Speakers labeled via automated voice-based diarization + AI name-matching against the city's official roster. Automated transcription can still mis-hear a name during fast speech (e.g. a rapid roll-call vote) -- clear near-misses are auto-corrected, but this is not manually verified line-by-line. Treat names as a strong best guess, not an official record.
[0:00] Speaker A (unidentified): Is this it for us today? Is this all we have and grass area? Oh come on. So I haven't been paying
[0:08] Speaker B (unidentified): attention. Okay, well these consultants we've had are, I think, really good. They
[0:17] Speaker C (unidentified): they really get it and how to communicate. All right, welcome everybody. This is a joint workshop between the Harpswell Planning Board and the Harpswell Housing Committee. We wanted, as the Housing Committee, it was important as we work on these housing related ordinance amendments to comply with LD 1829 and other housing legislation. It was important to bring the Planning Board on board early in the process. You guys can give feedback so you're not kind of blindsided when you know you have to hold the public hearing and if you guys you know yeah feedback in and anything just so that there's a clear line of communication between everybody. This was our first, so we've had I think three meetings with our consultant North Star Planning. This was the first meeting that we got a draft of any ordinance amendments. We are gonna get a revision in October, the 5th of October, the first revision, and I think there'll be one more round of revisions in November. But this is the whole goal is to get us to town meeting for the springtown meeting. Okay so this, I think this document's really awesome because it splits the changes into required changes and optional changes. The Housing Committee obviously is pro attainable housing, and so we talked a lot about how to take our, come on, how to take our language and make it more attractive to building attainable housing. So that's kind of what the second sections about. Would it
[2:02] Speaker A (unidentified): make sense to read, since this is going to be taped, to read the required changes and why first before we talk about the optional ones? I [Speaker B (unidentified): mean] that's what I was thinking, that maybe it made sense and then we could go over them and see if we think they're clear. And I'm happy to do some of the reading because you always get stuck with everything. All right, so okay, so the first ones are required changes to our current ordinances because the state has passed various laws, LD 1829, LD 2173, LD 997, and LD 427. And so as a town, basically we have to make those changes. And we did get help, we did hire a consultant. After we got a grant from the Housing Opportunity Program so that we weren't trying to do this ourselves, so a lot of these have to do with ADUs, but here in the definitions addendum, one of the things that's going to be done is to alter the language to match the state definition of ADUs and also added the ability to have ADUs on multi-unit residential structures. Okay, those two things comport with what the state says. In terms, and we can go through these later, in terms of the basic land use ordinance, we're looking at section 11 standards, 11.12 accessory dwelling unit, we eliminated the occupancy requirements for AD use because LD 2173 says we have to do that, so we can't require and if you have that
[4:20] Speaker C (unidentified): translates to if you have a principal structure to get an AD, you currently the principal structure has to be owner-occupied, and that gets rid of that requirement, so you even if you don't, even if neither of the structures are owner occupied, you can have a principal and an ADU on all the, on all the lots, which is kind of a huge change in density
[4:44] Speaker A (unidentified): Okay, so as we were saying, we, that was eliminated, the occupancy requirements in the principal structure, also altered language around the location of ADUs on a property between the front setback line and the principal structure, and that was done for reasons of clarity. Okay, in the shoreline zoning ordinance in section 14, the table of land uses in the shoreline zone, we added accessory dwelling units to the land use table in the shoreline zone, but disallowed AD use in the Commercial Fisheries 1 and Mitchell Field Marine Business Districts. We, as a community, cannot just categorically exclude ADUs from the shoreland zone. Because now the new laws say that we cannot do that. So that's another change. Then for section 15 of the land use standards, 15.22, we replaced the in-law apartment language with ADUs and the standards found in 11.12 in the basic land use ordinance. ADUs must be allowed in the shoreland zone and the in-law apartment standards, apparently, I guess it's duplicated, never heard of duplicative, but must be a legal term, and I figure duplicative of the ADU standards. So those are the things that have to be changed because of state law. Is that something that we would want to discuss now or does the Planning Board have questions?
[6:41] Speaker C (unidentified): Questions or what, start with the required stuff I think, yep, yeah, I guess my first question is
[6:48] Speaker D (unidentified): why the exclusion for commercial fisheries one instead of we also have commercial fisheries too
[6:56] Speaker C (unidentified): Don't we, because residential dwelling units are not, new residential dwelling units are not allowed in commercial fisheries, okay, but they are allowed in CF2, that's 75 to 250. Right, okay.
[7:12] Speaker D (unidentified): Is there anything else that makes sense that we would want them excluded from? I
[7:19] Speaker A (unidentified): don't think we can. Well, we can't, we can't do it on a wholesale level. Well, we can't exclude them from the shoreline zone. Well, it's being recorded, so there, you just have to speak into, to some microphone, put your mouth on the microphone. Thank you. Not excluding them,
[7:43] Speaker E (unidentified): but we can put additional requirements. So what, there was discussion that we've had previously that says, okay, if we're gonna have to, and I really see this as a, they see change for the planning board. I mean, we were taken aback that we were now required to see this in the shoreland, because it's always been an ADU in the shoreland what had to be blood-related usage. Right.
[8:17] Speaker C (unidentified): No money. Which essentially eliminates the ability to rent it out to somebody who's not a family member.
[8:24] Speaker E (unidentified): Right. Correct. Not that 's not being done.
[8:26] Speaker D (unidentified): It is what it is.
[8:28] Speaker E (unidentified): But you're going to see, you were, I feel, going to be inundated with those that can, because if they can double down on their property, so we need to be careful, and if you don't feel that way, fine, but if there's concern, we need to possibly put some guardrails around it, and so this is a good time for us to be discussing this with you.
[8:55] Speaker A (unidentified): Do you have any guardrails in mind that you wanted to
[8:58] Speaker E (unidentified): bring up? Well, I mean, I brought up the fact that sewer water have been huge concerns for our community. I voiced this, it doesn't mean it has credibility, but I said any new ADUs has to come with their own water source. What do you mean by that? It might have to have its own cistern. It might have to have its own tubs in the ground. I don't care what it is. Just so that if you look at the shoreland now, having this availability of additional living that probably in our current use already is exceeding what it should be being used for,
[9:41] Speaker D (unidentified): I'm not trying to say no,
[9:43] Speaker E (unidentified): I'm just saying that there is abuses in any given situation. Let's be cognizant of this, because we are such a vulnerable community to this, right, the septic has to be proven that it is viable to additional dictated usage. That's, I mean, that's not a hard ask, and it's viable, if they've got it, that's great, but if they don't, then you don't get to.
