Bar Harbor council renews 11 amusement permits, opens lodging policy workshop

[1:49] Councilor: Is writing in burgundy contracts? where it's like oh you have to sign it good evening [2:07] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): everyone i'm vice chair earl brecklin i'm filling in for maya tonight who is away and i will endeavor to run the meeting with equal regularity with liz's assistance i'm sure first order of business is excuse absences i would entertain a motion to excuse maya and steve motion second it's been moved and seconded is there any discussion hearing no [2:37] Town Clerk (roll call): Vickers? Yes. Sprague? Yes. Bracklin? Yes. Nantullo? Yes. Keith? Yes. 5-0. [2:46] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): Next item on the agenda is to touch base with the meeting ground rules, which are on the wall at the side of the room. If anyone has any questions, please familiarize yourself with that, and if necessary, we'll call individual attention to that if needed. Next is approval of the minutes, and I will entertain a motion. So motion to approve. There's three minutes, it's September 15th, the 16th, and the workshop of the 21st. It's been moved. Is there a second? Moved and second. Any discussion? Vickers? [3:24] Town Clerk (roll call): Yes. Sprague? Yes. Brecklin? Yes. Minnitolo? Yes. Keefe? [3:29] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): Yes. Five-zero. Item four, adoption of the agenda. [3:35] Councilor: Make a motion. Motion to adopt the agenda. Second. [3:40] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): Move and seconded to adopt the agenda as presented. Ready for a vote. Vickers? Yes. Sprague? Yes. Brecklin? Yes. Minnitolo? Yes. Keefe? Yes. Five-zero. Out, it's not actually, it's a little typo on the agenda. This is where we usually have our public comment period, where we entertain people to share their thoughts with us for three minutes on any item they'd like to. I would ask that if it's, if what you're planning to speak to tonight is on a public hearing or a later agenda item, please hold your comments till then, because it'll be more pertinent if we invoke it as part of that conversation. So I would invite anyone to come up to the microphone, say your name, and share any comments you might have. Terry? [4:35] Public commenter (Bar Harbor resident): Wagner from Bar Harbor. This is quick. I would just really love if the council could give us an update in the near future on what's happening with the garbage and the throws you go situation, which has sort of been hanging out there for quite a while, and I think we approved a position in the budget that related to the, to the trash collection situation, so since we've got a person coming, I'm hoping there's a plan coming as well. [5:05] Councilor: Anyone else? [5:11] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): Would like to speak. Seeing no other person, we will move on to special amusement permits. We have a couple of changes in how we consider these tonight. Debra, do you have a question as far as recusal? Yes, I public hearings first to do the public here and then we'll do the so we have 11 renewals here this evening and so I will open the public hearing. Please feel free to come up to the microphone, say your name and if you have comments or things you'd like to share is. [5:51] Public commenter (Annex patron): This where I make a comment in favor of the annex. Okay, we have been patrons of annex for many years and I understand they have a music a permit up for consideration and we found that business, we go there a couple nights a week, and we found that business to be an excellent business. They've worked very hard over the last couple years to put in significant improvements. They've added over the years tiles, acoustic tiles, they've added dispersed speaker systems, They've even put a cork backboard there, and all of that diffuses the music, actually, and softens the music and makes it a higher-end music venue. And the support they've put behind it is quite impressive. They've even hired a sound, I don't know if he's an engineer or manager, to adjust the music. And over the past years, we've lived here about 14 years, and my wife and I go up and down the coast all the time to listen to live music. We go to Portsmouth and Camden, Portland area. And I can say unequivocally that this is one of the best music venues in the state, small music venues, and I think they're an excellent business and they should have the support. It's a jewel in this town. When we go there in the evenings, we've seen people from across the United States regularly enjoying the music at that location and we have friends who come in from Verona Island and Ellsworth even from Brewer because the annex is getting some high-end music in there 's a musician Miles Kelly who's been playing in Portland for years one of the best musicians in the state and I surprised to see him playing in there a couple weeks ago. So they're a real asset for this community. They are one of the best music venues in Maine, no question. If you're not music people like we are, you wouldn't know this. And I want you to know that they are an excellent business. The owners are in there regularly. The music stops at the minute it's supposed to stop. So it's a good business we're supporting. I guess it's the application to get their permit renewed, if that's what it is, but I'm here to speak that we have been there a lot. We see him lives a good business. Thank you. Anyone [8:48] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): else would like to speak on any of these applications? [8:57] Judy Allen (public commenter/neighbor): Judy Allen. I agree that the annex is a terrific business. Unfortunately, I'm a neighbor. I live the next street over on Kennebec. They're terrific. I accept the fact that they may have done all this, but for me being so close to them, I have a problem with the sound, particularly the bass sounds. Last night or two nights ago, the thumping, would the thumping was going on in my house. So I thought I would just walk over. When you go outside, you don't notice the thumping so much, and rounding the corner you can begin to hear the crowds and everybody's having a great time. The music is playing. It's not so much an issue there, but the way the bass sounds transmit is differently the lower, and I looked online, I thought, well, why do these bass sounds, why do they create such an issue? I thought, it's not just the decimals, it's the wavelength of the sounds. And bass notes have a very wide, broad wavelength that transmit very easily through wood structures, for one thing. So what I'm getting is not the higher, I'm not getting any of the noise from the restaurant, but those base notes are traveling from that restaurant across the street through the house and creating this thumping feeling. You can hear it, but you also feel it through the house. I do not know how the neighbors across the street from me directly behind the restaurant live with this, because I can only imagine that it must be much more difficult for them. I don't have an issue with the Restaurant if they could figure out a way to mitigate this. What they've done so far does not address the base. No. Lived with it last year. Anyone [11:24] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): else that would like to speak? Seeing no other people waiting to speak, I'll close the public hearing. We have Debra two that you wanted to bring up whether you had a conflict. Yes, I might [11:42] Councilor: have a conflict of interest because I own a property that is near the criterion and the annex, so I don't know if that's considered a conflict of interest is [11:58] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): There a second. Okay, the second, that it's not a conflict that she owns properties near these two establishments. Any discussion? We've closed the public hearing though. Thank you. Okay, so ready for a vote? Yep. [12:33] Town Clerk (roll call): Sprague yes. [12:36] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): Brecklin yes, Minnetolo yes, Keith yeah. Four zero. So with that in mind then we will continue with the all the items together on the consent agenda, all 11 out. Entertain a motion. There's no discussion unless the council wants to pull one of those off there individually to talk about. If not we'll take a motion. They're on the consent agenda so we do them all at once unless there's one you want to have discussed separately, we can pull it off, but we'll discuss them all in whole. No, there's no discussion. On the consent agenda, okay, so we would move to approve. [13:22] Councilor: And then it would be. [13:24] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): Seconded, yeah, then someone can, no, you'd have to move to take one off first. Okay, all right, so. [13:35] Councilor: Having reviewed all of them. [13:42] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): I have a general statement regarding our amusement permits. I would say that for council comments though, because we don't have comments for things on the consent agenda. Okay, yeah, thank you. Okay, great, so I'll entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. Motion to approve. Is there a second? It's moved and seconded. No discussion. Item 7 is resolves an order, orders, this order to accept municipal offers return for notice of public hearing for on October 20th for articles 2 & 3, the special town. Meeting warrant. Is there a motion to. [14:46] Councilor: Accept order one and to waive the reading? Sorry, no, that's great. It's been. [14:53] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): Moved, is there a second? Any discussion? Hearing. [15:01] Town Clerk (roll call): None. Vickers yes, Sprague yes, Frecklin yes, Minnitullo yes, Keith yes. 5-0. Okay. [15:15] Councilor: Council comments, Debra. I don't really think I have any. I'm happy to see a lot of places doing live music. That's you know, it's nice that we're trying to you know work that into the framework of the town, and just to let people know, if you have concerns, you know, call and have a meter reader, you know, if you're concerned that it is too loud. Reach out somebody, you know, the police, or I think it's a police will show up with a meter and do a reading. I don't know if it does like high low. But just you. Know if there are concerns, that's part of the process. Have them come out. Do a reading, and then that'll you know help get a good, you know, baseline to what's going on. But I am happy to see a lot of places doing live music. I think that's great. Yeah. I enjoy the live music immensely. I think it's very good. And to reiterate what Deborah said, it's so important that neighbors call and complain if they have a complaint, because on our special amusement permit, there's a line right here. It's like, you know, no noise complaints received from current operations. And it helps us a lot if it's like, oh, we've got ten complaints one substantiated or non substantiated at least it really comes across much better I know the police department's plenty busy with other things but it is important and if people would speak up when they are being bothered by the noise have them take a decibel meter reading I think there is a flaw in the measurement system and I don't know enough about audio engineering to understand completely, but it is a resounding theme, the bass sound. That's what we always hear from people that are opposed to any amusement permits, it's like the bass sound just carrying further, and I don't know if that can be factored into a measurement or not, but that's all. Joe? [17:45] Public commenter: The only thing I'd comment about that would be if the owners or the proprietors of an establishment realize this, that maybe they can try