Ogunquit Planning Board Works Through Growth Area Zoning Overhaul

[0:09] Speaker A (unidentified): yeah you can't you can't have fossil fuels the new thing i've heard is now they're trying to [0:17] Speaker B (unidentified): do away with duct work because it's inefficient okay we're online good evening everybody this is the wow september 28th 2026 meeting of the planning board we're tonight at five o'clock we're holding a workshop and the regular meeting will be at six the workshop topics tonight we're going to be really focusing on two things or three things and we might get to the fourth if we have time so the first one is the big the big one is the creation of a growth area and i combined it with it's really combined into one change because they start to overlap when you dig [Speaker C (unidentified): into it ben] is there anyone online you know is there anyone is running on a meeting if anybody is on we're having problems uploading the document so if you can't see it tonight we'll have it available after the meeting this week two people online okay so the first the first document is the steps to establish a growth area in gunkling zoning ordinance so if you went through the document that i sent the other day i added a couple of things to it that i missed when i put this document together from the discussions that we had in the last week last at the last workshop so the first part is under definitions we is to add a definition of growth area and the second is to add a definition of qualified affordable housing development and the one I sent you missed the change that we talked about last meeting. And so it's amended. It originally said it does not exceed the median income for the area as defined by the United States Department of Housing and so forth. And we changed that to it does not exceed 120% of the median income for your county and is allowed in any area with public water or sewer. I got a typo there but allowed in the designated it should be in the designated growth area or in any area with public water or sewer so that covers the state the state ordinances is work the next is to add text or change the text to the ordinance at 225-1.2a is delete OFR under the naming of the zones, delete GB2, change DB1 to general business district or general business with no number. And I was thinking about this afterwards that we'll talk about later is whether we could change it to just growth zone or growth district. Say that again? if there's something it's going to be the general business district the question is can we just change it to the growth district no i would keep it as a business because we want to promote [3:29] Speaker A (unidentified): Business in that district, I don't want to give the wrong impression that it's a residential district. [3:33] Speaker D (unidentified): Growth district, so we'll leave that as is in the general business, right, and we later name. [3:38] Speaker B (unidentified): The growth area is just the general business district. Next is to rename the downtown business. [3:44] Speaker C (unidentified): District to the village district. I did like your comment though, what we should not just do, village district, bad acronym. Yeah, the village business district. Yes, we like that. Yeah, excuse me. [4:03] Speaker B (unidentified): I'm a little slow on the, that one went over my head, so it'll be, it'll be abbreviated as VB. [4:11] Speaker C (unidentified): B, you can do BBD. Yeah, that's a Lincoln penny from 1902 or 19. Village district, I don't know, it's, it's kind of redundant. Yes, villages, village building district, still. [4:27] Speaker B (unidentified): Village zone would be fine. Yeah, okay, and then, and then, and then under that, under D, it would say the, we added, we add a new D under 225-1.2, which would read the following districts are considered to be the Agunka growth areas. I should make that just growth area, general business. [4:50] Speaker A (unidentified): District GB, so in the, we're going to keep the designation that dwellings are allowed in the village district above the main floor, first floor. [5:08] Speaker B (unidentified): And if there are any there existing, then they're grandfathered. Non-conforming. We just won't make any changes. [5:15] Speaker A (unidentified): It still kind of pushes for business to be downtown, as opposed to people buying buildings and turning them all into... [5:24] Speaker B (unidentified): Into reserves. Yeah, right, okay, then the next is add to 225-7.1, which really defines them, and again it's delete the one family residential, rename five downtown business district to village district, again village business district. I'm making the changes as we, as we talk here, just somehow. Okay. [6:00] Speaker C (unidentified): Do we, but. [6:03] Speaker A (unidentified): Just while we're still on the village business district, I know we've talked about in the past, and I don't know if we want to revisit it, having like Airbnbs not allowed in certain districts. I, is the downtown business district one of those districts? Do you think, may, if we were going to do that, maybe allow them, don't allow, don't allow them, I. [6:28] Speaker B (unidentified): I, 'm okay. I was thinking about that today and I'm thinking that this is going to be a pretty major change. Well, maybe wait, maybe wait till we get this done and then, and then come back and do that as in the next round. Just, it's going to be, it's going to be a busy ordinance change anyway, because it's, we're actually eliminating three districts. Well, two and maybe three when [6:49] Speaker D (unidentified): We get to the end. Simplifying. Yeah. Dave, if we were to add to it, just is too much to. [6:54] Speaker A (unidentified): I think it's a lot to begin with. [6:58] Speaker D (unidentified): A lot to unwrap. [7:01] Speaker A (unidentified): I know people have mentioned it. [7:02] Speaker B (unidentified): There will be two or three hundred people in town that might not want to, they might have, I know there's a lot of resistance around this. I was just reading today there's a lot of discussion about what to do about that, how to regulate. [7:17] Speaker A (unidentified): and I know I've talked to other municipalities and we've talked about it before about they've created ordinances that are more restrictive for short-term rentals and it 's a full-time