York boards weigh state housing law changes; board fines Beach Ridge Road owner

[6:30] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): Small introduction. Sure, I just want to just set it up so we're, we are broadcasting live. That we all know the drill, maybe some of the audience don't, but when the green sign is lit to the left of the door off to my right, or the for the right of the door off to my right, means we're broadcast live. So tonight's a joint meeting with the Planning Board is called for in our town charter. We should be meeting quarterly with the Planning Board. Sometimes we do a really good job with that, and sometimes our boards are really busy, we don't do such a great job. So we're a little bit late on this meeting, but it's always good to hear from the Planning Board, the work they're doing, and it gives opportunity for the Select Board members to maybe put forth suggestions to the Planning Board to look at certain issues that may be happening in our town that need some greater attention through regulation or proposed ordinances. So thank you for that. I'll let the Planning Board introduce their folks there, and I understand Wayne does have [7:20] Speaker B (unidentified): a few words. So yes, well thank you very much. I want to thank the board especially for giving given us the chance to meet and go over some of these things. As you know, has been probably been discussed, is that the primary topic for tonight would be the new laws, the new housing laws that the state passed, the LD 1829 and the other associated ones. As much as possible, we really wanted to get your input early as possible, and so that we can get it to the point where you're going to be happy with it when the time comes to have hearings. That's the main idea. Again, we thank you for that. Did you want me to do that first? So in a minute, Brendan will run you through some of the main things that we're looking at and choices that we have to make that we're looking for your input on. But first I have something here for Pete Smith, somebody you may recall has been a longtime member of the of the Planning Board and other things, and I could just come up here and ask Pete to come up. First of all, as you know, he is a long term member of our committee and has been 18 years of service. I we have a little something here that I actually would like Pete to read out loud for us. [9:11] Pete Smith (Planning Board member): If you don't mind, so you think I can read? I wanted to get up here and be like Torbert and say, well, my name is still Pete Smith, remember that. Presented to Peter Smith, thank you for your 18 years of service, leadership, and attention to detail with the planning board and many other boards and committees. And he's, you have served in your June, 2026. [9:45] Speaker B (unidentified): Did you notice something? [9:46] Pete Smith (Planning Board member): It's a, did I notice something? Hold on. You mean in the spelling, in the text? No, [10:01] Speaker B (unidentified): what are you pointing? Usually we can depend on. Wait a minute. [10:14] Pete Smith (Planning Board member): Well, the word detail doesn't fit and I didn't, I didn't use the past tense if you heard me when I spoke. I was trying to cover your ass. Did I say ass? Oh no, so much, so much for live TV. Do you have a five second delay where do you? No? Oh, boy. Well, thank you so much for the misspelling, Christian. And a very expensive phone. Sorry. [10:58] Speaker B (unidentified): For those who don't know, he is our wordsmith. He's Smith, our wordsmith, and he gets every detail, every comma, every period, every punctuation, every grammatical issue that's ever been written. And so we'll actually give him to the real one here and I'll read that one. Thank you for your 18 years of service. I didn't know you could read, imagine that. All right, service, leadership, and attention to detail on the planning board and many other boards and committees you have served on in York, for example the York Bath House Building Committee, Long Sands Beach 2017 and 2018, York Village Revitalization Committee 2016-2026, York Planning Board Vice Chair Secretary 2013-2026, Village Study Committee Secretary 2013-2016, York Public Library Chair, Building and Grounds Committee 2010-2020, as well as the Charter Commission, York Public Library Trustee and Memorial Building Committee Member 2008-2010. Presented by a very grateful board and community and town to all our friends, Pete Smith. [12:22] Pete Smith (Planning Board member): Thank you all so much. I was going to say that I really miss it, but I hate to lie. I don't miss it. I backed out of absolutely everything that I was doing, and there were other things beyond this even, such as the hot, thing that we did for a lot of years. And the truth is I really don't miss it. I thought I might, but I get down in my wicker rocker chair under my back screen porch. In fact, I was out there tonight, it was about 50 degrees, and I'm out there with my fleece on and shivering while I'm reading the book. I love that, I love being out there in the summer and cozy up in my so-called music room inside in the winter and I'm looking forward to that now 87 I am shooting for 100 and I absolutely convinced that I'm gonna make it health-wise I should make it I don't have any serious illness of any kind I have everybody's quirks you know like back problems and so on but i made it in here without my cane tonight so there you go thank you all thank you thank you thank you so [14:08] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): Mr. Chair, the floor returns to you. Okay, so again, [14:12] Speaker B (unidentified): we'll start with a little bit of overview of some of the decisions we have to make on which direction to go with making the town's ordinances in alignment with the state law. And remember, this has to be done by July 1st, but that doesn't mean that the things that are in the state law won't happen if an applicant comes. We just don't have control, wouldn't have the control we'd like over some of the ways that we do administer it. And follow the state law, but so Brendan, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, [14:57] Brendan (town planner/staff presenting LD 1829 & LD 2173): and the rest of select board, so to go over the and give a 30,000 foot view again of what LD 1829 and LD 2173 change, the biggest one being the minimum lot size changes. The green section on the map here highlights our growth area, the TAN is the rural. Within the growth area, we would now have to have a 5,000 square foot minimum lot size only if water and sewer is available. Those are your public utilities. It is key that those must be there in order to get to that size. If you do not have water and sewer, then it is a state minimum 20,000 square feet. That goes in line with state septic standards. If you're in the rural zone, again, the TAN area outside of there, if you happen to have public water and sewer, then you can go down to 10,000 square feet, and lots without public water and sewer are largely left unchanged. There's a small change I'll get to that in the density section in the next slide, and then of course affordable housing incentives if you have an affordable housing development, so about 51% of the total units being affordable, then you are allowed an extra 14 feet of building. Height, and you are allowed increased density by way of LD 2003. From a few years ago, the two and a half times base density multiplier for affordable housing is still in effect. Looking at density in particular within the growth area, on that 5,000 square feet you are allowed up to four thousand, or sorry, four units, not 4,000, again only if those public utilities are available, and then one unit per 20,000 square feet if no public utilities are available. Rural areas, up to one unit per 10,000 square feet with public utilities. And then your density does not change in the rural area. You are still required to have our current standards, which is anywhere from two to three acres per dwelling unit. We have to now allow for three dwelling units to be on those lots. However, we are allowed to set our density standards for those rural areas. So in order to have three dwelling units on a parcel, let's say off of Cider Hill Road, you would need nine acres in order to make that work, even if they're within one building or as multiple units. We've come up with two different approaches. This is after working with both the planning board, the future land use ordinance subcommittee, as well as the select board's housing work group. The first option would be to change as little as possible within our ordinances. These would just mean our lot sizes and our densities really would be the only things that change. Option two would be we would tailor those dimensional standards, those dimensional standards, as well as come up a couple of other performance standards. So as Dylan said, York defy, so you work by them. We've come up with some standards, but we're, what we're standing at right now is trying to figure out whether or not what the, what the approach should actually be, which direction should we see, should be a minimal approach or should we actually tailor our laws to best suit this type of housing. So in part with that is dividing our existing standards. Kind of going with the Little River, for those of you don't know, the Little River stretches roughly from about Anthony's to Camp Eaton. North of that line, the dimensional standards for your residential five, six, and seven zone are identical. And then south of that line, you have identical standards across the harbor and into the heights and so on, so forth. So we're splitting, we're mentally kind of splitting these into group one and group two. Group one being the north end, or sorry, the south end. Group two being the north end. Within group one, if on the left are our existing standards on a 5,000 square foot lot, on the right are the standards that we're proposing it would be a 10 foot reduction in the front setback and a 10-foot reduction on the side and rear but it would change the buildable area from 500 square feet to 2100 this would be a lot more of a buildable feasible lot however you're not required to build a 5,000 square foot lot to begin with so this is one of those areas where do we change the setback standards or we just go down to the minimum lot size north of that in group two it again mimics the kind of the existing character that we estimate from that area. Goes from a 20 foot setback in the front to 15, 12, and 12 on the sides and rear. Goes to 12 in the rear and 10 and 5 on the sides. Keeping the rear is the same, doesn't really gain that much. However, that side setback really does actually shift quite a bit into the buildable area. Overall, it's a nine foot increase in width and a seven foot increase in depth, and again, kind of similar to the existing proportions of the property. So as the, as staff and the plane were really needing just some direction as to which approach do you think would be best, and I think Dylan can more eloquently put that approach in our discussion as well. Thanks. Good job, Brendan. So this is one [20:28] Speaker E (unidentified): one element of many elements that the Future Land Use Ordinance Subcommittee and the Planning Board has been looking. As you know, within the zoning book, once you change one thing, it causes a cascade event. And one of those things in state law that Brendan highlights is that the laws say that we can stick to the standards as specified in the law. He talked about density, right? He talked about minimal lot size. Those are standards that are highlighted in the law. But the law also specifies that dimensional standards need only be as strict as your current single family standards. So when you look at these existing standards, these are existing single family setback standards, which would give on a 5,000 square foot lot 500 square feet of buildable space. That's not very buildable for the, you know, density that the state I think is trying to do. But when you look on the other side, you change some of the dimensional setback standards, you are allowed a greater building envelope, but the state law doesn't require you to change those setbacks. So one of the big things that the planning board and whatnot we've been talking about is do we change the dimensional standards for single family uses within the growth area and beyond to allow for a greater buildable envelope, or do we not, just stick to what the state law says, which you don't have to change that, you just have to be as stringent as your current single family dimensional standards. So this is actually something that has pretty big impact if you do change it or you don't change it, and therefore you're basically causing these lots that you could put a tiny home on it, or maybe a stack tiny home on 500 square feet, but it's really hard to get real reasonable development out of it. So I don't know if that makes any sense or if you have any questions about that. But this is a big feature of the law that we kind of just need a little bit of input, and I know there'll be some debate obviously moving forward. And I know Robert, you had mentioned, what do you guys York defy versus what is the state law said? And I believe some other select board members had said that too. Show us what the difference are. Are you just doing the minimum standards for the state law, or are you, well here's an example of if we do the minimal standards of the state law, is it a workable thing, is it a workable thing for the development or potential housing that the state was intending to do, or that we might want to intend to do? And so this is a good example of what we're running into, which has major impact obviously, it [23:06] Speaker F (unidentified): would be interesting to see like if we kept the dimensions as we have them, what that build-out could potentially look like. Yeah, how many, you know, I mean this law was created to have more density and more build-out. Is there a way we could see what that is, what that looks like? I mean, yeah, and it's one [23:33] Speaker E (unidentified): Of those situations where, like I said, with 500 square feet you could do tiny homes. So is that, re, is that realistic to, I would assume that you're not going to build anything on that. I don't, I don't think so either, unless you do tiny homes. I would assume we want to, is the question, right, do [23:52] Speaker F (unidentified): we want to build, that's the question. So to me, my question was, so if we, if I guess if we changed it like you're suggesting, how many homes would we be creating? What would, what would the town look like if we went to allowing more units potentially, or the [24:13] Speaker E (unidentified): potential for more development, and we can show that where the build-out analysis, a draft is coming out this Friday. I'd [24:22] Speaker G (unidentified): assume, you know, so I just [24:25] Speaker H (unidentified): want to clarify I understand what I'm looking at. So in all of these, the green is 5,000 square foot lot. Yes. And on the left is a 5,000 square foot lot, which the law now requires us to allow. If we apply our existing standards, what could be built on that lot in these two different areas of town, north and south of the Little River. Okay, so group one on the left, yeah, this doesn't seem practical, right, the 500. And then I guess so my question is the proposed standards, these are ones that you all are recommending or proposing we could elect to [25:19] Speaker B (unidentified): consider something else. We haven't proposed anything formally yet, we're just exploring it right now, so as the planning board has not made any decisions. Okay, yeah. [25:30] Speaker H (unidentified): Proposed though is still subject to change, it's, but is it what you've been [25:36] Speaker E (unidentified): discussing? Yes, we have been discussing it in that as a lot to allow for reasonable development on a 5,000 square foot lot, and with a slight change, slight change to the dimensional standard setbacks, side, you rear and front, this is what we've come up with so far. [25:55] Speaker H (unidentified): So if we all agreed that we collectively that we wanted to recommend, rather than going from, on the left, say, 20 to 10, that maybe 20 to 15 or something like that, is that sort of the collaborative discussion that you're looking for? Yes. [26:12] Speaker B (unidentified): Now, these are for new lots. Existing lots of record that are 5,000 square feet can already build to five feet, pretty much. So this is for new. If somebody wants to come in and take this one-acre lot and divide it into 5,000 square foot sections, this would be the decision we'd have to make. But existing lots of record, non-conforming, legal, would already have like a five foot, they're allowed right now by our current rules to have no more than a five foot setback. How many 5,000 square [27:02] Brendan (town planner/staff presenting LD 1829 & LD 2173): foot lots do we don't have a count on them yet we are waiting for that 's part of the build-out analysis is just to get a sort of an inventory of what lots we have, what size range we're already looking at. We did, we are in preliminary looks at a map that shows all of the nonconforming properties in terms of at least lot size. Those are, it's a fairly significant number, but we don't have the exact figures on them yet. We just have them highlighted on the map right now. [27:30] Speaker H (unidentified): So that goes into Robert's question of what's the potential impact? [27:34] Speaker E (unidentified): The interesting thing about the lots that you have within the growth area, there are, I would say, close to a majority already have non-conforming lots already as far as the minimal lot size is required. The thing is, if you have a small lot that's below that lot size, yes, you can expand that existing structure on the lot, but when you put additional dwelling units, you can't do that. Once you put another principal dwelling, you'd like go from a single family to a two family or three, you have to meet the lot size standards separately for each dwelling so therefore creating a larger lot so in this regard it 's kind of when the state law goes into effect you'll be able to put more dwelling units on your lot but you know this is really for lot creation if you subdivide your 30,000 square foot lot and you want to do a bunch of 5,000 square foot lots with water and sewer do you all want to allow for a larger building envelope on those 5,000 square foot it or keep to the states the minimum standard we have so far, so it really is so it may be five [28:45] Speaker F (unidentified): thousand square feet, but if you've got a twenty thousand square foot lot or something and we kept the setbacks with, yeah, it would just be they'd have to do fewer dwellings, you would think, or [28:54] Speaker E (unidentified): they'd create larger lots to meet the to get the density, but a larger one, it's just you can't get [28:59] Speaker I (unidentified): as many units. That's correct, you're right. 20 divided by five is four, but that might not work [29:06] Speaker G (unidentified): with the dimensional and I think Robert asked this question at the beginning, you just came around to your answer, but we're assuming that, you know, to build a 2,000 square foot single-family home, a thousand square feet on each floor, which is kind of the entry level or medium level of the market right now, you wouldn't be able to do it on a 5,000 square foot lot currently because if you double that, you'd get a thousand square feet or 1,500 if you finished a basement or something like that, but if You used a 10,000-square-foot lot, which I think where you're going, you could easily put a 2,000- to 2,500-finished-square-foot house in a quarter-acre lot with the new 1829 standards. [29:52] Brendan (town planner/staff presenting LD 1829 & LD 2173): Correct. On a 20,000-square-foot lot, you're looking at a buildable area of about 9,000 square feet, so plenty buildable in that regard. Yard, and on 10,000, I think it was somewhere near 3,100 square feet, a buildable area. [30:06] Speaker G (unidentified): So a 5,000-square-foot lot doesn't get you much for usability, but it gets you tiny houses. Tiny homes. Or something creative. But a 10,000-square-foot under the new standards, if we change nothing, could net you a buildable and easily buildable, in most situations, if it's regularly dimensioned, a buildable traditional single-family house. That is correct. [30:31] Speaker F (unidentified): Remember I think the other issue is water and sewer, so if we, I think we need to, and you probably do this, but dial in, you know, York water and York sewer to these conversations, because if you've got land and all of a sudden the developer wants to bring water and sewer to it and they're doing 5,000 square foot lots, I mean, that could be a lot of capacity that maybe York water and York sewer or don't, don't think they have. I don't know, I mean, it's just, they ought to be part of the [31:02] Speaker B (unidentified): conversation, I guess, and they do have to sign off on any development whether that there is, they have sufficient capacity. Obviously with things like droughts increased, you know, size of a number of residences and uses in the town, eventually we're going to get to a point where our water may not, and this is what the water department is saying, that we may have to go elsewhere for water. But there's nobody can say when exactly [31:38] Speaker F (unidentified): that's gonna happen. But the challenge can sort of be, we as policy makers may say, gee, this is where we really like water and sewer, but the developer may say, I'm building it over here, and they still do have capacity now, but three years from now, they may not, and yet we've lost the ability to put water and sewer here. So just planning that, it's helpful to have, I guess, water and sewer in the room. [32:03] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): So, Mary, and then I'll have a question. [32:07] Speaker J (unidentified): What, 5,000 square feet, what does that equate to in an acre? [32:14] Brendan (town planner/staff presenting LD 1829 & LD 2173): About 1⁄8 of an acre. [32:16] Speaker J (unidentified): 1⁄8 of an acre. [32:18] Speaker G (unidentified): 43, 4,400 square feet. Size of this room? [32:23] Speaker K (unidentified): Going would be a house on Moulton Lane and York Street across from St. Christopher's. That corner lot is just under 5,000 where that cave is. 50 by 100. [32:33] Speaker J (unidentified): And the current zoning in the town of York, what is it right now for building lots? [32:43] Brendan (town planner/staff presenting LD 1829 & LD 2173): It depends on where you are. In group one, it's typically a one acre or a 30,000 square foot minimum. North of that, you're looking at typically [32:52] Speaker J (unidentified): 12,000 square feet minimums, so this would change from one acre, one house to [32:59] Brendan (town planner/staff presenting LD 1829 & LD 2173): potentially how many, at theoretical maximum, eight or more, if they stacked units on there, but there's other logistical challenges such as right-of-way, any kind of access, lot coverage, any number of other items that would, that [33:16] Speaker G (unidentified): could potentially reduce that number. The restrictions become less of the unit number and more of, can you fit all the lego bricks onto the tiny lawn in the same way, right, [33:26] Speaker J (unidentified): spatially. That helps me, thank you. Right, so we just, a question about what public water, [33:30] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): yes, let's circle back to sort of Robert's question. So how is public water defined in the, in the legislation? Does it talk about like a water district or a publicly managed, publicly [33:44] Brendan (town planner/staff presenting LD 1829 & LD 2173): managed municipal water board, or what, publicly managed water utility, I think, is what my [33:50] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): interpretation of it was. So is there opportunity for us, because there are some in town, but there's a way through the main fresh water program where people get to, can you know, drill a well and have it be a private, it's a public water supply, but for a specified number of homes, is that, is that [34:06] Brendan (town planner/staff presenting LD 1829 & LD 2173): taken into account in any of these calculations? That I'm not entirely sure of, but in any instance, the key there would still also be sewer access, of having to have, you have to have both public [34:18] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): public water and sewer, but in some cases you may have sewer in an area but not water, right, in which case you would not be granted the density bonus. So that's just why I asked a question. So there's, there's one of those, your main fresh water programs, certified a public water supply off of Route 91. Now there's not public sewer out there, but that is a certified public water supply, so just, I'm just throwing that in there. How does that calculus sort of work into this? [34:45] Speaker G (unidentified): It's any time, it's any time you have a shared number of wells above a certain number, I can [34:51] Speaker L (unidentified): figure that out for you while you talk. What are you guys hearing about from builders? Are they concerned, and they approach you as to how the town is handling this? I can say my conversations [35:03] Speaker E (unidentified): With some builders as they're prepping their plans are holding, they're waiting. Some existing development, I'd say that are happening right now, they might come back and amend their plans to get more density. I'm sure some of York Housing, some of the affordable housing groups are waiting too for this more density standard to come through before jumping on projects. So there are people that I'd say are eager to see how we respond to it and are waiting. [35:44] Speaker G (unidentified): Public water supply is defined by the state of Maine as any publicly or privately owned system describes pipes, conveyances, structures and facilities. If it is furnished, distributed or sold for human consumption to at least 15 service connections or serves at least 25 individuals daily for 60 years or more out of the year. So your very seasonal water supplies do not count, anything over two months of use, if 25 people a day is probably your best bet. So small subdivisions wouldn't fall under this, but medium-sized and large subdivisions. [36:25] Speaker E (unidentified): With sewer too, gotta have sewer too. [36:29] Speaker G (unidentified): Well, I think Todd's question was, if there is sewer already, what would somebody need to do to make a public water system? You'd need to serve 15 units, which is like four lots, according to Brendan's numbers. [36:42] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): Right,, yeah. Might just throw that out there just to take a look at. [36:45] Speaker B (unidentified): The question is, does the town have capacity for that much from well usage in a smaller area with more residences? [36:55] Speaker G (unidentified): I think that's the concern, if you have people drawing on five acres enough water for 25 users a day. [37:03] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): The town's out of us, right? I mean they have short of a you know the most doable water moratorium right Kittery and their water is coming out of York. Yeah it's not coming out of Kittery and beyond right north of [37:16] Speaker H (unidentified): North of us can you tell us more about the study that you're expecting the results on Friday or whatever it's I don't know if study's the right word but so the build out the build-out study [37:26] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah the build-out study will look at these density standards that we're talking about out here where they're trying to look at all the lots within the growth area and beyond town wide actually because we might as well just do the whole thing why look plugging in these standards and then they can give units spit out unit counts in various areas and then can you do what if scenarios they can once they put the input inputs in then they can model pretty quickly you [37:53] Speaker B (unidentified): Can into the GIS system so you can run different scenarios a contractor is putting [37:59] Speaker E (unidentified): Putting that? That's right. Our GIS contractor is putting that, CAI who does our town GIS. So we'll be able to look at basically hot spots, areas within the growth area and beyond that might see quite a bit, could see quite a bit of growth. [38:16] Speaker B (unidentified): And by the way, even if we didn't change the set things like setbacks, this will be more building available. I mean, a 10-acre lot or a 2-acre lot or a 1-acre lot is going to be able to put more on than it does right now. So the question is, how much more? How much more that we want? [38:42] Speaker H (unidentified): And this will help tell us how many 10-acre lots we have that are on water and sewer, that kind of thing, how many 5-acre lots we have that are on water and sewer so we know? [38:52] Speaker E (unidentified): We have that data, yep. [38:54] Speaker J (unidentified): So we could keep our current setbacks and not change them and see what happens in the next year for activity and such if we wanted to see what status quo what we can do with the status quo [39:10] Speaker B (unidentified): Or what builders yes well and again there's other performance standards that we could consider bidder to kind of make it so that there's not abuses. One thing that I've thought of that the board has not really discussed and agreed on though is the example of parking. Right now, if it was just one parking spot per dwelling on a very small lot like that, would they be allowed to make it so that the owner had to back out into the street because there's no room for the turnaround. And we may want to consider, for instance, on major arterials and collectors, or where the director of engineering for the town says that would be unsafe to back out on, that we would have performance standards that you'd have to be able to turn around in your driveway rather than having to back out on a busy street. That's one thing that would limit them the most extreme densities there if they haven't figured in the space for a turnaround for parking for example it may so [40:32] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): What are your discussions been with the sewer district I know they probably have capacity but how dialed in are they into what's what you're both [40:41] Speaker E (unidentified): Sewer and water have been, I've been in communication, in conversation with them about the build-out analysis that they're going to, we're going to work collaboratively and look at what that means, because both of them wanted to feedback and add to it, of which we utilize, but some of their additional studies with pipe sizing and think we couldn't go to that extra level, but they'll be able to use this data and information to move their studies even further. And they have come to the planning board to do a conversation about some of their concerns in general, not only about this law, but about their capacities right now, both water and sewer. And I'd say quite compelling stories that they've told about the future of certainly sewer, of looking for potential areas, regionalized. I think they might have come to you and talked to you, too, as well. But there's definitely some concerns out there. And you've already seen it with water doing the odd days and they've become more about, more assertive about, you know, sprinkler systems and stuff like that and working with us and ensuring that plan notes get on plans about that and I think that you'll see that moving forward, especially as droughts continue to wreak havoc with some of these roses. So this is [42:02] Speaker F (unidentified): is development of bigger properties, but also with the state law, we have this build out in existing lots. So existing 5,000 square foot lots can be built on now. So have we seen any activity with that? [42:23] Speaker E (unidentified): So right now, existing 5,000 square foot lots, which again, we don't have a ton of those. We do have nonconforming lots, but we have some existing 5000, not really, they can't, they can't develop to the density of having say three, four units in there yet, because our current zoning says for each dwelling unit you have to meet that minimal lot size separately. I thought they, the state law changed that. No, it doesn't go into a, they did, but it doesn't go into effect until July 1st, 2027. [42:58] Speaker F (unidentified): Right, but I mean it will happen. It will, that's right. So is that part of your build out too, or is that? [43:05] Speaker E (unidentified): The existing 5,000, it will be, looking at those existing lots of which you can put. [43:10] Speaker F (unidentified): Because we can't control that. We have no, we don't. [43:16] Speaker B (unidentified): This controls it. [43:18] Speaker E (unidentified): As long as they're meeting the setbacks or existing non-conforming in the setbacks. [43:21] Speaker F (unidentified): Can we change setbacks to make them more restrictive between now and July 1? They don't, they specifically said you couldn't make it [43:30] Speaker B (unidentified): More restrictive, it has to be the same as a single-family dwelling, or which is the first, you know, the first image is a single-family dwelling, so [43:38] Speaker E (unidentified): Theoretically, you could change your single-family setbacks to make it more restrictive. I thought he just said no, you can make your single-family home and that would be your minimal standards that you have to follow, that's your, that's your baseline. [43:55] Speaker G (unidentified): Sorry for this. Group one and group two, which one was north and south again? [43:59] Brendan (town planner/staff presenting LD 1829 & LD 2173): Group two is the north, group two is the south. [44:02] Speaker G (unidentified): Group one is the south? Yes. So we're in group one areas right now? [44:07] Brendan (town planner/staff presenting LD 1829 & LD 2173): We're in group two, this is group one right here. [44:11] Speaker G (unidentified): Yeah. This is the village and where we are right here, yes. Harbor, okay. [44:15] Brendan (town planner/staff presenting LD 1829 & LD 2173): The village centers are effectively in compliance already with the standard. Same thing goes with the greenway zones, those already meet state standards, the [44:26] Speaker E (unidentified): future state standards. Oh yes, yep, our village, our village zones are good [44:33] Speaker I (unidentified): as well as our greenway. I feel like we should reconvene after you have that [44:45] Speaker H (unidentified): study and you've had a chance to look at it your yourselves. It's like, yeah, it's hard to, yeah, without data, right? And I know time is short, but it's, remember [44:59] Speaker B (unidentified): the study is just kind of a best guess because somebody may not choose, you know, how many people are not going to choose to get the most density they can. Well, [45:11] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): you don't know that. Build on that question though, so we, well maybe some have read about a building that's going up down the beach, I think it's Freeman Street corner lot, it was heard before your board under the new green, greenway standards, that sort of quirky development on a corner lot that cut down a bunch of trees, so that beats the standard, so that, or does it not? I mean, let's talk about that, so and that's in the new, you know, the greenway district overlay. How many square feet was [45:40] Speaker K (unidentified): that, so they could get another unit than what they are currently proposing? That's right, they [45:45] Speaker E (unidentified): could get an additional unit with the state law, so the CD4 is actually in compliance, but [45:51] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): more, but just so the average person is going to watch our meeting, listen live, or at some future date they may look that up. I mean, this is what, yeah, these changes could [46:00] Speaker E (unidentified): Head toward well the thing with the greenway district in this the character zones as you recall there's more character defining requirements within the building. With the state law there are no character defining qualities you can put up boxes with little windows you can do you know we don't have the landscaping standards and it all just goes through the code office without any sort of review. So I don't want to talk about any particular [46:30] Speaker B (unidentified): application but one of the CD4 requirements is that you have to have parking in the rear. Yeah so that's that's going to make it any type of development with extreme density is still going to have to be in that zone and CD3 that you requirement is to have parking either on the side or rear. [46:57] Speaker E (unidentified): There's a lot more performance standards to the architecture, the landscaping, where parking is, the actual how the building looks than what we have in these other zones. [47:07] Speaker B (unidentified): Maximum setbacks, not, I mean, minimum setbacks. [47:11] Speaker J (unidentified): And for where is that zone? [47:13] Speaker E (unidentified): The CD districts, the character districts, they're on Route 1, they're on Main Street and the beach, they're on Short Sands Road. We just went through that zoning change where we changed one of the- [47:24] Speaker J (unidentified): I mean, information like that, if that's going to be included in our current zoning, like in the village or in group one and group two, and like you had said, the parking stipulation, I think that's important for the equation for us to weigh in also on what we might think is good for the town. And we do have to remember the state law was put in place to increase density for to increase housing. So we want to I think accommodate state law within the reason that we can in the town of York and water and sewer too is an important issue [48:08] Speaker K (unidentified): For me originally when this all came out I was like we need a report we need what's coming that gets you up to speed really quickly but with the subcommittee meeting meetings, pulling up the GIS map, turning on the sewer overlay, actually seeing the lots that are in question or within reach to connect to have water and sewer that can take advantages of the density, I was put to ease a little bit as the idea of the town was quadrupling in density. So that's an exercise you guys have. Just turn on all the layers, the growth area, the water and the sewer, and just zoom into each parcel. The lot size and see how much smaller it really can get off a Ridge Road. I think it's Sea Mist, used to be Avenue A and B. It's already sub 5000 square foot lots, so they're not going to be able to quadruple. And you'll get a feel for the density chunks, I guess, of what the street view would look like. So then we also did like a Google Street View drop down in that area that you're looking at with the GIS and just kind of see what it feels like from the street. So that was some of the work we've been doing to that would be get a feel for those of us who are visible can we see that? Yeah, live time, we'll just put it up on the TV in the comments room, but we can't jump straight to that. If members want to come to those meetings, I think it'd be helpful, and it's you can dive into more nitty-gritty stuff than getting like the [49:44] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): the huge presentation when you have the study that's completely. Yeah, please apprise us of [49:51] Speaker K (unidentified): those meetings. Yeah, every Tuesday at 8 30, every Tuesday, and in the town hall conference room [49:58] Speaker J (unidentified): upstairs. I mean, is it actively happening right now? Yeah, we've been doing it for two months, [50:03] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): almost six months. So there are other items you wish to talk to the board about, other board [50:09] Speaker B (unidentified): members may have a couple of items. There may be, there may be other situations that is not strictly part of the state law changes, but may, because of the implications, we may look at it and say it, this conflicts with this and there's something that really needs to be fixed, but it's not required exactly by the state law, or we might just find things that we just hadn't noticed before that are problems that we think we should fix. So I think at the very least we should identify those when we bring them forward to you, but just be aware that to just change it to the exact, exactly what the state is requiring is very hard and maybe not what we want to do. The [51:04] Speaker K (unidentified): childcare, that's, that's another thing we need to do. It's going to seem like 80 pages because every zone now needs to allow daycare facilities. So when we go to do our amendment, it's going to be all those pages with just child care, child care all through each zone, so minimal changes but a thick packet. So we were trying to think the best way to package it up if we want to do a bunch of teeny little votes on each item or one large LD 1829. But if some things are sticking point. [51:42] Speaker F (unidentified): One new section that says daycare everywhere. [51:44] Speaker K (unidentified): Right, asterisks, C attached. An overlay zone. [51:48] Speaker L (unidentified): Yeah, right. Yeah,, just do that. [51:51] Speaker E (unidentified): It's the use tables. So you got a new definitions article two, that new uses article four. You can kind of see how it goes and we have to, that's an example, childcare facilities,, family, child care, there's these new state law requires 1829 required it. That's a for example of the cascading effect that we're having to deal with. Affordable housing, the workforce affordable housing overlay. Again, we have to change that. Rename it. Put the new density standards in there. I guess the question that we kind of have is from an amendment standpoint, do you want to on the ballot is it like LD 1829 compliance one package deal or [52:31] Speaker L (unidentified): break it out into separate amendment sections I just don't want one thing to [52:44] Speaker E (unidentified): fail like if it's a separate ballot item one thing fails then we're not in [52:48] Speaker L (unidentified): compliance with state law that could be the case we'd have to work that I think [53:03] Speaker H (unidentified): it would be better for the public and the voters to have it lumped together I mean there's pros and cons to either one but to me putting on my voter hat you know here are the things that will cause and we'll go through that debate when [53:19] Speaker E (unidentified): we compliance with we'll get there but those are some of the things we're kind of how do we package it to you guys to see as separate articles that you're going to have to vote on or this is all part of the same package it all fits together and we have to change all these sections within the [53:37] Speaker B (unidentified): code so it could be longer than the budget it could be it 'll be difficult i mean it'll be tough on the voters understandably they get frustrated when there's not enough information on the ballot and they get frustrated when the voter information guide you know is as thick as the ordinance so but it's it's a tough it's how are other towns handling it we are ahead of the curve a lot of them are actually kind of pretending it's not really happening by the sounds of it [54:16] Brendan (town planner/staff presenting LD 1829 & LD 2173): we attended an s p d c meeting a couple of weeks ago and by the by the sounds of the other towns they have not proposed any changes some of them are still struggling to figure out what the law even means so we've put together probably one of the more comprehensive ideas and kind of processes that's in the region right now aside from maybe your Portland or I think Falmouth was ahead as well but some of them are a [54:44] Speaker E (unidentified): little ahead yeah any [54:48] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): other items like to bring forth the planning one Do you have any other items for us other than this one and DIGA? Good luck. [54:55] Speaker B (unidentified): This is going to require more interactions. I think so. [55:00] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): That's good. And if we need to have more than, as I mentioned, those quarterly meetings, then we'll just have to, you know, the chair needs to work that out. [55:06] Speaker B (unidentified): Just add that to all your budgetary meetings and everything else, right? [55:10] Speaker F (unidentified): Maybe a workshop where, you know, if you really want to help us with visualizing. [55:14] Speaker B (unidentified): That, yeah, you know, we could come in here and do something that would be a little bit more [55:21] Speaker H (unidentified): in depth if you want, play with the GIS in front of us. Yeah, we've done that before, just one topic [55:25] Speaker E (unidentified): meetings, just