Limington Planning Board Approves Two Cottage Additions

[0:00] Chair (Planning Board Chair): We're started, all right gentlemen, we're on for a public hearing now. This is the first public hearing. Is Grace Ashton, she wants to put an addition to a camp on 527 to Clock at Lake Road. So I'll open the public hearing. Who's representing Grace tonight? Would you go to? [0:21] Curtis Porter (applicant's representative): My name is Curtis Porter and I'm representing Grace and I understand you guys, you did a site walk and we had to see if the town will approve a building permit for that addition. [0:40] Chair (Planning Board Chair): They haven't approved it yet. [0:42] Curtis Porter (applicant's representative): To see if they've, see if they will. Okay. [0:46] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Okay. And Donna, on the sidewalk, there was Grace and Daryl. [0:52] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah. Everything's pretty well set up there. [0:56] Speaker D (unidentified): It was just Grace and Daryl. [0:58] Chair (Planning Board Chair): That is accurate. You didn't go to his? Craig was. Craig was there too. Yes. But he's not part of it. Bonnie was there. That's okay. Bonnie was there. I just want to know the planning board members that were there. Yep. Oh, I don't need to track Bonnie. If you could just go forward with what the plan is for that. [1:15] Curtis Porter (applicant's representative): So she would like to build a 12 by 20 addition on the back side of the camp towards the road, not towards the lake. It will have an expanded bedroom and kind of relocate her bathroom. And there's also, which I didn't know last meeting, is that there is going to be a whole new septic tank and system and Kenny Gardner's already come up with a plan for that. [1:50] Speaker E (unidentified): So other questions, I can't hear him, he said it. [2:16] Chair (Planning Board Chair): It was short on the abacus list, is what it was. I was short? [2:20] Speaker E (unidentified): No, I'm saying that the original and two is all taken care of. [2:24] Speaker D (unidentified): That's all I came up with. No, Kurt and I took care of that in good shape. We're good. [2:29] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Any other planning board comments? Any more planning board comments, or questions, or concerns, or? [2:36] Speaker C (unidentified): No, it looks good up there as far as I'm concerned. [2:39] Chair (Planning Board Chair): It's a nice sized lot. [2:40] Speaker F (unidentified): It can accommodate it well. Okay. [2:46] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Pull out our little magic book. The info [2:58] Speaker G (unidentified): about the septic tank, is that new to anybody, or did you all know that the septic was... [3:04] Speaker C (unidentified): We talked about that at the site walk. You were there. [3:08] Speaker G (unidentified): I was there, but I didn't know what the... I have not seen the plans for this. So when Kurt said it a moment ago, it sounded like it was a newer thing than the plants. [3:18] Curtis Porter (applicant's representative): Originally, they were thinking about putting a new tank in and locating it closer, but it's an old system. So the new system, I think it's a chambered system, but it's small. So it's probably a better system than what's there. [3:35] Speaker F (unidentified): Takes up less space. Less space, yeah. [3:37] Speaker C (unidentified): You'd have to have that to get your permit anyway, the design. Right, yeah. [3:42] Speaker G (unidentified): Yeah. So a septic going near the lake has already been looked at and approved. [3:48] Speaker H (unidentified): And it hasn't been approved. No. [3:50] Speaker G (unidentified): No. That's part of the permitting. [3:52] Speaker H (unidentified): The comment of the permit. He has the design for it. [3:54] Curtis Porter (applicant's representative): I have the design for it. [3:55] Speaker C (unidentified): So it's not going closer to the lake. It's going further away from the lake. [3:59] Curtis Porter (applicant's representative): Further away from the lake. OK. [4:18] Chair (Planning Board Chair): We go through our little list here in the zoning ordinance. If I am not speaking loud enough or anyone can't hear me, please stop me or if you disagree with what I say please stop me don't we need to vote it through first not until we go not till after we'll go through the standards so it's 6g in the zoning ordinance standards applicable to conditional use and we go through abcde down through the process Are you ready? Okay, G1. The use will conserve shore cover and visual as well as actual access to water bodies. I don't think that applies to this one, does it? Shore cover and visual as well as actual access. [5:16] Speaker F (unidentified): What was that? A. It's the one on the use of conserved short cover and visual as well as actual access. [5:23] Speaker