[0:01] So now we are able to have a graduated lodging scale. So, for example, that the L40 would be a maximum of 40 guests units, L150 would be a maximum of 150 guests units, and so forth and so on.

[0:15] Okay?

[0:20] So, where lodging would be allowed to do this amendment? So, prior to June 9, 2026,

[0:26] so the previous vote that the town had, there was an amendment called lodging regulation

[0:31] of amendment, and prior to that amendment passing, lodging was permitted in 27 of the 40 zoning

[0:41] districts in Bar Harbor. Following the June 9th, vote 2026, when the lodging regulation amendment

[0:49] passed, lodging is now permitted in 16 of the 40 zoning districts. So basically those were

[0:56] a bunch of low-hanging fruits, there was nothing or whatever, and it's kind of nothing happened

[1:01] with the cutout in it passed. So the graduated lodging

[1:05] case of the amendment right now, possibly going to the voters in November, would result in

[1:11] lodging being permitted in 14 of the 40s owning districts.

[1:16] So we're going down by two.

[1:19] So the two districts where lodging would be, when no longer be allowed, or a health

[1:25] school residential corridor and town health residential.

[1:27] So when you get home, you are able to take that table and understand that if there was no

[1:34] on conformity created, and you also can look in the other document that is here and that's

[1:42] going to inform you on this situation, should you be interested in it?

[1:48] So we have some status quo, so five districts would make the current lodging intensity

[1:54] through the new classification.

[1:56] So, these are mountains of street corridor, downtown residential, and all-school business.

[2:04] In the South-Break of Courthor, the intensity would remain the same.

[2:09] However, the area where it is allowed would be reduced in size and be limited to lots,

[2:14] with front-touch on route 3, between the northernmost junction with baby drive and south-of-the-flight.

[2:21] This is where they are right now, okay?

[2:23] And in the Shural Manager in World Development 4, there would be a slight reduction in allowed intensity from 25 to 20 guests units, and that does not create enough information.

[2:37] So there are seven districts where higher intensity-larging uses, such as if they else were in the alpha, I currently alone.

[2:45] So those were the figure focus.

[2:48] The amendment would establish lodging intensity limit and those five districts where no cap currently exist.

[2:56] So, what it has come out to would be that downtown village one in downtown village two would be L 12.

[3:03] So, it would be limited at 12 guests units.

[3:06] And if you look at, again, the table is going to show you what's there right now,

[3:13] each of the lodging and how many rooms they have.

[3:16] But Harvard Gateway and Shoreline General Development 3 is L-150.

[3:21] Again, I'm going to keep in touch with myself in trusting myself.

[3:24] But you can also see there are some little arrows.

[3:26] It tells you if two districts really work together.

[3:30] One is Shoreline zoning, so a hotel is partially in one district.

[3:33] The other goes, that's identified and talked about as well.

[3:38] Shoreline General Development 1 would be L-200.

[3:41] South recall village will be L, would be L, 20 and Iris in Hill corridor would be L, 40.

[3:49] Again, those are the seven district where L, 4 and L, 5 are still allowed right.

[3:59] Non-conforming lodging intensity.

[4:02] So the present ordinance has a non-conformity clause.

[4:07] When you become non-conforming, the idea is that the municipality has a vision in place

[4:11] and that visual is trying to be established.

[4:13] And when we establish a vision, is if you have uses

[4:16] that don't belong there, they should basically

[4:19] over time kind of go away.

[4:22] However, that clause was too strict for this situation

[4:28] and then explained to you why.

[4:30] So we created, we added a reproposing and new non-conforming

[4:34] lodging intensity clause.

[4:36] So the amendment we create a new category of non-conformity

[4:39] existing lodging establishments that exceed current guest units or guest capacity limits

[4:46] but it remains allowed in the district.

[4:54] So, you know, because lodging is still allowed in that

[4:57] district. So, for example, if I have an establishment with 40 guest units, but in a district

[5:03] where I am, it only now allows for 30 guest units.

[5:10] Then, lodging is still allowed in that district.

[5:13] It's just that I have 10 to many guest units.

[5:16] So the town is not saying we don't want lodging there anymore.

[5:20] It says maybe we won't lodging in those numbers anymore.