to work with the neighbors and take that and make corrections. [18:04] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): Just one quick thing. I noticed the other day that Bob Weber is a former police officer here in town and served on the appeals board a total of 53 years of service to the town. And I think that's something we should at least acknowledge here if not some additional recognition later. Just wanted to mention that. Just before I entertain a motion to adjourn, I just want to let folks know we're gonna move into the workshop session after we adjourn. Gonna rear take a few minutes to rearrange the room and then we'll get started on that particular item. So that being said, I'll I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. [18:40] Councilor: Motion to adjourn. Second. [18:43] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): Move to second it. Vickers? Yes. Sprague? Yes. Frecklin? Yes. Minnitolo? Yes. Keene? Yes. Five, zero. Great. We're gonna shut down the Zoom, [18:58] Town Clerk (roll call): but we are still streaming. Yes, of course. [27:27] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): All right, thank you, everyone. Welcome to this workshop session. We're going to deviate a little bit here at the beginning. Our plan is to encourage public comment after we've had some discussions so that those comments are more germane to the things that have already been discussed. I'm going to make one exception however. There's someone in the audience tonight who is in the midst of a family emergency and needs to get back down to the hospital, and so if you want to tell me I'm gonna ask them to speak first so they can share their thoughts. David, do you want to come up? Oh, please identify yourself. I'm David Bowden. [28:12] Edgewater Motel and Cottages owner (public commenter): I have the Edgewater Motel and Cottages in Salisbury Cove. I want to thank you for giving me this time to speak early because I've got to run. But, and I haven't read through everything, and I have to apologize for that. But I have sat your position. They've done this for over 40 years. In 1986 when we wrote the comprehensive plan in 86 it was zero growth in tourism and you see where we are there. But anyways what I wanted to just touch base with you is you know every time one of the larger developers develop and have their lawyers and they develop we always close the barn door and we always hurt the small business. It's the barn part businesses of what I think is what we want is the people that hire the local contractors, electricians, plumbers and so on and so forth. The kids go to school here and they're part of our year-round community and I think that's what you people, one of your ultimate goals are. The other ultimate goal is to make sure our town is torn down and built into hotels but we need to find a way not to eliminate the baron power we need to find a way that they can exist and over the years expand moderately in and such whether it's 10 or 20 and that all will all go to whether they have lock coverage and parking requirements and septic requirements and all that but when you take I heard the people that go stop in and they moved here and the kids in fifth grade and such and people Have known me all my life and work. These are the kind of businesses that we think you'd want to keep and you want to maintain and not isolate. And you know you've worked several years of this and I apologize for not being involved in participating, but I am just saying if you could consider that, you know, the Emory's, the Edgewaters, the Woodland parks, the seaside cottages, which have several two or three generations, and try to continue that growth and what you want in your community and such and how can you work to maintain that? It's always been for 40 years been through this. It's always been let's kill the my power shut them down because it's easy because I can't afford a hundred thousand dollar lawyer for one more cottage, you know. And but if you're gonna build 180 unit motel and you spend hundred thousand dollars so be it 's only so much a unit and you know it's a tough position you're in it but it is the vampire places that is our 401k. We put our money back into our business and not our retirement because that is our retirement and we extend it down our generations. And so I'm just asking you in your thoughts and whatnot if you please could consider instead of taking the easy duckling and cutting the legs off and trying to figure out how to get to the big guy help the little guy okay in small little minor growth things and When I changed the zoning in 2013, what was done in Salisbury Cove was 8 by 12 decks built on the bay middle cottages. Not a big crisis, not a big whammy, but it improved his business. Under the current proposals that you make, there is no expansion, there is no doing that, and so on and so forth. And that's wrong. That really is. You know, you've got 50 cottages being built in Trenton. You've got a 100-unit hotel being built in Ellsworth. They're all headed to the island and they're competing against us. And we're old-time establishments. Try to find a way to help the small bar and par and not hurt them. That's all I'm asking. I know you've got a uphill battle and you're working hard at it. You've come leaps and bounds, but it's always, and I've been through it for 40 years, it's always us little guys that get shot in the foot because we're the easiest ducks in the pond. It's basically all I've got to say. I don't have a lot of time. I've got to run. Thank you, David. Thank you, David. [33:39] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): All right. All right, before we begin, I'd like to introduce our planning team here. It's almost like you should come out of the tunnel at the stadium and run to the streamers. Michelle Gagnon, who's our planning director. Kayla Martinez, who's housing and community planner. And then Penelope Whitman, who is our sustainable economic development manager. This is her second day on the job. So welcome to the jungle as far as that goes. I mentioned earlier we'll choose some public comment towards the end of all of that later on this evening. I wanted to share a couple of thoughts just with the council as we kind of proceed in our deliberations tonight. One is the first thing that this entire process is that don't feel rushed because it's more important that we get it right and then we deliberate than it is to try to get it done quicker. And I think we've kind of already had those discussions in our goal settings and some of the other things. Our focus tonight really isn't to craft the solutions, but to set the policy goals based on the root tensions, which are part of the framework that we have here. And the process may seem long, but we've got these great folks here to help us through that process, and they'll tease the answers out of us that they need to then do their work and then to work with the planning board and kind of move forward with that. I think it's also important for us as a council to judge our success and how we're proceeding based on what we're learning as much as what we're sharing because I think that's important too. And don't hesitate to ask questions and everyone will do the best that they can. The other thing is I think sometimes we say well that solution is simple and I think it even gets to what David talked about a little bit there is to say well it's a simple solution if we just do this, but the fact is all those solutions reverberate through the zoning ordinance, through the community, through the economy, and through the business community. So the law of unintended consequences comes into play there. So I think that we have to be careful not to just look at things overly in simplistic terms and look at the bigger picture and how they affect all of that to just avoid those pitfalls and so with that Michelle if you want to start us off [36:25] Planning staff / consultant: So, we talked on September 21st about the policy process and where it was going. And so, we are at step one of the policy development process, which is when the council establishes the policy. And what we here tonight, we hope to be able to move to the second step, which is the development of policy framework in the office of the commissioner. I would like to also quickly put on the material that you have received. There is a memo that explains the overall process and touches upon what we plan to accomplish tonight. There's also the assistance level framework, which was a new piece of, if you want a new report that you have not seen before. This is our attempt at trying to capture what we have heard starting through the comp plan process, going through many efforts and most recently, the Graduated Lodging Scale Amendment. And also, let's not forget the Sustainable Tourism Management Strategy work. So tonight, most of the work will focus on the route pension outlined in the systems level framework. We hope that using these and for other route pensions, as you see fit, is going to provide enough guidance to be able to get a policy solution meant to address the real problem as well as find social media content. There was also three other documents in the package. The most recent moratorium amendment that solely focused on L4 and L5, which are lodging uses that do not. There was a document called Analysis of Lodging Uses by District, which is a document that was developed during the graduated lodging escape land use ordinance amendment, which was also in the package. And this is all the background information that you may need now or in the future while you're working through this. So tonight, one of the things we're going to be doing is we would like to know the content of the system level framework is accurate, and is there anything missing from it. Second, to get out of the moratorium, we would like to know what policy focus area for root tensions, if you want to call them that, almost likely to address the community's concerns. And lastly, in order to help us better understand the desired direction the council would like to take, we propose having a discussion on the retention. This is using the list of questions outlined in the system levels framework or other questions as you see that you don't have to use these questions. So I see people going through the So the colored paper is exactly just the questions that were buried in your system levels framework. You pulled them out and you color-coded them so to ease the conversation and not have you try to find where you were at in the process. So it's exactly the same thing that was in that document. One more thing I think that's important is the memo speaks about short and long-term solutions. Tonight we would like to have full guidance that is focused on getting us out of the moratorium, which is what we refer to as the term policy solution. However, we recognize that the conversation will be much broader, that it's not that straightforward, and that it's likely that we're going to touch on a lot more things, and we're going to be able to sort that out later. But to start with, the focus that we would like to kind of try to stick to would be trying to get out of the morgue. Again, any conversation will be captured and we will use it in a timely manner as we evolve. I think that's all I had. [40:53] Staff (note-taker/planner): The reason I'm up here is to essentially try to write down what council says and ultimately staff wants to make sure that we are correctly understanding what you're saying so if anyone sees what I'm writing down and that's not what you meant feel free to interrupt me and then also I will look towards Earl or who's up there speaking to make sure that I'm understanding you correctly. [41:19] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): Before we