[0:02] Is this being recorded? I have no I.

[15:00] Attached or detached number of units per parcel, which is what Section 12 was talking about.

[15:07] The way the rules currently work is if you have three or more structures on one parcel, that would be considered subdivision law and that you have to go over for the planning board. The same thing is if you were to make three or more splits of land, but in a traditional subdivision where you are splitting, you're going to build a road, you're going to split land, you're going to split house lots out.

[15:29] three or more of those in a five-year period and you also have to go to

[15:32] Board of Planning Board. The state statute has changed it so that now the housing

[15:40] units, so if you do four or fewer in a five-year period, you don't have to have

[15:45] plenty more of you. So that goes along with the section 12. You have to about

[15:52] least three units if not four depending on the municipality. So the way I

[15:58] from the last meeting we haven't talked about this, was that so instead of going to the planning board it goes to the co-inforced officer and the standard is still applied.

[16:07] There's no distinction between the standards whether it's a four unit building or a four separate structures on a property versus eight.

[16:17] The difference being is that at four it would go before the co-inforced officer and the run to the same preview criteria and a greater number would come before the planning board to go through the same preview.

[16:27] realistically I think you'll find the tax structures in the morning not like a

[16:31] four unit apartment. Sure. Once you get passed three units you're required to

[16:35] sprinkle. Yeah, yeah. It's a matter of fire code. You wouldn't have to do that

[16:40] with duplexes so you could see two duplexes built on the same parcel. No spray. But

[16:46] if it wasn't a subdivision I mean I think we could benefit from the two

[16:52] break a lot minimum when we that's that's the yeah that's a discussion

[16:56] yeah we have you know we have that conversation a little bit of meeting

[17:00] I think there's going to be some of the concerns about this are going to be

[17:05] housing density you know that there's going to be too many houses so much if

[17:09] you have a bunch of wanting a lot of these in which there's three houses on it

[17:12] and you stack those along the road that's going to look pretty pretty built up

[17:16] I don't think a lot of people in the wine but also impacts you know your financial

[17:22] You know, you have a second acre that you used to be able to develop into this separately

[17:27] as a one acre log, but now you couldn't do that because you wouldn't meet them in a

[17:31] lot size requirement.

[17:32] Well, they're still going to do more than what they could now, you know, because you could

[17:36] put three instead of just one on each, right?

[17:39] So they're still getting gained, gaining.

[17:42] Well, you could do two on each, and it's still not going to be a separate vision.

[17:45] Right.

[17:47] The doubling the lock size, the, you know, perhaps unintended or

[17:51] secretary of consequence of that is going to be adding $40,000 to

[17:56] the construction for a first time all of our, they're going to buy a

[17:59] profit. So, you know, the intention of all of this mess is to

[18:06] increase the number of, you know, not that I'm, you know, I suppose

[18:10] to say again, I don't like this. I just like the state telling

[18:14] and every municipality, you know, sort of how to do things, rather argue amongst ourselves

[18:18] and figure out what works for every town but the increase in the lot size does harm

[18:25] to those who extensively were supposed to be helping, you know, the lower income and

[18:29] the people who were trying to get their first home were going to be hampered by increasing

[18:34] lot sizes.

[18:35] Well, the word about the people who are with housing, then we need to make sure that we do

[18:39] have short-term rental under what we need because otherwise you just kind of

[18:44] developers coming in and building houses so it does really I know that we're

[18:48] sticking to this but short-term rentals does relate to this so otherwise we

[18:54] won't have any homes for people because of they'll just be a lot of short-term

[18:58] rentals instead of homes but but I still think it's gonna benefit the people in

[19:04] a long run, even if it's, you know, because the people buying a lot, I'm going to worry

[19:12] about somebody being, you know, 20 feet away from their bedroom window.

[19:16] I mean, so I think it will benefit people that are trying to buy a home, and why people

[19:22] want to come to La Monde was because of the open space and, you know, having that, so I

[19:29] think if we do look back at the conference of plan, part of that, why people want

[19:34] to live in the Moin was because they had, you know, that open space and the land and so I

[19:42] think it would be something that I think people would want to see happening.

[19:52] Can I ask another question?

[19:53] Absolutely.

[19:55] I know what you talked about this at one point, but growth designated growth areas as opposed

[20:01] to, you know, we don't have designated growth areas here.

[20:05] I may be wrong there, but I didn't have the comp plan.

[20:08] I believe it's that there are no good grotesque.

[20:10] So I'm confused on how this, how so much of it applies to us

[20:19] if we don't have designated grotesque areas.

[20:23] Maybe you've addressed that.

[20:24] Yeah, so it's on that, the first page of it was in the packet

[20:30] from the planning board meeting.

[20:33] Not this one.

[20:34] the new one? Yeah, the new one today. No, the, it's, oh, the first one, what we've

[20:39] discussed, then we're more impacted for our last plan. Right. So it's that, that, that

[20:45] grade box there to set you. So it says, um, for any area in which residential uses are

[20:55] allowed. So anywhere that the town will monitor any other municipality allows you to have

[21:01] have a residence, you have to allow at least three units per parcel.

[21:07] Can I ask another question?

[21:08] Sure.

[21:08] So A says in the law, at least three dwelling units attached to detached, inclusive of

[21:14] accessory dwelling units per lot.

[21:16] So that three dwelling units, including, that would be the accessory dwelling, would be one

[21:23] of those three.

[21:23] So they could have what to do, question, and ADU.

[21:26] Right.

[21:27] So that's just a three.

[21:28] Yes.

[21:28] I don't think there's, I don't think there's setting aside as a distinct independent thing any of you at this point.

[21:33] No, anything that you could live in as a, as a habitable structure, I think they're just looking at as a residential structure.

[21:38] Correct.

[21:39] Yeah.

[21:40] Because it says assessor going unit.

[21:42] So, A, A, D, U's have, again, they probably don't know what they do in the morning, but in practice in my experience, now it's worth an A, D, U can have a much smaller habitable minimum than a regular apartment.

[21:59] We allow, like, about 180 square feet for an ADU for a tiny home touch thing.

[22:05] Whereas a normally gone apartment, you have to have at least 450 square feet to make it habitable.

[22:11] So that's kind of what the thing, no matter what it is considered, you're allowed to have three dwelling units on your back.

[22:16] Well,

[22:20] in the first one, LD 1829, because these are, that was an act to build housing for

[22:29] main families and attract workers to main business.

[22:33] Correct.

[22:34] By amending the laws covering housing density.

[22:39] Is that correct?

[22:40] Yes.

[22:41] The next amendment is an act to update the laws regarding housing development and a

[22:50] So that's where the density thing comes in because when you just said something about the

[22:56] requirements and it was in section 12A subdivision scope of 1829, which is it raises the exemption

[23:04] threshold from local subdivision review from two or fewer units to four or fewer, which

[23:12] And you said that and I just went by man I didn't quite you know get it in terms of because there's always been a five-year thing

[23:20] But it might be a little something on you if you had

[23:24] I've been 18 eight because I could build a place here. It's an ADU and then I

[23:30] Or I could go to and then I'll wait five years. Well, this is actually saying you could do four every five years every five years

[23:39] That's right.

[23:42] Assuming the septic sporting, yeah, and you have the average, that's a level on statute according to something.

[23:51] Yeah, but it's so, yeah, so it's structured on a single parcel and a traditional land split subdivision used to be two and two every five, you could do two every five years and it would trigger playing more.

[24:05] Now it's still two landspilates, but they allow it before dwelling units on a single parcel every five years.

[24:14] One thing is we're pointing out in this context.

[24:18] If somebody takes 20 acres in terms of 10 lots or 11 lots or whatever in our current system in the way we've been operating for years.

[24:29] But let's say you did that and you had, let's say you did everything on 10 acres and

[24:33] you had a large lot, you know, 10 acre, 11th lot that was reserved land or whatever.

[24:40] That whole totality of that property has become a subdivision and you then can't, five

[24:45] years later, take that 10 acres and turn it into another six lots or whatever, like once

[24:49] you encumber the whole piece of property into a defined subdivision, you attach all that

[24:55] property and then it's not it's not that same five-year cycle. Meaning, if you

[25:01] were to then, I'll say you did eight lots out of ten acres and you had one lot

[25:05] outback. It was huge. You couldn't then do another eight lots on that piece out

[25:09] back without running into the other review criteria requirements in our

[25:15] ordinance for common space and a bunch of other standards that apply after 12 or

[25:21] more. I think it is or 11 or more. Whatever the trigger the trigger is, where

[25:25] If you're going to do a 20 lot subdivision right now, we would be a lot more land and

[25:31] be a lot more owners for the developer than if you're going to do an 11 lot subdivision

[25:34] or a 10 lot subdivision.

[25:36] So that's what I, you know, while we're conceiving of how this works, it's probably worth mentioning

[25:40] about that.

[25:41] Well, you technically don't have that limit on structure at this point in time.

[25:46] Right.

[25:46] In my head, I think of subdivisions in town because basically they've always been landspots.

[25:50] Because if you're going to do a large development with a large number of housing units, a close proximity, that's a lot of water, a lot of safety.

[26:04] Generally, you don't see those sort of developments in these areas like limoing because there's no public water sources to supply them.

[26:14] That's another big limiting factor.

