Mount Desert Planning Board approves substation update, continues tennis club application

[0:25] What is [1:57] All right. Hello, Meredith. [2:01] Hello. [2:01] Now you're on. [laughter] [2:04] I thought I'd try something new thanks to Alan's suggestion. what we had the planning board members introduce each other um or ourselves tonight and I thought maybe you could introduce yourself and explain your role on the planning board. [2:20] Um I am Meredith Randolph. I am uh now a alternate. So if not enough people show up uh I then get voted in as a acting member. But that doesn't happen very often. So, here I am on Zoom. [laughter] [2:40] So, uh, yeah, it's it's been a long time coming, but we actually have a full board finally. And so, the voting members are Ann, Tracy, myself, Gail, and Allan. So, just wanted to clear that up again. Thank you, Alan, for this suggestion. And item two on the on the agenda tonight is we have approval of minutes from September. [3:04] HR needs to identify [3:06] and HRE [3:08] she's muted. [3:09] Yeah. Hello out there in Zoom world. [3:13] Yes. Hi, this is HRE. [3:16] Hi. Could you just identify yourself for the record, please? [3:20] Yes, of course. Thank you. I couldn't hear you before. It's Heather Evans. [3:25] Okay. Thank you. [3:26] Yeah. I'll go back on I'll go back on mute now. [3:29] All right. Thanks, [3:34] All right, here we are. Item two, approval of minutes from 9:23. [3:40] I move approval. [3:41] Second. [3:42] Right. All those in favor. [3:45] I. [3:46] All right. Approved. Let's keep going. Item three tonight on the agenda, we have several conditional use approval applications. And the first one tonight is item 3A. It's conditional use approval application 16 2026 and the owner is Versent Power. [4:06] The applicant is Robert Cody, capital project manager. The location is 124 Harborside Road, Northeast Harbor, tax map 5, lot 17. The zone is conservation [4:21] and purpose is section 3.4 for public utility essential services and it is for modifications to an existing substation. They are removing the existing control house brick building and installing a mobile substation to allow for easier maintenance and storm response for [4:43] for the Northeast Harbor substation. We had a site inspection at 3 and was this advertised and abutters notified? [4:52] Yes. Um I have in front of me here um the copies of the publication in uh the Mount Islander uh on Thursday, October 1st and um [5:12] it's first. [5:21] Wasn't this continued also from the previous meeting? [5:25] Oh, a date. No, it was not. Okay. Okay. Here's the other one. It's the Ellsworth American also of October 1st and uh a notice went out to Butters uh dated September 4th, 2026. And there were four Butters notified. [5:44] Any conflicts of interest on the board with this? [5:48] None here. other than I am a customer. [5:54] All right. Wager probably the entire room is but [laughter] [6:00] right we had a site inspection at three and Gail myself and Allan attended and Allan why don't you for the record tell us about your observations from the site inspection. Well, there's a uh an old uh brick building that they're going to tear down, which is in front of all the electrical [6:24] transformer devices. And it's a small little lot with some scrub, brush, and trees that somewhat hide the existing control house. And the area is somewhat shared with consolidated [6:47] uh which is right next door to it. [6:49] Mhm. [6:50] And just a small little area with a whole bunch of uh scary electrical stuff. [6:58] Gail, anything to add to those observations? [7:03] Uh no. This is located at the approximately the intersection of 198 and Route 3 at the entrance to northeast Taho. Um, and I'll leave it for the applicants to describe what they proposed to do. [7:20] All right. With that, I will turn it over to the applicant to tell us about the project and what they're proposing to do. [7:29] Uh, I'm gonna have Sean I'm Robert Cody P. I'm going to have Sean feast the technical for more of the technical aspect of this but essentially it's to provide a mobile substation area. We have a mobile trailer that is a high voltage transformer and it'll be installed during [7:50] high maintenance for the substation or if something were to happen long term, we could set it there and be able to run Northeast Harbor Power without any interruptions if there was an issue with the substation. So that's why we have to do maintenance on substation every 3 to 5 years. So, we're looking to [8:10] do this as well as it helps with uh reliability and uh be able to get the substation in and a mobile substation in and out of the area as quickly and efficiently as possible. [8:27] Thanks, Rob. Um Sean Thieves with Daily Ward uh assisting tonight. So, this is the existing site. Um, Harborside Drive is here as the intersection with Peabody Drive is sort of directly across the road from the entrance into the site. This area is the existing substation. [8:50] Right here is the existing brick building that was discussed about being torn down. Um, on this side, this is the building for consolidated communications. There's a gravel driveway that comes up between the two for access into the site. So this brick building here will be torn down. The existing fence ends on this side of the building. [9:13] Um that fence would be extended beyond where this new pad would be. [clears throat] Proposing to tear that building down, construct a crush stone uh pad. And then this represents the mobile substation as it would be when it's parked on the pad. Um, [9:33] majority of the time there won't be anything there. So that building would be gone. It'll just be a gravel or a crush stone pad. So you wouldn't see anything. As Rob mentioned, if they had to bring this mobile substation in for either maintenance on this substation or if a transformer or something blew here and caused a power outage, they'd be able to bring the mobile trailer in and [9:55] still provide power to Northeast Harbor while the bigger issue in the substation was fixed. There's a this driveway will be uh paved when they're done doing the work. There's a small area. It's around 50 square feet in total of um increase in impervious area. Essentially, this area, there's a little bit of grass in front of the brick building here in that area would be uh paved. [10:21] Um the trees that separate the existing substation from the road, that'll all remain as it appears to be it it can all stay. This this this pad is no um not any closer to the road than the existing building. It's actually a little bit further in on the plan. [10:42] You can see a little bit that the footprint of the building extends further towards the road than the proposed pad does. So these trees should all be able to remain and still provide screening from the road to the existing substitation. [10:58] Speak clearly into the microphone. The trees are remaining between it and the road. [11:04] That is correct. [11:05] Right. [11:07] And could it if if for some reason you had to take the trees down, could we have a condition that you would [11:12] Yeah, we can plant something to replace it if for some reason [11:15] replace the screening. [11:16] Something had to come out to [11:18] We could definitely plant something to replace it. [11:20] And tell us for the record describe a mobile substation. And there is a picture and a drawing submitted as well. But just for those out there, you know, [11:36] the mobile substation is that basically is like a small tractor trailer, a trailer with a transformer that takes the high-side power from the lines and goes through a step step down transformer to a set of breakers and then down to reactors that control the voltage that you guys require for [11:59] Northeast Harbor. So, it's a mobile, it's basically a mobile substation. It's a smaller version of what you have site at Northeast Harbor. [12:10] Transformer blows a Versent truck towes this thing onto the property, backs it in there, gets us up and running, and when the coast is clear, then you pull it out of there and it goes to the next hot zone. [12:24] Yes, sir. We have three of them that we use all over the state. [12:28] Yep. [12:32] So everybody's clear it's not permanent. [12:37] I don't know how that is very relevant, but it sure looks like it'd be pretty hard to back that trailer in there, [12:44] especially with the two 15 two fence posts. [12:48] Yep. [12:49] 15 ft apart. [12:51] But I guess our guys do it all the time, sir. Okay. [12:59] Well, I'll open it up for public comment. If there is any public comment, now's your chance. [13:16] Going once, [13:21] twice. [13:26] Okay, I'm not hearing any public comment. So, gonna turn that switch off and um close public comment and let's uh get on with this. Uh first thing we need to find is if the application is complete. [13:45] I move we find the application complete. [13:47] Second. [13:48] Right. All those in favor? I [13:53] any [13:53] I move we use the short form to process this application. [13:57] Second that. [13:58] All right. All those in favor for using the short form [14:01] I [14:02] I approval of the application. [14:05] Second that. [14:06] All right. Then we're going to press the pause button on the approval. And now we're going to go through the review of the application. So everybody should have the application before them. I've got the short form checklist. [14:22] All got our handly land use ordinances around the reference if needed. [14:31] And let's do this. [14:43] All right, here we go. [14:47] All right. So, I'm on section 6A, general performance standards. And the first item is section 6A1, compatibility. And here the applicant talks about the physical size. And they say the existing electrical substation, visual impact. The applicant says no new impact, proximity to other structures. [15:11] Uh they're going to share the driveway with consolidated communications in density of development. It's still an existing substation. So 6 A1C application [15:26] 6 A2 erosion and sedimentation control. [15:31] They say it is an existing substation. [15:37] Say see applications. [15:40] And there's [15:41] narratives. Um, [15:43] and there's from Amy Ward. [15:46] Thank you. [15:49] And highway safety. They say NA [15:57] 64 impact on town services. [16:04] They say NA because it will not unduly burden the capacity of the town's facilities including public water and sewage for the town to provide essential services. So 684NA [16:18] 6A5 land suitability applicant says well there's already a substation there built. So see application [16:31] 66 lighting outdoor [16:35] [clears throat] say NA I guess there's no lighting associated with the trailer [16:44] NA. So and then 6 A7 storm water again we've got the narrative and it's a existing substation [16:58] so C application [17:03] they have one of those checked NA applicable standard met or not met [17:10] what tree and vegetation [17:15] yeah 688 [17:16] 6 A7 nothing lighting [17:20] yeah sorry seven [17:22] and then 688 nothing's checked but they say existing substation and we just heard from the applicant that they're not taking down any additional trees [17:39] so it would say C application and I think I think on the original application They should probably check check those [17:50] and then under 689 dust fumes vapors odors and gases they say NA it's an existing substation. [18:02] So the findings of fact are presented by the applicant and attached application and the conclusion was that the proposed use is in compliance with all standards of section 6A for which the standard has been met. [18:16] So move [18:16] second. [18:17] All those in favor I [18:20] would you like to come up and just check the boxes? [18:23] Yeah. [18:25] Which I don't know what [18:28] seven and eight. It was just on the original application. Can you [18:35] initials? [18:37] Yep. Or which one did you say? 68A [18:42] there. And then isn't there another one right below it that's not check before it? [clears throat] [18:49] One before it [18:56] all [18:58] need another one. Right. So, moving on, we're on to section 6B. Most of these are NA. 6B1, agriculture, NA, 6B7, [19:17] excavation. [19:20] The applicant says they're filling the spot on site. And could you guys please describe what that means? [19:28] On the back side, the existing old house, there is a containment burn that was used uh for in case an accident with the transformer, it would retain the oil so that we could clean it up. We've adjusted that with the new plan, have uh containment BMS and everything. [19:50] So, we're going to level the land so the trailer can back in. [19:55] Leveling it with crush stone or [19:57] that'll be compact in crush stone. [20:04] So, it'll be filling, not excavation. That's what you're saying. [20:07] We're filling in the hole. [20:08] Yes. [clears throat] [20:10] So, 6B7 excavation or filling C application. And Tracy, I think technically that one's not checked either. [20:20] Okay. [20:23] 6B8 fences, [20:26] fences and walls. They say it's an existing substation, but um you explain again for the record what's happening with the fence. [20:35] Going to extend the fence closer to the tree line on the roadside. [20:41] Yeah. for the drawing to send showing the fence details go through all of our substations. [20:49] Anyway, that's not a fence according to the ordinance. [20:52] Correct. [20:53] That's na [20:54] na. [20:58] Uh 6B16 sign regulations. Applicant says NA. [21:06] 6B18 wireless communication facility is NA. 6B19 animal husbandry 2 NA [21:16] no chickens [21:17] no chickens 6B20 mobile food vendors they're not doing the food truck [21:26] NA 6B21 rooming house NA 6B22 hotels and motel NA 6B23 [21:37] solar arrays is also NA Okay. [21:42] So, the findings of fact are that the proposed use will include none of specific activities or land uses described in section 6B except [clears throat] for section 6B7. And the conclusion law is section 6B is not applicable except for section 6B7 for which the standard has been met. [22:03] So, second. [22:05] All those in favor? I you guys are not in shoreland zoning. So we are um [22:17] so that is NA as the proposed lot is entirely outside the shoreline zone and section 6C is not aptive for both. [22:30] Need a motion. Second. [22:32] I think we should. [22:33] Um so move [22:35] second. Those in favor? [22:37] I. [22:38] And because we're not in a shoreland zone, we're not doing section 509. [22:45] You want a motion? [22:46] Why don't we have a motion? [22:48] Motion. I move that five motion that section 59 is not applicable. [22:53] Second. [22:54] All those in favor? [22:55] I. [22:57] All right. Now we circle back to uh the approval vote, but are there any permit conditions? [23:06] Um the permit condition would be that if they do remove vegetation, they replace it with appropriate screening of vegetation, keep it from being seen from the road. I [23:21] think we should be specific about the screening type and [clears throat] [23:30] any or trees? [23:32] Yeah. [23:34] I mean, it's there's cedar there now. And [23:37] I mean, what would uh the applicant think about if the planning board said if there are any trees removed that they're replaced with 6 to 8 foot spruce pine or fur screen trees? [23:50] Okay. Something along those lines. Yeah, I would work with you guys and I have vegetation department