jump into the root tensions, I wanted to just, based on the systems-level framework handout, the first two sections of that, both the challenges, which is the first part, and then the vision. The vision was largely based on the contents of the comprehensive plan and articulated where we want this community to go. So looking through that, if folks want a few seconds or if you had a chance to look through this before and you have some comments, you know, that we want to share, if not, we can move right ahead. But was there any questions there as far as the different identity and character and scale, the housing availability, affordability, and those items, which I think a lot of this we're going to talk about when we get to the retention discussion? But I just wanted to make sure no one had any questions if they wanted to share they're not seeing any there. What about on a vision portion of that either? I mean, there's a lot of a lot of information here, and so as we kind of wade through it, 'll you know clarity will emerge, and so if you feel a little bit lost at this point of the process, a you're not alone, and b that's that's not to be unexpected. If not, let's let's go on to those root tensions, which we have the different colored handouts, and starting with the pink, which is about root tension a, which is design and scale, which for the benefit of folks here, there were some on the side there if you wanted to get one. Perceived community tension, lodging growth poses a risk to the town's local identity as a small coastal town, so lodging scale should be limited to better align with the desired visual character. So we get out through these questions, visual identity, to certain areas of our harbor influence the town's overall visual and cultural identity more than others? What are folks thoughts on that? [43:27] Councilor: Randy? Yeah, regarding the scale, and I'm not sure, you know, if it would be a zoning ordinance adopted regarding height of structures. I just have a fear of like, oh, I'll just put it as an example where Cherry Stone's restaurant was, or whatever that corner has potential to have a large hotel built there. And I would just, the way it's built right now it's one story essentially, and then further back then it goes taller, instead of having a hotel built straight up from the sidewalk 40 feet high, finding ways to like okay you can be one story high in the first 25 feet, then you can start [44:16] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): going up higher just so you want to avoid a canyon effect. Yeah, that's what [44:21] Councilor: what I'm trying to say. Okay, yeah, I think that's a very important concern, not to say you know where the China Joy restaurant is, that is already a tall building, and okay if you want to replace that with the same height, okay, but I don't want to see it around the corner and everywhere we look the canyon of the canyon. In fact, not to penalize people who see the China Joy building as a potential, oh gee, we can go three stories high or whatever right there without much trouble, I think it would keep our character looking at the heights that we [44:59] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): now have on the street level moving forward. Other thoughts, Debra, did you have something you wanted to add to that? [45:07] Councilor: Not at this moment. [45:09] Public commenter: Visual identity, I think, you know, even with small, like, I've got a small duplex and I'm required to maintain green space. I don't understand why every square inch of a piece of property can be dedicated to a structure. Some kind of a buffer between the sidewalk and the building would help. That would also partially eliminate that canyon aspect that you're talking about, coming right to the sidewalk. I mean, that grand hotel, when they first built that, in my eyes, was a lot because it was across the street from a place that I own. But at least they pushed it back away from the sidewalk, and they've got benches there and a small amount of green space in front of that. [46:04] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): So that's your idea of preferable, something that's preferable, a setback. [46:10] Councilor: Yeah, I agree. I think it's really important to keep the character of the town, and to keep, you know, green space and things like that. I mean, you know, as we develop and whatever laws we do come up with, if it was that everybody could build to the curb and build to a 40-foot maximum, I mean, it just essentially is going to just take away that feeling of our town. And I think that's one of the biggest concerns that people have, is losing that sense of place, losing that feel, and I think those are things that are really important for us, scale, character, green space, I mean, that's a really important part of [46:57] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): future development for sure. One of the sub questions here is, what specific elements of the built environment create that desired visual character? You mentioned David, the benches and the setback. What are some of the other things that you look at as positive towards creating that kind of atmosphere when you look around town, seeing [47:21] Councilor: what the Ivy Manor has there, they, their building was already there, but what they've done with the front is so welcoming, you know, seeing people sitting there and having the little gas fires going, relaxing, it's very appealing and it feels welcoming, that kind of atmosphere, sure they've set up with their location when it used to be a driveway, right, do you remember yeah, that's right, it was the doctor's office [47:46] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): yeah, that's right, yeah, what are other things you can, you think of anything David, that besides that main street well [48:02] Public commenter: Like design guidelines, yeah. Well, like it would be nice to not have something that does fit into the this coastal town atmosphere. I suppose it does says there's, you know, I don't think all the architects have died, so I mean anybody can put a Lego block on this on the for a motel, but it'd be nice to have some architectural integrity. So you mean like coastal architecture? [48:42] Councilor: Or natural flow to everything around? [48:47] Staff (note-taker/planner): Yeah. By flow do you mean like similar kind of design concepts that are already existing? Yeah. [49:08] Public commenter: And obviously scale also, and that was brought up, but... Could [49:15] Staff (note-taker/planner): you describe like a good example of the scale that you think represents Farharper's identity? [49:19] Public commenter: Well, in my eyes, it wouldn't be It wouldn't be in the developer's eyes, but in my eyes, smaller is better. Making a better hotel than trying to get as many rooms as you possibly can. That's why I think the planning board kind of nailed it on the last thing that got voted out. They wanted a smaller scale. [49:48] Staff (note-taker/planner): Do you have any examples of existing hotels that you think does what you're saying well? [49:55] Public commenter: Not really, because everything's been built up large lately, so I mean used to be most of these places where they took old houses and turned them into ends like a ledge lawn, that one that you know it looks like it looks like an end, but it could be a you know a motel, but that's not a design that most developers would want to take on because it's probably not as profitable. [50:26] Staff (note-taker/planner): So would you say elements of a hotel kind of looking more residential-like? Absolutely. [50:33] Councilor: Maybe roofs with pitches and things like that instead of just big boxy buildings. My [50:51] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): great concern is that a corner would get bought up and a bunch of small properties consolidated and one big structure go there and you can you can try to break it up into three retail spaces downstairs or something like that, but it still ends up being just it's a home depot without an orange sign because it just fills the whole lot and so i just think when we look at scale it isn't necessarily just how much is on the street and how tall it is but I also think it's you know how much does it just suck is it a black hole for just a huge building that takes up a whole corner or a whole block. [51:31] Staff (note-taker/planner): Got it, so just to make sure I'm understanding, so I think what, I heard two things regarding design and scale, I think I heard you say that it's not just about having multiple storefronts and multiple businesses, it's also about having unique ownership of the entire building, is that accurate? [51:48] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): Right. Because I also think if you come up with a plan for scale, and I'm trying not to void into trying to come up with a solution kind of a thing, but if you say we're going to keep it down to a certain scale and everything else, but the same owner just builds four things exactly the same next to each other or puts four different fronts on one thing and combines properties, but legally they look like individual entities, that doesn't really accomplish anything either. [52:14] Staff (note-taker/planner): And that, to me, gets at the local small ownership retention. [52:18] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): Yeah, which is further on when we talk about that, yeah. Okay. [52:26] Councilor: Yeah, I think another thing, I don't know how this would relate, but I do worry about, as development happens, losing a lot of our mature tree growth and things like that. You know, because, boy, when you have trees that are 100 years old, it's like and they're in the way if there's a way that we can somehow protect those or you know because I think that adds a lot of a lot of flavor to the town that we'll never see in our lifetime again once they're gone so [52:58] Staff (note-taker/planner): Downtown specifically that kind of part of the character is having this old [53:02] Councilor: growth nature. Yeah, absolutely, this is probably under a different category when something is built and you are told, oh yeah, we're gonna put up all these trees and do like, let's say a hedgerow or something. And then it doesn't happen. And I'm sure this is a different area, but accountability. You know, we can sit here all day and be like, you know, I want them all to look like, I don't know, gingerbread houses. But then if that doesn't happen, then what do you do? You know, oh, I'm sorry, I didn't follow the rules. You know, is there accountability? [53:48] Staff (note-taker/planner): So what I'm saying is that make sure to have enforceable standards, but also making sure that code enforcement is making sure that people are abiding by whatever. Yes. Perfect. [54:08] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): Question three under this tension A, future land use strategy and character, which I know Michelle you wanted to focus more on short shorter term getting out of the moratorium but that 's that question is there and I don't you know talking about other uses besides lodging development that affected towns character and land use patterns that should be considered yeah does anybody have any quick thoughts on that well [54:40] Public commenter: Right now, we're, it seems right now that all of the development going on is lodging. Yes, where the money is, and that's where, you know, that they are, if they can, they're doing very well. They're able to purchase properties and expand. So that's, that's the thing we're up against right now is the lodging. Unfortunately, it's really hard to small businesses to move in here because, well, they've all been ushered out because of real estate prices. [55:12] Staff (note-taker/planner): So you're saying that lodging is probably the biggest, maybe not the only, but it's the biggest concern. [55:19] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): Absolutely. It's the elephant in the room, yeah. [55:21] Councilor: But that also bleeds into other things too. Sometimes when you've got larger establishments and they're looking for housing, and there's like a trickle down that happens because all of a sudden, yeah, they're building this big thing or they've acquired all these properties, but the next thing you know, you've got to lose three or four houses so they can house people for their workforce and things like that too, so. [55:45] Staff (note-taker/planner): And that's getting at the housing retention as well. Absolutely. [55:50] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): All right, let's slide over to retention B, local ownership and small business because we kind of already touched on that. And the one question, would new lodging projects be viewed as more beneficial if they included commercial space designated for locally owned business or the other specific uses viewed as beneficial? Right, thoughts on that? I [56:20] Public commenter: think I think it'd be great. The one of the most recent motels at hotel B&Bs that was built here, they were supposed to have some commercial space on the first floor. That doesn't seem to have been materialized, but that would be beneficial. I [56:55] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): think question three, which is the maximum property size and killing Kelly, that's what we talked, I kind of mentioned earlier, which is that you start combining those lots and you lose that diversity, you lose that local ownership, and it creates other problems. I think it's difficult when you start talking about local ownership and small business because you really can't legislate against forms of business ownership. You can't say, well, we don't want people, still think we have a law against franchise Restaurants in Bar Harbor, and we don't, but that's because McDonald's never came here, because you know the drive-through stuff made it such that they just wasn't amenable to that. So I think, you know, we can't regulate whether it's a corporation or whether it's a franchise or whether it's a chain or whether there's a multiple ownership, but I think we can, we can talk about, you know, how much of them they suck up and how many lots get combined and which tends to relate back to scale. Other thoughts, Randy? Do you have, Debra? Do you have other questions for us, Michelle, under this, or? [58:14] Judy Allen (public commenter/neighbor): Can I ask a clarifying question? Sure. [58:18] Planning staff / consultant: Did we skip mature land use strategy and character [58:23] Councilor: on the recent? [58:24] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): We talked about that just briefly, just briefly. We just, to me that was where I mentioned about long-range goals versus shorter range goals and asked if folks had thoughts on that, and there wasn't anything that popped up. Yeah, no, that's all right, it was easy to miss, so [58:52] Councilor: So I know we're talking downtown, and I just don't want to forget about other areas for possible development of other types of services and other types of businesses in Town Hill. I think we need to get that back into the mix [59:10] Public commenter (Annex patron): to a certain degree. [59:14] Councilor: Where downtown Bar Harbor used to be, it's like, oh, there's three electricians, there's five plumbers, there's a shoe store. Those types of local services and to look at the zoning regulations in the Town Hill area, seeing road frontage requirements, setback requirements were really stifling a certain amount of development in that area for support businesses that are needed by the other industries, shops, stores, restaurants, hotels, and so forth, and it could help protect neighborhoods from having – I don't mean to pick on plumbers, but, you know, saying, oh, this is my home, I'm going to have a plumbing shop, and then all of a sudden they have five employees, that's destroying the character of a neighborhood, whereas if they were given a place to be in a commercial spot with less restricted zoning possibly, not necessarily just plumbing, but other service businesses. And I think Townhill should be looked at in the grand scheme of development and what sort of businesses, what we want and where we want them and where they make most sense. [1:00:35] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): And that goes to Michelle's question about the future land use strategy and character. That applies in that particular case, I think. You mentioned here exemptions for small and locally owned lodging establishments. You know, I think of the state of Maine when you have your sporting camp on the lake and you're allowed to expand so many, I think it's 30 percent, you just can't go within the setback to the lake or things of that nature, and it would be nice if, as David mentioned earlier, you know, for those, something that's been there for 40 or 50 years is, you are we going to just lock that into forever the way that is without giving them a chance to modernize or the standards for what people expect in an accommodation now? You look at some of those old tourist cabins, they're smaller than a Volkswagen. And if you say you can't expand now, that really hamstrings them and actually threatens the viability of it going forward. [1:01:35] Staff (note-taker/planner): All right, so what I hear you saying is that you want to make sure that there's some protections for existing lodging either conforming or non-conforming that they have the ability to be flexible and expand or adjusted well because otherwise they're [1:01:51] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): just locked down permanently and there's nothing they can do yeah and does [1:01:55] Staff (note-taker/planner): it matter if they're local owners versus not local owners in this context you know [1:02:00] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): I don't know how you differentiate on that [1:02:03] Councilor: I think speaking to what David was saying, I remember when the Golden Anchor was getting developed, when the old motel was torn down, and it was like, where is ground zero? Where do you start building from? It's like, oh, we're bringing in all this filth. This is ground zero, so we're going to go up 40 feet from there. And witnessing and seeing that's when a huge change happened, I think, in this town when all of a sudden the Planning Board got steamrolled with a group of attorneys rolling in with a handcart full of files and documents and it just overwhelmed the Planning Board and I think what happened in town here was like oh my god we got caught with our pants down we're gonna make some rules and I think that's what David got caught up in we had to make so many rules not well thought out just a neat jerk reaction and overwhelmed even the small guys all of a sudden like he said oh now I need to have ten attorneys to come in so I can build a deck speaking to that and I think that's where a major change happened in this town and we were trying to develop zoning rules but it stepped a little too far on the little guys yeah [1:03:27] Public commenter: Those small businesses definitely have to have the ability to improve their properties, they're they're especially if they change hands from a generation to the next, like David's in his position, he may be handing it down to Brodie and I mean, you know, fresh eyes might come in and want to improve that property and have the energy to do so, and he should have the ability to improve the property as long as he's not, I mean, we talked, I guess we talked about limiting the amount of rooms or whatever, but Like Earl mentioned before, some of those cabins up there, they you can just fit a queen-size bed and two nightstands and a small bathroom, and they need to get larger in order to compete with the places that are, you know, more modern, if [1:04:31] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): We look at question for on retention B, which deals with that small business development program, what are your thoughts as far as does the town want to take a more direct role and sure small locally owned businesses are supported. If so, do you think that's the direction that we should head? I [1:04:53] Public commenter: Mean, what would we do for financial incentives to make that feasible? And sometimes, well, another problem we have here is if a storefront opens up, it seems like it gets gobbled up pretty fast by someone who already has an established business. I don't know how you fight that. [1:05:24] Councilor: Joe? Yeah, you know, those are definite strategies. You know, you need to incentivize what you want, disincentivize what you don't want, obviously. That's a hard one to figure out. You know, there could be some development incentives as far as, you know, savings on permitting fees and maybe you know tax incentives as far as you could hold back for a couple of years till they get on their feet or you know things like that, you know, if it's, but how do we figure out what the what exactly those businesses would be that would qualify for things like that, you know, is it just like service industry businesses or medical businesses or you know what do we, what are we talking about Here, you know, it's what [1:06:21] Staff (note-taker/planner): I have is that incentives could be valuable for small local, potentially permit, tax, but ultimately we would need to sell for some kind of guard rail so that like some can qualify or you know some kind of qualification, no more t-shirt shops [1:06:44] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): Okay, and then maximum property size was the one under this that was, to me, that I think is the key. I think when you take seven or eight properties that are a mix of residential and retail or maybe offices and all of a sudden it becomes one large building. First off, when we talk about incentivizing local businesses, that kind of an opportunity and that kind of a project is outside the reach of so many, and often there's so much money there, local businesses can't compete with that. There's only just so many players at that level, and that's which actually gets to the role that financial institutions locally play in their policies about giving people lines of credit instead of coming in for individual loans and what have you it [1:07:35] Staff (note-taker/planner): just it just puts so many people out of the out of the picture I think you need [1:07:48] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): to be strategic and say I think you have to have a really great reason to consolidate lots we talked about the scale and again business diversity and everything else one of the biggest things you can do there is just not allow just the creation of these you know mega lots for giant businesses yeah well it reduces the opportunity because you just can't compete against that any other thoughts or comments on Root Tension B? [1:08:52] Councilor: I like that too. [1:09:01] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): As I said before, we can ask questions at any point. We can come back to some of these as we proceed. You get other thoughts, but let's go to Root Tension C, which is diversity of business and use. so question one which is does additional lodging growth of any fit into the town's vision of a diverse year-round economy and then the sub questions there what are some of your thoughts on that what does growth in the lodging industry look like here in your in your trying to say fantasy world for lack of a better term deborah as someone who's actually in the