[10:13] Speaker A (unidentified): Go plan B, you had something else to do with that, as I remember. Well, no, it had something to do with as if you were starting a new build, that there, yeah, there you go. Oh, I'm sorry, yeah.
[10:29] Speaker C (unidentified): But we did, right, one of you, yeah, so my thought, so we can obviously, we have to have ADUs, but we can regulate them in a way that fits our community and the needs of our community. My initial suggestion, review, my initial suggestion was if you want to add an ADU to your property, your septic has to meet first-time system criteria. So there's different standards in the septic book for the subsurface wastewater disposal rules for a first-time system criteria versus a replacement system criteria, so first-time system you have to be 100 feet away from the disposal field has to be 100 feet away from high water you have to be 100 feet away from other people's wells those are like the big things but you know there's setbacks from your foundation or your porch there's setbacks from for the tank but mostly it's about the disposal field and the having these separations so my suggestion was maybe we make sure if you're going to have a septic field for an edu you have to meet a higher standard of separations and
[11:41] Speaker A (unidentified): if you don't meet that, then you don't get one. We're talking about the shorelands specifically.
[11:45] Speaker E (unidentified): Okay, just to make that clear, DEP up to this moment of this new LD being approved has been adamantly opposed to seeing additional demand on the shoreland zone areas, because they know it's a critical infrastructure to our waters and health. So this first time review, it may not be that difficult for some, but let's make sure we're doing it right. Yeah, we're going to be held accountable. I mean, if you come in to build a home, you've got to do all that. Yeah, so you're building another home, you might as well have to do all that, and it's going to upgrade people who are already out
[12:28] Speaker C (unidentified): of compliance, right? There's a lot of places in town that have substandard, not legally existing non-conforming lots that won't be able to meet first time criteria. Yes, that's a lot, 44. But so that was my suggestion about the septics. We also, as far as the water goes, I think the cistern idea is a little bit of a stretch, personally, something in the middle, I don't, yeah, I mean, we could make people install it, but when we leave, what's going to keep them from just looking up to their well, to the well, you know, I'm con
[13:09] Speaker A (unidentified): Well I'm concerned about the fact that wells in the shoreline zone are vulnerable as it is, and some are getting brackish, and right, and the community water is, sorry to be turning my back on you guys, water is what everybody's most concerned about. You know, I don't want another well there because it's gonna affect my water. You know, my neighbors doing such-and-such, so I think the harder we make it the better for our community, because I really have a concern about the wells, one of the
[13:54] Speaker C (unidentified): Standards be that you prove you have adequate water, and he would provide those guidelines of what adequate water would be. You'd be like certain gallons per second or something, and that's how you would prove that you have adequate water for this. Yeah, but what if it's good salt in it? I mean, I don't know, we
[14:13] Speaker E (unidentified): Haven't you have an ozone filtration or whatever, there are ways around it. The only reason I said cistern is you've got to build it, yeah, that way you're not connecting somewhere else, and you know your water is coming in by tractor trailer or tanker, but you know you're not initiating a new concern for you or your neighbor when we don't know where we're going, and if it's, if intrusion, saltwater intrusions forthcoming as sea rises occur, let's think about this. I'm not telling you how we do this, I'm Just bringing up we were caught off guard that this was, yep, so this wasn't our focus because we didn't think it was, but now
[15:05] Speaker C (unidentified): It is. When he said it can go in the shoreline zone, I was like, are you sure? Yeah, I, you know, searched the law and I don't see anything about the
[15:14] Speaker D (unidentified): Shoreline zone in it. Well, I think you know the, if we're gonna have that additional requirement, we can easily show the issue that we have here in Harpswell, and that is it's a matter of public safety. I would say on my road alone, 78, 79
[15:35] Speaker E (unidentified): Dwellings, at least 12 of them have to import water already. Yeah, because we're, our peninsula
[15:42] Speaker C (unidentified): Is only 300 feet wide. The planning board was just that one last week, right? Yeah, and they discussed at that meeting at that, yep. I mean, the thing is you can always put them on, you
[15:54] Speaker E (unidentified): Can also take them off in the future, take one off the system, some of these guardrails around, oh I see, yeah, you find that it's non-workable or there's different workarounds, we can come back and revisit, church, oh but you can't make
[16:11] Speaker D (unidentified): It, you have to make it as strict as you can to begin with, because you know, maybe you know people may litigate it on most of those lots
[16:22] Debbie Forrester: though with their septic systems normally when you build a house you build a septic system that meets the needs of say a bed three-bedroom now you want to build an ad you well how if you already have a three-bedroom that's now four bedrooms now you're over so isn't that yeah you've been upgraded yep and I
[16:44] Speaker C (unidentified): think this appears later. Yeah, okay, yeah, but to meet first-time system criteria is just an, it's an extra level of kind of regulation, and it's going to keep people from putting ADUs on really densely developed areas because if you, it's only 60 feet between your septic, your disposal field and your neighbor's well, then you're not going to be able to upgrade your septic to make to meet this ADU. But one thing that we talked about that I think is a really good idea, but I think it'll be very unpopular, is increasing the setbacks for accessory structures in the shoreland zone to 100 feet.
[17:25] Speaker A (unidentified): Here, let me be even more unpopular. I think we should have new builds in the shoreland zone 100 feet back because the water is not receding, it is rising. 75 feet don't do it, but maybe this year we just start with. I'm just saying, I mean, I'm looking
[17:45] Speaker C (unidentified): ahead here. I think we're all there, and what gets me having been in the codes office is everybody builds, and I've said this before, everybody builds their house to 75 feet and then they clear all the trees around it because now they have all these hazard trees because now they've built right up to the tree line where they can stop clearing, and then they clear to 60 feet. You got to walk out basement, you got to clear that area, so everybody just because you make the building at 75, the impact to the environment is much greater. Mm-hmm.
[18:14] Speaker A (unidentified): You're, we're disturbing that, we don't have the buffer, and we are more
[18:27] Speaker C (unidentified): vulnerable, I would say. Yep, making somebody build like, so we're, you know, thinking about an ADU in a garage. If you allow the accessory structure to be at 75 feet, then they could convert it to an ADU, but if you make all the setbacks for accessory structures 100 feet, then that ADU is always going to be 100 feet back from the water, and that is further going to exclude people who can meet that. So
[18:57] Speaker A (unidentified): so are we saying that's a good idea or a bad idea or should it be a great idea? Okay, what about
[19:04] Speaker C (unidentified): I just think it's going to be not super popular because there are so many substandard lots.
