On the agenda: Eliot meeting — data center (Sep 3)

TOWN OF ELIOT, MAINE
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA
TYPE OF MEETING: IN PERSON WITH REMOTE OPTION
PLACE: ELIOT TOWN HALL/ZOOM

DATE: September 3, 2026
TIME 4:00 PM

PLEASE NOTE: IT IS THE POLICY OF THE PLANNING BOARD THAT THE APPLICANT OR AN AGENT OF THE APPLICANT MUST BE PRESENT IN
ORDER FOR REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION TO TAKE PLACE.
1.

ROLL CALL
a) Quorum, Alternate Members, Conflicts of Interest
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. MOMENT OF SILENCE
4. 10-MINUTE PUBLIC INPUT SESSION
5. PUBLIC HEARING
6. NEW BUSINESS
7. OLD BUSINESS
8. REVIEW AND APPROVE MINUTES
a) August 18, 2026
9. NOTICES OF DECISION
10. OTHER BUSINESS / CORRESPONDENCE
11. SET AGENDA AND DATE FOR NEXT MEETING
ADJOURN
NOTE: All Planning Board Agenda Materials are available on the Planning Board/Planning Department webpages for
viewing.
To view a live remote meeting: (Instructions can also be found on the Planning Board webpage)
a) Go to eliotme.gov
b) Click on “Meeting Videos” – Located in the second column, on the left-hand side of the screen.
c) Click on the meeting under “Live Events” – The broadcasting of the meeting will start at 6:00pm
(Please note streaming a remote meeting can be delayed up to a minute)
Instructions to join remote meeting:
To participate please call into meeting 5 minutes in advance of meeting start time. Please note that Zoom does state that for
some carriers this can be a toll call. You can verify by contacting your carrier.
a) Please call 1-646-558-8656
1. When prompted enter meeting number ID: 925 2528 2162
2. When prompted to enter Attendee ID
3. When prompted enter meeting password: 436930
Members of the Public calling in will automatically be placed in a virtual waiting room until admitted by one of the members
of the Planning Board. Members of the public will be unmuted one at time to allow for input. Please remember to state your
name and address for the record.
b) Press *9 to raise your virtual hand to speak

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

ITEM 1 - ROLL CALL
Present: Paul Shiner – Chair, Suzanne O’Connor – Vice Chair, Carmela Braun Secretary, and Karina Hlynka.
Also Present: Jeff Brubaker, Town Planner, and Dawn Emerson, new Town Planner.
Voting members: Paul Shiner, Suzanne O’Connor, Carmela Braun, and Karina Hlynka
(Zoom).
ITEM 2 – PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ITEM 3 – MOMENT OF SILENCE
ITEM 4 – 10-MINUTE PUBLIC INPUT SESSION - NONE
ITEM 5 – PUBLIC HEARING
A. 419 River Road (Map 25/Lot 7), PB26-04: Shoreland Zoning Permit Application –
Permanent Pier, Seasonal Gangway, and Float (continued Public Hearing).

Received: February 10, 2026
1st Heard: March 17, 2026 (Shoreland plan review/completeness)
2nd Heard: April 21, 2026 (continued review/public hearing)
Public Hearing: April 21, 2026 (opened and continued)
Public Hearing: June 2, 2026 (continued)
Public Hearing: June 16, 2026 (continued)
Public hearing: July 28, 2026 (continued and closed)
Final heard: August 18, 2026 (review/final determination)
Site Walk: May 11, 2026
Approval: August 18, 2026
Mr. (Ken) Wood, Attar Engineering, inc., and Mr. (Anthony) Warren, applicant, were
present for this application.
Mr. Brubaker introduced the new Planner, Ms. Dawn Emerson. He added that he has
nothing new at this time for this application.
Mr. Shiner said that we were asked to address three things on the project website folder
for 419 River Road. Attorney Gray’s letter was not visible on the site and we have asked
the Assistant to correct that. We acknowledge the letter and have it in hand. It has been
read and is understood. We want to make it a part of the public folder and should be
visible tomorrow. Also received were two memoranda from Ms. Mijal (abutter). One
came in yesterday and the other was July 29th. Ms. Mijal is on Zoom and we have been
asked to read her latest memo into the record in her absence. Ms. O’Connor read the
memo into the record:
1

