everybody playing board meeting this Wednesday July 19th first item is a roll call tonight we have Lisa buck need Christmas winter we've got Jeb McIntosh we've got myself the luck we've got Johnny Chubbuck Dave Thompson and we have Mike - stalo down on the end next item is acceptance of the agenda can I have a motion and make a motion we accept the agenda all right the motion the second any changes hearing none all those in favor the agenda presented next up approval of the minutes of June 21st 2017 Kaitlyn did a bang-up job on these things that you know very detail but any I guess first we'll take a motion I move we accept the minute very good have a second second very good edits okay just a couple of small things one is that on the first page under item 3 lastly and under there the a fell off the end of my first name so it's just a bit embarrassing it's not one spell check we'll pick that and on page eight the very first line hmm the property currently is owned by independents advocates or I guess that should be an S there at the end advocates of Maine as a spell as opposed to OD good catch any others another comments very good we have those two changes as amended all those in favor very good just like to add I think they're great limits yes you are that's that's right you can't you can't vote on that do we have a quorum so all right so you can't vote but you are designated member for the rest of the evening I'll write them so next up we have two public hearings to deal with tonight the first one is a site plan application of Clyde a filbrick for earthmoving activity at 270 Stillwater Ave which is located in the forestry and agriculture district involving more than 100 cubic yards of material kind of the applicant step up to the mic and tell us what you proposed who you are and what you proposed by Philbrick you hear me yep and then it's for a farmers market here's what I want to put there okay it's almost finished when I start up they only got to put a little bit more okay here we have the application material I guess everything if I guess as a federal package you presented could you give us a bit of a summary and past that we're dealing with tonight sure mr. Philbrook several years ago decided that he wanted to start an open-air farmers market opportunity and his property the property is right at the bangor city line it's a large parcel about 46 acres he's designated a small part of that right just off Stillwater Ave for the driveway comes in the Stillwater app for this purpose and in 2013 he received he applied for and received a Tier one permit from the DEP under the natural resource protection act because he was the filling activity involved wetland and this wetland is part of its it's really the wooded fringe of the caribou bog and he got there in order didn't some fulfill brought in by others prior to mr. Philbrook to ownership of the property and mr. Philbrook was proposing to cover that fill with concrete fill and other stuff with other with additional fill they got a folk they he received approval in September 2013 to cover on level just over 3,000 square feet area of wetland at that time and since then I think has been working at doing that filling activity bill received some information about the collector going on and realize that it might involve more than hundred cubic yards which requires under our ordinance or review by the Planning Board site plan review for the fill activity the farmers market and allowed use as a matter of right with just a permit from the plant from the code enforcement officer so the farmers market and all the stuff that happens with the farmers market is not under the jurisdiction of painting board review but the fill activity is so this is fill about ninety one hundred square feet that's about fifth of an acre a lot of it sorry in place there's still a pile there to be spread in some area to be spread the mr. Philbrook has had some some of the erosion control measures in place sell fences on along two sides of the part of the fill and I think simply plans to do your level at grade it and make it available to farmers who want to come in with their pickup trucks and sell off a trailer trucks basically there's an area large enough area for customers to pull into the driveway and off the driveway and park there as well Stan Pliska has prepared the plan showing the the area filled with a little bit of a timeline when he leaves based on aerial imagery that the film has occurred and some of what still needs to happen this is virtually all wetland area I think it's important that the DEP found no significant impact on on significant wildlife habitat or significant natural resources back in 2013 I contacted the EP last week F we got the application just to understand that they were satisfied that the terms of their approval had been satisfied and/or and that no more approvals were needed it seems that the somewhat larger area I'm there's all overall small area but seems to be somewhat larger than the area that had been discussed in the 2013 approval they were aware that this was there just hadn't had a chance to look at it and they haven't yet gotten backed up to me at least I don't know if they got back to mr. Philbrook or Stan so that's it my included in the plan is some basic erosion control measures including the soap pence braiding the steep slope that's at the edge of the fill two three three two one slope I've recommended a couple of additional things as part of that to make sure that the grading is comes in to the interior of the site so it doesn't end up feeling more of the of the wetlands and what is shown as the boundaries and that the ceding the accordion stabilization being accordance with the best manager of practices of the DEP and that does essentially is us is a small parking lot is what this is and it should be graveled you know our ordinance calls for a six inch gravel base that you don't have to pay but we'd have to have a travel base so that's that's that I you'll see if you choose to approve this project I've suggested a few conditions in everything just making sure that the DEP continues to be satisfied for deposit okay thank you before I open up to the public hearing live questions to the applicant from the from the board and pretty straightforward and it's still a Tier one permit right and then it's still within the the smaller range so long as that that's addressed yeah I guess timeline I mean you've almost got it all done you'll hear from DEP you have not heard from them yet I have if you have yeah they came out and measured okay yeah what did they have to tell you it well I was putting in a second driveway and I decided not to do that they said it was okay wear it the way it is my god that was gonna be the entrance and about that but I just had them one driveway so I don't have to change it that was recently after yeah okay so are they gonna give you documentation so that if we move forward with this tonight that the town will get a copy of all that while asking - yeah okay yep other questions all right open up the public hearing and write anybody to step up to the mic and tell us your thoughts yeah don't be shy all right we're gonna leave the public hearing open pretty straightforward just because of the earth moving activity that's why they're here before us this evening and a lot of work is done but Evan is if you notice in the review he's called out the things that I would think of the the banks the the erosion control the the silt fence you know you are on or wet ones or the the DEP has yep right sorry we get out of everything on the record can you step up to that mic and just be calm for the record please I have one of the sides towards the road it's got the fence up already yep and then back side towards or no it's done yeah and the one along the driveway it just comes from that for the driveway I mean that that's part of the DEP process anyways is that you're not rushing to go good I don't have any one long side that's not fenced yet that would be up you French then and graded to that three to one okay all right last call public hearing I'm going to close the public hearing final comments get anything I'm just curious yep probably no winter operation right so you won't even be plowing it it'll remain okay I was just wondering where the snow would go if it'd be pushed into the wetlands oh that's me that was my guess yep we're gonna go probably ready for motion then proposed findings of fact which party of hope will start [Music] again these are just proposed for discussion to the board no we're not okay they're good so these are proposed findings of fact for the film grading project at 270 Stillwater have by Clyde Philbrook for the site plan review dated July 19th 2017 pursuant article 6 section 18 - 177 and the oral Code of Ordinances the ordinal planning waters consider the application of Clyde Philbrook for approval of this site plan to fill in grayned approximately ninety one hundred square feet of land at 270 Stillwater album property identified as tax map 29 - one lot one for the purpose of a farmers market the property is located in the forestry and agriculture district based on all events presented by the applicant reviewing agencies town departments and the public it has found the following number 1 again is a right the site plan review criteria again we say whether we have issues with also we're giving us a thumbs-up or thumbs-down again this is a little newer process so another one right title or interest that the applicant is the owner of the property any issues with that get all in favor - requirement to the district that the use is an allowable use within the forestry and agriculture district and conforms to the requirements of the district the issues there it's another yes 3 compliance with town ordinances and codes that the