[5:25] And so there's some places that don't have water and sewer

[5:28] that allowed L4 and L5 that have, I think, the best we're starting in for example, that's a

[5:35] big structure that's not completely in character with that area, for example. So this existing

[5:41] establishment that I just spoke about, in fact, is just could continue operating and could

[5:46] even expand, which is different than the other non-conforming clause, provided guest unit

[5:51] counts and guest capacity are not increased. So the expansion would be, so when you read at this

[5:57] to possibility, but the more permissive or expansion would be limited to accumulative redevelopment

[6:03] that would not exceed 100% of the property's baseline fair market value.

[6:10] So as long as you're not increasing guest units, guest capacity, you can invest whatever you

[6:20] want if you were to bring the whole property into compliance.

[6:23] So, that's what we're talking about, the 100% fair market value is only for a non-conforming

[6:30] lodging intensity where I just, how lodging is still allowed, but I just have just too many

[6:39] guests units to comply with it.

[6:44] Parking requirement, so all trends in, so the proposal is that all trends in lodging uses would be

[6:50] a uniform parking requirement of one parking space for guests unit regardless of lodging type or zoning district.

[6:59] Design standards, so new lodging development in the House School of Business, the Aerosol Hinn,

[7:05] Aerosol Hinn, Aerosol Hinn, Hill corridor, and Southbury corridor districts would be required to use a smaller scale building in this first site layout to maintain the rule of character of those areas.

[7:17] is going to off island that you have a lot of small cabins and small and some of the older

[7:25] lodging if you want. So that's all I had for this. I'm going to go.

[7:34] I don't think so, and then we can circle back. That's all right with you. So, the other amendment is called alignment and integration of definitions.

[7:48] So, the purpose of the alignment and integration of definition, line news, one of the amendment is to align barharbers definitions with the state law.

[7:57] the state has a housing, increased housing opportunities, state law, that is a state law.

[8:05] You have to have to do it and they have a bunch of definitions.

[8:09] So when we first started working on this, because of a lack of time, and because it was going to get, it could have

[8:19] just to be safe, we ended up with definition in two places in the ordinance, which is not the best.

[8:24] So we have our standard place with all the definitions.

[8:27] And then we had specific definition that pertains

[8:29] of the increase housing opportunity coming down

[8:32] from the state law.

[8:33] This is not what we recommend.

[8:35] We absolutely never tell anybody to do that.

[8:37] But however, that was the best game plan.

[8:39] We need to back out of that eventually.

[8:43] So this is we're not backing all of them out yet,

[8:46] but we're backing some out.

[8:49] And we're kind of aligning just five-ething definitions

[8:52] at this time, which are area, area, medium, income, comprehensive, comprehensive plan,

[8:58] designated growth area, the definition of a lot, and the definition of potable in relationship

[9:04] to potable water, pretty mundane, so that is all I have for you tonight.

[9:16] Any questions in the show?

[9:22] I have a question.

[9:26] From you, we're talking about non-conforming logic.

[9:30] And you said that they would have to,

[9:32] the ones that were non-conforming would maybe have lesser

[9:37] guest facilities.

[9:39] Does that mean you would be taking,

[9:41] telling them that they could only read,

[9:43] like, three quarters of their property?

[9:46] So when you're non-conforming,

[9:47] you retain your rights, those are, the old word is grandfathered, but we don't, that's

[9:56] not appropriate, and I'm just not finding the right word, so, so those rights are, are

[10:03] retained rights, so if just like a bit of a patient rental, if you want, whoever had what

[10:09] just maintained the same right and the same ability to do the same thing, so in this case,

[10:14] if whatever you have, you have the right to begin you operating and so forth and so on.

[10:22] What we did is under non-conforming clause that exists right now, it's very limited to

[10:27] what you can pretty much cannot expand or you can't change much.

[10:32] In this case of the explained is we provided a much more permissive non-conforming clause

[10:37] because the difference here is that lodging may still be allowed in that district, it's just

[10:43] have too many rooms. However, the sun districts where I think there's maybe a total of three

[10:51] lodging under this proposal, which are becoming nonconforming and the lodging uses no longer

[10:57] allowed in that district, so they will not be able to expand. The good thing is on the flip side

[11:04] is we have a lot of nonconforming uses that were made conforming years ago and now they can benefit

[11:13] from something they could not benefit from before.