C (unidentified): It doesn't affect it in any way. [5:25] Chair (Planning Board Chair): So it's not applicable. Not applicable. Yeah. B. Traffic access to the site meets the standards contained in this ordinance and traffic congestion has been addressed in accordance with performance standards in the ordinance. That is not applicable. C, the design, the site design is in conformance with all municipal flood hazard protection regulations. And I'm assuming since you guys are on the site walk, that answer would be yes. [5:56] Speaker F (unidentified): There's no flood. Is it flood hazard then? [5:58] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Yeah, that's what they're talking about, number C. Site design is in conformance with all. So it's not applicable, right? It's the back of the building that this is going on, correct? [6:07] Curtis Porter (applicant's representative): At the back, towards the road. Yeah. Yeah. OK. [6:10] Chair (Planning Board Chair): So that is, yes, they have decided to conform. D, adequate provision for the disposal of all wastewater and solid waste has been made. Do they have a proposal or a plan for getting water there? Not the hazardous waste, but waste material. Yeah, subject. Actually, this applies to a new building here at OSU. you. So I will say not applicable. E, adequate provision for the transportation storage and disposal of any hazardous materials has been made. Not applicable. F, a stormwater drainage system meeting state standards shall be installed. That's not applicable. G, adequate provisions to control soil erosion and sedimentation have been made and in this situation you [7:08] Speaker H (unidentified): Craig would approve of. Yeah, he's gonna have to do something about the wetland area that's down there when he puts that septic system in. It starts taking the [7:17] Chair (Planning Board Chair): foundation has to get the approval of the CEO for the soil erosion and sedimentation issue. H, there is adequate water supply to meet the demands of the proposed use and for fire protection purposes. Yes, I, the provisions for buffer strips and on-site landscaping provide adequate protection to neighboring properties, including public areas, from detrimental features of the development, such as noise, glare, fumes, dust, odor, adverse visual impact, and the like. They're talking about a development here, so it's not applicable. But when they're adding their new building, there should be, it probably doesn't even prove applicable there. All right. All performance standards in this ordinance applicable to the proposed use will be met, yes. The use will not result in unsafe or unhealthy conditions, correct. The use will not have an adverse impact on natural beauty, historic sites, or rare and irreplaceable natural areas, correct. If anyone disagrees with how I said this, I would entertain a motion to approve Grace Hashton's proposed addition to her cottage. [9:00] Speaker C (unidentified): New speaker motion approved. [9:03] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Is there a second? All in favor. Okay. So what happens next is that you're free to start your construction, but... [9:18] Curtis Porter (applicant's representative): I got to get my permit to him. [9:20] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Yeah. You have to work with Craig, and then I write a notice of decision, and I send it to the... not to you, but to the homeowners. [9:27] Curtis Porter (applicant's representative): Okay. Yeah. So I have a question for you, Craig. On the permit, do you want the plans electronically? Do you want a paper copy? [9:37] Speaker H (unidentified): I just want to have some paper copies. [9:39] Curtis Porter (applicant's representative): Do you want two copies? For the plans. So, when's a good time to get those to you? Any day. Okay. All right. Okay. All right. Good. Set up a time. Yeah. Set up a time. I just want to sit down with you and kind of go over it and make sure I have all the stuff on the, you know, the permit and everything, too. So, I've been a while since I've done a permit here, so, yeah. Okay. [10:16] Chair (Planning Board Chair): That's it. Yeah, thank you. Do we have minutes? Do we have the minutes last year? [10:24] Speaker D (unidentified): They're on the bottom of your pile. I made it quite clear in my cover memo about audio and video. [10:40] Chair (Planning Board Chair): We're going to take a couple of minutes to read through these. Do [10:55] Speaker F (unidentified): You want me to tell you the ones that I found? Sure. Okay. So I have a few. I'm trying to coordinate with the one I got just now and the one I printed it off at home. That's always a little tricky, but okay. So on under conditional use to operate a retail store at 157, the second paragraph down that starts with Bonnie Laughlin. [Speaker H (unidentified): Which] page are you on? Page one, page one, page one, right