[19:08] Speaker D (unidentified): Right, okay, but I think there's also a distinction between new construction and are you converting an
[19:16] Speaker C (unidentified): Existing right, that's what I was thinking. If you already have a garage, the environmental impact is already there. Okay, so yeah, so your setback requirements would exclude
[19:29] Speaker A (unidentified): currently existing buildings. Yeah, that, yeah, that's what I was, that was what I was
[19:34] Speaker C (unidentified): asking. Already done the clearing, you've already impacted storm water and erosion and, but if you want to build a new structure, then it's got to be 100 feet and it, and if you let somebody
[19:45] Speaker B (unidentified): if you just say it's the ADU, somebody could build a shed or a garage that has the old setbacks and then convert it into an ADU, right? So all buildings have
[20:04] Speaker D (unidentified): to be, but at that point then you talk about building a building is existing as of a certain date, so you can eliminate some of it that way. Yep, well and that's what we say all
[20:16] Speaker B (unidentified): structures have to be the 100 foot setback, all accessories. What I said, all accessories structures.
[20:22] Speaker A (unidentified): Yeah, so any new accessory building of any sort, including ADUs, right? Yeah, and the ordinance does
[20:31] Speaker C (unidentified): already have something built in about an 80 square foot tool shed. If you, it's an exception to the setback standard if you're in the shoreland zone, so that could remain. Yeah, wait, the exception
[20:46] Speaker A (unidentified): could remain, but still any new, right? Yeah, you can't be expected to take it down because there's
[20:52] Speaker C (unidentified): an exception to the setback standards in the shoreland zone that says if you can't meet the water setbacks and you don't already have an accessory structure, you can build an 80 square foot tool shed anywhere within the 75 foot, but you can't be closer than the principal structure either way, but it's, it's kind of a, you know, because then you're gonna make these new non-conforming conditions. I have another
[21:21] Speaker D (unidentified): question on this and that has to do with restrictive covenants that are on property. No, so it is whichever, because for example in our, in our, in our subdivision we have restrictive covenants that say minimum lot area, one principal structure, certain size, period, can put a house trailer on there. We're
[21:48] Speaker E (unidentified): going backwards, we're not going to interfere with the existing, as you say, a covenant when you purchased your lot or that came with that subdivision law. That's not, that's not
[22:01] Speaker C (unidentified): That's a legal issue.
[22:02] Speaker A (unidentified): Yeah, I don't think we can
[22:03] Speaker D (unidentified): Okay, but I'm just wondering whether the, whether the language of the ADU statute [Speaker E (unidentified): It should not] It's silent on that.
[22:16] Speaker E (unidentified): And it, I don't believe it infers that it's jumping over or impacting.
[22:21] Speaker C (unidentified): No. It's just a dueling standard that you have to meet both of them. Yeah, okay.
[22:27] Speaker E (unidentified): You had to have BMW to live in your subdivision. I mean, that's the way it is.
[22:33] Speaker D (unidentified): That's the kind of language, when we're talking about exclusionary language, to talk about that this does not impede on or interfere with other land restrictions.
[22:48] Speaker E (unidentified): Right. And you see some of that we don't necessarily see in our jurisdiction. I mean, but, yeah, some subdivisions can put on their own edicts and, as I say, covenants that they wish to entertain because that's what they're trying to build.
[23:04] Speaker D (unidentified): Ones that are not against public policy. Yeah.
[23:07] Speaker A (unidentified): Should this then be added as a clarification here? Should we ask the North Star people to do that? I mean, is that something that people are going to say, well, what about my covenants? I'm not going to vote for this because it doesn't say anything about my covenants.
[23:24] Speaker C (unidentified): I mean, because covenants and land use standards are always going to be different. We allow chickens. You guys might not allow chickens.
[23:30] Speaker A (unidentified): As long as people get that, 's all. As long as the population gets it.
[23:34] Speaker B (unidentified): So it doesn't really change the situation from what it is right now. It's just that the ordinances will be altered.
[23:42] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah. I'm on kind of two minds on that. One of which is you don't want to raise it and then raise it as an additional red flag, but I also don't want people coming in and saying, hey, wait a minute, regardless of the restrictive
[23:56] Speaker E (unidentified): covenants we can do this. So there could be two levels of covenants, one planning board approval with covenants, and then secondly the subdivision owner sales with covenants. We don't have rights if you've approved the planning board covenants, that sticks. Your sales and purchase covenants are again beyond us as well. We know that's one of the one
[24:22] Speaker D (unidentified): of the things that we've been starting to talk about is that one of the approval standards that we, when we grant anything from the planning board, is that it says, you know, that, you know, this is subject to federal approvals and all that. And I think we almost need something in there to say this does not abrogate any other standards by way of private covenants or something like that, just so that people are aware that just because the Planning Board says we can do it, if there are other covenants in there
[24:52] Speaker C (unidentified): Or the code office issues a permit for a dock and your covenants say you can't have one. Right. That sort of thing. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. That happened to us.
[25:01] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah. We're good. Yeah. Yeah. I happen to, that's near and dear to my heart because I litigated one of those. Huh. Yeah.
[25:10] Speaker E (unidentified): I mean, I, we're looking at the nuances of our existing land use codes and trying to be smarter about one we're being forced to be on the adu side of it the ld's that came down there's parking in here as well but then to make sure our ordinances read cleanly from end to end so that there's not overlap or confusion and that's been our heavy lift is to try to make this betterment a one time because we actually in the end we have to get select board approvals and get the town to vote them you know Another thing you could do is
[25:54] Speaker C (unidentified): change the lot coverage i don't think that would be popular but well none of it pervious area is
[26:01] Speaker E (unidentified): an important issue because pervious area is what's we're draining off to the shoreland or to the shore or the fact is the less impervious it is the better off it is and we're seeing all that with all the conservation information and sorts that are coming out is you know to have pervious concrete or asphalt instead of just blacktop i mean those things are smart things to do in the day and age that we've actually learned from ourselves over the last 40 years or better
[26:36] Speaker C (unidentified): So i don't know much about pervious pavers just a side a side note but the planning board did review the expansion of the land trust and one thing that they discussed was pervious pavers because they're really limited by lot coverage and they said their feedback on pervious pavers was that they have to be maintained you have to like scrape them out to maintain like they made it sound like there's not a big deal they made it sound like there's maintenance involved to make sure that they continue to be pervious yeah you have to vacuum it right but i think that allowing that to be to vacuum it out to allow that to be used residentially i mean there's that maintenance issue that we can't guarantee would happen right sure you can you can stipulate
[27:23] Speaker E (unidentified): that they provide evidence that it's being done and who's gonna am i gonna even follow that yeah i'm sorry i have i have multiple pervious concrete sites yeah and we do that every year and
[27:36] Speaker C (unidentified): it's in the planning approval well yeah but yeah but who at the town is going to make sure that
[27:42] Speaker A (unidentified): you've you at least try if it's not stipulated nobody's going to do it that's really what we're talking about okay we may not be able to follow it up but if we say it has to be done some percentage will do it and there we're better off no it's got to be it's shown on the plan that's
[28:02] Speaker E (unidentified): What you had to provide, right, you don't not do it. If you say you have to have a detention pond, you don't build it, that's not, that's not what you approve, right? But yeah, but if you, who's going to
[28:12] Speaker D (unidentified): follow it? I know a pond and allow it to be filled in, who's going to come, who's going to be checking
[28:17] Speaker E (unidentified): on that regular? So I have, yeah, three of my sites I have to legally hire a third party inspector to inspect every after every storm, significant storm, and the fact is to inspect all the water quality control units that I have, vortex units, whatever that slow down stormwater use into the streams, it's three different Hygiene. So this is being done in 3rd and
[28:48] Speaker A (unidentified): Marty. Well, you're a good guy.