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

“MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
PB26-04 • 419 River Road, Eliot, Maine
Request for Denial — 54-Foot Permanent Pier / 119-Foot Total System
August 17, 2026
Dear Chair and Planning Board Members:
We respectfully request that the Planning Board deny PB26-04 for the reasons set forth below. The
administrative
record contains unresolved discrepancies in the calculated northern riparian setback, substantial
differences between
the proposed 119-foot system and surrounding pier lengths, and documented concerns regarding
navigation, recreation,
safety, and visual impacts. These issues should be resolved before the Board can make the required
findings.
1. Riparian calculations require reconciliation
The record contains three reported northern setback measurements—29.0 feet, 33.4 feet, and 35.7 feet.
Because the
required minimum setback is 25 feet, these discrepancies raise significant concerns, particularly given the
proximity of
the abutting property's riparian boundary and the limited margin for error.
Given these discrepancies, the Board should require an independent third-party survey identifying the
exact endpoints of
both abutting properties, survey monuments, shoreline reference points, bearings, and calculations used to
establish
each riparian line. The precise identification of these reference points is imperative to accurately
determine the
available riparian clearance and demonstrate compliance with the required setback.
Record North South Issue
Mar. 17 — Planning Board / Ken Wood 35.7 ft. — Verify endpoints/calculation
Apr. 7 — Attar worksheet 33.4 ft. 32.3 ft. Town staff identifies these setbacks
Apr. 27 — Jeff / Ken Wood correspondence 29.0 ft. — Confirm exact endpoints
June 16 — Town staff 33.4 ft. 32.3 ft. Staff repeats Apr. 7; method discussed
Discrepancies: 29.0 vs. 33.4 = 4.4 ft.; 33.4 vs. 35.7 = 2.3 ft.; 29.0 vs. 35.7 = 6.7 ft.
2. 38 M.R.S. §480-D(1)
Existing Uses Require Careful Review |Character of the Cove | Surrounding Facilities
Eliot Shoreland Zoning §44-35(c)(10) establishes a maximum allowable pier length. A maximum is a
regulatory ceiling—
not an entitlement to construct the longest permissible system.
The revised proposal is a 54-foot permanent pier and 119-foot total system. The Town's June 16 record
lists nearby pier
lengths of 67, 75, 20, 37, 60, 120, 31, 35, 36, 39, and 35 feet.
The arithmetic average is 50.5 feet; the 119-foot system is 135.9% larger than that average. Using the
Town's
qualification of approximately 70 feet from NHWL for the unusual 120-foot entry, the adjusted average is
45.9 feet and
the 119-foot system is 159.2% larger.
The Town specifically qualifies the 120-foot entry as starting back from the NHWL on coastal wetland,
approximately 70
feet from the NHWL. The record does not establish that the other listed piers are largely over land, water,
or mudflats, so
no such conclusion should be inferred.
4. Request for Denial
We respectfully request that the Planning Board deny PB26-04. At minimum, the application should not
be approved

2

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

until the applicant reconciles the conflicting riparian measurements, establishes the precise riparian lines,
and
demonstrates compliance with the applicable standards concerning surrounding facilities, safety, character
of the cove,
and existing scenic, aesthetic, recreational, and navigational uses.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Mijal | Jennifer Carr Prescott
Permanent Residents, 423 River Road”

Mr. Shiner said that we did receive a copy of the DEP permits, that they are all in order
and it appears the applicant has complete approval across the board from the State DEP.
The other issue is the third-party reporting. There has been a lot of discussion about the
riparian boundaries, how the riparian lines project from the shore. The PB was troubled
by some of the confusion around it in terms of it actually being with the right setback, or
not, the correct setback. Also, it was acknowledged that, on the south side, it was eased
over a bit to have the proper setback on that side. So equivalency on the setbacks were
what we were going for. Ms. Mijal has written extensively bringing the lines to our
attention as possibly being not placed correctly. I had asked the Town Manager to source
a third-party opinion on the matter. The Town Manager worked with deadlines that
exceeded a reasonable level for use in this proceeding. He also received some ‘conflict of
interest’ reports that people couldn’t do it because they had involvement with some
aspect of the survey that did the work, or other conflicts. So, this evening there is no
third-party report with regards to the riparian lines to add to the record. The ability to do
that is something I think is actually an opinion that, if you feel your boundaries are being
impinged upon, I believe that the landowner ultimately should obtain their own
instruments to verify the lines and should not necessarily be the responsibility of the
Town to do that work. That said, we are aware of the contention that there is an issue and
we take that to heart. As we parse the information, we will definitely keep that in mind.
In summary, there is no third-party review of the riparian lines this evening and there is
no plan by the Town. The Town Manager, in particular, was leading that effort to source
one and, at this point in time, he has put that task down and has tabled it. We are in a
continuation of a public hearing and still open. It is my intent to hear any new
information from the applicant as well as any new information from any public member
who would wish to speak on the matter.
6:13PM Public Hearing continued.
Attorney Louis (for applicant) that my last letter (July 29) tried to address a couple of
concerns that the PB raised in the last public hearing continuation meeting. Regarding
riparian lines, the Chair just noted that abutters have spoken at length about how riparian
boundaries are to be met. The abutters have not provided any credible, affirmative
evidence showing that the riparian boundaries are not met. They have not explained why
they think the boundaries have not been met. To the extent that there is some
documentation of their contention of where the boundary actually lies, it was submitted at
the last meeting. There were some photographs with yellow lines imposed on top of
them. Those lines were just drawn as extensions of the property. They were not created
using the riparian boundary methodology outlined in the Eliot’s ordinances. So, to the
3