site with a proposed fill of an area of approximately 90 100 square feet in place as the capacity to accommodate a small scale open-air farmers market and to meet the standards of the land use ordinance for a farmers market as demonstrated by an illustrative layout plan prepared by plus gunday land surveyors dated June 26 2017 any issues there just a quick question the plan shows ninety nine hundred square feet fill area horses ninety one hundred square feet I don't often miss reading something because I think it's slightly over isn't it isn't that one of the issues is that it was over I think the initial operation was like 3,100 square feet I thought I saw from the nurple that was submitted so that was the original 2013 approved square footage I believe and then they went out and found that it's 91 off the bet same 9999 hundred on them is 9900 if you go over yes so 10,000 that they kick to I mean every every threshold you pass you know the drill [Music] okay so I'm apologize I did the original overall you're playing at 90 100 or did I just miss reliving okay whatever the math here 129 told you right this one says 9900 yes so that's just 99 yes all right good kept Joey so little change that to of approximately 99 hundred square feet in place so with that any issues and the other issues we're good number four utilization of the site natural theater features water quality protection and shoreland relationship aid that the fill project will alter the natural landscape from allowed use but that the fill area is appropriately located the fringe of a forested wetland adjacent to the property's driveway and there still water have moved for easy access and to minimize further impacts on the larger wetland of which this area is a part and then we'll do all three of these and that the fill area is located of shoreland zones as the farm by the state mandatory shoreland zoning act it is mapped on the town zoning map and away from a shore land resource protection district that protects a large area of the caribou bog and photo is adjacent to but outside of the hundred year flood plain associated with a bog and then in sea in 2013 a permit issued by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection for this project determined that the act will not negatively affect the freshwater wetland of special significance or other protective Natural Resources Planning Board conditions this finding in written verification prior to any additional filling and grading of the land from the Maine DEP that the project is in compliance with the 2013 permit or an amendment thereto has been approved and deed that the proposed site development and use will not adversely impact either the quality of the corner quality or the quantity of ground water available to abutting properties or to any public water supply system in issues with a b c or d hearing them v stormwater management that the project affects a small area total ninety nine hundred square feet of land involves no building construction and the fill area will be topped with gravel or crushed stone minimizing stormwater runoff and that any new runoff will drain naturally just surrounding wetland areas that are on the applicants property or to the adjacent drainage ditch along still water avenue without undue adverse impacts any issues there who 9:6 erosion control that the applicant is provided for erosion control measures to capture sediment during the filling activity and to stabilize soils and slopes following completion of the fill project and the issues they're hearing them number seven other site plan approval standards that the proposed use of the site for an open-air farmers market as an allowed use with permit from a code enforcement office within the forest and agriculture district without further plainer blog review the on matters relating to the earth moving and filling of the indicated area of land and therefore the polar board makes no findings concerning traffic and pedestrian access storage of materials water supply and sewage disposal utilities has in a special and radioactive waste solid waste management historic and archaeological resources noise and lighting Minister their nourishes good lastly financial capacity that the activity on the site to date under the 2013 permit from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection combined with a small scale the project is sufficient to demonstrate that the applicants financial capacity to complete the project in accordance with town ordinances and the plan any issues were Alan alright hearing none I am now ready for a motion I move that we approve the safe interviewed by cloud public for the property located to 270 store Avenue tempo and s 1 watt 46 with the following five condition is y and that before abating permit is issued by the co enforcement officer the town received written verification that either the Maine DEP is satisfied with the 2013 permit that the permit 2013 permit is sufficient for the work done and planned oil that namenda permit has been approved number two that the limits of Fela shame on the fair and grading plan meaning that the final grading to achieve the three to one slope will not involve additional wetland alteration number three that the arrangement role used best management practices for seeding and stabilization of the slopes as specified by the Maine DEP is manual main erosion and sediment control best management practices number four that the failure be surfaced with at least 6 inches of gravel or crushed stone and finally number 5 that the project must comply with all other applicable local and state standards relating to the proposed activity extra at a motion kind of a second second it further discussion hearing none all those in favor unanimous all right next up we have another public hearing this is an amendment to section 18 - 30 nice ordinance and the addition of section 18 - 152 the lanius ordinance - one to find student homes and to provide certain standards for student homes this is only pushed off from last time Evon Europe thank you this amendment as a number of you know derives from the conference a plan one of the focuses of the conference a plan was how you appropriately and effectively integrate student housing into established neighborhoods a trend which is of course is very long-standing the town of Laura gnome and the conference of plan committee at that time based on research on how other municipalities in the United States with the host universities and colleges also try to find that right balance and one of the tools used is is an approach that actually defines student rental rental dwellings the house students usually some number students they they define that as a specific land use and they call that a student home it's an actual land use so instead of it merely being a an apartment house a multi-family dwelling that happens to have students in it it is actually a land use unto itself of student home and so it becomes a land use just like hair salon or a retail store or doctor's office would be a land use and as a land use it can be regulated in ways that the town may wish to regulate that put it in the districts are going to allow in some districts but not other districts it can establish performance standards for it so that's what this what the conference plan recommended was to define established a land-use called student home define it and then set standards for it the conference a plan recommended going to the extent of standards that would limit the numbers of student homes in particular neighborhoods and the the cognitive plan is adopted by the council asked for a draft of an ordinance for its consideration related to student homes so this we are now implementing that recommendation at least at least to highway with laying the foundation for it what this proposed amendment does is goes partway towards the extent the full extent of what the conference' plan recommended in that a define student for the sole purpose of this sort of this ordinance you know it doesn't try to define student in its whole social context and it it limits the definition of student to an individual who is attending or it's accepted the admission as an undergraduate student at a institution of higher learning an individual who is a graduate student is not a student under for the purposes of it your reason we're defining student is that to then be able to go on and define student a student home then means a single-family detached single-family attached to family or multi-family dwelling in which one or more the dwelling units is occupied by three or more students as defined in the ordinance at least one of whom is paying rent lease fee or a similar fee for the right to occupy the divine unit whether or not and we're talking about whether or not the students are legally with interest has nothing to do with related or under the which is another piece of our ordinance then there are some exemptions to that definition of a student home the idea is not to catch up in to this regulation students who are living with their parents or students who are living in a in a residential structure in which the owner of that property who is not a student also lives there the conference plan committee found that there rarely if ever any difficulties with students or Dean in a single-family home or renting at one unit next to another 20 in which the owner of the property also resides so it exempts from student home single-family dwellings occupied by students but also occupied as a primary year-round residence by the Des Moines owner of record and such owners down student and it also applies that to to family or multi-family where the owner is actually owning a unit and lives resides in that unit within that building it also exempts situations where students are living with their parents