that will help me make sure we protect keep it hidden. [24:03] Yeah, because we've asked for that in the past and then we get screening trees that are like [24:11] understand [laughter] [24:13] that was one complaint. [24:14] Yeah. [24:14] Yeah. [24:15] This was developed. [24:17] Yes. [24:18] Got to keep the locals happy. [24:20] Yeah. [24:20] That's my job. keep you everybody happy. Can [24:24] you come to one more X? [24:26] So we would want the condition to be that [24:31] they confer with the code enforcement officer about [24:33] here that applicable standard met. [24:38] We just say [24:40] we can say 6 to 8 ft uh evergreens variety of 6 to8 evergreens. [24:45] Yeah. [24:49] Variety. Uh yes. uh vegetation is removed, it must be replaced with appropriate vegetation being 6 to 8 ft spruce, pine or fur screen trees. [25:03] Sounds good. [25:05] All those in favor on the permit conditions, [25:09] okay, then circle back to um Gail's original motion on approval. All those in favor of approving the application to submit it with the permit condition. [25:23] I I did that. [25:24] We just [25:26] you just voted on the permit conditions, but you had no motion or second to do. [25:31] Yeah, we did that originally. [25:33] Well, we have the the original approval, but you also did just now a vote on [25:39] permit conditions. [25:41] That particular commission [25:43] do. [25:43] Okay. Okay. So, I move we approve this application as amended. [25:47] Second. [25:48] Okay. Does that work for you? [25:51] Yes. [25:53] All those in favor? [25:56] I thought I worded it though that I No. [26:04] Congrats. [26:06] Thank you. Thank you. [26:08] Thanks for keeping the lights on. [26:12] Okay. Thank you. Do we have [26:15] a little building going away? [26:19] It's a nice one. [26:24] Little architectural detail in the window. Pretty dark and clammy [26:34] anywhere near all that scary electrical stuff. [26:40] There he is. What? [27:21] All righty. Item 3B on the agenda tonight is another conditional use approval application. This is conditional use approval application 17-2026 [27:34] and the owner is the Northeast Harbor Tennis Club. The applicant is Paul Munyok Haley Ward. Uh we've got the location as 8 Tennis Club Road in Northeast Harbor. A tax map 27 lot 32 zone village residential one and purpose is section 3.4 [27:55] commercial outdoor recreation facilities. and we are removing one tennis court and constructing a 60x30 foot Harrison lawn area within the footprint. Add two new tennis courts. Relocate existing driveway entrance from Milberg Road to Tennis Club Road. [28:17] Improve the existing parking. Provide back bike access along Tennis Club Road. adding maintenance path along southern edge of tennis courts and adding vegetation and landscaping in select areas. We had a site inspection at 3:30 and was this one advertised in Butters notified. [28:41] At first I have the abutards um letter that went out to a butters on September 28th. um takes a great number of people. And then for the uh advertisement, I have [29:00] I have the Ellsworth American and Mount Desert Islander um of October 1st. I think all goes this is all October 1. And [29:14] one is in the Mount Dessert. Is there are they both on October? [29:27] That sound right? [29:31] It's like two of the same. [29:35] So the Islander and the Ellsworth American both on October 1st. [29:43] So, we had our site inspection at 3:30 in Gale. Would you perhaps like to tell us about your observations? [29:51] Sure. This is the tennis club that's located on the intersection of Milbrook and Club Road in Northeast Harbor. And the site itself is already in the process of substantial renovation. That's the subject of other permitting permitting procedures. So, we were shown [30:12] the the area where they want to relocate traffic so that it comes and goes just on Tennis Club Road, not on Milbrook. We were shown the area where they want to remove and rearrange the bicycle parking and the bicycle access to from the property. We were shown the areas [30:34] to the you said it is south of the existing courts where they would like to build two new courts and they also wish to create a um a um transit route for maintenance. Um, [30:53] and they and on the Miller Brookbrook side, there's a tennis court that has not been torn up yet, and they're hoping to remove that and replace it with some landscaping and hard surfaces such as patio, that sort of thing. [31:12] So, it's already a busy site and this is I get I assume is the final phase of or the an additional phase of the project. [31:22] Got it. Allan, anything to add to that? There was an awful lot of construction going on and I [31:33] I guess my only thing I was wondering about is access to the maintenance area but we didn't uh go over to that area at the site visit [31:50] when we get into the application we can discuss that [31:52] right so any conflict of interest on this one. [31:59] Lieutenants. [32:00] Okay. Well, I'm going to turn it over to the applicant then. [32:03] Good evening. [32:05] Name is Ben Cayman. I'm with Haley Wolf. I'll be the applicant on this project. Um, as you uh already described, we're in this this is the applicant application for the second phase of this uh project. The first phase was resurfacing the existing courts [32:27] um except for the uh northeast northwest court. They are not touching that because they don't want to spend the money when that will eventually come out surfacing the existing clay quartz. [32:40] Correct. [32:41] Yeah. It's a hydro court system. So they they put a a membrane down and they have pipes that that hydrate the clay. from below instead of watering it from above. [32:56] And um the you mentioned the maintenance area. There's no actual proposed changes for the maintenance area. The only um change related to the maintenance of the additional access. There is a there's a an access out onto Milbour Road and that's going to remain unchanged [33:19] um for their for their cars to get in the maintenance vehicles to get in there. The access to the south will just be for the golf carts that run between the two clubs. Um [33:35] the uh as you mentioned the we're proposing to redirect the entrance off of Mil Brook uh Milbrook Road and keep it all onto Tennis Club Road to uh mitigate traffic. And um we are going to implement the additional entrance for the bikes and have a bike have the bike parking separated from the traffic. [34:01] uh for to increase safety on the site. There was there's concern with all the kids riding the bikes in and and and the cars driving down the parking lot. So there we're just trying to separate that and and make it a safer place for everybody. Um and I think you know and we're [34:21] with the two proposed courts on the bot on the south end of the site, we are proposing some wetland impacts. Uh we've submitted applications to the D and Army Corps of Engineers uh to go through the process with permitting that with them and I expect the approval for that in probably three or four months. [34:45] And you had mentioned about the storm water management. [34:50] Sure. [34:50] System with that. [34:51] Yeah, we're we're um as part of this we are adding in some um some under drains. We did some soil testing and it looks like there's some some water sheet flowing underneath the ground uh kind of in this general direction. So, we put some under drains in and and we're and we're catching all that to direct that back into the wetlands [35:14] um to kind of and which will help alleviate some of the the flooding issues that they were having on the courts previously. [35:26] Okay. Well, I'll open it up for public comment. If anybody in the room or online [35:36] cares to comment, [35:39] now's your chance. [35:45] Do we have any hands up out there in Zoom world? [35:51] She wants to speak. [35:53] Yeah. Oh, hi. [35:56] No, can't hear you. [35:57] Hear you. [35:58] You're muted. Got to unmute yourself. [36:05] Can you unmute her? [36:08] No. [36:08] Am I there? You hear me? [36:10] You're there. Yay. [36:13] I'm interested in the where the new entrance from Tennis Club Road is coming in. [36:20] It's essentially it's near the corner of Milber Road and Tennis Club Road. [36:26] We're essentially far [36:29] that's going to be probably [36:34] um about [36:37] a ruler for anyone about 100 ft [36:41] because that's congested enough in the summer. I live right across the street at uh 13 Tennis Club. So, it's just like I have people on my lawn in the summer. I have people in my driveway. When there's a tournament, you can't get down to my house. And now you're saying you want to add another road. [37:03] It hasn't been a problem coming off Milbrook. It hasn't backed up traffic ever. But tennis club gets backed up because people are are [snorts] sitting on the side of the road is a small bend in the road as you go towards Milbrook and there's nowhere to pass when somebody's parked on the side of the road cuz they're playing tennis and they want to park in the shade. [37:25] So I don't know how this is going to work. I think it's going to be a real bad idea. [37:33] Okay. Are you increasing off- streetet parking or does that [clears throat] [37:39] There's no there we I've specified no off streetet parking. We're we are increasing um the internal parking slightly by doing this. [37:48] Yep. [37:49] Um and it's you know I think it this is the entrance generally. This is the entrance to the site. it kind of functions as it's not official but as a one-way um that's how it was explained to me anyways. So I mean all this does is prevent [38:12] you I think a lot of the a lot of the members come with in in scooters and and carts and it prevents them from having to go out onto Milbrook and swing around. They can just swing right into the site. I don't think it'll change or I don't think it'll increase traffic on road by any stretch. [38:34] It just congests it for anybody else trying to come and go. [38:39] So they want to drive illegal cars. [38:42] Isn't that a town? I mean, if there's a problem with the parking on the side of the road, [38:51] does the town not have an ability [38:55] No, it [38:57] no [39:00] off street that you don't have to have off street parking [39:03] and you're providing it. [39:06] We're not proposing any on street parking, [39:08] right? [39:09] Off streetet park. You have internal parking [39:12] only off street parking which is [39:13] only off street parking and you're expanding it [39:16] and we are adding [39:17] yeah there actually a couple more spaces [39:23] but that would be more of a public safety police department issue that [39:29] you know and road signage maybe no parking signs [39:33] is that internal road [39:37] is is that a two-way road or is it It's it's it sorry [39:42] it's 24 ft. So, it's a two-way. It was a two-way street. [39:46] Yeah. [39:49] Meredith, [39:51] that's I was wondering whether it was uh two-way or one way. And the other thing uh I don't I haven't experienced the congestion and I just was wondering if it if any of the congestion is caused by people turning on to Milbrook um and that the entrance used to be out on Milbrook. Like I can [clears throat] imagine people coming in and out of the driveway with a road coming out right there that they get stopped. [40:18] Like is there any possibility that just by bringing everything on to tennis club road it actually will get people to move more easily? [40:28] That was kind of the thought process I believe. [40:33] Right. But it's not going to like they have tried to change their driveway for the last two years, two summers of being one way. And the summer people don't pay attention to their signs. They just go where they want to [40:48] as you all know. [laughter] [40:53] [clears throat] [40:56] It's just going to add a lot of congestion to the end of tennis club road be. It's just not it's not going to work. I'm just telling you it's not gonna work. I've lived there for 59 years. It's not going to work. [41:12] Do you have any ideas of what you think might help free up the congestion in your experience? [41:19] I would think they would take down court one and two and put parking there and where the backboard is. [41:27] You think they need more parking? [41:29] Definitely. There's never been enough parking. They have ample room to do it [41:33] and they have ample room and space to do it. In the summer, people are always looking for places to park in the shade. They park on the lawn and get under trees ex they just they just park wherever they want to. [41:45] How many [41:45] including my lawn? [41:48] How many parking spots are on site now? 26 27 20 29 30 I think [41:59] is my rough count. [42:01] I don't recall the existing. [42:05] You have an existing. Yeah, this [42:07] No, that's [42:08] Yeah, 301. [42:10] There's it doesn't it doesn't? [42:13] Yeah, [42:14] on this plan there's 31 spaces. [42:16] 30. [42:18] Yeah. That are proposed. I mean the reality is I mean we don't really have that much room to add parking if we we would if we could [42:30] but there's without without removing courts which is a non-starter [42:36] they are removing courts aren't you [42:39] just want to add courts which is arguably going to increase the pressure because you're going to have more people coming there to use more courts I don't mean you I mean Right. No, I understand. Yeah. Um, well, we're Yes, we're adding one court. We're moving one court. So, [42:56] correct. [42:56] We're proposing to add one court. [42:58] Oh, the the battle. [43:03] Yeah. [43:06] What is this? [43:08] They won. I mean, at the end of I think there's [43:13] maintenance. It's a private club with a finite number of members. So, What's the difference between the powerful tennis court versus it's the pav [43:27] it's it's um I don't I think it oh it's described in mix between tennis and raet ball [43:33] louder [43:35] it's not pickle ball per se [43:37] no no glass walls [clears throat] [43:42] it's got a net in the middle like okay [43:45] I believe [43:48] What what happens in the maintenance area the and it's entrance off Milbrook [43:55] they have that's that's where they store their equipment. Um we are proposing I guess okay we are proposing a dumpster back there for the site. Um which is why we we show the uh the uh garbage truck turning movements just to make sure they can get in and out as [44:13] as it is. right there. [44:14] Currently, they just they have all the the court maintenance equipment back there those day. [44:18] I have a question with that, too. If you're going to have [44:23] a truck come and empty the dumpster, [44:26] the truck has to come all the way down here. [44:29] The truck, you're going to keep this entrance right here. [44:32] Correct. [44:33] Okay. Yes. That leaves the whole problem. [44:35] Yeah. [44:36] Yeah. We're Yeah, we couldn't drive a truck down this. [44:39] That's what I thought. going to be a 10 foot path and it's and like I said um it's on top of an already elevated [44:51] I see it Meredith [44:52] ement for storm for the town storm water [44:57] so there's no clearing involved with that it's all it's already cleared [45:01] Meredith you add your hand up [45:03] you you got Will you own the property across the street too if you're in need of more parking is there's like a funny shape that that goes out to Milbrook like you've got a a skinny piece that