to float it in your calendars. December's when they have to have their hearing, planning board, and then it comes to you for January, February, so holidays, things are speeding [55:35] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): up now. One more time, at least before the hearings, that December meeting, which maybe after you digest just the information in the report that, you know, being built up, and probably target the first meeting in November probably. [55:51] Speaker E (unidentified): Ideally second meeting. [55:57] Speaker G (unidentified): You don't need to stress out. Brendan's got his hands halfway around. [56:03] Speaker F (unidentified): You guys have a meeting where you're going through this in depth yourself I mean let us know that 's happening I mean maybe some of us would like to attend just to hear it live I think after we get the study [56:18] Speaker K (unidentified): back, and probably that means the following meeting after we get that back, maybe we'll send out, send out an email to invite whoever wants to come to the Tuesday meetings, because fresh coffee brains fire a little quicker, and scrolling through maps, you don't glaze over too much, so they're, they're [56:34] Speaker E (unidentified): They're currently, we've drafted, it's about 42 pages right now. [56:39] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): And those meetings are in the town hall? Is that what you mean? [56:41] Speaker K (unidentified): Yeah, in the conference room upstairs. [56:44] Speaker B (unidentified): We could go to a bigger facility. We would need a bigger one, and it may be better, I mean, maybe during the day we could get in here or some other place with a little bit more space if necessary. [57:00] Speaker H (unidentified): This is a good start, yeah. [57:02] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): You, yeah, getting from here to there, yeah, thank you. So you can put the, you can go off on the audio on the meeting. Sorry, kind of talking to the booth operator. Good evening, I'd like to call the meeting to order, the York Select Board, here at the York Public Library, on Monday, October 5th, 2026. We call please rise for the pledge of allegiance. So we just wrapped up a joint meeting with the planning board, which was very, was a good meeting. There'll be many more to come on the topics, so follow along there if you watch the meeting live. Thank you. If not, I'm sure you'll see it probably tomorrow or maybe later tonight. Now what item A is consent agenda. There are three with sub subsets, so we have minutes from the September 28th 2026 meeting. There's business license renewals and special event permits for Eastern Surfing Association, BFW Post six nine seven, I fill the helmet in Agamemnica Ski Club, Long Sands Beach, Rice. Grace, what is the board's pleasure? [1:03:53] Speaker L (unidentified): Mr. Chairman, we accept the consent agenda. [1:03:56] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): So motion by Marilyn, is there a second? Second. Second by Marilyn. Any discussion or corrections on the consent agenda? I have a few. [1:04:06] Speaker H (unidentified): Yep, I heard that. On the consent agenda form itself, it lists under two special event permit, it lists Harvest Fest, and we approved that one at our last meeting on September 28th. And then on the request for action, I'm sorry, the surfing association is requesting free parking on Long Sands, and I didn't know if we wanted to discuss that. And then another correction is on the minutes on page 205 C two, about two-thirds of the way down, it says old containers public works on the first three Saturdays was, I seem to recall that was the first three Saturdays of November. I think that'd be good to add of November [1:05:16] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): so that the parking question that the vice chair raised, do we provide free [1:05:24] Speaker H (unidentified): parking for other similar events occasionally [1:05:31] Speaker G (unidentified): they're very few that I can, I can think of examples over the past several years. You did one for the shipyard for the North Dakota crew. [1:05:42] Speaker F (unidentified): But they were also donating a lot of time to the community. [1:05:46] Speaker G (unidentified): A little bit different. We were hosting a military unit in town, so. [1:05:51] Speaker H (unidentified): I'm not sure that I could support waiving parking for that event. [1:05:56] Speaker G (unidentified): We did decide to close the parking lot for Harvest Fest, the Animal Kingdom lot last week when that was reviewed. I was a, we determined [1:06:08] Speaker H (unidentified): that's a town sponsored event, correct? Yeah, this is not, correct, so [1:06:16] Speaker J (unidentified): so what are we doing for Harvest Fest, do they have to pay in short stands on that [1:06:21] Speaker G (unidentified): day in short sense, yes, but the Animal Kingdom lot is, has been dedicated to the event, so it won't be open, so we're essentially giving up, you know, the entire property for use along with the ball field what [1:06:41] Speaker H (unidentified): Are we not wanting to do free parking there's a an event the Eastern Surfing Association contest on Long Sands on October 10 and on the event description it says they're requesting free parking for the event on Long Sense so that the participants would not need to feed the meters so to speak or the I don't know how you define participants but anyway. [1:07:07] Speaker L (unidentified): Do we know the participants have to pay a fee to enter this contest? [1:07:14] Speaker G (unidentified): I don't know that it's an amateur so I'm assuming that there is a small entry fee these things don't happen for free but I'm assuming there's no [1:07:22] Speaker J (unidentified): large prize pools or things like that I think for comparison I volunteered at the Nubba Light Swim this summer and it was more I think it was August I can't recall and there was some discussion there that people were feeding the meters and had to the organ the organizers also had a trolley and they convened up at the Center for Active Living so that event meters had to be fed or people whether they were participants or friends and supporters it was not waived for that event I [1:08:09] Speaker L (unidentified): feel like it would be hard to be surfing and have to run out that's the logistics I would say in my head you can you can do the [1:08:19] Speaker G (unidentified): whole day you can do the whole day for a large chunk of time or from a phone yeah we stopped [1:08:26] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): collecting fees on the meters the date is after this well they have the tenth and then they're ultimately 31st 17th the 31st is when it ends right so they're in the window a week prior to [1:08:38] Speaker G (unidentified): with termination yeah I think they should I mean we are still generating substantial general fund revenue 40 30 to 50 000 a week between Short Sands Park Short Sands and Long Sands so I [1:08:57] Speaker H (unidentified): think there's a number of events that we that we approve to happen on Long Sands speech and I don't believe we ever wait parking that's my thought process we [1:09:13] Speaker J (unidentified): either way for all or none so I can follow on so we're voting on so there [1:09:18] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): were two amendment changes and the first page the Harvest Fest and then page two of five there was a correction there and the other question raised was about the free parking on the Eastern Surfing Association application. So your board's pleasure not to waive the parking. So that would be part of the amendment. So the vote would be the corrections that we talked about in the minutes and then removing free parking for the event for the Eastern Surfing Association. Yes. So it's all called about. So Robert? Yes. Marilyn? Yes. Marianne? Yes. So just two items under the town manager's report. So as your chair, I failed in getting together a quarterly meeting for town manager's review. We've got a lot of traveling going on. So I just put that on here as a placeholder to remind all of us. There will be another query going out to members so we can have that special meeting with the manager. I know we all, you know, we set our schedules around our established meeting calendars at the beginning of the year. And sort of adding in special meetings is challenging. So I understand that. We'll keep that going. Going thank you the other is I did general shout out to the public I did receive the voter guide info piece that in the mail today so they're starting to show up I don't know how they hit the town but it should be out it came today yep good on that and I saw a lot of folks pulling absentee ballots and that's predicted within one day that's nice to see so thank you voters so those are the only things I have under the chair's report I'll go down to item C [1:10:57] Speaker G (unidentified): Manager report yeah as predicted it was about a day after the absentees were available which was Friday so perfect timing from the printer and also from our ballot printer and from our voter guide printer so I'll start off with that absentee ballots are available from the town clerk's office and from Lynn our town clerk Merck. We have over 1,200 ballots that have been issued so far, absentee ballots for the election in November. She did 300 today. So today was the day that everyone planned, I think. We were a little bit early because they came in the end of last week. The last day to request absentee ballots is 1029 without a special circumstance like an unexpected expected travel or illness or something like that so they can be returned by mail they can also be returned at the green drop box beside the town clerk's office the side entrance to the town hall it says official ballot drop box it's bolted into the concrete it's a nice solid metal box so you can drop any correspondence for the town clerk's office there but this time of year it's emptied several times a day because of the amount of ballots that go into it so get your absentees if you're not planning to vote in person in november i want to give a shout out to the parks and rec department we finished a little ahead of schedule with the nubble repainting the scaffolding is down i know we got a few complaints about that i think some people saw some community board members might have seen some communication but people that weren't happy with it that's done approximately every eight years It's been a little bit longer since we did last time, but that's the high-end metal painting that happens to the tower itself to keep it from corroding in the salt air. So that's, that's got to be done, you know, as a icon of the town. That's not something that we can, you know, we can do every 15 or 20 years or we won't have a lighthouse left by the time it's done. So I just want to thank the contractor. I think did a very professional job with the scaffolding. I went down and looked at and you could tell it was being worked on, but it was, it was well contained and looked professional at all times, and they got out a little ahead of schedule. So I'm glad about that. Just to report on that, the funds to for that painting come from so generate it all completely by sales at the gift shop. So that's part of, I think it was about 150,000, a little bit less than that, but for repainting with that, the sealer essentially, the special marine paint for the outside of the lighthouse. But nice work, and we're back so anybody that's been watching and afraid to come and take pictures, back open, back to business for photos. And from public works, I know we've got our public works superintendent here in the room. He might have some additional information later on, but hazardous waste day will be October 24th. You can get details on the DPW website. That's at Wichita, the transfer station. Our bins that you're hearing so much about throughout town that everyone's hearing about, the curbside automated bins are here. We received seven tractor trailer fulls today. So about half of the bins are there and they are out at the public works yard and they started distribution today. So again, for those that didn't hear, that's starting on the Monday trash routes. The last ones to receive your bins next, the end of next week will be a Friday trash route. So do not be nervous if you're a Thursday or Friday trash route. Unless you get to the end of next week and you haven't received them, then talk to Public Works. But we don't need people, we know they're on a schedule, they have a mapped out schedule. The, you should be calling if you do not receive a bin and all of your neighbors receive bins, that's when you need to call Public Works. But if your street hasn't received them yet and the next street over has received them, that's not a big deal. They're going to be going street by street, entire blocks. So but we should hear from you if something's off and all of your neighbors have received bins around you. So and I think as was noted, but just want to repeat it again for the record in the minutes, the olds, I should say used recycling bins, if you would like to recycle those, they can be done at Witch Trot, at the Witch Trot facility, starting Saturdays, starting November seventh, and running for three Saturdays. And we're also soft committed to doing either a day or a series of days in the spring. We've got some requests from people who are seasonal residents who would also like to take advantage of that. So we'll announce that as we get closer to next summer for people who might be coming up in May or June of next year back to their vacation homes. Again, that's if you want to recycle them. If they're plastic and recyclable, they can go to Witch Trot and Casella will bulk recycle those. So they'll be recycled just like any other plastic in bulk. So that's all I've got, Mr. Chair, for now. [1:16:13] Speaker F (unidentified): Now, I just like to add on the hazardous waste day, which was October 24th, October 24th. Yes, you can't just show up. You have to, you have to go to the DPW site and you have to schedule a time to show up there and put in your trash number. So you need to do something ahead of time to make sure that you're coming at the right time. [1:16:39] Speaker G (unidentified): So the information about that will all be on the DPW website. Permit is required, as most people know, if you've ever used the facility. And then also, as Robert said, you need to book your time, at least a time window. And that's, as most people know, there's hundreds of people that use that day, so it backs up. And it's to kind of keep from everybody coming at 8 a.m., to try to spread it out throughout the day, so that we have traffic flow and it doesn't get out to Route 91. And I think that's all I got, Mr. Chair. [1:17:08] Speaker J (unidentified): Questions for the manager? Yes, Maria, no questions, but could I do a couple comments on, okay, I'd like to do a shout out to Town Clerk Lynn Osgood and her staff. To get that many absentee ballots issued in a short period of time is really yeoman's job, and it's not as easy as one thinks. You, we have a state ballot, a local ballot, you need to know where somebody lives in the state for the district, and coming off the heels of the tax collection, to me job well done, and thank her. And I also had the opportunity to be in the village this weekend, and there was a wellness fair going on that I was able to go through, and I guess that was through the Parks and Rec Department. It was great, I actually learned CPR and how to use an AED. I'm embarrassed to say I didn't know either, hopefully I'll never need to learn them. York Hospital had a tent there, and it was great to see the tents in the village again. So I appreciate those departments, like many others [1:18:20] Speaker G (unidentified): no changes from last week, so it takes out indeed what wards are three [1:18:25] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): the first is the Ocean Avenue extension seawall, Nicole Pastana, our emergency management director [1:18:38] Nicole Pastani, Emergency Management Director: Nicole Pastani, emergency management director, so we put out to bid the replacement of Ocean of extension seawall, with three bids come in, apparent low bidder is Sumco Eco Contracting, requesting to approve awarding them the bid. This one does have a little bit of a caveat to it, that our budget is just slightly under what their bid was. We do have funds, plenty of funds in the disaster assistance fund to cover that overage, if the board approves that, if it is necessary, as I mentioned previously when I've done some FEMA updates. This project will be going, it has gone back to FEMA for them to review if we can get some mitigation funding for it. When they first approved this project in the funding for it, we did not have a full design, so they didn't want to look at any mitigation. So the plan back then was made to provide them the full design documents once we have them, which they have now. So they're reviewing to go through to decide if we get some mitigation funding for that. So that could bring us whole. If not, my request would be to use some money from the Disaster Assistance Fund to cover the difference. [1:19:56] Speaker H (unidentified): Thank you, Nicole. I noticed that the low bid is about $700,000 lower than the next lowest bid, which is significant. It's about, what, 50% difference. And I'm just curious if there's anything that you attribute that to, and is this a firm that we know or have done business with? It sounds like they've done business with our consulting engineer on the project, but I wonder if we have any other experience, or we do not. I have, if you have a sense for why their bid was [1:20:31] Nicole Pastani, Emergency Management Director: significantly so their bid is actually just slightly higher than what we were expecting bids to come in at. What we previously had done a cost estimate for, some of the higher ones were actually quite surprising to us there, and I don't have an explanation. If you look at the breakdown, everyone's individual costs for each line item were so vastly different, you know. And Tim De Perio, superintendent of DPW, went through these with me as well, so he has a, obviously, a great understanding of what, you know, a cubic yard of refrap should be costing. So if it's a reasonable price in his mind, and Tim didn't seem to think that there was anything unusual about any of their cost estimates. [1:21:15] Speaker H (unidentified): Yeah, like the demolition is 10 times as much from one to another, but then others are in the opposite direction. [1:21:23] Nicole Pastani, Emergency Management Director: Yeah, it was interesting that it wasn't that it was across the board, that they were lower in one and the other two were higher. All three of them were a little bit different. With that note, who knows if we'll have to use it or not, but that storm contingency, that is obviously an allowance. So if we don't have to use any of that to secure during a storm, then that would be taken off of the overall budget as well. And that one is consistent across all. Yes. Yeah, we put that one in there on the bed, so it wasn't for them. Oh, I see. Yeah, it's not a percentage of the total, it's correct. It was just kind of a [1:21:59] Speaker G (unidentified): Standard storm contingency amount that's designed if they have to demobilize and remobilize because of a major coastal storm. Correct. Yep. Yeah. Or if they have [1:22:08] Nicole Pastani, Emergency Management Director: to do anything to shore up any open areas if they're already in the middle of construction. Can you remind us of the timing on this? So we have not set a specific time for when to start. We have just put it so that they are eligible to start as soon as they are capable of, but the project must be substantially completed before Memorial Day. Any [1:22:31] Speaker J (unidentified): other members questions? Mary, who prepared the minutia of the bid documents, all those line items, was that you? [1:22:38] Nicole Pastani, Emergency Management Director: No, that was our engineer. Okay, great. It's quite complete. Thank you. Yes. Why we hired them. Okay. [1:22:46] Speaker F (unidentified): Robert? So you're recommending the alternative material, the concrete cap as opposed to granite? Yep. Does that make any difference to the quality, the integrity of the wall? [1:22:58] Nicole Pastani, Emergency Management Director: No,, it would just be more of a slight difference in appearance, but the concrete can be made to look quite similar to the granite and it'll wear as long. Yeah, and then actually a bonus of that is if it were to get damaged, it's a little easier to repair than a granite cap [1:23:19] Speaker L (unidentified): and the contractor was okay with that material being used? Yes. Yep. Yeah, all three of them provided [1:23:24] Nicole Pastani, Emergency Management Director: the option to use that. Any [1:23:28] Speaker I (unidentified): other questions? Ready for motion? Mr. Chair, I move to award the [1:23:33] Speaker H (unidentified): Ocean Avenue Extension seat wall replacement contract to Sumco Eco Contracting LLC, including the alternate material, in the amount of one million four hundred and forty thousand seven hundred and eighty six dollars. I further move to authorize the use of the disaster assistance fund for any remaining project costs exceeding the currently approved project funding and any FEMA mitigation funding up to the contract amount. Second. Motion second by Maryland. Any additional [1:24:01] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): discussion on the motion? For now I'll call the vote. Robert? Yes. Marilyn? Yes. Marilyn? Yes. Marianne? Yes. Terrible chest. Motion carries 5-0. Thank you Nicole. Thank you. I'm awards number two, snow removal and ice control award for town facilities and business districts. Tim De Perio, Public Works Superintendent. Good [1:24:30] Tim DePerio, Superintendent of Public Works: evening tim de perio superintendent public works here tonight seeking approval for the bids on the three-year contract for the plowing and de-icing of town facilities and business districts. We received bids from four different contractors for various properties, which I've summarized on the attached spreadsheet that was included in your packet. DPW recommends awarding the bid for the snow removal and ice control contract to the following contractors. For the York Police Station and York Village Fire Station, to Stephen Carr Property Services, for the York Town Hall, York Public Library, York Village Business