business what kind of growth do you think is healthy for the community for that. [1:10:00] Councilor: I do think there is some room for some lodging growth. I also am an amazingly small lodger. I mean, just six rooms. And we are happy with that. We don't want more. We don't need more. But we do understand large growth and how some areas where that is happening may not be completely designed it's [1:10:35] Staff (note-taker/planner): so what I think you're saying is that there is room for growth but there may be areas where growth is more suitable than other only specific areas in mind that you would say is suitable [1:10:50] Councilor: It's not suitable? Not at this time. Randy? I'm Curious. Maybe you have the answer to this. I remember 45 years ago, Bar Harbor was full. There were no rooms to be had. I remember my wife or something and it was like, people were, they were trying to find the rooms in Ellsworth or further away because there were no rooms available in Bar Harbor. I wonder how full are we now? Are we anywhere near that level? Which kind of says, we've got plenty of rooms now. But that's up to a business owner to determine. It's like, oh, I want some more of the pie. But it was absolutely true. Bar Harbor was full in the summertime. No room at the inn at all. I'm kind of curious, you know, what is the level of occupancy right now across the whole town? Full. Really? Yeah. 98% occupancy made through our business. On all of them? Yeah. Together? Wow. [1:12:11] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): Yeah. So that demand is there. I mean, I think you can look at price as a pretty good indicator of that, too. [1:12:18] Councilor: Right. Right. Yeah. Thank you for that answer. I was very curious about that. There [1:12:29] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): is demand. So then the question is, what's the best way to satisfy that demand? And at what point do you say that demand is excessive? [1:12:39] Public commenter: Right. When does that tip the scale? Because adding lodging growth isn't going to help us with parking, congestion, street safety, or diverse year-round economy. [1:12:54] Councilor: Responsible developers that will be looked at and requesting of them in the future. [1:13:04] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): Well, I think that's what we're looking at is to guide any future growth to mitigate those impacts so that you can have both. But then the question is just what is the scale? Do you want to see that as 30-room boutique hotels or do you want to see it as 200-room contained resorts? [1:13:28] Staff (note-taker/planner): I mean it looks [1:13:37] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): like not exceeding the sewer capacity of the town yeah I mean yeah that's the context that's the yeah this shouldn't be put in front of the [1:13:54] Public commenter: possibility of housing and I don't know how we cure that problem that's [1:14:03] Councilor: it when you look at you know the analysis of lodging uses you know just in bar harvard's year-round population of 5100 there's supposedly 94 hotels 3 000 hotel rooms and we've got 3 000 dwelling units it's just interesting let's see a thousand dwelling units are owned by bar non-bar harbor residents 1800 are occupied by bar harbor residents So that's, those are some, you know, when you've got as many or more hotel rooms as you do residences, that's a statement. You know, that's really pretty shocking to say the least. [1:14:51] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): But some of the difficulty there, though, too, is if you have commercial zones, if you say, okay, no hotels, it doesn't mean someone's going to build a house there. That's correct. No,, absolutely. [1:15:01] Councilor: Absolutely. Agreed. Agreed, but it's just interesting data I will say the one interesting thing with the new hotels that have been created, more of them are staying open year-round, yeah, and that definitely, when I even when I moved here in 05, there were not a lot of options in the winter, and so people are realizing that we're becoming a more year-round community, but there are people want that or not, and that, you know, if you have year-round and you do need housing for the employees that you're trying to keep year-round, so that's nice to keep your lights on for sure there's so many restaurants shut down in the wintertime that you know having a path maker that maybe year-round oh there's there's a restaurant there's a year-round restaurant there 's so many shut down. It is nice to have lodging spaces that do offer more than just lodging to the community for us to have a place to go have breakfast or something. [1:16:17] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): So two of the questions here. One is lodging in specific areas. There are some areas of town. I mean, should we encourage it in the downtown? Should we encourage it out of town? I mean, what are your thoughts there? It was [1:16:34] Councilor: mentioned in the report that, oh, people come to downtown, they're going to park their car and then walk around, if they're out of town and they don't take the island explorer, they're going to be driving into town and creating more vehicle congestion, whereas if there's a place for them to stay and park, that could help reduce our traffic congestion downtown as opposed to being outside of town. I think downtown definitely has its advantages, there's no question about that, as far as curbing more traffic and things of that sort, possibly. But I also worry about, we got that report from Bethany, looking at a $40 million sewer system upgrade, grade, and how does that play into all of us too, because obviously our sewer system is designed for, you know, this large scale use, and if we're at capacity already, then that could put us into the situation where, hey, we've got to really spend some real money here, so connection fees, all those types of things have to be taken into consideration before we can really get into that large scale like Okay, this is where we want it, I would think, but you know, I just don't want to get blindsided by this down the road and see these rates just explode on people that are already suffering from our, you know, the rates that we have [1:18:12] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): right now. So, and that goes to that law of unintended consequences, because it said let's, let's keep that development where there's sewer, and then what it does is you don't have the sewer capacity or it strains it, so then it has those unintended consequences. So you would just want to make sure if you can't do that, you've got that capacity. [1:18:31] Staff (note-taker/planner): What I hear you all saying is that if there is growth that needs to be tied to potential downstream effects like infrastructure expansion, etc. Yeah. I was [1:18:41] Councilor: mentioning the vehicle issue, but lodging development outside of town where there are no public utilities or sewer system available, they would be built to a standard that they would have a septic system and water available for their hotel out of town. Yeah, so that puts less strain on our in-town infrastructure, so [1:19:03] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): that's an argument on the other environmental impacts associated with [1:19:08] Councilor: that, right, but you know, if our rules and planning zoning requirements protect the environment as good as any engineer can do and say okay, yeah, we need a wheat field this big for that property, yeah. [1:19:26] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): I think, I think under three, which was a mixed-use development, I think if you're going to encourage more lodging in the downtown that you really want to have that mixed-use, because to me one of the things that makes Bar Harbor such a popular destination is there's a hundred places, there's 100 restaurants, there's 100 places to eat, and so that if lodging puts pressure on, there's fewer restaurants or there's fewer retail shops, I think you want to, I don't know what the magic mix is, but that's I think one of the things that you want to encourage, and if you can do that by combining those uses in structures and new projects, I think that's an important [1:20:08] Staff (note-taker/planner): community goal. I think so, yeah, and [1:20:20] Public commenter: if we're, if this, you know, expansion is one of the key reasons why we have to do the, this I think it was a forty to sixty million dollar sewer upgrade that impacts a lot of pensioners in this town that don't really need that big a system, it's really hard to tax them, put your taxes up to expand this which benefits basically the, these businesses I [1:20:57] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): Was excited the sewers user fees based anyway, you know, I think that one of the things to remember there that number does sound scary, but a lot of it is end of useful life things that need to be replaced. It isn't necessarily oh my god we're overusing it, we need 40 million dollars more of sewer treatment plan, we need to take care of what we've got kind of a thing. So that's part of it 's still gonna do that and I just want to keep that contact right and we [1:21:25] Public commenter: Built this infrastructure yeah to allow this the tourism that we've got yeah, we don't need it for 5,000 residents. [1:21:38] Staff (note-taker/planner): Yeah. All right, so what I hear you saying is that if there is a desire for more... [1:21:47] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): To municipal services, yes. [1:21:52] Public commenter: You said it way better than I did. [1:21:55] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): That's how they get the big bucks. Number four on the sheet deals with parking and private parking lots. Do they possibly negatively impact the town's goals for a diverse economy? Is it perceived to be negative? Does the town want to consider maximum off-street parking requirements for new commercial development? What about private parking as a standalone use? What are some thoughts there? [1:22:27] Public commenter: Well I think any new establishment should have adequate parking for said establishment. I don't think any I don't think any I don't think any establishment the new establishment should be able to move their parking off site it's [1:22:56] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): Not going to have a positive impact and I think David what but what David said about you know should have on-site parking because what's that doing is it's pushing that particular project or that particular proposals problems off somewhere else and that has those negative long-term domino effect you use up a lot you tear down an existing building all of a sudden there aren't a couple of apartments there aren't a couple of offices there that kind of a thing and I think that it has to be you know On-site I don't know James if you remember I think we have what 750 900 parking spaces in the town of a harbor ballpark for municipal spaces and so I think we talked a little bit about maybe a deck or something up at the ferry terminal or something but you know we talk about congestion building more parking lots isn't going to get rid of the congestion it's just going to pull more cars into town so if they can come and park their car and take the bus out into the park and they need to do it on [1:23:59] Staff (note-taker/planner): That site I just [1:24:10] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): Think it has to be adequate for the facility [1:24:12] Councilor: Yeah, it absolutely has to fit the facility. If you have, you know, 20 rooms, you should have 20 parkings. It just, it makes sense. It does make sense. [1:24:27] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): Well, I