[26:17] It's a definition of law in the town of Illinois is, you know, it differs a little bit.

[26:28] So if you had five acres and you had a house on it, let's say you had a five-acre parcel

[26:32] that you bought at five acres, you'd never split it.

[26:34] You wanted to split an acre off and have, you know, for whatever reason, you want to split

[26:38] an acre off.

[26:39] Kid, build a house on it, whatever.

[26:41] You could just take 43,000 square feet, call it, and a lot.

[26:45] even if 90% of it was wetland is, you know, as long as you could build on whatever, you know, but if you're going to do a lot in our current language, you need 40,000 square feet of upland to develop a lot with NA subdivision plan.

[26:58] So that could mean practically speaking that you end up with three acre lot because a lot of wetland and a piece of parcel and you have a couple of islands of upland that you could have a spot to build a house, a spot to do a septic system, things like that.

[27:08] So the minimum lot size is dependent, it's basically 40,000 square feet, but slightly different

[27:16] in the subdivision than it would be if you were to just take an unencumbered, unsubdivided

[27:20] through a plan piece of property and divide it up.

[27:33] I believe the definition of a lot according to the town is on the tax map, is what you're

[27:37] paying on that lot.

[27:39] To Cree one or?

[27:41] Well, we certainly have lots of other issues.

[27:43] I've just stumbled into my, you know, the process of the five years I've been looking at it for 40 years and anything.

[27:51] And so I'm using it as a template for discussion.

[27:54] But I only have a short, very little left on my mortgage in the front, four and three quarters acres.

[28:03] In the back in the 13, I actually wanted to be clear as a result.

[28:07] But on the town, I paid taxes on that building and the total acreage.

[28:11] Right.

[28:12] In debt-by-definition, who defines the bank and the B

[28:15] or the town by what I think?

[28:19] The D is gonna be the legal lot.

[28:21] I mean, so the stuff you get from the town

[28:24] might as it a little bit.

[28:26] I own two pieces of property on sale-pointing road,

[28:28] or patty, I do, and we get one tax bill,

[28:33] because it's just easier for the town

[28:34] to combine those two properties,

[28:36] they buy each other, they're neighboring properties,

[28:38] and then I just get a single tax bill or whatever.

[28:39] But my understanding is the legal lot is what is defined and then registered and registered

[28:47] in D's.

[28:48] So even if we did a subdivision, so back to the Landsput subdivision concept, you

[28:53] pretend lots that plan gets filed to think of candy registry.

[28:58] And then every time one of those individual lots is sold, that also the transfer of that property

[29:03] to the new owner gets registered and is described and gets registered and all that stuff.

[29:08] The minimum size is 40,000 feet.

[29:12] Yes, that's what defines a lot.

[29:14] There are a number of legally non-conforming logs that were created prior to that, Chair.

[29:22] The state minimum for a septic system is 20,000.

[29:26] So any log, it's at least 20,000.

[29:30] It's a legal lot of record that it was that size before, whatever year,

[29:36] 40,000 was adopted. I wasn't here to help. You could put three houses on 20,000 square feet if the law was, if such a law existed, had fatigued.

[29:49] I don't know if any law actually existed, that would have worked on in the moment.

[30:00] It's possible.

[30:04] At our last meeting, another, I don't know how practical this is, and as soon as it would happen, it would be out of the municipal co-enforcement hands, it would be a civil matter. But, you know, what we're having a conversation about minimum lot sizes and, you know, various ideas on how we could potentially influence growth in the kind of the way we're having a conversation here. There are, for a land split subdivision, there are covenants that get applied to those

[30:32] individual lots, you know, typically there, you know, you can't have farm animals, you

[30:35] might have to finish off your house with a certain period of time, whatever. I don't

[30:40] know how we would do it, but if you could encourage subdivision developers to the

[30:44] lot, there was a typical 40,000, there's no change to this minimum, or I'm sorry if it was one

[30:49] of those, whatever. My point is, is like, instead of getting three houses on every 40,000

[30:55] square feet of upland in a subdivision, if you have the covenant, say, you can only have

[30:58] one primary residence, you know, and that's it, kind of, you know, so that, again, if somebody would have

[31:05] violated that, it wouldn't be a code enforcement officer or an enforcement issue, it would be a civil

[31:10] suit between two people and one property in the same subdivision. So I don't know how practical it is in the

[31:15] long run, but... Well, that wouldn't be, if the town can't, can't, um, regulate the, the

[31:23] or something, you know, so it wouldn't be, you know, that'd be up to whoever's subdividing

[31:31] the land to come in, somehow or ask nicely.

[31:35] Yeah, the board couldn't make it a requirement, but you could say, G-Shocks, we really like it.

[31:41] Yeah.

[31:41] They want?

[31:42] You could say, G-Shocks, we'd really like it if you do that for us, you know, and you could

[31:48] Yeah, you know, we don't all that goes, yeah, well, I mean, I was been so success in, you know,

[31:55] leaning on the subdivision

[31:59] guys to do things, so it's, it's not, it's not on her, but we

[32:05] don't really know that we'd be interpreted in the law courts, you know, if you're

[32:09] a Covenant, so contrary to state law, then which one's going to prevail, right?

[32:16] the upshot if we were successful in getting something to try this would be that the town

[32:20] would not be on the hook for the legal bills to defend the position it would be right.

[32:24] I get a civil matter between two parties that own property close to each other so.

[32:29] I see we basically have two choices. We're mandated to incorporate the 2173 into our zoning

[32:39] So we could use it just to say, all right, we just take this copy it, go to our ordinance and paste it, and that'd be, we'd meet the minimum requirements, we'd meet what the state is telling us we have to do.

[32:52] So answer up to us, we want to take this and somehow manipulate it, so it's works better for this specific town, you know, while still staying within the guidelines of the bar.

[33:03] We really don't have a choice about this here, I mean, it's here.

[33:07] Right, so the only thing we've got to think about, not the only thing, but is how can we

[33:13] have this less of an impact on our town?

[33:16] And so one is the lot size, two, we've got to be thinking about, well, what do we consider?

[33:23] What are some things we wouldn't want to see on the lot?

[33:29] How can we regulate that?

[33:31] And I think that would be pretty important to everybody in town.

[33:36] Again, I mean, everything, everything.

[33:39] So if we increase the minimum lot size,

[33:41] we increase the cost for a new person to purchase and or build,

[33:45] not purchase but build, if we...

[33:48] We've got to do something.

[33:49] If we don't allow the rental of a secondary unit on that property

[33:55] that also is going to impact those who are, you know,

[33:58] that have less income to buy a free property in the morning.

[34:00] So there's a ying and ying doll.

[34:02] So if you, and, you know,

[34:08] I'm not the type of person

[34:09] who uses the language of, you know, 1%, you know,

[34:13] whatever, but to increase lot sizes and to make it more

[34:17] expensive and reduce the revenue side for the average person

[34:21] to be able to run out of a second unit on their property,

[34:24] you are going to see in my estimation an increase

[34:28] in a more and more affluent and, you know, narrowly tailored community than you would with the desire to have families in town that, you know, fill our school with kids and all that kind of stuff.

[34:39] So there's a push and pull in this kind of a deal.

[34:43] So I wonder if any thoughts been given to that the cumulative effect of having a bunch of one egg, a lot of seats, which has a set to system long enough.

[34:52] I'm allergic to support in three houses.

[34:55] Maybe one eight blood and there's a bunch of land around

[34:57] that's probably not a problem.

[34:59] But if you have a one acre log with a three house septic system,

[35:02] another one acre log with a three house septic system,

[35:05] I may generally be judging you a lot of ways

[35:07] that it's not gonna be, it's gonna be in a very small area.

[35:10] So I don't know if there's any income by now.

[35:12] So realistically speaking on a one acre log,

[35:14] you'd probably be hard pressed to get more

[35:16] than a six bedroom septic design.

[35:21] So you're looking at basically 3-2 bedroom homes, you know, that would presumably increase traffic a little bit.

[35:29] They may need to share a driveway just to make, you know, less, you know, cyclone and stuff like that better.

[35:35] But realistically speaking for such a waste water, it's going to be hard to put more than a 6-bedroom septic on a 1-acre wire.

[35:44] So if you're looking at like three, three two bedroom, three one bedroom, some combination

[35:48] there of at most.

[35:51] You're not going to put three six bedroom houses on a one acre lot and be able to

[35:56] accept it.

[35:57] That's right.

[35:57] And especially if you have one right after another after another.

[36:00] Yeah.

[36:00] Well then that would also, you know, kind of point the direction then you would want two

[36:05] acres.

[36:06] So then that could be three instead of, you know, so.

[36:12] So I'm going back to this idea of a Lancelot subdivision, but if you look at a lot of

[36:20] those Lancelot subdivision plans that have the minimum of 40, a lot of them have much larger

[36:27] lots because the upland that's identified when you do a Lancelot subdivision adds up to that

[36:34] 40 but you may end up with a two acre lot more or less and have 40,000 exactly on it which

[36:42] so I mentioned that because practically speaking we may find a lot of limiting to the growth

[36:50] that people are worried about you know the large large number on a lot small lots all it

[36:54] it may end up being that you end up seeing three houses on a four acre parcel because that you know

[37:00] A huge portion of our capacity may be wet and not a comedy,

[37:03] septic systems and stuff like that.