District, and York Harbor Business District to Gammon Lawn Care, and the Center for Active Living and York Beach Fire Station and Short Sands Business District to Green with Envy Landscaping. All these recommendations are either the low bid or the only bid for that facility or district. Happy to answer any questions you may have. [1:25:32] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): Questions for, yes, Marla? [1:25:35] Speaker H (unidentified): On your sheet with the green, it's dollars per what, is it dollars per storm? I'm just, yeah, per, no, it's per, it's per trip. [1:25:45] Tim DePerio, Superintendent of Public Works: So if they, you know, like, so for every time they plow the police station, it's 235 dollars, got it. [1:25:51] Speaker H (unidentified): And then I noticed in the, contracts themselves that these are all three-year [1:25:57] Tim DePerio, Superintendent of Public Works: contracts, it's, yeah, correct, yeah, good, yep, that's what we've done since, I want to say 2015, 15 I believe, might have been the first year we did, it seems to work pretty well in the, in these prices for this year, really on average they, some were the same, some actually went down just a little, some went up a little bit, but they're, they really didn't go up much from the last, from 20 [1:26:22] Speaker F (unidentified): was it 20, 23 was the last, good, thank you, Robert, so these names look familiar, so are these the people doing the work currently? [1:26:33] Tim DePerio, Superintendent of Public Works: They are, except for Green with Envy has taken on the Center for Active Living, which they're not currently doing, but they have done in the past. And Stephen Carr has taken on the police station, which he is not currently doing. [1:26:48] Speaker F (unidentified): So have we had any issues with these companies providing the work in the last three years? Nothing out of normal. Yeah. [1:26:58] Speaker G (unidentified): Okay. Okay, how many vendors do we use currently, Tim? [1:27:03] Tim DePerio, Superintendent of Public Works: Currently we have four vendors. [1:27:07] Speaker J (unidentified): I was going to ask what Robert did, if they were the ones currently doing the work. [1:27:12] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): Anyone else, any other questions? Marilyn? [1:27:14] Speaker L (unidentified): I also wanted to say it's nice to see that all these people are vanned for work with the town, you know, and that we're able to have a pick of these people, so I'm very happy to see that. [1:27:27] Tim DePerio, Superintendent of Public Works: It's kind of spread out evenly, you know, so basically the other three contractors they each have two properties and then the business district stuff that's done after the storm so it's it's not quite as you know they have a time frame to work with so it's not quite as critical so I feel comfortable with these guys being able to get the job completed thank you for a motion if we are just to add that it's a free [1:27:52] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): contract Mr. [1:27:57] Speaker H (unidentified): Chair I move to award the bid for the snow removal and ice control contract for a three-year period to the following contractors York Police Station and York Village Fire Station to Stephen Carr property services York Town Hall York Public Library York Village Business District and York Harbor Business District to Gammon Lawn Care and Center for Active Living York Beach Fire Station and Short Sands Business District to Green with Envy Landscaping [1:28:26] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): Which my mother's second by Marilyn any additional discussion the motion? Very none. I'll call the vote Robert. Yes. No. Yes. Well, yes, Maria. Yes Churros just carries 5-0. Thank you Might be reports or no reports this evening which takes us down to citizens forum F citizens forum is open any member of the audience for any comment on any town matter and all comments should be respectful in tone and should be directed to the chair comment should be brief and to the point and members of the public shall refrain from making personal charges or disparaging remarks or form verbal attacks upon the character or motives of members of town boards and committees or Commissions or town staff or other citizens of York questions that require extended answers or cannot be readily answered in our meeting this evening will be referred to the town manager for follow-up and the board will also receive input received by the select boards page on the town website of which I think there are five currently and anyone who wishes to submit a written request for future agenda items can do so on the form available at this meeting or may obtain said form through the town Manager's Office. So how many folks are here for Citizens Forum? So I have a bunch of hands and folks that are here. Did you also do write-ins as well, or are you just, do you get a write-in also? So if you come up, we won't necessarily need to read your right. I'm just trying to manage time, but we could, we can certainly can do that. 's what the board wants to do. So I'll start on this side of a, sorry, point, I always apologize for that. So we'll start in the front row here and move to the back and then come back around evening. [1:30:13] Stephanie Byrne, public commenter (Comprehensive Plan steering committee): I'm Stephanie Byrne from Cimarron City in cape netic maine and I'm here as a concerned citizen and as a member of the steering committee for the comprehensive plan, having had the benefit of hurting a lot of feedback from townspeople in the community during that period, which I'm thankful for, and some of the things that I'm hearing lately, I now, I'm here, I'm compelled to talk to the town about the removal of the tree in the village center. I'm asking the town to immediately pause the planned removal of the large mature honey locusts beside the york civil war soldiers monument before york destroys a healthy tree that's been part of the village landscape for run for roughly 60 to 70 years. The town should be able to answer some simple questions. The first is, why must this tree be cut down? So far I've seen no evidence that it's diseased, dying, structurally unsafe, or a danger to the public. Nor have I seen any analysis demonstrating that the York Village Revitalization Project cannot reasonably be designed around it. If such an analysis exists, I hope the town can make it public before the tree is removed. If it does not exist, the tree should not be cut down until one is completed. I'm calling it non-native isn't enough. We should, we should be able to have it justified for removal and know what the justification is. The honey locust is neat, is non-native to Maine, but should it be replaced by a more appropriate species? This is not a perversive reason to destroy a healthy mature tree. The Maine Forest Service acknowledges that the honey locust is non-native, but also states that it's been frequently planted in urban areas of southern and central Maine. Honey locust is not an invasive plant tree. The tree that's invasive is the black lotus species. More importantly, York's own planning board materials have identified the honey locust as an appropriate canopy tree option for landscaping elsewhere in York. If honey locust is acceptable for new landscaping in New York, its non-native status cannot reasonably be justified for destroying an exceptionally mature specimen that has stood in the center of York Village for generations. York's own planning principles support saving the tree. The York Village Master Plan contains a statement that should guide this decision. Historic homes and stately trees speak to generations past and contribute to the village's is an engaging character. This describes this tree perfectly. The village project is intended to enhance the historic village and strengthen its sense of place. Cutting down one of its most prominent, mature trees without exhausting reasonable alternatives would contradict that goal. And the small replacement tree is not an alternative to the replacement. A new tree cannot provide the canopy, shade, stormwater benefits, habitat, cooling, visual presence, historic character, or a tree that has matured for six or seven decades. We cannot replace this tree in any meaningful sense. We can only begin to wait another 60 years. Since the tree has become part of the historic setting, I would hope that before it would be destroyed, that the town would require the following. An immediate pause on removal, an independent assessment by a certified arborist of the tree's health, structural condition, and remaining useful life. At least one engineering or design alternative that preserves the tree and protects its root system during construction and a public explanation for the specific reason the tree cannot be retained if the time ultimately does decide that preservation is not possible. If this healthy tree and the design cannot reasonably be modified to preserve it, the design should accommodate the tree, not the other way around. because once it is gone, there's no reconsideration. York can redesign pavement and relocate curbing and adjust landscaping. It can plant native trees throughout the community, but it can't replace a 60 to 70-year-old tree. Once the chainsaw arrives, there's no appeal, no redesign, no opportunity for public to reconsider the decision. The tree has stood beside a monument owner in York residence who served this country, has shaded generations of residents and visitors and become a part of the visual identity of York Village. York's own master plan tells us that stately trees connect us to generations past. It seems we should follow that advice. [1:35:15] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): Another hand was up on that side. Yes, sir. [1:35:36] Alex Fedek/Vedic, public commenter: Alex Fedek, Century Hill Road. Hello and good evening. Citizens' responsibility is a core principle to democracy. Our nation is at war with another sovereign nation. That statement still doesn't feel right and I suppose it's because this country has been involved in conflicts for nearly 26 years in a row. It is our collective duty to ensure that the government has our best interests at the forefront of their agenda. The conflicts that the military engages in have enormous consequences on our own lives and it is time we start treating it as serious as it is. We cannot allow a government to act as a for-profit business and the destruction that we see unfolding daily is unsustainable. I have mentioned before that the voter turnout in the primaries was rather lackluster and I heavily encourage everyone to talk amongst ourselves and even their neighbors, even if you don't like them, to encourage people to be more active in this democratic process. As far as local matters, I am fine with people being passionate over garbage collection and parking meters, but I ask that we draw our attention to more permanent matters. Just as it was stated earlier, the tree removal was something that came up as a alarming statement, and I entirely support the opposition position to taking out chainsaws and cutting away things that are irreplaceable. I would really like to see a more collective effort in trying to plan for the collective future that we all take ownership in. The York revitalization process is something that is intended to benefit all of the citizens in this town. And I think that it is in our best interest to be involved in that decision making more so than something that you take for granted, like you're you're piling into retirement funds. And I believe that people really need to take a hard look at the environment that is at hand, more so than just the numbers that add up to the bank accounts that they'll expect to spend later on in the future. So I wanted to mention one thing that ties back to a few previous meetings. The stop ALPR's ordinance was something that I had an involvement in, but really it feels like that whole scenario has elapsed by now, where the police department has decided to take down the flock cameras and cancel the contracts. But I want to remind people the ordinance had a second part to it that requires a vote on the technology that is used as data collection that impacts their lives. So please be mindful when reading everything on the ballot this November. And again talk to your neighbors, because I think that good things can happen if we are all better informed and communicating. Thank you, thank you so [1:39:12] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): Hands on this would you ever end up on the side earlier my [1:39:24] Karen Klein, public commenter: Name is Karen Klein, I live over on Freeman Street near the water, and one of the things that I want to put on the agenda, and I'll write up a whole thing and I'll get lots of people to sign, is that the park and wrecks have some people that they're not working for the parks and rec that spray pesticide and herbicides along the sidewalks. All that is running off into the ocean, and that really bothers me, and there's a lot of people spraying with pesticides that are around the water, and they wear Masks and they wear gloves and they are, you know, wearing a whole hazmat suit, and that really affects the quality of our lives and our ocean's life. And so I feel like that's something I wanna put on the agenda, is trying to get rid of pesticides and herbicides in our town, especially along the water. And we had, I also want to talk about the sewer department, because I live near there and when we have summer residents coming in it smells really bad over there, and I'll get all the people to sign on My street that smelt it this summer, so I would like to hear from the sewer department on what we're doing when we have four times the amount of population during the summer time, what we're doing to address the septic systems and all the runoff that's coming down from Cape Netic River, and what's happening with flood water zone when there's people that built on wetlands right near my house. I'm on Bay Heaven and they put in landfill bill that was wetlands, so I don't know how that got approved and I don't know who's padding their pockets around here with builders and stuff, but those are really should be illegal because the wetlands should be protected environment. So those are the three things that I want to add to the agenda and I'll come next time there's a meeting and I'll be better prepared, but this is the first time that I wanted to get an idea of how it was run. So thank you, thank you. [1:41:55] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): Anyone this side, this side of the room, if there was a girl from the back to the front, anybody in the rear? No, we'll be there. Yes sir, good [1:42:12] Mike Lee, public commenter: evening. I'm Mike Lee and I'm here to speak for the tree and it's been done eloquently and I really appreciate that. Tree is iconic to this town and everybody appreciates that. I started a post this weekend and I think that's what started the firestorm and there were over 200 respondents to that would like to preserve that tree. So when the revitalization committee started there was input about it, but they never really disclosed that the tree was going to be removed, never highlighted it, and the residents of this town did not really understand that until it was brought to light. The tree cannot be replaced. None about anybody in this room will see a mature tree in the center of that town again because we will not outlive it. So, as I would, I'm not an engineer and I'm not an architect, but I was looking at the plans and not understanding the underground utilities in that situation. There appears to be enough room to squeeze that intersection in the way it is designed within a T intersection by bumping out part of the bump out that is by the old bank, and then the actual island itself that contains the root zone has probably another 10 feet that can be excavated for that intersection without getting into the roots of the tree and doing damage to it. So I would request that someone take another look at this and design and see if that is possible, that intersection could be redesigned without removing the tree. I mean, you know, the scope of this job has changed over the 10 years. And, you know, the vote was very close on the budget. You know, it was not close on the redesign, the revitalization, but the budget itself was very close. And then we're robbing Peter to pay Paul, and that changes the scope of the entire project, which never went back for another vote so I don't know what recourse can be made but I would request that somebody takes a look at this and see if we can't get some kind of a redesign in that intersection and I like to see that tree [1:45:01] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): preserved thank you that's it thank you so you did write in as well do you want Do you want us to read your writing as well when that comes up? Yes, you do. No, you don't need to. Okay. Go ahead. That's why I asked how many people were here, just trying to manage the audience. Yep. Go ahead. In the front. Then I'll go to the back. [1:45:33] Peggy Gregory, public commenter: My name is Peggy Gregory. I live on Beech Ridge Road. We have a problem with property across the street from me. Those property owners have consistently acted in ways that violate a large number of York town ordinances and a significant number of main property laws they boldly and repeatedly lied to town officials and presented forged documents to town officials they've taken numerous actions that seriously violate shoreline ordinances including constructing a swimming pool in an unimproved location that extends into the shoreline zone next to the creek placing a significant amount of fill in an unapproved location in the shoreline zone next to the creek, continually cutting down trees in the shoreline zone as recently as last week, totaling somewhere between 30 to 50 trees now. They've also killed a large number of trees in the shoreline zone with the fill they brought in, which was demolition debris from a very old building. In violation of other town ordinances, they advertise and illegally rent a short-term rental in their ADU, occupied as recently as two nights ago, and constructed a fence over eight feet tall without the required five-foot setback from their property line. and in violation of both state law and local ordinance that constructed and utilized a swimming pool which still has no protective fence around it. To date, these property owners have not been formally cited for any of these ordinance violations. In spite of the fact that a group of neighbors have been meeting quarterly with town management and code enforcement for well over a year, reporting violations, troubleshooting problems, and all the code violations have existed for 12 months or more, these property owners have harassed and alienated abutters by arrogantly installing lights on another person's property, a fence on a neighbor's property, cutting down a neighbor's trees, installing an invisible dog fence on a neighbor's property, filing a hostile and fraudulent child abuse report on a neighbor, screaming and swearing at neighbors, blocking a long-standing right-of-way, posting large signs facing neighbors' homes and children's play sets that feature the image of a gun and a statement, "This property is protected by an armed property owner." To all of these actions, we have been told that the actions are either legal or civil matters which neighbors would need to litigate in civil court. Five different neighbors have engaged legal representation or sought legal consultation. All have been told that the price for any civil lawsuit will run somewhere between ten and thirty thousand dollars. None of us can afford the cost of a civil suit, so we need to depend on our town officials to at least enforce all the code and safety violations that are going on. I believe it's imperative that firm action be taken to protect residents of York and that it be done regardless of the legal costs involved for the town, and that it be done immediately before these owners try to sell that property to an unsuspecting buyer for whom there is no documentation of any code violations at this point. I respectfully submit that the Select Board support citations being formally issued immediately on every one of the six code violations, that appropriate fines be levied on all of them, and that a stop work order be issued since all of their permits expired almost six months ago. That new permits be required for all remedial work that needs to be conducted, and that the Select Board support the town of York in defending all of these actions in court as needed. [1:49:50] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): Thank you. Thank you. So there is an item under old business, I, one, which is 57 Beach Ridge Road. I believe that's of which you speak. Yes. And the director of code enforcement is here to give a report to the board on that property. So I saw another hand up on this. Yes, sir. Hey. [1:50:14] Richard Ray, public commenter: Good evening everyone. Richard Ray again, your carbert. Just a couple brief comments here. So I carefully, as always, which I generally introduce myself, say that I do carefully listen to your first address to the audience here on how to present yourselves, and that any answers that cannot expeditiously be answered will be referred to the town manager. Now, I've been here a dozen times and heard dozens of citizens make comments, and I've yet to ever hear an answer from anyone other than what you just said 10 seconds ago to any comment that anyone's ever been said or presented here, whether it's, you know, short, easy answer or somewhat longer answer. It just seems to be people come up here and some of these people, not myself, have seemed to have prepared very extensive comments here. And there's like zero feedback. So it just goes in. I don't know where it goes. I don't know where it goes. So it again seems to me that, you know, it's people come in here to present their comments and there's there's there's just no action on it. [1:51:33] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): Okay, well, you don't know that. So most times I don't know that you're asking. I believe you're asking your question, you're assuming that there's no feedback given to people. So individuals come in with their maybe a personal concern they have for something, I think in town government, sure, that the town manager or his staff will respond back to those people individually. We're not sitting here broadcasting, you know, far