as as their parents prying up in the home that is the parents primary your own residence and it just to be clear it it exempts that we're not talking about so-called community living facilities which are group homes we're not talking about dormitories returns and sororities and all those things that are separately defined terms nor are we talking about dwellings that would be owned and managed by the university of maine whether or not they're on campus so that's the definition but now we have a definition of student home as a land use person has done what you do with that land use that defined land use and at this point the way I have drafted it and had my initial conversations with the council to get some guidance prior to their referral of this to you for recommendation is that it establishes for a new student home from this from the point of adoption forward it establishes a certificate of occupancy requirement in which the the new student home would have to to demonstrate to the code enforcement officer that essentially the health safety standards of the building code and fire code are satisfied within that student home and so the certificate of occupancy requirement that's really what that's really the as far as this proposed goes with regulation the next step would be if the town wished to at some point which I believe would require a much more substantial public process is without actually limit the number of student homes in any given neighborhood which is what a number of the communities that we research do and they limit those numbers through a density limit that distance limit they basically say in this zoning district or in this specified neighborhood on these specified streets there shall be no more than one student home for X hundred feet within each other within X hundred feet of each other right and just as a reminder those of you that did not participate on a you know comp plan process that concept is one of the things we identify we had a just a tremendous amount of discussion about that so this is just one step in the process and we'll see where we go after this but and there was the conference planning committee conducted a web-based survey about this issue and and got some good feedback from to some 250 respondents from residents of coffee owners in Orono but it's a big step to limit the to actually limit the number that's a big step that we would probably require a lot of public involvement probably neighborhood by neighborhood to see to see if this is something that that they would want so that they would understand how they are both benefited and and potentially harmed by that because if they accept that kind of limit then they're also limiting their own ability to sell their homes later on because they're eliminated part of the market potential market for their homes I and in any case this laying the foundation would be a necessary step my read right now of the town and of the council is that that is a large step that would take probably good 8 to 12 months to process through and so then talking with the council the council agreed that we should push forward now at least with this laying the foundation defining what student home is you're requiring a certificate of occupancy which is major health safety step and and then monitor the situation to decide if and when the town wants to go any further with some any kind of regulation of this thing this new land use called student home so that's the proposal that's before you and the council is looking forward to your input and recommendation like seven before I open up the public you questions verifications I have a few ok see ya so if I have a single-family home with two students living in it it does not fall it doesn't count as a student home breath and it would not need to be in the mental registration program it has to be in rental registration for rental education program is a separate ordinance and and anybody renting any units to any even one student requires registration right all but it would not be a student home that would be subject to any regulations that was student home okay just do that because the language here kind of implied to me that these I guess it's just reiterating that it's required okay so if you had a significant home that you typically had not rented to students and then they won't so a legacy non-conforming will just continue to be as they are right and then you'll go through this process would be if someone came in and bought a new home or bought a home that was not previously a student home if they wanted to run it to students they would have to go through this process if it was three or more students yes and so how what's going to tell them that they need to do this a really good question and I think there needs to be if the town passes this there needs to be really intensive outreach to Realtors and to the university and on websites and through social media so you know via to all pot to all everybody who is on a rental registration database already because some of them would be people who would be hurt in the business of renting the students and might be ones who would create something new it's not gonna be perfect to get that information out but I think through a combination of peers from media social media and relating Realtors that in particular know that this record is there I think it would be reasonably well covered see that leads me to my next question what's the consequence if you just give her three years done to my bottom and they've been running it to students the last three years I'm gonna take a shot at that but builtin can tell me that whether this is accurate out but based on past experience usually the code built corporation officer would be in touch with the owner saying you are required to have this you've been doing this for this long we will we would like to propose a consent agreement that says you will come into compliance within a certain period of time there might be some there might be some financial you know a fine of some sort that's read upon the consent agreement or there might not be but basically it would be it would be to get them up to speed so that they actually get a certificate of occupancy after inspection which would be a one-time inspection this is pretty much just a one-time a one-time inspection at this point yes it's you know in time as you know well right now as you know the the fire marshal of the town conducts on three year cycle inspections of multifamily structures that is structures with three or more dwelling units it does not do inspections of structures with that are single family or two family the comprehensive plan recommends expanding that routine cyclical review to single family to family as well and I know Dave Milan and the fire department ever he's talked about that from time to time so I guess my only concern with this would be that because I think it is going to be quite easy for someone to buy a property like my own personal real estate agents is typically they don't want to do anything that's going to not that's going to stop the deal maybe I shouldn't say things like that but it's in their best interest to have the deal happen right and so I'm not sure if they're the best person to say hey stop think about this you shouldn't do this so because it seems to me that it is quite easy to see somebody buying it in two or three years or four years down the road kind of find it out they they they have this problem it would seem to me wouldn't it make sense to define exactly what the consequence would be because I would guess that we will run into this from time to time I don't think that stops me from saying yes to this but that's the only point I see in this that could be an issue is as similar I just want to make sure we have a teeth in there that it could be enforceable we always have that issue with some of these student would that be the next step though after this I understand what Evan said you know this is the foundation and then how many are allowed in certain areas and all the regulatory yeah there is a regulatory aspect of this in that regulatory aspect is you got to give a certificate of authenticity and you only get the certificate of occupancy if you have demonstrated after inspection that the building and fire safety codes have been met so and there so but so judges concern is a legitimate one is one that we've concerned about and have talked about internally how you get the word out effectively so Judd one question for you is I mean there are elsewhere in the ordinance of the whole enforcement section that says what happens if your violation and that's what would absolutely would take over that's what would apply at that point and I certainly think that the communication with all the Realtors and university students and whatever you could there I agree you're doing everything you could yeah I'm not playing I think that communication will emphasize that there will be enforcement consequences to it just like if they don't disclose lead or they don't disclose other things that they're required to disclose under state law but you know one possibility is that you could work in you could write in I'm not sure you're suggesting this but you could write in a grace period yeah or something that you said that if that if you know and I don't know exactly how that would be word of what it would say but you could probably write in a grace period recognizing that communication will not not be perfect on this and so that you know anything that happens between now and three years from now will be subject to consent agreement but not necessarily financial consequence as long as once they become aware of it the other thing you don't want to do is give people an excuse to have known about it but yeah yeah I mean the thing is this bill is very reasonable