goes into a wide like it doesn't look like a very usable area of land for anything. [45:23] If if the issue is that you've always felt you didn't have adequate parking, what about putting parking across the street there on the land you own? [45:32] I believe we looked at that and um if I remember correctly, there was a lot of wetlands back there. [45:43] Yeah, there's no glass. [45:45] You mean in the down below it or up [45:50] from up. [45:56] I mean, the problem that we're running into here is sounds like the tennis club may have some [46:03] have had some negative impact on the neighborhood and it's a good neighbor kind of issue that we're we seem to be hearing about. [46:12] Um, and I would assume you're not prepared to address that because it's not part of your [46:21] No. And I mean I can tell you that we did we did look at that at this with parking in line and tried to and you know get as much as we could out of it. [46:37] Well, yeah. [46:44] Four eight well 16. [46:48] Yeah. I can see if most people were playing doubles, that'd be at least 50 people. [46:54] Yeah. [46:55] Yeah. [46:56] Two people per car. [46:59] That's 25 right there. [47:02] That doesn't leave much room for anybody who just wants to come and watch. I don't know how often that happens. [47:13] From what I would I saw this summer, that didn't really happen too much. is mostly just [47:20] now. If you guys own the lot over here, why aren't we [clears throat] using that or [47:29] So, are you saying they own this lot? [47:31] Yeah, we do. [47:34] Yeah. [47:34] The lot with the house on it. [47:36] Yes, that's the the tennis pros house. [47:41] Uhhuh. [47:46] Like I said, the the area there's there's really no area in there. I believe there was some vernal pools in there which is which would prevent any development. [47:58] I remember it was probably a year and a half ago that we were looking at that. [48:02] There's a brook that goes through it. [48:06] I suppose parking [clears throat] could be put where court number four is, but that's not what they wish to do. Um, [48:13] no, but the reality is I mean, yeah, right. They would have to [48:19] I'm not quite sure where where in our jurisdiction as a planning board the this subject kind of fits. [48:27] It obviously seems like it's a neighborhood behavior issue. And I'm I think many of us have had seasonal experiences with people who deposit their vehicles in their yards and then walk away. They go do what they want to do. [48:45] It's very common around here, but it doesn't mean it's acceptable. [48:49] Um and I'm not but I'm I'm not sure that the planning unless somebody else has some ideas about that planning board can address that. It does seem more of a [49:01] I mean we've had [49:05] I mean we've quantified things through like maybe the highway safety requirement you know that [49:12] you know and [49:13] but those are very specific quantifications typically by a [clears throat] a traffic engineer. [49:22] Well I was just going to ask there is there wasn't a traffic study done for this was there? No. [49:36] existing facility. [49:39] Wouldn't be fair to do a traffic study in the winter. [49:44] That wouldn't be accurate. [49:46] August. [49:48] Just a question. Why Why is the parking only on one side? Why? [49:54] That's all we have room for. You don't have room for parking up along the building [50:00] where we were. [50:00] How about over where the truck comes in and out? [50:03] Where we were parked today. [50:07] There's [50:10] um [50:11] Didn't we We parked like crazy. [50:13] Yes, we did. [50:14] Yeah, [50:15] you did park. I guess you know there I'm looking at this plan and there's this section. We could probably stick a few more spaces in there. We did park in front of the main buildings. [50:25] Um, [50:26] but I think without knowing the actual extent of the problem in the neighborhood, [50:32] we're just kind of spitballing in terms of figuring out a couple more [50:37] spaces here or there. [50:38] I think I mean at the end uh at the end of the day, we're adding one more we're proposing to add one more court [50:45] um which would theoretically add at worst case four more people. And uh we have increased the parking from what is existing now. [50:57] I think there is an opportunity to get a few more spots in in this little area here. [51:02] Um so I think we could probably fit a few more spots to try to alleviate some of the issues that the neighbors are feeling. And [clears throat] um [51:15] well I think [51:16] where do you need to have do you need to have handicap parking? And [51:20] I got it right there. We've got [51:25] a crosswalks. [51:26] Yeah. [51:31] Um, [51:36] have you h have you taken these concerns that have sound like it existed for a long time to any other part of the town like to the select board or I don't put you on the spot but but have you had the opportunity to try to get some town [51:55] interest in not making life so difficult when the tennis court is in full spring. [52:03] I assume you're talking to me. [52:05] Yeah, I'm sorry. Yes, [52:08] uh we've only called the police when we couldn't get to our house. [52:11] Uhhuh. [52:12] Because we just figure it's for the two months and then they're gone. So, whatever. We've lived with it our whole lives. [52:17] Yeah. [52:18] But it's just it just gets worse every year. Mhm. [52:22] And especially around tournament time when they're doing tournaments, like there's cars on both sides of the road and you cannot get to the house. [52:31] It's crazy. I mean, we've always talked about it, but what are you going to do? Nobody's going to do anything [52:38] because it's summer people. [52:39] I get you. [52:40] I assume the police facilitate you getting in and out of your to the best that they can. Do they respond? the police come up and they try to go in the courts and try to find whose vehicles to get them moved and the way because you wouldn't be able to get a fire truck or an ambulance or anything down through it. We can't even get our own cars through it. [53:00] Yeah. [53:04] I mean, this club has 11 acres. You would think they could find parking. [53:11] [clears throat] [53:13] Is there any signage on Tennis Club Road about no barking or [53:18] I don't know. I don't believe so. [53:22] Looks like that's the process that should begin. Maybe they maybe public works they should attempt to see if they could get that to happen. there'll be opposition to that but [53:35] right [53:37] but that's [53:40] I think if you could get if the applicant could get internal parking [53:47] that would be neighborly [clears throat] of them [53:49] right absolutely I think um we'll add let's see we can probably add [53:58] we can add at least five spaces is in that area there. [54:04] I think too [54:05] you think maybe they could talk to the police department and ask them to put up signs along side of the road. [54:11] Yes, that's exactly [54:13] I mean [54:14] so that ambulance and fire and yes [54:18] maybe get a and yeah [54:21] we make that [54:22] fire chief ought to be [54:23] we make that a permit condition. [54:26] Well, I would I would condition it. I'd first have them talk to them because you got to make sure the police department's okay with that [54:33] and public works. [54:36] Yeah. [54:36] First and then [54:38] so they would have to come back. [54:39] They have to come back. [54:40] We wanted the [snorts] fire department to take a look at that too to make sure that [54:44] Mhm. [54:46] If you got parking on both sides of the road, you can get emergency vehicles through there. [54:50] How many things do we have? [54:54] Oh, those t people can get it. Could be emergencies. [54:59] [clears throat] [55:00] It could be emergencies anywhere. [55:06] Oh, this is my next [55:16] What do you guys think about the the club? Uh they do want to be good neighbors. So, if I bring this issue to them, I'm positive that we can work out some something that that could help possibly help alleviate the problem. This project, what we're proposing [55:38] tonight is not really is not going to exasperate that problem specifically. Um, I mean, encompassed in the project, we're adding one court and we're and we're adding additional parking that would help alleviate that problem. [55:56] Um, so I think if we separate the two issues and work on and and get an approval for this tonight and I can I can talk to the club and see what we can do about some parking signs and and have them issue some memos to the to the members about where about parking on the street. Um, [56:18] [clears throat] [56:18] I don't know if they've ever thought of like buying a a little golf cart or one of those electric cars and just simply doing a lap around town and offering a shuttle and then you don't have to build parking. [56:34] That's a fantastic idea as well. I know a lot of them like to they drive on scooters so that that doesn't take up much parking at all. You're saying a lot of people go come to the cho in golf course in schools. [56:48] Oh, scooters. Yeah. [56:53] Do we want to continue with this or do we want to continue it? Um, well, I don't, [57:04] if we were to continue it, I think we would ask the applicant to be It sounds like they're all for being neighborly and can um amen amend their plan and specify some additional internal parking and that they would be asked to go talk to the fire chief and police about [57:26] regulating on street parking. And [57:30] so do you want to um wait to process what they've presented or take it up to a point and then continue? [57:39] Can we get that as condition of approval? [57:45] What was your anticipated schedule, work schedule [57:50] for this? [57:50] Most of this will be done in the spring. some of it multi [57:55] because you've got enough on your plate right now to [57:57] some of some of the some of the minor storm water things we were hoping to get in before the snow flies this year. [58:03] If we were to continue it in a perfect world, we'd continue it to two weeks from now to the next hearing. [58:11] No, [58:11] it can't because it's already been advertised. [58:14] Yes. [58:15] Got to go to November 11th. [58:17] Yeah. [58:19] And remember, there's only one meeting in November and one in December. [58:22] Right. [58:22] Right. [58:23] We know if there's more coming in November yet or [58:28] I don't know. I haven't deadlines next week. [58:32] Um [58:33] I would Yeah, I would I would ask for approval tonight [58:37] so we can work on these items. [58:42] So then we would condition it another option. We condition it that they show more off street parking and they [58:51] right [58:51] have some [58:53] but it's [58:55] it's part of the process that you have the impact on town services and you've had it clearly stated that it's having a negative impact to [59:05] so I feel like you need a real plan we need a plan an approved plan to how to deal with this because it's an actual section that you [59:15] Yeah, that's we're going to get stuck on that. [59:18] Well, except that it's an existing problem. It's not necessarily a problem that's going to be created by this project. [59:25] This project is technically alleviating at least part of that problem. [clears throat] [59:32] Increase the problem. Sorry, [59:35] I'm saying the same thing. They're increasing the problem by adding more quarts and the paddle port, [59:39] right? and then changing the direction of the traffic flow. [59:52] So was your argument about the changing the direction of the traffic flow that everything is going to not only everything is going to enter and dump onto Milbrook when there's already [60:01] tennis club [60:03] tennis [60:03] tennis club sorry when there's already a lot of traffic there. [60:09] It's not [60:11] I don't think it would change it's I don't think it's going to change anything. If they were going to go on a tennis club, they would they would swing out through that intersection anyway or swing in through it. [60:24] Through the through the other [60:26] No, you go through Milbrook, [60:29] right? But [60:31] they come in on Milbrook, but now you're coming in on tennis club. That's going to change a lot [60:39] because right there by the intersection, you'll have traffic backed up trying to get in or out of the lot. [60:47] And it'll be very confusing when somebody's trying to come out of tennis club or into tennis club and the people are coming out. They're going to be halfway in the road. It's a narrow entrance anyway. It's not going to work. [61:04] It's if we move the entrance, if we don't change the entrance, would that [61:11] Yeah. Would you be would you feel like it would egg congestion, alleviating congestion, whatever the term is, if we kept the entrance out on Milbrook. [61:26] Well, but the congestion exists, [61:28] right? It exists already with the parking. [61:32] Adding more tennis courts is just going to increase it. [61:38] So, what would we want? I mean, we can't we're not going to get a traffic study, right? We're not going to be able to get a traffic study. [61:46] You've been asked for one. That's not really [61:49] how those are asking. That's [61:53] Yeah, but I mean, how are those conducted this time of year? I mean, how do they do that? Do they actually analyze that particular spot? [62:01] You do it at the peak seasons? [62:02] Yes. You don't typically do it when it's not busy. [62:05] That's what That's what I mean. Um, [62:10] I think the two critical things it sounds like are more internal parking and they talking to the town. [62:18] Mhm. [62:20] I would [62:20] and getting parking restricted on [62:23] parking restricted and making sure there's a [62:26] tennis club. [62:30] It's awful. That would be a police issue [62:34] where they could say no parking on the road when there is a tournament. [62:39] Which ordinance? [62:41] Temporary no parking. [62:42] Yeah, [62:42] temporary no parking. So the people that live on the road, they can have a friend park along the road during normal conditions. But when a tournament comes and there's chaos, I [62:54] mean, a fire truck has to be able to get that [62:58] up and down the road. And if if Teresa you say that [63:02] can't happen, [63:04] you know that should the the police should be notified when [63:08] a safety vehicle cannot make it up and down the road. [63:11] I I think we're sorry. Go ahead, Teresa. [63:15] Yeah, that's is it's the tournament. I mean, they park there anyway to get the shade, but when there's a tournament, it's usually both sides of the road. The whole road is congested and you can't get through. But [63:28] but every day there's a car that's going to park out on tennis club road because they want the shade. [63:34] Yeah. And that sort of needs to, [63:36] you know, to [63:37] you want to go play tennis, you're going to play in the sun, you got to park in it. [63:43] I think we're going to get hung up on section 63, highway safety and 684 impact on town services. [63:52] Possibly [63:53] compatibility. [63:55] Yeah. and compatibility, but [63:57] impact on town service. [64:00] Well, I think what we're hearing is that what we're hearing fire and safety if there's a congestion issue and [64:09] that's not caused by this by the proposed project. [64:11] And I think he's got a point there. [64:13] Yeah, [64:15] that's an it's an existing site. It's an it is an existent problem that I don't