[37:04] So it may, by default, sort of limit us a bit there,

[37:07] you know, unintended consequences.

[37:10] Another thing we've mentioned for those who weren't here

[37:11] in the last meeting, I think I posted,

[37:13] or one of us posed a question about the state's definitions

[37:17] on the subsurface waste water.

[37:19] With the idea that maybe we can tweak that,

[37:21] maybe we can require bigger capacity,

[37:23] but we are found in hemmed in by the specific language

[37:26] of the state's subsurface waste water laws.

[37:28] So we can't, you know, we can increase our setback on the shoreland from 75 to 100.

[37:34] We can't likewise increase the required capacity of the septic system locally by 25% and

[37:39] so.

[37:41] And the other thing there, you know,

[37:48] if you're also worrying about a what if, you know,

[37:54] what if this becomes a problem, the way I've tackled that in Ellsworth is, well, it's

[38:02] It's only a problem once it becomes a problem, and you can always make an ordinance later.

[38:11] If housing density does become a problem, people are, you know, to your summation that

[38:19] they are abusing the laws that are on the books, you can always create an ordinance to address

[38:26] that apt effect.

[38:27] You can never be able to stop them, the ones that did manage to do it, but you'll be able

[38:32] the stuff that went forward. So we kind of my recommendation there would be adopt this

[38:38] stuff, adopt these statutes as they're written and see if it becomes a problem. If housing

[38:46] density becomes an issue, if the short-term rental stuff takes off and they're packing all kinds

[38:51] of short-term rentals onto a lot, it wouldn't take very many building permits before you'd say,

[38:56] oh, this is going to be a problem. I just feel like we need to do it before.

[39:01] and not wait for a problem to happen, and it's harder to make it happen.

[39:06] That's what, well, again, you're welcome to it.

[39:11] It's not an if, it's not an if, anymore.

[39:14] It is taken off.

[39:16] It is the news of MDIs and news across the coastal part of Maine and most of the cities.

[39:23] So, I mean, I had a question that was about legal, and that was,

[39:27] what if we didn't do anything? What if we kept what we got? What if we like what we've got?

[39:33] What if we'd like to see the court? Well that state decided that maybe they might adjust

[39:37] their thing to say, hey look you've got a pretty good deal, got a pretty good comprehensive

[39:41] plan, you town's working all right? Why do you need, why do they need to tell us that without

[39:47] at least thinking about challenging it? So that would go towards the letter that Mr.

[39:55] the Plegi Road in the last full paragraph he writes, I recommend that the mowing consider

[40:03] amending the BLUO to reflect the statutory minimums. Minimum residents of dwell in density

[40:08] standards and permitting authority ship.

[40:13] So the extent that they may be available to the

[40:16] office.

[40:17] We'd like to see him be an attorney that fights for us in the way that what we've got. I mean,

[40:23] I've been here long enough to watch the battle that we've had for the things that we've

[40:26] done, and I'm not taking this idea, but I think you're right, we can do one or two things.

[40:33] We could adopt it as they presented to us, but we could say, what are you going to do?

[40:39] Are you going to take our little town beat up on us?

[40:43] No, I say that position, but I take that back.

[40:45] I didn't mean to do it that way.

[40:46] This was designed for public sore, public water, and density that goes this way, and I think

[40:53] that makes sense and a whole lot of communities. But I don't know all of these other communities

[40:58] so I don't know how that means. But it seems like it's an issue that gets thrown out

[41:02] way that, and you've been really going to presenting it. No, I'm not. You're just the

[41:09] messenger. Don't shoot the messenger. The reason we were allowed not to have a growth

[41:15] area because Fred Stocking was a lawyer on a group. And because we were so close to

[41:23] Ellsworth that the growth area was 10 minutes away.

[41:27] I hear every week people that live in North Ellsworth, they're mad at you because you live

[41:32] closer to the Walmart and they do and they pay the Ellsworth taxes.

[41:35] Right.

[41:36] So I'm saying like that, you know, there's a lot of, you know, I think it takes public utilities

[41:43] to classify to and the public until a century. Yeah, but it was also was

[41:47] could we close to all? Well, it's interesting. Surrey now is looking into

[41:51] poking up with elsewhere. It's a sewer water.

[41:56] I would welcome it. All the way down

[42:01] the water, down the sewer road? Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, it wouldn't. On the back? Yeah,

[42:07] I would absolutely. I'd be all for it. Can we get a housing? Well, it's a lot more

[42:17] So the subdivision law that we run under is a state requirement.

[42:23] We have latitude in there to set, can we differentiate minimum lot sizes, there's subdivision

[42:29] minimum lot sizes, X number square feet, and the minimum lot size on the piece of property

[42:34] again back to the, somebody has ten acres and they want to cut an acre off of you to sell

[42:38] it.

[42:38] You got their kid use it, that can be a different number than the one that's in the subdivision.

[42:41] You could have proved, right down, you could have proved whatever lot size you want.

[42:48] If that's what the subdivision plan comes through and they can have a 5,000 square foot lot

[42:56] and they have a shared septic and the shared water system.

[42:59] And if they wanted to design that and put it in, you could do that.

[43:03] It would be called a cluster subdivision.

[43:04] Well, we have a cluster, we have cluster ordinance.

[43:07] Correct.

[43:07] So, you know, when you mentioned that, that triggered that in my head.

[43:11] So, that might be something worth looking at as far as, you know, maybe trying to manage this.

[43:15] But I was thinking more on the traditional land split subdivision sense.

[43:18] Could we make a two acre minimum, 80,000 square foot minimum in a traditional land split subdivision

[43:23] and then the one acre pulled out of 10 so your kid can build a house could still be 40,000?

[43:29] Is that something that we could have as above board states fine with it?

[43:33] I would have to look into that, but I think you can have whatever standard you want for

[43:38] your minimum loss side of it.

[43:40] That may be an avenue to pursue.

[43:43] To get the most of the loss, I think, and I haven't looked at all the transfers, so I can't

[43:48] say this with any certainty.

[43:50] But the huge number of the lots in town, traditionally over the last 20 years, the Netherlands,

[43:55] what subdivision has happened.

[43:57] And certainly, people split land and give it off sale and whatever, but maybe we should

[44:01] get a hard number on what that is or attempt to, but, if we're doing, even if it's 50-50,

[44:09] if half the lots that are being created in town for the purpose of residential structures

[44:13] are within a subdivision plan, if those have to be two acres, then you're going to see

[44:19] a buffer from density concerns within those subdivisions based off advice.

[44:26] We couldn't stop three structures if accommodated by the septic system going up on each one

[44:31] those last out again, have to be a private effort if they wanted to do it in a covenant.

[44:38] So the other two with our subdivisions, our last subdivisions, there are a bunch in

[44:42] town that have been down along road sides and stuff.

[44:45] But I think the last couple that have gone before the board have enforced and maintained

[44:51] that requirement that there be an ingress in egress.

[45:04] So if we have the buffering and we have, you know, a driveway going into a subdivision, even

[45:10] if there was a three structure on every one of those, it wouldn't be public facing on the

[45:15] roadway so much as it could be.

[45:18] I just want to make sure I understand. So there would be two minimum lot sizes, one in a

[45:23] subdivision? Maybe just the idea of making it harder for, you know, the first time home

[45:28] buyer, you know, getting started. I wouldn't specify it in a subdivision. You know, it'd

[45:33] be some type of regulation saying if you're going to use this just to build your one hole

[45:37] on, you've had the opportunity to go with the one-eighth. I mean, I worry that that runs

[45:42] counter to the state law. The state law basically says if you have a minimum lot standard

[45:46] three is it. So we try to make it this lot standard only can have one. I think we end up

[45:52] If we were to challenge, I think you're correct.

[45:56] Robert, what is the, when somebody comes in and buys a lot and wants to build a house on it,

[46:03] do you have any idea what the average lot size is for building right now in in the morning?

[46:10] Like, you know, somebody comes to it and wants to.

[46:11] I wouldn't know.

[46:12] Now, most of them are, I would say everyone that I've dealt with probably his undervision,

[46:18] So they're all, you know, in that one acre plus or minus.

[46:23] But it's not part of a subdivision.

[46:26] Yeah, I have.

[46:26] I'm trying to think of one that I've dealt with.

[46:28] It wasn't part of a subdivision.

[46:30] Okay.

[46:30] And then since February, all that large amount of time I've been...

[46:35] Right, right, true.

[46:36] Yeah, and my subdivision are all one plus, you know,

[46:39] two or five acre lots or anything like that.

[46:41] But it's on the water.

[46:43] So you're generally going to have a high-ability density

[46:45] the war front lots was the drum is just a valuable, full acre I think it's 43-50 or something

[46:54] like that.

[46:54] Yeah, something like that.

[46:55] I never remember the, yeah.

[46:57] So our minimum of 40 is just under that acre mark.

[47:00] That's a pretty standard, 40,000, 80,000.

[47:03] That's, they rarely ever do the exact number.