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

extent that there was some affirmative, credible evidence put forward indicating that Mr.
Wood’s analysis was incorrect, I would argue that it wasn’t at all credible. It didn’t utilize
the processes that the Town laid forth to determine what the actual riparian boundaries
are. At the last meeting, there was discussion about whether or not construction of this
pier would be an expansion of a non-conforming use. It is our position that there is no
expansion of a non-conforming use here. First, this pier is permitted in this district so, to
the extent that the use was non-conforming, this construction would be a conforming use
within the boundaries of this property and, therefore, it should not be considered an
expansion of any said non-conforming use. Second, no non-conforming uses are items
that are not allowed in that district. For example, this is a residential pier. If the applicant
was trying to construct a commercial pier that would be a non-conforming use if that use
was not allowed. That is not the case here. In addition, this is not a non-conforming
structure. Non-conforming structures are structures that don’t conform to dimensional
standards. The lot, itself, is small but, as we’ve talked about that at length, that is no bar
to construction of this type of structure. The two dimensional requirements that might
impact it are riparian boundaries as well as a possible setback from the water. As a waterdependent use not setback is required. So this is all to say that, as we’ve talked about
before, there is no non-conforming issue here. To the extent that the previous dock was
unpermitted, that doesn’t render it non-conforming. Non-conforming now renders it
unpermitted, which could raise some other issues, but not ones that are currently before
this PB. This is not a non-conforming use or non-conforming structure otherwise because
the use is permitted and the structure comports to all other required setbacks. There was
also a concern raised last time that the pier is too long. I understand where abutters are
coming from. That’s one of their principle concerns. I remind this PB that its principle
job, here, is to apply the ordinances as written, as you well know. There is certainly a cap
on how long the pier can be but this pier is below that cap and there are no other
provisions in the ordinance that speak to limiting the length of a pier. Along these lines,
while the pier is lengthy, it is under that permitted ceiling, and the pier would not come
close to the deep-water channel. The pier is situated within a cove. That’s the reason why
the pier is necessary as it sits on mudflats and to get out to deep water, it’s quite a
distance. This project would not approach the midpoint of the deep-water channel, as is
required. Lastly, just a reminder that this PB’s task is to look at the review criteria. I
know there are concerns amongst the community of how this might impact their
properties and, if I were sitting in their shoes, I would probably have those same
concerns. But the way to address those concerns is not through this PB. It is by amending
Eliot’s ordinances to take those concerns into account. This PB is tasked with
implementing the ordinance as it exists now and if this application meets all review
criteria, the PB is required by law to approve it.
Mr. Shiner said that I agree that the riparian third-party review would have been great to
settle everybody’s mind. However, that is not available to us today. I think we’re going to
have to soldier on, here, without that additional information. Earlier, what was brought up
in terms of right, title and interest, with riparian rights, again not for this PB. I agree that
that initial argument needs to go to York County and we will not address that. There may
be a couple of issues that shadow this application and the ultimate decision but they are

4

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

not issues to be resolved here or to even take a stab at them. I have no more questions for
the attorney. Does the PB have any questions? They did not.
Attorney Louis said that think the Chair’s point is well-taken. There are more hoops to
jump through for this application. Approval tonight is not the be-all end-all. But, approval
tonight is predicated on compliance with review criteria and that’s what we all looking at.
Mr. Shiner said that we’re a stop in the process. We just happen to be the first one. I
didn’t introduce our counsel. Attorney Burns is with Bernstein Shur and he has been
communicating with PB members via email and Zoom, that he has graciously agreed to
be here this evening to advise the Town on the matter at hand.
Mr. (Ken) Wood, Attar Engineering, applicant representative, spoke. I want to piggyback on Attorney Louis’ comments on riparian rights. I think this is important and we
need to revisit it one more time. We’ve been consistent that 33.4 is the distance of the
pier, closest distance, to the riparian boundary between Mr. Warren and the abutters to
the north. The ordinance requires 25 feet and we all heard about how we determine
riparian boundaries with the colonial method. We used the best available survey
information. We used Mr. Warren’s survey that was done by Easterly Survey to
determine his boundary. We used the site plan, which is exactly the same as the tax map,
which we had done several years ago for Terry Thomas, the parcel to the south. For the
Mijal parcel we used the tax map and her deed. Her deed says 211 feet along River Road.
That’s how we set the northern boundary. That’s important in determining that piece of
the pie, the riparian boundary that we’ve been talking about. So remember, the ordinance
requires 25 feet and our pier is at 33.4 feet. We touched on this at the last meeting. I
know our riparian boundaries are solid. I’ll stand by that. But if it was wrong to bring the
pier from 33.4 feet to the 25-foot separation that the ordinance requires, her northern
boundary would have to be either 62.5 feet fartherly north onto the Cullen parcel or it
would have to be 30 feet seaward. We know it really can’t go any more seaward because
it can’t go out into the river past the HAT. So the seaward boundary is pretty well set. As
I said, her deed says 211 feet along River Road and then westerly to the river. That’s
what the tax map shows. To have Mr. Warren’s pier not meet the ordinance, her northerly
pin on the river, as I said, would have to be an additional 62.5 feet northerly. She would
own the Cullen house and that’s not what’s happening out there. I know the riparian
boundary and colonial method have been a little confusing. As I said, we’ve been
consistent with 33.4 since March 17th. If you have any questions, I’d be glad to answer
those. As far as right, title, and interest, remember DEP found, after reviewing the deeds,
that the deeds say he owns to the river. The DEP found that he met the right, title, and
interest test they had asked of him. And I’m sure you’ve seen our DEP letter addressed
wildlife and habitat concerns and they didn’t find anything for our permit. Thank you for
your patience. I know it’s been a long haul. I believe this is meeting #6 and we appreciate
everything you’ve done.
Mr. Shiner said that, at this point in time, anyone from the public and gallery and online
who wishes to address the PB please come now and say your name and address and we
will hear you.
5