but the next one person officer might not be so reasonable so you know you just don't want them up code enforcement take you are always on your side anyways yeah so I guess you know I don't know what the solution is there but I guess that I would that's my only concern at all is is just what the because I do think that like you said in three or four years it'll be more of a known quantity really I don't know how many houses are being turned right now into student homes in Orono I don't know if it seems like it was much more of a problem in the past as currently it's not so maybe it just would be fine because it's not a huge you know four years maybe it's been it's a problem again everyone will know about it so it's less of an issue I think two or three things have slowed things down my impression is one is the recession second is the great expansion of the supply of rental housing and third is the tightening up on the standard phone booth unrelated persons in the me venture residential district has made it less economical to buy a single-family home and at the desired price agreed well yes I've been working coops there have been discussions internally about revising the the mental registration ordinance and reestablishing the original mental orgeous Advisory Committee between landlords and tenants Lee other people are involved to that too previously it said that members of the representatives rather from the University and the landlord sent students also through different areas of town to be involved that that requirement has gone away but sadly discussions to bring an effect like rheostat were set forth and I think that board could make recommendations or involve themselves if the situation arises for two years versus has had a student home and we didn't know about it they could let's me putting it into the question you think - I'm done grace period is any of those things for any because we're pushing this onto the council so we could add something for them to consider I don't think that's unreasonable yeah I mean I think I mean Bill's ideas I like the idea of having some oversight or some peer review because then they can make a determination you know hey is this do we think this person was gaming the system or not but I don't know if that's a lot of overhead for this so to me there might be a little bit more than it's needed so I'm good I mean I just wanted to voice that and you want that so long if they have a great idea I don't have a great solution I just have a problem so and I'm not like I said a second to stop me from saying this is fine I agree to this can you note that concern yeah it's right here it's good point as well we would open up public hearing and we'll just continue the discussion other comments anybody from the audience will weigh in as well here's your chance all right so further discussion from the board and I just some of the you know the definitions and all that did you find that from another model I'm just yes it really had borrowed from other ordinances meet some judges and the ordinance is all vary as to whether graduate students are included or not but whose exempt what's it situation is exempted what's not discussed with the College of the Council asked to put in the threshold of three and so that's what's here okay like is there a my a little bit concern are confused now there's a overlap of legacy homes you're talking about homes that you already know people are having students in their exempt right on this yes if so we know where most of act tents a hundred percent but after now seven or eight years of the rental registration ordinance in place we pretty much know where all the one you desire that have students in them so they're registered partly answered my next part so you know where they are so as you move forward with the new definition of a student home you said you're going to limit the number of student homes in a given area well in the future this ordinance doesn't but in the future the town could choose to take that additional step and if they took that additional step and I think that's what should probably get into if a neighborhood or Street already exceeded that then basically that place would be frozen in place in terms of numbers until I home changed over yeah family home and this okay there's quite a bit of concern during two and a half years of top lane development about some of the neighborhoods that you know we're turning and you know there people want to protect their traditional neighborhoods and you know my area of town and Webster has undergone a substantial change so it's happening in a lot of areas and there was a lot of discussion about that so this is I say this is a good first step I'm hoping that it continues well farther the models because we had a subcommittee judge you on that subcommittee and some of the other component numbers a lot of discussion about you know what other towns have done and what's successful so this is odd you see this is step one it seemed fairly tight from my you know my review but you know I'm hoping that we can continue down the path you know even if it takes 8 to 12 months my opinion other questions comments changes all right so we've got the one concern that's been noted so as is again from recommendation from the fulness board as is noting Judds concern is that I'm sorry I just have one question before we move to that yeah and that is does this apply only to homes that are being purchased that are turning over or does this apply to other places that would meet the definition but that are already in existence if there were a was to say a single-family homes where there's somebody who an owner-occupant lived in that home and they decided to move to Florida and decided that they wanted a continual in the home but just now rent it out they'd never been rented out before and they want to rent it out just to number of people that meets the definition of student in student home then they would fall under the regulation but you know they're not selling the home mm-hmm I think that's what you're asking they would be yes any anything that is not a student home today but would become a student home under any circumstance after the adoption of the ordinance would be a student home that would be regulated by this okay I guess my question is there's a house down the street for me that has students in it yes okay with that be eligible to be a student home since it already has students in it or is that become a grandfather okay so including father everything that's listed as the home would be a grandfathered student home okay and if there ever was convert back to an owner-occupied situation and then Winery convert back to student home it would then be caught in the student home okay regulations what all right I've got it thank you so as you have that brings me one other question if I have a single family home that I've typically rented to two professionals for years and then one year decided to rent it to three students understand home yeah and what if so we have to go through all this process now yes is there a way that we could distinguish the hey this is a rental it's always been a rental oh you could do it I've used you would obviously dilute the ordinance but it's not sure if it's necessarily filler to landlords to sell the sudden now that you better figure this process even though you've owned this place for 20 years and rented it the hope the point is that it is a student home becomes a land use hmm it would be no different than in a sense it's no different than I've rented it now to a I'm renting it out to people who are living there and now I'm gonna rent it out to a beauty salon but you can't do that in every zoning district or you can't do certain things without maybe you're running out to something that's loud but now that the year that's allowed require sprinkler systems something else if you go through once though you're done so before me I rented to three students in the next year next four years are entered to professionals again and then I your five or six I went to three students you have to go through the process again I mean I would think you'd want to encourage the went into grad students into professionals and in effect this is almost discouraging that if you couldn't go back and forth yeah I have to think about whether you know I have to think I think probably you're right I think they probably okay with going back once they've been through once because they've met the standard at that point and then it's then question of whether the town wants to just on a cyclical basis extend their health safety fire safety reviews to all rentals and not just all that family Pakula that concerns where I will make sure I get that right just cuz on an ongoing basis you just never know as a landlord who's gonna rent your place I mean you're looking for the highest qualified candidate and yeah yeah so anyways this is a balance between landlords and the neighborhoods that have been the single families and right just one what we mean like that but you think if you're seeing a family home you'd prefer to rent to a couple or a family correct and to make it so adventurous student film student home what if you fell out of that now you have to go you know fuel process is gonna get back into it yeah some curbs are you know it's to say I'm gonna run to students then I'd never want to get out of that student home classification yeah I'm pretty sure that once you've gotten a certificate of occupancy as a student all that would carry forward that would carry forward you actually have to have students do you actually have to rent it to students to get to the certification the occupancy or can't just apply for it I think you can ask the fire marshal or whatever to you and then you've got it you know preemptively so let's say you're