[47:07] There are a few, I think, I can't remember if it was Surrey or Trutton, has a two-week or

[47:13] a lot, minimum. So there's other towns that, oh, for sure, it's not like it's a, you

[47:19] know, oh my gosh, and people are buying houses and being sure. So I think really back

[47:25] about 15 minutes, I don't think we'd have, following up on what you said about us, standing

[47:31] out around, just telling the state that, you know, we're not going to do this, you know,

[47:36] we just aren't really opposed to it. I just don't think the town has resources or the guts

[47:40] to stand up. I mean it'd be a bit great for attorneys. I mean this would be the legal

[47:52] costs I think to the town if we were to stand up and say we're not doing this unless we

[47:57] had a whole like class action suit I think it'd be really expensive for the town to say

[48:02] I'm not doing this.

[48:04] How is, I mean, it's more of that in the last year.

[48:06] It would be expensive.

[48:08] It only if somebody brings it to the, you know,

[48:13] brings it to court and saying,

[48:15] we wanted to do this and we can't.

[48:16] It was, I mean, it's not like the state's gonna come

[48:21] and say, you know, you've done something wrong.

[48:24] And I, I can't speak to what they would do,

[48:26] but you're more likely going to have it

[48:29] to be a developer who would say,

[48:31] That would say, I want to put...

[48:33] Right.

[48:34] Every house is on an acre, and I want...

[48:36] I'm going to put 15 of them in.

[48:38] You know, like 15 acres, I get...

[48:40] Well, I want to put...

[48:41] On the state side, I would suspect that they wouldn't...

[48:44] They wouldn't directly lean on us.

[48:46] They were just a nice, every grand opportunity for all four.

[48:49] I looked at them.

[48:50] They had a lot of successful grants in recent years.

[48:53] So, that, that's, you know, including the implement at least now,

[48:56] And for these, you know, all the hie pumps that are in every building, we're currently

[49:01] putting in the recovery units in the school.

[49:05] All the lights are being replaced from fluorescence and LEDs.

[49:10] Do you have a sense, Nate, on how many dollars, Laura, is the success we're brought in at the

[49:14] hour?

[49:15] I think it's been just a third or fourth grant round, 50,000.

[49:22] But in regards to the law, they're not going to, you know, there's no way.

[49:27] locations, other than if somebody sued us.

[49:30] I think the state's going to do.

[49:32] But you're much more likely to run into a developer who wants

[49:38] to push it legally.

[49:42] Then I would assume the state would have time or desire

[49:46] to do it.

[49:47] I think we're better off trying to steer this in a direction that

[49:49] we'll come to with as opposed to saying we're not going to do it.

[49:52] No, I agree.

[49:53] And I think, but we need to do some things that make it, so it's not so impactful on

[50:00] our town.

[50:02] It's interesting, and looking up, I was just asking questions, and I get lost on the

[50:08] computer sometimes, but nonetheless, one of the interesting things that came off as, you

[50:15] know, under, I was trying to look to the definition of 2173, and how it came about, and all of

[50:21] trying to get points of view, and I got directed to this commercial outfit called Canbury

[50:28] Holmes, which is a commercial outfit that's basically building houses and so forth throughout

[50:35] the state, and they wanted you to know about specifically about LV2173, and then they started

[50:43] listening, listening, all of the towns in the state that had accessory-joling unit rules.

[50:51] And Hollis happens to be where I knew where I went to school, my mother lived there

[50:56] and so forth, and it, it, it, Hollis's ADU was pretty extensive and so forth, but I, it

[51:05] was a commercial company listening for anybody who was interested in knowing in specific

[51:12] And so I'm realizing, oh, so those people who are interested in developing is about profit.

[51:22] It's about making the living.

[51:24] And this whole thing came down to me.

[51:27] The acts were made for family, main families, and attracting workers with housing.

[51:35] Which has to, and the amendment was about density.

[51:38] and that density is what we're dealing with because it really doesn't fit. It's a round

[51:45] peg and square hole. It fits beautifully. It may be a banger and bath and all of the

[51:50] cities that have, you know, municipal, but I'm concerned with the possibility of our land

[51:58] being developed, our land, our community, according to the intent of the Moyne Comprehensive

[52:06] plan, the intent of the existing main blue law and the intent of this 18, 24, and 21,

[52:16] 73, and how that meshes in coalition, and perhaps we've got an AI out there. Maybe

[52:22] there's an AI that would take our problem and our concerns and be able to spit something

[52:27] back out, because if you're going on the market, you want to be bidding on that. I'm being

[52:32] positions here, but guess why? There are those people who are looking for where they can

[52:38] exploit the laws and the land and do what they want and it's good. The capitalism and

[52:46] people can make a living doing that and that's fine. But that isn't about affordable housing

[52:52] all the time. It is, though. Fundamentally, then why is it failed? Why has it...

[52:58] How do housing projects fail so miserably?

[53:00] What's that?

[53:01] Housing projects don't exactly have a good record.

[53:04] So the two sides of this coin, it sounds like

[53:07] from what you just said, is the need for the housing

[53:11] at that lower tier should be handled in a way absent of profit.

[53:15] And to do that, you're going to end up having to subsidize

[53:19] it through municipality of some sort or another.

[53:21] So you're going to have to have private industry to do the thing

[53:24] that the state wants us to do, right?

[53:27] The state has identified certain, you know, 60, 80,000 structures that need to be built within a certain period of time to accommodate, et cetera, et cetera.

[53:36] A, the government, typically governments, typically, are so inefficient that they're never going to hit that number by themselves.

[53:43] They don't have the numbers, they don't have the capacity. They would have to hire as an independent contractor, every contractor in the state to get out to it.

[53:50] So you're going to end up with private organizations, individuals, companies like this, building

[53:55] these structures in some way or another, whether they be homes or ADUs or new or renovations

[54:00] into multiple units or whatever the case may be.

[54:02] So I guess a little, I don't understand where you're getting to, exactly, I suppose.

[54:10] Because there's this issue between public housing, which fails miserably, and there's more

[54:15] socialistic.

[54:15] and capitalism where all of a sudden the last housing crisis we had was an industry that failed.

[54:24] That was a subprime work at this point here.

[54:28] We're trying to serve the morning.

[54:29] I'm thinking about people in the morning and what serves us here.

[54:33] And if somebody could do this project and meet some of the purposes of our comprehensive plan

[54:39] and also be thinking about what our intent of the intentions of the state

[54:43] to provide workers, housing, and affordability comes into that.

[54:49] We were sitting here two years ago and we got those first ADU things and we had the

[54:54] hand-con commission was talking about and that all got shifted and amended and updated.

[55:01] And so here we are again having a conversation and I just want to be assured if there's a way

[55:05] of assuring anything that people are looking at the fact that we, there are young people

[55:10] out here are a lot of young people who cannot afford to have even the right health care

[55:15] to go along with the housing and where your housing is takes a lot of your dollar.

[55:20] So those affordable housing dwellets, what makes it affordable, I think, is the cost

[55:26] of them.

[55:27] Is that correct?

[55:30] I'm just saying, on both sides of this coin, there are even people that have done whatever

[55:34] they wanted to do and they'll do it.

[55:37] What I'd like to see is some reasonable capitalists that the people can make some money and

[55:42] expand and provide some services, provide some housing for people so that we're not in

[55:48] a, you know, having to do this with Robert.

[55:51] You could look at it.

[55:52] You could look at it in a affordable, well let me finish my thought please.

[55:56] You could look at it on the formal side of things.

[55:58] Let's say somebody built a new structure and they had a detached garage with the apartment

[56:02] above it.

[56:04] Young family, you know, let's do the classic young family, two kids, you know, in school,

[56:08] you know, whatever, first to the fourth grade, they build brand new property, that apartment,

[56:14] that apartment covers a proportion of mortgages in their property taxes, that does two things

[56:20] that provide affordability for the family before and then presuming that the person or people

[56:25] that are renting the apartment above the garage, they're not in position or in a place

[56:29] in life or whatever where they're going to look to buy they would have a brand new affordable

[56:34] clean place to live as well so you know and that's a purely capitalistic at the base levels

[56:40] like pure democracy in town at town meeting doing that is pure capitalism in that two people

[56:46] are changing goods and or services and or labor or whatever between each other you know in a trade

[56:52] that's equitable and that they both see as equitable rather you know so so I think you can get there

[56:58] with this model as far as providing affordable housing.

[57:01] It certainly has the opportunity for, you know, bad outcomes for, you know, dependent upon

[57:05] the developer or whatever.

[57:07] But I'm not going to try to blame developers, I'm just saying historically, it can be shown

[57:12] that there's been an exploitation of certain things.

[57:14] What I'm saying here, and I think still it's something I'm going to go along the same

[57:18] ones, that if people had an additional sexually dwelling, it might make older couples have

[57:25] a chance to you know get by when the money gets tight and you'd like to see younger people

[57:30] have an opportunity to start but what are they going to charge if you look at what is being

[57:36] charged in Hancock County and you look across the way the manager of the state park any number

[57:41] we all know what people are looking they can't find land that's affordable housing that's affordable

[57:47] or rents, and what's happening now is that across the

[57:54] countries there's a lot of conflict about how we can come

[57:58] to something that people can have ownership.

[58:00] The property rights are about the individual who wants

[58:03] to live and grow in the community, or just be

[58:07] there as a worker, working in a particular business.

[58:10] But that rate of pay, I mean, who determines that?