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

There were no public comments.
Mr. Shiner said that I gave a file to Mr. Brubaker at the beginning of tonight’s session
that contains a document, which is my stream of consciousness notes as I was going
through the ordinance in trying to sort this out. Clearly, there are a lot of questions here
and what this PB cannot answer, we have to rely on professional engineers, surveyors, to
address the riparian line issue. We are not experts in that and we have no business. We
parse the information given to us from the professionals and we apply it to the ordinance.
I think that, at this point, that’s a conversation we’re not going to pursue ant longer at this
point. I’d like to go through my notes and I’d like counsel to comment if streams of
consciousness in terms of where I’m going with this. This is a journey I’m going to take
the PB on to take them through the ordinance to see if they agree with me from what I’m
seeing, or if not. If they have another opinion and they’ve thought about a different
interpretation.
Attorney Burns said that, if the PB has heard from all the parties, heard from the public,
and it sounds like you’ve completed your information gathering for this application, I
would recommend that the PB close the Public Hearing before you start going into the
conversation on how to apply ordinance to the facts of this application.
Mr. Shiner said that that would trigger our clock to deliver the Notice of Decision. Are
we in agreement? We haven’t heard from you Ms. Hlynka and asked if she was in
agreement?
Ms. Hlynka said that of no one else is speaking to the application then it makes sense to
close the Public Hearing.
6:30 PM The Public Hearing was closed.
Mr. Shiner said that that leaves us open to continue a robust conversation at the PB.
Mr. Brubaker put Mr. Shiner’s notes up on the screen for viewing by all.
Mr. Shiner said that, in general, I just wanted to make the opening statement that the
discretion of the PB is going to be limited to determining if the proposed structure and the
application meets all the applicable ordinance requirements, or not. That’s all we can do,
is look at how it applies to the ordinance. We acknowledge that the proposed pier length
has been reduced. It has been offered up to amend the application. The amended length is
119 feet overall. Of record, we acknowledge that we worked with this lot in 2023 with a
rebuild of the house. It’s an existing non-conforming lot located in the Suburban Zone
with a Resource Shoreland Overlay, Limited Residential. One of the journeys at
counsel’s behest is to examine what does a new application require for a pier in this zone
on a property like this. There are a few things I saw that are all in Chapter 44, which is
the Shoreland zoning. §44-34 is a Table of Land Uses and has a subsection in that called
‘Accessory Structures or Uses’ with a title below that of ‘Piers, wharves, docks, bridges,
6

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

and other structures’. Row 40A of the Land Use Table: Temporary/seasonal is an allowed
use in the zone with the CEO (code enforcement officer) permit. Row 40B is for
permanent residential piers and is an allowed use in the zone with site plan review (SPR),
which happens here with the PB. §44-35 (a)(1) Minimum lot standards: any new
application would have a look at the lot to see does it conform. Everything in our
ordinance points back to §45-405 Dimensional standards. Suburban Zone with the
Shoreland Overlay, which is one and the same, requires 2 acres and 150-foot street
frontage. §44-35 (a)(1) also specifies a shore frontage of 150 feet towards the resource.
§44-35 (a)(4) specifies minimum width of any portion of any lot that is within 100 feet
horizontal distance of the normal high water line (I add the resource,) which is how the
DEP would call it, shall be equal to or greater than the shore frontage required for a lot
with the proposed use. So in the Suburban Zone with Shoreland Overlay, it requires a
150-foot dimension on any portion of the lot. Those are the requirements if you want a
new dock permit in the zone. One of the discussions I wanted to have with the PB about
what’s available, what’s usable, so the allowed use and dimension standard. Specifically
for the application in front of us, is the use temporary/seasonable (Row 40a) or
permanent residential (40b) allowed in the zone? I think it is clear that the answer is yes.
Does the existing accessory structure (seasonal float) meet the same Suburban Shoreline
Zone dimensional requirements needed for a new accessory structure, the seasonal float?
If the proposal is to either expand or relocate the existing structure, or if the proposal is to
replace the existing seasonal dock with a different non-conforming structure, does §4432(c ), which is 'non-conforming structure’', apply? So that is kind of my frame-up for
what we are looking at and I defer to counsel.
Attorney Burns said, to back up a hair, I want to make sure that, before we focus one a
couple of specific pieces. I’m just making sure the PB has its whole rubric in front of it.
Looking at within §44-44 the substantive standards for the approval of a permit. That
includes in compliance with §44-35 Land Use Standards, which gets you into the specific
provisions for piers and docks. I think the question you are posing here, Mr. Chair,
regarding whether there is a non-conforming condition on the property what affect that
non-conforming condition may have on this application. Then, what affect the existing
dock may have on this application. With all those questions, I think the analysis that
Attorney Louis gave you is largely correct and I largely agree with him. I will go through
a couple of pieces, here, and if I’m not answering your questions please let me know.
These concepts are confusing when analyzed together when we talk about nonconforming conditions because non-conforming conditions can get kind of lumped into a
single pot of it’s not conforming. We have non-conforming lots. We have nonconforming
structures. We have non-conforming uses. Those are three separate types of nonconforming conditions and they are treated differently under your ordinances. It seems
that the PB has evidence that this may be a non-conforming lot of record. Your
ordinances have specific provisions about what you can do with a non-conforming lot of
record. Essentially, the upshot is that you can build upon a non-conforming lot of record
as long as you are meeting the other provisions of your ordinances. A non-conforming
structure, as Attorney Louis stated, is a structure on a property that does not currently
meet the dimensional standards that are imposed on that property in that zone. On a nonconforming lot you can have conforming structures on a non-conforming lot. For
7