think is overly impacted by what [64:25] you don't think that increasing the number of courts and potential use of the site is not impacting [64:34] well I mean we we were told at the site that they that they don't that they want more resources for people to be able to use so I assume it will be increasing [64:43] the potential use of the site that's the goal of having more ports or another court. [64:50] Um, and then you want to have an area outside for public events. So, you want to have [64:56] That's not public events. That's [64:58] I mean private events. So, like you want to have I mean, what happens now? Do they do they do those sorts of events there now? [65:04] Yeah. Yeah. [65:05] Okay. [65:06] Yep. Nothing's going to That's just giving them a [65:09] a dedicated space to do them. And during those events, there's more people coming by cars. That's the issue, [65:21] right? As opposed to scooters or that sort of thing. [65:26] Yeah, there's cars everywhere. [65:30] They all come by cars. [65:32] The project has proposed [65:36] is adding parking. [65:39] I I've identified an area where we can add a five at least five more spaces. [65:46] I [65:46] mean during an event they're on tennis club road. They're even on the sidewalk on Milbrook Road. There is not enough parking at this facility for what they do on a daily basis and when they have events. It it never has been. And now they want to increase. [66:05] It seems to me though like a it's a shame to develop parking for how infrequent this happens and the idea of like having a electric vehicle that if there's someplace out else in the town that they can tell members um park during these events at this other parking lot and we'll have a little [66:27] shuttle that'll bring you over. then the police could insist that nobody ever park on the road and clog things up. Um, but the the uh tennis club wouldn't have to come up with a new landscaping plan. Just come up with a like, yes, we'll get we'll get a little shuttle and tell everybody that they have to park at the swim club or park at the town lot or [66:51] they're somewhere. Do a lap around town and pick up everybody who lives in town. Got to bridge the gap here. Do you know how many parking spots they have uh this last summer? [clears throat] [67:07] I know. [67:08] Yeah. [67:09] Was it pretty much just in front of the main building? [67:12] Yeah, I know it was significantly less than what we're showing it because currently it's angled parking [67:19] and we're we've expanded that. That's why we we expanded the driveway to 24 feet so that we could get 90 degree parking and get additional spaces in there. [67:28] Looks it looks like you're doubling the parking, [67:31] but I don't know if that's still going to be enough. [67:35] From what? How do I know it? [67:36] I think you know before it was just parking in front of the main building right here. [67:42] There was angle. [67:43] Now it's all the way along here. [67:45] There was angle parking along back side. Yeah, they were they were they parked where where the parking [67:52] they were doing both. [67:52] Yeah, but they were angled so that you you're getting [67:56] maybe there's less parking [67:58] 20% less on average than a 90° angle like we're showing here. So [68:07] it wasn't organized like you're proposing doing it. [68:10] Definitely not. No. [68:12] Yeah. They don't have lines or anything, right? Yeah. [68:22] Well, [68:23] I mean, parking is definitely a concern for them and this is this is the best that we could could do with the space that we had to work with. [68:36] [clears throat] [68:42] want to separate the fact that it's an existing problem and I think the project is proposed does alleviate that problem. [68:51] Yes. [68:52] There isn't really any shoulder on tennis club road is there? [68:57] No. [68:57] When people park, they just park in the road. [69:00] Correct. [69:02] There's a small shoulder. [69:08] There's no shoulder on the road. [69:17] [clears throat] [69:20] We can [69:22] I think the application does I mean we do meet on the ordinance of the town. [69:29] Well, we can go through the general performance standards and if the board doesn't find that it does, then then the board doesn't find that it does. And [69:41] you don't want them to deny this application because you can't come back for 9 months. [69:46] No, I'm just saying if you [69:47] That's what I'm getting at. [69:50] Okay. [69:50] I continue to you. [69:55] So, I guess what what they're asking you to consider is [70:00] going back to the club, bringing back a plan that shows maxed out parking, bringing back evidence that there have been discussions about [70:12] public safety [70:13] public safety and the use of tennis club road. Um [70:27] I mean generally speaking they're correct that the use of a facility should be accommodated by the grounds of the facility not and there may be some off streetet parking but not everywhere all the time. I mean, the idea that people are just like parking on other people's property there is kind of hard to take. [70:50] Um, and I know again that's not your fault. [70:52] No, but and also if it's just for an event a couple times throughout, you know, one, it's it's open 10 weeks out of the year. [71:00] I don't know how many tournaments they have. [71:03] I don't either. I have no idea. [71:04] I think it's one or two. [71:06] I don't know that for sure though on a daily basis. every time I was I was there quite a bit this summer and I I never witnessed anybody parking on the street. I was not there for the big annual meeting that they have. I was not there for any for a tournament. But so that's a good question. [71:27] How many times a year how many times in the summer is congested parking on tennis club road a problem? Do do you have a sense of that, Teresa? [71:38] Probably about six times. [71:49] on a daily bas on a daily basis. [71:51] Can I get you sign in? [71:53] Of course. [71:56] We're able to park everybody on the site. [71:58] Yeah. [71:59] I don't think we're going to go past section 6A as submitted. [72:07] Okay. If you think that then then that's the way it is. I'm I'm not sure that I would I'm not sure that the solution to this problem lies with the planting board, but that's that's my individual take on it. But I'm only one person. [72:25] I don't think we're going to 100% solve this. But I think we're gonna as we're going, you know, we serve the town and the people of the town. [72:40] And you know, we obviously though need to consider the process. And I think the most expeditious way for the applicant to handle this is is to take our recommendation to continue this to a date certain and then come back with an amended plan and communication from [73:02] public safety. [73:06] Um we can I think we do for sure serve the town but our charge is to whenever [73:16] appropriate the benefit of the doubt goes to the land owner as buying to use their land in a certain way. Um we had that in that suggestion provided in another context. Um, [73:32] so you would say [73:38] where would you say that in 6A1? [73:41] Well, I think a tripping point is going to be [73:48] 6 A3 and 6 A4. Highway safety and impact on tenant services, [73:57] schools, fireplace. Yeah. [74:02] But I again I'm sympathetic to the argument that that impact is not caused by this application. It's caused by a pre-existing [74:11] I think the two items are the the new entrance and the additional court. Like those are the two specific things that we would look at to approve this those two things. [74:21] All right. So so if that's the sentiment of the of the majority of the board, I think that's [clears throat] fine. And I think what we need to do is set it up in November and try to come back and try to alleviate some of the concerns specifically around highway safety and the impact on town services. So when we when we do request an applicant to continue this [74:46] or when we do make the decision to continue this to a date certain and asking the applicant to come back, we got to be really specific with what we're asking them to back with. [75:03] What do you want them to come back with? [clears throat] [75:07] Sufficient off street parking. find sufficient. Yeah, that's not [75:13] I would I would say that [75:16] I would say that the applicant comes back with an amended site plan showing additional off off streetet parking along the existing clubhouse uh as suggested or [75:36] but Bill I I would I guess I I think that the idea of having an alternate plan the the shuttle idea. You have these moments of massive increase in parking which may be kind of unpredictable and it seems like the idea of uh flexibility. [75:57] You know that that there's an alternate plan that alleviates [76:02] that there cannot be any parking on the road. The te the tennis club puts forth that they will not allow they will not put their members in the situation where they have to park on the road. They will offer some alternate plan that when more people show up that need parking than they can offer cuz I don't think they're ever going to be be able to predict or support how much parking [76:26] they need. So come up with an alternate plan like we made the COA do like get a van and or something some some requirement so that they assure the town that they will not cause this burden to the neighbors anymore. I I think in the COA case that like that was actually and [76:50] and correct me if I'm mistaken, but I understood that to be a an applicant suggested um uh [76:59] solution [77:00] solution for the problem. It wasn't something that we required. And I would encourage any applicant with parking wos to think outside of the box. And that was a fantastic solution. And Meredith, what you're suggesting is fantastic, too, but I would I would hope that that would be applicantdriven [77:22] and because I don't know where we could stand as a planning board requiring [77:27] but but you've got that they're they're causing a burden on highway safety. [77:33] Um, and that they they have to have a plan to alleviate the has the impact on highway safety. So that doesn't have to be physical parking lots. That can be a simply here's our plan to make sure at those specific events. [77:48] I'm sure the applicant would [77:50] just say that with all respect and I don't doubt Miss Gay's reporting at all. there is an allegation that there is a problem with traffic safety [78:04] and that I don't think is enough to get the planning board without further exploration to get the planning board into the business of proposing elaborate plans like shuttle buses or any such thing. I don't think that's within our proper remit. If we want to ask [78:26] the [clears throat] police and the fire department to answer some questions about what would happen if you had cars parking on the both sides of that road and give us some recommendations [78:36] to restrict the parking. That's one thing. But we have we have an allegation and that's important and we need to listen to that. But it's not like proof positive that this is a problem that we need to be creating solutions for. would suggest that the applicant able this to a date certain and when they come back they have an amended site plan showing more parking. [79:03] They have communication with public safety and [clears throat] any other potential suggestion they might have for managing [79:15] parking demands in in high flow events or [79:22] I mean, you know, the fire chief will will come to this site and say, "We need a certain width and this road is this wide, and if cars are parked on both sides, then we we can or can't get a truck through safely." I mean, they'll do that. Um, the chief would would would look at that. [79:44] Okay, let's [79:45] go ahead. Sorry. Just can I offer one one [79:50] point? As as Gail mentioned, we do have an allegation of one person on what's going on here. The project itself, what we're proposing is ultimately we're adding the court, one court, [80:05] right? And we are also adding [80:10] an increase of 30 to 40% in parking of what's existing now. So the proposal as it sits [80:21] is a betterment to the current situation. [80:26] We're adding parking to to for the ex for what we're proposing [80:31] and in addition to that [80:32] to try to alleviate the parking problem out there and not doing the project would not would would make keep the problem as the supposed problem as it is. [80:48] So the 30 to 40% number is that is that already in your application? Did you [80:53] I don't know if that's in my application. I don't know exactly how many spots are out there. [80:58] I just know in general [clears throat] um from you know for my 25 years of experience of doing this [81:05] going from angled parking to 90 degree parking can increase your number of parking spots by about 30 40% depending on [81:13] so that's I'm kind of shooting from the hip there. Um, and I want to be straightforward about that, but [81:20] can [81:21] but the pro the proposal as it sits and and I think the board's your [81:27] pervey is to hold that standard not consider suppose you know possible problems of of an existing site that this project is not proposing to cause those problems. this [81:42] right [81:43] what we're proposing is theoretically will reduce those problems those [81:50] I heard you say conditions [81:52] I mean [81:54] they're adding more tennis courts it's not just one they're adding two paddle courts that don't exist and you're adding two tennis courts [82:04] they're removing one [82:06] but you're adding two tennis um paddle courts I mean that's adding three additional courts to this property that's going to increase the the you know people coming to music. I'm just saying it's going to increase. He I know he's saying it's existing and it's not going to you know increase but you're adding more stuff to the site that's going to bring more people to the site. [82:34] And I I don't think it's an allegation of just one person. I think all of us being residents of the town, not desert, some of us having businesses in the town and having our kids going to school here. I mean, we we've all, I would like to think, have seen the demand on this this facility. [82:54] So, this isn't I would think [82:59] a new discovery for all of us. I think the level of activity that surrounds this this property in the summer is, you know, is is noted and understood, [83:11] right? And I and I don't mean to in any way suggest that Miss Gary is not accurately reporting what she experiences. What I'm what I'm saying is that we need to be able to take information like this and have a solution have it have it more accurately and professionally so quantified and a solution [83:35] created to the best of [83:38] my ability [83:39] working with I think two separate pushing against two separate forces and on one hand um as you you We're we're trying to advance the project to beat win some some so we can get some elements in before winter. [83:57] Right. We can't obviously we can't do the course of the south the anything that has the wetlands because of um the y [84:04] right [84:06] but um so we're but I do know that the club is very interested in being good neighbors [84:16] and if I bring this issue to them I am very confident that they will do whatever they can to help alleviate the situation. I know you we need to we need to formalize that somehow. Um