presentation. >> Bear with us. We good? >> Okay, great. Okay, sorry about that. Um, so as was mentioned, this is the mobile home process overview um, ordinance amendment. Just to clarify, this is really for the purposes of complying with LD 337, which was a law that was adopted back in 2024. Um, it was called an act to amend the law governing the regulation of manufactured housing to increase affordable housing. Um, essentially what this does is it changes what the prior law had, which was that municipalities must allow manufactured housing in certain locations. The prior law said at least one zoning district on undeveloped lots where single family dwellings are allowed. This uh clarifies that manufactured housing includes both mobile homes, so traditional mobile homes and then also manufactured homes. Um, under the same definition, LD 337 further clarified and requires that a municipality allow manufactured housing, including both mobile homes and modular housing, uh, wherever single family dwellings are allowed, all zoning districts, regardless of whether or not mobile home parks are allowed in all zoning districts. It does allow that you can have certain uh design criteria that the municipality might establish for single family dwellings. Um so just to reiterate essentially for the purposes of complying with the law, mobile homes and modular housing are considered one and the same both with themselves but then also with traditional stick built single family dwellings. It does. Again, the law allows for some certain allowable design standards, including but not limited to a pitched shingled roof, a permanent foundation, and exterior siding that is residential in appearance, so long as the requirements don't have the effect of circumventing the law that was adopted by the legislature. And then also that the design requirements are not used to prevent the relocation of any manufactured housing regardless of its date of manufacture legally cited within the community as of August 4th, 1988. So just to summarize the proposed changes to the ordinance that's before you again this is expressly to comply with state law adopted by the legislature and signed by the governor back in 2024. So we have changed uh in our local ordinances the definitions found in article 2. We essentially as the law does combined the definition of mobile home and manufactured housing by simply referencing state law as the definition. We also changed the definition of a manufactured home park to align with state subdivision statute which is three or more manufactured houses, mobile homes or modular homes uh rather than the current two or more that is referenced in our ordinance. And then we also changed the schedule of uses to remove all references to mobile home park and made it manufactured home parks consistent with the state statute and then that new local definition. And then there are a variety of changes in our performance standards related to manufactured housing. So we clarified that manufactured housing, the new definition is allowed on any individual lot where single family homes are an allowed use under our current schedule of uses. Uh manufactured home parks as a use are only shall be located only in districts where this land use is explicitly allowable per the schedule of uses. and I didn't make any changes to that with these set of uh amendments. I also had a minor clarification um around the mobile home or manufactured home being um on or affixed to a foundation or concrete slab. We didn't necessarily have affixed to as a requirement before, but we have added that. We replaced the requirement for a 14 foot width to an eight foot width again to align with the new state statute and expanded upon the existing design standards consistent with the new state statute. So as I just mentioned the state statute allows us to have design standards. We had some minimal design standards for mobile homes before but I expanded upon that and sort of um better allowed us to interpret those standards. So added um sort of definitions of a standard pitched shingled roof, meaning a roof with a pitch of two or more vertical units for every 12 horizontal uh and which is covered with asphalt or fiberglass composition shingles, metal metal roofing or other materials, but specifically excluding corrugated metal or plastic roofing material. Likewise, attempted to define a little bit more what siding materials we would allow in the community. So, wood clabbered, including engineered wood, but excluding plywood, vinyl, composite, cedar shingles, and fiber cement. Um, and you're requiring Sorry, >> you have another slide. >> I I do have one more. Yes. >> No, I just wondered if there there was a slide with the information that you're relaying to us. >> Yes. Yep, I do have one more as well. >> Um, and this is also within the uh draft that's included within your packet. >> Yep. Um, oh, and then requiring that siding needs to be placed horizontally. Then there are some changes related to mobile home parks as well. Um, this is really to add clarification. So, uh, or address any conflicts or redundancies. So, we added that there's some clarification that standards are in addition to any other relevant provisions. We changed the required amount of open space when you're doing an actual large mobile home park subdivision um to be reserved. It was previously 10%. I although that was conflicting with another one of our local standards section 181343A. So I reduced it from 10% to 8%. That's a conversation that we can have, but it was really to to correct areas where we had two conflicting standards sort of right next to each other. I also removed some standards because they were redundant to our site plan review standards that already exist and that mobile home parks would also be required to adhere to. Um, also related to complying with the state law. So, the new state law says that um you can't require minimum lot sizes within mobile home parks to be larger than the smallest minimum lot area that's allowable in the community. So, we allow 2,000 square foot minimum lots in the village commercial district, which means in manufactured home parks on public sewer, at least you you can't have a m you can't have a minimum lot size higher than where you allow it differently elsewhere. So, I reduced that to 2,000 square feet. um removed a reference to the overall density of a manufactured home park on septic. Um there was sort of an interesting just again question or interpretation piece that I had around um you could have if using a um like a central subsurface wastewater disposal system or a community septic system that's sometimes called. you could have uh smaller lot sizes within the manufactured home park of 12,000 square ft. Um I removed some reference to the overall density conflicting with that 2 uh 12,000 square ft requirement because there isn't necessarily a specific health reason for the overall density to be different than the overall minimum lot area requirement. I guess I couldn't I couldn't really wrap my head around why that would end up being different from like a environmental or safety perspective. And then again, this is to comply with state law. I shrank the setback requirements for lots within a mobile home park because a municipality can't require setbacks that have the effect of reducing uh of requiring lots that would be larger than those permitted under state law. So I changed our setback requirements to match our village commercial zoning district standards which has the smallest setbacks in our community. Um and then all other standards are really to add clarification or to ease in interpreting the standards or addressing conflicting standards. Um, in terms of the planning board's uh purview this evening, you'll recall that when you do ordinance amendments, the planning board's role is to take any public comment that there might be and then provide a recommendation to council around whether or not to uh adopt the amendment as presented or with any amendments that you might have. Um, your role isn't necessarily to be the final arbiter of these decisions this evening. >> Right. So, thank you, Isabelle. Uh before we do open up the public public hearing, do we have any questions from the board? >> All right. It sounds like we're just getting up to speed. Yeah, >> I had a >> I had a question about the um construction standards piece. >> Yep. >> It seems like the purpose was to kind of remove the mobile home, the the term mobile, and replace it with just kind of a more universal manufactured. Um, looking at that section seems to apply to manufactured housing. Does is there conflict with like those construction standards and what like the design of a I guess what you might consider a more typical mobile home might be particularly with like the roof. >> So that's a really good question. In fact, we are essentially creating standards for mobile homes that you would need to adhere to. So, as was mentioned in the state law, municipalities can create those kind of design standards and it might be um a little bit different than what you might typically see in other communities. I also want to note that the design standards that I added were not above and beyond anything that we already had in Orno's ordinance. It was really an attempt to attempt to distill what our ordinance was already saying on my part rather than add like new standards if that makes sense. Okay. Other questions? You have anything to add? >> No. >> Okay. Other question. >> All right. >> I have just uh one uh point and unfortunately I'm finding it hard to localize this. It's uh got an eight in front of it and it speaks of fire safety. Okay. So, if we can find that >> generally, which page are we talking about? >> The second to last page. That's a >> Did you find it? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, at the end there of that first sentence, it says, "Made for fire safety within a mobile home park." That presumably becomes a >> Yes. Thank you. And then the other question I have is um this is sort of a somewhat different issue, but it's kind of odd to say that um in cases where public water is available, fire hydrants shall be installed according to a plan approved by the town manager or designated representative of the town. It seems like the code enforcement officer always does this kind of thing. Should that just become the code enforcement officer? >> Um, so it's actually typically our life safety inspector within the fire department that does that kind of um fire hydrant responding to those kinds of questions. I think we um it's sort of six one way, half a dozen the other. Ultimately, that is the town manager's designate at this point. So, it's I would say what you are more comfortable with. From a staffing perspective, usually what I like what I prefer to say is the department itself. So if we were going to make the change that you're suggesting, I would probably just say the fire department's representative. >> Okay. >> What are thoughts on that? you prefer to change that town manager or designate that's really flexible as far as what staff is, but I I think we're always going to have fire department. We're going to have an inspector. So, what are your thoughts? >> I just need [Music] just it's fine. >> Are we okay or want more specificity? >> Bob, do you have a preference? >> No. Okay. Done. >> No. >> Uh, okay. Uh, I think we'll probably just leave it more flexible. Good, good point, though, Krista. All right. Other comments? >> Well, I guess I have one other question. Just in the whole area of mobile home parks, this um whole section is still called mobile home parks. And does it need to change to manufactured home parks? I noticed that today because I usually I don't edit the titles in our ordinance. In this case, we probably should. So, yeah, the the relevant section should be changed to manufactured. >> Good catch. Anything else? All right. I'm going to open up the public hearing. Invite members of the public to step up if you have any comments, concerns. Anybody online? match one. Uh, last call. All right, public hearing is closed. Any further discussion from the board? All right, it sounds like we're just getting up to speed with current law. So, uh, thank you, Isabelle, for uh, catching us up to where we should be. I think we're ready for a motion because again, we're just making a recommendation to pass this on. I think with just the the one suggested edit, correct? >> I move that we recommend uh the town council to approve this with >> Do we want to she's given us >> Oh, did she at the very end there? >> That will cover us here >> with just catch that one uh suggestion. >> Okay. estimate. >> I move that the orninal planning board forwards a positive recommendation for adoption of the land use ordinant ordinance amendments to article 6 section 18-171 article 7 section 18-205 18-206 and 18-207 in order to better reflect the current process being followed by town staff and the planning board. This isn't the right one. Say wrong one. >> It ain't the next one. >> Okay. >> All right. Now, and now I have to remember what what uh Christa said after all this. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Sorry about that. >> Try again. I move that the orno planning board forwards a positive recommendation for adop adoption of the land use >> ordinance amendments to article 2 section 18-31. Article 4, section 18-106. Article 5, section, where am I? 18-133 and article 5 section 18-134 in order to comply with LD 337 an act to amend law the law governing the regulation of manufactured housing to increase affordable housing. Clean up the definitions for manufactured housing homes units within the land use ordinance and remove conflicting standards or inconsistencies with other sections of the land use ordinance. and whatever Christa said. >> And can we specify that? So >> Christa, your comment was your comment was >> what >> the recommended change. Yep. I just want to make sure we capture it in our >> manufactured park. >> Manufactur >> manufactured homes. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Y correcting the two last references to mobile home parks. >> Manufacturer. Yes. >> Got it. >> Yeah. >> That Thank you. Uh very good. Thank you, Leica. You made it. Uh, we have a motion. Can I have a second? >> Second. >> Any further discussion? All those in favor? >> All right. Moving on. We have another public hearing. Uh, this one's public hearing and recommendation for a proposed amendment to the Orno land use ordinance, article 6, section 18-171, and article 7, section 18-205, 206, and 207 to update the review pro uh procedures described in these sections to better reflect the current process being followed by town staff and the planning board. namely updating reference to the planning board's designated staff person, the town planner, rather than the code enforcement officer. So, Isabelle, back to you. >> Yeah. Um, not a ton to say on this one, but I'll just go through this briefly. So, um again, this is really to update the review procedures in both the site plan review and the subdivision sections of our ordinance um to uh clarify that the designated staff person for the planning board is the town planner rather than the code enforcement officer. This section hasn't been updated since around the year 2000, which would have been far before the town had ever had a hired planner. Um, so just changing that to town planner or designate because as our department grows, we may at some point also have other folks doing review. Um, so uh there's a couple of other changes that I'll run through briefly as well. So again, updating reference from code to town planner or designate as appropriate. Um, I do want to note that in the site plan review procedures, we don't currently have time frames for the initial completeness determination and public hearings. So, following the planning board's flowcharts that we reviewed back in November of 2023, I did add in the time frames that are already referenced in those flowcharts, just to clarify. And then I also removed uh reference to how the meetings would be conducted referencing the planning board's bylaws where we already go through that in great detail rather than spelling that out in the ordinance. And that's just to give us a little bit more flexibility if you ever get a new staff person or just to be a little bit more nimble in in the way that we come ac uh come to meetings and the way that we conduct those meetings. I also added a step related to condition compliance. So, as you know, we typically will adopt conditions of approval, and we didn't have anything in our ordinance previously that that was a step that needed to be followed by folks. It was uh a practice, but not specific ordinance uh piece that was spelled out. So, I added that to our site plan review procedures. Then, this is a change that I would appreciate your feedback on. Um, currently the sketch plan and pre-application conference for subdivisions is a requirement. And when we get these kind of things, the ordinance spells out that the planning board's role in that case is to determine if the subdivision is a major or minor subdivision and also make relevant road classifications. So, if they're building on an existing road or adding a