job for somebody just to manage that right because there's different zones have different allowances some have caps yeah so it gets it gets very cumbersome and obviously limited staff it is difficult i have some other [7:46] Speaker B (unidentified): thoughts about that if we, not for tonight, but when we, when we get to that system. So we renamed downtown, then renamed item six, the general business district one to general business district, delete general business district two, and then renumber them to one through seven rather than nine. So the seven districts. And I have a thing at the end to talk about that may change that as well. And then add, I don't know if we have to add this again, or if we can just leave it in 225, 1.2. Add a C. The following districts are considered to be the growth areas. They should wear it the same as D if we're going to use it, and then keep it as general business district. I don't know. Do you think we need it in both places, Tyler? Should we have it in both, or just because 7.1 kind of gives the rationale for the districts, whereas 1.2 just kind of, kind of names the difference. Yeah, just, it's helpful. I mean, what about, where do you think [8:52] Speaker A (unidentified): redundancy would be? I'm going back to this village district thing, okay, village business district. [9:00] Speaker B (unidentified): You want to just leave it at that, village business? Yeah, I changed out ed vb, that's what you're gonna do. Yeah, because we have downtown business district is really dbd, right. [9:11] Speaker A (unidentified): Yeah, I think it, yeah, I think that makes, yeah, no, I think it helps to clarify. Okay, no, we'll leave that in there. Okay, so redundant as long as it helps as a match. [9:27] Speaker B (unidentified): Make sure they're truly redundant, and again I'll delete that. The following district, it should be the following district is no. Okay, the following district is considered to be the growth area, I should say the Agunka growth area, so it goes with the other one. And you took the so areas, yes, it changed it to area here. Okay, next is revised 225-8.10, and this is under D2 is dwelling, add after two vehicles for each dwelling unit in growth area, and in parentheses what we would add is in growth areas one vehicle space for each dwelling unit. Yeah, you change zones [10:17] Speaker A (unidentified): stay areas, right, so we use the same time and it still covers us. ADUs don't count as a dwelling for our, you're not, you're not allowed to require parking for them, but I guess I don't think that matters for that because it's not considered dwelling, right? Actually, I should say in [10:36] Speaker B (unidentified): the growth area rather than zones to be consistent, right? Okay, so in the growth area, yeah, this rose, yeah, okay, yeah. And then I forgot to add this in the documentary saying D3 should say change off street parking to be located on another lot with the 300 feet of to off street parking to be located on another lot within 0.25 miles of because that's what the new ordinance says. I forgot to add that in this one. Okay, and then delete from 225-8.12, B2, delete OFR. It's just a reference to the zones there. And then revise the zoning map to reflect the merging of GB1 and GB2 and the expansion of VBD. [11:27] Speaker A (unidentified): And we'll have to... [11:30] Speaker B (unidentified): And then revise the zoning map and rename OFR, which is the, I put as the Israelhead area and a small section by Pulpit Road and Brazier Point to R to make sure that we change. [11:44] Speaker C (unidentified): So you have to fix R to area. [11:48] Speaker B (unidentified): It's named in two spaces on the zoning map. [11:51] Speaker C (unidentified): No, but you don't have, I mean, the word Israelhead, it should say area, the next word. [11:56] Speaker B (unidentified): Yes, you're right, yeah, I just saw that and I fixed it on my, on my page [12:00] Speaker C (unidentified): and you'd capitalize the all on road after Pulpit. No, thank you, I will though. Okay, so that's [12:09] Speaker B (unidentified): the next start is where it gets more complicated is to change to label 703.1, so you might want to look at this if you can pull it up now. I'll start going through to it quickly. The easy stuff for us is we have to find a way to label GB as the growth zone, the growth area, and let [12:42] Speaker C (unidentified): me just pull that up. Okay, I [12:51] Speaker B (unidentified): Don't know whether we put it in the in the district headings for each page where we change the GB, we put GB dash growth area or GA, or we just put a note at the top. I don't know what's the best way to do that. If we just, if we label at the top, it's it's only it's only two pages, so we could just make it at the top of each page. Yeah, it might be the easiest way to do. [13:26] Speaker A (unidentified): Okay, Mary, too, what the best approach that would be, maybe yeah, just to put it on the on [13:38] Speaker B (unidentified): the graph so that right people besides us that are looking at it we'll know what we'll know what it is, or maybe we could highlight it, you know, I don't know because [13:49] Speaker A (unidentified): we have to look at the table and change might be not that bad actually. [14:03] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah, just get rid of that column, right, but then we have to look at, I'm I'm coming, I'm coming to some of the complications. So that one is just the first part is that's just to label it on the on the on both tables as the district as the growth area, okay, and then to relabel the downtown business column as VBD, and then to delete the OFR column, yeah, and now here's where it gets more complicated. Under all columns except for VBD, excuse me, yeah, VBD, F, and shoreline districts, change the minimum lot area with public sewer and water to 5,000, and the VBD, F, insuring districts are unchanged, and [15:07] Speaker A (unidentified): then what are we going to do to the lot, like are we [15:12] Speaker B (unidentified): going to change lot coverage, the net residential, I think I have it here, I think I have it here, I think so, backs, and I think so, I don't know if I changed the setbacks. Let's keep going and then we'll come, anything I miss, we'll, let me just say, we'll look at 703.1 setbacks and street frontage. And