down here. Oh, okay, thank you. All right, so this paragraph, there was a little inconsistency because it says Bonnie Laughlin asked which building was under discussion. Okay, that's fine. But then two sentences later, it says Mrs. Laughlin reported that during the site walk, she observed a clean open interior with two rooms at the rear, two bathrooms, a lobby and an office space. Well, she was doing my notes. She wasn't, she was not there. Oh, she wasn't? No, she had asked about [12:05] Speaker C (unidentified): what building it was. She asked about it. Yes, she wanted to say that though. It wasn't her. [12:10] Speaker F (unidentified): It was not Mrs. Laughlin. No, but Joyce said it. Oh, Joyce said it. Yes, it was Joyce that said that, not [12:19] Speaker D (unidentified): Bonnie. I just reported that it was during the site walk she observed. Yes, exactly. Yes, that is correct. We're saying it's Joyce. [12:31] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Well, there were two different locations, and I couldn't be at two places at once. [12:35] Speaker D (unidentified): So that makes sense to me why Bonnie would ask that question. [12:38] Speaker F (unidentified): Right. See, it didn't make sense. I see. Yes. Okay. Now if you go to page two, page two is just a, what do you call it, formatting thing. Thing. If you look at the A, B, C, D, E, they're great except for A and B. The A needs to be [12:58] Chair (Planning Board Chair): in... And then C, yeah, she missed the B. Oh, my word, what happened? [13:01] Speaker F (unidentified): You were good once you got to C, but A goes in front of the useful conserved. [13:06] Speaker D (unidentified): I don't know what happened. [13:07] Speaker F (unidentified): And B goes in front of traffic access. Good catch. [13:14] Speaker D (unidentified): Everything's there, but the A and B is missing. [13:16] Speaker F (unidentified): That's right. Yeah. It was just, it was a formatting issue. That's all. Nothing too major. And then if you go to page, find the page now. I think we're page four now. Yes. Okay. Okay. So on page four, we have the David Taylor discussion. The David Taylor discussion says, I don't have sufficient notes. Please help me. So I'm going to give you my take on it, but I'm sure I'm missing some. So anybody else, please help me out. Mr. Taylor was away on vacation and his lawyer, Michael Skolnick, presented the maps and timeline of the division of the land. There are still areas that are unclear and we need Mr. Taylor to come in and answer these questions. That was what I got from that whole thing. But I can't give you any more specifics than that, so maybe someone else can. One of the biggest issues on that one was the [14:24] Speaker I (unidentified): disposition of Lot 2. Lot 2, we were led to believe by Attorney Skolnick, was a family transfer where we were clearly led to believe that it was being sold to an individual and they were waiting on our decision in order to close on that. And he kind of played a little dumb, didn't know anything about it. I think he does know about it, but at any rate, I think lot two was a huge question [15:01] Speaker D (unidentified): question mark on this thing. Yes. Can I write that? Because we're meeting with Taylor again. [15:08] Speaker F (unidentified): I added that on here to answer these questions and I put the disposition of lot two. Was it a family transfer? Questions remain. I agree. And then I'll give you this so you can have it Donna. She's going to give you what she's writing. Oh, thank you. Certainly. [15:26] Speaker D (unidentified): Certainly. I don't know. My notes were not sufficient to pass. [15:29] Speaker C (unidentified): A family transfer would only apply if it was a large piece. They would break them down into like three lots. That would be exempt. [15:36] Speaker I (unidentified): Right. Well, he was trying to pass it off as exempt. Exactly. He was trying to say, hey, he's got the right to break two of these things off. That's not a family transfer. He had one that he already owned. That's not a transfer. [15:50] Speaker C (unidentified): Another problem he had, too, is on the original print when they came in with the solar farm right he made that into a three law into three laws he could only done two so why did he do the three and then say it's not a subdivision there's [16:04] Speaker F (unidentified): more still a lot of questions okay and I don't remember what the date was for the data center moratorium meeting with the select board I went to I don't think we made a date no oh when they held public hearing oh and I was there DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE DATE WAS? AUGUST 20th. [16:23] Speaker D (unidentified): THANK YOU. AUGUST 20th. OKAY. [16:29] Speaker F (unidentified): THAT'S THE THIRD TO LAST PARAGRAPH. THE DATA CENTER MORATORIUM LANGUAGE NEEDS TO BE WRITTEN AS A RESULT OF A PUBLIC HEARING WITH A SELECT