new road. That's a little bit wonky to me and I've had trouble with dealing with that in the past because those definitions of major versus minor subdivision are not actually for the planning board to determine. We have specific definitions of those in our ordinance. So, it's not subjective for the planning board. Same with the road classifications. Those are MDOT definitions that we also reflect in our ordinance. So, there actually isn't a lot for the planning board to do at those preapp conferences. And given that we have a staff team that reviews these applications, I am wondering that if you would be in support of making that sketch plan and pre-application conference for subdivisions um optional rather than a form a formal requirement for major subdivisions as it currently exists. and a clarification that comments provided by the planning board at this stage if the applicant decides to go through those would be non-binding in nature because typically the application is not well enough fleshed out at the pre-application phase for us to make binding comments. So >> for discussion >> and I can go through I only have a couple more so maybe we go through that and then have that conversation. >> Um for preliminary plan for major subdivision which is 18206 and final plan for major subdivision which is section 1820 uh 207. I again updated reference to the relevant staff or department, provided time frames for initial completeness determination, and in this case, we had some specific submission contents with regard to um plans and maps that I think are better suited for our planning board bylaws. First, because it references myars, which the Ponobska registry of deeds no longer accepts anyway, so we don't need to we don't need to require those. >> Yes. And then of course at some point in the future, doesn't have to be today, we we may want to go to a system where we are only accepting electronic applications. So I don't want to have to tie us to hard copies within the ordinance. I think that's far better suited for your bylaws where we can be more nimble and um adopt those as changes may necessitate with technology and such. And that is all >> I mean board we all get uh tablets is what you're telling us. >> Maybe someday and I don't want to hamstring us if that's the case to hard copies. So again same process here. We're looking for your uh a public hearing although this is fairly minor in nature but a public hearing and then a recommendation to the council. >> Again same process will allow you to have comments but uh first off comments from her questions. I I think this your suggestion streamlines our process because again if we're still trying to get over hurdles where orno is difficult to deal with I think that that takes the sketch plan that's one meeting and then you got to wait another however long to to go through that again and so it adds an extra meeting where I was would rather have staff spend the time with applicants you You know again other communities I do a lot of municipal work and Brewer has a tech review committee so they go over applications in detail and that's as she talked about before as our staff grows our planning staff grows uh then I think they would be better suited uh to deal with those initial >> uh issues before it even gets to us. So th this is great. I think it'll be well received by by applicants. Again, you remember that hopefully town staff is working out a lot of the the hurdles for applicants even by the time it gets to us. So, this I think that's a welcome step in my mind. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I think some of these earlier steps go back to the days when we did not have a town planner. >> Yes. >> And the planning board had to do everything. >> Right. Right. I I agree with you. Yeah. So, either way, we've come a long ways. Uh yeah. So, I I guess any other comments? I I fully support that. Just in in general to what Isabelle presented and then what she wanted feedback. Any more questions on that? >> Uh I'm going to open it up public hearing again. Don't be shy. came all this way. I don't see the other applicant. This is your chance. Uh yeah. Any any comments, Mitch? Nobody. >> All right. >> Okay. I have just I'd like to make one comment on a flowchart. >> Yeah. >> And uh that is the site plan review process flowchart. And Uh when we get most of the way down, we have a I'll call it beige rectangle that says within days of the closure of the public hearing, the planning board shall um render a decision on the application in accordance with the review standard. S okay within and then in all the any other two flowheets we have in PN but typically the same evening and this is really the simplest thing where we're most likely to do it the same evening. >> Yeah. >> So um >> points >> you know what the next time you print this thing maybe you want to change that. >> Yes >> that makes sense. >> That does make sense. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right, I'm last calling and close at public hearing. Uh, any other comments on this one? Again, Christa's point is >> that's excellent. >> The way way it was. We just didn't have the support and planning board did a lot of this work, but rather rely on our technical expertise in the planning department. Oh. Uh, any other comments? You good? All right. Can I get a a motion again? Yep. And I think it's on the >> since I handed it to >> I can I can it was we finish it. I move that the orninal planning board for the position recommendation for the adoption of the land use ordinance amendments to article 6 sections 18 through 171 article 7 sections 18 through 205 18 through 206 and 18 through 207 in order to better reflect the current process being followed by the town staff and the planning board. All right, just to clarify, I think that's just 18-171, not make sure just in case. I don't think we have 171 uh sections, but either way, so yep, we're good. >> All right, we have a motion. Can I get a second? >> Second. >> Very good. All any further discussion? All those in favor? All right. I don't see any applicant uh for us and I'm not gonna waste people's time. >> Sorry, they are on Z. They are on Zoom. Okay, >> very good. Isabelle, uh thank you for your patience everyone. So, Isabelle, can you provide us a summary? >> Yes, I can. [Music] >> Okay. Um great. So, we are moving on to 81 Orno Landing Road. This is a minor site plan review. Whoops, sorry. Um, the applicants here are KNA Investments, which are Alex and Katie Cobb. Um, again, minor site plan review for the establishment of a homeay 2, which is how our ordinance defines a nonowner occupied short-term rental as opposed to a homeay one, which would be an owner occupied short-term rental. Um, in some zoning districts that is an allowable use within the FNA zoning district, which is the forest and agriculture. That is an allowed use with planning board review. Uh, this is uh tax map 15-2 lot 38 or the blue outlined parcel up on the screen. This is just a site plan rendering. Um, so on the right side is Orno Landing Road with the lakeside on the rear. Um, as you can see from that previous screen, this is a fairly small parcel. And I want to note that on our tax maps, our tax maps don't do the greatest job of actually showing um, how the lake has sort of moved closer to this so far. So, this is a better rendering of that. Um, with regard to land use and zoning, again, the proposed use of Homestay 2, uh, is an allowable use in the FNA zoning district with planning board approval. You'll also note that this property is within the shoreland residential or the limited residential shoreland district. Just so you know, this doesn't involve any new exterior construction or changes to the site. uh that would require a shoreland permit, but it is within that area. Uh also, the property is a grandfathered non-conforming property with regards to minimum lot area and frontage requirements in the FNA zoning district, which the FNA zoning district typically requires about 4 acres of property. That is obviously not the case in this property and and many of our camp properties. This property itself has about 6,000 square ft of fly area. Um again though there will be no changes to any dimensional aspects of the site with this application setbacks lot coverage lot size etc. Um also there are no changes to the site which would necessitate a shoreland permit again no construction or additional impervious area. So while this is in that zoning district those standards are not applicable at this time because they are relevant only to new construction. So, with regard to traffic access and parking, um the