you have. I don't know if I got those or not. [15:38] Speaker A (unidentified): Did you get like lot coverage, building coverage? [15:42] Speaker B (unidentified): We have to come back, we have to come back to that. I'm not sure if I did or not. I think I did, but I'm not 100% sure. [15:49] Speaker C (unidentified): We have a checklist now. Okay. [15:53] Speaker B (unidentified): And all columns except for VBD, F, RR1, RR2, and shoreline districts change minimum lot area without public and sewer and water to 20,000. And I think we have to do that even in the farm district. I think RR1 and RR2 are now 60,000 and farm is 100,000. [16:18] Speaker A (unidentified): R1 I know is 60, yeah, that water and sewer, farm might be, there's a caveat to that though, there's a note on the table, yeah, for farm, so for farm it's 200,000, it's 200,000, but for residential use the minimum water is 60,000. [16:44] Speaker B (unidentified): 60,000 so it kicks it back down, right? That's right. Okay, so then so this is saying it's 20,000 because we allow houses there, right? We have to we have to cap it at 20,000 and that's [16:59] Speaker A (unidentified): based on like the state, right, minimum for septic systems is why they took that. Yeah, that's that's [17:06] Speaker B (unidentified): that's totally a state requirement, not because I want to change it, but that's they use the 20,000 because that's that's a septic thing. Yeah, and then under GB reduce the minimum net residential area per dwelling with public water and sewer from twenty thousand to one thousand two hundred and fifty for the first four dwelling units and five thousand for additional units, so that might require a footnote to make that happen. All right, unless we can fit that in the table so [17:39] Speaker A (unidentified): avoid footnotes, it's preferable. We have so many already too. I know, seven out two, this [17:47] Speaker B (unidentified): will delete a couple but not there's still be still be 15 probably. We should be able to put [17:52] Speaker C (unidentified): that in the table. Yeah, my table can just be bigger. We might just have to do a new table, [17:56] Speaker A (unidentified): right? Yeah, this has been we've been kind of working within this table for a long time, it [18:01] Speaker B (unidentified): might be time to I played with that a couple months ago, see if you can do and we can do it, might be hard to read but we can do it, I just have to make it bigger. Yeah, go to two full pages. Yeah, okay, next under GB reduce minimum net residential area per dwelling without public water and sewer to twenty thousand. Okay, that's still twenty thousand. Yeah, because right now it's it says not applicable, so yeah, because pretty much I don't think there's anything in there, does any properties in that zone. Well there maybe is, it's not a residence but is the [Speaker C (unidentified): the farm] the Great Brooks Farm is doesn't have doesn't have sewer, right? But that's not a residence, right? It's there's sewer on site though, it's just they haven't they haven't [18:59] Speaker A (unidentified): down by the water as opposed to up by the road, it goes through the bottom of their lot. Yeah, [19:03] Speaker B (unidentified): actually they're not hooked into it though, they're not, right? But I don't know if there's any others [19:07] Speaker A (unidentified): and then there's kind of that's a weird section of the road where it's not right in the road, it doesn't it just goes through property rather than the side of the gap there. [19:19] Speaker B (unidentified): Oh, so it goes like it flows like this, there's just yeah, it's okay, it's hard to explain but [19:24] Speaker A (unidentified): that way where Captain Thomas Road is, yeah, there's no sewer in Route One right there, 's a split [19:29] Speaker B (unidentified): that's right because it goes like this that's it doesn't it doesn't divide or something [19:34] Speaker A (unidentified): Think just it just doesn't different directions they didn't run it all the way up Route One, yeah. [19:38] Speaker B (unidentified): It runs to different outlets different because they have pump stations. [19:41] Speaker A (unidentified): Yeah it's the fork in the road a couple there's like beach plums tied in but they're tied into the hotel, yeah, Roby's Pond is tied in now through the hotel, okay, oh that's right, yeah, that's how they got there, yeah, I think those two houses that got built behind the hotel are tied in through the hotel, the hotel, okay, so it's all private line though so it doesn't come. [20:04] Speaker B (unidentified): Up the road I think we should leave it in there just in case, yeah, we missed one just so, yeah but. [20:09] Speaker D (unidentified): I don't I when is it required to hook up to the general sewer if you are x amount of feet away and you're going to change your septic over or you require with how many feet thousand. [20:25] Speaker A (unidentified): Feet no it's less I think it's 500 or less really oh okay so it's got to be relatively close for you to be required to tie in, yeah, because the cost to bring sewer line 500 feet is pretty steep, pretty significant, yeah, but if you yeah it might be less but with your within a certain distance you're required to your septic you can't replace the septic you have to tie into it, I just wasn't. [20:49] Speaker D (unidentified): Sure how far away it had to be, yeah so. [20:53] Speaker B (unidentified): Next under our reduced minimum watt area to 5,000 with public water and sewer. And I say without because I don't know if you can't see this, Fred, but there's a column for with and there's another row without. So we can separate it easily on the existing. And then under R, reduce minimum net residential area per dwelling with public and water, public water and sewer to 1,250 and to 20,000 without water and sewer. So again, that's another one. We'll need either the two lines or a footnote that's in your growth area that's in the growth, no this is in R. [21:36] Speaker A (unidentified): Are we required to allow that in R though, I think R up to four isn't it, up to four, is it up to four. [21:42] Speaker B (unidentified): no it's like i got it here do you have that i got here yeah sheet this is growth area okay there's growth areas of public growth area with public and sewer minimum lot size must be 5 000 square