Planning Board - Regular Meeting

I'll call to order the town of Mount Deserve Planning Board meeting for October 22nd, 2025. Welcome aboard. I'll kick it off. Oh, we got some people online, too. Two planning board members joining us online. So, I'll kick it off with some introductions. There she is. Welcome aboard, Meredith. So, I guess I'll start with Meredith and welcome Meredith back on the board as she's so graciously agreed to come back on the board as an alternate member to help us process the um the Heels way remand which is coming up in um in November. And we've got Annne Dalton online too. Hi Ann. Ann's a regular voting member and then other members of the board. We've got Daniel Burke. We've got Tracy Loftess Keller, myself, William Hanley, Gail Marshall, and Alan Kimberly. And I think the voting board tonight will be Alan, Gail, myself, Tracy, and an

with that, bear with me because I feel like I'm going to lose my voice. So, I will power. Yes. Um, I was asking if maybe Daniel could take my place as the voting member because I'm not sure how long I'll be able to hang in here from my location. So, okay. Thank you. Anybody you like to move we nominate Daniel Burke to be the voting member on the planning board tonight? Second. All right. All those in favor? I I welcome aboard Daniel. There he is. All right. Do we have first item tonight? Well, technically second item is two sets of minutes.

We have two sets of minutes for approval. We've got minutes from September 10th.

That was the the 51 Oakill Road approval. And then we had the um uh remember the lot access question. I move approval of both sets of minutes. Second that. All those in favor? I. And then we had minutes from the 24th. I move approval. Second. Said both sets. I just I said both sets, but if you want them separately, that's Yeah, let's do them separately. So, and then September 24th is all the uh I move approval of the September 24th minutes.

Second. All those in favor? I I All right, minutes are behind us. Great.

And item three is ahead of us and that is a conditional use approval application. And tonight we have conditional use approval application 14 2025. Owner is Seal Arbor Boat House LLC. Agent is Tim Brochu from Haley Ward. Location is 28 Dodge Point Road, Seal Harbor. Tax map 01, lot 08. Zone is Shortland Residential 2. Purpose of section 3.4 and 6C.7. Marine structures, peers, docks, wars, bridges, and other structures and uses extending over or below the normal high water line or within a wetland. addition of a 25 by 25 foot float and a 38 by 3.75 foot gang way to the existing marine structure. We had a site visit at 4:30. Was this advertised? And

yes, it was advertised in the Ellsworth American and Mount Desert Islander on Thursday, October 9th, 2025. And butters were notified by a letter dated August 8th. And there were five separate butters notified. Wouldn't be August 8th, sorry, October 8th. Okay. any conflict of interest on this one? Yeah.

So then um Allan, would you care to report on your observations from the site visit today? Well, we all gathered down there amongst all the construction going on in the area and there's really just open water right there that they're going to be putting said floats in next spring and the approval of course. So, it's technically one float and one gang way off of the existing float system was my understanding of that. Anything to add to that, Gail? No.

Right. With that, um, Tim, I'll turn it over to you.

For the record, my name is Tim Brochu, engineering project manager with Haley Ward. I think you you summarized it pretty well uh in just the description. is fairly straightforward project which is an application for an additional seasonal gang way float off an existing seasonal ramp and float system uh owned by the Seal Harbor Boat House Pier. The additional float will be utilized by the budding property owners which is Dodge Point LLC. This will eliminate the potential construction of a separate additional permanent pier and seasonal float system adjacent to the seal opera boat house where they have their frontage as provided in the town land use code ordinance under section 6 C7.14 uh states that if two or more shorefront owners choose to share a common marine structure, the applicant may request additional square footage of floats. And that's basically what the application before you is right now. Um as shown on the site plan that was attached in the application. Uh the proposed float and gang way will come off the existing float and provide docking for three boats. Gang way is approximately 38 ft long by 3.75 ft wide and the float is 25 by 25. And uh the boat system will mimic the existing boats that the Seal Harbor boat house currently uses. And again, this is seasonal. It'll be put in in the spring, taken out in the fall, and it will be anchored with uh chains and um coin blocks. And could you change the view so we can all see Meredith?

That's the gallery. That's There you go. Right. All right. Well, I I'll open it up, I guess, to public comment. If there's any public comment about this application, now's your chance. I am not hearing or seeing any public comment.

All right. So going to close public comment and um let's get on with this. And I think the first order is to find the application complete. I move we find the application complete. Second top. All right. All those in favor? I I. Anybody uh have any thoughts about I move we use the short form for processing this application? Second that. Right. All those in favor of using the short form I I. And then let's I I move we grant approval of the application.

Second that. Then we press pause and we go through the review of the application. So got my end use ordinance here in front of me. I've got the short form and the application. Let's second. and let's drill through it. So we are in we're starting in section six standards for use permits and approvals section 6A general performance standards. And under section 6A, it kicks it off with my favorite compatibil compatibility. And under compatibility, they talk about the physical size. The proposed gang way and float will be consistent with the size and type of existing structures. Visual impact. The proposed installation would be an existing seasonal float system. Proximity to other structures. The proposed installation will be within the existing seasonal float system and density of development. The installation will not increase any significant new development incident. So we were going to say C application erosion and sedimentation control project will not create any erosion or sedimentation as it doesn't have any soil dis disturbance as it's out in the ocean. See application 683 highway safety NA

um impact on town services NA 685 land suitability and applicant says NA 68 A6 lighting NA. There's no lighting proposed. Storm water 6 A7 NA 6 A8 vegetation NA 6 A9 dust fumes vaporous odors and gases NA. So the findings of fact are as presented by the applicant in the attached application and the conclusion of laws that propose us is in compliance with all standards of section 6A for which the standard has been met.

So moved. Second. All those in favor? I. All right. Then we move on to section 6B, specific performance standards for activities and land uses. 6B1 agriculture NA 6B7 excavation or filling NA 6B8 fences and walls NA 6B16 sign regulations NA 6B18 and I'm following along on the checklist here that's why it's out of order but

well in order just skipping the sections so 6B18 18 wireless communications facilities, NA 6B19, animal husbandry 2, NA, 6B20, mobile food vendors, NA 6P21, rooming house, NA 6P22, hotels and motel. NA. So findings are fact that proposed use will include none of the specific activities or land uses described as section 6B and the conclusion laws section 6B is not applicable. So moved. Second. All those in favor?

I I this is in 6B now and you don't have any checklist. You want to add that? We can add 6B.23. 23 and that's solar energy systems which is NA.

So I again move that the provisions of 6B are in not applicable again. Second.

All those in favor again. I right section 6C shorland zoning standards for review by the planning board and under shoreland zoning standards under 61 we kick it off with agriculture and animal husbandry getting there he's Page 20 NA archaeological sites can says NA.

It's an email and I found a maget sent an email to NCC and MHPC inquiring about archaeological sites and they never got back or they haven't got back. We sent it on the 8 or no 13 13. Yep. But you can condition that. Um, so we'll go back from the historic preservation. So section 6C2, I'm going to go ahead and say C application.

Uh, 6C5 essential services and a parking areas. applicant says applicable standard met see application and the reason we're here tonight section 67.

Can I just ask a question about the parking areas? The reason I asked at the at the dock about parking areas is that you don't anticipate there actually are going to be any new parking areas because of the location. needed the additional floats in the existing as shown on the site plan. They noted their parking area there where they've got significant amount of parking there. So we we'd rate it applicable standard met because there isn't going to be anymore. Is that how we'd handle that or or not? I'd say not applicable. I would say that too. They're not using it. They're not using any parking spaces there. No, they property. Yeah.