[58:16] Is that the free market?

[58:18] The market.

[58:18] It is.

[58:20] You're not going to see it.

[58:21] If we found ourselves in a position where we

[58:24] were seeing prices drop, we would be in a depressive

[58:28] economic state, which would be brutally harmful for everybody.

[58:32] In the end, so you look at the Subprime Mortgage Crisis

[58:36] in 0708, you had a decrease in property values,

[58:40] a huge number of houses that got foreclosed on and sat vacant

[58:44] for years afterwards, right?

[58:46] That was economically harmful to everybody, brutal, right?

[58:51] So the way out of the current state is where we have just

[58:57] ridiculous average rents and house mortgages and rates

[59:02] and everything just overwhelming everybody,

[59:05] is that growth component nationally.

[59:07] They increased the growth in our economy.

[59:11] So you see the wages rises and try

[59:13] and keep the inflationary side down and all that.

[59:18] So I'm not commenting on how well that's going.

[59:21] That's how every time we've had a bad economic moment,

[59:25] or we've had an increase in the 70s,

[59:27] the increase in inflation in the 70s,

[59:29] the Reagan did it by having Paul Wilger run the Fed rates up.

[59:35] You know, I had a friend, when I was 15 years old,

[59:40] I had a friend who moved out of the neighborhood

[59:41] and his parents bought a brand new house

[59:42] By the time they closed by the time the construction was done the loan closed and their rate was 17% on that mortgage

[59:49] And they were so far backwards in their monthly budget to be able to pay for that they immediately had to sell that frame

[1:00:00] House and, you know, go elsewhere. So, the corrective periods are not pleasant. Sometimes they are just catastrophic. But the growth throughout the 80s lifted everybody up out of that. So, that's why I'm sorry. I'm so appreciative of all of your service, but we're getting a little bit into, like, civics, I feel like an economics 101 type of thing. I don't know if there's time for public comment, but I would love to. We've got five o'clock and we're gonna, we were trying to do this.

[1:00:35] I agree with Bob whole heartedly. I think that it's because of where we are, Hancock County with short-term rentals. I think it's irresponsible of us if we don't address that as part of this law.

[1:00:55] Under the main legislature.gov, they say, under municipalities and counties, planning

[1:01:05] and land use regulation, municipalities may regulate short-term rentals.

[1:01:10] A municipality may establish and enforce regulations regarding short-term rental units

[1:01:15] in order to achieve the statewide or regional housing production goal.

[1:01:20] For the purposes of this subsection, short-term rental unit means living quarters offered for rental through transient rental platform.

[1:01:29] They're encouraging municipalities to address the short-term rental issue because like Bob said, towns like, I mean, it's on their agenda this week for Tremont, Southwest Harbor.

[1:01:48] You know, we can't, I don't believe we can ignore that.

[1:01:51] I think it's irresponsible for us to ignore that.

[1:01:53] And I, for one, yes, and I've said it, I have a,

[1:01:57] I have an accessory dwelling unit.

[1:01:59] I live on the property.

[1:02:00] I don't intend to divide my property anymore.

[1:02:04] It's a good rental income for us.

[1:02:06] I'm not taking a house away from anybody.

[1:02:09] It's a, it's a seasonal, it's a seasonal rental.

[1:02:13] But, you know, there is an issue, and, you know, I've brought it up before at other meetings, there is single-family homes, year-round homes being rented for seasonal rental.

[1:02:30] And that, and there's a lot of them in Lemoy.

[1:02:33] I mean, I can count 25 on Douglas Highway and the Moin Beach Road, it's easy to count them.

[1:02:44] So those have taken off the housing market, those are small homes being rented weekly.

[1:02:52] And as far as I'm concerned, that's where a lot of the issue lies.

[1:02:58] And that's why Bar Harbor did what they did.

[1:03:00] that's why other communities, because it's taking houses off of the market, out of which

[1:03:08] is increasing unaffordability for people, for young families.

[1:03:14] I don't know.

[1:03:15] I don't think any of us don't think can do the short-term rental.

[1:03:20] I think I think we all understand that that's there.

[1:03:23] Well, what I'm saying is it needs to be addressed as part of this.

[1:03:26] That's why I think we need to write it into our ordinance as we're addressing this law.

[1:03:36] If we don't address it now, there is nothing just like Bob said, there is nothing that's

[1:03:45] preventing a developer from coming in and saying, I'm going to, you know, whether it's

[1:03:52] lot size or short-term rentals. If we don't do that now, it's going to be a problem.

[1:03:59] It's already a problem.

[1:04:02] We had something more than that.

[1:04:05] So once again, do you have anything else you want to say, Don?

[1:04:10] I just see them as too.

[1:04:12] I agree.

[1:04:12] We can't close our eyes and pretend that that concern doesn't exist.

[1:04:17] I think we do have to face the music on these days and that's going to be very controversial

[1:04:22] But that said, that's just not what we're doing.

[1:04:27] There's two separate things here.

[1:04:29] One is to incorporate L.D. 21773 into our ordinance

[1:04:33] with the state mandate and the other.

[1:04:36] And once that's in place, then it's not talking about short-term rentals.

[1:04:39] I just don't see them.

[1:04:41] We couldn't amend L.D. 2173 to have the section relating to short-term rentals.

[1:04:48] But the actual act says to update the laws regarding housing development and ADUs.

[1:04:55] That's what the law says.

[1:04:57] But ADUs are not necessarily short-term rentals.

[1:04:59] I understand that.

[1:05:00] But it's not necessarily not.

[1:05:02] No.

[1:05:03] I'm not saying we don't need to address it.

[1:05:05] I'm just saying it should be addressed to two separate items.

[1:05:08] Well done.

[1:05:08] Other people, other towns are doing the consecutive, very at the same time.

[1:05:13] So that's why Tremont sent out the survey.

[1:05:15] And they're still having to dress this law so it's not like you can't do it together. I mean they're doing it.

[1:05:24] It's happening.

[1:05:26] Stacy, do you have anything you want to add?

[1:05:29] I'm just not sure that we should cooperate the two together at this time. We should look at one and then the other.

[1:05:35] We shouldn't look at the shoulder terminal as opposed to the

[1:05:42] walk right at all, as far as the long-term Reynolds.

[1:05:45] What's that?

[1:05:46] Short-term versus and long-term.

[1:05:48] Oh.

[1:05:48] Yeah.

[1:05:49] And that's exactly what I mentioned earlier.

[1:05:51] That's one of the things that Southwest Arbor has asked somebody to take a look at.

[1:05:56] Just an inventory, one procedure for an inventory, to come to our registry, like Ellsworth,

[1:06:02] and that they wouldn't have to be, what's that?

[1:06:04] That doesn't come to words to be, yeah.

[1:06:06] Well, okay.

[1:06:07] We're in the process.

[1:06:09] Yeah, whether it's long term or short term,

[1:06:12] this, I mean, it stays to you and Karen and Brett

[1:06:19] and Stuart all have rentals in town.

[1:06:23] You look like one.

[1:06:23] No, I don't know what it's like.

[1:06:25] I rent my house.

[1:06:26] I mean, it's not like I'm against,

[1:06:28] I'm not against it, but I think within that,

[1:06:31] That is a volume of impact, or just thinking about, as to what is good and bad and what

[1:06:39] are the issues and so forth, we've got it right here.

[1:06:42] So it makes sense to discuss it in ways that maybe you could guide us as a facilitator.

[1:06:49] But I agree with you, Don, that what's before us is this particular thing.

[1:06:53] What I keep running off about is it's an update and an amendment, but it's all dealing with

[1:06:59] the density for main families and workers equal workers because you know the

[1:07:07] short-term the the islands troubled with all sorts of gaps and we're people in

[1:07:13] the and I've been everybody in this room can tell you that people have

[1:07:15] trouble finding somebody to work maybe not store it because they will have a

[1:07:20] place to live to work is what it's about you know having a place to live to work

[1:07:28] I feel that we are stick to this. I mean, it's mandated that we have to do this, and I think that we are stick to it as it is the best that we can.

[1:07:37] I know it would be nice to try to fit it into the town, but I don't know if that's really going to be an option for us at this point in time.

[1:07:44] And, you know, we do have a time frame, it's going to be done.

[1:07:48] And I think that we ought to kind of stick to this agenda on this planet and try to get

[1:07:53] it squared away.

[1:07:55] Personally, I could not like this whole thing whatsoever, because just as soon as we get

[1:07:59] things squared away, they're going to change everything, and it's a real pain in the neck,

[1:08:05] you know.

[1:08:05] Then we can also wait and see, because there's a lot of being up and done.

[1:08:10] There's a lot of people that's not going to like what I have to say about it.

[1:08:12] But, you know, we're going against this affordability.

[1:08:15] I'm trying to make this affordable housing.

[1:08:17] There's no such thing, unless it's government subsidized

[1:08:19] or something.

[1:08:21] It's impossible.

[1:08:22] Things are not going to get cheaper.

[1:08:24] What they have to do is they have to have the young people,

[1:08:27] which are kids that we have raised,

[1:08:31] they've been spoiled, they're not working half the hours

[1:08:34] that they could be, okay?

[1:08:37] And they're not saving their money.

