Excuse me.

Road standards review. Okay. on the development of a lot as well as access more than two lots. 27

those three lots that haven't already come for planning for yeah say it's not part of the study vision. Gotcha. I mean I don't Yeah. Okay. I mean we got to look at 6V11 again. No one's probably told you that. Yeah. Because of this last application we just had um where they access road within the town of Mount Desert's jurisdiction, but the lot was in Bar Harbor. Yeah. What I would do is if you're already sending them for private roads modifications to the standards without even referencing this. I would think you don't need this necessarily. You just change the title of the section. Luzo.

I think that that was added. I don't know. No one added it. He has keep written next to it in the copy. But I'll talk to him about that because there might be a better way of right because this section is not mentioned at all and this the signing of people here. Yeah. Y and so like you could just skip over this and it wouldn't even matter. Um

so I'll talk to him and see what the again goes in there and see what the history of that is. I think one of the ways in which subdivisions that the whole density change requirements is relevant to subdivisions is it's important for us to be able to wrap our heads around those requirements and how they how they affect things on the ground in everything and you could get a much denser, more densely populated subdivision now than you could have previously. That's what that's all about is trying to create more housing.

Right. Right. So, but for us to be able to understand like it's like we look at something and say, "Geez, that's a lot of lots." Oh, that's a lot of buildings or something, we say, "Well, but here's what the law allows." So, yeah, it is. But that's the new world we're living in. Yeah. It's the chart I didn't outline. Yeah. Yeah, that'd be good. So, it's going to apply everything, including subdivisions. Yeah. Yeah, I mean that would just apply like even if you're not subdividing if you just create a new lot or split a lot. So it's two lots now. They would have to follow the minimum lot sizes too. Yeah. Okay. That would be very helpful. That would be our planning board training session for this year.

We'll have to change a lot of our zone. Yeah. That's why I'm like you shouldn't rush that for this year. No, but I'm just saying that's gonna that's going to be affected quite a bit. Yes. I've already started to outline the I said the table for zone in b of some of that stuff but I haven't spent too much time on it because we're looking at this for this right Gail closed her laptop we did it I closed my laptop I can open it again but G had questions I want to answer them oh well yes I well I did um so you can answer in the privacy of your email

I have them so I'll just read through them um so she had asked we talk about other ordinance provisions the plan must comply with um section 4.2.4F of the new uh ordinance which is so we don't see anything about Shirley on zoning. I mean like so that's why I'm trying like did I miss that?

Yeah, I mean kind of it's so it's broad enough that it essentially includes shoreline zoning. So 4.2.4F 4F is a requirement that said information show in compliance with Luzo and subdivision ordinances the applicant shall submit evidence to the board of THR compliance with uh so that was the title of it and then the applicant shall submit evidence to the board of compliance with one section 4.4 of this ordinance two section six of the Luzo and three such other regulations and ordinances referred to in sections 4.4 and 4.5 of this ordinance so section 4.4 4 mentions shorland zoning and because that is a regulation referred to in section 4.4 4.5 of this ordinance it's included in here and it's also in like the lo so it's covered in both areas and I can call it out if you want me to but

I just want to make it as clear as possible for everyone including ma I can add I'll probably add an example at the end of three where it says such as other regulations and ordinances referred to in sections involve law of this ordinance as the board may require such as

next one was my favorite question. Next one was availability of streams for disposal of effluence. I thought the way I didn't understand that like sounds like it's a bad thing. No, affluence is really just storm water. I mean, so there's supposed to be a plan where you're treating and holding the storm water separately, but it still runs off somewhere. And so that's really what that's referring to. Not in my diction. Not in my literally. I looked at I thought, well, what are we doing with we're doing like dirty water? Again, as long as they're doing a proper water,

again, like it's developable asphalt. So, or developed asphalt. So, there is going to be some effluent, but it's not like toxic really as long as it's treated and held properly. You're more worried about the speed at which the water's running off the property and how it's causing erosion. So, is effluence the right word if we're talking about storm runoff? Again, technically it is because there is sturdier water if you have impervious surface, but like I can take that is like not necessarily like a perfect term. I can definitely change that and just pick something else. 8 4

Oh, yeah. 42.8 says, "The applicant shall provide evidence that aesthetic, cultural, and natural sites are not adversely impacted by the subdivision by providing materials requested in 4.2. Are we are we close to getting back to um a compatibility provision here? And that's a little that has brings some vagueness into it. This the point of this because the point of the way it's written is it references to the materials that are required. You're really just following whatever the letters say. So main state historic says that there isn't an issue with historic or cultural assets. That's what you're following. If inland fish and wildlife says there's no issue with habitat or anything like that, that's what you're following there. Okay. Okay.

Um, so you're really just following what the letter says based on that requirement. There are other requirements where you could get more in depth with like habitat and that sort of thing. But okay. And then the next one was why do requirements 4.3 not mention coastal properties but every other type of water frontage is? It's technically it mentions coastal properties if there's a coastal wetland dividing them which is like most of the coastal properties. Um but again like zoning plays into this too which is what really protects those assets. Um the only reason I would even I even mentioned like streams and Brooks and stuff is because the state subdivision law requires that they be mentioned otherwise I would have just referenced sub zoning law.