think the national standard is even a little [1:24:29] Public commenter: higher than that. I would say it might be one and a half. [1:24:31] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): Because you have employees, you have visitors. Right,. [1:24:33] Councilor: At least, you know, with guests, employees, maybe if you have employee housing, you can bus them and shuttle them and they can ride a bike and you know there are some options but for the guests you know one spot per room I mean we were mandated that we had to have it as breakfast because of the size and we hold to that so we can also you know maybe there's a possibility to get a fund going for better pedestrian ways and bikeways and things like that alternatives to the car maybe they could be you know if you're gonna put in a you know a hotel of X amount of rooms that maybe you have to support this fund by X amount of dollars and you know get something going that way too because I think that's a great way of for workers to be able to get around I think it's a great way for you know we're so close to the park and that's where people want to go and there's some real gaps here that we really need to address and that might be a great way to fund some of these projects that to get people in [1:25:47] Staff (note-taker/planner): the park without using their cars so all right so are you saying that maybe instead of them having to do the on-site parking instead they could commit some kind of money to go to this [1:25:59] Councilor: project is that what you're saying yeah there might be some kind of an offset i still believe that they should have you know something you know definitely on-site parking but i think that's for you guys to figure out and throw us some ideas so it's not for us to figure this out but [1:26:18] Public commenter: yeah i think we should also that's what you told us [1:26:25] Planning staff / consultant: toss the ball Oh, I think [1:26:32] Public commenter: another thing about parking, too, is I don't think we should be losing housing to parking. Absolutely not. I mean, if we're going to raise the building to a possible year-round resident, that doesn't sit well with me. [1:26:56] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): Did you have a question? [1:26:57] Judy Allen (public commenter/neighbor): I was just going to ask the thing, [1:27:01] Planning staff / consultant: the lodging establishment for my on-site parking. And does that train of thought go to all commercial uses downtown or just large ones? [1:27:12] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): See, I think you've got a fundamental fairness question there. We eliminated downtown parking requirements for retail and for restaurants. If you want to open a restaurant with no place to park, that's a risk as an entrepreneur you take yourself because you're running a risk that you won't have customers because there's no place for them to park. When you come here and you've got to stay in a lodging, I don't think we need to provide three parking spaces for every visitor, one in front of the restaurant, one at their hotel, and one in the park. We need to have one somewhere, and it makes sense where they're going to be sleeping, where they're going to be staying. So that's my feeling. Because then you have the fairness question. You've got a 600-seat theater with no parking. You've got 4,000 whale watch seats a day going out of here with no parking requirements for that. So I think, you know, to make someone who's selling a few T-shirts or selling a few lobster rolls have to have mandatory parking. [1:28:08] Public commenter: I think that's a whole other story. They're spending the night. [1:28:17] Staff (note-taker/planner): And are all these comments related to only downtown or just town overall? Or are there specific areas in downtown? [1:28:31] Public commenter: I'd say every place in town. Well, the parking problem, they're out on West Street Extension at the time, so. Yeah. So it's all a down time. Yeah. All right. [1:28:46] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): Before we move on, any other questions on Route Tensions C? Any plans that you guys, staff, have any other questions under this section that you get to filter all that down later on? Fun times. The fun begins. So we touched briefly, we've mentioned housing a few times, let's take a look at this, and lodging growth is removing residential units or is taking limited land that has potential for housing, that's the perceived community tension, and what are our thoughts on how we can address that, or not how we can address that, but what are the problems and policy areas there that we need to discuss? You mentioned housing when you were talking before, probably did. [1:29:45] Public commenter: Probably lost my, you out, well, a lodging growth, it always impacts housing, they always, they've got employees and they're gonna, they are going to build another lodging establishment, they should provide employee housing on-site. I know some of them do or have tried to make efforts at it, and they're working on it, and that's good, that's progress. I think almost need to differentiate a [1:30:20] Councilor: little bit for employee housing because there are some entities in town that may be a year-round business and they are hiring year-round employees and then there are other businesses that oh I've got 100 people coming in working for me this summer so I think employee housing should be recognized whether that particular you know I don't want to penalize every facility regarding employee housing when in fact some of their employees could very well be year-round people so what I hear you saying is that new growth for [1:31:04] Staff (note-taker/planner): lodging is desirable if they house their season employees but you're saying that if it's a year round maybe they don't have to abide by those same requirements or different or at least differentiate [1:31:16] Councilor: and recognize whether that facility is a year-round facility which adds to the community and people living here year-round and i think you know I think some of the establishments being created in this town want to be year-round, and they are long-term residents, and it benefits everybody if they can bring more people into the community and help them get established and pay them well enough to be able to live here, then we'll have a few more kids in the schools, potentially. I do know, I wasn't able to do a bunch of... I'm sorry. You take the call. [1:32:03] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): That's a good time. Won't you be my neighbor? I'm waiting. [1:32:11] Councilor: Portland Institute, and I don't know if it's just in the old port part or what part of portland but any new construction hotel it might just be lodging they have to provide you know if they tear down the building where there was housing they have to provide somewhere else a dwelling for people it's just that is if you're going to build this then you either have to build or provide this and it has to be i'm using primitive words it has to be nice it can't be you know I have this shack that you know and that's something to really think about like the whole thing you know if I'm gonna build I keep saying 30 but a 30 room place I want to ensure that I have you know two or three units in it for my employees but also another place building for housing so you're saying [1:33:11] Staff (note-taker/planner): new growth would be good if there was some kind of link to the amount of rooms and they would have to maybe produce some kind of housing units in relation [1:33:21] Councilor: to those rooms and also provide employment. Yes, within reason of course. Portland, I think they implemented this a year, and a half ago or something and I think it's going well if that's worth looking at. [1:33:38] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): I think it gets to, it's the same dynamic that we discussed with the parking is don't make the solution to your problem a neighborhood problem become the residents problem that it takes housing out of circulation or it takes property out of circulation for parking or takes houses out of circulation for apartments for people that you know that if you're gonna have that business you're gonna develop that property that you bear the costs for that not the community both financially and socially yes This is nothing new we've [1:34:17] Public commenter: seen so many of the affordable housing units in this town used by the different tourism entities. Ledge Lawn Apartments was there was always that was that was affordable housing and there was always kids you had to you couldn't drive down Ledge Lawn fast because there was balls running out in front of your car all the time there was a lot of kids living there so we've lost a lot over the years and so this isn't you know a new problem so just like to address it I [1:35:03] Planning staff / consultant: think [1:35:18] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): Yes I mean I think that's that's the commercial use is putting their problems on to the year-round community so I know it's the lodging moratorium and but that, you know, to me, those, the two things, whether it's the parking, whether it's the employee housing, you know, we just, we don't have, we need, what, 600 units, the housing study? Year-round, yeah. Year-round. And so we, you know, we've got to create 600. Every one we can save from, keep from losing is that much more valuable because of what it costs to create one. So I think that is appropriate because otherwise, when you look at that housing report that was there, about, what, 30% of the residences in the town of Harbor aren't used year-round. I mean, that's just crazy from all different uses. So, I mean, I think there's some other policy directions outside of zoning affecting lodging that we need to address in some of those aspects, too. [1:36:17] Councilor: Yeah, I agree with that. Think I think it's one of those things that the you know for this community to grow and also for your business to grow and I know when we had our business we built I don't know we had five apartments over there and it strengthened our business because we could get we could retain good employees and it just was the right thing to do it made your business stronger so [1:36:42] Staff (note-taker/planner): So just for clarification, is tying housing and employee housing to new growth, commercial growth in general, do we mean year-round and seasonal employee growth or only seasonal? [1:36:57] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): See, Randy mentioned that. I don't know how you differentiate. Exactly. Because, you know, does that mean the town has to, like, send a questionnaire to every business every year and say, are you year-round, are you part-time, what about the ones that just close for a month? There's there's just, you know, at what level are we gonna be down in the weeds with that? And I know that's a that's a new, a nuanced question that we'll be talking about later. It's not the broader policy issue, but I that's just seems [1:37:21] Councilor: like a very difficult question defining it up is that how is that enforceable? [1:37:26] Staff (note-taker/planner): Yeah, I guess. [1:37:35] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): If there's a simple and elegant answer, then it's fine to talk about it, so it wouldn't hurt to investigate anything, but I'll be surprised. [1:37:45] Public commenter: Do we have a snowbird statistic on how many of those homes aren't used as dwellings in the wintertime? I know we've got quite a few snowbirds at South that might not even have a business, [1:38:03] Planning staff / consultant: but I'm just curious. It's a questionnaire. I didn't