and wide with that responses. Okay, if it requires that, then that happens. So I just I want to make it clear that there is feedback given to citizens that come to the podium. Okay, well, I have not witnessed it other [1:52:07] Richard Ray, public commenter: than as I said, just this particular time you said that the broad accusation. I just want to set the record straight. Sure. Okay, well, that's that's my point to see that there is some feedback for people taking their time to come down, or is it no, that was a comment, that was a comment. I do have a question. You know, I recently got in the mail about the new trash can and trash pickup situation that we're instituting here. So was that, was that like voted on with the general public, or how did that, can you mention how that came about? So there was a vote. I'm not going to have the [1:52:44] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): year correctly, the manager correct me there, but several years ago a new trash vendor was selected. It was voted on by the voters through budget referendum cost to provide the trash service. So to answer your question, short answer, yes, it was voted on. Okay. [1:52:57] Richard Ray, public commenter: So I don't know if you noticed walking in here, but I did. There's three brand-new cans out there with Casella, which I assume are part of this. [1:53:06] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): So I don't want to get into a debate with you. Those are cans that the library contracts with Casella for their waste management. Those are not the cans that are part of this contract. Okay. Okay. Well, thank you. [1:53:16] Richard Ray, public commenter: But they're all, of them have the lids open and overflowing and trash falling on the ground. So I specifically read the card that came in the mail that specifically prohibited, if the lid is not down, now we have a problem for whoever the resident is, and right out front here. Now, if it's a separate entity dealing with that, okay, fair enough, but I just thought I'd question that. That so I did see we were going to get some new cans here pretty in the next couple of weeks or so and so what so I have five cans now I don't use five cans regularly but I do have five wheelie cans all with the proper automatic lift style that can go right into the catchment of the truck. Two of them are the recycle, and I actually have like four or five of the standard trash cans. So that's probably $500 or $700 investment right there. You know, they're $100 apiece anyway. Where do those go? [1:54:30] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): We think it was discussed earlier in the manager's report, so if you have a question about that, you can follow up with the town manager. Okay. He'll provide an answer to you directly. [Richard Ray: Okay,, okay. Okay.] I try to keep our comments brief and to the point. Yeah,. So you saw that from other citizens that have done that. So if you just focus your question, try to manage the people. [1:54:51] Richard Ray, public commenter: Okay, can anyone comment on what seems to be an obsession with short-term rentals in this town? [1:54:57] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): There's actually a discussion about that this evening on our agenda. Maybe you should stay through the meeting. [1:55:02] Richard Ray, public commenter: You can hear that presentation. Okay,, perfect. Anyone else? [1:55:06] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): Citizens Forum? Yes, sir. Yep. Yep, you appear to be the last one. [1:55:29] James Kentis, public commenter: James Kentis, 280 York Street. It all starts with a tree, that tree. I simply cannot allow it to be sacrificed without committing fully to the continued survival with every amount of energy I can muster. I do not want to witness Mike Lee having to say his goodbyes. No, this town owes a great deal to Mike Lee for his contributions, his annual dedication to the town's Christmas observance, and so much more. He is most qualified to speak in defense of the tree, a honey locust. He remarked probably chosen for its ability to withstand harsh environments and its awesome fall foliage and beautiful crowns. As I mentioned over the previous two meetings of the board, my loyalty to the tree is equally strong because during two experiences of protest in 2018-2019 when I sought to oppose the move of the Historical Society Archives from York and most recently from the spring of 2025 opposed to the current administration, the tree has been there right with me the entire time. I cannot fail my friend in this time of urgent need, and while the tree is silent in this face of impending destruction, I will not be silent and will advocate for this as loudly as I ever advocated for anything. To all the environmentally minded in York, this is the time to mobilize, to turn out in overwhelming numbers, to let yourselves be recognized. To school students and parents, this is the time to contemplate how Christmas will seem forever into the future of the callous disregard of a town killing the tree within weeks of the holiday it has been associated with for such a long time. The town is better than this. The residents far too considerate and caring to sanction this reprehensible offense against nature. It is not bad enough the government treats the environment with contempt and abuse, must the town follow their most unwise, ignorant lead. Everyone within hearing, fight for the tree as if not only the tree's life depends upon the effort, as it does, but this town's character and integrity will be determined by the actions that are taken at this moment. To those who cannot grasp why the life of a single tree is important, I can readily cite what assumptions are made about ecology and environmental preservation. Just because the administration has repudiated genuine science should never serve as an inducement to emulate their stupidity. Save the tree. Ponder possible strategies for much better outcomes. Save the tree. Rise to the occasion. Save the tree and ponder over the many threats to this town's precious environment constantly posed by ever encroaching development and developers who routinely, I repeat routinely, fail to observe the rules, sit in a Conservation Commission meeting some Wednesday afternoon, and you'll quickly realize just what I mean. In my mind, after over six years of Commission meetings and much note-taking along the way, the tree, that tree, has become representative of every piece of ground, every vernal pool, every wetland, every clear caught forest, unscrupulous developers have recklessly exploited and ruined for profit. No more. This town's environment is far too precious for these abominable practices. Let me finally say to the town, if that tree is destroyed, the hunger strike I promised will become instantly more extreme. And I honestly do not care if my life is put at risk as a consequence. Did you hear that everyone? Words carefully spoken do not matter now, but actions most certainly do. Thank you. Thank you. [1:59:43] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): Any others and citizens forum? Do the watch the repeater? I think there was. [1:59:47] Speaker G (unidentified): Probably four now. Four if you take mics out. Yes. All right. All right. Jeanine beaten from York writes in as a senior citizen 65 who lives on a private road. The new trash policy is going to be a problem for me. I have at least one eighth to one quarter of a mile to get my trash to the main road, chases pond road. For the 26 years I've lived here, I bag it, usually one bag in my blue recycle bin, and drive it to the road at 6 55 a.m. on trash day. No problem. It works. Now I have to get two giant bins to the. Main road. They will not fit in my car. I've had two discussions with the town manager and filed an issue with public works. Casella has reviewed my road and refused any leniency because there are low wires and drainage ditches on both sides of my street. The solution offered was for me to purchase some sort of harness to drag my cans behind my car. Really? For the record, there are four homes on my private way, three of which are seniors. We don't generate that much trash. Why are they making this so. difficult for us i really feel the contract needs to be revisited for those of us who fall out of the majority that the system will work for work okay for what about us what about those who can't handle the bins i live in york because it is a premier town in maine i love my home the town and living here but this new policy could break me i feel i've exhausted the regular channels and i appeal to the select board as the ultimate authority in this town please help respectfully submitted janine Vian and I would just add for the any senior citizens who are having that problem, there is a disability process in place. So I would contact myself or public works directly if you actually are going to have trouble with the bins, because we've talked about that a couple times. I do have a handful of people we're working with, but the number is not huge, so probably about a dozen so far. Right, got one more online. Eric Goldberg from Cape Medic writes, good evening. The comment concerns the removal of the honey locust tree from the center of the village in preparation for the revitalization project. My desire to pause this project should not be seen as diminishing the hard work and passion of those on the revitalization committee who believe the village traffic pattern needs to change. Whether I agree with the overall project is separate from my concern about removing a healthy tree that has meant so much to our community for more than 30 years. The tree has been a symbol of our town center and a major part of our Christmas season and Festival of Lights. We have watched it change with the seasons and grow throughout its life. To remove it without first exploring whether it can be saved or transplanted seems incredibly disrespectful. To give us some time to explore alternatives, I've submitted an application to the State of Maine Forest Service for consideration as one of Maine's big trees. Jan Santerre, the project coordinator, is hoping to measure the tree tomorrow for the application. Whether it qualifies or not, I hope this effort will encourage us to pause and consider whether this important community landmark can be preserved. I would also respectfully request a new traffic study before the project begins. It has been approximately 10 years since the last study, and there have been significant changes in town, including the Short Sands Road connection from Route 1 to the beach. I respectfully ask the Select Board to consider preserving the tree and conducting an updated traffic study before moving forward. Thank you for considering my comments. Respectfully, Eric S. Goldberg. Judith Yando from York writes in, I read in the Weekly about the York Village makeover, and I was pleased that the non-native tree being removed for construction might be replaced with a native tree. As a member of a local garden club, we stress the importance of planting native species to help mitigate losses to beneficial insects and birds, which survive best surrounded with native plants and trees. When other Trees or plants are needed in York. Please consider native plants first. Thank you for your work. And generally Moquin from York writes in, good evening Select Board. Well, I would rather have said this to you all in person tonight. I'm unable to drive due to medical treatment, so I guess this email will have to do. I wanted to thank you individually and collectively for serving the town and its citizens in your role as Select Board members. Yes, I'm saying thank you, and I mean it wholeheartedly. I understand that I'm one of York's outspoken, often critical, and sometimes downright ornery citizens, but I truly love York and everything about it. I'm also cognizant of the incredible amount of work, time, and effort you individually and collectively put in for our town, and I'm terribly grateful for all that you do. Now, do I always agree with what you decide? Absolutely not, but that doesn't mean that I don't appreciate your commitment in an often underappreciated position. It's definitely deserving of a huge thank you. Generally will note I'm reading the back of her comment this time, which I missed before. For a brief time I considered running for a seat that you all currently hold. Don't worry, I've come to my senses and have decided against it, but I wanted you all to know how much it means to have dedicated, sensible, truth-seeking, and caring representatives who not only want the best for York but also the best for everyone who lives here too. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Generally PS don't let it get to your heads. [2:05:03] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): LOL would expect, right? I didn't see any others come in through our, through the [2:05:09] Speaker G (unidentified): portal. We, yeah, I don't, do we, so we had a hand in comment as well. Tom Euland had to leave. I distributed this to the board. I guess would you like me to read it? About, yeah, an item coming up. Okay, public comment statement submitted by Tom Ulin, 61 Beach Ridge Road, subject property 57 Beach Ridge Road, hearing date Monday, October 5th, 2026. Good evening board members of the Board of Select. My name is Tom Ulin and I reside at 61 Beach Ridge Road, parcel 0079-0010. My neighbors and I would like to voice our PROFOUND CONCERN AND REQUEST IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MUNICIPAL INTERVENTION REGARDING THE SEVERE COMPOUND ZONING SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL VIOLATIONS TAKING PLACE AT 57 BEACH RIDGE ROAD. WHAT BEGAN as a localized boundary issue has exposed an unprecedented pattern of illegal site alteration that directly threatens our neighborhood safety, violates our property rights, and compromises a protected ecological watershed. To be direct, an active town investigation has revealed that the current owners are in flagrant violation of multiple municipal and state ordinances. Illegal fence height and setback, obstruction of a historical common infrastructure corridor, emergency life safety hazards, severe environmental degradation, illegal commercial Airbnb operations. The current owners have shown absolute disdain for York's ordinance and their neighbors. In fact, when I went out on my property line this weekend to take the height measurements specifically requested by code enforcement, the owner approached me and threatened me with a harassment lawsuit simply for documenting these violations. We are dealing with an aggressive serial code violator who refuses to halt unauthorized construction even while under active investigation. We are incredibly grateful to Harry Norton and the code enforcement team for their thorough investigation. We urge the board to fully back code enforcement in issuing an immediate stop work and removal order, revoking their ADU occupancy permits, and executing maximum statutory penalties to restore our public safety corridor and protect our shared watershed. [2:07:13] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): And additionally, nothing else came through the portal while you're reading the last. Okay, citizens form, there's still the end of the meeting. So with that, we'll close citizens form, move on to the next item our agenda, which there is public, there's a public hearing noted on the agenda. There are no public hearings. Item H is endorsements. We do not have any endorsements this evening, which takes us to item I, which are two. The first is old business, 57 Beach Ridge Road notice of violation, director of phone enforcement, Harry Norton's here with some of his staff. Good [2:07:52] Harry Norton, Director of Code Enforcement: Evening, Mr. Chair and select board members. I'm Harry Norton, Director of Code Enforcement. I'm here with a request for action to assess a fine and write a second notice of violation at 57 Beach Ridge Road. I have provided you with the notice of violation, the request for action, and the write-up. I did come in earlier this year. I think it was July for this action item, and it was too early because my own notice of violation had stated September 30th was the day of compliance. That has since come and gone. And to bring everyone up to speed, there was tree removal along the river bank within the 100-foot mark of about five to 600 points, which a point is based on how big a tree is and the maximum points you can get for however big the tree is eight points. In the shoreland zoning, so these were bigger trees than just eight points, but we only have that metric of eight points, so that's the tree cutting. Guess there's significant fill which has killed additional trees, which I'm learning more about because they were fine until they weren't. As most Phil goes, they were occupying the pool that they have built without an occupancy permit, I mean a certificate of occupancy. They have, we're not even sure if the pool sits a hundred feet from the hat mark, the highest astronomical tide, and the surveyor I spoke with that provided a survey recently took a hundred foot setback to the wetland, which is not accurate on a ocean or, you know, resourced in the ocean or a river. It's the highest astronomical tide. It's not like a big pond, which would be just the upland edge. So he went by the upland edge. He's like, I thought I had to take it from there. I said, no, it's from the hat mark. And here's the verbiage from the ordinance. And I have not received a W a third survey because he knows that pool is in the setback. And once he does that, it'd be like 15 to 20, according to our GIS. [2:10:06] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): 15 to 20 feet in the setback? Yeah, feet. [2:10:07] Harry Norton, Director of Code Enforcement: Feet, so they have also, just to bring, I'm putting this all together at once, they have also put a together a application to the board of appeals for a variance that just happened this morning. They're entitled to do so. I just, it doesn't mean that they're going to get the variance for this, the hat mark, and a lot of people don't, because we're very specific about shoreline zoning. However, they do have the right, so you need to know that happened this morning. If I haven't mentioned the replanting plan, I have received it, has not been approved by the state. It was inadequate several times in a row for the past two or three weeks. They have since made it more robust, but again, I'm waiting on the state for their guidance, because this is the most amount of trees I've seen cut on a river bank in the town of York, so we needed some guidance. And as much as our ordinance is great, it doesn't specify like, okay, you took out, a thousand points how do you put it back it says some guidance it's not a great amount of guidance the erosion control was fixed as noted in the last time I was here Marla had mentioned that was one of the less violation on the overall violation list and she's correct so with this request for this request for action we do need to discuss moving on to the next the second violation if you guys would allow me to and have a violation fine of seventy eight thousand five hundred dollars that's a five violations hundred dollars a day for 157 days i'm going to leave that to you to decide if the variance and the paperwork waiting on the replanting plane is going to be adequate or if you just wanna postpone this to the next, whenever you would like, after the variance is heard, or if you'd just like to assess a fine now, there are violations on the property that were not addressed in the first notice of violation, and I would like to put into the second one, which is the ADU, because my attorney, Mary Costigan, had mentioned that we might wanna attack that [2:12:15] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): on a different. So Mary Costigan's the town attorney, just so people that are watching the record. [2:12:18] Harry Norton, Director of Code Enforcement: Sorry, not my attorney, the town of York attorney, had advised maybe that's a different notice of violation, but she said to work on this part because it's so big first. The other thing I would like to add to the abutters comments, we did authorize a fence around the property because it's supposed to either be around the property or around the pool. And they were allowed to go up to the lot line in the old ordinance where they pulled their permit if the fence was under eight feet. And currently the new code that I've corrected with the help of planning board says if you're gonna be a fee you need to be five foot off the lot line. We didn't inspect any of it so we don't know how tall the fence was. We have we were waiting for them to put the fence up and as one of the butters has measured it's over it's eight foot six in some areas and they had filled the land to lift up the to meet the fence gap that was at the bottom. So what they did was just shoot a straight line across the earth and just filled. So with that I hope I have covered everything. It's in your [2:13:29] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): balls in your court members have any questions Marla. Thank You Harry for the [2:13:34] Speaker H (unidentified): update. I just want to clarify the five violations that you're recommending we issue a fine and I'll be do those exclude the illegal use of the ad a the [2:13:49] Harry Norton, Director of Code Enforcement: The ADU? Yeah, it hasn't, because it wasn't cited in the first notice of violation. Okay. It was something we caught about in the June area and they had been brought up and that's when we also realized they had an ADU on the property. [2:14:00] Speaker H (unidentified): Okay, so that is a separate and additional matter that. [2:14:04] Harry Norton, Director of Code Enforcement: It's gonna be. Okay. Probably a completely separate matter. Thank you for clarifying. [2:14:07] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): Yep. Any other questions from members? Robert? [2:14:10] Speaker F (unidentified): Yeah, I mean, I think it's time to move forward on this. I mean, it's clearly been an issue in the neighborhood for a long, time. they had from, when did, so May 1st, is that? [2:14:24] Harry Norton, Director of Code Enforcement: May 1st, they technically have had a little over a year because, yes, I'll answer the question. [2:14:30] Speaker F (unidentified): So I mean, all the trees that they have cut down, they employed an arborist to come up with a plan? [2:14:37] Harry Norton, Director of Code Enforcement: Yes, and the arborist has really struggled, but I've been, we've