BOARD HELD ON AUGUST 20th, 2026, APPROVED BY THE VOTERS. AND THEN THE MINUTES ARE COMPLETE. OKAY. I have no other. In my opinion, IMO. In my opinion, you've done good. Absolutely. Are there any other? I did that at 615 before I came. [16:59] Chair (Planning Board Chair): I think I did pretty good with no voice and no video. I'll give those to Donna. Is there a motion to approve the minutes of September 21st? Made the first of the minutes. Is there a second to the minute? Second. Darrell, second. All in favor? I shouldn't, since I was left out. It's a little late. It looks like there's nobody coming to the public hearing for. [17:35] Speaker C (unidentified): We've got, is it 7-15 or not? Are we going to put anything, on here? It is. [17:42] Speaker D (unidentified): Choice, I passed out more applications and I forgot everybody had them all recently. [17:46] Speaker C (unidentified): Are we going to put something on the conditional use permit stating he has to have a septic system and he can come no closer to the line than what he is? You need to let me know that. [18:07] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Say that again. He needs what? He needs a plan for the septic system? [18:13] Speaker C (unidentified): Right. He has to do. [18:15] Speaker F (unidentified): Septic system needs to be approved that won't be any closer to the lake than the old one was. [18:20] Speaker C (unidentified): Or it won't be any closer to the sidelines. Or to sidelines, yeah. That just covers us. Yeah. It doesn't that he's. Exactly. Are you talking about. [18:28] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Yes. Mm-hmm. All right. There is no closer than what? [18:34] Speaker C (unidentified): The one closer to the sidelines than the original building is. They're moving in two feet anyway with it, so they should be fine. [18:45] Speaker F (unidentified): They should be, but that way it's in writing. They still should be on there. Good point. That's a good point. Okay. [19:04] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Thank you. All right, we now have a public hearing for John and Heidi Stalin on 24 Warrior Lane, and they wish to add an addition to their cottage as well several, so it's just Mr. Stalling, would you like to get up here, or Miss, whatever, whichever you'd like to get up. [19:30] Speaker F (unidentified): Oh, mine was right here. [19:38] Speaker H (unidentified): Yeah, so I had put an application with Craig to put an addition on the side of our house for an extra bedroom and a bathroom. Craig had mentioned that we needed to upgrade the septic. I designed and that was installed prior to your walkthrough. So the new septic is already in. It's further away from the lake than the original one, and it was good it was done, because the septic tank actually had some holes in it, so it was a time to get replaced, and I have that in a shed that's gonna be out about 200 feet away from the water, that's already installed anyway. Right. What? Oh yeah, the septic system is put in last week, a week and a half ago, so, and then you guys did a site visit on, looks good too. Thank you, and he did a really great job. Andrew Barker is professional about. Everything had silk fence up everywhere and made sure that everything was protected. And then we talked to Craig because we're going to get that massive storm that weekend. So Craig made an effort to come down and do a final inspection so we could close everything up before the rain. Made it almost, it got a little wet, but it was so good. [21:18] Chair (Planning Board Chair): There I'm gonna open it up to any questions from the audience. No, nobody has any. Okay, any more concerns and questions from this? He's got everything he needs. [21:31] Speaker F (unidentified): Site walk showed that there's plenty of room. Yeah, there's a lot of stuff on the side. Exactly, they're not infringing on anybody, they're not going closer to the lake, so yes. [21:45] Speaker H (unidentified): Okay, all right, thank you. Okay. [21:57] Chair (Planning Board Chair): we'll go through the same scenario we did with the last one conditions applicable to conditional uses a the use will conserve short cover and visual as well as well as actual access to water bodies, non-flippable or yes? How do you answer that one with this one, it's so conserved, it's like it's new construction, but it's really, well, there is some new construction. So the answer to that would be yes. B, traffic access to the site meets the standards contained in this ordinance and traffic congestion has been addressed in accordance with performance standards in this ordinance, [Speaker G (unidentified): Not applicable.] The site design is in conformance with all municipal flood protection regulations, yes. D, adequate provision for the disposal of all wastewater and solid waste has been made, yes. E, adequate provision for the transportation, storage, and disposal