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

example: your minimum lot size is 2 acres and you have a 1-acre lot. You have a house in
the middle of that 1 acre and your setbacks are, say, 50 feet. It clearly meets all the
setbacks. It meets the other dimensional standards. That house will be a conforming
structure on the property. The lot, itself, may remain a non-conforming lot but the
structure, itself, is a conforming structure. Likewise, if the ordinance allows residences to
be built on properties in that zone, the use of that structure as a residence would be a
conforming use on an otherwise non-conforming lot. So, when we talk about expansions
of non-conforming uses, what we are talking about are uses on a property that are
currently not allowed under the ordinance for that zone. If you are trying to undertake a
use on a property that’s not otherwise permitted by the code ordinance, one thing you
have to ask is whether this use was in effect before the ordinance was put in place? That
is what a lawful, non-conforming condition is. It existed prior to the ordinance being
enacted. If the use that is being proposed conforms with the current ordinance then it’s
not a non-conforming use. It is a conforming use. The question would be does it
otherwise conform with the standards in your ordinance? Your ordinance does not permit
someone to undertake a new use that is not allowed by your ordinances. So, you can’t just
start something that is not permitted. But if you are doing it previously, you may be able
to, but there are limitations on the expansion of intensifying that use. Here, if the PB
determines that, for example, if the current structure on the property is lawfully
unpermitted or lawfully non-conforming, and it is my understanding of this application is
that that dock is going to be removed and replaced, your ordinances and land ordinances
in general, favor removing non-conformities. We want to replace those things with
conforming conditions. So, if this was a situation where there was unpermitted use or
something was unpermitted on the property that had no non-conforming protection at all
and was unlawful at the time it was constructed, then you wouldn’t be able to expand
that. You wouldn’t have the protection of grandfathering. However, if you have an
unpermitted condition that you are removing and you’re replacing it with something that
does comply today with the ordinance, then you’re not even in the realm of a nonconforming condition. You’re talking about a conforming use or a conforming structure.
It would be a different situation if someone had…let’s imagine a situation, here, where
there was a dock that was in place, today, that had been there for 100 years but it was
three feet from the boundary line. It clearly did not meet the setback requirements, per the
ordinance, but it was a lawfully, non-conforming and a lawfully, non-conforming
structure. That is what you would look at, the provisions I believe of §44-32 and
determine what can I do with this non-conforming structure. §44-32 sets out how you can
expand or replace or repair a non-conforming structure. But if the structure is conforming
or if you are removing it in its entirety and replacing it with something that complies with
today’s ordinance, then it is not non-conforming and you don’t have to look at the
provisions of §44-32. Does that make sense?
The PB said yes.
Mr. Burns said that I can stop there and talk through any additional questions on the nonconforming question.