feet density requirement must be less than or equal to 1250 square feet per dwelling unit for the first four units and 5 000 per subsequent so we're only doing in the residential area if it goes to more than four then it's a subdivision right it's regulated and [22:14] Speaker A (unidentified): Then it goes to five then that next unit goes to 5,000 right but what about I thought we were. [22:19] Speaker B (unidentified): Talking about non-growth area. Wait a minute, it's here someplace. Areas with public [22:27] Speaker D (unidentified): the sewer but not growth area yes minimum size loss would be 5 000 density oh that's 5 000 okay so we can just change that just delete the that's 5 000 square feet for the first two [22:38] Speaker A (unidentified): units, so it's only two. Yeah, okay, so we change that. Does it 5,000 density or yes, lot area density [22:45] Speaker D (unidentified): requirement must be 5,000 square feet for the first two units. That's what it says. Yep, areas but [22:52] Speaker A (unidentified): This portion here. Yep. First two units. Yep. So you only have to... Is it 2,500 per unit, or is it 5,000 per unit? [23:02] Speaker B (unidentified): Any residential lot must have at least three dwelling units. [23:07] Speaker A (unidentified): You have to allow, but the density... [23:10] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, that's not clear. [23:11] Speaker A (unidentified): You don't have to reduce the density. It's not clear here. [23:13] Speaker D (unidentified): I don't see that as unclear, but it says 5,000 square feet for the first two units. Is it 5,000? [23:19] Speaker A (unidentified): I understand what you mean. Is it 5,000 per or 5,000 at all? [23:26] Speaker D (unidentified): In other words, 2,500, 2,500. And how do you divide that up unless it's 5,000 feet? [23:31] Speaker A (unidentified): 5,000 square feet. [23:32] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah, that's not clear, is it? [23:34] Speaker D (unidentified): You put 1,000 square feet on one side and 4,000 on the other. [23:37] Speaker A (unidentified): That's what I'm saying. We just need to make sure we have the... [23:40] Speaker B (unidentified): I'm just going to put a note here beside it to question. [23:46] Speaker C (unidentified): Clarify is better. That would be a question for... [23:51] Speaker A (unidentified): Yep, Mary. Yeah, that's the stuff I'm trying to, yeah, get some like hard and like a real answer, yeah, because it's like no, that's important because that's we don't want a lot more than [24:03] Speaker D (unidentified): we have to. No, I know, and we don't want to be vague in our right in our dissertation either. [24:11] Speaker B (unidentified): Okay, that under the next line under GB add to maximum building height heat section footnote again. I'm retaining the retaining the note, I guess it's, I guess we call it notes not footnote, so I'll just kind of change that to know quote for qualified affordable housing developments maximum height is 49 feet 0 inches and that's in the growth zone or affordable housing for affordable for qualified affordable housing and then under GB add to maximum building height in story section note for qualified affordable housing developments maximum stories is three and a half and again that's the just for that next is to delete note one and I forget now what note one was. Note one was yeah, so this and then to delete three for residential use the minimum lot area is 30,000 square feet yeah and probably should delete four as well [25:19] Speaker C (unidentified): All right, what is four, the minimum lack coverage for residential, and the minimum street frontage is a hundred feet. Yeah, we can't, we can't, we have to, we have to amend that. [25:37] Speaker B (unidentified): Amend note because we can still require, I think we can still require the minimum. [25:43] Speaker C (unidentified): Footage, right, the street, the street frontage. I don't think they required that chain, so we can. [25:50] Speaker B (unidentified): But we have to change the $60,000 to $20,000. Right. Or $60,000 to $20,000. [26:05] Speaker A (unidentified): That's what I was at, like, for the... I'm trying to read the floor. That's for private property. [26:20] Speaker B (unidentified): Okay. Okay. And then under Note 12, change Note 12 to read, no structure shall contain more than two and a half stories or the indicated height except qualified affordable building developments and i think what is note 12 for i do i have the [26:40] Speaker C (unidentified): Note 12 just says no structure shall contain more than two and a half stories or the indicator, just what that refers to though, it doesn't refer to, that's all it says, just starts off no, oh yeah. [26:52] Speaker B (unidentified): That's right, that's the footnote to maximum building height. Okay, so okay, so that just amends the note and then I wrote delete 16 and 17. 16 is single family units are two to four proposed the base lot requirement shall double per unit and then when single family units two to four are proposed the base lot net density shall double per unit and that's not the way the new law reads so we just have to delete those. You have an intern, you don't have an. [27:24] Speaker C (unidentified): Intern in the building, do you not revise because they're, they're moot, they're moot now. [27:33] Speaker B (unidentified): And then I wrote just renumber the notes. Okay, so we do have to, we have to, we have to get to your point, we have to look at setbacks. Do you want to just. [27:45] Speaker A (unidentified): To circle back, I have the law, the actual law that was written. Okay, so if a lot is located outside designated growth area and is an area served by a public special district or other centrally managed water system and public special district sewer, minimum lot size requirement may not exceed 5,000 square feet and a density requirement may not exceed 5,000 square feet of lot area for the first two dwelling units contained within a single structure. [28:14] Speaker B (unidentified): So the density then would be 2,500 per unit contained in a single structure, right. So if. [28:20] Speaker C (unidentified): If you have two separate, so it's duplex, it'd be five thousand, so a duplex. Okay, that's what that. [28:26] Speaker A (unidentified): Means okay, it's a little more confusing, but