[28:50] Debbie Forrester: You don't have to handcuff yourself. You're a good
[28:51] Speaker A (unidentified): guy. Well, it's smart
[28:53] Speaker D (unidentified): for us. Well, yeah, but you know, an individual residential
[28:57] Speaker C (unidentified): I get it. And then properties change hands and that institutional knowledge every single time it gets lost what was previously approved. I was talking to a guy earlier and he was like, well, this is our solution to, there's this dock with this bracing. He's like, we're going to take the bracing off so harvesters can get underneath it and then we're going to put the bracing back on in the spring what and I said well what about when the property changes hands you know you lose that you know there's no guarantee it's all this follow-up you know doing things seasonally or annually I think asking people to maintain
[29:35] Speaker E (unidentified): I'm a voice that's all I am well but that's an important discussion but I really didn't like
[29:41] Speaker C (unidentified): your sister an idea the other day but I'm warming up to it I think so I have a site somewhere else
[29:49] Speaker E (unidentified): outside of this country equal same rainfall as we get here in Hartford while I get there and I've never had to import water I get all my water used from the ring now I have a big roof purposely designed that way to trap as much water as I can but it also provides me a great deal of shade too yeah it can be done you know I don't do
[30:16] Speaker A (unidentified): you guys know who these people are I know this lady okay I was thinking we never really I just thought it might be useful I mean I would like to know if I
[30:37] Speaker C (unidentified): I think it would be a good idea right I'm Margaret McIntyre the baked bean judge from the lunch with friends today I'm Dan hold back the photographer
[30:56] Speaker A (unidentified): harps all aging at home chair of the planning board Courtney Snellings on the planning board and the housing committee Jim Babarski on the planning board I'm Lori Falcone
[31:10] Debbie Forrester: I'm on Planning and Conservation, Debbie Forrester, Housing and Planning, Steve Norman, I guess.
[31:20] Speaker E (unidentified): housing and planning yeah oh that's right i'm an architect but if i say that i have to go to
[31:28] Speaker A (unidentified): a different level of approval on the housing committee architect of tree houses yeah i just thought that might be useful you know i have a hobbit house not another tree house one of my better designs just thinking you know sitting over there like who are these people
[31:49] Speaker C (unidentified): if you guys have any other suggestions or things that you want or ideas that come up for these adu standards the cistern idea i'm warming up to it but other i do think people are just going to disconnect it and it connects to their well but maybe not and i don't think if you don't
[32:09] Speaker E (unidentified): yeah if it's not allowed if they have to prove that there's a cistern on site whether it's in 5 000 barrels or it's actual concrete containment area underneath the foundation which is typical they build the foundation to be the reservoir underneath and your building is on top that 's their plumbing it goes through that area so but what if you want to
[32:35] Speaker C (unidentified): convert your garage to an edu is that something that's feasible you can always put a tank in
[32:40] Speaker E (unidentified): there you can also dig a hole for the tank you want to keep the tank black you don't want sunlight light to the tank so we're under I mean to talking from the housing committee we have to get back to our consultant and he then has to abate the current ordinance so that we can then make presentations to select board and to get on the docket for next we do have some time but that's why we're here we're wanting to find out what you know you all think I mean so this is just one
[33:37] Speaker A (unidentified): one part of it I was gonna go over the optional sections unless you would like to read them yeah we have to do those these are ones that we thought might be good ideas and so all right Okay, so for definitions addendum, for the two-acre lot size subdivision, we'd like to eliminate that definition because the consultant's recommendation is to treat lots across Harpswell the same, whether they are in a subdivision or not. having larger subdivision lot sizes is not a best practice that's what that
[34:54] Speaker B (unidentified): 80,000 to 40,000, yes, and our consultant told us that it's unusual for to have these.
[35:02] Speaker A (unidentified): Different standards than larger lots and subdivisions, right, so that was interesting.
[35:08] Speaker C (unidentified): and if people are worried about density we could always i've been thinking a lot about this one we can always change maybe a minimum law size for a subdivision lot in the shoreland zone could be bigger i don't know i do think that there's ways we could play with this i also am more interested in keeping the what we call flexible lot size subdivision or like a conservation lot subdivision i think that's way better than this urban this sprawl version of a subdivision so i think that 's something we can, we can keep in the back of our minds because it's the same density, it just encourages, you know, the unbroken up conservative plan
[35:48] Speaker A (unidentified): Okay, commercial use eliminated the exclusivity of rental and or dwelling units and projects that have commercial use. This ordinance change should be discussed as it has policy implications. It may help increase the number of renters in Harpswell and there are rental duration concerns. I don't completely understand that, just gonna say, right when it says may help increase the number of renters and these are rental, there are rental duration concerns, I don't know what, someone can help me with that But oh, is that what it is? All right, okay, all right, so with that would allow it
[36:37] Speaker D (unidentified): particularly for example in commercial fisheries to right mm-hmm so and if you
[36:45] Speaker B (unidentified): if you go a little bit further than the definitions addendum, you'll see where they did it, which is just to take out one of the clauses. What page you
[36:59] Speaker A (unidentified): want? Oh hey, it's the one that looks like this that says definitions addendum
[37:07] Speaker E (unidentified): Ah, right here, actually I put numbers on mine, number five. We had this problem last time, we
[37:13] Speaker A (unidentified): did have this problem last time. Okay, so do you want to read it as it currently is? I could, as currently as it's been suggested for the change, the definition of commercial
[37:30] Speaker B (unidentified): commercial use would be the use of lands, building or structures other than a home occupation to find below the intent and result of which activity is the production of income from the buying and selling of goods and or services and may also include the processing of marine life and the sale thereof in any form, so it takes out residential.