8

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

Mr. Shiner said that I will prompt you with some more questions. Referring to the
document on the screen, he said that one of the things the PB did at the last meeting was
to go through the various definitions §1-2. We were particularly interested in the nonconforming definition, which means “a nonconforming lot, structure or use which is
allowed solely because it was in lawful existence at the time this [Code] or subsequent
amendment took effect.” This particular verbiage was not part of the DEP’s template for
the towns. This was something that Eliot put in on their own volition. “Expansion in the
structure means an increase in the footprint or height of a structure, including all
extensions such as, but not limited to attached decks, garages, porches and
greenhouses.” Expansion of use means the addition of one or more months to a use's
operating season; or the use of more footprint devoted to a particular use. We do have a
residential pier definition. “Residential pier means a permanent structure extending over
the water the principal use of which is the personal, recreational, and noncommercial
use of the shoreland owner. Any pier which is over six feet in width or which has any
permanent structural parts extending below the mean low water line shall not qualify as
a residential pier and shall be deemed to be a commercial pier.” On this last one, what is
proposed is not over the width and the distance from the outer pier to the mean water
level is a great distance, so it’s not within that envelope around it. What I will say is that,
specifically, we found that the non-conforming condition appeared to us at the last
meeting to appear to be the most appropriate application for this particular dock, what is
now going to be a pier/dock combination. Does the PB have any comments or thoughts
on that.
Ms. O’Connor asked for clarification on the last thing he discussed.
Mr. Shiner clarified that, at the last meeting (July 28th), when we discussed the various
definitions of non-conformance, non-conforming condition was the one that we felt most
appropriate to apply. Do we still feel that is appropriate?
Ms. O’Connor said that my understanding is that non-conforming condition is a bit of an
umbrella and, underneath that, you are either a lot, a use, or a structure.
Mr. Shiner said correct.
Ms. O’Connor said that what I would take from that we have a non-conforming lot. I
have heard that this is a non-conforming lot. I don’t believe we concluded any other nonconformance. So, we did not discuss whether the new pier was conforming or not
conforming. I know what my opinion was at that time. And we did not talk about whether
the existing pier was conforming or non-conforming. That seems like that may actually
be a moot point because it’s being removed in its entirety. I think the only thing we
agreed on last time was that the lot was non-conforming.
Ms. Braun said that I agree and, after listening to the attorney, the lot can be nonconforming but the structure of the pier will be conforming. They are tearing down the
existing pier so I don’t see that as a problem.

9

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

Ms. Hlynka said that, as far as the conformance issue, it seems I’m in agreement with the
Town’s counsel. He knows better than I do how to apply the rules in that matter. The lot
is lawfully non-conforming but the dock would be something separate.
Mr. Shiner said that one of the things that was brought to my attention, and this was from
Mr. Wood’s 2023 application, was the Shoreland Zoning Snapshot Date January 1, 1989
for the DEP’s Chapter 1000. (screen). It was called a snapshot date to determine legal
status for structures and footprint expansion limits on non-conforming structures along
with increased setbacks from the resource. Clearly, the dock is a water-dependent use.
There is no setback from the resource. It’s on it. My question is there was not a
permanent pier, as we define it today, in the past. It’s always been a floating, seasonal
dock. What is being proposed is a change of type from a seasonal dock to a permanent
pier and I don’t know if that has any bearing on it but using the snapshot date as a capture
of what’s there, I’m wondering if that is relevant to this conversation, or not. I think we’ll
come back to that in just a minute.
Attorney Burns said that what I would encourage the PB to look at, here, is what is being
proposed today. The first question is, is that use permitted under the ordinance, and the
answer is yes. The, you would not need to do a deeper non-conforming use analysis. If
the answer the PB arrived at was this use is currently not allowed under your ordinance.
For example, if the permanent dock is not permitted in this zone, then you have to ask
yourself is whether there is an existing, lawfully non-conforming dock that would allow
this applicant to use grandfathering to allow them to build or expand one on the property.
If the answer to the first question is, the use that is being applied for is allowed today,
then I would recommend to the PB to stop right there and not undertake a further analysis
on the non-conformance use question because you’ve determined, at that point, it is a
conforming use not a non-conforming use.
Mr. Shiner suggested we continue though and cycle them all. I think I will ask counsel to
comment after I read this one: §44-31 “Except as hereinafter specified, no building,
structure or land shall hereafter be used or occupied, and no building or structure or
part thereof shall hereafter be erected, constructed, expanded, moved, or altered and no
new lot shall be created, except in conformity with all of the regulations herein specified
for the district in which it is located, unless a variance is granted.” I read that heavily
skewed to principle dwelling units but what caught my attention was that it talked about
expansions and alterations and then having to have conformity with the ordinance. I don’t
know if that is a discussion point or not. It’s something that caught my attention in
combing through the ordinance.
Attorney Burns said that this section is a keystone of any zoning ordinance. The first
thing that the zoning ordinance will set out is “moving forward, thou shalt not” undertake
a land use activity unless it is in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance. It’s
very important. The ordinance, itself, specifies exceptions. The non-conforming section.
sets out when in those rare instances when somebody can deviate from what is permitted
under the ordinance. So, I would encourage the PB to take this kind of the general
baseline admonition of ‘unless otherwise specified’ you have to conform to all applicable
10