at least it restricts it to a single building, right, as opposed to trying to fit two separate houses. But that does not include accessory dwelling units, so you can still have a duplex with an accessory dwelling unit, right, if you have the a lot area. Yeah, if you have a lot. So the other thing, so if you have 5,000 square feet and we usually do 30 percent lot coverage, right, for residential district with water and sewer, because the idea is you don't need a septic, so you have more area you can cover, right? So if you did, do we want to reduce that to 20 or keep it at 30? Oh, [29:19] Speaker B (unidentified): the wait, before we, before we get to that, I just want to make sure we understand this one here. Reduce minimum net residential area per dwelling with public water and sewer to 5,000 and to 20,000 without water and sewer, and that's, that's the density, right? So is that still correct? Is that correct, 5,000 and 20,000 for those that are residential district? Yeah, and I don't, we don't have to clarify anything about how many units, it's 5,000 per residential structure for the post. No, it's, it's so for [29:53] Speaker A (unidentified): what you'll do is in the, so that's the side, the lot size, right, and then in the density, right, we'll have, you have two and a half stories, 5,000. Yeah, for duplex 25, I mean, yeah, it's confusing because it's, you have to kind of clarify that it's single structure. [30:13] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah, how do you, can go two units, how do we do that? 'S what, that's what I'm asking. Let's, let's, let's finish this one while we're here, okay? All right, can we do that by definition, post-structure, do you think we could do it by definition to two to five thousand per structure? [30:29] Speaker D (unidentified): Is that, does that cover it? Well, post-structure per two unit, but with a maximum of two units, a single structure with a maximum of two units, right, so that clarifies it. That's, that's clear, so it's 5,000 per structure, so somebody doesn't come in and try to put three units in a single 5,000 square foot area, up to dwelling structure up to two, and there may be a cleaner way to [30:58] Speaker A (unidentified): but that's a good, that's at least we've landed what we need to allow. Yeah, which makes me feel a lot better about most of it. I mean, you're still going to be able to get three on a lot because you [31:10] Speaker D (unidentified): can do an ADU. Yeah, with the ADU, but and to be clear in my mind, a duplex, let's say a two family that meets the criteria, can only have one ADU because it's a single structure, okay, so that clarifies the fact that they can't have two because they're somehow divided a lot of these. [31:31] Speaker A (unidentified): Condo developments, yeah, it's one lot, right? So you can have 180 minus whole entire condo development, right? Yeah, so it does kind of, yeah. And a lot of them you can still have private covenants, so in your condo development you can still say ADUs aren't allowed, right? And you can restrict that. Exactly, right, individually you can't tell, you can't do that, which is nice, at least I like that, by the way, which I mean we don't, we can't dictate from the planning board level covenants, but it might be something to encourage to like, hey, are you going to add, yeah, especially if you're going to have shared septics and things like that, it should be good to maybe [32:08] Speaker C (unidentified): restrict those. Okay, let me just, not just with condos, they can do that with planned unit developments, like the subdivision up off of, because that's condos, it's one lot, one lot, right? [32:21] Speaker A (unidentified): So they could, one of those units could put an EDU in, but they don't have, they also have shared septics, right? So they don't, they'd have to redo a whole subject plan and [32:31] Speaker D (unidentified): oh yeah, nice, redesign and rebuild on that. All right, let me read this, let me read this revised [32:37] Speaker B (unidentified): one and let's see if we're good with it. Under R, reduce minimum net residential area per dwelling with public water and sewer to 5,000 per structure up to two dwellings into 20,000 without water and sewer. So if I look at that under R, the net residential area changes from 12,500 to 5,000 with public water and sewer and from 30,000 to 20,000 without. Yep, okay, and we have to put a qualifier in there per structure up to two structures, no, I, or a qualifier later on what we were talking about, see how here under the SLR we have, there's a lot of text there, yeah, and I think we can probably do something like that, we just have to make, and by taking two or three [33:28] Speaker D (unidentified): columns out we'll add more room, you'll have more room for it, we should, it won't get all jammed up [33:33] Speaker B (unidentified): right, okay, so let me go back to that, okay, so we're good with that, it's [33:40] Speaker A (unidentified): I know Mary has said before, like, a good zoning order is like the table doesn't have a bunch of footnotes, she's right [33:47] Speaker B (unidentified): about that, so we have right now, simplify, so now we gotta, I did not talk about setback, street frontage, or coverage, so let's, why don't we start with the setbacks because that's next on the chart, oh no, actually frontages, why don't we do frontage, with frontage we don't have to [34:03] Speaker A (unidentified): change, right, it's a hundred, so that's where I think you want to go to probably 50 in the in [34:12] Speaker B (unidentified): the growth zone, it doesn't, because it doesn't 100 feet, think about it, I'm listening, so you're [34:18] Speaker A (unidentified): Going to go 150 deep, that's going to put you to the back, so you want to go maybe narrower and deeper as opposed to longer and shallower. Okay, so if you do a 50 because you want your lots like [34:31] Speaker C (unidentified): this way, exactly, not that way. Okay, then you, I get you a lot. Okay, which blocks off the back [34:39] Speaker A (unidentified): Because then you still want to have, we always have a deeper front setback than we do side and rear. So if you do shallow lots, it's going to be kind of tough to do 20 feet on the front. So what we're saying is that under 50 or 75, and that's where I wanted some clarification on if we can require 75 feet for your frontage. Kind of makes it tough to do [35:10] Speaker D (unidentified): I was stuck on 100 because it makes it virtually impossible, so we had to make a change somehow [35:20] Speaker A (unidentified): At some point, are we being overly restrictive where we're not? Because right now in those districts we only require 75 feet per residential, so I don't think you can be more restrictive. I think that would be construed as being more restrictive if we go to 100 feet. Okay, we could be less, right? Huh, can we walk 70? 