[11:17] So does that make sense?

[11:19] Well, if you people, if logic is not allowed in that district,

[11:23] you're not expanding.

[11:24] If logic is still allowed, even if it's an all-existing non-conformity

[11:29] or a new one, do this, but you just

[11:33] have too many rooms, you have more flexibility

[11:36] And the flexibility is that you can spend up to 100% of your fair market value to do a renovation.

[11:47] That's one of them.

[11:48] Okay.

[11:49] But you can't expand further your...

[11:54] You can expand your footprint. You can expand.

[11:57] You can redo your buildings. You can do as long as if...

[12:05] So I would recommend that you read the section in the ordinance.

[12:09] There's one that what you can do within the existing buildings.

[12:12] You can move swap, you can do a lot.

[12:15] That's quite flexible.

[12:16] And then the other more flexible is if you really want to do a big redo,

[12:21] you can actually redevelop the whole thing.

[12:28] Keep your non-conformity as long as that work does not exceed.

[12:35] 100% in the fair market value at the time of the application chart.

[12:38] I couldn't think of

[12:44] it.

[12:44] So you can expand.

[12:47] So yeah.

[12:47] So you say whatever you experience it,

[12:50] you can't have more rooms,

[12:51] so what you're doing is making the rooms better.

[12:53] Do they if you want?

[12:54] Yes, you know.

[12:57] Yep.

[12:58] I was wondering about,

[12:59] can't say expand if you can't get any more rooms?

[13:05] Well, some people may want to revamp

[13:07] update the place to kind of meet the, you know, the current market, you know, so I

[13:15] could want to say that, well, that's nice, sure, I think I'm ready, but you could also do like

[13:23] a bigger restaurant or a bigger lobby, lobby ballroom, that's it, yeah, yeah, yeah,

[13:40] this might

[13:40] He's silly, but what happens when a non-conforming lodging wants to sell?

[13:48] Does that, can they sell it as what it is, or do they have the rights or still retained?

[13:58] The only time you lose your rights is if you become non-conforming.

[14:02] So if through this, you went from, you had 40, 30s, the max, you went to 35, that's it, you

[14:10] You're not gaining back that far. That's five. I mean, that's the

[14:17] parking spaces. You want,

[14:20] is this going to be across the board and every district that everyone's going to have to have a space for every

[14:26] yeah, it's not me that I want.

[14:30] I know what's done if that's what you meant. But so the parking is right now we have different

[14:43] for lodging 4, 5, 6 and 7 compared to 2 and 3, so now it's just consistent across the board regardless of where they are.

[14:53] So every B&B, if they have 7 rooms, they need 7 parking spaces and every hotel if they have...

[15:00] There's no being these,

[15:03] but what are you, what are you call those?

[15:06] They're lodging, but there's a small lodging accommodation, say, no, go ahead and yeah. And

[15:11] a presently L2L3, yeah. So L2L3, if they have seven rooms, I need seven parking

[15:16] centers.

[15:17] If they only have, if they have zero at the moment, then then non-conforming, they

[15:22] can keep that. I don't understand that one.

[15:27] If I have a hotel, and I have 10 rooms, but for some reason, I only have 10 rooms, but for

[15:33] we have two parking spaces. Oh, pre-existing. Yeah, pre-existing conditions. Then I keep operating the same

[15:41] way. Got you.

[15:48] One question, you know how the ratio is lower than 31 hundred. That's the last

[15:54] census, it's a bit higher right now. And so I've always thought 52 hundred. 32? Yeah.

[16:03] Well, it depends where you look at. If you look at the census, if you look at the estimate,

[16:08] if you look at it ranges between 31 to 34 right now, 3,400.

[16:14] It's much smaller than I thought you were going to be around.

[16:19] The broader question is, I assume this relates back to you.

[16:23] Are you thinking it's 5200?

[16:27] Yeah, maybe that is.

[16:28] Maybe that is.

[16:29] Yeah, I think you're right.

[16:33] I don't know what to mean.

[16:36] I don't know what to mean.

[16:38] Residents, then it's, you take 1,000 off a lot of money.

[16:45] Liz, you know, we've got 4,000 active farmers.

[16:51] Yeah, it's 5,200 and pretty sure if it's the one.