think you got it here. [1:38:07] Councilor: Yeah, you got it in here? [1:38:09] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): 30% of dwelling units are used as second homes. There you go. And now when it says 1,800 dwelling units are occupied by Bar Harbor residents, some of those aren't here in the winter too. But they maintain their residency here. So, I mean, I think the statistic I heard for Southwest Harbor recently was 50% of their homes are not occupied in the winter. That's a death knell. I mean, they're dead town walking, if you ask me. So I think, yeah, we need to address that both in percentage of investor-owned VRs and everything else too. But I think the employee part of it, there's no small percentage of the housing here that's used for employee housing that was formerly single and multifamily homes. Okay. Yeah, so preferred housing types was question three. I think that was partially addressed in the housing study, which said it wasn't a vast majority that needed to be apartments. Only [1:39:24] Staff (note-taker/planner): differentiated between rentals and ownership, not necessarily types. And I think this question also gets at character, too. Do like maybe the housing provided looks different in different areas just or is it shared a combination of the housing type, right, what [1:39:47] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): are some council thoughts on that? So you're you're [1:39:51] Councilor: actually talking about a style of home per se, like it's something that would go before the board of review, that kind of thing, is that what you're saying? I mean, it just is there any [1:40:04] Staff (note-taker/planner): Preference for the type of housing that employers would provide, or does it not matter? So like one example would be shared accommodations being used by some employers in like a dormitory style. Is that more preferred than other types because you can house more in that kind of style? [1:40:23] Councilor: I could see that definitely for seasonal employees and for their needs would probably don't be very fitting year-round, maybe something different, but yeah, I think the dormitory style or shared accommodations is probably a little more economical for you know maybe hotel people to be able to follow through with that, so that is a big ask. You know, we're addressing employee housing for lodging and looking at the diminishing, you know, how many year-round homes we have in relationship to lodging. But restaurants, how do I say it nicely, I can't think of the right words, more evil than the lodgers. [1:41:28] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): Probably not evil is the word you want there. [1:41:30] Councilor: To see the actual numbers of, you know, okay, a 50-room hotel, how many employees are there versus a restaurant, and how many employees did they have, and a lot of houses are getting bought up for employee housing for restaurants, a lot of it, probably as much, if not more, than what is happening with the lodging. [1:41:54] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): And I think we did mention about just all commercial uses. We weren't just limiting it to lodging in the discussion that we had. [1:42:01] Staff (note-taker/planner): Yes, I also agree that up here that applies to all other uses, but if there are specific uses that you want staff to look at, [1:42:08] Councilor: I think those numbers would be interesting to look at and see how many properties have been turned from year-round residents to employee housing that in another month or two, they're all shut down where people used to actually live there year-round. A lot of properties, I can attest to that. Sorry about the word evil. [1:42:31] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): Higher demand. Higher demand. Yeah. Okay. We know what you're going for there, Randy. [1:42:37] Councilor: I'm not as eloquent as some. All right. [1:42:43] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): That was retention D. So what are any other general thoughts? And I would ask if you folks have other questions for us on these issues. [1:42:57] Staff (note-taker/planner): Based on the discussion, it seems like staff should focus on all the retentions to make edits to provide the policy solutions. Is that correct? Yeah. [1:43:06] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): And thank you guys for helping frame it in that context because I thought that was a good way to do it. As far as that goes, if the council doesn't object, I'd like to invite folks to make some public comments. [1:43:19] Public commenter: Like to make one more comment, please, and this does, it this pertains to public input. I like, is there some way we could get widespread public input on this like we did with the comp plan? But anything that we've discussed, I don't know, do a, do a survey or I don't know how it works, and you know, and obviously I want to know, is this going also going to be going to the Planning Board and the discussion with them, because they did a really good job when they did the last one, and I don't think we should be in a position of kind of overstepping their role in all of this. [1:44:12] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): Well, I think this is the very beginning of a policy or practice or a process that's going to identify things or come back to us to discuss more, but I think, Michele, if you want to just talk about the process of this public hearing for the opportunity, and then the Planning Board will be working to make things happen that the Council directs. MR. [1:44:30] Planning staff / consultant: Well, I think it's important to remember the Council is the elected official. That's your charge, it's your responsibility to set the policy for the community. I think we're, we're hoping to be able to work out those policy objectives with the Council so that we can advance that to a town meeting vote. When we talk about, you know, public engagement like this, is just the beginning. I think there's going to be a lot of opportunities, we're gonna have some public comments here tonight. As ideas start to take shape and come back to Council for more debate, there's going to be more public input. So I think we should be very careful not to abrogate the Council's responsibility in setting the shape for the public policy. This is an old chestnut, and I've heard it from all of you tonight. We're going back 20, 30, 40 years of these issues, and what we're hoping to be able to do is finally wrap arms around them in a very thoughtful comprehensive way and bring back, you know, not just a single idea but a comprehensive set of policy objectives that really start to grapple with these challenges that have gone unaddressed for a very long time. Can I jump in here? So, exactly. And I think that lane, that comes from the council, and then we're going to be developing what I call regulatory policies, which is, it's not, you're not touching the land use ordinance amendment, but you are having a document where you are agreeing, if you want, in concept about what the solutions would be. For example they may be a scale of an idea of how many rooms. So this coming working with the council coming from the council and when those are established and they're solid then what we and again that but that when that is decided upon this is when with the plan. And that's when knowledge, understanding of how to use it, make sure that they can make decisions right enough that the planning board, if that makes sense. It makes sense to me. So basically with touch, we work, we start putting language in the ordinance. This is the last step of it. We never start doing this until there is a clear framework of what, and then we start. All right engaging in this process now. I think this is going to be a much sounder basis for community at large. We have the guidance of the comp plan that had an extraordinary participation rate and we need to find we need to make sure that what we were doing is actually implementing the work that actually happened there. We never intended that this iteration of the comp plan was going to be a you know an on-the-shelf document. The whole point of it was to be an active guide in what we are what we're doing in our community in relation to a couple of the ideas that you've talked about tonight. Just before I begin next week is 33 years since we moved to Bar Harbor. Really neat. Basically I want to live in an active living town, not a toy village. You've heard me say this before. But my point is that I appreciate all the perspective about what the town looks like and scale and all like that. And I do think that some of that is very important. I'm certainly very, strongly in favor, for example, of historic preservation efforts. I think that's a really critical piece of it because that provides some of the balance that we're talking about. But we have a town that has, you know, 19th century, 20th century, and now 21st century buildings in it. And we are living all of those times. I use the Jessup addition as an example. The Jessup has a beautiful, you know, 20th century historic building. It also has now a 21st century addition that is respectful of the historic addition, but it is created in order to provide 21st century space for our community. It was a thoughtful piece of design to include spaces and opportunities for our community to do stuff that it hasn't been able to do before. This is useful development. And so what I'm interested in is finding other kinds of opportunities to create places for other businesses, for businesses to do similar kinds of things. And I think, obviously, the idea of mixed-use spaces is very appealing. That creates more active spaces in our downtown rather than having places that are only open at one time of day or another. I would also talk about the fact that when we're talking about business district, we think of the downtown, but in point of fact, most of our residential neighborhoods are actually business districts as well, because they have rental units in them. And that's a business. And so let's remember that as we're talking about differentiating business districts from the rest of the town. It isn't just an isolated space in this community. Let's see. Anyway, I think that's the basic points that I'm talking about. I think that's, I'm sure I'll have more to say, but those are the basic points I want to take. [1:51:35] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): Tom, do you want to say anything? [1:51:49] Tom St. Germain (public commenter): Tom St. Germain, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight. I sent you a letter. I know it was late this afternoon. I just invite you all to read it. You might find things in there that would be useful as you think this through room going forward. I get into some pretty nitty-gritty detail on some of the issues we talked about tonight. I think that you will find that some of the things that I offered in as a speculative why don't we consider doing it this way are in line with what you, some of the suggestions I heard tonight. I think that a couple things that I wrote about in my letter represent a little bit of friction with some of the things that were discussed tonight, but I think I explained why that friction should be considered. I also want to just talk about the specificity that occurred about what people call the Cherry stone's corner. It was very specific tonight, and we're here in the two years into a moratorium on lodging uses, and it seems as though that the degree to which that specificity was spoken of tonight is notable. That total square footage on that corner that's been acquired by Stephen Koston is about 31,000 square feet, okay? The Jesup's combination, which I think is great, I think it's great, that was 49,000 