I'm not I'm trying to I guess I'm trying to think outside the box to see if we can figure out a way to do that without holding up the application. [84:40] So I see three pathways here. I see okay we can just review this right now and if we don't get through six 6A then you got to wait. [84:51] Yeah. I don't [84:54] Yeah. And then um the other way is okay we we we get specific and we continue this to a date certain and you do that and come back with whatever we specifically request you come back with or we go through we review this you get through 6A and we have [85:18] [clears throat] [85:18] um some permit conditions on the application but [85:22] and and what would those look like? [85:25] Well, I think the permit conditions would probably be similar to what we would probably ask them to do if we were to table this to a or continue it to a date certain. [85:39] And so that would be they [85:43] consider having additional off- streetet parking uh as they [85:48] quantify that or [85:50] I mean we can't tell them how many spaces to have but we can say hey look put your thinking cap on. It sounds like there's some additional area available for more parking along the length of the existing clubhouse and would be great if that could be accommodated. Um, [86:09] and an assessment by the emergency services. We would want them to [86:13] absolutely. One thing I believe that was discussed early on was pushing pushing the driveway out closer to the road and to try to get some additional faces on this side all along here. [86:29] Yeah. [86:30] Um the the problem with doing that was we would have to rip out all of these nice cedar trees in here that created a buffer along that road. [86:39] Yeah. I think that's important on maintaining. [86:42] Right. So that's that's that's the reason that we didn't go the other thing is if you if you push that you're you're turning in and out of there is going to be a lot steeper. We want to be a lot [86:53] you had your hand up. Um well the the issue is and I think there's recognition that there's an issue on the traffic pattern and I guess um going into parking spaces and becomes a question of then how many parking spaces it's not up to us to or it's not up to planning board to come up with the solution or even design what the solution is. [87:16] I just think it should be we kick kick the application down the road and say you need to have language. You need to show that you address this issue that clearly exists of that parking doesn't always happen on the tennis club property. So how are you going to address that? And if that is more parking spaces, [87:38] show some illust illustrate how that is enough parking spaces to alleviate the problem. Or is it I mean, we can't just accept uh uh uh admit them to having this change of plans and know that there's this traffic issue. And I I just send it back to them and say, "You've got to come up with language. [88:01] You've got to come up with a plan, something that shows that you recognize what the issue this traffic issue is. And if it's more parking spaces that there's a that they tell you how many parking spaces will alleviate if they if they have added the parking spaces that are needed to alleviate it. They need to show some like reason why they've calculated that it is enough parking spaces or if it's a van. [88:27] I just we shouldn't be telling them what the solution is. We're telling them what the problem is. [88:33] I would agree with that. [88:35] That's ordinance require for numbers of parking spaces for a facility like this. We [88:41] there there's no [88:42] says off streetet parking is required. [88:45] Okay. [88:46] That's it. So like in the hotel there was like [88:51] but that's different because that had specific parking requirements in the hotel. [88:55] Yes. Okay. All right. So this doesn't have that. I mean another if we're still looking at the possibility of conditions of permits then one condition is that they [89:08] the problem with conditioning the something like this is that there's no more dialogue [89:14] you know and I think that's and I know there's an inconvenience with continuing applications but it continues the dialogue [89:24] you know [89:25] if you condition it you have to come up with a plan that they it's not up to you guys to come up with a plan. They just should they need to add to their application to address the issue and convince the board of it. it's been addressed, [89:41] but since there's probably a majority on I mean we could take a straw poll, but there's a majority on the committee who agrees who believes that this should be conditioned to a date. [89:49] And if that's the case, then let's shape that motion. [89:56] Some shape that motion the way you think it should be. [89:59] Well, can we get a motion to uh request the applicant to um [snorts] [90:05] agree to continue? [90:09] Yes. Review of parking [90:12] to to review additional parking and um public safety concerns. [90:20] Well, yeah, it's more than that. It's public safety and you know neighborhood [90:26] do is the extent of our concern about tennis club road safety? [90:32] I mean, you got all this other stuff about people ditching their vehicles on other people's property, and [90:37] I think that's a consideration. [90:39] Okay. [90:43] Um, and I think, you know, requesting that specifically again aligns with [90:54] 68 3 and four. [91:04] So, you want a motion? [91:05] So, how about just a first a just a clean simple motion if the board is up for um asking the applicant to continue this to a date certain? [91:17] Yeah. I Yeah. Um I'm I'm still not entirely sure where I stand on that. I don't mind making the motion. I don't necessarily [91:28] um I move we request that the applicant continue this to a date certain for and I'll just leave it at that until we figure out what that [91:38] then I'll leave it to second that [91:40] great all those in favor [91:44] I [91:47] five [91:48] I have a question for you Kim [91:51] on uh did you [91:52] and I'm going to say no that's Yes. Okay. I would say don't [91:56] just a minute. So, wait a minute. [91:58] Yes. [91:59] So, you voted on this to a date certain. [92:03] So, we voted that we're going to we're now let's process it and we're going to have [92:08] Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, [92:09] all right. Make sure where the board's standing. So, [92:13] so the the next date available is November 11th. [92:20] Oh, no. [92:20] And this is something and [92:24] What? [92:24] Is this something EPA has to agree to or we're just doing it? [92:28] Well, you either he agrees or you deny it. [92:30] Okay. [92:31] Yeah. [92:34] Free will is great, isn't it? [laughter] [92:38] I mean, do we need [92:38] on 6A1 on density of development? They have that they have 1.12 [92:46] lock coverage. Don't all the tennis courts count as lock coverage? [92:50] They do. Then it would be a lot more than we have 1.1 acres. [92:55] 8.68 acres. [92:57] Yeah. [92:58] Yes. [93:00] There's this whole area down below here. [93:01] That's Can I ask is November 11th is [93:05] it says [93:06] Yeah. [93:08] Density of development is [93:09] the 12th. [93:10] So it's the 12th. [93:12] Density of development is 4,200 square ft. All those tennis courts are only 4,200 square feet. [93:20] That should be a much bigger number and it should not be 1.12 lock coverage because [93:28] 1.12%. [93:30] Isn't the road lock coverage too? [93:31] Driveway doesn't count. [93:32] Drivers don't count. [93:34] Parking areas don't count. [93:35] No, [93:36] but the tennis courts would. [93:37] Tennis courts would. The building footprint would the walking pass would. Yes. [93:42] I I think that number would be a lot bigger than 4267 on lock coverage. November [93:49] if you count all the towns [93:52] saying that's building area that 60 4267 square feet is building area [93:57] okay [93:58] that's just the buildings [93:59] okay [94:01] so where it's veterans day the [94:04] it's going to be the next the Tuesday after that [94:07] 19th it's 12th [94:10] the 11th is a Wednesday it's Thursday [94:16] so we're meeting on the 12th So we're ask [94:19] is it is Veterans Day the 11th? [94:22] Wednesday, November 11th. Okay. Then it would be the 12th [94:25] because we have to do some meeting that month. [94:28] Oh yeah. [94:29] Right. So we do we know that the room is available on that Thursday. I mean often times that ends up being [94:37] on Thursdays there's quite often a comprehensive plan but I don't know if there is one then. [94:42] 4:00 right? [94:43] Yeah. Don't you [94:44] those are 5:00 5 to 7. [94:46] 5 to 7. Well, you'll have to be out before six. That's all [94:49] works for me. [94:50] I'll just stay here. [94:51] President, [94:55] the schedule is not mine. [94:58] Okay. [94:58] Um, before we make that official, out of curiosity, how would the board feel about leaving the entrance out onto Milbrook Road and increasing the the parking along that side of the drive? [95:17] And [95:20] can we do that without seeing it on a plan? [95:25] So [95:26] So it would be [95:27] I think [95:28] this is the this is the same map. [95:30] Yeah. [95:30] Yeah. [95:31] I think you're thinking in the right direction, but I [95:36] trying to maximize I mean this is what I would do on the continent. So I'm just trying to think on the fly here and expedate. If we if we left the driveway entrance here, right, and we just increased. I mean, we can't I I don't think we can come all the way out. I think we can probably come to about here [95:57] and then increased [95:59] probably at least six, [96:01] four, [clears throat] five. I would say at least five, maybe six. [96:05] And then still do [96:08] and then we still have here we have walkways. This is a a a new office. A check-in office. [96:16] So, I think we can probably squeeze some spots in here as well. [96:20] Yeah. Checkin office. Go on this side. [96:22] No, it doesn't fit. [96:25] And [96:26] with the bikes, [96:27] it would impede the the bikes. I think you're [96:30] I continue to have the problem that I'm especially with something like this that that this application is not the source of [96:40] problems that people complaining about [96:42] but then [96:44] so [96:44] the vote was taken and [96:46] so we're going to continue this I think you're thinking in the right direction there don't think that we could accept or permit condition an amended [97:02] We're gonna get we're gonna get involved. You know, we we've got to have some we got to have data to that [97:11] base our decision on, [97:13] right? I mean, your your decisions are based on the ordinances. [97:16] Yeah. [97:17] So, [97:19] so I I think we need to continue this. I think you need to come back with the amended plan suggesting what creative thing you suggest. [97:31] Yeah, I think for increasing parking and you got to talk to the town public safety [97:40] about street parking. [97:45] Okay. [97:52] we turn that into a motion and let's maintain momentum. [97:57] I All right. I can do the same as I did before. I move we continue this to November 12 at 6:00 p.m. [98:13] for the purposes of receiving further clarification from the applicant about increasing the availability of onsite parking spaces. To what extent the applicant can increase [98:27] availability of on-site parking spaces and the applicant can provide us with asurances that public safety officials [98:43] delineate safe levels of on street tennis club road parking. [98:53] Is that close to what you want? [98:56] I think you're telling them what the solution is and you should be more broad. I think they should further address the highway safety issues and leave it to them. They understand what the issue is to tell them how it's going to be solved. There are a myriad maybe there's a solution we haven't even discussed. I don't think you should be telling them they need specific solutions. [99:23] I I agree with that and I want to hear him talk to public safety, right? [99:28] You know, and at the same time, [99:33] so what do you want to somebody ask the motion? [99:36] Seth Seth has I think you were there. You're like 75 80% there. Just a question like I mean because when we talk to the fire department about getting road roads or driveways, what what what would you like to hear from public safety that the width of the road? Is it suitable to have parking on both sides of the road in the summer if they're trying to bring a fire truck down? What what would make the what would make them happy to get their equipment in and out in an emergency? [99:59] What would they like to see in place? [100:01] What What would they like to see with regard to m side street on street parking? Yeah, exactly that. on street parking that allows emergency vehicles at all time [100:13] to have eager access [100:15] to accommodate access. [100:17] Are you expecting the club to police the parking off off site? [100:24] We're asking the town to give us some standards or give you standards. That's what I would want to see. The town come up [100:32] what to look at the site. The problem with this? What are they supposed to be asking the town to put signs along the road or what? What? What? [100:42] They don't they don't manage people's parking on the street. [100:45] Can you direct me to the ordinance that states that I What do you want? [100:52] Just I mean you can say [100:55] impact on services section [100:58] 6A1 compatibility. No, sorry. Let's say say [101:02] three [101:03] three and four [101:05] you feel have not been met [101:10] and now we [101:10] so you need additional information just reference those sections and then they can figure out how to figure that out. [101:17] There you go. [101:21] [clears throat] [101:23] 68 events is not a bad idea. The historical society, they condition the permit that they have police presence during events. [101:34] That is definitely a thing. [101:36] Oh, and our day. [101:38] That's definitely a thing that happens. [101:39] That's that's happened on applications that you've conditioned, [101:43] right? Let's get the tweaked motion. [101:45] Can we just [101:46] go ahead condition that if they have they have police presence during during tournaments? I think as we go through the review of this, we can condition whatever we have to condition. [102:01] I'm just offering Can we [102:05] I mean that [102:05] just trying to figure out how to get it reviewed tonight. [102:08] Well, we just voted that's not happening. So, it's being it's going to be reviewed on November. [102:14] So, I move that we continue this to November 12 at 6:00 p.m. and we ask the applicant to return with a plan to [102:30] address 6 A3 and 4. [102:32] Address 6 A3 and 4. [102:37] impact on town services and highway safety. And I'll leave it at that, but that may include I mean, we've talked about what that might include, including the extra. [102:48] I think we leave it at that. [102:50] Yeah. [102:51] Then I'll second it. [102:53] Any further discussion on that? All those in favor? [102:58] I [102:59] I [103:00] I'm going to say no. [103:03] Is that four to one? [103:05] Four to one. All [103:09] right. [103:11] Thank you for your understanding. We'll see you on November 12th. [103:18] See you then. [103:19] Yes. [103:20] Uh Kim, when uh places have special events, like if the tennis club were to have a tournament, would that be a time when a