running your professors you want to keep your options open you apply for your occupancy well that's my question my question is is I get it you know many students or not students and then the next time so every u.s. immigrants registration forms and I say who's in my places how many and everything else and what they do even think and if I then my question is if I went to non students would I lose it when I lose the student classification and then when I go to instance again would I have to have the fire marshal come and inspect it again so yeah I think you understand the quite understand what you're saying I understand what jeremy has said and we could actually clarify right that in if that's the recommendation of the board there just to make absolutely sure that once you've got a certificate of occupancy it holds no for the duration of time that you're using it as a rental seems like that would be the fair approach so this part of it could that be part of a grace period on mr. no no I think that you said here's your ears of this wouldn't want to do it be that but I think it's a standard practice that maybe judgment Jeremy uh proposal yeah I think I was wrong as something there that that once it's our electricity permit is issued but then the comes a rental to somebody other than these students with two years we don't love the condition of the property at that point so we have to do it occupancy inspection again better than if students were living there and the students would necessarily be coming it could be a family of children the right on lads and you're tearing things apart and take the batteries as smoke smoke detectors now you just never know so is the purpose of this than the safety of the students is that what you're saying cigarette is the purpose of this the safety of the students this is safety here and save your period it's just a safety inspection of the problem that would imply that which we doing it for for homes with children well if it's not if it's not a student home that it's not the part this is not required together yeah I understand I'm just taking it but again I think that I think there should be a time limit if it goes three or four years and now you want to make it back to students again you just don't know the condition of the property and I guess we have to decide what is the what is the purpose of this is the purpose of this to create a new classification so we know where these things are with the potential future or is the purpose to ensure the safety of the students in these homes which is what Bill's implying is that this is a stepping stone to a potential solution to a problem we identified right which right now my view it is really classifying to to stop you know the scene of the family neighborhoods to continue right which is not necessarily what you're indicating it is now which I enjoy writing to turn to the safety of whoever is living the house yeah I understand what the issue is and I understand this who-who's slightly different points of view yes I if I'm understanding what you have said and I think the way out tend to go at this point is to make clear here that a certificate of occupancy issued once is good for as long as that property is being rented even if it goes back and forth however because I think it then if the town believes that it needs to be reviewing the health and safety conditions of all rentals as Henry does not on a three-year cycle for multifamily dwellings the town can wreak an in can expand that and just kept because then then the health safety is really the primary reason for doing that for everybody so I think there are two different tools kind of converging but we can make this tool a tool for regulating student homes with some health safety at the outset I think the occupancy current should be good as long for as long as the structure is used as a student home if it's like because you've had professionals living there it goes away and then or stays on file anyway but then in three years decided to have a certain home again I've have a yeah occupancy product but then that means every year you could be going into all these places another what every year cuz every year you know you're potentially flipping I don't know a hundred two hundred homes in Oran I don't know what it would be I don't know how many homes there are but I mean I never know on a given year who's gonna be in my homes I don't know if it's gonna be fresh professionals grad students or students you just don't know until that means every year I'm gonna have to keep track of that and who's leaving who's coming in and sometime it happens within a couple weeks right I mean it's almost unmanageable I don't know you have to come in and do that inspection before the students move in true so you know I signed a lease and then I call you and said I think we're getting into very difficult waters to manage as a business owner I mean I think if the landlord's of owner knew this is what the helis would work there be they wouldn't be happy would be my guess now there'd be pushback on that because that it's a lot to to deal with because again some days you're signing at least a week before someone's moving in because you don't want it to be empty and you're encouraging people to keep a student a rental as a student home which is the not what we want I mean the whole purpose of this is these seen firm homes in these neighborhoods we want to rent to families and professionals you don't want them to be renting to students and if I lose my student home occupancy I have to go through that process again I'm going to be like now I'm going to students so it's almost against what we're trying to do so when someone applies for a certificate of occupancy do you follow up to see if there are actually students in there a meeting I'll lead where I'm saying what if there would be there's we're all neighbors and we really don't want students on our street so we agree on applying for student housing with no intent of renting to students I know I don't think we would follow up and determine whether they're actually students or not that they're renting so you could actually you know a neighborhood could collectively get together and gain together and not actually block a whole street off by applying for a certificate of student housing and never occupying their students I understand what you're saying right yeah if you're gonna limit the number of students in certain houses or not at this point right but if it came to that if it came to that you could you know there you could write the ordinance and when it comes to that point the you know the actual language of the ordinance would I don't know that yeah sure I guess probably not sure how they would do what you're suggesting they would do but if that's a policy matter we could guard against it I've seen how some work neighborhoods working they would do anything to prevent certain people from coming into them if they could yeah I think the way I think this would be the waste at home to be regulated as it is in st. Joseph Minnesota or Bryn Mawr Pennsylvania or Newark Delaware and so forth talk to all of them system has worked well in both of those cases so to prevent from them just killers from those examples with drugs concern what would you recommend it do you have any of those discussions and anything like this so this is a kind of a novel yet thought that hadn't occurred to so going back and forth that that that would be a big issue but I think that's why correct I'm just old what do you think would be the best tool just a recommendation to address his concern because bill had mentioned as soon as you'd flip flop then that goes against what Jeb would say so your tool to address student homes and my recommendation could be a little bit different from bills not in terms of the use of this tool not that there shouldn't be a mechanism as the conference of plan proposes or ongoing ways to make sure that rental properties are in good condition but I think that's a separate but he's separate set your instruction of the ordinance this thing trying to regulate student homes certainly is a step in the direction of house safety in terms of require certificate of occupancy but it's really just trying to make sure we know where student homes are and how many there are and that once creator of the student home it meets basic health safety standards but I think the next step the town wants to expand the inspection of single and families in to family homes as multi families are now inspected on a three year cycle the town could do that I'm not sure we should use this tool we have you dead end I agree with John I don't want to provide a disincentive to to make this work so what's what's the downside of you get you go through the motions you get your certificate of occupancy and then you have it and it doesn't expire what's the downside of that if you rent it to students if it's good in 2017 to rent it to students and then judge has a property in 2018 happens to not be students the same sake the same building exists he's still responsible for the same level of safety in the building and then 2019 students would return let's say to that property what's different between 2017 and 2019 well the bill would say is that there's a chance that in that intervening year it could have been rented to a family with tiny children who talk like this I understand but in my opinion that's still the responsibility of the landlord and so really in impractical in practicality maybe that's changed in that time frame but it's Judge responsibility and he should know that I assume when he receives that permit so I think it's reasonable for the landlord to be you have to have some level of confidence you know that's your business scenario wasn't going to change from one year to the next so that's just my take