of any hazardous materials has been made, not applicable. F. A stormwater drainage system meeting state standards shall be installed. Not applicable. G. Provisions or adequate provisions to control soil erosion and sedimentation have been made. Yes, they will meet those criteria. H. There is adequate water supply to meet the demands of the proposed use and for fire protection purposes, yes, has been made, will be made. The provisions for this, for buff strips and on-site landscaping provide adequate protection to neighboring properties including the public areas from detrimental features of the development such as noise, fumes, dust, odor, address, visual impact, and the like, have been met. J, all performance standards in this ordinance applicable to the proposed use will be met. Yes. K, the use will not result in unsafe or unhealthful conditions. Correct. It will not result in unsafe, et cetera. L, the use will not have an adverse impact on natural beauty, historic sites, or rare and irreplaceable natural areas. Yes, they will meet those conditions. Any corrections from the board? If not, is there a motion to approve the application for Jordan and Heidi Stalling? I'll make a motion to approve. Daryl made the motion. I'll second it. Bray seconded. All in favor? Same thing applies. You're ready to go. I'll write up a notice of decision that has a couple of the comments that were made, and I'll send it to you within two weeks. Thank you for coming in. [25:06] Speaker H (unidentified): I need to stop by and see if I can get [25:34] Speaker E (unidentified): a proof last time. Have a nice evening. [25:45] Speaker D (unidentified): You, too. Okay. Good luck with it. Mr. Taylor. Oh, goodness. We're going through this, aren't we? Yes, Mr. Taylor. [25:56] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Anybody have any comments about open business? On the data center stuff or anything else? [26:06] Speaker I (unidentified): Oh, not yet. How are we going to do that? I mean, there's so much to do. I'm trying to break it into palatable pieces. I've got a lot more than I gave you. I wanted a starting point, some place where I think it's important that we define a scope of work and keep what we do to that. For example, it's not our job to sell data centers or – Neutral. Yeah, exactly. It's basically to go through these various things and determine, is there an ordinance or one that we would write, and is there a time and place where we would say, yeah, we want one. One thing that I found out that's pretty interesting is that these data centers come in all sizes and iterations. And some of these may not be something you want to turn down. Some you absolutely would, although I don't see them coming to Wilmington, Maine. But nonetheless, I don't think that we should be in the blanket business like sometimes we've already done. It says, no, we're banning them, not happening. I think you've got to keep the door cracked. You never know. And technology changes on a daily basis. I mean, you never know what next year will bring. So I'm of the school that you don't, that I don't believe it would be in our best interest to outright ban data centers. But at the same time, these things are incredibly demanding of town resources. Resources. So with that in mind, I think a scope of work has to be, A, do we allow them [28:20] Speaker C (unidentified): In a certain... I don't think you can ban them anyway, not permanently. Oh, yes, you can. [28:23] Speaker I (unidentified): You can? Yeah, you can. Gorham has. Some towns already have. Yeah. Permanently? Until they change their ordinance. Right. [28:31] Speaker F (unidentified): I know there's a few towns that have, but I know Gorham has, because I heard a lot... [28:35] Speaker C (unidentified): Gorham already does. Yep. They don't want to ban Amazon because they're not allowed to shop. They don't give them millions. [28:39] Speaker I (unidentified): I realize. To me, it makes no sense to ban. I mean, you can tailor things to the point where it comes to town on your turn. You can do it that way. But to just outright ban it, I think, is probably a bad idea long term. You may end up missing the boat if an opportunity comes along. I don't know. That's my opinion. [29:02] Speaker F (unidentified): Well I think if you do that correctly right then you're going to be okay because if you protect the safety and welfare of the town and the land the land the people etc if you're protecting that [29:18] Chair (Planning Board Chair): then I think it will be okay so approving with conditions and then listing yeah you're right like the size of the size of the facility infrastructure and the how they reuse the product of the you know the water etc instead of always having pulling from the ground all of those things yes power is huge it's destroyed some [29:51] Speaker F (unidentified): some grids completely in towns. [29:53] Speaker E (unidentified): Yes,. [29:55] Speaker C (unidentified): But it's also responsible for taking care of all that. [29:59] Speaker F (unidentified): Also, there's the noise. [30:00] Speaker I (unidentified): The other piece of that, Daryl, is yes, but you need to do it in such a way that the rate payers aren't subsidizing. Correct. [30:10] Speaker C (unidentified): That could be written in there that they pay for all this infrastructure. [30:14] Speaker F (unidentified): Exactly, and that's what he's talking about, is we have to make it very structured so that... [30:19] Speaker I (unidentified): you need to make it so that the upgrades in the grid right are there don't come on the backs of the of the rapiers in town or the region or wherever you know whatever you want to say like [30:32] Speaker C (unidentified): they have been for 100 years exactly yep rapiers built the system then somebody sells it on us right they want to what they would just had two different what cmp wants 184 million for something and another 220 million for something yeah and then they're retaliated [30:51] Speaker I (unidentified): by saying that the probably upgrade project in baltimore is going on hold until we get it so those are some of the things that we absolutely have to get on the same page there's so much to [31:06] Chair (Planning Board Chair): this it's a scary it's scary to contemplate do you think that we should consult with a professional who has perhaps done some of these data centers or well [31:21] Speaker I (unidentified): There's a couple of things that, let's not jump the gun. The governor back in August, in April rather, commissioned a, committee study group, committee to study these things with certain criteria, one being repair protection, one being infrastructure, water usage, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. This final report of this group is due on the 29th of January, 2027, so we're a few months away from getting it. I don't think we should do a whole lot until we see it. Let's see what it says. I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel. The other thing that can be done is this: several towns, several area towns have written ordinances and we can look at those. I think that's our starting point. I think that's where we [32:25] Speaker F (unidentified): That's where we start. We looked at them in terms of the moratorium on them, but now we need to look at our long-term plan. Right. [32:35] Curtis Porter (applicant's representative): And those buildings, those down south, those are pretty tall. [32:42] Speaker C (unidentified): They're going to be height-restricted. They're not tall. I've never seen one that tall. I don't think we have a ladder. Firetruck ladders. [32:49] Curtis Porter (applicant's representative): They're not tall. They're sprawl. They're sprawl. They're sprawl, but they're also tall. Are they? Well, yeah. I haven't seen one. I don't think the bottom has a ladder or something to get to the roof. [33:00] Speaker C (unidentified): No, they're not that tall. Well, I've got to have a ladder to get on my roof. A big roof. [33:08] Speaker I (unidentified): You know, those are things that when you get down to the nitty-gritty, we don't even need to worry about that until we say, okay, we're going to improve it. Under which conditions will that be? And that's when height will come in. Right now, that's not, to me, on the radar at the moment. We're a long way away. [33:24] Speaker H (unidentified): Long way. Yeah, [33:27] Curtis Porter (applicant's representative): But when you discuss it, what people see is this massive eye building and long. [33:32] Speaker C (unidentified): I don't know where all this hysteria started anyway. I mean, they can't have them. I don't know. I mean, it's like windmills. [33:43] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Well, I think they probably didn't have any conditions that pertain directly to that out of centers and maybe they just built them and people didn't realize what the consequences were until after they were built. I honestly believe the early ones [33:59] Speaker I (unidentified): That's exactly what happened is they said, okay, we're going to come in here, it's going to be a bunch of computers, and the next thing you know, they're putting a strain on the grid and in the water supply. And I think that's where it came from. So now I think municipalities are doing it right, I think, looking at all this and say, okay, under what conditions does this make sense for us? And going that route, knowing what they know. I think the early, I honestly believe that they didn't see it coming. So now they've… [34:42] Speaker C (unidentified): I know some that I did some research on. They were well away from everybody and then the building started and they became building closer to them all the time and that was some of the problem yeah because they I they can [34:57] Speaker I (unidentified): be