special permit would be issued? [103:35] our amusement park [103:36] on special event where it's going to be [103:38] town clerk's office of traffic or [103:42] yeah I that's town question that's not planning [103:46] okay [103:50] I know some places do that [103:53] but I do like a police officer fire police officer idea too I think that's that's used a lot of times in that in the in these areas in the summer. [104:05] It would be a bad idea, especially if they don't want to put up signs that say no parties. [104:10] I don't know what they [104:14] thought. [104:17] All right, we're soldiering on the item 3C. Tonight, we have another conditional use approval application. It's conditional use approval application 18206. [104:32] Owner name is William R. Grace, MD. Applicant is Derek La Point, Seabbridge Marine. Location is 10 Barnacles Way, Northeast Harbor. Tax Map 23, lot 01-2. [104:48] Zone is Shorland residential 1. And the purpose is section 3.4 and 6C7. permanence, permanent peers, docks, warves, bridges, and other structures and uses extending over a blow the normal high water line or within a wetland. uh replace a portion 50 feet by 4 feet section of an existing [105:14] 150 foot long by 4 foot wide permanent pier that is currently constructed of steel and wood decking and railings with granite block peers foundation with an aluminum with wood colored composite decking with pressuret treated pilings and two 4x8 headers [105:34] and crossraced [105:37] site inspection was 4:00 and was this advertised and a butters notified. [105:45] So I have the advertisements um there in the Mount Dessert Islander on OC Thursday October 1st and the Elsworth American on Thursday October 1st. Um, I didn't see that. Butter's [106:06] got to be in here somewhere [106:20] in the way back on that side. [106:28] Right there. [106:30] Yep, there it is. Okay. Uh, it went up by letter notice. dated September 28th, 2026. [106:42] That's the first application. [106:46] The public not [106:48] good. [106:50] The letter notice was September 28th, 2026. It went out to four different butterers. [107:02] We had a site inspection at 4 o'clock. And Gail, why don't you tell us about your observations from the site inspection? Um the observation is that this is a lot in northeast Harbor that has had a [107:24] dock extending out into the ocean and that we saw the dot has been severely damaged reportedly in the January 24th storm. the beginning sizable section of that dock was [107:45] separated. Uh it was explained to us that some of that separation occurred because there's evidently be able to protect the remaining portion of the dock that the dock is not the remainder of the dock is not currently accessible [108:02] um by land as it has previously been. And we observed that the dock is uh close to an abuing property. Uh we were shown where the pin on the rock next to that was and we were shown where the prior [108:25] dock connect dock section for which replacement is being so was connected to the land. [108:35] Allan, anything to add to that? [108:37] It appears this dock has been here for quite a while. [108:43] It's not a new structure. [108:46] All right. And with that, I will turn it over to the applicant. [108:52] One, excuse [clears throat] me, my name is Derek Point. I'm representing Dr. Grace. Um, as you described, we're trying to get approval for replacement of a 4 foot by 50 foot section of the 150 foot warf um at 10 barnacles way. Uh, the new section is proposed to be aluminum structure for [109:13] uh strength and longevity. So that's why it's a change of material. Um it's a 50 foot span that will land on the existing pad at the shore which will not change its location um on the water side. Uh we're proposing two pilings and a header to support that side. [109:34] Uh because we intend to have uh future repairs that need to be done on the steel structure. So that extra support on that aluminum uh section will will help that. Um [109:48] [clears throat] [109:49] We're not proposing out an elevation change at all. Um some history with the project. It was uh damaged in the January 2024 storm. Um we uh Dr. Grace uh contacted some contractors that uh shortly after uh but as you know there was a lot of wars and structures that were damaged during that time frame. [110:12] So, it took until August of 2025 for Seabbridge to start the permitting process to do the repairs at that location. Uh, during that permitting process, we contacted the D. Uh, and part of that permit was to elevate the structure and repair all of the stone [110:34] peers. Um but that uh DP application was appealed by the abuter uh given the wrong address or the notification. So that uh application is an appeal for um and that that application included a complete replacement of the entire structure with aluminum repinning elevation change. [110:56] So it was a much more substantial project. Uh so that process is on hold and will be evaluated in the future. Uh for now to gain access to the water, Dr. Grace would just like to repair a small portion um and so that he has access to the to the float. [111:18] Um for that part of the process, DP was contacted and it's at a minimal amount of repair that doesn't require DP approval or no elevation change and less than 50% uh structure repair or and less than 50% cost. Also, um also the Army Corps has noted that there's no approval needed for repair. [111:43] Um it should be noted that uh during this process with review of the D that there are some um uh eelgrass and other stuff in the region. So relocation is not really a a feasible option. Um the other consideration was relocating further away from the pin from the butter but that would increase length of structure which is also not allowed within the town. [112:13] Um so we feel that we'd like to maintain the existing location for now existing elevation and make the 50oot repair. That's what we're proposing for tonight. [112:26] ask just a hold on a second. Just Kim, can I can I just ask for the record, why is this before us when this is less than 50% repair? [112:41] The town attorney told you it needs to come before you because you have jurisdictions of repairs. [112:47] Yes. Thank you. And because the material is different material [112:52] and they're putting in a foundation for the pilings [112:56] also that's why it's before you. [112:58] Okay. And [113:02] Miss Dr. Grace had a [113:06] Were you adding to the presentation? [113:09] Yeah. Introduce yourself. [clears throat] Yes. Come up front row. Okay. The dock has been there since 1894 [113:23] and since 1894 it's withstood all these different storms, but the one that occurred in 2024 [113:32] took out the proximal end of the dot. We just want it prepared so we can use we've actually used it for the last three years. And uh yes, we climb over the detritus of whatever is there on the proximal end, but we've used it. My whole family, all my grandchildren have used it every year. Just wanted to get it repaired so we can use it long term. [113:55] We'd like to make it all look nice again and using more upto-date materials. But I bought this in 1892. [114:07] Not that old. and uh I'd like to just get my property the way if any of you own this property, what would you do? You would you would want to repair this? And um I don't think I'm being unreasonable in doing this. [114:28] Any further points to add to the presentation? For now, that's all we're looking for is repair that section. [114:36] Right. Well, I will open it up for public comment then. [114:46] Yes. [114:52] Hi, uh, planning board members. Hi, it's Mary Costan. Can you hear me? Okay. [114:57] Yes. [114:58] Welcome aboard. [114:59] Thank you. Um, so I represent Odium, um, who own the adjacent property. Um, you saw today on your sitewalk, I imagine that it is spitting distance from the property line, this, uh, proposed structure. Um, [115:19] I understand the pier in some form has been there for a while, but for almost two and a half years, that pier is non-functioning. This is not a repair. Um my understanding from my client who has observed use of the float is that the float has been used but you saw the the condition of the pier. [115:44] Nobody has been accessing that pier from the land. That would be quite dangerous. Um that has not been observed um um no one has been observed anyway using it from the land. um that have been observed accessing the float from the water. Um so we do see this as a new structure. [116:05] We are mostly what we're really asking this board to do tonight if you decide that this is a repair um that you condition the any uh permit that you provide um condition that upon getting D approval first. Um there's a lot of issues with the permit by rule that was issued. [116:27] It wasn't so the way it works is you're probably familiar with permit by rule. So it just means that there's a notice period and D doesn't have to review it. Essentially they they kind of give it a very cursory review. they trust that your project falls within the parameters and then if they don't get any comments from abutters [116:48] it just gets approved through sort of like lack of a of opposition from from D. Um what happened with this permit by rule for the full replacement of the pier is that we were as a Butters we were not notified the wrong address was given on the application so we never got notification. So, our appeal is not just, hey, give us a moment to um be able to apply, but there were a lot of issues with the application. [117:15] Um, I will say there's a lot of issues with with this current project. If you look at the email correspondence in your packet that was provided between D and the applicant, I want to draw your attention to a couple of provisions. One is that DP says to Mr. a point. [117:35] Yes, you can repair no more than 50% of the structure without a PBR provided that and one of those provided that is there's no additional intrus intrusion into the protected natural resource. Well, this project is proposing two brand new pilings. I think this this requires a permit by rule. [117:57] Um and it's right there in the email correspondence. Um in addition, D tells Mr. a point that in the event we are successful, meaning the abuters on appeal, anything that's been built may have to be torn down. So, I I really urge you to not allow this to go forward without D weighing in on this. [118:22] We think it needs a full D permit. Um, and we think that permit's going to be denied. [118:30] Hey, [118:32] yes. to follow up with the email from the D. Uh we did get further clarification from Henry at the D regarding what their review would need to be based on this and I believe that provided to you after the fact in the initial packet [118:52] a lot of back and forth. It's kind of hard to [118:54] deal with that they follow up after [118:58] you have a date on that [119:01] the date of that correspondence. [119:06] One time I did have the chronological order. [119:09] You summarize it for the record. [119:12] Sure. [119:23] this August 6 correspondence [119:37] the email dated September 29 26 Henry from the EP states I think that is well within the 50% limit for the exempted repair meaning you will not need a PBR. However, if you lose your appeal, you may be forced to undo any completed work even if it's under the limit of the PBR. There is a risk with going ahead, but you are legal to do so. [120:06] That was after reviewing the site plan you have in this packet for the 50% repair. If I if if I may, I just I really have to just provide further context for that. If you scroll down to what Mr. Le Point, the information he provided to DP was, this is a [120:27] uh we're going to simply cut the bent section off the warf and place a section back on the same supports. That is not what this proposal is. There are new supports. So, of course, D is going to say that's not a problem, but that's not actually what's being proposed. If I understand correctly, there's new supports that [120:49] that's what this application is for. It says two new pilings. [120:53] I believe you're referencing the wrong email in that last correspondence. He was provided with the site plan. And in that email, it also states that there are two pilings. [121:04] Well, this it goes back to the very beginning about [121:10] no support. So, anyway, I'm reading the actual language of of the the regulation that says if you have additional intrusion into the protected resource, that section doesn't apply. So I I I don't know if Henry has all the information and I'm we will be providing that information to him just and we'll we'll be following up with him. [121:33] Isn't it usually that we if we grant applications like this we condition it upon [121:39] obtaining proper [121:41] absolutely [121:42] permits or approvals or whatever is required from other regulatory relevant regulatory aid. [121:49] We're going to be doing that anyway. [121:55] My my concern is that they have provided certain information to D and D has told them they don't need anything. So, I'm afraid that they're going to go out tomorrow morning and start doing something. Um, we would like the opportunity to follow through with our appeal um with D of the permit by rule. They've been told if we're successful on the appeal, they're going to have to tear out anything they've done. [122:18] So, they're going to put these new pilings into the water into the resource and they might have to tear them out. So, we're asking that nothing be done until the appeal is heard. [122:30] That appeal is on a whole whole different [122:34] Well, it's not on hold, but I'm sorry. [122:37] That's technically the applicant's risk here. Yes, it's [122:42] it's it's a risk to the environment. I would say that it's an unnecessary impact. If the Determines that this should not be permitted, it's an unnecessary impact. [122:54] Then that seems to me that would that issue would potentially lie with the D who first gave them a [123:02] go ahead and then ch and then maybe subsequently change their mind. That's not the planning board. that that's doing that. We're going to assess it based upon the application we have before us and the materials relevant to it. [123:17] Mr. Grace, you have your hand up. [123:19] Um, Dr. Grace, uh, Mary, I really appreciate what you do for your client extremely well, but what she's told you is just simply untrue. For the last three summers, uh, my children, grandchildren have used the dock and, uh, we have actually witness your client looking at us as we have used the dock. [123:42] And that's what she's told you is just simply untrue. And that's just a fraction of what she has put in writing. and I'm sorry that you're not well representing your client at this time. [123:59] I'll just I it's a he said she said, but I I I believe that she did say you use the float, but um I I I've seen photos of that pier. I don't know if I would walk on that. It's not connected to anything. [124:13] It was two 75 pound batteries. So, it's stable. The parts that stable are stable. And we've continued to use that Mary all summer for three summer. [124:26] Sorry, I don't want to go back and forth, but I did see a picture where it's actually it's sawed off like right. I don't know how you use it [124:34] us with with us going across before I get out the gavl. [laughter] [124:41] Sorry. [124:44] Let's let's stay on target here. So, but