on it I see no risk in having a multi-year yeah yeah this is clearly quite a bit of concern from the Planning Board so again the proposed I think there's a lot of stuff in here that we are okay with but that concern I died a lot yeah yeah by that disincentive for people not to mr. kind of turned me on to this idea this is much bigger concern than the than my previous concern just because the other concern I think bill would be able to work out and I think he'd be fair and everything but this one it would be it'd be a challenge business-wise I think it would be a challenge so you would have to option time you might have some other thoughts to you have two options as to how to proceed and one is you could table this and ask me to gather language addressing this concern or alternative language you know and then every walk back to you or you could this direct that we express this concern as you wish us to as part your recommendation to the council I'd almost rather hear that a proposed language I mean push it back you provide up a perspective that that I can on is yeah well I think Jeremy what you said yes that would be my preference which is once you get it I'm the other thing I could live with would be some five or ten year so at least there's some a good chunk of time that this thing is good for and then every time you go back to a student home it resets or something I don't know but you need some sort of you know so future planning this is generated a fair bit of discussion I guess my recommendation I would mind seeing some proposed language so we can table this and then get it before the board I'd rather have us agree and what's what we're pushing out to the council that's just my thought I would say I agree with what's being said mainly that the there's separate things here and that the well that this that once it's a student home it shouldn't lose that standing just because a professor lived there for a year and then the other issue which I'm very concerned about is that we make sure that these places that are rented to students are actually safe but I think that is a separate issue to be dealt with separately and I know in the past we've had homes for students that were not safe so I don't know what the current status is but you know I'm that's a real concern that I have but I don't think this is the mechanism for dealing with that so tonight we're gonna have some caught up next steps can I ask one question um to build this a dumb question but whatever the building standards or safety standards ever change over time a the town has a building code which is amendable it doesn't change a lot over time B there is a International Building Code which does get updated every three years in the town chooses whether to adopt that updated version and see I I know yeah there's a Life Safety Code as well which goes through the state level which goes through the same periodic updating and D I guess finally the town from time to time has thought about adopting a more comprehensive housing code of its own that's not happened didn't it something that the fire department is from time to time thought about so yes they can change and does change over time and the reason I asked probably is obvious but if we if we have a student housing certificate that says this place is okay for 20 years does it get updated in terms of safety standards and that's why I brought it up okay thank you I think if I understand the gist of your argument I think you're trying to say that the occupancy permit will be show you one time via one only further look for the apartment yeah that once you've gone through this process which is kind of unique and special that you wouldn't have to go through it every time you change to was renting there then I could go through one time or the other thing which I wouldn't prefer as much would be that that inspection whatever this happens that lasts for a while now again I don't want to have this inspection and then also have the fire marshal inspection now I'm drilling these things so which I'm for the fire marshal inspections we you know we go through them it's a good exercise good for me good for the talents good for everybody but I don't have to juggle this occupancy thing there's another thing on top of these you know fire safety inspections I feel like that's kind of onerous I'll explain it that we when Henry now I do it like this new specialist for our business I don't issue an ocular permit until I get your permit so it being basically the same situation I would wait for Henry's report on the student home and then issue the excise on my inspection issues here oh well but you would be potentially going through these homes every year with Henry again right so you want to rent to students your tool and to professional I guess every two years your team went to professionals or grad students here's three go back to students so now right now Henry comes through every three years instead you have come with you now all these places you've never gone through before every two years potentially and it's a more onerous inspection because it's not just Henry it's you and Henry I'd like to move this thing along so what I'd like is some feedback from the board for well my opinion is we could get some revised language and then we consider that I think he's heard a lot of our concerns I think he can come back with something that we can digest and hopefully address much what we talked about but we've got two more public hearings and I'd already hit all right so when you move to table this if you move to table to the next meeting rather than to the argon is correct we have you in August attentiveness you might just want to say to the next to the next meeting so that that's that's what I'd like to propose I'll make a motion that we table this till the next meeting and ask Evan to work on the language to address the concerns so viscosity a second very good further discussion all those in favor of that good thank you everybody good discussion moving on old business we have a continuation of a public hearing of a request by John Tierney to amend and existing name occupation for recognition as the home business is defined by the land use ordinance for his retail store alpenglow adventure sports at 92 Main Street tax map 27 - 2 lot 149 in the medium density residential district just so you know this is a continuation on a public hearing we opened it up we had a couple people show up at the last public hearing but we didn't have an applicant to speak to so if you could step up and tell us what you proposed to do we did have a couple of comments that I'll bring to your attention from the last meeting but my name is John Tierney to Main Street and Acadia mountain guides which alpenglow is a BBA as part of the caelian object we've been in or I know some of you know since well since 1986 actually but for the first seven years we rented space on campus and then we've been down a Main Street here for until 1990 until 2001 2002 some well on that line needs to be where they Abreu was and then eventually moved out of there and move down at current locations so that's kind of a brief history had a home occupation for a minute since then and just look into basically update that to the current guidelines of the new home occupation type of apartment home business permit we good thank you out again public hearings to open so I'm gonna ask for questions from the board from the applicant okay yeah any any questions on this I mean this is again taking advantage of our new definition so there were some questions I love your brief between this meeting and the last meeting there's a there are two people in the audience that raised concerns yep so Kevin have you spoken with Tony yeah does that mean a male I was in Africa doing a mission medical mission program while you last meeting so I did get his email while as an Africa so a while ago but he gave me the gist of what they like so I guess with without questions from the board at the moment one of these and is right in the minutes but uh probably butcher was made by Paul put's yeah we'll try that a Juniper Street stay there while he understands a request we'd like to know what the exact businesses that is being run at 92 Main Street as he believes there's another business besides out on well adventure sports that is being run there mister now shuts expressed concern for parking extended periods of juniper Street he mentioned that quite frequently he just said it for longer periods of time cars were you know all up and down there and he attributed that to your activities so could you address that sure yeah just so everybody knows the KD of not guides hasn't the primary offices in Bar Harbor where that's where we're based out of downtown 228 Main Street's another property I don't we have some employees that are interns that actually rent from me in the summer at my house to interns and we usually ask them to park on the street so that they're not parking in the driveway we've kind of changed that so they just in light of what Evan said so those are the cars that are generally found on tuner for street those two people because they leave their fastest fear so that they can work in Baja where they stay down there leave that cars here because they don't have any parking down there right Evan how does this button so we it's for employees now right with a new designation no just going it was two windows it doesn't destroy me at all the size of a sign it was more than two employees okay there's a heaven time working out so how does it I'm just trying to think how this plays in he's mentioned that these employees are off site and bicarb up sites are they would not so it's not we have many employees in Bar Harbor yeah the business the business can have more than that number of employees as long as they're