noisy I guess you know the noise however they are they are noisy you know there's there's issues I mean would that be horrible around you oh god I mean we've got enough square footage you know when you want to stick one of these things out that part doesn't bother me a [35:15] Speaker C (unidentified): whole lot but do you see that one that's being built in Florida by Musk that huge you've seen the picture of that one no it's unbelievable how big it is yeah where was this though I think it's was it in Florida he's building it he's building a huge one I saw a picture of it the other day. But his are all self-contained anyway. He's not doing any evaporation type coolant or anything like that. That's why the water's used up. They're closed system. Use the same water over and over. It's not like an air pump. Heat pump. A heat pump uses gas. [35:55] Speaker I (unidentified): They will use more power. Less water. And the ones that use evaporative cooling will use less power over water. So cooling is a big issue with these things a closed system they use less water they use less water and take a little power because you're gonna you have to you know [36:13] Speaker C (unidentified): but the key is to make sure they pay for any of the upgrades no matter what yeah so you don't [36:18] Speaker I (unidentified): pick your poison I mean you use a lot of water less power or a lot of power or less water you know, so, well, anyway, I kind of think that's our starting point, and I'm not really sure where you want to move from here. But my suggestion for what it's worth, my own opinion, is baby steps. We bite off a piece and cover this well. [36:46] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Well, from the state, does their approval. [36:48] Speaker I (unidentified): I think that's important we do that. There's some stuff we can do in the meantime. But I think waiting for the state report makes a lot of sense that people smarter than I am working on it. So I think we need to see what they have to say. [37:07] Chair (Planning Board Chair): I agree. Well, we certainly have, I think, ample time to do that. We do. Yeah. [37:12] Speaker C (unidentified): Between them. I think they will be coming to call the climate cell because they can cool their... They can cool. They could use the cold winters to help cool. Well, definitely. [37:24] Speaker I (unidentified): Well, anyway, that's kind of a thumbnail sketch of where we're at now. [37:30] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Anything else on that issue? In the Southern Maine Regional Planning Council, for the writing of our ordinance to amend it, they're coming along. I'm really surprised. They originally said they wouldn't have the final information until late January. And then when they found out that we wanted to do it in a March town meeting, Jamel is now working on it. And it looks like we may have it by the middle of October. He'll be in to do a presentation on it. That's soon. That's very good. Then we can nitpick it, whatever, and then we can be ready for January to put it before the voting. Okay. Anything else? If not, is there a motion to adjourn? Oh, does somebody say something? [38:28] Speaker D (unidentified): Joyce, in two weeks they're going to have this set up for voting. So the planning board can't have a meeting in two weeks. We don't have any applicants left, but I'll check four weeks. [38:40] Speaker F (unidentified): Aren't we the first Monday and November? Yeah, but this is the first of October, and so in two weeks [38:48] Chair (Planning Board Chair): we'll have a meeting. Oh, I'm just, but we won't. No, this is the, this is the fifth of October [38:54] Speaker F (unidentified): right, this is one more, this is one more Monday of October, so we'll have one on the 18th. But then we won't be able to have the one the first Monday in November because of elections. [39:11] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Yeah. But you were saying something different. You were saying that we couldn't even have the second October meeting because they were setting up for... No. That doesn't make sense. [39:22] Speaker D (unidentified): What were they... I wasn't aware we couldn't have a second meeting. No, I thought that's what you said. No, I meant the first Monday in November. [39:30] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Yeah. That's sort of standard procedures, yeah. [39:34] Speaker D (unidentified): So will the planning board work on ordinances in two weeks? [39:42] Chair (Planning Board Chair): Well, I think we need to wait and see what Jamal from Southern Maine has to say. And I think he might be close enough that we could get a meeting on that on the third Monday of October. We'll have to sort of wait and see. Everybody agree? Slowing down, it's winter. If there's no other business, is there a motion to adjourn? I motion we adjourn. Bob seconded. All in favor?