[37:56] Speaker A (unidentified): Exclusive of rental of residential buildings and or dwelling units, right? Okay.
[38:02] Speaker C (unidentified): I think that probably a lot of communities struggle with whether or not rentals are commercial use or residential use, and that this kind of says, the way it's written currently, not proposed, that, tell me if I'm wrong, but it's saying
[38:26] Speaker A (unidentified): That like rentals by people living there as opposed to run some other kind of rental, was that right, residential? Okay, so let's see, where were we?
[38:43] Speaker C (unidentified): We opted when we talked to the consultant to not take that definition out, just to leave it the way it was, a
[38:51] Speaker A (unidentified): long conversation about that. Yeah, let's see, where the heck was I?
[38:59] Speaker C (unidentified): All right, the next section, we talked a lot about these workforce, yes, standards that are in the basically land use ordinance that nobody uses, and how to make them more, give people more of an
[39:11] Speaker A (unidentified): excuse or an appetite to use them. Yeah, I think we learned that we never really have used workforce housing, right? We thought we did in Hamilton Place, but we apparently did not.
[39:35] Speaker E (unidentified): But we've not been used, right? And that's at all, right? So for workforce
[39:53] Speaker A (unidentified): housing, the idea would be to add two unit and multi unit to the definition, which may encourage applicants to build workforce housing projects with more units. Okay, I just figured, I know that Steve has to leave pretty soon, so I kind of wanted to read through these and then we can go back and talk about them. Geez, all right, so let's see, where am I? Okay, workforce housing unit, added two-unit and multi-unit to the definition. This may also encourage applicants to build workforce housing projects with more units and encourage thoughtful density, which I thought was, I think it's an interesting word. Well, no, it is. All right, and for the site plan review ordinance from section 15 under parking spaces required 15.7, the standard would be changed from two parking spaces required per dwelling unit to one parking space required for projects with multifamily residential use. Although it is not required under state statute, this change lowers parking requirements in line with LD 427 and gives more flexibility to applicants. If it's an LD 427, why doesn't it apply, says planning board person, because I think LD 427 is maybe
[41:24] Speaker C (unidentified): about growth areas. Okay, so it's, it goes, it gets to the intent of the law, right? Actually, we don't have to do it if we don't want to. Yeah, I knew that they
[41:34] Speaker A (unidentified): had said people were supposed to only have one, right, and so on, it said we didn't. It was a little confusing. It says planning board person, not the housing committee.
[41:45] Speaker E (unidentified): And again, planning board person or planning board, if you think it's reasonable that we fill up two, then we can. We're not in a growth area. True. We have no growth area. And Margaret had previously brought up that there's one ordinance piece that doesn't require parking at all that we wish to have North Star include so there will be parking required in the future in that particular ordinance.
[42:14] Speaker C (unidentified): A shoreland zoning ordinance doesn't require any parking, and so when you're talking about lot coverage and it doesn't give you any leg to stand on to say, well, you got to include, you know, logically you have to include a parking space for some uses, but the ordinance doesn't make you, so they can look the other way. So there's places that can get away with saying, oh, we're going to park up the street, but you know, they're not going to, you know, they're going to park there, you know, that the lot coverage is going to be greater, but we don't have any. Yep, that's a smart idea, we
[42:50] Speaker A (unidentified): think these are things that you're interested in as well, right? All right, let's see, subdivision ordinance section 8.3.2 final subdivision plan application change the assumption of vehicular traffic impact from two cars per residential dwelling unit to one car for major subdivisions. Although it is not required under state statute, this change lowers parking requirements in line with LD 427 and gives more flexibility to applicants. As we see, if it changes one place, that'll change it 100,000 places. I don't like that at all.
[43:36] Speaker E (unidentified): It's not realistic, it's because we're traffic bound community, meaning or vehicular bound community, we don't have bus service, we don't have commuter service or whatever, right? It may be wise in a subdivision to keep to, I mean, we want input, okay, great, okay, all right,
[44:02] Speaker A (unidentified): let's see, section 8.3.2 final subdivision plan application much in other numbers, I'm not reading them, change the minimum required parking spaces for subdivisions on offshore islands from two parking spaces per lot per one, how many, give one, who's going to be driving out there? I don't know, I don't know, I was trying to think of where there was a subdivision on an offshore island but
[44:28] Speaker C (unidentified): No, they have to have, they're required to have parking. That's what this changes. Yeah, so this changes the parking because right now if you have a subdivision on offshore island you have to provide so much parking on the land, on the mainland, like Long Island with all subdivisions. Birch Island is a subdivision, I think part of it. So they're in the, you know, they all have our island. Okay, so that so
[44:56] Speaker D (unidentified): You're not talking about offshore parking on the offshore island itself, but on the mainland that
[45:03] Speaker C (unidentified): serves it. Okay, I do think the thought of a new subdivision on the on an offshore island is
[45:09] Speaker A (unidentified): probably not likely. Yeah, but well, that's a good point, Dan, because it doesn't really say this change encourages thoughtful growth and conservation on offshore islands, so it sounds like the parking is being done on the offshore island, not parking to get to it. Well, then this needs to be fixed.
[45:53] Speaker C (unidentified): So, 8-3-2-32 says, subdivisions proposed for offshore islands must provide maps indicating mainland support facilities, including private landings, moorings, and a minimum of two parking spaces for each lot. Also required is documentation of right, title, or interest in mainland property for support facilities. If a mainland support, if mainland support facilities are located in another municipality, the applicant must provide a written statement of approval from that municipality, like Birch Island's parking is in Brunswick. Okay, and as far as Laurie's suggestion for the bullet point above, 8-3-2-17, that's about traffic, that's about like a traffic flow, not about parking itself. Right. Eight, three, two. Hold on. Let me tell you. So I think that your suggestion to take it out is fine because that's just about estimating the, amount, type, and impact of vehicular traffic to be generated on a daily basis at peak hours on the assumption of two cars per residential dwelling unit. So it's not about requiring parking spaces. Right.
[47:16] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, not requiring parking spaces on a particular place, but...