Which is right there. So section 6C parking areas NA

and again the reason we're here tonight marine and freshwater structure standards for section 6C7. So just bear with me. The as I read through the performance standards is section 67 that talks about the commercial and public marine structures are exempt from requirements 12 through 15. So um performance standard number one access from shore. You've got LAP and has demonstrated they have existing access from shore. actually the pier item two interference with existing uses and beaches. There's there was correspondence with the um

harbor master about that. Uh three effect on fisheries and wildlife etc. It's it's attached to an existing um pier or float and ramp system. Size. Uh they talk about the facility shall be no larger in dimension than necessary to carry on the activity consistent with the surrounding character uses and that a temporary pure doctor war should be no wider than six feet for non-commercial uses. They're 3.75 five. No new structures, you know, that you can't build a new structure on over or abing to pier war for dock. They're not proposing that. Six. No. Um, six is new permanent peers and docks. This they're not proposing permanent peers and docks. Seven, conversion to dwelling. They're not converting the existing load in ramp to housing uh a height limit work force or otherwise. Yes, there there's no it can't exceed 20 ft above and they're not doing that interfer nine interference with natural flow. Uh that talks about the natural flow of any surface or subsurface waters that's riding the tide up and down. um encroachment on navigation that the marine structure shall be si

designed sighted and constructed to not encroach on navigation channels. I mean again they've got the correspondence with the um harbor mastering area. 11 planning board shall request comment from the harbor master. You've already got comment 12. Dimensional limits. So just running through the dimensional limits for dimensional maximums for marine structures. Maximum length of the entire structure is 225 ft. Um the can you remind us the total length of the structure? Gang way is 38 ft long. it goes up to the 25 by 25. Well, um, Kim, do we have to add that on to the length of the structure that's there or how does that work?

What what are you asking me? So the length of the the new structure is um 35 feet and 38 38 feet and but does that measurement go straight out and when you say the the maximum length of the pier that is going out from the tidle not off to the side to the side. Yeah. We're not extending more out into the ocean. Okay. So that's not right.

Okay. Maximum length of all permanent structures is 115 feet. We're not adding permanent structures. Maximum length of all non-permanent structures is 75 ft. And Kim, that that's not relative because we're going off to the side. It is. and the existing float system that's there for um the Seal Harbor boat house that that's grandfather that's been there. Okay. For the ordinances before the 2002 change for marine structures.

So we're good there. So maximum width of pure walkway is 6 feet and they're 3.75. Maximum width of ramp is six feet and it's really just a walkway. Maximum square footage of floats is 400 square feet. That's only if it's a singular use. So you're looking at the next one,

right? So the maximum square footage of floats for communal marine structures is 800 square feet. Uh and we're only considering the new there and they're way below that. Um additional and then those are the dimensional maximums and standards. Uh the performance standards continue with additional square footage for floats if and that's where Tim mentioned earlier that the two or more shorefront waters shorefront owners choose to share a commercial marine structure they may request additional square footage of floats 14 communal dock when proposed by the applicant. Yeah, that's relative to new subdivisions may provide. That's not relative. um 15 limit on number and there's there should be no more than one marine structure in the law. That's it for section 6C7. So going to say C application. Then on my checklist it jumps to 69 roads and driveways which is NA 611 water quality.

The applicant says NA. So the findings of fact are that the proposed use will include none of the specific activities or land uses described in section 6 except for 6C2 and 6C7. And the conclusion law is that section 6 is not applicable except for 6C2 and 6C7 for which the standard has been met. um except that the the um the archaeological one hasn't yet been met. So we need to make that a condition of like conditions

or has or will be met. I mean I if we can say it that way request isn't many I just don't have a reply underwater archaeological. I'll move. You never know. Approval of I'll suck at that. And then in the notes of section 6C, we can say that we're waiting upon a Yeah, the permit will be conditional. Well, are we going to condition the permit or are we just going to say that in the notes? Condition it. Condition it.

Condition it. Yeah. All right. So, since we're in the shoreline zone in section 6C, we get to also do section 5.9. So, we had a motion, a second. All those in favor? I I

Thanks, Heidi. All right. Section 59. So this is all shoreline stuff for 59. And so 591 will maintain safe and healthful conditions. The application 592 will not result in water pollution, erosion or sedimentation. NA 593 will adequately provide for the disposable disposal of all waste water. NA 594 will not have adverse impact on spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, bird or wildlife habitat. C application 595 will observe shore cover and visual as well as actual points of access to island inland and coastal waters. C application 596 will protect archaeological and historic resources as designated in the comp plan. So they say NA here, but if we permit the

Well, is the comp plant designated any of this area? I don't think so. I'm not aware of it. Okay, that's okay. That's okay.

State has to So we're we're going to condition it relative to the state, not the comp plan. So NA by 97 will not adversely affect existing commercial fishing or maritime activities in shoreline commercial district. It states C application 598 will avoid problems associated with flood plane development. C application 599 is in conformance with the provisions of section 6A, B and C. See standard met. So the findings of fact are C above and the conclusion was that all requirements for section 59 have been met.

So all those in favor? I. Now we come to the permit conditions. Do you need D permits or anything like that for this? No, not perceived. Okay, thank you. And no army, right? So it would just be the letter the confirmation that the we get that their response back. provide that. Yeah,

which will come back because they they don't review anything that doesn't include soils, but it's it's it won't get that just waiting on the state to say something. So that would be the only condition. That's the only condition. Um, right. Well, that's circle back to our eight track and press play approval vote. Uh, all those in favor of approving the application is submitted with the permit condition. I

I congrats. Thank you. for putting together an easy to follow application. Except for the color of the print was terrible. Oh my god, the light blue. That was hard to read. Pick that on a special.

Yeah, it's not very I'll make a note next time. dark red that means danger no anger in the code have a good night

we got everybody's signature you've got the the other portions of it we'll be intrigued to see how they virtually put in that walkway where it goes out from the two floats your two pieces and then goes and comes back. That's an engineering conundrum. Seems like they would they would need a small. We need to write anything on here about

All right. Item four other we have an update from the land use zoning ordinance advisory committee and um we will also discuss review planning world application subdivision and land use zoning ordinance amendments. So why don't we start with an update? Yeah. Uh we met last night um and we went once we went through

we discussed again the LE 1829 updates as we're likely to have to or likely to want to work on uh for presentation at town meeting. And um the other thing we talked about is that under state law, Matt did a a grid that showed how the maximum square foot that we can require is likely to change in our zoning ordinance. And he's used red to desri to show where the differences are. Only there are some there were some errors in it. So, there's some things that are crossed out, but under the current ordinance, maybe you can describe I I'm happy to, but you might want to describe what the changes are now. Um, in the minimum lot areas.