[1:08:39] And so therefore, that makes a lot of the reason

[1:08:41] why they can't afford some of this stuff, you know, they're going out and they're spending

[1:08:46] all the money and they're working 30 to 40 hours a week at the most, you know.

[1:08:53] I think they're very good dream of everyone having a single day out.

[1:08:57] I was like 80 to about 80 hours a week, trying to do it, but that's consciousness.

[1:09:04] I would push back on that, I'm 42, so I'm a little older than that, but I work my

[1:09:11] tail off for decades, and I can job barely at Ford, my house, and so, and I have a very

[1:09:19] good job, the very good wage for this area, I can barely get by, so it's, and I agree

[1:09:25] the affordable housing is an option tomorrow.

[1:09:26] Yeah, yeah.

[1:09:27] It's, it's, it's done, because it's, it's made out of how hard you work.

[1:09:30] It's paid for by something else.

[1:09:32] Yeah.

[1:09:33] Ultimately, I think it's going to have to be close to having a partner building, something like that.

[1:09:38] It's a single family home for every person, a couple of my things, just going to be.

[1:09:43] But unfortunately, when you get into that, you get into a whole other level of problems.

[1:09:48] Well, I feel like what's the purpose of this workshop?

[1:09:51] I guess I'd like to know what the purpose is.

[1:09:55] Well, the law in front of this is the purpose.

[1:09:59] So what do we, I know we want to discuss it and talk about it, but also as far as

[1:10:11] Lemoine's concerned, how are we going to try to address some of the laws that are

[1:10:21] in this to best meet the needs of Lemoine?

[1:10:25] So, I mean, so I guess that's where my question is.

[1:10:30] So I want to hear from the audience members.

[1:10:33] I'm not trying to put you guys on.

[1:10:37] The document that was handed out tonight was the one that came two or three meetings together.

[1:10:41] Right. And I read that.

[1:10:42] I identified the specific areas of our order.

[1:10:44] It says in the, you know, the amendments.

[1:10:47] To that point to do that question you made.

[1:10:49] I would, I would like to see.

[1:10:51] and review this and maybe you already did for certain degree.

[1:10:55] Yeah, you already did. I mean, I think maybe it's a gift of language. Yeah, I think maybe,

[1:11:01] we'll touch on this at our next meeting. So maybe we take this home's homework and we review

[1:11:05] this and we compare it to our full ordinance and Travis and do that back and forth.

[1:11:11] And then at our next meeting we talk about whether we want to make tweaks,

[1:11:17] the language or whatever as far as this goes, we can think we can miss something,

[1:11:20] or something else needs to be in there and that might be the next logical step forward

[1:11:24] to be productive.

[1:11:25] Does that make sense to everybody?

[1:11:27] Yeah.

[1:11:27] I think it's ongoing.

[1:11:29] Certainly.

[1:11:31] Certainly.

[1:11:31] We just open it up.

[1:11:32] I said that at the beginning.

[1:11:33] If we don't open up and get the other thing out, we don't know what we can talk about.

[1:11:36] Lots of kid awards.

[1:11:38] Right.

[1:11:38] So I don't know either of you.

[1:11:39] Thanks, Brett.

[1:11:40] Sure.

[1:11:40] Thanks, Brett.

[1:11:42] We're just here as part of this conversation.

[1:11:44] I'm so grateful to hear your discussion.

[1:11:46] It's always great.

[1:11:48] Yeah, that we're all participating in the culture of our town, but we're actually we fit right in line with what this was attempting to address with this new law.

[1:11:56] It's attempting to address some of the first time home buyer. I come from folks that my mom was like a cleaner for hotels on NDI.

[1:12:05] I'm so grateful that we get to live here in our beautiful house. We also have a rental. It allows us to survive and make it work here.

[1:12:14] But we do notice that there's a huge issue with these single-family homes being purchased in town by people from out of state

[1:12:22] And out of town and out of state or multiple houses being purchased by people from out of state

[1:12:28] We're seeing like I can tell you all the ones that we can see because all the they get their own trash

[1:12:34] Make up, you know

[1:12:35] There we can tell all the cars in the driveway aren't from here and it does start to make our block essentially feel like a ghost town

[1:12:42] It doesn't feel good.

[1:12:43] It was not what we meant to live amongst.

[1:12:47] So my concern, even regardless of this,

[1:12:49] I totally understand that it might be really challenging

[1:12:52] to, you know, even braid this in with another project,

[1:12:58] which is trying to regulate this monolith

[1:13:02] of an industry, which is short-term rentals.

[1:13:05] But at the same time, even aside from this going into effect,

[1:13:09] It does feel as if as a town it is our responsibility to actually come up with

[1:13:15] who's doing these, how many are there,

[1:13:20] and what can we do to at least not

[1:13:23] necessarily curb like in-home businesses that people have, but to at least curb

[1:13:29] people from out of town be able to buy four or five homes and turn them into

[1:13:33] short-term rentals and add 80 use on to them and sort of call a flower our town

[1:13:39] with these, you know, I guess, expansive ways to earn money. I mean, we're really just

[1:13:45] talking about money and this is what our discussion has been. There are people that are here

[1:13:49] to exploit walls like this and there's predatory developers that will come in and just throw

[1:13:56] some money at a parcel and expand it for their own gain. What can we do to prevent that before

[1:14:01] it's too late? Yeah, we really appreciate being here and we don't want to lose the culture

[1:14:06] of this town, which, you know, I did. I love looking at the Comprehensive Plan because

[1:14:10] I'm a bit of a nerd. And I love that it says, you know, we really do, we, and we have

[1:14:17] Role Character. It's the 2020 Comprehensive Plan was the attempt was to preserve the Moines

[1:14:22] Role Character, maintain natural beauty, and support home-based businesses, which, you know,

[1:14:27] Karen's speaking about hers, we're speaking about ours while prohibiting large-scale hotels,

[1:14:32] motels and resorts, and I would argue that at this point, with the ADUs, it's a huge

[1:14:37] possibility for an outside person to come in and create their own profit from an industry

[1:14:43] that's already about doing that.

[1:14:45] So yeah, what's to prevent this from just being totally exploited?

[1:14:48] I would love to see the planning board come up with a plan.

[1:14:52] So I'm not pushing back on you, but I'm like I said

[1:15:05] I don't know how many people are out of town or out of state, but I do know that there's a lot of people that live in town and not in a significant number of them will take their campgrounds and then rent their home out.

[1:15:21] So...

[1:15:22] Right.

[1:15:23] How do...

[1:15:23] You know, it seems to be...

[1:15:24] Yeah.

[1:15:24] Do I hear...

[1:15:25] I don't know how the legal part works with that.

[1:15:27] Well, in my impression, it's really about actually being, like, uh, let's say you own a home

[1:15:32] here and you can even do whatever you want with it.

[1:15:34] That seems totally reasonable.

[1:15:36] But let's say you're a corporation or an LLC or something that literally, uh, buys homes

[1:15:42] from out of, you know, from New Hampshire.

[1:15:44] For example, our house was purchased near us by a group of people from New Hampshire.

[1:15:48] It's they they're doing what they want with it which is to short-term rent it

[1:15:52] But what it's doing is it's preventing another family especially a family like this

[1:15:56] You know this new law is attempting to assist with having housing

[1:16:01] So I don't think it's about xenophobia personally. That would disturb me if I was if I was advocating for that

[1:16:07] What I'm advocating for is that if you have a home here you bought it you live here whatever you can do whatever you want

[1:16:13] But there's got to be a way to say maybe you know bar harvors

[1:16:16] I feel like, uh, dress this. Don't they? Like you can have a certain amount. You can have one or two.

[1:16:22] It's fine that those people from New Hampshire bought one. Live your life.

[1:16:25] But if they're about to buy three or four, that's a problem. And there, that is what's happening.

[1:16:30] If you go on Airbnb, they say right now that there's been an 80% of increase in short term rentals in Le Mans from 25 to 2026.

[1:16:38] So, you know, 2025, yeah, 2026. That's huge you guys. That is not okay.

[1:16:43] And it's because these these profiting corporations and again sometimes, you know, an individual but that's more rare are buying multiple properties.

[1:16:54] So, again, I don't think it has anything to do with even everyone in this room wouldn't be regulated in this sense.

[1:17:00] I don't think, maybe, he would, but I think it's really about actually maintaining the culture of being able to have a home-based business.

[1:17:07] and not letting electric lamp ground, we didn't want that as a town.

[1:17:11] This is essentially a lamp ground, again, if we don't curb what's possible.

[1:17:17] So LLCs, in my life, own multiple LLCs.

[1:17:21] And the reason I own multiple is because we have ample properties.

[1:17:25] And the purpose of the LLC is to provide me with a limited liability corporation,

[1:17:29] providing me the ability to protect the assets that I have literally sweated more for

[1:17:34] for being taken, if there's a legal challenge that I lose,

[1:17:38] meaning if somebody gets hurt on a piece of property,

[1:17:40] I only can attach the assets that the property

[1:17:43] or the injury happen to them.

[1:17:44] So I think it's unfair to lump in the LLCs,

[1:17:47] because LLCs are really just a standard.

[1:17:48] I don't think I mean LLCs specifically.

[1:17:51] I mean, anyone from out of town that is incorporated

[1:17:54] in whatever way, again, maybe an individual,

[1:17:56] whoever is profiting off of buying homes

[1:17:58] that are meant to be for individuals to live in.