[47:21] Debbie Forrester: Right, it's traffic. It's in general... Two houses per... Two cars per...
[47:26] Speaker D (unidentified): Because we have a ton of traffic. Oh, yeah. I like keeping that in.
[47:31] Speaker A (unidentified): Keeping one in. I'm sorry, I was listening to him.
[47:34] Speaker D (unidentified): On subsection 17, to not change it from two to one. Yeah. Okay. In fact, that might be a selling point for this, for a lot of people who live especially on 123.
[47:52] Speaker C (unidentified): All right, we don't require, we might not require two spots, but we're still going to say do you have the, can you handle the traffic? Yeah, for two cars. All right, so we're getting
[48:04] Speaker A (unidentified): Down section nine approval standards 9.4 on lots, eliminate 9.4.1 two acre lot size subdivision standards. Alter language of 9.4.3 flexible lot size subdivision standards to reflect the elimination of two acre lot size subdivision standards. Okay, we've sort of gone there already. Section 9 approval standards 9.1.3 offshore islands, change the minimum required parking spaces for subdivisions on offshore islands from two spaces per lot to one space. And that would be, I guess, if section eight point three point two point three two were changed, then this would have to be changed as well. All right, basic land use ordinance minimum lot standards, yes, that's all right. That's why I was trying and talk fast, yes, all right, let's see, eliminate the section areas located within a subdivision in the lot standards table. After the removal of two acre lot size subdivisions, other lot size standards are not needed. Okay, and if you look back here it shows what you yeah
[49:35] Speaker B (unidentified): go to the table
[49:37] Speaker A (unidentified): Yeah, and there's a lot of crossings out, which is kind of difficult to follow, I think. Section 11.18.3.1, Standards, Workforce Housing, Standards for Development of Workforce Housing Subdivisions, Density Bonus Provisions. Add 11.18.3.1a that includes standards for a higher density bonus that may apply where off-site workforce housing lots or units are provided on lots with a minimum of 40,000 square feet.
[50:12] Speaker D (unidentified): What's an off-site lot?
[50:18] Speaker A (unidentified): That's a good question. Who gets that?
[50:21] Debbie Forrester: It means that I've done these kind of developments. So you can take the development that you've been approved and you can actually build a lot somewhere else that the town approves
[50:37] Speaker A (unidentified): Yeah, I mean that was interesting I did look up some things today and one of the things said that if you had An attack a middle-income House you could also have a market rate one and if you had an affordable officially affordable one then you could have two okay yeah it i looked that up because i wondered about this myself it's a coupon so i used this approach on we had developed a lot
[51:12] Speaker E (unidentified): and we used the land bank was what it was called, but we then filled some wetlands in on one side BUT CREATED NEW WETLANDS ON ANOTHER SITE. YEAH. AND SO THAT WE NEVER PLAYED DIFFERENTIAL, IT WAS ALWAYS EQUAL IN THE END. RIGHT.
[51:34] Speaker A (unidentified): WELL, ANYWAY, THAT'S IT.
[51:37] Speaker C (unidentified): YOU TOO, HUH? SEE YOU ON THE FED. YES. BYE-BYE. HOUSING COMMITTEE.
[51:43] Speaker A (unidentified): YEAH. NOT YOU. NOT YOU. UNLESS YOU WANT TO COME TO THAT TOO.
[51:47] Speaker E (unidentified): THE INTROCUSSY, AND I'M SORRY IF I'M GOING BACKWARDS ON YOU, at this point in related to the 75 foot setback and then you have applicants come say well we have a daylight basement or the disturbed area is another 15 feet from the house so the diminished shoreland distance is really down to 60 feet or less. Why would we have something in the code saying well you can't be at 75 if you're going to take down trees to a lesser
[52:23] Speaker C (unidentified): degree yes without a doubt there are clearing standards in the 75 foot set back the point system to make this grid and you have to maintain 16 points and you know there's clearing standards but there's also standards for hazard trees and what you're doing by putting your house right there and clearing the stand of trees that was healthy and dense now you've got all these big wobbly trees that don't have their support and you've made these wind tunnels or it's probably not the official word but you're creating all these hazard trees and you can clear hazard trees in excess i believe without reading it i believe you can clear hazard trees in excess of the point system they're not subject to that so that's what happens you have an arborist say these are hazard trees are going to fall in the house and we there are more trees so not
[53:17] Speaker E (unidentified): getting into your bailiwick but you site visit all these conditions or do you not you don't necessarily site visit if it's just
[53:27] Speaker C (unidentified): a single house construction we don't usually look at new construction we only really look at old
[53:32] Speaker D (unidentified): stuff that is new construction that meets the setback we don't touch no that's the code's
[53:38] Speaker A (unidentified): office that does that we do non-conforming developers or contractors are playing on you
[53:42] Speaker C (unidentified): they're going to build as close to the setback as they can it's always going to be the case people who buy a new waterfront lot want a water view that's what they that's what they bought it
[53:53] Speaker D (unidentified): for they didn't buy it to look at trees and they're going to find somebody who says don't worry about cutting down the trees because the town's not going to come after you correct right
[54:03] Speaker C (unidentified): I don't do a little, you know, whatever it is.
[54:07] Speaker D (unidentified): That's my, another one of my bugaboos.
[54:11] Speaker E (unidentified): I'm just saying, maybe we need to tighten that piece of it saying, a review of any hazard trees must be undertaken, which could stipulate the setback to a greater degree. You know, instead of them having the game on you, put the game back on them.
[54:32] Speaker C (unidentified): Or we increase, my thought would be to increase the setback to maintain that buffer right so if we want the 75 foot buffer we push the
[54:44] Speaker D (unidentified): House back so 15 feet, so 15 feet will get us to 85 feet, 60 feet, right? I like that. You know what that's gonna do is it's gonna really increase the planning board work on tear down and rebuilds. Yeah, and they're not conforming and it's going
[55:08] Speaker C (unidentified): to shrink the buildable area on a lot of blocks. Okay.
[55:13] Speaker A (unidentified): now what i have a question i can i finish on oh i'm sorry i didn't know you were sorry don't breathe no the my only concern about setting it
[55:24] Speaker D (unidentified): back to 100 feet is I have a lot right now with a buildable, with an appropriate building envelope. If I move it back to 150 feet, I lose my building envelope. Now that's at what point is that taking of my property when it, because I bought the, I bought the property that was conforming that gave me an opportunity to build and now
[55:57] Speaker E (unidentified): I'm 100% with you to poke holes at what or if we make changes to be ready and or have thought through this.