been. [2:14:41] Speaker F (unidentified): But you don't have a plan from there. I have a plan. But it's not approved by the state. Correct. Yeah, so I, and it's okay that they went forward and ask for a variance but i mean they did that the last minute because they know you're going to be here tonight so i 'm ready to move forward anyone else or we're ready for motion mr chair [2:15:00] Speaker H (unidentified): i move to authorize code enforcement to issue a second notice of violation with a fine of 78 thousand five hundred dollars and if the fine should not be paid in 30 days the notice of violation be referred to the town attorney for prosecution in the courts via adk and that the town requests the court to institute a per-day fine as suggested by the select board. We have a motion by Marla. [2:15:22] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): Is there a second? Second. Motion by Marla, second by Robert. Any additional discussion? Marla, I'll call the vote. Robert? Yes. Marilyn? Yes. Marla? Yes. Marlene? Yes. Chair votes yes, five-zero. Thank you, Harry. [2:15:35] Harry Norton, Director of Code Enforcement: Thank you, Harry. And I'm gonna stay put because I'm the next thing. [2:15:38] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): So the next is old business two, short-term residential rental database presentation. [2:15:44] Greg McLashing, Assistant Code Enforcement Officer: Greg, let me start up here and then I'll do some things. Okay. [2:16:15] Speaker G (unidentified): We need an AB HDMI switch up here for future. Okay. Sure. Take it away. So we've got a team of town staff up here. We're going to walk through. I've got, I'll just introduce for those watching at home, could you raise your hands for those in the audience? I'm Peter Joseph, the town manager. Greg McGlashan assistant CEO Harry Norton our director of code enforcement Dylan Smith our director of planning and Brendan Somerville town planner so we're going to go through this so the board has asked for a couple months now well since the beginning of the summer so probably more like three months now once the rentalscape software is up and running to have a demonstration also talk about what it's being used for and some of what we've learned from it so greg is going to come up here this one slide is great but i'm going to swap i'm going to swap greg now i've got many more slides to go but i'm going to swap greg in here he's going to give you a live demonstration of a couple properties just so you can see what it looks like people can see what it looks like those at home this i think is going out right directly so here you go greg and I'll be right back in five minutes when you're ready to go hi [2:17:56] Greg McLashing, Assistant Code Enforcement Officer: all as Peter has introduced me I'm Greg McLashing I am assistant code enforcement officer for the town of York and we're gonna do a quick little demonstration of the software and get some feedback from you all during the process but you know give you an idea of what we have here so bear with me you still looking at this on a much bigger screen. So typically when you open Rentalscape it shows a map of the area. We'll zoom in on the map for a second here and you'll see there's a you know a bunch of dots happening. The orange dots you see are a live short-term rental without a fixed address. The blue ones are a live short-term rental with a fixed address, which at right now there are about 550, 250 of them. The number changes pretty much daily because as people pull them offline or online, that number, you know, will adjust. And then you will notice that there are a tremendous amount of gray dots. As I zoom out in the nubble area, the gray dots are all offline rentals, it's like the past. I think the windows about ten years, so anything that's been on Airbnb in the past 10 years, different owners most of the time by now, but that gives an idea. So when you're looking at this and you're seeing that there's 555 of the blue ones, you'll see that there are, you know, several thousand gray ones, and I think it's important to note that and understand when you're looking at it, that's what's there. So additionally, the software is a little, like you'll notice there are dots in the ocean. It's not entirely accurate. It is a little challenging at times, and from the role of code enforcement officer, at times we'll have someone say that they think there's a short-term rental, so I should say I deal with many complaints, and we'll have, oh, I think there's a complaint to this address, do you know if it's a short-term rental? This software's not entirely effective at doing that because the addresses generally are not fixed. While there are 550 live ones that are fixed, there are many that are not and just kind of floating. Okay, and so now moving on to what they call the dashboard, which I think is actually like the, gives a really great broad view of the status of short-term rentals in the community. And this sometimes takes a second to load. We'll see if it goes fast or not. Okay, this is great. This initial block right here is showing that right now, there are as of today there are five hundred and eleven short-term rentals that are identified and running. So far this year the short-term rentals have brought in over nineteen million dollars in revenue into their, you know, various like LLCs and whatever they happen to be. As we move across, this column is kind of useless because we would be pairing at this time. We don't have a mechanism to collect, you know, there's not a short-term rental registration for us, so there's no pairing for this. But as we move over to the left, this, for this column, this is active hosts, which you can think about as like a property manager or someone on Airbnb that has, you know, many properties under different LLCs, and we have that one host in particular has brought in over 900,000 in revenue for this past 12 months. Moving to the other side, we have active owners, and this is like Globe Fest, which you're all familiar with. They're a Canadian based, basically venture capital firm that purchases properties and short-term rents them. Here in York they've brought in just over 650,000 in revenue, and that's kind of like the rest of the little dashboard things are a little, they're not great for what we use because we don't have properties tied with this. We're looking over a very broad view, and this is just a, you know, the broadest sweep. If we had a short-term rental registration or something, this information would be far more useful to us, and yeah, so that's kind of what happens here, and you'll notice that in this online platform there is conflicting stuff. It's saying that 90 or 86 percent of rentals are through Airbnb and also 46 or through VRBO, and what that means is that certain properties are rented on both platforms at the same time because people are doubling down. So there are like nuances to this, and as you use it more you start to see them, and okay, from here we'll go back. Does anyone have any questions so [2:22:53] Speaker L (unidentified): so far, okay, is that private owners who will give their short-term rental to [2:23:05] Greg McLashing, Assistant Code Enforcement Officer: that group, or is that a no? They purchase properties specifically for short-term rental. They typically run them for a few seasons and then they sell them off to both gain the equity in the building but also to make the profit [2:23:19] Speaker L (unidentified): the short-term rentals there. I need to clarify. Yeah, okay, thank you. I get, I guess I should [2:23:27] Speaker J (unidentified): have brought this up before mr mcglashing started so i'll bring it up now at a citizens forum a few months back somebody wrote in about my relationship with a son and i had previously shared that he did live near a couple of the protagonists in the situation with the vote and I just want to be clear with my peers here on the board are you comfortable with me still sitting here and chiming in I have no financial interest in the property the probably the only thing I get out of it is to be able to sit on the porch and to see my grandchildren often. But I wanted to bring that forth since a citizen did bring it forth. So I will ask you folks if you're, if you're, or through the chair, if you're comfortable with me here as an elected select person. So you're declaring [2:24:33] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): through established policies and procedures in town that you have no conflict of interest with to the STRR discussions, whatever avenue they may go down. Correct. Okay, it's really important for the board to feel that 's a fair statement on Marianne's part and she's not conflicted or? I agree, I agree. [2:24:55] Speaker J (unidentified): Okay, thank you all, stay here. Thank you, Mr. McClashy. [2:24:58] Greg McLashing, Assistant Code Enforcement Officer: I appreciate your transparency. So I guess before we jump back to the map, I did wanna say that this snapshot does give an idea though, that I think a lot of times, like growing up, when I thought of short-term rentals is that they were mom and pop, you know, one person with one or two. But when you look at this, you can see that there are larger organizations that are, I think, a little different than what the, you know, typical person might imagine a short-term rental to be, you know, owned by when you have Globevest and other, you know, large corporations doing it. But okay, now we'll flip back to the map and I'm going to show you a couple of properties here and I've picked out two that are dated back far enough so they are irrelevant but there's no property owner information or anything like that associated with it because it's exchanged hands and they're no longer live and I just wanted to make that you know put that line in the sand that we're not looking at someone's active rental we can but this one I had stumbled across the other day and this is kind of what I would say for code is a prime like kind of conflict rental and okay it's not live just make sure so this house or cottage has two bedrooms and it's listed as sleeping 12. 12. When we go through the photos at the top, and I'm sorry if I click on it to make them larger, they kind of become a little combative, but this right here gives an idea of the sleeping quarters. When they say bedrooms, it's at least two bunk beds stacked in a room with another bed to the side, and then when we go a little further, there's, you can see that there are also two double beds in that same room by Matt looking at the comforter and understanding that, you know, what is a two bedroom is sleeping. Four or five beds, and where that is impactful overall for the community is that the, when we talk about wastewater, we're usually qualifying two people per bedroom. This building is thought to have had two bedrooms, so four occupants overnight long term, and this is being again advertised as 12. On top of that, we have the sleeping conditions in the attic area, which in no way meet code. There's a bunk beds blocking the egress, if you would call it that, so yeah, that is one example, and through this software you can see on average what they would be asking for a night. The information is old information because you can see down here that they have made no money all year, so that the listing is no longer live. And we have another, you have any questions about this before I jump back? Or is that? I'm sorry. Okay, I've just done something terrible. I know, I somehow split screen on this. Let's get it back. I didn't either. Wonders of Microsoft. So we're gonna look again at another rental that is offline but is, yeah, so this one is a bit of a tiny house, and at first it's, you know, kind of cute and quaint, and then we continue to roll through and you'll notice that the shower area is outdoors and that there is possibly an outhouse involved or some type of composting toilet. It's unclear. We have no permits on record for any of these structures on the property. [2:28:50] Speaker H (unidentified): Greg, can I ask a quick question, just to clarify? These are pictures from the rental listings? For example, these are Airbnb or VRBO pictures. [2:29:00] Greg McLashing, Assistant Code Enforcement Officer: Yeah, this is what you would see for this property before renting it. One of the great things that Decker does is it pulls all the photos. It is a little hard, because when you click on one to make it bigger, it downloads it, and then you have to find it, and that can be irritating. But I want to show you the sleeping space, which is a little crawl space above, and that's where you sleep at this property, which looks like it has a ceiling height of maybe three feet, maybe two feet above the mattress. And for code, it's about life safety, and that is where, when I'm using Deckard, this software, it's to confirm a complaint. We don't go around fishing because these are very easy to find, but I guess that's kind of the overall website. Do you have any other questions if you'd like to see any other properties or I can talk about other examples? I don't think so. Okay. [2:29:56] Speaker H (unidentified): Nice job, Gerd. Oh, I'm sorry. I have a question. Yeah. Does it tell you for a particular property the number of days or weeks that it's been rented, say, year to date or the last 12 months? [2:30:12] Greg McLashing, Assistant Code Enforcement Officer: Yes, it does. And I will say I didn't intentionally didn't want to show a particular property, but there is a property right now that we do have a violation with, and part of that violation was working with the individual to stop using the properties of short-term rental because that's directly what impacts the violation, and today we ran the numbers because it tells you exactly what the property is pulled in or what they've pulled through Airbnb, and that property is pulled in over $66,000 in the month and a half it's been under violation for things involving wastewater issues due to the short-term rental and so it's a kind of a game of if you can run out that like the two months and it's is it worth $66,000 and that 's what code is dealing with I guess [2:31:04] Speaker H (unidentified): Yeah, when you say the revenue that it's brought in, do you know where that data comes from? Is there, does it come from the rental platforms and their bookings, or I also saw that there's transient occupancy tax dollars associated for each property, and that's collected at the state level, and you could derive overall revenue from the amount [2:31:28] Greg McLashing, Assistant Code Enforcement Officer: the transient tax dollar one is kind of interesting because what decker does is they say if this Airbnb or VRBO or short-term rental is doing everything legally and correctly, that is the number that they say should be going to the state. Oh, so [2:31:44] Speaker H (unidentified): that's their calculation of an estimate of should, that's not data from the state. [2:31:48] Greg McLashing, Assistant Code Enforcement Officer: about what actually was collected no that is what they say at a minimum should be going to the state and the number that we get is pulled through airbnb it is or vrbo it's the number that the money that's passed through that particular rental the revenue number yeah is the actual property revenue number for that rental so it's [2:32:11] Speaker H (unidentified): not if it was fully booked, for example, at the rate that it's advertised, it's not an [2:32:18] Greg McLashing, Assistant Code Enforcement Officer: assumption. No, it is not an assumption, it's the actual true number, and you'll see, you know, that no one was there for a week, you can see what the bookings were. It's got a little, you know, colored square, so you can see it wasn't booked for eight days in a row, and then it was booked for three, and that three equated to fifteen hundred dollars or something of that nature, so the numbers are [2:32:39] Speaker H (unidentified): quite real, and then the transit occupancy is it taxes a calculation based on, yes, that information. Thanks for clarifying that. No problem. All [2:32:51] Speaker G (unidentified): right i'll introduce this slide i've got a couple items to handle dylan's going to talk about the bottom two-thirds of the slide from this point on we're going to talk about the number of 439 like it's gospel in terms of listed short-term rentals i just want to say where that number comes from it's a little different than your 479 or your 511 depending on how you list it was run about a month ago it also went through i'll get into to it went through deduplication we took out duplicates at the public, when the public safety ran it, when the police department ran it, pulled out a lot of duplicate listings, because it shows, I think what Greg was alluding to, is that the count is not firm. I would use this as a benchmark. I don't think anyone's going to be hanging their hats on we have exactly 439, but it is very good in terms of the scope. People have asked that question repeatedly, at least for two years, that been hearing, well, how many are there, is it, is it 900, is it 1100, is it 300? I think we're dancing around four to five hundred any given, any given time of active rentals, so I think that's a safe number, but I'm using 439 for the rest of this just for statistics. I think we can agree to that number for this evening, and that's a look back for 12 months on this software, and Dylan, do you, do you want to talk about how we compare that to overall town properties? [2:34:14] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, so, and again, yeah, the numbers do fluctuate. Looking at the numbers we saw tonight, 511, it is over 5% of our total dwelling unit housing stock in town. Getting up-to-date information from the assessor's office is certainly very helpful when we have 9,100 dwelling units in town. And you're looking up five to five plus percent of those dwelling units being dedicated as short-term residential rentals. So in regards from a planning perspective, it provides a snapshot really for us to really gather data on both total dwellings in town, but also we can look at the micro level scales of what those dwelling units mean within a given area. We can look at the base zoning districts, the growth area versus the non-growth area, you can home into residential neighborhoods, streets, the nubble, etc., and have that baseline data for a given time and show the rate of changes from say single family dwelling units to the change over to short-term rental units within a given area. So it provides us with that snapshot and a starting point to look at, and obviously with that comes some of the impacts that some of those neighborhoods or communities might be feeling, some of the calls that might be going into emergency services. We can link it with that in some of these, areas, but it really does provide us with that baseline data to begin and start with and evaluate as we, as we go down this line and into the future. So that's, That's really a good one and a helpful, interesting one to evaluate. [2:35:57] Speaker G (unidentified): I would just add that number might seem high, you know, dancing around 5% of total housing stock. We are a tourist community. We are a vacation community. You know, you've heard, oh, my gosh, what if a community goes to 10% or 15% of 20% of properties or short-term rentals? There were conversations about numbers lower than that in the Portland area, for example, about, oh, the peninsula might go to ten percent short. We're not there in this, you know, it's, it's a sizable number, five percent, but it's not, you know, this would let us watch that over time and you could actually see year to year is that number growing, is it staying the same. You know, there is a saturation and not every property is going to be, I think this shows that not every property is a short-term rental Like people, you know, might have been opining could happen something, so it's good, it's a good baseline, and I would just recommend using it as such. The code enforcement department, I think Greg alluded to this a little bit, how you can talk to it, maybe specifically we are using the software package for specific follow-up when there are specific complaints that code enforcement has gotten. I think that was talked about a couple months ago when we talked with the board here. Do you want to kind of comment on, like, I was just gonna [2:37:13] Harry Norton, Director of Code Enforcement: exactly say what you said. I was gonna say Greg kind of really did a great job covering it in his presentation. We are only using this as like a reference point to any complaints we have in the town, if we are anything related to like dwelling or safety concerns, specifically ADUs, because ADUs have a covenant with the registry of deeds that you're not supposed to use your EDU for short-term rentals. We've already implemented that a handful of times, but to Greg's point is it's got to be faster, it's got to be, we're behind the eight ball by the time we get dealing with this short-term rental [2:37:49] Speaker G (unidentified): situation, so what could be used for that, it's not being used for. I think we had some discussion about to what extent code enforcement wanted to use it, so we want it to be transparent with the board and the public what's going on. I think there were concerns that were raised when code was here before. One thing that may be helpful and may increase communication is being able, we haven't, I think, Harry, you said, we haven't used this yet. We've not used it. Because you haven't had a need to, but there is email and phone contact information in there for property managers or listing agents or property owners that may be different from what's on file. So Harry has that resource, source if he's having trouble or public safety is having trouble getting in touch with the property owner. We're not currently using but could in the future use data like this program to generate leads for investigating illegal units, unpermitted work, bedroom counts, some of the examples of what Greg showed, some others. Another big one is flood, floodplain compliance and NFIP compliance. So construction within flood zones, these are things that if that, if we dedicated a person to comb through 1500 Listings compared before and after, that's the type of data that could come out of it. We are not currently doing that, although code had some suggestions and tonight may not be the time to talk about them in depth, but I think they want to keep up for future discussion whether the board we talked about this on and off throughout kind of our short term rental. Debate a year or two ago about whether