square feet. And the hospital, approximately on the combined lot size, okay, that's what I'm talking about now, the building size, the hospital's consolidation of their lots that they just completed was something like 250,000 square feet. So the scale that we're talking about. I would hope that you consider the scale with respect to many other properties in town, not just the specificity of the particular corner that's been discussed repeatedly tonight. That's what I'm asking for. I also would like to say that my letter is related in some ways to what Stephen wrote. I read his letter this afternoon. And I also think that Mr. Witham wrote you a letter a couple months ago and it contained a lot of the same material. So if you look into it, there are sweeteners that address what I think the council has said it considers to be an emergency since 2019, which is a lack of housing. And that's all I ask for. Perhaps I could meet with some of you individually. I don't know if you're interested in that, but that's my offer, and maybe I can get in touch with you sometime. Other than that, thank you, and have a good night. Chair? [1:54:57] Public commenter (Bar Harbor resident): I appreciate this conversation. I agree with pretty much most of what everybody's been talking about. I do think the size and scale of buildings, especially downtown, is important. And personally, I think it's hard for me to compare a lodging business with a library that serves the entire community. Well, it certainly serves the entire community. We're missing a significant group of money from that. It's very difficult. But I think until we get, it's hard to support. I don't believe the experience of the tourist infrastructure, services, we have a bigger fire department, we have a bigger police department. A lot of that's because of the state of Maine. But I think we definitely need to keep working on that. And the other point I wanted to make is, because I hear it, but I think it's important to explicitly not believe that just because there's demand, it's our responsibility. For every single person who wants to go to a restaurant, you can't get in, You have to make a reservation for the next week or the next month or whatever. And it's not the responsibility of either the business or a certain person. I think that's just a conversation we should have. We have some sort of obligation to house everyone in Bar Harbor that wants to be here at any particular time. I don't have, especially when the taxpayers are basically subsidized. [1:57:59] Charlie Sidman (public commenter): Charlie? Charlie Sidman, Bar Harbor. I wanted to just share a few thoughts that I've had while sitting and listening tonight. First of all, as a citizen, when we talk about housing needs and commercial patterns and regulations, I'm confused are we talking only when a new structure is built or when a new business is formed or begins operating? Just to give you an example, you know my wife and I operate a mom-and-pop business. Well, somebody could be in that space with a different business model, they could have employees. Would you think then that they have to be regulated differently from what my wife and I, or how my wife and I are regulated now in that same space? Another thing that comes to mind is I heard a lot of reference to the difference between a seasonal employee and a year-round employee I'm certainly a year-round resident my children when they were growing up were seasonal employees they didn't need extra housing because we lived here but again I think we have to avoid simplistic or oversimplifying the situation I want to point out what I think is a giant the big elephant that I haven't heard referenced and a lot of good comments were made by You folks and you know other public commentators, we're not like Portland, we're not like New York City in that those places, they're fairly constant during the year. We are grossly seasonal economy, so in the summertime our workforce expands by probably a hundred percent. That's putting pressures on the resources that we have that Portland and New York City don't have, and we really have to come to grips. We have two economies here but one physical home, and it's gonna be hard to say that everything can be equally served given this night and day difference between our two seasonal economy. So be wary of trying to oversimplify and fit everything into one, you know, box, because I don't think it's going to work. Thank you. Thank you. [2:00:47] Chamber of Commerce representative (Everly): Everly from the Bar Harbor Chamber of Commerce, just want to make a quick comment. I think a lot of good discussion tonight, thank you for having this workshop. Something that I thought of why I was hearing the conversations happening that I thought was a good idea that playing staff and the sustainable consulting, the sustainable tourism consultants worked on was the conversation around trade-offs, and I think that's maybe something that might do this conversation very well, talking about say we put development outside the downtown, what that means for car congestion. I think that made the council pretty well and thinking about some of those maybe unintended long-term consequences, and just wanted to encourage that suggestion. Thanks. [2:01:49] Councilor: Michelle, is it correct that currently all lodging uses are required one space per room for parking, so [2:02:03] Planning staff / consultant: it is my recollection that if the graduated lodging scale had passed [2:02:08] Councilor: it was going to do this and therefore oh I thought I thought this got fixed in the previous iteration that did pass. Yeah, anyway, yeah, I think one space per room is a good standard, and I think the proximity rules that exist are fine. Totally understand if you guys want to regulate that parking doesn't displace any dwelling units, that makes total sense, but I think overall I think parking is fine, and I know people are upset about Pathmaker. I would say two things. Firstly, if the parking lot that we have across the street that was never dwelling, it's always been a parking lot. Secondly, we have enough space to park all the cars, we just have to valet them. We chose to have a parking lot across the street instead. But thirdly, when Pathmaker was built, the regulations were completely different and the parking standards were completely different. And Pathmaker was in no way illegal or non-conforming when it was constructed under the use that it was constructed as. So just for the record. I would also note that I think it was mentioned that Pathmaker's floor plan changed. It never did from the day that it was drawn until the day it was built. It's exactly the way it was drafted. There never was any additional public space that didn't get built. Not sure where that rumor might have came from, but the public space on the first floor was the restaurant and it is the restaurant and that's the way it was drawn. Totally understand if you guys in the future want to talk about like no hotel units on street level maybe or something like that. Like that's something we can talk about, but I just, I just want to clarify there was no, there was no change or switch at Pathmaker. It was built the way it was drawn and I would just encourage let lodging contribute to affordable housing. Set a soft limit, set a hard limit in between, require everything you want. That's, that's my suggestion. I'm late for dinner so I gotta go. [2:04:27] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): Okay, thank you. Anybody else? I [2:04:45] Planning staff / consultant: think as you go through this, one of the things that I pulled out of like months and months and months of working on this was character of the town. So, if you go downtown, you really don't see lodging really anywhere on Main Street from West Street to Mount Desert Street and pretty far out, Cottage Street. So as you go through this exercise, is it worth considering allowing lodging in downtown, but have a lodging-free corridor to help maintain the integrity of the town or the character of the town, and promote other sources of business there. Maybe apartments above the stores, or use that for employee housing above the stores. I'm sure a lot of them do that now. The other thing I heard, and I hear this repeatedly, about, you know, if the land use was put on the ballot and passed, nonconformity would have been really, a building that was nonconforming, you could do just about anything to that building as long as you didn't go over the, and correct me if I'm wrong, as long as you did not go over the guest units of the building. So if you were in an L20, you still need to stay in L20, but if you had 20 single units, you could build a suite. Or if you had a house, you could convert that into a unit. Is this correct? Janet, do you want me to explain? [2:06:42] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): Yeah, briefly. I don't want to get into a whole bit. [2:06:45] Planning staff / consultant: Conforming lodging rooms in a district that would still allow lodging, but you just have too many rooms. The non-conformity provision for that situation were very flexible and allowed getting yourself a different layout and making sure that you stayed home. So there was a whole bunch of work. Once you've attained that number, then you have to meet conformity in the future. But the point being is there was a lot of flexibility built to allow people to continue being current and succeed in the lodging market. [2:07:40] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): Thank you, and Guy, I'd like to, if we can keep the comments general to what we were talking about, not specifics or solutions, that would be great. I apologize. [2:07:51] Planning staff / consultant: One more thing, as you go forward in this process, keep in mind that a guest unit is not one room. So when I, particularly for me, looking at scale, an L-12 could really be 24 rooms. It could be a series of suites. It could be just about anything as long as it would fit in that lot. So, you know, as you get through this process, just keep in the back of your mind when you hear rooms, it's not a room anymore. It could be... [2:08:44] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): All right, I think we can wrap this up. I want to thank the council for all their thoughts. And to the staff, I know it's, I want to project some future appreciation for the wisdom and expertise that's going to be needed in the next ongoing months as we continue to work on this. But thank you very much for putting this whole process together. And with that, we're done. Yeah, [2:09:14] Staff (note-taker/planner): That's true. The next [2:09:20] Planning staff / consultant: Step is for us to take all this information, try to create some policy-focused areas in a framework, review that, and possibly come with possible solutions. Those are the technical steps. Yeah, great. The next workshop date I believe was scheduled for the 27th [2:09:53] Town Clerk (roll call): Sounds like Debra has my color coded thing with her [2:09:56] Planning staff / consultant: It's very scary because that's very scary We'll see if we can make it [2:10:01] Town Clerk (roll call): Well okay so that's important that meeting is not set in stone so you will hear from us if you were meeting on that day [Planning staff / consultant: Yeah me too] There is no special town council meeting this Thursday. Because there was some confusion about that, too. Okay. [2:10:24] Public commenter: Great. All right. Thank you, everyone. Sweet. [2:10:29] Councilor: We did a really good job. We did a really good job. [2:10:32] Earl Brechlin (Vice Chair, presiding): We did a really good job. We did a really good job. We did a really good job. [2:10:36] Charlie Sidman (public commenter): We did a really good job.