50 feet's not very wide. No, especially if you have 15 foot setbacks on either side, that's 30 feet right there. Yeah, it's only a 20 foot wide building. Yeah, so that's too small. Just make that into square footage in your head and find out what that comes out. So keep the 75 and then at least we're kind of promoting you having maybe a 7,500 square foot lot. Is that just in, we're talking [36:13] Speaker B (unidentified): off fire and our is already 75, right? GB is already 75. The only one that's 100, GB2, are going to delete, right? So I'm saying just leave them alone, leave them, leave our one and our two alone. Okay, good. So I'll just make that note and then with sewer and water it makes sense [36:30] Speaker A (unidentified): Without sewer and water, it makes sense to leave it at 100 because you're gonna have 20,000 for the residential. Yeah, so okay, no, I think that's, that's one place it's going to save us [36:42] Speaker D (unidentified): A little bit work tonight is going to be doing math on a single lot with the side setbacks and front setbacks and rear setbacks. It gets tight fast and seeing and seeing how tight that lot [36:50] Speaker A (unidentified): Gets well I did just the 30 on a 5,000 square foot lot is 1,500 square feet, but that's that's built, that's footprint, right? Okay, that's footprint, yeah. So that's if you have two floors, that's still a 3,000 square foot house, right? So that's still plenty big, that's a plenty good. So if you do a 1500 square feet for a duplex, that's still big enough, sure, in reality. So I wouldn't, if anything, I'd go, I wouldn't go more, I'd go less. Okay, let's leave it at 75. Yeah, but I'm saying the lot car like the well. All right, this is, they're all kind of tied together because you have to look at if you're going to have a 50 by 100 lot. Now we're going to have a, I mean, if you went 75 by, what's 75 by 75? Yeah, 75 by 75 is 5600, yeah. And then that gives you a little working room. If you knock 30 feet out of, 15 out of both sides, 15 out of the back and 20 out of the front, still have a decent amount. Now for the business district right now, do we want to leave it at. [38:15] Speaker B (unidentified): So now it's at 30 for general business too. Oh, you're on facts, you're on setbacks. [38:23] Speaker A (unidentified): Sorry, I'm jumping around. Well, GB200 delete, right? So do we want to carry over, you want to make the. [38:29] Speaker D (unidentified): But the business setback carryover? [38:31] Speaker B (unidentified): Do we want to do 30? [38:33] Speaker A (unidentified): Or we could do 20 or 25? It's 20 now. It's 20 now. [38:39] Speaker C (unidentified): Last time you guys were in favor of having it closer to the road. [38:43] Speaker B (unidentified): Well, in downtown. But not so much out here with the driving. Downtown. [38:50] Speaker A (unidentified): And I think that was the thought process between the 30 foot for the outskirts. Yeah. Because it's faster traffic and give a little more space. [39:01] Speaker B (unidentified): The theory between lower front setbacks for business area is it makes it more pedestrian friendly. So if you're walking along and the store is right there and you want to get a cup of coffee, you're right there. And it prevents parking in front. [39:15] Speaker D (unidentified): It's amenable to foot traffic. [39:17] Speaker A (unidentified): So we can leave that at 20. Yep. So, far we've left everything. Yeah. Which is easy. [39:28] Speaker B (unidentified): And we don't have to change the side and rear or anything. There's nothing in this ordinance about setbacks, at least not in this summary. [39:39] Speaker A (unidentified): I've never seen anything about dimensional standards. I think they're probably going to say you can't be more restrictive than you are for other residential, but we're not. [39:50] Speaker D (unidentified): The state throws a bomb in the room and forgets to tell everybody to run. [39:56] Speaker B (unidentified): And then building coverage we have downtown is not, it's 30 in the general business district, it's 30 in residential. Do we leave it there or do we, like I said, that if you go to a. [40:09] Speaker A (unidentified): 5 000 square foot lot your 30 is 1500 square feet but you can still and that's a foot stories yeah that's still significant yeah so i think that's plenty yeah i wouldn't go anymore i'd go less if anything because if you went to 20 what's that like a thousand square feet yeah and [40:29] Speaker B (unidentified): that would give you two thousand, yeah, so you want to, you want to drop it to 20, I don't know what you, what do you think, compromise at 25 and see what goes well, like it's easier for me with 20, even numbers, 20 is fine, all right, well let's try, let's try 20. Yeah, I mean see what 20 is good [40:51] Speaker A (unidentified): because then if you have a, okay, yeah, I think that's reasonable, okay, all right, the lot size [41:02] Speaker B (unidentified): is going to be so small, right, okay, we're getting, we're getting, we're getting close to the end, we got about, leave some room to breathe, 15 minutes before we, but you still need to have parking and exactly access, yeah, and setback, so it'll, I think it'll work out, okay, next is, let me just pull that up before I can find it here, I did have it open but now I gotta find it, lead to some original designs like absolutely most likely, okay, next is 702.1, what I have here is delete the OFR column in the key, oh I'm sorry, in the key, which is, which identifies, which is the shortage, just delete OFR, change DB to VBD, change GB1 to GB, and delete GB2, so that's that part's easy, and then in the chart itself under, oh you're okay, oh sorry, I didn't mean to delete column OFR incoming, and then do the same thing we did, I didn't have