[16:55] Yes, yes.

[16:57] If it's the one.

[16:58] Thank you, John.

[16:59] If it's the one.

[17:01] If it's the one.

[17:02] If it's the one.

[17:03] If it's the one.

[17:04] If it's the one.

[17:08] If it's the one.

[17:12] I will change that.

[17:13] A broad question is, I see this relates back to the comprehensive plan.

[17:20] And I'd like to be interested in knowing what part of the plan is driving this.

[17:26] And what is what are you trying to achieve in terms of the comprehensive,

[17:29] assuming that there's a kind of path to that?

[17:38] I'm a plan of, like, the best you could do for sure.

[17:41] Sorry.

[17:50] Well, yes, so, well, so the question with the latest one is amendment is more about

[18:02] if it's, you're not always going to kind of consistency with what you're doing in the

[18:08] compliance.

[18:08] So when you don't have a straight consistency, it's just not talked about what you look

[18:13] for is an inconsistent with the complement and that's if it would be inconsistent and

[18:18] would not be allowed.

[18:19] And that language actually came from the precarious decision

[18:22] quite a while back, where I clear the judge really clearly made

[18:26] that comment.

[18:28] So in this case, I cannot tell you it's inconsistent.

[18:33] I can tell you that it definitely needs, and that's written

[18:37] in your land use ordinance amendment, under the way

[18:40] or as it clearly explains, and I can read them,

[18:44] where, you know, what, through the comp plan, what, what we heard the vision was for kind of that mix.

[18:54] Now,

[18:57] that's, that's, that's the sponsor.

[19:00] Yeah, I mean, since we just went through relatively recently, the comp plan process,

[19:07] I think communication, even for me, you'd be nice to always tie back with the terms,

[19:12] doing going forward with the compliance of people.

[19:15] Know that what we pass to the client is alive and it's being achieved to whatever degree.

[19:23] Yeah, it's written right here.

[19:24] So we have it in the land use one in cement, and the draft order, it's, I can't read it if you want,

[19:31] but it talks about that, the amendment is consistent with the complaint, namely,

[19:39] visioned pillar to element, our businesses contribute to our local economy and our size

[19:44] appropriately from environmental, service and infrastructure and social perspective.

[19:50] In by establishing clear objectives, standards that regulate lodging, scale, intensity,

[19:54] and expansion.

[19:55] It is consistent with visioned pillar four.

[19:58] We work through our differences to strengthen our collective sense of community.

[20:01] We take care of each other and we take care of our place.

[20:03] I think that the land use on this amendment in front of you considered where water and sewer was,

[20:11] where growth areas were, and where we did not have a water and sewer, it looked at,

[20:18] where growth areas in intensity was directed as well.

[20:27] Yeah, I think that's great.

[20:29] I mean, for the public hearing, like good to open with that,

[20:31] If your opener is like, hey, this is, this is why you're doing it.

[20:37] Not just what we're doing, but what we're going to do to you, but I think it's actually.

[20:45] I've done a little research on this, and I have some other items that are supported in the comprehensive plan,

[20:53] if you all would like me to share it.

[20:55] The implementation matrix on page 20 of the comp plan,

[21:00] 6.4 says continue to analyze the location and extent of lodging operations in the community and work to determine how much lodging is needed and desirable.

[21:13] This effort should include the simplifying and clarifying lodging definitions and the determination of which lodging zoning districts should accommodate future lodging operations.

[21:26] So that's the, this is what you need to be doing with the Compland page.

[21:31] Very, very draft.

[21:33] And I also looked at the Compland to see the community engagement.

[21:39] People thought as they were developing the Compland.

[21:43] And on page 6 of the community engagement, the vision and demographics, what we heard,

[21:51] It was that 94% of 119 responses think that the needs of all community members are not met.

[22:01] And page 14 and 15 of that same community engagement when people we gave our opinions, economic development.

[22:10] What we heard was that year-round industry and businesses should be a focus diversify away from tourism.

[22:16] The healthy balance between seasonal tourism economy and a year-round economy should be less seasonal and more year-round

[22:25] current levels of tourism are not sustainable, the town caters to turn.

[22:30] But the money from tourism does not go to the town. So those are things that the community thought that helped build the

[22:37] plan. So just to add to what Michelle said.