the voluntary registration would be beneficial, and so do you want to touch on that briefly if that's well it's you. [2:39:31] Harry Norton, Director of Code Enforcement: Know I hand it over to Greg because Greg it was actually his idea and it's a good idea, I just want to give him credit too, so yes when you speak to it so it seems. [2:39:40] Greg McLashing, Assistant Code Enforcement Officer: That one of the big gaps that this software allows for us to fill is contact information, it's really easy for us to look at Airbnb or to kind of try to figure out what properties are being short-term rented or I should say it's not really easy, it's quite challenging, but this software aggregates all that information for us, and so in the future if we did want to if you know select board did want to move forward with setting up a you know non-mandatory very much self registering short-term rental. Database that we could then help people get in compliance, you know what's like the way that code can help the best, this software gives us the ability to reach out to those people instead of us having to comb through and try to identify individual rentals, this has all that information for us and will let us move forward in that if you all wanted us to move in that direction we would you know be able to document things more clearly and organize the information much better, and I think streamlining. Any process that involves a complaint or an issue that are you know renter might have, we experienced quite a few of those over the summer and it's really challenging when you have someone that's upset and you have no way of contacting, you know it's emailing airbnb or vrbo and waiting to hear back a week or two later, so I guess the biggest benefit. [2:40:59] Speaker G (unidentified): Of this is the availability of information to answer the question of why would I ever want to do that. There are some potential upsides for homeowners, we talked a little bit about it, property owners I should say, or second homeowners or vacation homeowners. So we talked a little bit about it, we don't have specific short-term rental ordinances in place, I think we all know that, but we do have zoning restrictions that apply and zoning regulations that apply to short-term rentals. The ADU question is one of them also documenting for future changes. If there's change in state law that requires a look back, that would, you know, not require somebody to go back and pull 10 years of their tax records if 10 years from now there's a relevant change to law or ordinance or something like that. So just things to consider, I'm not saying it's necessary, it's something that's been raised a couple times. So sure, so [2:41:57] Greg McLashing, Assistant Code Enforcement Officer: to I guess elaborate further on what Peter had just said and to clarify it, this is an internal conversation that we've all had in code and with the town manager, is that having people self register would give us the ability to demonstrate use, and so if there was anything changed to the ordinance that was used based, we would have a history of that and that would be very helpful to individuals who are running short-term rentals because it would be, could potentially be quite challenging to prove that you are, but if you've already registered then the use base would be identified basically [2:42:31] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): It's basically grandfathering a use in the order, yeah. Yeah, [2:42:36] James Kentis, public commenter: yep, okay. [2:42:37] Speaker H (unidentified): I'm curious about a comment you made about complaints from renters. Are there renters who are coming? Oh, yeah. To the town to complain about building situations and are they not going through the platform or the property manager that manages the property? [2:42:56] Greg McLashing, Assistant Code Enforcement Officer: See, you kind of have two versions of that and the short answer is yes, but I would say the, I have two quick examples. One was that a woman had rented a property in the early spring and I think it was May, April timeline, and the water hadn't been correctly turned on for the place, and so when she was there and she ran the tub somehow it blew a water line in the basement, it flooded the whole basement of the property, and the property owner was out of state and basically said call the fire department And call a plumber and we'll figure it out. And this woman, I think, was 73, and because I just remember thinking about, like, how crazy that must feel. And, you know, as code, we're just, well, that's really terrible. We don't have a short-term rental. Didn't he tell her to go down there and look at it? The guy, the homeowner, asked her if she could shut off the main water supply, which felt beyond absurd, and then asked if she could install an air conditioning unit as well. But that was, yeah. And then the next one I would say, and playing devil's advocate a little bit, is that outside your scope? Oh, it's way beyond our scope. That is. And you've had two of these. Well, these are two notable ones. I've had countless. But the other one, what is, I would say, more serious, or not more serious, but more in line with what code does, is we had someone that had stayed in a rental where the balusters were all broken on the porch in one section, and it was a six-foot drop, and they had contacted code to see if we could go out and shut the rental down because they knew it didn't meet the code requirements for a handrail, and there was also a stair issue on the backside of the structure. But that was the, you know, long conversation with the individual, and the individual want to know why we couldn't put a violation or something against the property. They were someone that appeared to be well versed in what we do, you know, maybe someone that works in a safety profession or something, but someone that knew the language that should trigger, you know, some type of ramification. So [2:45:01] Speaker L (unidentified): yeah, we just follow up. Marilyn has a question. So a couple of things, thank you guys so much for this. You know, I was surprised that it wasn't a lot more short-term rentals that you found, so I was happy about that, to see that not everyone is jumping on the short-term rental bandwagon and renting out their place. But I think it also helps set precedence in how we handle short-term rentals and at some point working towards possibly coming up with some sort of ordinance on how we manage short-term rentals, because we see that there is a need for it, people are using it, and, you know, it's not a we're going to penalize you for having a short-term rental, but just wanting to make sure that the town has a base of what is happening in the town. So thank you so much for [2:45:53] Speaker G (unidentified): For this and see where we go from there. Yeah, so what a lot of people are probably interested in this is I've gotten the most questions, when are we going to have this information, public safety review of short-term rentals. So it gonna just say everything I'm gonna say is be very cautious, but I'll explain why. So the PD staff sorted a 12-month look back with calls for service by property address. So they dumped 12 months of calls for service from our dispatching software, cross-referenced it using nothing but Excel, took about an hour, a couple hours maybe, by property address. So that's why I'm running with the 439 short-term rental address, because those are confirmed property addresses that came out of the Deckard software. So what we're looking at, there were 31,000 in 82 calls for service from fire, police, ambulance, DPW, utilities, other partners, town wide. So and why I'm saying we're using, we're using caution before running statistics or running around with numbers on this, those include calls for service that aren't tied to a specific location. So for example, 91, 95 north, mile 17, mile 3, mile 8, whenever they even when they go out of town, most calls for service are logged to an address for motor vehicles. Calls for service tied to an address have nothing to do with the use going on the property. We can sort those out and I can, I can show you an example of it, but just because there's high calls for service, I want to emphasize, does not mean there's something going on at the short-term rental if it's located at that address. However, that would be a not to exceed, like it could not be higher than that number, because every call having to do with that property is logged, and then any call that is immediately adjacent to that property is also getting logged on that property. I'll explain why that's important in a minute, but of those calls when they're crossed to properties, ONLY 375 CALLS FOR SERVICE ARE TIED TO SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROPERTIES. SO IF WE'RE RUNNING 429, THAT'S LESS THAN ONE CALL PER PROPERTY PER YEAR. AND I THINK THAT 'S SIGNIFICANT AND IT STRATIFIES, I'LL SHOW YOU HOW IT STRATIFIES PRETTY SIGNIFICANTLY. [2:48:13] Speaker H (unidentified): IS IT ALSO. YEAH. IS THIS CALCULATION ALSO CORRECT THAT 375 CALLS, WHICH REPRESENT CALLS TIED TO AN STR ADDRESS, WHICH COULD NOT BE related to it, so probably inflated. Correct. Of 31,000 total calls, means that 1.2% of all calls of service are tied to an STR. So 5% of our housing stock, 1.2% or less of calls for service. [2:48:44] Speaker G (unidentified): Correct. I think you'll see that with most residential properties, and you'll have a lot of calls for service that are clustered at non-residential addresses like the beach or, you know, Hannaford or Meadowbrook, for example, but also if somebody is stopped [2:48:59] Speaker H (unidentified): for speeding in front of your house, that house gets tagged. I'll walk through. [2:49:05] Speaker G (unidentified): There's a lot of vehicle stops, yeah, that'll be discounted. So the 375 numbers and not to exceed number, meaning that we know that not more than 375 calls went into our 31,000 with that address is the response address, so that is a worst-case scenario if every single motor vehicle stop was someone speeding to get into their short-term rental as fast as they could and they got pulled over right in front of it. I'm being sarcastic. We know that's not the case and just how this happened. So the, this is an export from Deckard software. You can't probably see it very well, but I'll read down with my little glasses on here. This is just sorted by property ID, so the three columns error cross references the top six or seven or zero, and then there's one call for service which is an open line 911, and then zero, and then three motor vehicles stopped, gas leak or odor, and abandoned 911 call. So for example, two of those were tied directly to the property, one is not, then a whole bunch of zeros, and then a citizen assistant, abandoned 911 call. This is what it looks like going down through as you list through 400, you know, 18, 20 pages of this, they're scattered throughout. It's consistent with, so this is what I just said, that it's, it's consistent with this distribution right here. So 281 of the 429 properties had no calls for service for the past 12 months. 95 had one, 25 had two, 20 had three. So your three calls for service or less, you are the vast majority of short-term rental properties in town, and this all adds up to 439. So this is our 375, 439 properties. Yeah, sorry, 375 calls distributed across 439 properties, correct. And then you get into four or five, you know, that's if your neighbor had four calls for service in 12 months for medical or, you know, disturbance every once in a while, that probably wouldn't be out of line. That might be like, oh, the cops are at their house a lot. And so we had literally, if you look at 10 or more, there were six properties that had them, and four of those were Easily explainable because they shared addresses. I mean, I'll just throw it out there. One was above the Sand Dollar, and there were noise complaints, and it's a lot of those had to do with both the short-term rental owner calling the police because the bar was bumping, probably at one in the morning, right, or at midnight. The complaints went both ways, and these are over 12 months, correct? One of the properties was behind the Long Sands General Store, and it was properties tied to that, complaints tied to that address because it was a high-foot traffic area. Nothing that gave me any concern. [2:51:43] Speaker H (unidentified): Coming from that address, not necessarily about that address. [2:51:46] Speaker G (unidentified): I saw two, maybe three, that had a lot of the entire batch of short-term rentals that were like, whoa, that's, and I won't mention the specific addresses, but I did talk about it with public safety. I'm like, whoa, why are there 18, 20 calls for service from that one property? Oh, when you drill into the actual call list, for one week, there was a domestic disturbance that happened there and there was paper service and assault and domestic calls. It was one weekend that had like 10 of those, 12 of those 18 calls from, I don't know if it was a long-term renter. I don't care. I don't know if it was a short-term renter. It was one weekend. And there were not a lot of calls at that location at other times. And there were a few other ones that were high, you know, for, that could be tied to specific things. And on the property, not because of short-term rentals, so the number that are a high number that are actually concerning are very low. So that's what I want to leave this conversation with. Where are there some in the four or five, three, two, you know, category that may be our nuisance from time to time? We get noise complaints or, you know, other nuisance complaints, sure, but they're not. The ones that we saw that had 18 calls or 20 calls were not 18 or 20 nuisance calls. They were something specifically tied to that property, a health condition of a long-term renter, a criminal matter that was tied to a long-term renter, not necessarily to short-term rental activity, things like that. So that's kind of where I want to leave the calls for service. I don't think it is definitive. I don't think that it proves that there is any drastic issue out there. I think it's a very good indicator kind of that the majority of the properties from this data set fall into, there's the pie chart. So if you start at the, I'll translate it for people whose eyes don't work, the six or more of those 1%, 1%, 2% at the top. So take you know five and less is the four percent down to the 61 going this way. So the vast majority are one call over a 12-month period or no calls over a 12-month, maybe two. And also the ones with higher calls for service generally tended to cluster in the beach area, so Main Street, Freeman Street, on the Nubble, kind of on Long Sands Beach areas where there is a lot of activity going on and people aren't necessarily expecting in the middle of the summer for it to be a great place to sleep in. Until you know two o'clock in the afternoon where there's a lot of activity and people coming here because it's an outdoor environment. So you know there were a few other ones mixed in throughout the data set so. [2:54:29] Speaker H (unidentified): Thank you for this is really good stuff and good starting. [2:54:37] Speaker F (unidentified): Yeah so the slide on the potential use of the data when you talk about how you could use the data and I think a lot of I guess what is always concerned me is you know safety and then compliance of regulations and you aren't doing that proactively right now looking at that whatever the 400 to 500. Hundred so is that something you'd like to do, is it just a limitation of resources, if that's it what would what would what's required, what resources would you need to be looking to see? I mean you gave a couple of examples of ones that currently aren't rented but if they were rented those would be. [2:55:25] Greg McLashing, Assistant Code Enforcement Officer: Concerning they would be, I think there's kind of there are a couple of limiting factors here, one is time and resources, I would say that's the biggest one. You know going it doesn't make sense on our end to scroll through this and kind of try to identify which properties have the issues, but what that is great for is if someone were to call in like the gentleman who had the broken handrail, that then I can look and figure out what the rental is and check the rest of it out with those photos to then. Have the conversation when I approach the owner, but as far as going through and trying to you know figure out what's happening rental by rental, that is a tremendous amount of work and the amount of is it. [2:56:08] Speaker F (unidentified): That it can't be done or is it just it would take a lot of work, I think it's a. [2:56:13] Greg McLashing, Assistant Code Enforcement Officer: combination of both like it anything can be done with time and money you know it that 's but realistically if we're talking about let's say of the 439 the number that we're using currently let's say 200 had some bit of violation i imagine that's going to be what maybe six to ten hours per you know unit when it comes to phone calls email setting up everything and then resolution and that's if it goes well and so what you prefer [2:56:44] Speaker F (unidentified): to do is to have some sort of voluntary registration where people could do that, register, and then actually seek help if there's some sort of issue they might have, so that you could work collaboratively with them to make that [2:57:00] Greg McLashing, Assistant Code Enforcement Officer: work. Ideally, yeah, that, I mean, we don't want to, we don't hunt, we don't want to do anything of that nature. I would love for someone to approach me. I mean, we get it all the time with decks. People call and they say, we're redoing a deck, is there a way that the handrail can be better? Yeah, there's a ton of them. I would love to have that conversation with the short-term rental owner and improve the safety and the quality of it. And then maybe also at the same time say, well, you know, it says it's sleep six. Realistically, that's a strain on our resources. Like if that's gonna be a conversation, then maybe with the water district or the SOAR. But yeah, to start, I would just safety first, that would be a great entry. [2:57:38] Harry Norton, Director of Code Enforcement: Yeah, I'd like to step on that, or step on that, jump on that bandwagon there and say, we do need some sort of standard, for example, on egress in our IRC, for example, if you do a window right now in a bedroom, the code is the biggest window that can be manufactured by the manufacturer, which is fine, but when you were talking about sleeping so many people in there, maybe we talk about, okay, we're gonna have six people in a room, maybe it has to go to the three foot by five foot window. That's where you guys could be more strict, or we could be as a, as a unit, certain stairway things, for example, on older homes need some sort of exception, you know, there has to be a discussion on that level, because older buildings are gonna have different rules than newer buildings, and existing structures, they're gonna have different rules and new structures. I just wanted [2:58:29] Speaker E (unidentified): To add that in there, yeah, I think this is where planning might differ a little bit with our code compatriots downstairs. I think, I think we have to be very careful and just letting people register their short-term rentals. There are codes on the book. There is a use permit requirement in the zoning ordinance right now for whatever use you do for your property, single family, two family dwelling. We have a big state law that you guys, we just talked about earlier with allowing for greater density. Do you want that to be short-term rentals? That's not the intent of the state law, and you're going to see something from planning board to make sure that this housing is for longer term rentals. I think currently there is some things where if you just allow people to register that use when you have multiple different uses on a property, it's in current violation of the zoning code, and I think we have to be very careful and cognizant of that. This, and Craig did a really good job in showing, it shows that there are properties out there with multiple principal uses on a property, which is in current violation of codes. There are use permits that they are required to get for each use they have for a property currently, and before that was well established before short-term rentals ever came, ever came to be. So I just want to just congress and caution if you're just going to let here you go register your uses, you could get ADUs, you could get multiple principal building uses on a property that don't fit the codes. So just be cautious in that approach. I agree, and it should be a commercial use. [3:00:03] Speaker F (unidentified): I agree, it's currently a residential. You don't think we should go through this list and identify? [3:00:09] Speaker E (unidentified): I think right now, and the code mentioned it, ADUs have had the requirement of transient occupancy not being permitted on these properties, period. So the code office has that, but they have to act only to a complaint that comes in as it relates to that, and then they can act and use that software to say, hey, you're in violation, you've been in violation, it shouldn't be used for transient occupancy, and go through the process of NOV with you guys. I think where I come with the, come at it, I look at it the Zoning ordinance always had a use permit policy within article four. You see it now, you saw it then, it's always been in place. You do a look back to when we put the definition of short-term residential rental, which is 2016, with a parking requirement, and then in 2023 roughly we tried to do that more thorough, put it in the use tables and whatnot. Where it got into the use tables, the regulation went down, but it got into the use tables, but that doesn't mean that everybody's just all of a sudden grandfathered. I think there has to be some sort of evaluation on that process, and I think code would work with planning and the town attorney and you guys to understand what that process might be. I just want to proceed with caution. If you just let everybody register the use, are they establishing these legal uses for their properties where by code and by zoning ordinance in my opinion there are establishment use priorities and use permits that are required right now for the code office to issue those for any use, not only short-term rentals, commercial, industrial, any type of use, residential, that has been established by law far