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

provisions of the ordinance. If something does not conform to applicable provisions of
your ordinance, the next step would be to determine whether an exception applies, and
the most normal one is a non-conforming condition exception. Unless you have an
exception that applies, the applicant would have to receive a variance in order to deviate
from the plain terms of the ordinance.
Mr. Shiner said that I think we’re talking about the same thing, again, about nonconformance with regard to structures and conditions that existed before the effective
date of the chapter, which says that if it existed before the chapter, it can exist today
without any issue (§44-32).
Attorney Burns said yes. That is the most common exception you’ll see in any zoning
ordinances. The law treats it as a fairness issue of if it was lawful when it was put in the
ground, just because the ordinance changed over time, we’re not going to penalize that
individual for lawfully maintaining a thing when they put it in the ground. There are
exceptions and limitations on how you can expand those non-conforming conditions but,
again, these provisions only come into play only of the application is for something that
does not comply with the ordinance.
Mr. Shiner talked about use permits. We asked the question of counsel from the last
meeting if lack of a permit for the existing pier matters for our decision process and this
is the section of the ordinance that was the basis for that (§45-126). “No person shall
establish, add or change the use of any property or structure until he applies for a
building and use permit from the code enforcement officer, and the code enforcement
officer has issued a written permit. A person shall obtain a use permit for any permitted
use, change of permitted use, conditional use, or change of conditional use as required
by the table of land uses in sections 44-34 and 45-290. Application for a use permit shall
be included as part of any building permit application.” Loosely I heard you say, with
regard to doesn’t matter, it is acknowledged but it doesn’t really contribute to the
decision.
Attorney Burns said that I will caveat all of this by saying my job is to answer your
questions and provide advice. Your role, here, is to apply your interpretation of the
ordinance and apply the facts as you understand them. I can give you my take. At the end
of the day, you are the ones who are going to have to read this language and come to your
own conclusion as to what this language means. But I think what was said earlier, and I
think Attorney Louis touched on this as well, is if there is an unpermitted use of the
property, that may be an enforcement concern. For example, you know someone who is
violating the provision of the ordinance. But, the PB’s remit, here, is more narrow and
really all the PB has to do, here, is look at an active application for a user, moving
forward, and determine whether or not it complies with the standards of the ordinance. In
general, your ordinances favor conforming uses, converting to conforming uses. So, if
you determine that what is being proposed, here, is something that complies today with
your ordinances, then my advice to you would be that don’t need to go any further. Any
determination of a separate violation on the property or historic violation on the property
is something that may be a concern for your code enforcement officer. If there was a
11

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

proposal to alter, enlarge or otherwise intensify an unpermitted use, that would also I
think kick you back into the question of is this allowable, and it the answer is no, then
that unpermitted use should not be allowed to be expanded or enlarged or altered. But if
the proposal is to do something that is allowed, then the PB should determine whether or
not the application meets the subsections in §45 to determine whether the applicant has
met their burden, show that they comply with all those substantive agreements.
Mr. Shiner said, showing the last slide, the PB had some difficulty last meeting with
regards to the definition of ‘structure’ because, in some cases, it’s specifically called out
as like a dwelling and other times there’s no verb to go with it so you weren’t sure what
we were talking about. So, the State Shoreland definition of a ‘structure’ is 38 M.R.S.A.
§436-A, Subsection 12: "Structure" means anything temporarily or permanently located,
built, constructed or erected for the support, shelter or enclosure of persons, animals,
goods or property of any kind and anything constructed or erected on or in the ground.”
A huge net of everything included in that definition. It was almost not helpful because it
was everything and it didn’t really disqualify anything. So, that is the stream of
consciousness that I had, in terms of going through the ordinance as I picked my way
through to see what struck me as being potentially relevant to the application. I’d like to
hear thoughts from my colleagues on the PB.
Ms. Hlynka said that I have some thoughts but I don’t know if you want us to address
what’s on a specific slide or if we’re allowed to riff off of new things now.
Mr. Shiner said that you are open to ask any question you want as a full member of this
PB.
Ms. Hlynka said that I have some concerns. In general, some of the sections of the land
use standards. So for instance, under Chapter 44, in §44-1 it describes the ‘pupose’ that
say “The purposes of this chapter are to further the maintenance of safe and healthful
conditions”, etc. and it does mention conserving shore cover as well as “and visual as
well as actual points of access to inland and coastal waters; to conserve natural beauty
and open space; and to anticipate and respond to the impacts of development in
shoreland areas.” Looking at subsection C, where it describes piers, wharves, and docks,
under (14), it does mention “Note 2: The purpose of the limit of paragraph (10) is to
maintain a reasonable area of open water in the public interest to sustain activities not
specifically related to simple transiting of the area in safety. These activities include such
things as cruising, fishing, sailboarding, swimming, water-skiing, etc., which require
open unobstructed water and should not be eliminated for private interest.” I was just
thinking about all the people who came forward who were talking about having to
paddleboard deeper into that cove area was less safe. And it is very clear that there are a
lot of people who feel very passionately about this project. We’ve seen people show up
time-and-again to these meetings and it’s just kind of impressive to me. It’s been like six
meetings and people are still showing up, and still filling the room, and still wanting to
say something about whether or not this pier should be built. I do think that, looking at
the land use standards and looking at, say Chapter 1000, it mentions that “no pier should
be longer in dimensions than absolutely necessary to carry on the activity and be
12