um public comment is still open here. If there's any other public comment on this, now's your chance. Anybody up there is We've got five participants online. [125:06] Any questions from the rest of the public? [125:14] Comments? All right, I'm not hearing any. So, I'm gonna close public comment on this and we're gonna soldier on on this review. So, uh at this point the uh let me if I haven't asked already, is there any conflict of interest on this one? [125:36] No. [125:37] No. [125:38] None heard. And uh second of all, are we finding that this application is complete? Let's find the application complete. [125:47] Second. [125:48] All those in favor? [125:49] I [125:50] I. And where, you know, we're dealing with um two very specific sections here in land use ordinance. And this is technically a conditional use application. So, we can technically use [126:09] B and C. Y [126:10] we go through six ABNs and 59 because it's in the shoreland zone. So [126:16] I move we use the short form to process this application. [126:19] Second. [126:20] And that's why I asked. [126:24] So all those in favor of using the short form to review the application [126:29] I. [126:31] And then [126:32] I move we approve this application. [126:34] Second that. Then we press the pause button and then we review the application and we circle back to the approval vote. [126:44] So [126:51] we get the paper pile organized here. Pardon all the crinkling of plans. And [126:59] someday maybe we'll do more digital. Maybe [127:02] maybe someday my success will be [127:14] just [127:24] so [127:29] so this is the long form [127:33] So, all right. I've got the short form 6A, B, and C, and 59 in front of me. I've got the [127:42] application land use ordinance. [127:47] Everybody should also have the email uh sent to us by the Kim and the conversation with the town attorney on this. So, [128:01] Let's go through this. [128:06] So all right, we are on section 6A general performance standards compatibility. So this is 6A1. So under compatibility they you look at the physical size and the applicant says the existing dock size is 4 by [128:27] 150 ft. Repairs will be made to a 4 foot by 50 foot section. Visual impact proposed replacement section is aluminum and composite decking to provide a longer lifespan at a later date and upon approval. The remaining steel and wood will be replaced with aluminum and composite decking. [128:51] Proximity to other structures. No other structures within proximity to existing dock and density of development. NA [129:03] um [129:06] say C application unless there's any discussion. [129:14] See application [129:17] 62 erosion and sedimentation control. [129:24] Uh there is an attached erosion control plan. [129:31] The application highway safety NA 6A4 impact on town services NA [129:44] 65 land suitability. [129:49] What this talks about is that all land uses shall be located on soils or upon which the proposed uses or structures can be established or maintained without causing adverse environmental impacts including severe erosion, mass soil movement, water pollution whether during or after construction. [130:10] And as we witnessed at the or I should say observed at the site inspection today is the landing section. You're reconnecting this 4 foot by 50 foot repaired section of the pier too. Right. There's no additional [130:30] work at that point of connection to land. [130:34] Correct. Any other questions about that or [130:41] No. [130:43] All right. So [130:46] 685 land suitability C application 6 A6 lighting outdoor applicant says NA there's no proposed lighting for this repaired section of here. [131:04] C application. Well, sorry, NA [131:11] uh 6A7 storm water. [131:20] So, applicant has [clears throat] a full standard met checked. They say that there is no change to storm water pattern, no change to shoreline at location of dock attachment or piling placement. [131:39] 6A 6A7 storm water C application and piling placement means where the existing crib work is is where the replacement piling will be placed [131:55] down on the ledge there. It's a bit rocky but there's ledge there as well. [132:01] That's 688 vegetation applicants says NA [132:10] That would [132:13] that would I would assume means that there's no disturbance to any existing vegetation, [132:20] right? There's none in the proximity to that. [132:23] Then 69 dust, fumes, vapors, odors, and gases. Applicant says NA. [clears throat] So the findings of fact are presented by the applicant and the application as submitted and the conclusion of law is that the use is in compliance with all standards of section 6A for which the standard has been met. [132:49] So move second. [132:51] All those in favor? I [132:55] right section 6B [133:01] I think all of 6B is NA. [133:08] So that would mean 6B1 agriculture NA 6B7 excavation or billing NA 6B8 fences and walls NA 6B16 sign regulations NA 6B18 wireless communication facility NA 6B19 [133:32] animal husbandry 2 not proposing any chickens [133:40] NA 6B20 mobile food vendors. NA 6B21 rooming house NA [133:52] 6B22 hotels and motel NA and 6B23 solar arrays NA. So checking 6B is all NA does the findings of fact are that the proposed use will include none of specific activities or land uses described in sex section 6B and the conclusion of laws at section 6B is not applicable. [134:21] So move second. [134:23] All those in favor I. So section 6C shoreland zoning standards [134:32] and it kind of duplicates things again and expands upon them. Section 61, agriculture and animal husbandry is NA 62 archaeological sites [134:51] applicant says NA [134:54] actually there's a letter in email. Yes, there is. [135:05] I would suggest that the applicant change their answer from NA to applicable standard Matt with that. [135:16] Yeah. So [135:17] lovely [135:24] this one [135:25] standard met. Yeah. [135:27] So that's section 6C2 archaeological sites as C application. [135:38] Uh section 6C5 essential services [135:42] NA [135:43] NA [135:46] 6C6 parking areas [135:48] NA [135:49] NA and 67. [135:53] one of the reasons why we are here. Marine and freshwater structure standards. So let's see what they have for that. [136:07] Do you want to handle that separately from the nonconformity provisions? Do those after the 42 423 [136:19] additional years. [136:20] Yeah. [136:21] Yeah. were there now. So, [136:24] um [136:25] just I mean bear with me while I read this through for the record. And you know, we're looking at specific performance standards here for marine and freshwater structure standards. And um the first performance standard of section 6C.7 [136:46] is access from shore. What that talks about is that the access from the shore shall be developed on soils appropriate for such use and measures will be taken to minimize soil erosion both during and after construction and and whenever possible the access from the shore should be placed on bedrock. [137:08] That is can you talk about the existing access from shore please? Um the existing access is a pathway that [137:17] Thank you my brother. It's a separate issue but there is a legal rightway through uh if [clears throat] you look at the survey there's an existing path that is proven uh for decades [137:32] n [laughter] [137:36] is a separate issue [137:40] that's [137:41] this is soils [137:43] we I hear you and but that's um technically not our department. And um Mary, you have your hand up. [137:52] I know it's not your department. That is that is completely false. There is no legal right of way across 11 [snorts] barnacles to get to that pier. That is false. There is no legal right of way. So whatever access way has to be over Dr. Grace's property [138:12] undertood in all uh in terms of the performance standard performance standard we are rem reviewing for section 6C7.1 [138:24] we is that the the marine structure access point is anchored to bedrock [138:32] there is concrete present uh on bedrock [138:36] so essentially it'll be anchored with concrete to bedrock. [138:40] It's about about that much. [138:42] Yeah. [138:45] Okay. [138:46] And a rightway dispute is separate from [138:49] the right [138:50] access to the shore around 11 mark. [138:57] So we're so relative to any access from the shore shall be develop developed on soils appropriate for such use and measures will be taken to minimize soil erosion. You're not doing any work on shore or [139:14] any right. [139:16] Uh so the next performance criteria we're looking at is interference with existing uses and beaches location. The marine structure shall not interfere interfere with developed or natural beach areas, nor access to existing marine structures or points of public access, nor shall it unreasonably interfere with the use of other marine structures and landing places. [139:46] So you're you're not complicating or interfering with other beach areas and marine structures. We're not changing any existing anything from existing as it was. There's nothing around it for navigational issues. Anyways, [140:05] performance standard number three then is the effect on fisheries and wildlife. uh talks about that the marine structure shall be designed, sighted and constructed to minimize adverse impacts on fisheries, significant wildlife habitats or unique area natural areas including but not limited to finfish and shellfish fisheries, salt marshes, eelgrass beds, shore bird and nesting habitats, critical fish spawning and nursering [140:34] nursery areas. So we we've heard that there is um eel grass in the region and below water mark. Although this work is built the water and is on ledge and in rocky area there's there's no mud flats or vegetation at present at that location of the work. [140:54] There's no habitat areas there either. [140:56] Okay. [140:59] Uh performance standard four is size. Uh the facility shall no longer sorry the facility shall be no larger in dimension than necessary to carry on the activity and be consistent with the surrounding character and uses of the area. A temporary pier dock or warf shall not be wider. [141:19] It's not a temporary pier. Um and you're not making it any larger. [141:28] Uh performance standard number five, no new structures. No new structure shall be built on over a budding, a pier, warf dock, or other structure extending below the normal high water line of a water body or within a wetland unless the structure requires direct access to the water body or wetland as an operational [141:48] necessity. You're not building any structure at top [141:54] structure. [141:56] All right. Um performance standard six new permanent peers are do in docks. New permanent peers and docks. A non-title water shall not shall not be permanent unless it's clearly demonstrated to the board that a temporary pure dock is not feasible. Yeah, that's [142:16] doesn't apply. Seven, conversion to dwellings. That doesn't apply. you're not proposing to convert your pier to a dwelling. Uh eight, height limit except in the shoreline commercial district structures built on or budding a pier can't be more than 20 ft. You're not doing that. [142:37] Uh nine, interference with natural flow. Interference with the natural flow of any surface or subsurface waters shall be minimized during the construction subsequent use of the marine structure. [142:53] You're not interfering with any natural flow. [143:00] Encroachment on navigation. Marine structure shall be designed sight and constructed as to not encroach upon officially designated navigation channels. Are you in officially designated navigation channel? [143:16] We are in I'm not sure the limitation of distance but it's I mean there is a navigational channel outside of pier. [143:27] You're not enlarging the pier to encroach [143:30] no [143:31] or change the footprint or reach into the water as it currently sits. I just soon go outside those buoys myself. [143:42] Right. The mo mor mooring area. The planning board shall request comment from the harbor master in cases where the applicant proposes build a marine structure in officially designated mooring area. We [143:57] not that [143:57] it's not that. So and then uh just we'll go through the dimensional limits here of it. Uh [clears throat] and that's performance standard 12. Uh the marine marine structure shall comply with dimensional limits. Uh the facility shall be no larger than necessary to accomplish purposes [144:18] for which its design. Its size and construction shall not change the intensity of the adjoining land use and by no means shall exceed a total distance of more than onethird the width of the coastal wetland or water body when proposed for coastal or inland waters. not withstanding the dimensional limits below. In areas where the horizontal distance from normal high water line to the mean lower [144:42] low water is in excess of 160 ft, no permanent structure will be allowed. Cword of an upland edge of a coastal wetland. That was a mouthful. Um right. So the uh maximum len length of the entire structure you're allowed two 225 [145:02] ft and you have it listed as 212. [145:08] The maximum length of all permanent structures is 150 ft and you have it listed as 150 ft existing. [145:20] Maximum length of all non-permanent structures is 75 ft and applicant lists 62 feet for existing. The maximum width of the pure walkway is 6 feet and applicant says they are 4 feet existing. [145:41] Maximum width of the ramp is 6 feet. Applicant says theirs is 3 feet existing. [145:49] Maximum square footage of all floats is 400 square feet and that applicant lists that there is a 20x 24 foot existing float. [146:02] So that is larger than the 400 square f feet but it's a previously approved structure conditionally approved. [146:11] Uh and then maximum square footage of floats for commercial peers. This isn't a commercial pier. Uh going on, there's two more performance standards. Communal dock. This is this a communal dock. [146:30] And then 14 limit on number. There there shall be no more than one marine structure on the on a lot. This is the only marine structure on the lot. [146:43] And at the end of this, the applicant has checked applicable standard met. So I'm going to say see application unless there's any other discussion. [146:59] Um great Mr. Chair. [147:02] Yes, Mr. Johnston. [147:04] Hi, my name is Greg Johnston. Um representing OTM LLC. Um, I heard one of the board members inquire earlier about nonconformities. Um, so I'm I'm curious to know uh what section either 6C or 59 you're going to address that either at the end of 59 when it says conformance with all the ordinances or under 6C [147:25] and knowledge of that would then guide my next question. [147:32] Isn't that a separate review? [147:35] That's not it's it's not in your application. [147:40] Well, how does the [147:44] probably 59 where addresses 6 A, B, and C in in its entirety, but it doesn't have section 4. [147:53] And I heard that same question from the board um a board member that did not seem to carry through and was curious to know. [148:04] Well, it's it's [148:05] Yeah. [148:11] Where are we going to review that? [148:18] I think there's a point there. [148:21] Isn't this the uh email that we got? The town lawyer addressed this issue. [148:26] This This is definitely what Patrick Lions touched upon. I think he's saying it's it's not nonconform it's not under the category of nonconformity [148:38] according