applicant is proposing to utilize the existing single family dwelling for the purpose of a short-term rental for people, you know, vacationing or visiting the area. Therefore, traffic is anticipated to be consistent with that of a residential neighborhood. The site does provide adequate space for uh two off- streetet parking spots, which is the requirement under our off- streetet parking and loading standards, so that the renters can park the vehicles off the street. That driveway looks fairly small, but that is a scaled drawing that shows that they have enough space for two parking spaces. Um, and I might let the applicant speak to that a little bit more, but he is aware that off- streetet parking for the two spots would be a requirement. Um, with regard to utilities, the building currently us utilizes a private well and is connected to an existing uh septic system, a holding tank of around 1500 gallons or up to five people. Um, however, and I'll talk about this in the conditions of approval, as with all dwelling units in Orno, the dwelling, including the short-term rental, would be limited to up to three un no more than three unrelated people. Um, the proposed change of use doesn't require any changes to the existing utilities. So, just something to be aware of. The uh with regard to other issues that the board would typically see, erosion control, storm water management, etc. Because this proposed use is not involving any expansion of the structure or any changes to impervious service on the site. Those other site plan review criteria typically reviewed, you know, storm water management, natural features, etc. are not applicable to this proposed project. And related to that, they have requested a waiver of all of the submission requirements that would only be relevant to new construction uh surveys, topo maps, soil information, storm water management and grading and erosion control plans, uh landscaping plans, parking and traffic circulation plans. It it's fairly minimal. Um new sewer and other utility plans, and staff is in agreement since there's no building or site work being proposed. Um if the planning board is looking towards a favorable resolution on this project this evening, we do have uh three recommended conditions. Our two standard conditions around the approval being dependent upon the plans contained at the application. Any changes would need to return to the planning board and then that noise shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of chapter 13 article 2 related to noise control. Um, the other thing I just want to say about that because I I got a question about this after our last planning board meeting is that the noise ordinance in ORNo is very complaint driven. So we are we put that as a condition of approval that applicants familiarize themselves with that. But unfortunately the way that ordinance is written is that it does rely on complaints for the code enforcement officer or uh our relevant folks in police to actually respond to those things. So, while we uh encourage applicants to be familiarized with themselves with that, we also encourage the public to familiarize themselves with that as well. Um, and please call us if you have questions. And then finally, the unique condition is that the dwelling can only be rented to up to three unrelated persons at any given time to meet the ordinance limitation on occupancy for any dwelling unit outlined in the definition of a family found in section 1831. And that was a standard condition the last time you reviewed a short-term rental project as well. Um, that is all from me. The applicant is here over the phone, but I do need to There we go. Promote him to speak if there are any other questions or if he wants to add anything. >> Yeah, I'm going to ask the applicant. Do you have anything to add to Isabelle's uh presentation? >> I guess. >> No, I do not have anything to add. Thank you. I I just Sorry. >> Yeah. >> The applicant, do you have any anything to add to Isabelle's? >> I don't have anything to add. Thank you. >> Okay. Very good. Uh so I am before we start the public hearing again, I'm going to open it up to questions uh from the board. And you're right. >> I just uh we said not more than three unrelated people. If they are related, if they're a biological family, they can be more than three. >> Yes, that is the case under our definition of a family in our ordinance. Yes. >> Okay. Uh for the applicant, Isabelle did mention the the parking requirement. I saw the correspondence in the application packet that you acknowledged that she uh made that point. Uh, I'm looking at the scale drawing and it just eyeballing it. Those two parking spots, it would be end to end, correct? Not side by side. But it appears cuz you have a full bathroom, it shows it's 8 foot six. That's the parking stall. And if you scale that off right, it looks like you have ample space for for two cars. But I would like you to confirm that. >> Yeah, that is correct. >> All right. So, we got that end to end parking fits two cars. Uh, any other questions from the board? All right, I am going to open up the public hearing again. Please step up to the podium, tell us who you are, uh, and let us know, uh, what your concerns are again, if you would. We we typically, uh, prefer that that five minute, uh, rule. You might have to turn the microphone on when you get up here. Sorry. >> My name is Karen Pinkham. I am a a year-round resident at 72 Oral Landing Road. Um, and so I did just have a couple concerns I wanted to share with the board because um, there are approximately 10 properties what I'd say um, properties of owners of of um, properties that if you are looking at or Landing Road and then Villaon kind of branches off to the campground. So in that section, if you keep going, there's about 10 of us. Five of us are uh, year-round residents. Um, one owner does have a short-term rental in her property, I believe. Um, three of the properties are already current short-term rentals that are actively being um, advertised on Airbnb and Verbbo. Um, so this would be a fourth one out of um, 10 properties. Now we have four Airbnbs. Um, so some of my concerns that we've had over the years with the short-term rentals are um, they have had in the past short-term tenants go to our the right-of-way area. That's kind of the little public area down there. Um, and have left garbage strewn everywhere, including dirty diapers. Um, they've broken picnic tables. This year alone, we've had a significant increase in traffic, and it could be campground traffic as well. We get a lot of the campers that come down on their golf carts. Um, but we had a large party at one of the Airbnbs this year where there were approximately 20 vehicles. Um they took down a chain um that was beside a no trespassing sign, drove over our neighbors lawn. Um so that's concerning as a small community of neighbors. Um and obviously the noise because again we're a small community. If we've got a lot of renters down there, it's not uncommon for me to be in my backyard putting my daughter, you know, just having put my daughter to bed and I have to shut all of our windows because there's so much noise um coming from the rentals. Um, so those are some concerns. The other thing is the road is very narrow. I'm familiar with the site. Um, it is going to be very difficult to get two cars parked into there. Um, even end to end. Um, and I did have a question about the map that they had drawn. Is that before the addition was put onto this uh, property? Because it was there was an addition put on to that after the property was purchased. So, I was just curious if that included that additional addition. Um, the other concern I had was I do know there's a fire department rightway down there. And so, if we've got four rental properties on that road with limited on-site parking and people are parking on the roads, what does that do for our emergency access to that water supply? Um, so those are my concerns as a long-term resident and I appreciate your time and consideration. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'm going to throw that back to the applicant. Can you uh answer the question? Does the map you provided in the application include the uh recent improvements in that addition? >> Okay. So, we didn't actually add any sort of addition to the existing um property or building. Um so, I'm not sure exactly what she's um asking about. >> Okay. So, you're telling us there's no addition basically just some uh facade improvements and interior. Is that what it sounds like? >> No. So, we had to do some some work um to the foundation and so there was a room off the side that was partly taken down to get underneath to be able to fix that rot and improve that and then put back together. Um, I believe that's what she's she's asking about, but there was no other improvements done um to the building itself to expand it at all. It's the same footprint, right? Because I I don't think under current shoreland uh zoning you can't uh increase a nonconformity. So, that that does make sense. I think our code office would have but they inspected that. They would have caught that. you can increase the footprint within uh the area where your your place is. Okay. Uh thank you. Uh so we talked about uh questions were about uh noise and parking. It again looking at the driveway sketch you provided. It does appear that uh two cars can fit end to end. It might be a little tight but it it does appear that they will fit technically. Uh can you talk about uh again we have a noise ordinance uh in parking that kind kind of thing but uh you're listening to your neighbor uh provide some concerns and typically we uh as a planning board try to uh do do the best job we can at at uh listening to these concerns and within our town's uh zoning ordinance uh try try to you know work with both sides But can you address any of those comments that you just heard? >> Yeah. Yeah, very understandable because, you know, we live in a a small neighborhood as well. Um, so any complaints, concerns can definitely, you know, go to me directly. Um, we don't anticipate any of that. Um, but you know, sometimes Airbnbs that can definitely happen. Um, but no, we are, you know, well aware that can happen, but um, we do hear the hear that it is a potential that could happen. Um we don't anticipate it happening but you know our door is always open. Um you can always let us know and we can definitely take care of it. Um we own another uh Airbnb in China main um you know which is a close-knit area as well around the lake on another camp road. Um so we have experience with with this kinds of things but um yeah we definitely don't want um to disturb any neighbors especially in close proximity as it is there. Um, so definitely understandable. >> Yeah, thank you. Isabelle, can you at least touch on the current town ordinances because some of our, you know, this would be, it sounds like a lot of those concerns would be a job for our code enforcement staff, but can you touch on that? Or Mitch, Mitch is ready. >> I I thought I would address this. The town council has just um updated an ordinance for disorderly properties. Yeah. that a lot of this the noise ordinance unfortunately is written in a way in which is very difficult to enforce and is really more uh aligned with uh events that are going to happen construction or business. Right? So because of that um they looked at uh the disorderly property um ordinance to incorporate um things like noise, things like parking, things like activities that are creating havoc. Um, and there are um, it's all identified in there. Um, the the answer to that is called 8664000. If if any of those things are going on, parking is also one of them. If there's parking that's happening, that's blocking a road. Um, that would bring, you know, call 48664000. The police will come and look at it. And there is a fine structure in place. And that goes for any resident. It's not just rentals. So um basically uh the first time it happens the fine goes to the um the occupant that's there and then after subsequent ones go to the occupant and the the the uh owner if it's not the same person. Um so they've tried to address some of that with some of the other issues that we've had um in all of our residential neighborhoods around rentals. So, um, and I also will say that, um, we staff has had some conversations with folks out on our landing road about, um, some of these issues, and we are looking into some things. I'm not sure currently how that is addressed with parking, um, on the road, what the on-road parking situation is there. Um, but typically, if there isn't enough room, we will limit on-road parking. Um, >> what kind of signage is there? >> Yeah, I don't know. I I I don't know that on top of my head. Yeah. So, you know, we we are looking at that that we've had a conversation with some other residents out there um to to look at some of that stuff um and are aware of of that. But >> in any case, I would encourage anybody that's having any concerns um about noise, disorderly property, disorder activities to reach out. 8664000 is the number. Um and it's a non-emergency number. if it's an emergency, call 911, but non non-emergency line and it will get through and end up with our police and then they would they would investigate and go from there. So, >> thank you. By the way, for the record, Mitch Stone, our assistant town manager. >> Sorry about that. >> Can I ask you a question, Mitch? Is that number staffed 247? >> So, that number is staffed during the day for us and then it goes to a non-emergency, the U Ponobscot. Um, >> oh gosh, I'm gonna It's It's a division of the 911, but it doesn't go through to 911. It is it comes as a different ring. So, it goes to the same people that answer 911, but it is triage as a non-emergency. >> So, at 12:30 at night, Yep. somebody >> you call it and you'll go through and it will be it's a little bit more cumbersome. It doesn't go right to a person. It will it will give you a um phone tree and it will tell you what to push and and then you can get to somebody and then they will dispatch that off. Uh but like I said, if it's an emergency, you call 911. So, >> so just uh for the applicant again as a landlord, you said you had other properties, but this is an issue that Orno's been dealing with. Uh a lot of it is in response to something that happened in my neighborhood uh where a person got uh beat up. But if you're not aware of it, uh these are newer rules. Uh so there, you know, the the property owner, the landlord's share responsibility or homeowner. uh but trying to do a better job with that. So now there is more of an outlet uh for residents but some of your concerns probably rely on uh town ordinances uh to implement because and and again this is interesting because you see in the news a lot that short-term rentals there's a lot of discussion all over the place with Airbnbs. I mean, Bar Harbor's in the news a bunch, but it all over the state because the, you know, the transition to the short-term rentals, it's it's hitting a lot of people, but currently this is an allowed use in our FNA zone. So, understand your concerns. It is an allowed use, and now hopefully with that uh the new ordinance that Mitch just mentioned that you'll have a little bit more recourse if if something happens. So, >> Mr. Chair, can I jump in here as well just briefly? Um, >> so with our Airbnb homeay definitions, we do require there to be a local um person to respond to complaints. Uh, you have to either reside within, I believe it's an hour drive to be able to respond quickly to complaints, um, or have a local property manager. In this case, the applicant is going to be acting as their own local property manager. So just I think he offered to to his door is open. Um he is the local property manager in this case. >> Got it. >> So >> okay. Uh other comments? Anybody else want to step up? Mitch, anybody online? Do we want to reference I I'm trying to remember the the letter the that we received from somebody that couldn't be here this evening. >> Oh. Um that's up to you. We included a letter from an abuter in your packet >> if you folks would prefer me to read that into the record. I'm happy to, but it is also in your packets and posted to the public planning board site if you're curious. >> It it was in our packet. I'm hoping you read it. There's the concerns mentioned here are similar to what you you mentioned. there also uh you know yearround residents and you know noise the neighborhood concerns that she expressed uh similar sentiments but again uh knowing that we have some changes in our new uh rental ordinance or whatever disorderly property I guess I forget what it's called but yep so we we do have more protections so all right any other comments comments from the public. Can you Sorry, this is all recorded. If you could step up. Yeah, I appreciate it. >> I just have a general question overall for the planning board. Um, is there ever thought or discussion about limiting the number of short-term rentals in neighborhoods just in general? I didn't know if that had ever been discussed. >> So, >> or food for thought. >> What we Yeah. Funny, we're actually right, we're nearing the finish line actually on redoing the town's comprehensive