Yeah. So uh with LD189 that got passed uh there were provisions that change the minimum uh law areas and then certain density provisions um that municipalities can require. Can you just for the record summarize what LD 1829? Yes. Is

this was like the omnibus bill passed by the legislature this past session that had to do a lot with uh trying to increase housing in different ways. So, some of the provisions, they're all over the place. Some of them were with ADUs, some were with density and like zoning. Um, others were with uh like building height and affordable housing. Um, so there were a lot of different types of provisions, but the ones we focused on last night. We talked about all questions, policy questions for the Luzo committee for different types of the provisions, but the biggest one was the uh land use and density and dimensional requirement areas. um that came from that bill. And so uh the bill essentially looks at uh growth areas that have been determined by towns in their comp plans, whatever the most recent comp plan that was passed, um or adopted was. And it takes um look at some growth areas one consideration and then whether or not there's public water and sewer available. So both water and sewer uh available in that area or any other area of the town. And then it created minimum lot size um provisions that town can't ask for minimum lot sizes greater than what the state now uh provides. And then also there were some density um requirements that went along with that. So I'll go through the important ones. uh or if you're in a growth area and you have water public water and sewer uh go serving a lot uh that lot now you can't in those areas you cannot require a minimum lot size of greater than 5,000 square feet and then if you're in a growth area but don't have both public water and sewer if you just have public sewer or public water but not both um you can't require but you're still in the growth area can't require a greater uh minimum lot size than the 20,000 ft, which is currently the state minimum for

like if you're just served by a septic system. Um, I don't think that will change really ever, but so 20,000 square feet is the minimum for now. And then if you're outside of the growth area, but you do have public water and sewer, um, you you cannot make a require minimum lot size of greater than 5,000 square feet either. where that being in the growth area or being outside the growth area and having water and sewer, being in the growth area and having water and sewer where they differs the density requirements where if you're in the growth area, the town can't ask require a density of greater than 1,250 square feet per dwelling unit for the first four units and you can't require more than 5,000 square feet for every unit after that. So essentially the state's selling you in your growth area with water and sewer, you have to allow four units at minimum to fit on that lot as like at the minimum size. Now if it's bigger than that and you can fit additional units on, you can only require another 5,000 square feet for every. So you want to build a four unit like a quadplex on a 5,000 foot lot, the town has to allow that. If you're going to add a fifth unit, you now need a 10,000 foot lot. So to if I could just remind people we're the growth areas that we're currently talking about and we are in the comp plan process is basically downtown Northeast Harbor um part of Otter Creek and Main Street and Sunsville but Main Street in Sunsville doesn't have sewer and water it just has water. So that's going to be its own thing.

Right. The only What else am I missing? What other growth areas? I say the only growth areas that have both water and sewer are the Seal Harbor Village. Yes, that's right. Silver Village. Downtown Northeast Harbor doesn't have both water and sewer. Then Creek doesn't have both water and sewer. Right. But they are in the growth area. So they would be capped. So if you're in the growth area and don't have water and sewer. So that's the 20,000 square foot min size. And it's the town that determines what growth areas are through the comp plan process. Yes. So, you know, whether it's luckily or just advantageously, the town is currently going through a comp in a process to update its growth areas in a timely manner that coincides with the passage of this

or if you had just finished a comp might be like up maybe we didn't want some of these to be growth areas based off this legislation, but right

and so uh I have communicated with null uh and Suzanne about this uh topic for the future land use piece of the the comp plan. Tomorrow I'll be kind of debriefing on where our conversations were last night. A lot of policy questions I have trying to find on my phone. I made a list of all of them. Uh so I did want to share them with you but I couldn't find the document I earlier. Essentially, the biggest ones were about Are these the other updates? The other updates? Sorry.

Are you talking about the other 1829 updates? No, I'm going to go through the future land use considerations that came up last night. Okay. Board just as aware of them. Just want to ask Ann how we're doing on time for her. And are we doing okay on time with you?

I guess that's okay. Right. I do want to talk about the remanted at some point. Okay. Still with us. Sure. I I probably have to dash out by 7:15ish. You just want to do the remand now then. Yeah.

Yeah. Let's let's just Yeah, thank you. So, let's just switch things around here. So, yeah. So, here we go. Welcome aboard, Meredith. And uh just let's let's talk about the remand um really quick because uh talking to Andy and Kim about it. It's looks like we're targeting like the the 12th or the 19th of November. And Andy, you know, we discussed this really the the voting members that were there for that were Meredith, myself, and Tracy. and Andy is is suggesting that we get more than three. And so I reached out to an I reached out to Daniel and I reached out to Allen about that only because I think Gail at some point you

I would be I would step aside. Allan, did you speak up at the meeting about it? You were talking about the ICE rank. I was talking about the ice rink. But were you There was one meeting you were at. I don't think you were a board member yet. I think you were I could I could just go ahead and uh hang tough with Gail and but I think I but I can't find in the minutes, but I'm pretty sure you spoke up at one of the meetings. I think it was the one when Lincoln was sitting next to me and gave someone a finger. Do you remember that? I remember notable. I remember Lincoln and I remember Poland that meeting. Yes. Yes, I would.

I want to talk to you about schedule board. You're talking about doing something on the 19th. We have a very important town meeting. I was in you. It's the question of it's the school organization. I think I think I was on the board because I wasn't at the beginning of that project. But you didn't speak up saying you felt it was commercial because of all the buildings. I don't I don't recall. Okay. If you do, you're welcome to participate, but I can hand over to Daniel and that would be that would be absolutely fine with me. I don't know if Daniel's agreed to if Daniel does not agree, then I I will be happy.

It's just want to make sure you didn't speak for or against that application. So, is this one of those situations where whoever is going to participate has to Yes. look at the whole record. You need to look at the whole record. Come and review all minutes. Listen, it's a huge ask. And I want to clarify that the ask came from council, not just our council, the other council, their council, too, because the three because three people, they have to all be in the affirmative or negative, I guess, but they all have to vote the same. They can't do two to one. That's not that's not a quorum of the board,

right? Okay. So that's why they're asking if others would be willing to. It's it's gonna it's a lot to look at and listen. How many boxes every time? No, no, it's not boxes. It's it's just there was a lot of meetings. Yeah. And they were long. I I was there for a lot of them. But there was a lot of meetings. Um it's a lot of minutes to Yeah. minutes and not so much so much submissions really. Okay. It was just the the lengthy public hearings that Do they have to listen to the tapes or or They have to listen to the Yeah, they got to watch the YouTube stuff. It's on the town website. Sign an affidavit. I think

you got to sign in at the end. You're going to sign an affidavit saying you familiarize yourself with that full record. No, I I'm okay doing that. I read War in Peace and liked it. This is nothing. I have a question from myself. This is uh concerning the whole quarry quarry question. Correct. No, this is the way in in Northeast Harbor. Okay. The heelway project. Got it. Neighborhood road. Yeah. Neighborhood in Yeah.

And D36. So, we need to just know so that you guys can start. Yes. Got to tell Andy something. So, yeah, I'm I'm willing to do it. I'm willing to do it. I'm willing to do it. Good. You guys should have group listening sessions with Max. Fantastic. Thank you. I know that's but me as an alternate how like logistically how does that someone has to Well, so we'll vote and Meredith will be doing it. So we have three.

Yeah, Meredith will be a voting one, two, three, four, five, six. Well, we only need five of us. Yeah. Well, you need five regular members. I would say you should have six people reviewing. Yes, for sure. I agree with that. It's like alternate journey. I can go ahead and, you know, review everything and if I need if something comes up that I said something and, you know, then I can recuse myself at that moment. But it sounds like we'll have plenty of people. The guy gave the finger to Jo. That was someone stole his phone and said they threw him in

We We had the cops at two meetings. copper his phone into someone's face and they kept they were like, "Can you please stop?" And gotcha. He was right next to me. He was out of control. I mean, sat in the corner or again. Yeah, but he didn't stay in the corner. He was He wouldn't just plain disrupted. Well, just like No, he wasn't he wasn't making any decision. And he just was somebody asked I mean he had his phone right in someone's face. Well not right in their face but you know they were it was a packed room. He was sitting next to me over here.

He was going like that and the people didn't like it and asked him to stop and then it just blew up the police came out. Well yeah. All right. So, we got Ann, Daniel, and Allan committed to that. And I'll relay that to Andy. So, thank you. And thank you, Meredith, too, for might be the best opt I ever wrote, coming back to join us. So, right. So, I there's a date on that. Well, I Gail just pointed out that there's a town meeting on the 19th.