to him [148:41] property setbacks are not part of nonconformity in his opinion. [148:51] So, if we're going to talk about it now, um, agree the setback. I I I wanted to pause to make sure we're in the right right position. [149:03] If you're not going to talk about conformance, we definitely need to employ the ordinance page 4-1, um, section 42 3 and 4. [149:16] The setback's 25 ft and we're reviewing a pure as a structure. It's either legally existing non-conforming which we have no evidence either side or it's illegally ex existing. Um and specifically that section says the pling board is responsible for determining whether the conformity to the waterback setback [149:37] is met to the greatest practical extent. So [149:43] in all districts and whether conformity exists. So we're either proving a new structure that doesn't meet the setback or we're approving a new structure uh that has no evidence that it's legally existing to the setback. So I'm just curious sort of when that comes into the application. [150:06] Well, I would definitely say before we have the final vote on section 59, [150:13] there's a previously approved conditional use of in 1995 for this period. [150:21] And we may have a variance of opinion about whether or not and how we respond to setbacks with this particular [150:29] um in this particular application. [150:36] Um, Greg, did you hear that that there was a previous conditional use application approval in 1995? [150:47] Yes. And I guess the question then is if this is a new structure and you are approving a new structure that does not meet the setback, where do we review that it's meeting the setback to the greatest practical extent? [151:01] Isn't this technically a repair? We're just doing the repair now. [151:07] Repair. Not a new structure. Not a new structure. Repair. [151:13] If it has not been in use for two years and [151:17] a lot. [151:18] All right. [151:19] All right. We got it. [151:20] The dock has been in use uh since [151:23] continuously since the since the damage placed many up here since the storm. I mean we had a timeline right that we were living [151:31] fleet just repaired there the dock is still being [151:35] all these docks have been [151:37] just ripped down this is not the same thing I don't understand you read what I cited [151:45] yes [151:46] yes [151:47] from the town attorney [151:48] yes [151:49] yes [151:50] reading it again right now [151:54] Bill could you share some experts excerpts from that from Yeah. So, this is um it's just correspondence between Kim and Patrick Lines, the town attorney. [152:06] Yeah, I mean I I would say just this paragraph. [152:09] Yeah, there you go. [152:13] So, and this is from Pat Patrick Lines Greg says and he he says that main law focuses on a plain reading of the ordinance language. If the plain language is not ambiguous, which I believe is the case here, the board should just apply the plain language of the land use ordinance and specifically [152:35] only section 4.2.3 [152:38] and not 4.3.6. [152:42] Moreover, if there was any ambu ambiguity here without a clear answer, main case law supports interpreting ambiguous zoning ordinance requirements in favor of the land owner as zoning is a [152:58] deraggation of common law property rights. [153:02] Yes, [153:03] that's a new one. [153:04] And 4.3 4.2.3 2.3 reads, "Structures made non-conforming because they failed to meet the setback. Any principal structure or accessory structure made non-conforming by adoption or amendment of the land use zoning ordinance of the town of Mount Dert which is non-conforming because of the failure to meet the setback requirements of section 3.5 may be reconstructed or extended providing that such work otherwise complies with all provisions of this ordinance." [153:29] That's what our council has referred us to [153:33] and the and so in that reading that's all provision of the ordinance is including the setback or with the exception of the setback. I just want to understand if we're approving a project that does not meet setbacks and you've been advised as such [153:45] not more more if we're not fail if they're not failing to meet the setback any more than they are already then we are obliged to allow it to happen. So, when we were at the site today, I asked where is that line and where do you intend to place the put the replaced piece? [154:06] And the answer was that they didn't intend to move it any closer to the property line. [154:14] Is that correct? [154:23] So I guess what we just want to make clear is that we're approving the new structure within 25 ft of the setback based on the provision of 423. That's that's what it says. [154:34] It's a repaired structure. [154:36] The [154:38] the repaired portion of the existing structure. It's in the ordinance allows without a permit the normal upkeep and maintenance of non-conforming uses and structures including repairs or renovations that do not involve expansion of the non-conforming use or structure and such other changes that in a non-conforming use or structures federal, state or local building and safety codes may require. [155:01] So the reason it's before us rather than him allowing it is that it's a peer but those provisions apply that it's a repair. It's not an expansion of the non-conforming use [155:19] and that's with respect to the location and and in this specific specific case the issue is a setback and it's not going to increase the setback [155:30] and you're a lot of [155:33] and you're repairing less than [155:35] Yes. It's not a water body setback. It's a property line setback. You're repairing less than 50% of it [155:42] if you go to reconstruction replacement. That doesn't apply here. [155:46] Doesn't apply. [155:51] Right. That's correct in section four. [155:57] Okay. So I think um you guys have spoken about it now and that that provision of providing and such work otherwise complies with all provision of these ordinance except for the setback which your attorneys advised you otherwise. [156:12] Correct. [156:15] Okay. Well, I guess this was the section we had to discuss. I appreciate the response. [156:22] All right. We're gonna [156:24] section six. What? Like [156:27] you got to finish. Yeah, we have. [156:28] I know. I'm not. Yeah, I know. Now, now I got to find my place again. And [156:37] thank you. 69 roads and driveways. [156:42] The applicant has NA 611 water quality. [156:50] And what water quality talks about is that there's no activity shall deposit on or into the ground or discharge to the waters of the state any pollutant. [157:06] Yeah, I think the applicant should change their answer from NA to applicable standard met [157:19] water quality. [157:32] But it's that one [157:33] 611 water quality [157:35] C application [157:36] application is what we needed. [157:38] Findings of fact are that the proposed use include none of specific activities or lane uses described in section 6 except for 6C2 67 and 6C11. And the conclusion law is that section 60 is not applicable except for section 62,67 [158:01] and 611 for which the standard has been met. [158:06] Second. [158:07] All those in favor? [158:09] I. [158:12] Okay. So now because we are on the shorland zone, we're going to do section 59. [158:23] And here we go. Um [158:29] there. So 591 will maintain safe and healthful conditions. See application [158:39] 592 will will not result in water pollution, erosion or sedimentation to surface waters. They don't have anything checked. That should have been checked on C application. [158:51] Yeah, [158:52] you [clears throat] want to check that. [158:57] So C application [159:02] [clears throat] 593 will adequately provide for the disposal of all wa waste water. NA 594 will not have an adverse impact on spawning grounds, fish, quacklife, bird or other wildlife habitat. [159:20] The applicant says sea application [159:25] 595 will conserve shore cover and visual as well as actual points of access to inland and coastal waters. [159:34] C. Application 596 will protect archaeological and historic resources as designated in the comp plan. C. Application 597 will not adversely affect existing commercial fishing or maritime activities in a shoreline commercial district. [159:54] That's NA. You're not in the shoreline commercial district. 598 will avoid problems associated with floodplane development. [160:06] See C application and should we ask the applicant about the relevance of the flood plane elevation and the proposed repair or existing structure? [160:20] There's no change in elevation. So we're I guess I'm not quite sure the question [160:26] that you're not there's no compliance issue for the repair with the flood plane elevation [160:37] application and 599 is in conformance with the provisions of sections 6A B and C for which the standard has been met. The findings of fact are C above and the conclusion was that all requirements of section 59 have been met. [160:58] So move [160:59] second. [161:01] All those in favor? [161:02] I. [161:05] Then we get to the permit conditions. [161:10] Uh the permit conditions would be that the applicant obtain any and all permits. [161:18] um or other approvals required by relevant agencies including but not limited to the D. Um are you doing you've been signed off on for the submerged lands seems to be in order and Army Corps of Engineers [161:39] have is there anything outstanding for either of those? [161:42] I'm seeing all the correspondence [161:44] yeah for those agencies. So, it's just D at this point. [161:50] Yeah. I mean, you saw the last email from D. They're be okay with what we're doing. We It's at our own risk, but [162:00] they they were provided that information with [162:04] Oh, that's a D. [162:05] Yeah, they were provided the information that you know with the pilot. I I I'll review it with You can put it I ask that you do put it on there to make sure we're all covered. [162:16] Yeah. Um and that I will review with Ken that DP was clear on the pilings being added and to go for the work. And so under the ordinance section for permits required number five permit in addition to other permits any permit required by this ordinance shall be in addition to any other permit required by other law or ordinance. [162:42] And we'll make that a condition. [162:45] Yes. [162:47] [clears throat] [162:49] what you just said is another condition, a separate one. [162:52] No, it's it's [162:54] it's a it's a nicer way of saying what I said. [laughter] [162:57] Okay. So, it says permits in addition to other permits. Does any permit required by this ordinance, [163:06] which is what we're going to grant, [163:08] shall be in addition to any other permit required by other law or ordinance. [163:17] In addition to uh any other permit required by other law or ordinance [163:32] and [163:32] that's in place of [163:34] Yeah, we can do that in place of we all know what we're talking How did he pay you? [163:44] Or he's got it. [163:47] We got it. We've got our [163:50] Do you want to do You want to do that as a We don't do that as a motion, do we? We just [163:55] just a permit condition. [163:57] Yeah. And uh for one of the earlier ones, you would approve it as a approve the application [164:07] with the with the added condition. Yeah. So I would amend my motion to approve the application to include the added condition the condition as added. And then you would move to amend your second. [164:24] Second. [164:27] Any further discussion? [164:31] Those in favor? I [164:33] I [164:37] now we circle back to the final approval. [164:42] Oh, sure. Sure. [164:46] I thought we just did that. That was it. [164:50] Yes. You missed it. [164:51] Gale motion to her um to amend her approval to include the [164:57] Yeah, we just we just added a second. [165:01] Seconded that [165:05] rats. [165:07] Thank you all. [165:08] Yeah, [165:08] thank you. Thank you. [165:11] Thank you. [165:16] Okay, everybody. Bye. [165:27] It just gets a little squirly like when we do [165:32] the the the permit condition and then like okay [165:35] right [165:36] we amended the original approval and then [165:40] we voting on [165:42] we can we can in the future we can vote on the amendment [165:46] and the addition [165:47] can I ask you guys about the retaining wall that I sent an email for. [165:52] So, we're talking about other now. [165:55] Yes. [165:56] Um I sent you guys an email because um you guys approved the reconstruction of tennis club, the swim club. [166:05] Yeah. [166:06] Or what you approved has been substantially downsized. Um they're not doing any of the buildings. They're not tearing them down like proposed. Um they did redo the deck around the salt water pool. Um they're replacing the freshwater pool and all the decade, [166:25] but none of the buildings really are changing from what you guys initially approved. Yeah. [166:32] Um and when they up took up the deck in front of the [166:37] you know the the clubhouse the building there was a retaining wall apparently underneath the deck that's retaining the land underneath the building and you know behind um under the decking. Um so 40% of that wall has crumbled and so they want to rebuild it. [166:57] Same height, same location. Um, it is within 75 ft of the saltwater pool. Um, and so Ben, the gentleman that was here tonight, had asked me to ask you guys cuz it's kind of an emergency situation right now because they're they're there working on the dyke and the pool and stuff and everything's all ripped up and they want to be able to fix that all. [167:22] Is it [167:23] within the footprint of the originally reviewed structure [clears throat] for reconstruction? [167:31] Um, it's within the whole footprint of the whole project. Yeah, [167:35] because it's the decks, the pool. It's like just up from the pool. I wish I would have brought my diagram, [167:42] but it's it's just up from the pool. So, a freshwater pool. Um, [167:47] it's under [167:48] the deck that's all been ripped up. [167:50] It's under what we had originally approved. [167:53] Yeah. But it wasn't Yeah, but it wasn't slated to be replaced. [167:56] Right. Right. because they didn't know about it. They ripped the deck out, [168:01] but it is holding an embankment [168:06] huh? [168:07] Sort of. [168:08] Oh, it is. [168:08] So, yeah. I mean, it's 40% gone. [168:10] Well, I mean, 40% it's gone, but [168:13] it sounds like it's part of the project. [168:17] What? [168:18] They do. [168:20] It's existing and it's same same. [168:23] Everything's the same. It's just they like I said they found it crumbled when they removed the deck. [168:29] A stab on motion. [168:31] Yep. So that I can call Ben and tell them to just replace it [168:36] about the retaining wall being stood under stood as being part of the originally approved. move. We find that the retaining wall at the swim club, the the retaining wall at the swim club [168:54] is to be part of the original project that we had previously approved and we authorized you to advise [169:01] theim chimro that they can [169:06] replace that retaining wall. [169:08] Second. [169:10] All those in favor? [169:12] I I [169:13] Thank you. Thank you and thanks for tonight. This was a this was a very interesting application. The one you just reviewed. [169:24] Yeah. [169:28] So if you want to adjourn, that'd be great. Yeah. Motion to second. All those in favor. [169:37] Thank you.