before the short-term rentals ever came up. Anyone [3:01:52] Speaker I (unidentified): else? Well, do you have [3:01:55] Speaker H (unidentified): a sense that there are a lot of properties that are sort of hybrid? I was thinking about this as Dylan was speaking. They're, they're occupied or not occupied during most of the year, and then maybe for a month or two they're rented, either for that month or two or for a week at a time. There could be just a lot of different combinations of use, and at what point do you call something an STR, right? I think that ordinance that was considered a few years ago had more than 30 days in any 12 month period or something like that. So it's complicated, it's nuanced. [3:02:34] Speaker I (unidentified): I guess that's what I'm asking. [3:02:36] Speaker E (unidentified): I'm sorry, code can correct me if I'm wrong. I'm gonna try to answer your question. So there is a definition and a use. And it's a definition, the use is already in the permitted use tables under the residential district, residential uses. So the use is defined of less than 30 days in a calendar years qualifies as a short-term rental. So if I as a single family building wants to want to do short-term rental [3:03:02] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): period. If I meet that definition, you know, you just hope people in the audience. Could you please not be talking during presentation? Thank you [3:03:11] Speaker E (unidentified): So if I meet that definition of use for my property, then I'm also, you know, the single family building that I might have in the building permit file for my primary use is also a short-term residential use, of which case I, as the property owner, should probably go get a permit for that short-term residential rental use. It's a permitted use. There is a parking standard. You got to show that or whatnot, but, and there's, there's a use permit requirement in Article 4 that says it has to go through the code office for that review. So if you do that, if you fit in that definition of under 30 days for transient occupancy rental, then you are short-term rental and you could be single family, you could be both. Yeah, we're kind [3:03:57] Harry Norton, Director of Code Enforcement: of taking that approach on the greenway district, for example. It's a register, it's under the greenway district, the short-term rental is listed as a commercial use, which is what it should be, and on a commercial use we get a use permit. We've been doing that non-stop since I got here. Anything to do with the non-residential gets a use permit, and when it got adopted as a residential use, that's when I spoke with our town attorney and it's like, hi, it just got adopted by our, the voters as a residential use. What is my approach here? And to Dylan's point before me, there was no short-term rental like use listed, it was just a definition with a parking standard and it wasn't enforced. So when I took over it still was continuing on for consistency purposes, and the direction would be super helpful if we're gonna go [3:04:48] Speaker L (unidentified): regulate short-term rentals. I was just gonna say, once you know short-term rentals exist and there's a definition to them, you're going to need to regulate how you look at them and what you're doing. So I think that's going to be something that the town needs to definitely start working on, not as for penalizing anyone, but just for having laws and standards by which the town needs to function. I [3:05:23] Greg McLashing, Assistant Code Enforcement Officer: just wanted to about the idea of being grandfathered and to kind of go off what Dylan was saying, a self registration wouldn't make a property that is in violation legal. It would, you know, like if someone was doing something egregious or renting out an ADU, it would be a, they most people don't know they're doing a violation. That is one of the things I've learned in this role is that people are very unaware of what they're actually doing, and I think there would be a lot more of those conversations so yeah, so he's got a [3:05:56] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): Couple maybe a statement, a couple questions, but so Greg, you mentioned the number you have received. I've seen many complaints, inquiries from people that were in short-term rentals throughout the summer. What's the order magnitude of that? How many would you say that was? [3:06:11] Greg McLashing, Assistant Code Enforcement Officer: Well, transparency, I should have done a better job. [3:06:13] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): You can define what the call is. [3:06:14] Greg McLashing, Assistant Code Enforcement Officer: I should have done a better job at keeping track of them, but they most often fall under the complaint that we can't service. And so there's only less than 10 that I can follow up with, I would say, that are of the nature of we have, you know, like someone that thinks the septic has failed or there's something of that is a code addressable thing. Most of the time when I receive those phone calls or I, you know, have an email or something, it is well, we're not the correct, you know, way to take this. Please go through Airbnb, VRBO, and we try to, you know, give them that path forward. And also I admittedly will try to give them instruction as to you may want to include these things that happened while you were there, you know, the language to use to describe the problem, because most times if someone is frustrated, they're more frustrated with the position they're put in on vacation than the actual problem, you know. So would you [3:07:11] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): recommend that? Would you recommend to go forward with the software next year, continue a subscription [3:07:16] Greg McLashing, Assistant Code Enforcement Officer: to? Well, that sort of software, that's something that we've talked about, and it's one of those if we were to use the software to move forward and reaching out to owners and using it as a way of communication and identification, that's great. If we were to kind of sit on it as we are now, while it is helpful, it's not, you know, the bulk of complaints and problems that we deal with that, you know, where the software works well is it's quite little, you know, compared to I went to three complaints today about things that are very, you know, real, and they're year-round residents, whereas like the use for this isn't, it's not great if we use it in the way we're using it now, but if we used it to gather communication information and, you know, have a bigger picture, it also, I would say, might be helpful for us to see a few years of this information to really understand what the data is saying. Well, I agree with some of my colleagues' statements earlier [3:08:12] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): That they think the we heard from the Tom planner director of planning yeah there's current code on the books that people should be pulling permits for the businesses that they're running out of their properties. That this software a software like this can be used to help to reach out to those renters or people that on this property saying look at you're in violation and here's a here's why I mean this is the code come in and get in compliance. I think that's an important tool I mean that's where I was going with this from you know from the beginning you are [3:08:47] Greg McLashing, Assistant Code Enforcement Officer: Absolutely correct with that and just on code's end not to say it wouldn't be a it would be quite a task to go through and contact all those people and honestly it feels that the window on that is we're not closing but if we were to try to contact renters we would want to do it off season you know we would want to do it and that also provides us with work that we can do through the winter when it's a bit slower and the spring as far as going and doing checkups and things of that nature if we Were doing that with people like this is the kind of time for us to be most effective yeah [3:09:23] Speaker E (unidentified): The software company can reach out to the property owner yeah I think it's a good tool I mean it's [3:09:29] Speaker G (unidentified): Certainly Mr Chair great information just want to weigh in on the question are we moving forward with the software the purpose at least for the initial subscription here was for data collection answering some questions I don't think we've definitively answered those questions but I think we've got some pretty good pretty good baseline indicators with you know what I'm showing here and kind of what we can develop over the next couple months I probably I mean it was between ten and fifteen Thousand a year I probably would not recommend that being included in the budget unless there is an extended reason to use it as a subscription to be clear all of the soft all of the data collection services run as subscriptions they want you to continue to subscribe and give them money so they're not just gonna it's not a consultant who will give you a fifteen thousand dollar here you go here's your snapshot of time they want you to pay them fifteen thousand dollars every year so unless there's really a compelling use for that year over year beyond year one or year two i don't know if i don't know if that would be good use of money or not i guess the question is there anything between now and budget season that you know we can identify that we want to continue to use it for over the next year or do we just want to keep it for a year or two to develop some baseline trends but that's the that's what let's go for the problem look for that recommendation from 10 to 15 000 you know Is it a good spend or not? What I've learned tonight seems like it's I think we've got the initial value out of it. I don't know if we get another 10 15,000 worth out of it next year or the year after if we're not, you know, rubber? [3:11:03] Speaker F (unidentified): Yeah, I mean, I guess I'd say, I mean, we're just getting the data now, this board is. I mean, we're learning. I mean, so I guess I wouldn't shut it down when we've just learned what we've learned tonight. We don't really have time to go through and think about what we'd like for next steps. I mean, I guess the flip side is, you know, 10 to 15,000 doesn't sound like an awful lot of money for something that has been an issue, so I guess I would vote to keep it going for a little bit longer to see what the trends are and how we might want to use the data, and maybe we do want it to capture information on the rental owners because that would be helpful to have so that [3:11:48] Speaker L (unidentified): we have good lines of communication. How long have we had the platform now? How much more time do we have? One in a couple months. So we have enough time to collect more data up to the year that you have it, so I think if everyone's interested in that getting more data until the beginning of next [3:12:11] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): summer we'll have access to it. 's just you know for the record to state again the funding source for this subscription, building permit fees, right, so it's not tax revenue, fees, correct, it's building permit use fees that was funded [3:12:26] Speaker G (unidentified): through the code department. I'm just looking at it like there's no free money, building permit fees. [3:12:30] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): We talked earlier, we just like to disclose where the funds come from. [3:12:34] Speaker G (unidentified): These guys want to use that money for other things too sometimes. Yep, I don't think that's a decision that, sorry, I shouldn't imply that needs to be made. I kind of did, didn't I, that we need to make that decision by December. Sorry, Robert, now I understand why you're reacting that way. It's a longer term decision, yeah. Yeah. [3:12:53] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): But I have to say, it was said earlier by some members that thank you for this, the collaboration between the departments. I don't think we rarely sort of see that where you have the planning department in code together looking at issues. [3:13:04] Harry Norton, Director of Code Enforcement: Let's add the police. Right, and the police and EMS and fire. [3:13:09] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): So thank you for that. [3:13:10] Speaker L (unidentified): I like the flannels right beside each other. [3:13:13] Speaker G (unidentified): And to be clear, to end the discussion before I step down, there was some discussion about it, but town staff is not currently developing short-term rental ordinances and has no future plans to do so until some day way in the future when the board or the town as a whole directs us to do so I [3:13:29] Speaker E (unidentified): think that there were there may be some concern about that when this hits the LD1829 might have some short term rental language in there so we should work on that first definitely [3:13:47] Speaker G (unidentified): I guess I got to go talk to Dillano in the hallway here so which takes us to [3:13:59] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): new business j1 which we do not have any new business on the board and committee action this evening future agendas village tree DISCUSSION. [3:14:20] Speaker G (unidentified): WHAT'S OUR TIME FRAME ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR THE TREE DISCUSSION? [3:14:26] Peggy Gregory, public commenter: I DON'T KNOW WHEN THE TREE WAS SCHEDULED FOR. [3:14:29] Speaker L (unidentified): SO WE NEED TO GET SOME INFORMATION ON THAT. [3:14:33] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): YOU HAVE A PROJECT MANAGER [3:14:35] Speaker L (unidentified): FOR THE PROGRAM, RIGHT? [3:14:37] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): THERE WERE STUDIES DONE BACK 10, 11 YEARS AGO PROBABLY. THERE WERE EXTENSIVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THAT. there were sketch plans done there are design plans done final plans are done i'm sure there was a discussion about the tree sort of what's that history i don't i can go back and mine and look for myself but it's in town hall somebody's in charge of that project should be able to pull [3:15:02] Speaker H (unidentified): all that information forward so that your question well i think is when is the tree scheduled to be [3:15:08] Speaker G (unidentified): there is a no cut until november 1st for bats specifically for that tree or any trees in the project it's scheduled for shortly after that which is why the question was raised by mr kansas i think brought it up that november 2nd or november 3rd or somewhere in that range was the target and i think that's accurate with the contractors on the project so next meeting [3:15:32] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): any other items other business citizens forum number two all right i'm gonna start on this side first you're first forgive [3:15:53] David Brinkman, public commenter: Me for being here so often. I'm, you enjoy having you. I'm David Brinkman from York Beach, and I'm so glad that I'm a curious person because it lets me look at something new every day. And about the automated trash collection, three more things have come to mind. One is, when somebody puts an ADU on their house, how do they go about getting trash cans for that? Do they go to the Parks and Rec? Do they go to, as long as they have a street address [3:16:38] Speaker G (unidentified): So as long as it gets in the assessing record. Yeah, it's a good question. Good question. [3:16:43] David Brinkman, public commenter: Next question. Who owns the trash cans once they're delivered to you? Do they belong to the homeowner? Do they belong to the trash people? Do they belong to the town? Because somebody might wanna move and take the trash cans with them. If it's not clear who owns the trash cans, yeah, property of Casella, they stay with the house or the, or so I should say the residential unit. Yeah, and another, the last question is thinking about the little old lady that lives near Chase's Pond Road that puts her little bag out and now she has to worry about a big trash wheelie. Is it okay for someone to put a little bag of theirs in somebody else's trash can? We did talk about that prior to the report. Yes, they can do that as long as it's not overflow. It's not clear whether it is, there's a law against it or whether there is just something, maybe a personal preference, but if you don't do something to make it either okay or not okay, somebody's going to do it, and either somebody's gonna not like it or somebody is going to like it, but now's the time to be doing something about it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Yes, so [3:18:22] Richard Ray, public commenter: just based on your name for the record, Richard Rader, just based on the last conversation on the STR, I just had a couple of quick, questions. So when the one fellow was saying a service call, 31,000 service calls. So do you know, like the definition of a service call? Is that just somebody answering the phone or is that actually sending a fire truck or somebody's having a heart attack? I mean, there could be a lot of leeway with 31,000 calls. I call the police department maybe once a year. So is that a service call? [3:18:57] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): Did he call it the 911 as a service call? [3:19:01] Richard Ray, public commenter: No, not 911. Just the police department. A general call. What's the general call? What's the state of the call? Okay. So I'm driving by my car. I got a couple of kids, kindergartners, and there's some bozo on the corner with a huge sign-up that says Trump is a pedophile. And I'm like, says who? [3:19:20] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): Who? So if you made that call through the PD, that's probably a service call. [3:19:24] Speaker G (unidentified): If it gets into dispatch, so if you get connected to dispatch, it gets logged into the computer system as a call for service. But I'm just calling [3:19:32] Richard Ray, public commenter: the 363 number. It's not a 9-1-1. [3:19:35] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): A call like that, they'll switch over to 9-1-1. [3:19:37] Richard Ray, public commenter: So that pings like your short-term rental unit because you called up to... No, yeah. [3:19:44] Speaker G (unidentified): Only when an address is... So the only of the 300 that were tied to the short term, that's why the number was small. Those have a specific address for a short-term rental that were entered into them. A lot of the 31,000 don't have addresses. That's why I was being cautious about no action, just a question. The officer was very cordial. He said he completely [3:20:07] Richard Ray, public commenter: agreed with me, but there was nothing he could do. So there's like no action on either [3:20:13] Speaker G (unidentified): party, correct? Yeah, some don't have action, a general question, or a connection to a police officer for a conversation or something like that. Yeah, okay, thank you. So is this short-term [3:20:22] Richard Ray, public commenter: rental thing is this is this like a line item in the budget of voted do we have a budget to investigate this no the data no that's not now i obviously the software you're talking about is a different i'm just talking about time and time and expense to date that's been exhausted on this particular item there 's no budget it just correct okay and then this lady here Marilyn said made just a brief comment that said well obviously for the town to function we must proceed with the short-term ordinance. So, or I'm paraphrasing what you said, if you remember, just from a few minutes ago. So my question would be, well how did the town function for the last 100 years without [3:21:22] Speaker L (unidentified): it? The town never took up short-term rentals before, right? So now what's your question [3:21:29] Richard Ray, public commenter: that we should? So the allegation is that now we need it, usually we have an ordinance, so we're not [3:21:34] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): going to have a debate back and forth this is citizens forum so if you have a question you can provide a question or a comment fine you have a question we can answer your question we're We're not gonna get into debate back and forth. [3:21:44] Richard Ray, public commenter: Okay, I just was like, how did we function without it? [3:21:48] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): That's my question. Okay, do you have any other questions? [3:21:51] Richard Ray, public commenter: Do I have another question? [3:21:53] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): Are you all done? Are you, have more questions? [3:21:57] Richard Ray, public commenter: No, for tonight, I'll do it. [3:21:59] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): I saw some other hands up. Yes, sir. [3:22:09] Alex Fedek/Vedic, public commenter: Alex Vedic, Central Hill Road. I had a question regarding following up for the police department's disclosure of the flock data. I believe there was interest among the council members whether or not they had data supporting the utility of the tool. Is this a formal request going forward or has that effort been cancelled? There's been no request for a little. Could you accelerate a little bit warning the usage of the flock tool when it was installed for this town? Oh yes. [3:22:52] Speaker G (unidentified): That's I think they've put all of the list of the narratives up on the website. Let me check on that though. I don't have that answer immediately. Okay you could get back to the. [3:23:03] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): Manager I'll answer that question. You have another question? That's all. Okay thank you. And we have another hand up? Yes, sir. Okay. [3:23:17] Rich Hennessey, public commenter: Rich Hennessey. I live on, from Croft Road. And thanks a lot for getting this data. It seems to be a good starting point. I just have a question about, it's a one point in time or a small number of points in time and at different seasons. What's the estimated accuracy of that data that the vendor provided? it that's one question do we know from this sample anything about off the books let's do our rounds we don't so those are just my two questions about thank [3:23:59] Chair (Select Board presiding officer): You well I did not see any come through. Peter can you verify just so I'm not the only eyes looking? I don't see a mr. chair. So the motion to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 9.21.