Yes, there is. is an important town meeting and it's where the school system is going to be presenting to the citizens of Mount Desert the subject of reorganization of the school system and that's on the 19th and you all want to put that in your calendar and hopefully attend at the neighborhood house. November 19th. November 19th. What time? I'm going to look that up. I don't remember. Oh, maybe I have the remand's going to be the remind me too. Gbermber Yeah, like a

so we can so that she can celebrate a birthday and we do have applications coming on the 12th.

So that's the other thing. So that's was going to mention is that's also a regular planning board hearing night and we have applications coming and there is no way we are going to be able to get through the remand and applications in one night. So, I' I'd put out there that um you know, we think about just having a special hearing. And I don't know, it's I I think it's always hard when we have a regular hearing and then we have a special hearing immediately after or before it. So, I would cast a vote for a special hearing the following week sometime. always okay with me.

We do have a lo regular scheduled luzo meeting on the 18th which is the Tuesday and then we have the reorganization on the 19th. Other than that I'm not involved. So I don't I have high school meeting on the 17th. I don't doesn't matter. I I would I would be inclined to cast a vote for the 18th. You first got to see if the attorneys are able to attend too. So, we got the okay, I think, from all of them for either the 12th or the 19th. Well, we have to figure out what to do with the land use advisory committee meeting just I mean, when's when's the car plan at the heart at the neighborhood house?

Reorganization plans in 19 you think either the committee could be earlier in the like later afternoon like I don't know how many of those members work or earlier. They do, but um Katrina may not be able Ann or Meredith or Ann and Meredith does the 18th or dare I say the 20th. I'd have to I'd have to check my schedule, but Wednesdays are always open for for planning board things for me. I'd have to get down into the nitty-gritty of the calendar, which I don't have with me at the moment, for Tuesday or Thursday. Okay. Either one works for me, right?

I'm open annually. Yeah, it be open either. 20th is my anniversary, but I have that every month. Can I'm not asking. Do you want to ask council about the 18th or 20th? Can check. following week is Thanksgiving is Yep. God, we only have the one meeting.

Why does it have to be in November? I I suggested the one in December and they were just dead against delaying it any more than it already is. I I can understand that. Well, they just got six people committed to processing this for them. I just checked I'm okay for both of the dates, 18th or 20th and you need for six o'clock

if that's what time it would be. I would think council would like to give the members stepping up to the plate as much time as they need to familiarize themselves. But why don't we start by asking about the 18th? I guess we're see also if this room is available. Okay. Those dates. We'll check. Right. I mean it's scheduled for the LOA meeting on the 18th. So we'll have to get done by six is all. Okay. Ann and Meredith, are you around the first

if it gets pushed to December? Are you here first week of December? Yeah, I should be. Yes. Can you hear me? Okay. Yes. Yes. It's good. Y $3,000 worth. I'll tell you, well, your compensation is based on attendance. Oh, regular meetings. Are you special? All meetings.

Yeah. All meetings get hazard pay. So I would propose for this but you know whenever we do it that maybe we could even start earlier on the day. This is going to be Would that be any issue Meredith or Ann if we started earlier like at 5? Yeah, I would probably not be able to get there till 5:30. Okay. So, Tuesday or Thursday? We'll we'll keep it at six. We'll see. Yeah. Yeah. The Thursday one I could not make it until six.

Okay. Okay. All right. The normal. Wait, Kim's checking the calendar to see if the ring's available. Certainly are the dates available.

They are available. They are. Okay. They're available. All right. So the ball's in your court then to ask Andy and Brady and whoever else was involved.

Greg Brady was Dan. Was Dan here? Dan would be here. Kathy. Kathy. Okay, they can sit in the corner. No, no. No, that's No, that's the press sit in the corner if they become unreal. We're being recorded.

All right, let's circle back to where we were on committee. If you think of it, if you decide on the 18th, will you just shoot me a note so I can see about rearranging a loser meeting? Well, we can have it just have to be done in an hour. Yeah. Or have or try to I could try to get it going at four if that's a possibility. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to transition out as we transition to the next subject and I will see you all at the next meeting. Thanks. Bye. Bye. See you.

See you. Can we change the view one more time so we can see us too? That's the galley. That's is that the gallery? That's That's it. The only speaker would be you. Whoever speaks and then we lose. No, doesn't seem like it's working. I think it multi speaker. We're saying it multi- speakeraker. It isn't working. No. Oh, it is not. Okay. I heard something to this effect because usually the gallery shows all of You're right. And I think it's not Yeah, because we've definitely had meetings where it shows like Yes.

Particularly if you're speaking. I mean, I shave for nothing. Then you got to know if you're sitting up straight or not. Let's see. So, if we're going back to the stuff we were doing last night, we did talk about um whether or not we wanted to have um projects that the CEO was going to be approving, whether she would review them like a subdivision.

So, I guess context for that le one of the other provisions of LD 1849 was that subdivisions of uh three or four units that are within the same structure are now have to be reviewed as an administrative review and should not get full subdivision review um through a planning board. Now I think in theory I'm still trying to figure out if that means that a planning board could still review it but it's just an administrative review. So it's just like a one meeting like review. It's not through full subdivision review or if it means the code office has to be the one to review it and there's no public meeting for it at all. Um but so essentially that's what G's referring to is that if the code office were to be a body to review these three or four unit subdivisions that are within the same structure um what would the process be for the code office when reviewing that? Does a town want them to review it? like a subdivision like a planning board would anyway if it's just the code office doing it or because it is small structure subdivision there could be a new process created with different standards that make it quicker and less honorous on the code office

and I think Kim was suggesting she wanted to sort of do it with the subdivision suggested that doing she would just do her office she would do it the subdivision review the planning board typically and notify about it and then there'd be no provision. But yeah, currently I don't notify and I don't have to notify people when I issue a building permit, but I'm sure if somebody applied for a triplex or a quadlex and right next to them and got no notification all of a sudden dwelling units are there,

I think somebody might have a little bit of heartburn and not being able to say something about it. So, I think we're going to have to add that to the ordinance maybe. So, I don't maybe all applications or just these ones all applications go in that notification to all permit.

Um, I think if you look at Elsworth minor site plan review process, that's what I was going to model this off of anyway. It has like a 10day ab notice period built in. And it's for projects that are like in between just needing like a build permit and needing to go to plan for first major site review. And it's so there's like different triggering mechanisms for when you need to go to minor site review as opposed to just needing a build permit. You can look at that and see if that's like you want extra application. So they only do it for certain Yeah. you know applications. They don't do them for everyone. Not everything. Yeah. Okay. That would be because I'm not asking to give myself extra per us. Well, it is, but I meant every application that I

Yeah. I mean, if someone comes with a duplex or like a single family home, like that, you know, someone comes with a bank like they're building a new bank structure somewhere or something like that, you might put through minor site review instead do the 10 day 10day period and that sort of thing. So does the determining what triggers what what type of development or use. Yeah. Okay. But one of the other things I think we talked about is the density how the density requirements and upcoming laws. Yeah.

We're going to make if you combine it with what we're currently thinking about um bonuses and that sort of thing, it ends up being extraordinarily dense potentially. And so the question I think was I didn't quite get all the way through that in my head. Well, wasn't that another one of the issues that we had?