[56:07] Speaker D (unidentified): Or to have or to talk about building envelope at the same time. Because that will eliminate one of those questions about, you know, by going back to 100 feet, now I can't use my lot. Well, there's an exception for you. Right.
[56:24] Speaker E (unidentified): Right. I mean, whether that is that you have a two-year period to be able to solidify that buildable lot, you know, after this ordinance is modified or changed.
[56:37] Speaker C (unidentified): I like that. Something like that. Maybe like a sunrise clause or something? Yeah, exactly.
[56:42] Speaker E (unidentified): If they can come in and say, this is my lot. I bought it to be able to construct. I'm not going to do it now, but I want to have this sunrise clause. Be infinitum because I can prove that it is viable and not to be disapproved, not disallowed of it in the future. You've got a test to be able to at least bring that information in and we can, it can be advertised in the paper to
[57:10] Speaker D (unidentified): Reaffirm that you need to do this to get that approved. I like, I like that the sunrise provision
[57:16] Speaker G (unidentified): vision couldn't we just couldn't we just grandfather people who purchased before a certain date and then any new purchases after a certain date that makes that makes sense yeah so I don't know what date that would be but you could have a
[57:37] Speaker E (unidentified): sunset. Yeah, and two meaning after ten years or after this. Yeah, it is allowed
[57:44] Speaker A (unidentified): out until this period and if you don't do it then you sell the property to someone who then hopefully gets the sunrise clause or whatever because you can't handle it but somebody else
[57:58] Speaker C (unidentified): Will have a certain amount of time to do it, but you could also, I think, with this, we were only talking about standalone accessory structures. You could, you could build on to your, like, if you have a house with a buildable area, you could build an attached garage, right? But we were talking about just standalone structure, so you could still have this buildable area for your principal structure, but you wouldn't be allowed to build, you'd have to go back 100 feet for it, right?
[58:25] Speaker D (unidentified): And I was extending, I was not thinking about 75 foot for these purposes, I was thinking generally.
[58:36] Speaker A (unidentified): Yeah, I was thinking, I mean, are there shoreland lots that are only 200 feet to the road? And if you're back 100 feet, then you can't be far enough from the road, so you get a little skinny spaghetti house?
[58:50] Speaker C (unidentified): Well, you'd get a variance, which is why the variance provisions are there. They're specific. They're there to allow people relief for unique circumstances. All right. I don't think, yeah.
[59:04] Speaker E (unidentified): My own lot is 200 feet deep.
[59:10] Speaker C (unidentified): There's no road setbacks in the shoreland though, I'm just saying, just property line setbacks.
[59:14] Speaker A (unidentified): Interesting. All right. I do have a question here, because I didn't, the way this is crossed out. Under 9.4 lots.
[59:23] Speaker E (unidentified): Which one? Where are you?
[59:25] Speaker A (unidentified): Right there. I don't know what the page is. Flag lots? It just says lots right there. Oh, I see. What is this one, two acre lot subdivisions, both are crossed out, so we talk, is it a one acre lot sub size subdivision? It was just very confusingly done for me, and I couldn't figure out what the heck was going on there. The two acre lot is roughly 80 000. Right, but is it, everything's been crossed out including the one, but is it, are we to take then that the two acre or lot size subdivisions, that's all gone, and one is now there, right, we're converting everything?
[1:00:07] Speaker C (unidentified): You see my problem? Yeah, but they've crossed out both one and two. Yes, they did, left flexible lot.
[1:00:14] Speaker A (unidentified): Size, yeah, and then it says reserved, make it even worse, so I don't know what that reserve means, that.
[1:00:23] Speaker D (unidentified): What reserved means is that there is no substitute 9.4.1, and it is reserved in case we want to put other language in there later.
[1:00:32] Speaker A (unidentified): Oh, you're saying this is a new thing, 9.4? Is that what you're saying?
[1:00:36] Speaker D (unidentified): 9.4.1 is gone, but in order to keep you from having to renumber everything that follows, you say this is reserved, so we can put something else in there. Because otherwise, if you get rid of 9.4.1, now 9.4.2 becomes 9.4.
[1:00:56] Speaker A (unidentified): Okay, well, I saw it's like reserved. I mean, do they want to take it out or not is what I was asking myself.
[1:01:01] Speaker D (unidentified): Okay. That's for dinner reservations, yeah.
[1:01:04] Speaker E (unidentified): Okay. It's the English teacher.
[1:01:07] Speaker A (unidentified): No, I was just trying to understand it. Well, there you go.
[1:01:10] Speaker D (unidentified): I was doing that to Dan. You gave me an opportunity to explain that.
[1:01:14] Speaker A (unidentified): I appreciate that. So anything else we should take back that the housing committee should take
[1:01:22] Speaker C (unidentified): back to the consultants other than what you guys already brought up the subdivision ordinance 8 3 2 17 change the assumption of vehicular traffic from two cars to one car
[1:01:55] Speaker D (unidentified): now is there my mind's going blank on me is there something in there about changing the it's page
[1:02:02] Speaker A (unidentified): one two three yeah so under subdivision ordinance so what's your question Dan the changing of the
[1:02:08] Speaker C (unidentified): 75 to 100 foot setback no we don't that's not there well it wasn't there in this version but we made that suggestion to him. Oh, okay. Just for accessory structures. Okay.
[1:02:19] Speaker A (unidentified): We talked about it. I was the one that said I would love to see Everything. Everything, because the water is doing nothing but encroaching, so it would be so much smarter to have 100 feet.
[1:02:32] Speaker C (unidentified): And I think we also talked about erosion and storm water. Oh yeah. Him.
[1:02:37] Speaker D (unidentified): Okay, so then that would go beyond what the initial scope is, but it's something that we could certainly something consider yeah well
[1:02:47] Speaker C (unidentified): it'll be in draft it'll be in version two okay great yeah but when can we
[1:02:52] Speaker E (unidentified): expect version two of the meetings on the fifth yeah he did not feel that he would be ready for this meeting but he felt for next perfect right okay then we can have another one of these I am glad you're willing to hear from us because we're off on this rail and you guys are going that way. You've got a whole lot bigger aura than we do.
[1:03:19] Speaker D (unidentified): Well, yeah, I guess it's a personal thing that anything that we can clear up here, this is a problem we're not gonna have to deal with on a planning board later.
[1:03:29] Speaker E (unidentified): We've got multiple codes going in different directions. So we haven't been sitting on our hands. We're trying to do some good. Clearly.