Okay. Okay. Have we ever had a project where there's been an issue with like the main historical No, I mean anyone that we've ever the letters there's no I mean I you know show them on the map that there's like there's been known but they must have you know criteria there is that or

well so the only there's the only example I can think of where it became like a discussion or topic of discussion during a meeting was there was a project along Union River and um there had been like an archaeological dig done like decades ago and they had a historical record of that dig where they found stuff that was potentially of high value historically and so it didn't prevent the project from happening but they had to put up a buffer around where that dig occurred and like you know then some people did come and say like well what if there's more and like you know they didn't dig it up during that dig and I'd be like Well, I'm not going to make the applicant do any historical dig to find out like um as long they keep that buffer that's like what the state was requiring. And so that was the only requirement

like England like if the if the if the electrical company digs and they come across bodies, they're like not necessarily required because they're like everywhere, right? Thanks. Any again like that's I am male planners are supposed to be really into historic preservation. I am a planner who is not um I have a personal bias against it, but I know a lot of communities do try and use it to like prevent new development. Yeah, it can be pretty. We had a project where we found a uh tombstone when we were digging a foundation and they stopped everything.

Well, you might want to investigate a little bit. Yeah. Maybe dig up bodies or Yeah. Yeah. Like yeah, it's like glass or like pop. I was not in this town. Okay. Next was why don't we use cluster housing water? We already talked. Yeah, I talked about that.

And then uh can we be explicit throughout the mobile home park? Sustainable and affordable housing is for residential use of the occupancy not for non-residents. It states that the purpose obtainable housing right in that but not in others and it's making the intent very the requirement good enough. I would say for affordable and attainable housing. Um, you don't want to have a too specific of a definition saying it's only for residents where like the definitions themselves saying you have to allow this median income to rent or buy in itself is saying that like they're probably going to be for your own use because there's no Airbnb person who's going to say, "Okay, well now I need proof of your income to show that like I can charge you this much for like a short-term rental." like that just doesn't practically make sense. But those projects only have to do that for 51% of the units. And so if like a project isn't financially feasible to make 51% of the units affordable without maybe doing like some short-term rental and the other 49%. You know, this is a policy discussion, and you can tell me that you disagree, but I wouldn't want to stop that project because now I'm getting rid of that 51% affordable units that could be here, but it was only financially feasible because they are making the short-term rental revenue on the other 49%. I wouldn't want to stop that project. I would let them do something like that. But you may feel differently, which is totally fair, and I can change that.

Well, I think it's something we need to think about. I mean, I just if we're if we're going to be making this town subject to greater and greater and greater density beyond anything that we've ever experienced, I say what use are we going to push that that might not be the subdivision ordinance, right? It's like if you are going to start restricting short-term rentals, that should just be its own process. That's or you might not want to go too heavy on it in this particular ordinance. Like if you are concerned that yeah 51% will be year- round affordable housing but then the other 49% won't there's another tool that town would have just as a separate process and ordinance to restrict that other 49%

right from being short-term rental. That's that ball got left in the select board some time ago. I think it's can ask where they're at. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. And then I'll just quickly go over this. That was the last question. Yep. I'll go quickly over this draft draft schedule that I have. Um, so there's this meeting that we're in tonight. Um, that's actually So next meeting is October 8th. We'll go over this, you know, as a draft really one more time. Maybe I'll have talked to the attorney by then. Um, put in the email this new email by the way.

Yeah, you mind sending that? Thank you. Is he in private practice now? His own practice. He is wrong. What is it? Pataden. Nobody stole that already. That's pretty amazing.

Um and so really we have until like yeah the end of uh October to get through discussion with the lawyer and get their feedback on everything. Um and so then I was going to take the full after October take or really near the end of October I was going to take um the draft the full draft of this to the LUO committee on October 21st. Um and then there's I think there's another planning board meeting in between October 21st and then the November 18th Luzo committee meeting. But I also think I assumed there would be a meeting the first one in uh the second Wednesday in November,

right? I think I just assumed that there might be a meeting where there's applications so I wouldn't be able to make it to that. But so the next plan board meeting I have for the lawyer and that's the only one in we in November and December we only have one south of November. So the 19th of November there is or no sorry that was the right 18th is Luz 19th for Yeah. Yeah, we have one meeting in December and one in November and it's the second Wednesday of both month. Second Wednesday. Okay. So, I'll come back for that meeting unless you have a bunch of applications. Yeah. Well, once we whatever we get, I usually run it by Bill to see if he wants to add. Yeah. So, just let me know on that one.

Um I'll plan for the second Wednesday in November to be um like the first I again we can I'll have the chart for the eth meeting. So, we'll be done with that. I guess I'll be like really the first meeting with the final draft where you're really gonna want public comment I guess people to review it and stuff and at what point will you be able to work on some of the charts we talked about would that be for the next meeting try and have them the next meeting for the eth is there also um are you guys working on like an application subdivision application for someone to fill out yeah I mean that doesn't have to get voted on so well no but it would be I see. Yes, I have it. Yeah. See how it

dubtails. So I can the first it's probably going to be that it's not subdivision. Um so it is pretty much done then. So I can bring that and all the checklist then too. You can look at that. The checklist at the same time. Um so I'll plan to bring those for the December meeting for sure. But hopefully the nove the first November meeting the only November meeting. um over those then yeah there's the December 10th meeting I think is the date and then the drop that I guess date the vote on them uh Christmas Eve

no I think uh the last meeting like really discussed and draft like make changes or suggest changes to us the January 14th planning board meeting and then again I have a rough estimate from Claire but it was early to mid se February is when um public hearing we'd have to have the public hearing going on. Yeah.

And then articles are due declare February 23rd and then there's a select board meeting to send to the warm committee March 2nd. So really yeah we're looking at the public hearings in February and then we have up until then to draft war articles are due at the end of January. So, the January planning board meeting, we should have everything kind of buttoned up and ready for draft articles. Yeah, I think we're pretty good shape for that. Unless the lawyer, again, I don't think they will find a time wrong, but I'm open to it. Thank you. Thanks for that.

Thank you. Very thorough. All right. Any other other motion? None heard. Go for it. Then motion to dismiss. Ajourn. Ajourn. dismiss the class. Second. All right. All those in favor I I