Yeah. So that's another one. So essentially so of you've all seen the subdivision ordinance pretty much in full for the most part. The part that I'm still working through the attorney with in particular is the specialized subdivisions. Um cluster is probably fine. Like right now it's just like a 25% bonus in density with the trade-off of having common area and then you're allowed to like condense your development down. Um that one's pretty straightforward. Um the affordable housing one again pretty straightforward. That's all right now that's all just state required things that came through early 2003 and I have LD 1829 required. Uh so the one that really I'm kind of stuck with is the workforce or we're calling attainable housing bonus uh structure where you know there's there were a series of bonuses for different things that almost tried to combine in like cluster if you like did a workforce and add a common area but just built or if you did it in a certain zone where you want to incentivize dense housing like you got another layer of bonuses and I was just thinking about I had origin origally like built that to because lots weren't allowed to be 5,000 square feet at the time. I built that so that essentially a lot could get down to 5,000 square feet and then you get that's like the the bonuses that you get would build up to that. But now the state is requiring that you allow that and so the bonuses would then like make you allowed to put

a lot of like uncharacteristic number of units within like a 5,000 square foot lot. Again, it's probably not physically possible, uh, but it would technically be, so somebody would be able to try and do it. So, like you're talking like 30 or 40 units. So, on a 5,000 square foot lot, how you could do that is going out, right? And right. So, you can only go to 40. You can't like physically do it probably, but again, like still somebody would be allowed to do it. And so, it's also just a complicated way to get there. Tiny kindness. So like the process I kind of spoke about last night was

uh still like go back and forth on this a bit but you know you have like just a base requirement of um every housing development over a certain number of units needs to provide a certain percentage of their workforce housing. And so you typically like it's somewhere between 10 and 20 unit developments need to provide a certain percentage of their workforce housing. Um, and then if you do that, great because it's required. But if you're build the only bonus then would be if you're building a development that I would say if it's 51% of the units or more, but you could go to 100% of the units or workforce housing, then you get like one nice extra bonus on top of that. And that's for something that is like entirely or majority workforce housing. That's so that's really the only bonus you get. It's not super complicated. It's very straightforward.

Simplicity.

Yes. And so the other piece of it though that all and I have been talking about is doing a um fee in lie of units. So like if you are required to do that uh workforce housing units on any type of housing project, the developer would then have the option to instead of building units pay a fee for every unit they're not built in. So it's similar to a lot of other towns that may have started to but then that money would go into like a Mount Desert housing trust fund or something and then the town could invest that money in workforce housing developments outside of what's being built by this developer. Like they just collect the fees and then invest or support other types of workforce housing projects in the town. Um and so that would be like the two sides to it. Yes.

The thing is about a town like us, I I don't imagine that we're going to have that many 1920 Mhm. you know, Ellsworth maybe, but not I mean, how do we see that realistically happening here very often that Well, you could make the threshold whatever. I mean, it could be as little as four or five, you know, housing units. You're still required to make one of them. Workforce housing price. The thresholds up against the town. You can change that part. Um, but it's typically it's usually 10 to 20 units is what town looks at.

Seems to me that we'd want somebody to do an analysis of that. Like what's what's the town likely to gain in in affordable housing from that technique versus allowing greater density? I'm saying you still have the greater density piece for projects that are again you can set the threshold to whatever you want but like 51% or more of the units are workforce housing they get the straight up density bonuses doesn't matter where they are in the town or anything like that which I have built in originally when I was thinking about it because I was really trying to get bonuses people who were building in like the village center VR one VR2 those are all zones that are now growth area with water and sewer for the most part and So those zones already get this 5,000 square foot with four units like allow by right uh bonus and so the town so essentially say just preempted the bonus I designed and so now unless you want to allow like I'm sorry

the camera just flipped apologize it just blinked

um yeah so like if you think like about it I had a bonus I had the greatest number of bonuses you could get was 100% uh bonus for workforce housing and so all of a sudden you're allowing you know the way the state structure what exactly when does the bonus kick in for development. So, if they're allowed to have four units in 5,000 square feet and they're allowed to have another 5,000 square feet for every unit after that, would the bonus kick in from the base density of the 1,250 ft per unit? And then for the first four, so if you were allowed four with that density, you all a sudden get eight. Then if it was like a 10-unit building, that's five more uh units at 25,000 square feet extra lot. So it's a 30,000 square foot lot. Sorry, don't pay attention to me. Really, I'm trying to do that. And so then for the final five units, uh instead of yeah, instead of five units, you essentially get 10 units. So you're now talking instead of a five unit structure, no instead of have a 10-unit structure, you're talking about an 18 unit structure.

On what size? Total size on 30,000 square feet. So that's what 3/4 of an acre. Yeah. Pretty much ship a lot. So right. And you have to fit that in. If it's not affordable and just work force out of it, you still only get three because it could be four story approximately. Uh if you have 54. Well, no, it's not affordable. It's just workforce. The affordable is the only one that gets the Okay, sorry. The extra height. So, it has to be done three stories, which would be six units per floor, which I mean, it's not possible.

Three on each side. They're all such a theoretical bot,

but yeah. So, I don't like that's all on a 30,000 square foot lot, which again is big enough probably to handle that if you do, but is going to fit like really in the village center. Is it going to fit in BR1? Uh, is there space to do that type of project there? I think when we're talking to the towns people about this and the comprehensive plan or whatever process, I suspect they're going to be people who want to know what's the most that we have to do under this law and then talk about what our policy objectives are and how our policy objectives may dictate that it's best to do to offer more than that. So I'm going to bet that somebody that that's going to be a kind of analysis in some right now.

In terms of workforce housing, you have to do anything. That's all a choice by the town. Uhhuh. In terms of affordable housing, yeah, you do have to do the extra 14 foot minimum bonus. And then which I suggest just doing 14p. Don't do more than that. Uh because I think you already mentioned you had like a provision to allow a higher structure if yeah outside of shoreline zone and then you already allow the two and a half times density bonus for affordable housing. So that's already done. And then uh I think that was it for affordable housing off top my head. mind spinning

which is state required and the rest is just for the whole zone but like if it's in or the whole area if it's in a birth area and has water yeah you have to allow the 5,000 square foot then the four units by right and then 5,000 square feet per unit after that so that's not negotiable and you could do less or more dense than that if you really wanted to but right now the town doesn't have anything that's act like allows that density So an acre you're going to have to allow TW in that zone you're going to have to allow a minimum you're going to have to allow 12 if there's a lot I don't know if there's a lot

four plus so if there's a lot in this growth area with water acre and they want to divide that or just keep it acre I'm just trying to get my head around what so by right you have to allow four units on that lot, but it's big enough to support that. So, that's fine. And then, yeah, for every unit after that, there would be 5,000 square feet. So, what 3,800 square feet divide by five or by 5,000 is 38,000 feet, sorry, divided by 5,000? It's like seven extra units that could fit there with the four. So, it's 11 units on an acre.

Where where are we going with all this? We got we have to figure out what we have to do in order to comply with the new legal. Yeah. Where we started was knowing all the density bonuses that you're getting through that law. What kind of bonuses do you want to provide for workforce housing projects? In addition to that,

right? Do you want to make it just change it to being really bonuses and making workforce housing just a straight requirement for all housing projects of a certain size? And then like if it is a 100% or 51% whatever you guys want or think would work best and then get like maybe an additional bonus to that to what the law is currently requiring. Um and you could maybe build it in the same way 1829 is by like what kind of infrastructure is in place or you just do it across the board. You get like a 50% bonus if you're 100% workforce housing no matter where you are. Why are we having bonuses? Why wouldn't we just Well, we do now. We do now. We do now. That was all

there's no blanket requirement right now. Right. So, so the question this is changing what we're required to do and then the question is how does it mesh with what we already have and do we want to change what we already have in some way because we're going to have to do this. Is there a way that you can provide like a schematic of what the town what the town allows now under the ordinance and then what this LD 1829 is trying to accomplish? That's what I gave you guys last night.