[23:05] Well, thank you, Michelle, for being here.

[23:08] And if we have any questions, can we email,

[23:10] or should we?

[23:12] No, we don't

[23:18] have to.

[23:19] No, yes, yes.

[23:20] Yes, yes.

[23:21] We talked about this after it last week about how we want the whole community to benefit

[23:24] from whatever new information is provided in response to questions.

[23:29] So we'll figure that out.

[23:31] So with the process, I think the question is,

[23:35] but shouldn't it go to a little chair?

[23:37] And then in the past it's going to the chair,

[23:40] and then to live,

[23:42] it's still the work committee function.

[23:45] Sounds good.

[23:46] So even if you come any questions?

[23:48] And at the beginning, did you say the rules themselves?

[23:50] We can pick up.

[23:51] I'll start it as soon as we adjourn,

[23:53] and you're welcome to hang out for ten minutes

[23:55] and we'll grab one then or come back.

[23:57] I'm going to ask though if, like, if you have written question,

[24:02] soon or you ask them, the better it is, if we receive the question,

[24:06] just a few hours before the next meeting, then it's going to be a different.

[24:11] So if you truly, I mean, I would ask that you not wait till the night before,

[24:18] because then you're not going to have the answer that you probably deserve if you're not.

[24:24] If it's not ahead of time, I'm not.

[24:29] Can I ask what districts are losing housing?

[24:35] Yeah,

[24:37] or not housing, but yes, for those in logic.

[24:40] Thank you.

[24:46] Okay.

[24:48] So if we look at the table,

[24:53] I, a 45 is allowed.

[24:55] Can I have one of the things I've passed around, so I'm just making the same thing and everybody else, okay?

[25:04] So then you move to the right and at the top I'm the greatest proposed maximum yes unit, so this is an L50.

[25:13] So right now what they have is L2345, so we would allow an L50, okay?

[25:22] Then it says that right now, if you go to this column, non-conforming establishment based

[25:28] on guest units.

[25:30] So, it says the existing non-conformity is zero, the new non-conformity is zero,

[25:47] existing is

[25:47] zero, new is zero, one is total, then okay, yes.

[25:52] So, the existing kind of company is

[25:58] hang up, can I take five seconds to check, so I

[26:03] So the bar hard is going to be 0 non conformity, right?

[26:14] Existing should be 0, because you have L4, L5.

[26:17] So that's unlimited.

[26:19] The new non conformity, if we cap it at 150, will be 0, so that total should be 0.

[26:27] So what you do is you can go back here and you can look at the number of rooms and where

[26:34] they fall.

[26:35] So sure land, for example, if we go to downtown Village 1, first column L2345 are allowed.

[26:44] The planning board proposed that the maximum being L12B, which would be right now, there

[26:54] there was zero existing non-conformity, it won't create five existing,

[27:01] you couldn't come for it, for a total of five.

[27:06] Downtown Village 2, there was zero that's going to create three.

[27:11] If I go to, for example,

[27:21] does that make sense?

[27:22] No, my question would be, okay, so,

[27:25] So you're going to not conform in well the problem is right now I think that the L2s 3s 4s 5s are changing or I want to read.

[27:35] So is that going to allow for three new units on the downtown village too?

[27:41] So let me, can I see something?

[27:43] Yeah, so then you have a column that says is it going to be capped, capped for more permissive?

[27:48] So, L2 and L3 are maximum 12 units right now.

[27:54] L4 and L5 is unlimited, L6 and L7 is 25.

[28:00] So, now right now, so if you go to Bar Harbor Gateway, you have L2, which is 12, L3 is 12,

[28:08] one allows for a resident restaurant for only the guests, which is L2, L3 allows for a

[28:15] trans, for guests and other people, L4 and L5. So now we're saying we're

[28:19] capping it at 150 rooms. Based on your table here, if you go down, it creates

[28:26] that out of 100 out of the, all the establishments were tell it, ten establishments.

[28:33] Okay? That, the right now, the zero that are non-conforming, and there will be zero,

[28:40] new non-conformity, which is a total of zero non-conformity, okay? So fourth and so on.

[28:54] Sal's very cool, corridor. Sal's very cool, which one? Sal's very cool, corridor, says

[29:02] one existing non-conformity is zero new, total two.