plan which all the ordinances that this planning board has to make sure people applicants follow. We're reviewing that has to be done every 10 years. Isabelle has been our fantastic guide through this process. We've met through, you know, with a committee for every month for gez over a year and a half now. And so we've been talking about that and these types of issues are part of our, you know, what we what we've been reviewing. We did one in 2015 and I mean things change 10 years. So you look at what the town's doing and you try to amend or change things if if needed and this short-term rental thing again is is a pretty big issue. So that's the setup. Isabelle, I'm going to pass it to you to just talk about discussions within our committee and what we're talking about knowing that you still have opportunities for public comment because the comprehensive plan committee is going to have another public hearing. So, there's an opportunity for you to weigh in there and then once it moves from our committee, then it'll go to council. So, there's more opportunities for public comment for you to get your opinion uh noted, but Isabelle, if you could summarize what we're doing now, that would help. >> Yeah. So, we're kind of in the phase of making formal recommendations, and I I want to pull up the actual >> Yeah, because we've been spending a long time. So, you take stock what the the town is doing, all the land types, and all the all the things we've got going on. Then you you look at uh you know we have get a lot of input from the public and then we we start looking at uh goals and objectives and the step we're on now is action steps and Isabelle was and with staff uh input is is responsible for a lot of the action steps and as a committee we've only seen the draft so we haven't discussed it a bunch but I think >> yeah so there's a variety of conversations about action steps including sort of establishing minimum thresholds for compliance with safety standards, addressing some of these comments that have already been worked on by council because that was sort of a shorter term issue. So, at least some of that was already discussed and in general, we're looking at promoting, you know, year- round housing specifically for families. So, I we don't have a specific action step that says formally, you know, limit Airbnbs or short-term rentals specifically. Um, but I think in general, our goals are leaning towards promotion of family housing within the community. And >> again, if you'd like to provide comment, there's a there's public hearings that you can come in and voice your opinion. >> Thank you, Isabella. Uh, any other comments from the public before I close the hearing? All right, close the public hearing and limit comments to the board. Are there any remaining questions? Just uh clarification, Karen mentioned about uh parking on the street and then uh Mitch clarified that that there is no parking on the street, but there's no no >> So there's no signage that says no parking this side, no parking that side or >> not currently at least >> because with everybody the default is the street when you can't get in your driveway. >> We all do it. Yeah, >> I've been out there. I know how narrow that street is. I know where, you know, the chain the access for the fire department and all that. So, yeah, there's not a lot of room up there, actually. Uh, further discussion from the board. >> I just had a question. Is there any value in seeking further clarification on how big that parking actually is based off of the drawing and the kind of focus of the complaints or the focus of the uh a butters feedback? >> Yeah, good question. So, I'm assuming it's scaled off. >> So, when it I mean you saw >> the the math doesn't >> correct. There's no dimension for the whole that whole side that parallels the driveway. But if you look if it's to scale and you look at that eight foot six I think it's the bathroom and then you double that up that's two parking spaces. So just from scale for me >> correct but >> Isabelle mentioned it's scale drawing. >> Yeah. >> So just looking at that >> and the applicant has told us that it it will fit and that the scale is accurate. I was okay with that. >> Okay. >> But it Yeah. It's a handdrawn. Yeah, >> but I was looking at the 8'6 the bathroom and doubling that up. >> And it also has >> Yeah. >> You know, some inconsistencies with it's 196 here, but also just the kitchen is 19.6 plus the bathroom. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So, >> so all right, we're going to put it to you one more time. The applicant, you're guaranteeing that two cars fit end to end, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Um, just a question. Could we put that as a condition that they that he has to provide the actual length of the driveway? >> Sure. That's easy. Just tape it off. >> Yeah. Uh just there's a little bit of again a question just making sure the scale is right. If you would uh we're going to have you know in a recommendations if you could scale that off or you know just use a a tape and give us the dimensions of that driveway. Okay. >> All right. Further comments. >> All right. I think I'm ready for a motion. >> Anybody want it? >> I'll do it. Okay. I move to approve the minor site plan application of KNA Investing Investments LLC. >> Sorry. Uh we need to vote on uh waivers before we do this. I I forgot. I apologize. Process is they requested waivers. We have to act on those and then we review that. Sorry for that. >> I can forget that. So I need a motion on the waiver request first. Then we'll vote on the application. So >> want that one too. Just move to approve the approve the waiver request. Yep. I think that's about as simple as we have any uh Well, can I have a second? >> Second. >> All right. Further discussion. All those in favor? >> Again, this is all interior. Pretty simple project. All right. >> Okay. >> Now you're up again. >> All right. I I move to approve the minor site plan application of KN&N K and A investments LLC received July 23, 2025 to establish a homeay-2 at 81 Orno Landing Road Tax Map 12-2 lot 38 per the findings of fact dated August 20, 2025 subject to the following conditions. Um the there are two listed relevant standard conditions and there are now two unique conditions. >> Do I need to say those? >> Uh one's on the record, but why don't you state the one that we just >> Okay. The the um unique condition. The second one is that we would like the actual measurement of the driveway. >> Yep. Provided to town staff. >> Provided to town staff. >> Yep. >> Are we okay with that? Uh, we got a motion. Can I have a second? >> No, second. >> Any further discuss? >> Thank you, Michael. Any further discussion? >> Yeah. >> Turns out two cars will not fit in there. >> Um, I just want to clarify. I think if anything addition, like not an additional vehicle, but there's there's more space at least on the lawn area than what is actually being shown as as designated parking area. So in that case, the expectation, at least from my end, and and feel free to correct me from the planning board perspective, would be that they utilize some of that lawn area before the deck. There's sort of a a deck on the side, a small lawn area, and and parking. So that would be my expectation. >> Yeah, I I expect that the gravel driveway as shown, and they'll confirm it with measurements that it should fit, but yeah, good question. Uh all right, so we have a motion. And we have a second. Correct. >> Yeah. All right. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Very good. All right. Moving on. Uh, next up, town planner report. Can you uh let us know what's going on? Comprehensive plan update. Uh what's on top for next month? That kind of thing. >> Yeah. Sorry. Do you have bit of a of a presentation by way of the comp plan just to give a little bit of an overview? Haven't really checked in with the board in quite a while. >> Yep. >> Um so I just want to give you an overview of some of the public feedback that we've heard thus far and then I'll talk about next steps what's what's going on. >> So um >> thank you. So then I'll talk about next steps and what's coming up. Um, so we had had some council feedback already, but in general, I just want to go through setting the stage, what is a comprehensive plan, what we're looking at, what we've heard from the public, and then um, I will give you a little bit of an overview of what's next. So, just to reiterate, I think you're aware of this by now, but a comprehensive plan is a long range, really a 10 to 12 year look at various topics that end up impacting a community's character, its growth, and its fiscal position. It's also a datadriven guide to policy and programming decisions as well as public investment. And the ideal situation is that it's a shared vision for a community's future. So, uh, the comprehensive plan is, uh, I will say step one, it's a very broad document. It in turn though typically ends up recommending other plans and studies. So neighborhood um master plans, site specific master plans, um economic development market analyses, traffic studies, things like that. Those in turn really end up impacting town ordinances and then other policies and programming decisions of the town, including things like prioritizing maintenance of sidewalks or roads or where to site new public buildings. Right? So all of these things sort of grow out of the comp plan although the comp plan is a very broad document because it's intended to cover 10 to 12 years. So in terms of a framework pyramid how you might think of this is our first step in the process was really trying to understand community values. Those are those core principles embraced by the community that inform that vision. The community vision statement is a highlevel statement that that describes the kind of community that Orno wishes to be in the future. And then we have some more specific aspirational statements that help make the community vision a reality. More specific direction and some objectives about how those goals will be carried out. And then finally, the action steps, which you know may change throughout the 10 to 12 years of this plan, but are really the specific steps that the town and its nonprofit partners, so the land trust, the university, some of these other folks will take to actually implement the goals and vision of the plan. These are all of the topics that are addressed within the comp plan. So, economy, housing, agriculture and forestry, history and culture, recreation, transportation, natural and water resources, public facilities and services, population and demographics, and perhaps most pertinent to this uh board is the land use section because there's a very specific chapter around land use and ordinance amendments that should occur. So, why do we plan with comp plans? Only communities with a state certified plan can create certain policies. So if you've heard of an impact fee ordinance um or zoning ordinances um preference with state grant programs. So there are more than I think there are now about 40 different grant programs that communities with a state certified comprehensive plan get some additional um preference for. And then it also guides state investment and infrastructure towards certain areas. So the state actually prioritizes how they invest and m uh invest in roads uh to designated growth areas within the comprehensive plan. And then again most importantly it really creates a communitydriven vision for the future. The ideal situation and I think maybe you see this in the past is that when we get to the end of the lifetime this 10 to 12 year mark of a comp plan perhaps the community is feeling like there needs to be an updated vision. I think we've started to sort of get that over the last few months. There needs to be an updated vision. We don't agree with what's going on. The comp plan is the place for that as you as you know and as we have reiterated that is the place for the vision and then we do need to go through an ordinance amendments process post comp plan adoption to actually make sure our ordinances reflect that vision. So that's how that all sort of intersects together. Uh this is an overview of the steps we've taken thus far. As you can see, we're kind of now in the last pla phase um or I guess entering the last phase as of uh next month. We're really wrapping up the plan. We anticipate that a final draft will be available for review in early September and that there will be a public hearing on the draft comprehensive plan in October and that date is to be finalized, but we will make sure that that gets out to the public. The public hearing phase is a requirement, but this also will need to be adopted by council who will hold their own public hearing on the comp plan as well. So, at least two public hearings coming up. Okay. So, just to give you a little overview of what we've heard so far, um we had an online survey back when we first started this that had 244 responses. back almost a year ago, Octo uh October of last year, we had two public kickoff meetings that really ran through what essentially the the presentation that I just gave you in five minutes. We spent a lot of time on that at those October kickoff meetings. We had 26 attendees there over two days and they sort of answered some really broadbased questions around ORO, what they love and want to keep as is and what they think needs to change. Then using the feedback that we got from the online survey and our October kickoff meetings, we had some more in-depth topic exploration meetings in November and December. One specifically related to housing. And that was really where we started to get some feedback around boosting family housing specifically, economy and downtown, active transportation, and then outdoor recreation and natural resources. Then in January, the town manager actually ran um sort of a your voice matters visioning event where we got the feedback that's on those posters in the back. That bright colored feedback um is everything that we heard from folks at that meeting. We also says upcoming here we had a future land use workshop just recently last month where we got um more great feedback around 25 20 25 to 30 folks attended that and provided some very specific feedback around where growth and development should be incentivized and where we might want to um not disallow growth and development per se but perhaps not incentivize it at least. And that was really how we um we asked for some pretty specific feedback around growth and rural areas. So what we've heard throughout this process uh really we started to hear this set of community values. It was things like community cohesion, making sure that we're making decisions uh together and in a way that uplifts everyone. Uh wanting a diversity of businesses and economic vitality. So, uh, filling vacant downtown buildings, creating more, uh, like cultural events and things to do in town, um, and, uh, you know, making our downtown area feel quite vibrant. Then it was around housing options. So, again, increasing some family housing, providing a diversity of housing options so that um, different ages and lifestyles can can be here in Orno. Uh, increasing and maintaining public service capacity. A lot of this was around some of the things that we've already talked about tonight. So, making sure that we have adequate staffing to be able to perhaps proactively respond to complaints rather than reactively responding to noise ordinance complaints, for example. Um, but also things like increasing um potentially the recreation programs that we offer, things like that. And then a big one was reducing vehicular traffic and related to that, increasing alternative modes of transportation. So, making it feel safe to walk downtown, making it feel safe to bike through Orno, um, and actually making sure that we have interconnected infrastructure to make those kinds of trips possible. And then also potentially bolstering our, um, public transit. Uh, I already mentioned that we had some pretty specific priority focus areas. So, housing, active transportation, the economy, and downtown uh vibrancy, outdoor recreation, and natural resources. Again, community cohesion, really the ability of a community to function together harmoniously. This was mentioned um by 29 of 113 responses or about 25% of the folks that were in attendance at our event back in January. again diversity of businesses and economic vitality. So really focusing on attracting a wide variety of businesses and specifically what we heard at this meeting was around attracting job creators of like more than 10 employees. Um then also increasing our general economic vitality so filling vacant buildings. I didn't mention this increasing feet on the street downtown. So more people living, working and playing downtown. really making sure that downtown feels like a place that uh is relevant to everyone. And we asked some fairly specific questions around what folks wish was within a 10-minute walk from their house. As you can see here, many folks think that we're missing a neighborhood grocery store, or a general store. And then 41% said a restaurant, coffee shop, or bar. And then attracting retail and service businesses was voted number three strategy that would