[1:03:40] Speaker C (unidentified): Good work. I also received just now that we're all done talking. Sorry, I did receive one suggestion from somebody was that we could, we're gonna change the size of a subdivision lot from 80 to 40. Could we require everybody in the subdivision to sign off on the splitting of a lot? Because you bought this lot in a subdivision with an 80,000 square foot minimum, expecting a certain density. Now we are changing the density, and do we want, no, I don't think we go back on, no, I don't think.
[1:04:13] Speaker A (unidentified): We go back either. I don't think we can. We can't do that. I know that you've had something come in.
[1:04:18] Speaker E (unidentified): Front of you, yes we have. We are not going back to subdivisions of past in modifying or allowing them to modify, just like the covenants. Yeah, that was pre-approved in that day and age. That's what.
[1:04:32] Speaker C (unidentified): It was. Wait, we're not going to make, we're, we're not going to, that's not how I understand it. The minimum lot size in a subdivision is 40, will be 40,000 square feet. That would be for subdivisions going forward. No, that would be for a new lot within a subdivision. So if you have an existing subdivision and you want to make a new lot, all you have to do is meet the 40,000 square foot standard and not the 80. No, that's a new lot within a subdivision, not a new subdivision law, not a new subdivision. That the basic land use ordinance is going to say the minimum lot for a lot within the minimum size for a lot within a subdivision is 40,000 square feet. Isn't there.
[1:05:10] Speaker A (unidentified): Something we've grandfathered things before, Margaret. I just don't see how we can say to people we're currently waiting, you know, I guess I hadn't gone down that road. No, yeah.
[1:05:26] Speaker C (unidentified): Agreed, I didn't think so either. Oh for sure, because when you open the basic land use ordinance, I mean they have the table right here. So when you open the basic land use ordinance, it's going to say minimum lot size per dwelling unit for an area located within a subdivision.
[1:05:41] Speaker A (unidentified): Is going to be 40,000 square feet. I think it has, yeah, new subdivision to be able to do that.
[1:05:49] Speaker C (unidentified): I agree, because it's going to become, I think, a ordinance verse covenant issue. This is something.
[1:05:56] Speaker A (unidentified): Moving forward, I agree. Think of, think of certain issues we have had on the planning board with this very thing. Yeah, so I don't allow more density within.
[1:06:08] Speaker C (unidentified): Existing subdivisions, that's what this is doing in my opinion. But why, I heard.
[1:06:13] Debbie Forrester: It that it's new subdivisions. Yep, it's simple.
[1:06:16] Speaker A (unidentified): Yeah, that's what we're doing.
[1:06:18] Speaker E (unidentified): That's what I thought we were doing, is allowing new subdivisions to be 40. Not going backwards and allowing, I mean, just like you're saying, the covenants that come with that subdivision, we may not be able to supersede from 80 down to 40.
[1:06:33] Speaker C (unidentified): That's why the suggestion was made to make the abutter sign off because we're increasing the ability of density.
[1:06:38] Speaker E (unidentified): I would agree with that, but all owners have to agree to the reduction.
[1:06:45] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, that was just a suggestion, but I think it gives a butters a lot of
[1:06:49] Speaker D (unidentified): power. Well, yeah, because you know, generally any restrictive covenant you have on the land can be changed by the unanimous vote of all the people anyway, so that would just reinforce what we're talking about here. I have a multi
[1:07:07] Speaker E (unidentified): a 15 lot con industrial condominium where we have the rights, if all owners agree, we'll modify, but we've done it three times. Yeah, and they've come together with everybody signing off, from here in Hawaii signing off, but it does happen. But I would say they, it has to be all owners have to agree. Yeah, and how do we, so we should have add that as a, I think it's a discussion
[1:07:36] Speaker C (unidentified): maybe we need to have at the housing committee meeting. Okay, if you, if we are not all understanding it, then we need to discuss it more with, I understand it, I
[1:07:47] Speaker A (unidentified): just don't like it. Yeah, new, I don't have a problem. No, me either, but existing, especially since we've already had this come up as a fairly significant issue, and we used the subdivision law as a reason to say no, and I don't see how we can think, oh, and now let's change it to 40,000. No, yeah, I mean designed for
[1:08:20] Debbie Forrester: 80,000 square foot lots on an existing subdivision, you can't, if you're gonna go back and change that to 40, that means your design now is not good, the road design, I mean, even you traffic, so everything, attention ponds, everything
[1:08:41] Speaker E (unidentified): are related to the impervious area of a single-family home on a two-acre lot, not the $2,000 money.
[1:08:50] Speaker A (unidentified): It's good, yep, good point. All of it, yeah.
[1:08:54] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, I don't see going backwards.
[1:08:57] Speaker A (unidentified): Not a good thing to do. Well, we can bat it around.
[1:08:59] Speaker E (unidentified): If a subdivision wants to ask their landowners to sign off, then in a way I say they should come back to the Planning Board.
[1:09:11] Speaker C (unidentified): Oh, it would send the Planning Board approval. Okay. Because anything that's newer
[1:09:15] Speaker A (unidentified): Newer than 83 or whatever. Well, this sounds like a hot potato to be batted around in the next housing committee meeting. Yeah, that's fine, but I mean it's a good take to have brought it up, going that way, and I'm going that way, yeah, always. And of course those of us who are in both housing committee and the planning board, we're going this way, but either way, any modification
[1:09:39] Speaker C (unidentified): of a subdivision needs planning board approval, any lot land amendment, so they would all have to come to the planning board. They all have to meet all the standards, but it's the piecemealing of it might degrade the ins, the I don't know, the subdivision plan like you were saying, you know, because you're not going to do a traffic study for adding one house, but if every law is adding
[1:10:00] Speaker A (unidentified): a house, adding a house, yeah, that would be a different thing a little bit. Find out if that law has changed since then. Well, it'll be interesting to find out if other towns are dealing with this. I had wanted to look up lot size, minimum lot sizes in other towns and, you know, see if anybody had 80,000 for subdivision, but I didn't get a chance to do that today, so I don't know whether other towns, other than we have 80,000, yes, square foot lots. Okay, oh yeah, all over the place, that's a
[1:10:41] Speaker C (unidentified): pretty standard, but I think in those towns they also have a minimum, a larger minimum lot size for lots not within a subdivision. Okay, it depends on your
[1:10:55] Speaker A (unidentified): zoning, but the other variable has to do with water access. Anyway, that's how we've been spending our time. Yeah, all right, thank you, this is really nice. Well,
[1:11:22] Speaker E (unidentified): maybe it's a, maybe it's something that