not working out of this Way's okay alright so I'm just trying to figure out as a concern is that something that we're gonna consider for me I have spoken to a number his name fella across the street with the with the event sign and potentially if we need to just getting space from him to park a vehicle if we need to also talk to them to the police chief here about a space here and getting a space in the town log the problem is we can't park overnight so we're gonna get an overnight permit so that we could cuz sometimes we'll have a client come in and that client wants to leave their vehicle we're going to a trip Lanka Todd and there's something like that and we don't really have a place to leave that so now I've paid the driveway it's a little bit easier for sure but we've talked to the police chief and he agreed to kind of give the business a permit so we could have one permit that we could then give to a client if they want to leave their vehicle it's whatever the fee is $200 I think for the fee okay yeah that was one of the concerns it sounds like you've looked at a couple options so appreciate that not only from Jeff Gordon 22 industry would like to know who is personally responsible for the day-to-day functions in the business and he'd also like to make certain that the applicant in stays what is allowed and what is not allowed within a home business approval so we've gone through the process where the town could you could you address that cover yeah well I'm the one personally responsible so I have it their only business so that would be me that's pretty easy one to answer yeah and you've gone through what was a lot of the money yeah I think what came to question as we've traditionally had for the last several years of spring in a fall sale and that kind of came to fruition this spring that we can't have that anymore so that's yeah kind of a problem for us but we'll figure something out so ok yeah sounds like that one's been resolved as well okay those are the two comments comments from the public anybody all right don't ask questions from the board fairly straightforward that's all I had all right I'm gonna close the public hearing there last call all right final comments yeah yep thank you all right proposed findings of fact alright again these are proposed findings of fact for a home occupation permit for a home business for helping low adventure sports 92 Main Street tax mark 27 - - lot number 149 in the medium density residential district date of July 19 2017 pursuant to article 4 section 18 - 106 and article 5 section 18 - 131 of the Ono Code of Ordinances the owner total board is considered the application of alpenglow adventure sports for a home occupation permit to operate a home business which is a retail shop for outdoor sporting gear at 92 Main Street tax map 27 - 2 149 located in the medium density residential district based on all evidence presented by the applicant reviewing agencies town departments and the public the Auto Planning Board has found that the applicant previously has received a permit for and currently operates the Alpen low adventure sports shop as a home occupation at this location but in order to classify the home occupation under the new category of home business playing both further funds in addition to all of the standards with which the current home occupation must comply and where its existing existing permit and these are the home occupation and home business review criteria number 1 the client requirements of the district that the subject property located in the medium density residential district is a legal lot under the owner land use ordinance in which the category of home occupation defined as home business as a permitted use with Planning Board approval on there article 4 section 18 - 106 in article 9 section 18 - 273 any issues for that hearing then number 2 compliance with home occupation standards article 5 section 18 - 131 subsections a through K read these all together that the application submitted demonstrates that the home business will continue to be subordinate to the residential use of the property will not alter the appearance of the premises such that it would differ from its existing residential character that based on the application submitted and submitted the home business will have a single sign of no more than four square feet in area the sign of this size will not have undue adverse visual impact on the neighborhood and that the use of other advertising media will not increase traffic to the home business that would cause demand for more than four parking spaces allow above all use ordinance that this home business will provide no more than four on-site parking spaces to accommodate clients or customers and will not have clients or customers coming to his home business and numbers requiring more than four on-site parking spaces and lastly that the classification of the existing home occupation was the home business will not result in any material change in the operation operations or character of the home occupation that would cause it to be none be in non-compliance with standards govern all home occupations any issues with those four items during them I think we're ready for a motion I mean that we approve the home business application for a panda open their album a adventure sports located 92 ministry tax baton at 27 - to lot 149 with the following two recommendations the end that the home business continue to be registered with the code enforcement office as a home occupation and number two that the home business acquaintances comply with all the standards governing home occupations as set forth in section 18 - 131 we're not depictions of the land use - foods good thank you judge I have a motion to have a second megan further discussion then all those in favor very good unanimous lastly we have a continuation of a public hearing and review of an amendment to the lanius ordinance to establish the Main Street office overlay district along Main Street from Juniper Street to Kelly Road this matter was tabled at playing boys June 21 2017 meaning until our meeting this evening and the public hearing was kept open since that time we did request a bunch of information from Evan and we also have two letters that were emailed to you so Thank You Caitlin so these were just presented to us this evening I hope you had a chance to take a look at them before the meeting but that was very helpful to get them to us before then right in the meeting so that's where we are I'm gonna start with Evan if you could give us an update from our last meeting yes as you know the public twice you've had received comment from members of the public and some of that comment had to do with concern of office use even if it's a low impact kind of office use supplanting supplanting residential use and diluting the residential character of that neighborhood and also introducing some level of business traffic that may not be there today and you asked me to prepare some alternative recommendations a starting point for your discussion of how you want to recommend this amendment back to the town council so I've done that and I there are four here ways you could go there's other ways you go but this is your starting point one is to recommend it as as its drafted ie the Main Street office overlay district second without a residency requirement it would simply allow office uses in return or certain requirements for preservation of the architecture and other visual character of this corridor second option is to recommend it but with a residential use requirement that is any structure that was going to be rented out for office space would also have to have a residential use as part of that property would mean that the owner would have to live on the property but and I'm a good case in point would be a something that might be a three-unit now residential apartments one of those might be rented out as a office instead still a landlord who don't live there but there'd be still residential you'd be mixed residential use in offices third possibility which I'm going to be would be a residential owner occupancy requirement which would mean that somebody could rent out part of their operate for an office but they would have to be living on the property and should they relieve that property office use would have to also live unless the new owner also wanted to rent it up and that would be akin to the rain storm scenario where the owner of that business lives in part of the house and runs an office someplace else I think I'd also rent it to somebody else that it doesn't have to be their office business and the third the fourth recommendation is to recommend against adopting the overly district on the basis that other things have happened to give a little bit more leeway in this quarter as because it's part of the MTR district where other leeway has been created through streamlined home occupations and amendments dealing with travelers accommodations and and residential care adult assisted living facilities and that other conditions market conditions have changed since the times the conference a plan all right so those are the four approaches that kind of book in and certainly and others or change these so just to refresh everybody's memory you know the comp plan we proposed a little bit you know wider scope and then councillor there's been two public hearings and the significant input that you received you know people were against it but then we started to give it a little bit of a give and that it was at a minimum the residents there but not necessarily home you know the occupied and then last time we heard some some comment about owner-occupied just trying to you know I guess maintain them the houses that were there and then we have two comments or two letters recently which are a little