[1:18:00] So along with the folks I mentioned

[1:18:04] that have that live here and then leave and then rent and you know they of course pay their

[1:18:08] mortgages and their property taxes with all of that I live on seal point whether it's a tremendous

[1:18:13] number of homes on the on the shore side of seal point as you go down and I think you know let's

[1:18:18] say there's ten down there I think eight of them probably have year-round residences the other eight

[1:18:23] are temporarily occupied during the summer there's the classic summer home so wealthy people

[1:18:27] I'll shut up long on the shore a good number of those get rented out and again those people are

[1:18:33] paying their mortgages in their property taxes.

[1:18:35] A lot of folks look at those properties

[1:18:37] as some sort of a net negative on a town.

[1:18:40] And certainly they are a residential component

[1:18:44] that could be occupied by a family,

[1:18:48] and those people could have kids, whatever.

[1:18:51] But those particular properties in themselves

[1:18:53] back to the argument about affordability,

[1:18:55] those are never going to be affordable houses.

[1:18:57] Those are $1,000,000 homes on the shore.

[1:18:58] Those are going to be $5,000 a month

[1:19:00] some of those houses out in traditional sense.

[1:19:03] So, along with that, along with them never really,

[1:19:06] truly ever being an affordable house,

[1:19:08] they also contribute a sizable amount of property

[1:19:10] tasks in the town that cover filing our school,

[1:19:14] our fire department, this building,

[1:19:16] the salary to the people working.

[1:19:18] So it's not just, you know, it's back to the yin and yin.

[1:19:21] There's a lot of move on parts in these conversations

[1:19:24] and these ideas and I think, you know,

[1:19:27] it's these conversations.

[1:19:28] This is a pushback.

[1:19:29] And I just wanted to say that what you're doing is pushing back on that and listening and

[1:19:34] putting it up on the board.

[1:19:36] And what I suggest when I came in here is that the muscle group, the work with Ellswood

[1:19:41] is that correct?

[1:19:42] Correct.

[1:19:42] And you were talking about that in a positive sense because they were having a collective

[1:19:47] discussion and a lot of information on the table.

[1:19:49] Is that correct?

[1:19:50] Correct.

[1:19:50] Get about this particular issue.

[1:19:52] Not about short or rental.

[1:19:53] Well, about the housing densities.

[1:19:55] housing density, which is connected to ADU's in this particular discussion. And that

[1:20:01] self-established library tonight, the topic, cultivating yes in my backyard, culture, balancing

[1:20:08] concerns and opportunities in the housing development process, which is what we are involved

[1:20:15] in. And so, if the Muslim group is capable of providing elsewhere, then I suggest we should

[1:20:21] and maybe ask a question of that particular professional

[1:20:24] to say, look, this is the issue.

[1:20:26] These are the issues.

[1:20:28] And then we collectively, maybe we are just working

[1:20:31] on one thing.

[1:20:32] Maybe we could, wow, let's just vote on that,

[1:20:34] and we'll take care of it.

[1:20:35] But this other stuff isn't going away.

[1:20:37] If what you just said about you and what you make

[1:20:39] and what you can afford, then there are those of us

[1:20:43] who are lucky with land.

[1:20:44] There are those of us who are lucky with land plus rentals.

[1:20:47] And some of us have worked our ass off quite frankly, and I've watched you as long as I've been in town, and you young man have done quite a bit, and you deserve everything you work for because you're earned it, and that's no further away from you or you.

[1:21:03] But quite frankly, you listen about you, you and individuals, this is collective. This is the town of a boy, and this is how it works, and it ain't easy, is it? I don't live my easy street.

[1:21:14] Yeah.

[1:21:15] But my life that's not good.

[1:21:17] So yeah, I don't, and you can explain to me, I don't fully, I don't think this is a workshop

[1:21:24] and everybody's workshopping ideas, but I don't understand like why I forget that, I

[1:21:30] get that you have an opinion that's different, but how like, is there a way that people in

[1:21:36] the market can also have inputs like that they aren't foreign is there a way that we can

[1:21:41] do that?

[1:21:42] and then my other question is there's people at the table that say we have this

[1:21:47] ordinance or we have this law that we have to write in and in their view we

[1:21:52] can add to it and in other people you you shouldn't but how do you guys like

[1:21:56] democracy there's democracy on this table because I've seen like I think I

[1:22:02] feel like some people are more important they would be a public hearing yeah so any

[1:22:07] Any ordinance gets developed, it goes to the slide board, and then there'll be a public

[1:22:13] hearing component.

[1:22:14] People can input how they feel about it, what they think is good about it, what they think

[1:22:17] is wrong about it.

[1:22:18] And then ultimately everything that happens in town, I mentioned pure democracy, is a town

[1:22:23] meeting, formal government.

[1:22:24] It is pure democracy.

[1:22:26] The decisions made by the majority of the people that attend town meeting, pass whatever.

[1:22:31] You sure?

[1:22:31] Yeah.

[1:22:32] Could be 10 people, could be 500 feet.

[1:22:33] Yeah.

[1:22:34] So that's how that works.

[1:22:35] But yeah, no, because I want I want to hear your opinion, but I also like

[1:22:39] Want to be heard. I even though you're saying this is not the right time, but I just was like

[1:22:45] Wanted to be heard. I just feel like what you said is how a lot of people feel in town

[1:22:49] I agree

[1:22:50] We know it's just it's like to disregard what you said is it's not that it wasn't just regard it

[1:22:56] I'm saying like there's a lot of people that feel the way you feel and in the in the voices do need to be do need to be heard whether it's a

[1:23:06] You know, another meeting and they can come and talk about it or whether it's an online

[1:23:12] survey, so they can give input and not have it like be front and center, you know.

[1:23:16] So I think it's a disservice for the town not to do something like that, not to provide

[1:23:21] that for the residents to be able to come and speak and give a voice.

[1:23:26] Well, and to your point, we're also, this is meant to address moral populations and truly

[1:23:31] a lot of folks that have this voice that we're close with, they don't have time they have kids,

[1:23:36] they have work, they can't necessarily come here right now, so we're here right now speaking

[1:23:40] on behalf of a large constituency who feels the same way. And we really, it's really a plea,

[1:23:45] I'm truly pleading with you to consider this, I understand the other perspectives here,

[1:23:51] I don't think we can solve all the housing problems in the world right now, I don't think we can solve

[1:23:55] all the housing problems in the morning right now, but I do think we can address one really intense

[1:24:00] broken dam which is this influx of short-term rental money that's coming

[1:24:06] again from the individuals or whatever whatever we want to say

[1:24:10] corporations whatever it is that's profiting tremendously off of our housing

[1:24:15] stock and I'm pleading with you to consider addressing that somehow thank you

[1:24:20] very much and I think it can be done together because other towns are doing it so

[1:24:24] you said 532 yeah we're right about there the the back of work conversation we're

[1:24:29] having here was just the back-and-port conversation and you guys you know give

[1:24:33] an opportunity to speak and I was not pushing back on you I was continuing that

[1:24:36] back-and-port conversation when I presented the other side or when I felt

[1:24:40] to be the other side of the presentation you think so it wasn't I wasn't pushing

[1:24:43] back I wasn't trying to be rude to come across my way please don't take it that

[1:24:46] way you know my point that I made a bunch of times is that these are complex

[1:24:50] issues and the one side always has the other side and there's going to be an

[1:24:55] effect. So it's 5.26. I know. But I'm going to use the chair's

[1:25:01] progative. There's been a lot of discussion about hours. And I

[1:25:05] understand a lot of people have strong feelings about hours. The

[1:25:09] town owns a very limited amount of town or property in town that

[1:25:12] the ours in town is all of the collective people. It's town

[1:25:15] meeting and whatnot. So the you know, the the ultimate democracy of

[1:25:19] town meeting may prove that it wants something like this.

[1:25:24] If it

[1:25:25] So I am uncomfortable with the language of ours because, you know, you end up with

[1:25:32] on?

[1:25:33] The ours.

[1:25:33] The idea that what I have worked hard for is somehow allowed to be influenced by others

[1:25:40] beyond the democratic process.

[1:25:42] I think the collectivist nature of ours is a problem, not that problem, but a problem.

[1:25:49] Not being rude.

[1:25:50] It's my perspective.

[1:25:51] I don't think they have a question ethic and several other millennial kind of things.

[1:25:57] Talk about treating the neighbor as you'd like to be treated.

[1:26:01] And that neighbor that kind of thing, I think, is a lot what happens here, but you know

[1:26:05] that.

[1:26:05] You've been here long enough, so you've made it, you know, you make connections with a lot

[1:26:10] of different people.

[1:26:11] And you don't always see eye to eye, but somehow you can joke about it a little bit.

[1:26:15] And learn.

[1:26:16] Because if I didn't learn something from Nate sitting in the back there, sitting on his

[1:26:21] I've been less of a human being, but I've learned from anybody that I've ever worked with.

[1:26:25] So this is another group and at 5.28, I hope that we can take this home.

[1:26:30] We got two minutes to get something done.

[1:26:32] Can we bump?

[1:26:35] I'm sorry.

[1:26:39] We're obviously going to need some more of these.