[29:09] Yeah, I'm wondering what's going on with

[29:11] table. I'm going to have, I'm going to look at, I'm going to read, yeah.

[29:17] So if we go to the table,

[29:19] I'm going to re-ish that table because it's not starting to worry, but if you go to this

[29:24] here, okay. So if you go to South Dakota,

[29:33] so South Dakota, right now, okay, L3L6. So you have 12

[29:42] rooms. You have up to 25 rooms.

[29:48] The maximum room is...

[30:00] We have a 26, 14, 13. So there's one existing non-conformity, okay? And if we are proposing L25, the B2 of the

[30:22] There's one new one created for total two, and that's because that between Sabot Lane and

[30:32] Bayview North, it's all of them with the exception of one that's just outside.

[30:38] And that one that is outside that area,

[30:43] I think it's still on either.

[30:48] I will check those tomorrow morning and I will be issue because it's funny because I was trying to see the version if it was the right version and I'm trying to

[30:59] It should be the right version

[31:08] Just to ask a technical question

[31:11] For those

[31:14] The barber gateway and the short and general development

[31:19] Those are the only ones that the proposed don't happen to say L. It's just, it should be L-150.

[31:27] Yeah, it should be L-150.

[31:31] And then I think this is just a cheating tool.

[31:34] Oh, I think it's not perfect. It's fine.

[31:37] And just to make sure, her question earlier, which was, which two zones are going to know permitted?

[31:49] and that's Townhill residential.

[31:53] And that's.

[31:54] And that's Townhill residential.

[31:55] And that's and what was the

[31:56] Townhill residential?

[31:57] It's got a residential.

[32:02] Where's the whole.

[32:04] Oldscove residential and Townhill residential.

[32:10] So it's number nine, where says the lead.

[32:13] Yep.

[32:13] In it's number 14, where it says the lead.

[32:15] Yep.

[32:16] Okay, I want to make sure I understood it. Thank you.

[32:20] Now, when you use this tool, you're going to go back to this.

[32:23] Yeah.

[32:23] Because if you don't go back to this, it's going to tell you, like, oh, it's only,

[32:31] there's only two. There's not, have been in no movement in 30 years.

[32:35] They're not all water and sewer, for example.

[32:40] It's not necessarily meeting, you know, the transplant.

[32:43] And

[32:49] so that non-conforming establishments for the new, does that mean that they're already proposed or like in being built or is it like allowing for new ones to come up?

[33:02] So now again, for things in process or things in the future.

[33:07] Or a new non-conforming is that something that's already like in progress or is it just allowing for three new ones in the future?

[33:15] Okay, so existing non-conformity is under the land use ordinance and non-conforming, right, new non-conforming is when you pass this it creates this new non-conformity

[33:23] They're existing buildings

[33:26] There's a new non-min. Now all of a sudden, they're non-conforming.

[33:29] You have additional non-conformity.

[33:32] Got it.

[33:36] So I'm going to

[33:39] I'm not going to

[33:49] to make it better case, I think John, that's a good point.

[33:54] And then I will look at this one more time and I'm thinking,

[34:01] this has been looked at so much, I like it.

[34:04] I wonder why there would be an error, so I'm going to look if I actually

[34:09] have the right version or not.

[34:11] I think the planning board has looked at this for maybe 30 hours on this.

[34:15] I think I wonder if I just have the wrong version.

[34:21] I have a question related to what we're going to hear from the town council on the 18th.

[34:32] The council is going to consider whether to put these two amendments on the ballot,

[34:37] And that same night, they will be talking about whether they want to put forth a moratorium

[34:44] on L-4105.

[34:48] My question is, if the moratorium is enacted after the public hearing on August 18, development

[34:58] of new lodging facilities that are not L-4105 will be open for applications, I believe.

[35:05] Currently, downtown Village 1 and 2 do not require new lodging establishments to provide parking.

[35:14] Downtown Village 1 and 2, as we can see on here, do allow right now L2s and L3s.

[35:21] If graduated, lodging amendment does not go forward, am I correct that L2s and L3s, which will be L,

[35:35] can be developed in downtown Philich one and two and provide no parking for those places.

[35:43] Okay, so graduated lodging.