that here. We have to delete GB2. And then under land use, under land uses, under GB for TA4 for commercial. This is under land use commercial. [42:38] Speaker A (unidentified): Change to not permitted. [42:40] Speaker B (unidentified): Change it to not permitted. It doesn't, everything there is nonconforming. It would just make everything non-conforming, and it prevents any further expansion, that's all. Under SLC change, where did I put this? For TA4, it has a footnote for SPR under TA4. This is SPR for TA4, just for the shoreland zone. And there's a footnote for that, I'm saying why don't we just change it to NP, it's existing and they can't expand, right, and then delete number two, which is just about, is the footnote to the SLC there, and then remember the notes under residential uses, under single family dwelling, change two to four, where it says four, sorry, it says two family dwellings, change it to a two to four family instead of two, and then it's just, it's just a right, and then there's, it's not a, it's not a subdivision if you go to four, right [44:07] Speaker A (unidentified): So it's just one, it's just, it's just a building, right? So on a lot, on a single lot, probably in the same bill. I mean, it could be a little, yeah, gray area with that too. It says in the same building, but then it kind of leaves it open that you can do four on the same lot, small buildings, right? So I have to, I think, get some clarification on that before we nail that down. [44:34] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah, but then that would just be a, okay, so that's a, that's a note to note to [44:42] Speaker A (unidentified): Mary, right? And then that's not permitted in the downtown business, which I think we can still leave [44:52] Speaker B (unidentified): that. Yeah, it's, it's not changing anything in that column. It's still NP in downtown. The only thing we, it's still NP into in SG3, SP, and RP, right? And we're not changing any of those. Okay, then under affordable family dwelling or, it says, I'm sorry, it says affordable family, affordable housing development, change that to qualified affordable housing development, just to meet with the good words put in here, and then change SPR to C under that, except in the shoreline zones for affordable housing development. Yeah, no, that's still, that's still SPR. Okay, good, strike that. I [45:47] Speaker A (unidentified): don't think we can, it's not permitted in the SLR. I'll, I'll ask about that too. I don't think we can restrict it in one family. We're [46:00] Speaker B (unidentified): not gonna have a one family anymore, so it would just be R. So it's permitted, it's O, yeah, S, O, R, S, L, C, S, G one and two all [46:08] Speaker A (unidentified): have S, L, R. It says not permitted. Oh, under affordable. Yeah, and so limited business [46:14] Speaker B (unidentified): says not permitted, but shoreland commercial says SPR. Yeah, I don't know, I don't know what that is, so we have to change SLR to, we'll just, we'll check on that because, okay, I don't, a lot of this [46:27] Speaker A (unidentified): doesn't apply to shoreline zones. We can keep, we can be more restrictive, so okay. [46:37] Speaker B (unidentified): Then revise the town zoning map. So in the zoning map, we have to change OFR to R, you have to change downtown business district to VBD, and [46:54] Speaker A (unidentified): the only one we're actually changing boundaries, besides merging the two general business, we're only changing boundaries for the village business [47:02] Speaker B (unidentified): district, right? We're really, we're eliminating GB1, right, merging those two and calling it general business. Yeah, not changing, moving GB1, the GB2 in a little closer maybe in a couple spots, but [47:15] Speaker A (unidentified): we want to look at some of the, like we did the dunes rezoned, do we want to look at some of those ones that are split and let's, let's finish this first, we'll get to the map. Yeah, maybe. [47:28] Speaker B (unidentified): You look at some of those. I just have three things on there. This is, these are just points because the maps are, shouldn't take, we might not even get the maps tonight. Yeah, okay. The next after it, next is change DB to VBD and expand, extend the new lines north and south, and then change GB1 and GB2 to GB. Okay, then I had some questions and you don't have these, so first one on GB, should we rename growth district? We just, we said no and we, okay, so these I can just delete because we already answered those. okay then the next question is should we while we're doing this should we merge rr1 and rr2 because when you look at the definitions in seven in 7.1 are identical but the definitions on this on the 7.1 it's the same wording and the table 702 and 703 as far as I can unless I'm missing something they're identical because the dimensional standards are the same yeah I don't even think I didn't see anything on the usage I think it's I can't see anything sometimes your eyes cross when you're looking At these, but I didn't see anything. Yeah, they look pretty similar. There must have been a reason when they set this up for having two separate zones, but I can't see it. I can't either. I'll, I mean, the only place I did not look was I didn't look, well, I did, I did a search, but I didn't look under eight or nine real carefully to see if there was a special provision in there. [49:04] Speaker A (unidentified): I mean, the use table looks exactly the same and the dimensional standards table looks exactly. [49:10] Speaker B (unidentified): The same, unless there's something in section eight or section nine that's special to that zone, I didn't see it, but I can't, I mean, again, we can shrink the table, right, give us just more room. So if we do that, we have to change 225 1D to just delete R1 and change our, delete RR2, change RR1 to RR, delete the change at 7.1 C, again delete RR2 and change RR1, and need to change 225 8.12 B2 to delete RR2, and then we have to change 7021 and the key, delete RR2, change RR1 to RR, delete column RR2, and then. Rename the column RR1 to RR. [49:56] Speaker A (unidentified): And we have to change the, in the zoning map. We also have to change minimum lot area for, with water and sewer, right? Because even in non-growth zones. [50:08] Speaker B (unidentified): I think we said