Yeah. But I meant like just show like Gail just Yeah. picture like show an acre lot. Show this is what the ordinance is today and this is what the state is trying to impose. the permutations based on the variables that you talked about like one acre you get four but if you have every acre after that you need 5,000 square feet number two and then that's the maximum you can have on an acre and then these are the multipliers that can be applied to the acreage to to take it up to like the next level like workforce housing low income or affordable housing

man yeah or or if you I mean I don't know if another way to do it is you got 5,000 square feet you four and then you need 5,000 for everyone beyond that. So, how does that depending on the lot size because it's not going to be just an even acre, but depending on the lot size, how many dwellings would be allowed on that? How high do you want me to go with that though? We need to get ridiculous about it, but stop at like five acres or something. Yeah, at most I would say a five acres zone. But it's just to kind of get a perspective, a visual for me versus because you're rambling a bunch of numbers and Yes. Yes. It's hard and I'm just tot I can't keep up with it. Oneacre.

It's highly coherent, but we're not getting it. No. Yeah, it's not clear. The state made a very It's not clear. It's never clear. They're never clear. Aren't the two lines though you 5,000 at the low end and then the next sort of standard lot that the town the state looks at is the 20,000 square foot for septic. Like can those be the two pinch points to work between because northeast has certainly has a lot of not observe a lot of septic.

Yeah. I mean I could literally draw it now if you wanted again just map. Uh but again they get so you have an acre lot and you're in the growth area and you have public water sewer that's the 11 units because you get the four by right and so if you're at 40,000 square feet roughly in the acre you subtract the 5,000 that you get 30 37 something it's yeah so it's going to be like 37 or 38,000 but then if you round down so my math eas the extra seven you get the seven units That's 4 plus 7 3 classes.

So an acre could in the growth area with water and sewer could at minimum like again unless the town goes less correct but would have to allow 11 units on 7.7. What does that mean? Eight. No, you don't round out. You don't round out this. You don't have the space you can't build. Well, that give you 11, right? Yeah. on an acre on an acre and then that's before you consider any bonuses for different types of housing. These are needs

again and I don't know how to do this math yet because it's a question that hasn't been answered but again if so you are required to do the affordable housing but it's now does that mean just take the 11 and multiply that by the 2.5 to get your 23 units now that you're allowed all of a sudden or is it staggered where it's like well the first 5,000 square feet you were allowed four units because they were 1,250 square feet per unit multiply that by 2.5 maybe it's the same number I have no idea. But and so now in your 5,000 ft, you're allowed eight units. Then you're allowed technically 11 or seven units. After that, multiply that by 225, which is 15. Still 23 units. Never mind. Yeah. Affordable housing, you know, it's going to be 23 units on an acre.

All right. So that's some of the fun stuff that we sort of have to work through here and I think we've got it and at the Luzo and which is why getting it done in an hour is not as easy as it seems and the comp plan. I mean this stuff has to be rolled over to the comp plan discussion the public comp plan discussions too. Yeah. I mean, we got till 2027, right? To get this into our ordinance and subdivision ordinance, but the comp plan's not going to be complete. So, there's no sense of rushing it until right until that's complete.

I don't have it on my calendar, but I thought that there was a comp plan public meeting scheduled. It's on November 13th. Okay. Neighborhood House. Okay. And it's something something like 4:30 to 7. Yeah. five to seven or actually

really my proud uh I have oh it's probably on here 4 to 7:30 on our calendar but that's because we have to show up and set up and stuff like that so probably 5 to 7:30 something like that but yeah I mean you don't have worry about LE 1829 really until July, but and I was thinking of just the workforce housing bonuses in relation to L1829 would be coming up. Like how do you really and like do you really want to give like an 100% bonus to a project like that which is currently like I could just take out but I would take out some of the bonus structure I had built it anyway because it doesn't make sense anymore. But um would 100% bonus still be like the cap you'd want to have that allowed where again like affordable housing gets essentially 250% bonus at 23 units. So then on a on an acre with an 100% bonus that doesn't make any sense. Sorry, one second. Uh 200 Maybe it's more than 23 because a 100% bonus on units would be 22 units which would be 11 + 11 is an 100% bonus. So for a workforce housing it would be 22 units. So for 250 or 250% units, right?

I mean, okay, so I don't I'm not good at math, but uh that could be 41 units on an affordable housing project or an acre, 150%. I think because again, like am I right? Like an 100% bonus on an 11 units allowed lot would be 22 units, right? 11, right? 22 + 44 plus 3 half of 11 would be 37 38. Okay. So something like that for right. Yeah. Yeah. They were talking up for 30.

Okay. Math before. So, and the reason that we're trying to grapple with this now, even though this doesn't this law doesn't take effect until then, is that we have been doing all this work on the subdivision ordinance and hoping that we would maybe get it to town meeting this year, but we don't want to pass something or submit something to the town that is going to get thrown completely sideways by the comp plan. The comp or by uh LD. Yeah, that's more the comp plan would be fine with whatever we put in.

But this is still open. The LD So that was my question like are you guys aiming at what are you aiming at? Well, I thought we were hoping to get through all the finally finally finally get through the subdivision rewrite to be able to take it down meeting. But this LD 1829 kind of makes we want to make sure that the calculations that we're thinking about making

like you don't I don't want to we don't want to put forward bonuses that would then like really either, you know, mess with the town in a way that like people would just obviously hate the idea and they wouldn't vote for it. Um or again like I don't I don't think it would really be an issue where you're going to get like a dozens of you know workforce housing projects all of a sudden but you know 40 30 something units are there lot would use a lot of resour I mean we yanked the subdivision amendments at the well the whole rewrite at the at h hour last time Right.

If this thing is if there's like a particular focus of the new rewrite that this LD can't

1829 is making waves with is there does it make sense to say hey look let's let's get these subdivision amendments a rewrite minus this before the town. Uh yeah, I mean I think that's definitely the safest way to go because I mean so even if say like the the idea of a uh would be called inclusionary zoning I guess like whether it's just a straight bonus for workforce housing or if it's like the requirement for all these housing projects and then like the payment l or the fee in lie of uh building the structures and I'm not super familiar with your guys town's process um but I imagine it would require ire like a workshop of some sort with the public to go through those ideas. Um those are bigger than just kind of rewriting a subdivision ordinance. They're pretty big policy changes. So I mean like you could but and you I don't know if you'd want to pass a subdivision ordinance without having the workforce bonus. Um

right if you're aware that there are like potentially projects that would want to use that bonus that could come through. It's certainly been a policy of the town because because affordability affordability affordability is like it was then it probably will be now.

Yeah. And I mean so we have at least solved one of the problems which is separating. So cluster workforce they're all their own uh types of subdivisions. So that problem is cleared up. Um, you know, I guess for now you could just take the increase of up to 50% bonus which is already allow well the town has actually the 100% number is what I got this is where I got stopped it there because what the town already allows in certain circumstances and could there be like 75% incremental ratcheting it up of density and bonuses instead of just that complicates it.

Yeah, it complicates it. But I think that I mean the real problem is interfacing it with the state requirements. Um, I think it's more Yeah. I don't know. Like if you think of downtown here, just like off top of your head, like what is like the largest building you would like think would fit in with this like area or would work well with traffic and like that type of circulation uh in this area. then kind of work backwards from there where it's like can you even imagine like a an apartment complex with 38 people living in it being in downtown Northeast Harbor or in Seal Harbor Village area like what's like the most number of units that like realistically you think would be like 20 like

I don't see how you can get 37 units on an acre and have 37 plus cars parked on that. Well, that's another question also. Yeah, it's a different state while I got

Yeah, I was we were going to mention I was going to mention that too because we talked about that. Parking is a real interesting thing and one of the things that we talked about last night ultimately was we didn't reach any conclusions about it, but we've got parking requirements here and parking requirements there and the state is going to impose some requirements that you not require too much parking and should we all pull all the parking requirement pieces out of the Luzo and have it be in one place. Um, and it's got to conform to um it's got to conform to it'll have to conform to another section of 1829. So that's a different bill al together.