most improve quality of life on our online survey. So again, housing options um expanding housing options for all incomes and ages was voted the number one strategy that would most improve quality of life. That's sort of related to the conversation that we had this evening um around making sure that that's uh yearround housing options. A lot of the conversations that we've had was around um missing middle or starter home construction. The council has been calling that attainable housing. So things that are attainable to to folks that we're looking to attract to this area. And then because in our initial data analysis phase, we've seen that we've had a pretty sharp decline over the past 20 to 30 years really of family housing in town. Um a lot of uh families that used to live here have either um they don't have uh kids in their home anymore. And what we're finding is that we have really lost a a large percentage of family housing in the community. So trying to bring that back. Um again, some responses to our online survey were directly calling out enhancing or maintaining service capacity as a need um in a variety of different ways. Public works and roadway maintenance, sidewalk maintenance, water and sewer utilities, recreation programs, and police and fire protection. Um, and then many responses were just sort of like addressing noise, but that would also require an increase in service capacity to accommodate that. A little bit more specific suggestion. Um, improving bicycle infrastructure in town was actually voted the number two strategy that would most improve quality of life. And then some other more specific responses were just broadly and generally encouraging the construction of sidewalks and trails and advocating for the expansion of transit. Um and then 74ish% of our responses to the online survey said that walkability and pedestrian infrastructure was very important to them. So we had asked very somewhat important uh somewhat unimportant and then not at all important. 74% said very important, not just somewhat. So that's interesting. Um that being said, that's sort of where we are now. As we're moving forward, we have now defined our uh growth and rural area boundaries. Those are fairly loose boundaries until we go through an actual ordinance update. So at least right now, they don't necessarily follow property lines. As in the 2015 plan, it's a general area that we're hoping to encourage growth and a general area that we're hoping to keep fairly rural. Those boundaries need to be a little bit more defined through a zoning ordinance, zoning map really update process where we'll get some more specific uh public feedback. Um we anticipate again that a draft will be available for review in early September. we are wrapping up developing the actual recommendations of the plan, those goals, objectives, and actions that I talked about. Um, but at this point, we're kind of just looking for some general questions or feedback if you have any. Um, as I'm as I'm finalizing that draft, >> I have a question. >> Yeah. Um, how does the uh DOT corridor 2, whatever they're going to do, how how does how does that mesh with with what you guys are planning? I I went to one of those meetings and I haven't heard anything about what's happening with that. >> Oh, the Route Two Corridor project. Yeah. So the Root Two project, as you can kind of infer from some of the values that I was talking about, is sort of intrinsically tied to a lot of the goals and objectives. When we had our I believe it was our active transportation meeting, we gave folks orno bucks and we said prior use these orno bucks and spend them on transportation improvements. And the number one bang for your buck project that accomplished most folks goals in the room was that route two corridor project. In terms of an update for you, um I believe I might have to turn to Mitch, but I believe it is uh pending uh full funding by council. It is sort of a once in a-lifetime investment. So, we've gone through this planning phase and then the next phase is actually funding the full infrastructure, but maybe you can provide more specifics. >> Uh sure, Mitch Stone, assistant town manager. So um where it is right now is the plan the initial planning uh phase went through and it was accepted and the council accepted it. Um and the next step to this whole thing would be getting funding through the um to do preliminary engineering. As everybody understands that funding comes from the federal government and lots of things have changed. So, um, realistically, we're at the mercy of when those funding sources come available, how that would work. We have a this whole project is enormous. I mean, when you're talking about a $30 million project, that's, you know, a lot of lot of resources. I will tell you that there is um we were at almost the same time or just before we started to do this, we were given $3 million CDS funding to work on uh pedestrian and bike safety in the downtown area actually from the bridge to Kelly Road. Um and we are working with DOT right now to um really look at how we can use that money as a kind of a pre uh pre to the route two. So, taking the planning that we've done there and kind of scale it down to use that 3 million and and looking at starting in the downtown area and that way when when we get to the route two, we'll have some of that done and use that that $3 million that is is for us to use through the DOT. Um, we'll kind of defay some of that cost. Um, it's a long-term project. It's going to take a long time and so there's going to be this that I mean it's hard because you get planning and you get everybody excited about it and then the wheels of uh of of all the funding and all that take a little time. So it's not off the table. It's just um going through the process and we we we end up in line with everybody else that has one of these planning studies. So hopefully that's a good update for you. >> Yeah. Thank y >> any other questions for Isabelle in the comp plan? >> I might just share the um future land use map if you don't mind just so that you kind of have an idea of what we're looking at. Um okay, so this is the most upto-date version. Um, essentially anything that is either light green or dark green is a rural area and then the dark green is a critical natural area. So that has some specific habitat value. Everything else um yellow, orange, purples and pinks and uh blue and red and brown um is sort of the designated growth area of the plan. And that doesn't mean that this is going to change magnificently. In some areas, the vision is actually for fairly limited growth or uh almost no growth, but just maintaining what we already have and making sure that that's as vibrant as possible. Um and then in some of these other areas, you know, I'm thinking about this uh what we're currently calling Orno West area west of 95. It sort of has some development potential, especially if um utilities were expanded that way. And so that might be an area that's sort of ripe for some significant growth um pending the expansion of utilities. Then we've uh these numbers they're referring to Heirs Island, the former public works site is number two. And um this is that site of the former subdivision that we looked at uh back probably about nine months ago now. Um, just so you're aware, that preliminary approval has now expired, but still potentially a site that's ripe for some development. Um, but maybe more of a concentrated development giving or a contract zone or something else given the uh, as the planning board perhaps correctly pointed out, some of the development constraints with the topography and some of the other um, things going on on that site. So, those are sort of what we're calling our catalyst sites that might have some more contract zoning potential or uh need further master planning on um but might be ripe for development. Um so that's the that's the draft as it stands right now in terms of where we're trying to incentivize it and where we might want to discourage perhaps. >> Thank you, Isabelle. Any comment on that question? >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Uh what's up for next month? >> We do have two home occupations um that will be coming next month. Um and I may uh have another ordinance draft change as well. Um also just as a reminder, we are not having a meeting in October. So we'll have September and then a month off. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Uh, all right. Last up, adjournment. I have a motion. >> So moved. >> Thank you. Second. >> Second. >> Nice. Any discussion? >> All those in favor? See you next month. >> Next month. And