[35:47] So, Ty's make sure that parking is required even if there is a moratorium.

[35:56] So, the moratorium is a limited scope, right?

[36:07] The district we talked about, the seven district, you know, there's two district that are deleted,

[36:12] but the other district that are not out for now, five, those are the status quo, right?

[36:19] So they, and yes, L4 and L5 would be the uses that are still under the moratorium, only L4 and L5.

[36:33] and downtown village one or two are unique in that they are the only districts where parking

[36:40] is not required for watching at this point, but I think it's fair to say that a lot

[36:46] of our lodging provides parking even though they all have, but they're not required.

[36:51] And the graduated lodging one of the wonderful things about it is it does require parking

[36:59] So

[37:03] if it doesn't go forward, but the moratorium goes forward, just point in case moratorium goes forward.

[37:13] The graduated logic doesn't go forward.

[37:17] Watching facilities of 12 max could be built in downtown village 1 and 2, without parking, just so people know why graduated, watching them this important.

[37:50] Candles, may I ask you one question?

[38:05] So what you're asking is in the event that the moratorium is not extended and it's limited fashion in the in the event that this is

[38:15] Move forward or not move forward what happens in that in that period between

[38:24] Well, the more time, technically, is already expired and now, would people have vested rights

[38:30] and would they be able to apply under the existing ordinance and move forward?

[38:35] So the long answer, quick answer is probably not, I'm going to tell you why not, and then

[38:41] we'll see if it makes sense.

[38:42] The deadline for the september meeting has passed.

[38:49] You have a deadline for October and then they would be found possibly complete in October.

[39:00] Once they found complete actually they have vested rights.

[39:07] So september that line has passed, the next deadline is October so the answer is yes.

[39:12] actually I'm wrong. As in yes they could come forward because the October thing were to be found

[39:19] complaint in October then they could move forward.

[39:24] They have to be found complete.

[39:33] So it's rare that people are found complete when happens that they're found incomplete but there's

[39:40] move on to the public hearing because it could be something small. So the

[39:44] likelyness that one would submit a checklist and be found complete for a major

[39:51] development I think is unlikely but we don't I cannot I don't have a crystal

[39:55] ball so I don't know but so there's a possibility I think it's slim. That's a good

[40:04] questions? Good question.

[40:11] Any other questions for Michelle?

[40:14] Thank you so much.

[40:16] You're in your presentation.

[40:17] So what's the process for the questions you're going to go through?

[40:20] Yeah, though, yes.

[40:22] The thing you have questions emailed me and I'll try to get them to work.

[40:26] And so we'll have general governments submitting me before our next meeting, the 24th, to kind of review this,

[40:33] and then they will make recommendations to us that we will vote on,

[40:36] provided that the town council moves these two amendments forward.

[40:42] I think general government, I hope that general government

[40:44] subcommittee can meet after council has decided

[40:48] perfect what they're doing with the moratorium and moving this forward.

[40:53] That makes sense.

[40:55] So if I could talk to the, to Ed, I believe it's going to be on general

[40:58] government and

[41:04] To just set up some dates for ourselves to meet and then the education subcommittees should meet and review the stuff we went over last week, and so our 24th meeting will be voting on those

[41:18] Three items pretty much up to three

[41:20] Any other questions?

[41:35] I'm thinking about taking votes at that next week, that it's important that everybody

[41:44] who's elected this morning, a lower-pointed member of the committee, and present a take

[41:51] of vote and not a state.

[41:53] We can talk with Tom Andrew about that or if you have questions, but it's not really

[42:02] appropriate not to abstain. If you're accused, there's a whole process for that, but this is what we were elected or appointed to do.

[42:11] in the past two, three, two, three, two, three, four,

[42:14] we've had any abstain.

[42:18] We could put the hands one way in.

[42:24] Okay, thank you, everyone.

[42:26] That's a journey, seven, 24,

[42:28] we'll have a copy over there next to you.

[42:30] I'm just kidding, I'm just kidding.

[42:33] Yeah, yeah, we're gonna be spoken.

[42:35] What do you think?

[42:37] Okay, I

[42:41] don't understand why I haven't changed the whole thing.

[42:43] I don't know what to look at it, but I don't know what to do.

[42:46] It's really just no one's here.

Warrant Committee 08102026

Transcript