bit more flexible so that's where we are do I need to read these into the record if you all read the letters yes you've all read the letters they are part of the record and they will be reflected in the minutes yeah so these are both in support of the overlay district options the one one of the comments from the gentleman that we just approved his home business again has a very large residence and his comment I think like when we heard him the first time is that he wanted the flexibility so he is looking for I think alternative one and then we've heard comment for alternative 15a and 2b and some folks didn't want anything so that's that's where we are any comments questions from Evan on the the alternatives that he provided do people have a leaning so I wasn't involved in the comprehensive plan unfortunately so I don't know all the history to this yep but I did listen very carefully at all the public comment that was made and I've thought a lot about this and I I reached out to Evan a few weeks ago I guess when I was thinking about on the way to work and it occurred to me that what are we trying to solve with us right now in other words when the comprehensive plan went in several years always done several years ago there was a certain economic wall that we were in there was a certain number of buildings that were a number of houses that were more for sale some that weren't it was a different scenario at least what was presented publicly here anyway my impression was made there was a different world than is now and so it occurred to me are we trying to fix an old problem with a current solution and should we shelve this and do so I recommended the option 3 recommend that we don't approve this at this time we don't necessarily I meant or I meant with Evan was we don't necessarily disapprove it but we shall wait for this time period until the need arises again in other words the next recession or the next influx of requests for businesses to move in are we solving something that doesn't exist in creating angst in society in the public by doing so at this time so that was my thoughts and so I recommended that we consider number three mmm Thank You Jamie I had other comments so there takes from our public comment those of you that remember the call plan the discussions that we had back then okay that have that context I guess I'm leaning towards alternative to be where we require residential owner occupancy and I think that this thing represents a lot of work a lot of information and this alternative to be is very restrictive you can't do very much under this unless you happen to live in your building and so it would be a way of getting the basic concept of a overlay district on the books and getting the work that was done in terms of which buildings are included what some of the other all the other issues that were addressed getting that on the books and it would not affect the people who live there hardly at all and it would be there if in five or six or ten years we go back to a situation where these street really needs for it and we need to to do something then we have the work that's been done we have a foundation and the council could move forward with making whatever modifications are needed to address that situation I kind of hate to see us lose all the work and thought that's gone into this and I think this would be a way of preserving that with a minimum impact or the people that live there no we're good Thank You Christine Alice what's your take from comments that we've heard debut you participate in the comp plan yeah and I've ever worked opportunity to talk to several people just that I met and they actually someone brought this up and they were very apprehensive about the whole idea but when I mentioned well what a food he requires the owners residency and that was acceptable to them the reveal will go with what Christy just said the same same option to be a foot in the door and people will probably be better accepted was there take Mike Jenny's pain is valid in that the conditions appear to have changed although the whole discussion and what I took out of that is that this is also cyclical so this is a complan was a 10-year projection approved in 2015 we heard a lot of input at the time so we're trying to come up with solutions but I'm leaning toward you and if you've you know q2 down down the line but it just it that seemed like a pretty restrictive compromise so that we wouldn't need momentum that does provide people some flexibility and we have heard people of recent public hearings mr. Tierney and we've got letters of support and we also heard people say some of the people that were against us in public hearing that they and I believe I heard this from you that they were amenable to owner-occupied that that seemed to be their default or like yeah we could never that so I don't want to create a problem where there might not be any but you know we have received input and that's that to me was a as a gun but I didn't ask you Jed what was your thought I mean I was leaning towards to be and then Jeremy talked and I was leaning towards number three and then Krista talked back to to be I mean I definitely don't like Mona to way I mean the you know the reason to go to be in my mind is because we do kind of do have that flexibility in the future and you've kind of taken that first step I'm not sure if we could do three and still even though you said we wouldn't like throw it away I'm I'm kind of concerned that in five years it kind of would get thrown away cuz none of us might be here and you know who knows what'll be but I could maybe be the one all right I like to be because I think it's proactive and if we find ourselves which were in a recession situation people are gonna be stressed again and trying to make a decision for change in a stressful environment is harder and I think justice minimal impact but it puts us you know it's a little proactive I I happen to agree with you I mean I was looking at 2a or 2b clearly a we received enough input that that one it was seen finally you put together the comp plan that was stepped on but a lot of people weighed in but at the end of the day we we've heard a lot of positive support but my takeaway was that they could live with with to be and allow some flexibility so we get a little bit more of a positive direction to address a problem we identified and we had a lot of discussion over this but that gets us started down the path and gives those people with a really big houses mr. tierney has a really big house - well facility that he has no home businesses there's a lot of square footage so this gives them a little bit more wiggle room and one of the letters talked about wanting that that flexibility so we're giving a little you know again we're just kind of finding a medium ground and that that worked well for us so it was pretty well known in the Comprehensive Plan development so I'm kind of thinking the along that path so I'm not at this point my family to be as well don't further comments you all make a convincing argument not losing momentum is not something I thought of yeah but one thing that I heard from the public is they're concerned about the unknown and then it dawned on me you know what are we really trying to solve today but you're right Lisa in that if change comes we need to be in a position to make moves now not go through this whole process again for months and months and months so it's convincing argument I've heard a lot of to bees and somebody that could be we twist his arm a little bit you know he could you know probably be leaning that way so all right uh and he changed it well if we were to call it to be any changes to to be or was it reasonable has as ever presented it to us I would have to prepare the language for that but I think I could do that with a chi you could make that recommendation with this change it's simple language to incorporate now I would incorporate that bone back to council mm-hmm unless you want to come back to you again in a couple months I'd like to put one of these to bed but I think we have enough that I mean it board members agree that that we have enough with this alternative language that he could amend what we started with and send that back to Council you know we have we'll have enough to discuss with our table discussion and I think there'll be more of these but I think we've moved far out far enough along with this one to send it along all right yeah if there's no further changes I think we can get a motion all yours okay I mean that we recommend to the council the approval or recommend to the council that we modify the lane usefulness for the Main Street overlay for alternative to be can I say that again he's a read to being to the know you can watch the altar have to be as laid out in the memorandum dated in the memorandum from Evan Ricker dated June 19 to 2017 for the subject of military recommendations Main Street office overlay district works for me you get a motion a second very good second any further discussion which was very good discussion by the way I think what doing our work is a Planning Board and evaluating these quite carefully so no further than this guys with all those in favor very good all right that's other new business item six there is none seven discussion no meeting in August I would just I think probably not I def tight I know we know nothing that has come in or now that is pending so I think it is safe to say no meeting in August I'm quite sure there will be one in September because I know of an application coming in at least one and general proceeding at that time welcome aboard mm-hmm all right Thank You Evan our last item is a german can have a motion so moved very good second second it good all those in favor right I'm seeing a couple notes thank you very much every fruit