Oh, I'm sorry. 427. Um, so we may not require more than one off streetet parking space per dwelling unit for a residential development. Municipality may require parking maximums and parking management strategies that do not require more than one space per dwelling. Off-site parking agreements. The municipality must allow developers to use off-site parking agreements with existing parking facilities within a quarter mile of the development. We'll say the first part is only in the growth area. You have to allow in the growth area. I didn't type that up, but it's the growth area. Oh, the growth area. Yes. Yes. Yes.

It's one space per uh dwelling unit. And so in theory, someone could have parking or a mile away on someone else's lot and then people have to walk to their apartment. I mean, it's fine. That's stupid. Well, it's fine. They're stupid around here. Maybe I would run it just for that reason. I mean, yeah, I lived in But then you've got most people have most people have two cars. So then that that creates That's true. I think I've families would have two cars. I think most people Yes. Sorry. Yes, you're right. Yes. I meant that. Most households most households with two working people

renting here anyway, not buying a house. Yeah. So, what's next in the short term? Good question. Well, I would still like to know. So, I mean, let's just actually keep going on the workforce stuff for a minute because if we look at what's already in the ordinance where if you have a it's 50% as is or the draft we're working on.

What's as? So, like if we took all the other subdivision changes and we're like, we're not going to worry about workforce yet because of 1829, we're going to take what the town already has, plug it in there, and then just roll with it. And then maybe when you update the 1829, you also update the workforce housing provisions within the subdivision ordinance. Um, town currently just allows if you're up to 50 or at least 50% of the units are workforce housing, it's a 50% density bonus. If it's up to if it's 100% workforce hours, you get the 75% tens bonus, right?

I could just take that and plug that into the ordinance now. So then between this town meeting and the next town meeting, there is still like a workforce housing bonus somewhere in the ordinance. And again, the problem of it being confused with cluster is now solved. They're still their own separate things, right? Subdivision ordinance. And then we come back to the maybe more creative and work intensive potential workforce bonus or some type of like funds that can get created through workforce housing. Um and do that at the same time as LD 1829 and 27. Yeah. Once we're integrating those in um and of course we never know what the next legislative session will. Yeah.

They're going to change the definition of subdivision. So I can tell you they're going to try and do that. So that's three splits in uh you have to wait five uh it's not a three-year period waiting it would be five splits in five year waiting period. So you would have you'll split more rapidly and not have to go to planning board. They already partially did that with 1829, but only for dwelling units. But lots are not there for now, but in the next session, they might actually go into lots. I know they'll pass, but I've heard they're going to try and do

so five within a fiveyear period. They do what they did for structure or for units this time with 1829. They made it five and five year just do it for subdivision. busy time. um you probably are on to something when it comes to plugging in the existing uh percentages given and in and in the proposal that we've been working on. Um with the idea that we're going to have to reconfigure what that means when we actually figure out what

but you're it definitely is worth taking the time to have discussions about that because is a pretty big change. I mean it's not just about getting your guys approval. It would be something I think the select board would have a workshop on, right? Or it goes to town meeting too. And uh I don't think we have the time between now and when stuff's due for this coming town meeting to have those discussions. So just get the rest of the subdivision ordinance updated and changed. plug this in and then I mean we can continue to work on it but just know it's we have a little bit extra runway to finish the work right because it's going to be altered by 1829

well I don't think it's necessarily altered by it but just yeah the consequences 8029

it's all as clear as mud so I I think that's the best course of action for that. Okay.

But the I also read through the other future land use stuff that we talked about a little bit last night. We did talk about um so not just having minimum lot sizes change um because that's happened because of 1829. But then also looking at doing a unit break or density structure throughout the zonings of the town. So, with LE829, in certain areas, you're going to be required to do it anyway with the 1,250 ft per dwelling unit or the 5,000 ft per dwelling unit. Uh, so it may make sense to just go through all the zones, again, not for this town meeting, but for a future town meeting, and start applying a unit per acre density just so there's not just like these random areas down where that's applied. It's just a consistent standard throughout the town. That's going to be talked about more at the comp plan level for future land use,

right? um you can re uh you might want to reconsider existing zones because again now with 1829 there are going to be zones in these particular that meet these particular criteria where like R1 and R2 were very different before but now they're going to be duplicates of each other except when they're not in a growth area and then they don't have water and sewer then like what the town's individual provisions for them would still apply otherwise they're the or they'd be different where now they're going to be across other parts of the town. So it may just be worth shifting and saying okay well now R1 like some places that are R2 now might just make sense to be R1 and they have the same requirements and then you create for the zone that's for like if the R1 and R2 are in the growth area would have that and if there's like R1 and R2 that are outside of the growth area that's all just R2 now or something like that where you have to reorganize the zones so it's just because otherwise your table's just going to be a bunch of duplication like it's you can condense at all um in some way. And then we talked about potential for maximum lot sizes,

right? That's something Katrina has talked about quite a bit. And Nola told me that this morning that that was something he had looked at doing um right

a while ago, but he couldn't find any good models for it. And I do agree because I I know of the concept, but I actually don't know of anywhere that's actually adopted it because I think there are a lot of bad things that could happen with maximum lot sizes. Um the idea is that there are some areas in the town and Silven City is one of them and um where there are very small lots right now and the concern that has been expressed is that there's that's a particular type of neighborhood and it will tend to have more ability to be affordable and but it's there's there will be increasing pressure for someone to come in and buy lot A and then buy lot B and combine them and lot C and combine them and then build something big on those lots and then you've extinguished you've radically changed the character of that neighborhood and you've you've you've turned one two three housing lots into one big lot. And so there has been the argument made that that's that may be something that we want the town should consider whether or not they want to try to by zoning then the maximum the minimum the maximum lot size whether they want to try to prevent or forestall that from happening. Um there was other areas too I think maybe seal some of the seal harbor areas. Yeah, the closed village center like the all the village zones are places where that I think that could be like possible and wouldn't have like negative consequences necessarily. Um, again, just looking to see if there are other tools potentially that achieve a similar goal without actually doing lot maximums. I mean, you can always look at like lot coverage percentages, which you already do, but maybe just changing those in certain parts of the town.

So, that would prevent someone from cover like if they did buy all these smaller lots, prevent them from like covering too much of that land area in a structure. I mean, I guess they could just buy it and not do anything with it, but right,

that was one thing that came up too. And then, uh, we also talked about whether or not the current growth areas from the past comp plan 2009 still make sense and if there are potentially other now the state is like using growth areas from comp plans in their legislation, which they hadn't really done too much of before. Um, even if there are areas where you might potentially think development could happen, traditionally you would have included that in a growth area, but now you might not want to because there are going to be actual consequences to doing that we might not.

Yeah, you might want to just come up with like a different term like a zone of potential development or something like that, but don't use the term of our growth area when describing it. try and get around anything else the state might put out in future sessions that affect growth areas. I and I've always mentioned that we need to talk about the growth areas in Sville because it doesn't have water and sewer. It has sewer and that's just the main street. And so that's by state definition that's not a growth area. And and how much can you grow without both water and sewer? No, it it is a growth area but it's not a growth area with water and sewer. So it doesn't have to meet the Okay. Yeah.