that in the other, earlier. I excluded some, but I don't think I excluded those. [50:18] Speaker A (unidentified): And they already have a reduced building coverage. [50:24] Speaker B (unidentified): Okay, so that's, if we're good with that for our next workshop, I'll finalize all this. We have a couple questions for Mary still, and that's done except for putting it in a format for public hearing and for the ballot. [50:42] Speaker D (unidentified): Do we want to work on the maps on the next work? We've already got this pretty well settled. [50:48] Speaker A (unidentified): Maybe try to get some draft, go and strike through and get the draft language down. [50:54] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah, that's what I say. Let me put this, and I'll summarize it and finalize it, and I'll get it to you. [50:59] Speaker A (unidentified): I don't know. Do you do that? That's kind of what we did last time. You kind of sent me what you were thinking, and I went through and did the. Yeah. It has to be striked through in different colors and the way she puts it on the ballot. it so it's just easier to show it yeah do it for the residents yeah do it that way and it's that's how it lives and if we need to change it we just change it in that document and great instead of [51:21] Speaker B (unidentified): i'll put this together and i'll send it to you okay now we probably don't have enough time to go to the maps unless you want to look at them we have we can take four minutes yeah let's take Okay, so GB2, I made the changes that we talked about last week, except I think we talked about at Lincoln Street, stopping the GB there and then changing that little sliver of GB2 that slides by to GB1, change it to R, because those are all residences there. so from here okay so just this three like three and a half lots that are that are they're in two zones now that would put them all in the single residential zone and they're all residences so i meant i put an amended map here of that right and the other thing i was [52:17] Speaker A (unidentified): kind of talking about i'm here and i see this one might get very much in the weeds that's right at lincoln street yeah okay this is a it would take oh i see where you see the divided lots [52:32] Speaker B (unidentified): right there right here yep and then down to here and then everything here this section here would all go into r yep that one little section makes sense so the 1114 stuff in that section [52:44] Speaker D (unidentified): coming back down this side it's 53a or something like that yeah 53a d and c all right would all [52:51] Speaker B (unidentified): would all this would all become residential okay and then this from here this would go like this for a Jeep for the downtown business district then which would go here like this kind of a zigzag but well yes that's why we call [53:09] Speaker A (unidentified): It improve, I didn't know if it made sense to, and I get we can, this could get complicated, but to try to fix some of these splits up, split lots along, at least along Route 1, with the general business, like the hotels specifically. Like if you start kind of by Ocean Street, I saw these guys, so I was thinking, I looked at theirs, is all in the, like the Footbridge Hotel is all in the general business zone. But maybe drag that line up to their property line so the residential property next to it isn't split in a business and a residential. Right, okay, and then the next property, like the Borns Hotel, the whole property is split in half by the zone. It would be all conforming, will not conform, at least it'll be in a business district. [54:00] Speaker B (unidentified): And I know we're gonna get, it's gonna be, yeah, I'm okay with that. I'm just wondering if that's too complicated for this, because don't we have to, we have to send letters to every person we're changing and see if they're good with it, if we're gonna, if we're gonna rezone, do we, do we have to, all the butters, all the, no, I'm talking about the butters, I'm talking about the people who use water. Yeah, I was thinking about that at some point down the road, but as far as this, I think that makes us even more complex than it already is. We have enough to bite off, and I, it's, it's the voting, it's, I'm thinking about people voting, so we're already changing the zone though. [54:41] Speaker A (unidentified): No, I know. You know what I mean? We're already changing the zone, so I think we have to notify them anything. [54:45] Speaker B (unidentified): Which one are you talking about now? [54:47] Speaker A (unidentified): Well, if we're changing the general business to zone, all the properties in that we're changing their zone, I think we have to notify them anyways of our intention. So I don't think it really adds work as far as notification. It would just clean up some of our, I know it's more, but we're already doing zone change. [55:05] Speaker B (unidentified): Here's what I was thinking about that is if we're going to do that, maybe, and like maybe we do a special workshop and we send out to the all the all those affected people and say we're going to do a public like a feedback workshop on that and do a feedback workshop on that, and that way they can get them all together in one room, and that's just thinking [55:24] Speaker A (unidentified): like mostly fix the businesses that are split in half. Yeah, just to kind of, it cleans it up a lot. Yeah, so if they need to do something on their property and it's, yeah, it's an all-conforming and use, it just, it just makes it so much easier, they don't have to go through like, yeah, go to the [55:43] Speaker B (unidentified): Zoning board, yeah, something like it's obvious when they did this, they took the, they said, you know, we've got to zone the whole town, let's shoot right next to the tide and we talked about [55:51] Speaker A (unidentified): it or not, the tide, that the dunes, yes, the tides is right next to it and the things split down, it's same thing as a residential district sandwiched in between, right? All right, we should [56:01] Speaker B (unidentified): we should take a minute, take a minute, and at this point why don't we end the meeting and we will talk at the end of the public meeting about when we want to do the next workshop and what we want to cover. Okay. How's that? Okay, Ben. Okay. Okay.