[1:26:41] Yeah, we'll touch you in the next meeting.

[1:26:43] Our next meeting will actually have a section in the agenda on this.

[1:26:46] I think probably the productive thing there would be to go through this list.

[1:26:51] Like I said before we get to the meeting and then whatever notes people want to bring

[1:26:54] to the meeting regarding the recommendation that was in this particular document we can

[1:26:58] work out with that.

[1:26:59] Does that make sense?

[1:27:00] Can we put this specifically on the agenda?

[1:27:02] Yeah, I want to.

[1:27:03] I mean that way we will take care of it because it's part of the process.

[1:27:07] I also have a question about the site clear review when we change that checklist.

[1:27:12] This is not what you guys said that.

[1:27:13] Did that ever get?

[1:27:14] Thank you.

[1:27:15] Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:27:17] Did that ever get updated?

[1:27:19] I don't know. I was wondering about that yesterday.

[1:27:22] It might be worth running that by.

[1:27:23] If you want to send me a mail.

[1:27:24] Would that be two?

[1:27:24] Yeah, he did.

[1:27:25] One that we dropped up.

[1:27:26] Any changes to that sheet.

[1:27:27] Okay. So this was the

[1:27:29] modifications to the application.

[1:27:31] Yeah, there was a couple of things that

[1:27:33] Val suggested that we add to.

[1:27:35] That, you know, very top of the list.

[1:27:36] Yeah.

[1:27:37] I mean, there's one last thing I was going to say is that, you know,

[1:27:40] what I said before about, you know,

[1:27:43] worrying about the what if

[1:27:44] that what I was trying to say with that is that, you know, we have a mandate to enact 18-20,

[1:27:53] right?

[1:27:54] When I was 20, I was 17, I get all 100.

[1:27:56] You know what I'm saying?

[1:27:56] I deal with it every day.

[1:27:58] So that really should be the focus of what we're doing here.

[1:28:00] And the short-term analysis of what we're doing here, and any of that, that's all valid.

[1:28:05] And I deal with that every day too, and that was worth it.

[1:28:09] I think what, you know, you can develop them on parallel tracks.

[1:28:12] They don't necessarily have to be interlinked, you can do it together, not necessarily mix them.

[1:28:19] So we really should focus on getting the LD1829 and 2173 stuff

[1:28:26] migrated into the land use ordinance, but we can also work on short-term

[1:28:31] house stuff if that's, if the town wants to pursue that, I'm also happy to help with that.

[1:28:37] And you know, we can have other workshops on that and I can come over and I have a lot

[1:28:42] of information in my brain about that stuff too.

[1:28:45] I mean, because we think I'm going back to Tremont just because they're dealing with

[1:28:48] this law, but they're also dealing with, you know, getting input from the town from residents

[1:28:53] about structural and mental.

[1:28:54] So, I mean, there's no reason why it can't be too, too proud of that.

[1:28:58] Here, parallel law.

[1:28:59] Right.

[1:29:00] I don't think they can't be together.

[1:29:01] No, I know it's two different things.

[1:29:03] Yeah, so we need to get this, the LV stuff done for the town meeting.

[1:29:11] So I guess I'd like to know, I know what you've written out here, right?

[1:29:15] So my question going back is what I say, what was the purpose?

[1:29:19] The town, I mean, within the law, it's saying we can do some guidelines, like say, can we

[1:29:25] put in there, like we wouldn't want, I'm just throwing this out there, you know, like

[1:29:31] say three trailers on one you know can we can we define like what we would

[1:29:37] want on a residential you know like what structures we would want yes I know

[1:29:43] Al's work did but I believe this statute limits your ability I'm not gonna say

[1:29:49] totally gets rid of it but I think it's probably military ability to sell you

[1:29:54] You know, no bobo.

[1:30:00] I'm not saying, well, I mean, is there any kind of, you know, way we could regulate some of what could be or no? I mean, not really? That's probably above my pay rate to say yes or no on that, but it'd be more of selling. Yeah, I think it was zoning. You can say, like, no, mobile homes, but I don't think you can say, like, you know, I don't know how granular you want to get on that. So that would be, I have nothing to get small homes.

[1:30:26] My, my mother-in-law lives in a mobile home.

[1:30:29] I mean, I'm just saying that's just an example.

[1:30:32] Yeah, you know.

[1:30:33] So, on the mobile home statement, I have two mobile homes

[1:30:37] and a year-round rentals for families.

[1:30:39] They are cheap and affordable.

[1:30:41] They do work and they all don't look like a mobile home

[1:30:44] marketable housing.

[1:30:45] Yeah.

[1:30:46] They're under $100,000 and they can put families up.

[1:30:49] Because the stigma is about that, but if you look at the short,

[1:30:53] So look at the tiny houses right now that are about $100,000 that happen to be on wheels,

[1:31:00] but they fulfill a lot of the potential for somebody to have affordable housing.

[1:31:07] So I think it has to be considered, you know, the edict with mobile parks is a stigma,

[1:31:13] or whatever.

[1:31:15] Well, it's about always taking care of, you know, but I'm thinking of some park that aren't

[1:31:18] taking care of, you know, sometimes they can not look, you know.

[1:31:21] No, I'm just doing it.

[1:31:22] I mean, I don't think yours are, you know what I'm saying, some people do, but we are here

[1:31:26] about affordable housing, okay, and we're trying to keep it on affordable housing because

[1:31:31] mobile homes are a part of it, and town really doesn't like them, but they do wear it.

[1:31:37] I think we really have to stay focused, like Robert said, on getting, I mean, we have two

[1:31:41] things.

[1:31:41] One is mandated, and the other one is something that's just up for discussion, and we didn't

[1:31:46] really know where we want to go with that.

[1:31:47] So I think we have to, it was like the show line's only.

[1:31:51] I'm sure when the show line's only game,

[1:31:53] there's a lot of controversy surrounding it,

[1:31:54] but the data in the town had no option.

[1:31:56] It had to be implemented to show line's only.

[1:31:58] And this is the same thing. It's coming down from the

[1:32:00] gothsteria scene. This is what you got to do.

[1:32:02] And we can, you know, for sure, the easiest way

[1:32:07] to just cut and paste, like I said.

[1:32:09] But, you know, if we want to try and,

[1:32:11] I think we can, might be some room for things

[1:32:13] like different lock sizes or something like that,

[1:32:14] But I think if we really stop widening the scope of what we're considering here, we're

[1:32:20] just going to kind of get lost in the mud.

[1:32:21] On that idea of law sides, does the board feel comfortable requesting Robert to look

[1:32:27] into whether you could find support for the idea of a subdivision having a bigger minimum

[1:32:34] law size than, you know, just a standard lot that's been created off a bigger lot?

[1:32:39] I can certainly look at that.

[1:32:41] Do we all feel comfortable out of the basket?

[1:32:43] Is there any way you can state that to me in an email?

[1:32:46] Sure.

[1:32:46] I don't know if you remember how you said that.

[1:32:49] Well, the idea being minimum loss size of 8,000 square feet in a subdivision,

[1:32:54] and then if somebody just takes an acre off of 10 to let the kid go and house that only needs to go.

[1:32:59] I can look it up.

[1:33:01] I don't think that's going to fly.

[1:33:04] I don't question the answer.

[1:33:05] My gut says it won't fly.

[1:33:07] But okay, so say you had a three acre line is that end if you subdivide that is that considered a that's not considered a

[1:33:16] subject. So if you had a lot of any size and you just wouldn't have you can do that and then if I you can take 100 acres and make it 50 and then

[1:33:23] five years later you can make two cities and make it four to five. So if you had a three acre log and you put it in the three one acre

[1:33:32] lots, and you were not selling them to family. You were just

[1:33:35] putting them out there for the general public to buy. That

[1:33:38] would be considered a separate decision. They would have to

[1:33:40] get. Okay, so that's my question. But they they put it

[1:33:43] once and then put it again in five years. That's not that

[1:33:46] would not. That would not be where they're being stupid.

[1:33:51] No, wrong.

[1:33:56] Way too much grinning in the back.

[1:34:00] Okay. Thank you, everybody.

[1:34:02] Thank you.

[1:34:05] I think that the committee does to turn on the camera or is it all automated?

[1:34:12] Stu and or whomever manages their tech I think pre-programs and so I don't know you know years ago beyond

[1:34:19] air light used to work my understanding with that particular thing is that there was an expensive component

[1:34:23] in the tech room that failed and it was due expensive to fix it so we no longer have the benefit of beyond

[1:34:30] on that light, so as far as that goes.

[1:34:33] I don't know what is scheduled.

[1:34:35] He had put a note for us that it was going to start,

[1:34:40] so it'd be to feel like he would have programmed it

[1:34:42] for, oh, it didn't.

[1:34:44] No, I've been trying to, I couldn't get here to London,

[1:34:47] and it has said that there's not.

[1:34:48] Oh, oh, yeah.

[1:34:50] Pretty question.

[1:34:51] Yeah, that comes down just as long as, yeah.

[1:34:57] Well, it's a medical school or a child.

[1:34:59] How many people are there?

[1:35:01] What's the meaning of this?

[1:35:03] You need to see a sound wave when you're out there.

Planning Board Workshop - August 12, 2026

Transcript