All right. No, it I agree. It is a growth area, but but in terms of the state's requirements, right? It's not super historical. Yeah. The that whole main street is historical. But there was like a growth area from the last comp. Then again, like how do you pick the growth areas in an intelligent way where you're also potentially not encouraging sprawl of some sort? Yeah, I think right like that would that's you you really have to just tighten up where your growth areas are and when you do a comp plan now as a community

well with regard to that whole infrastructure thing we talked about the fact that one of the things that would be worth comp plan uh the people in the community talked about through the comp plan process is what areas would you like to see developed so that there could be more of opportunities for housing and and you don't have to call them anything yet, but the town could develop plans, longerterm plans for how you would extend water here or how you would extend water and sewer there. And are there areas of the town where you want to look at having an action plan for trying to make move forward on that kind of stuff, right?

And that's something that people need to figure out. Y and then say that's all will get talked about for future land use. And then the last one I have are kind of like what's the most effective way to maximize the limited buildable lands to increase housing or you know in the particularly in the current growth areas there aren't like a ton of huge lots that are like waiting to be split up and developed but most of the land is broken up already. just the golf course golf course was one of the ones that has technically water and sewer running to it and then uh but isn't in the growth area right now it's in conservation um but just how to maximize again like the land that is left and then how do you really incentivize housing in whether it's like uh in development as opposed to actual new developments kind of mind But yeah, I thought we solved the one thing we had to solve tonight, which is good. The rest is still all just theory that you should be kind of thinking about

aware that we're trying to struggle with going to come to you at some not too far away. I mean, you brought up the select board and it may be time for us to ask to be on their agenda and just keep them in the but I also have to get in touch with the select board member who hasn't isn't coming to our meetings and make sure he knows. Um yeah, I mean like is there a history of the select board playing board doing like joint workshops together and like Oh, okay. I would always do that elsewhere. just if there's something like we've had big state law changes and stuff had council tell us they wanted clear separation before

when it comes to policy or particular

I think that you know there was I mean James Collier when he was God what was the matter with Jane it's something Corey you I'm sorry. is about the Corey and you know there were questions about the you know the pace of the Corey review and you know where are we what are we doing and um you know and they they wanted to question you know members of the board about that and council was like well that I understand because that's an active application

but this is more the polic policy policy workshop. It's all theoretical right now. Yeah. Like what I would use them for the joint workshops was if I knew there were going to be ordinance changes and I was going to work with the planning board to update the ordinance and make a recommendation to council rather than having the planning board do all the work. I'd go to council and having council shoot it down because they're like, "Well, we don't like any of this." Be like, "Well, I'm just going to have you all get in the room together first time. the council can talk about with what they like with the planning board. Planning board kind of has a better sense of direction.

I just want to make sure that the planning board isn't getting over obligated to this because you know I feel like this is just becoming more and more and more and like here we are tonight struggling to find time for a special hearing on a superior court rehand. So, you know, we've got Luzo committees, we've got select boards, we've got planning boards. Yeah, we need a plan. Planner. What are you doing? Multi platter.

You know, I just want to be measured about it because I mean, as much as I want to have us involved in policy, I want to make sure that it's balanced approach, you know, because we've got a lot to process, too. Well, that's like I don't know how the structure is really built here where um you know again like if you had the way like in Ellsworth any ordinance changes that affected their like their land use um stuff the planning board had to review it and then recommend it to the council. That was like a required step. It is true. The planning board is still legally required to like to hold the public hearings and to vote on the proposals. The advisory committee is just an advisory committee.

It'd be nice if we had a piece of paper in front of us with this stuff written down so we can follow you when you're saying this and we could see it on a piece of paper like what we need to do or aim at by when or I don't have timelines for this stuff because I don't know what the timeline for 2027's town meeting is.

Yeah. uh like we the one thing we really need to do for this upcoming tummy just decide what to do with the workforce how the debt city took care of that um and so that way I can really finish the subdivision uh ordinance again just appending the attorney's review and he's looking at the parts that I asked him to now um so that's almost done really I mean uh once Andy's done with it I'll just bring it back to you guys one more time because that should be like this board spent all the time on on the subdivision ordinance the reserve time actually. Yeah. Um

and so this is really just I guess teeing up again doesn't have to happen anytime soon but again I think a workshop would be helpful but it doesn't have to happen in the near future at all. It could be like a spring of like people do need to wrap their heads around what is coming down the road that we're actually going to have to administer one. I did. I thought I I just I didn't administer one. Why didn't I do get the Loa and confused? I thought I gave the plan board the same sheet that Gail was reading, but maybe I only gave it to Luza the T table of all the Yeah. No, that we got that last night. No, that's the table of uses, but there was the table you had that had like all the LDS. You're Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, you may have. I mean, I just hung on to mine.

Sorry. I can't remember if I gave it to you all already or not. Do you know if you guys got this? I got I got lots of stuff.

In any event, we can get we get breakfast. Yes. Yes, you got that was uh 723. Yeah, we went through that.

But he does have it for sure digitally. Um, Ken, I'm wondering if it would be useful for I mean I'm happy to do it as the Luzo chair and you and and I go in and talk with Alex about and to sort of try to inform him about some of all this stuff that's going on and where we might be headed and what and how to involve the select board. Does that Does that make any sense? Yeah, he's he's got a lot on his plate right now. I know.

As a new town manager. I know. I know. He's been getting some high inside fast balls. He's been dealing stuff that he's anticipate. Yeah. Well, wouldn't hurt, but I mean, I just send him a email and CC and see what he thinks. He'll come in and ask me about it. I want to get a picture for the board of what we're aiming at to have before the town in May. Subdivision ordinance. Subdivision,

one we've been working on. And then there's other little things that the LEA advisory committee, other language of LSA advisory committee is going to workshop. Yeah, I'll say there will be because of the subdivision ordinance changes there are just going to be small changes to LZO pretty much just from that specifically just cross references where there's currently like cross references to sections of the subdivision ordinance within Luzo that will change because the or the right sections have changed because the structure of the subdivision ordinance is different than what's currently this thing. So that's that's I don't need to review that. It's just a factual like change to the ordinance. But then Andy uh has or I guess based on the project we all reviewed

the trailer park ordinance. Park the access provision. Yeah. Mobile parks the access provision we spoke about last night. 6B11. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. That project you all reviewed with the fire uh the house was harbor. Yes. Yes. Yes. amending that little provisions to such provide

talk about that next week. Yeah, next week and hopefully have I'll have language for the Lizo committee to review after we have that meeting and that'll go quickly to the uh town meeting this uh year and then also uh again I'll find out more our meeting next week because I thought it would be a simple change as last night. Let me know maybe it won't be. Yeah, but Andy would like to kind of limit the review perview of the appeals board to essentially just for land zoning stuff and variances. Um, apparently it's been tried before and was making that happen again might be up.

Yeah, that's not something I'm involved with. That was the news. Admittedly clear as mod, but that's So when do we see you again? Uh, probably not. Oh, I guess I don't know. Uh, depending on how many applications you have at your regular meetings. We only have one meeting in November, right? Yeah. So, depending on how many applications you have at that one, might be there. Um, but we have a lot of applications. I don't know that there's you you have to formally vote and recommend a ordinance change to get to the So you that usually February.

Oh, all right. Well, then we got plenty of time then to the subdivision ordinance with that then. So, so what do we have for coming up for the next meeting? the I have a couple other that they tomorrow's the appation deadline date. Okay. So, okay. But you think that maybe a couple if you also have to do the way review has a month off. Yeah, that sounds Yeah. Okay. And then yeah, maybe December, but till February by year. All right. Got it.

Thank you for hear that. There's a lot of thought there. It's a good out of consciousness. Okay. Any other other tonight? None here. No. I'll second. Now that only leaves item five, Alan. Oh, yeah. You make it. I make a motion to adjurnn. Second. Great. Any further discussion? All those in favor?