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

consistent with the surrounding character and uses of the area.” So, I am listening to the
neighbors and, personally, I feel like you can launch a boat from the structure they have
currently. Maybe you can’t launch a 20-foot yacht but you could launch a boat and
maybe it’s that the purposes might not suit the current resident but they do serve the
purpose that they are intended to do.
Attorney Burns said that I think I understand the thrust of the question, here. One thing I
just want to note for the PB. This is something that comes up often. The purpose section
exists in every ordinance. They are helpful interpretive tools as you go through the work
of trying to determine what provisions of your ordinance mean. Oftentimes, the purpose
section is helpful to clear up any ambiguities as you look through the substantive
requirements for an application. But purpose sections by themselves, unless they are tied
into substantive criteria for the review of an application, are not generally treated as
substantive criteria for an application. §44-1 I think can be useful if the PB tried to
determine what did the legislative body intend when they imposed certain requirements
for application. But unless that language is explicitly tied to the criteria that you are
charged with evaluating today, I would discourage the PB from pulling that language in
as part of your substantive review. Again, I think it can be a very useful interpretive tool
and the same stuff that comes up in looking at provisions pertaining to the comprehensive
plan and how in a comprehensive plan it says ‘this’. Those are generally guidance and
orientation documents that can help inform you as you look through those substantive
ordinance provisions but unless there is explicit language pulling that into the review
criteria, I would encourage the PB to look at that review criteria first. I understand this is
a contentious application and one that has been subject to a lengthy public hearing. The
good news is that your job, here, is narrow. Has the applicant met their burden to
demonstrate that their application meets the substantive criteria that’s applicable to this
ordinance. If the answer is yes, then a permit should be issued. If the answer is no, then it
should be denied unless the PB determines there are conditions of approval that can be
imposed. I just wanted to flag that and the same goes with language contained in Chapter
1000 that may not be explicitly contained in this ordinance. You are bound by the
ordinance you have for better or worse. Chapter 1000 is a model ordinance imposed by
the State and your ordinance has to be approved by the Maine DEP in order to
demonstrate compliance with Chapter 1000 but your review should be limited to the
language of your ordinance and the provisions of it. I just wanted to note those things
acknowledging the use of those purpose provisions but just trying to contextualize how
the PB might want to use those as part of your review.
Ms. Hlynka thanked Attorney Burns for that.
Mr. Shiner said that I realize that the preambles are very difficult and I think, from the
PB’s perspective, there’s really nothing to measure. It is a totally conditional paragraph. I
agree that, for the sake of this review, there’s really nothing that could be applied from
that, should be applied from that.
Attorney Louis said that, as Attorney Burns said, the purpose paragraphs are certainly
illustrative but not necessarily a review criterion that can be taken into account. Ms.
13

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

Hlynka brought up two concerns. One was the overall purpose provision as well as a not
to subsection (10), I believe, of the pier review criteria. I just want to take a look at the
language of Note 2. It begins by saying “The purpose of the limit of paragraph (10) is to
maintain a reasonable area of open water” so, again, this note is an explanatory purpose
paragraph. In and of itself, it is our position that it should not be interpreted as an
applicable review criterion. I’d also highlight that the purpose, as it explains, is to ensure
things such as “cruising, fishing, sailboarding, swimming, water-skiing, etc.”. can
continue. As we’ve heard, the pier will still sit on mudflats at low tide so it is not
inhibiting these activities, anyway, because those activities could not happen in that
location.
Mr. Shiner asked if any other PB members had any thoughts or comments?
Ms. Bruan said that this pier meets the ordinance and that is what we have to go by. I
hear the residents concerns but they really can’t come into play. We are bound by what
the voters have put into law. If we feel that the ordinance is not what we want it to be in
the future, then we can make an amendment to it. But at this time, this pier meets all the
criteria of our Town ordinance and I’m ready to go forward with the approval.
Ms. O’Connor said that I’m in agreement with Ms. Braun. It was complicated to work
through the non-conforming lot use structure. But once being able to parse through and
separate a conforming use and structure legitimately existing on a lot, the way those
intersect with each other. So, this is a conforming pier, this new pier structure is new. It
meets the dimensional requirements of the ordinance even though it’s on an existing nonconforming lot. I think that, after much discussion and listening, we are bound by the
ordinances as they exist and this application, as it sits today, given today’s ordinances.
Mr. Shiner asked Ms. Hlynka if she had any other thoughts.
Ms. Hlynka said that I’m looking for the motion template one more time. Ms. Mijal had a
chat question on Zoom. “From what I understand, the applicant is required to meet all
criteria?” And I responded with ‘yes’. I just wanted to check the criteria again.
The motion template was from the July 28th Planner Report, which Mr. Brubaker brought
up on the screen.
Ms. Hlynka said that, given when we say that purposes don’t matter, here, as far as the
letter of the law goes, even if it says that the measurement has to be the minimum
possible when it says (h) ‘is in conformance with the provisions of §44-35 land use
standards. So that still applies, what you’re saying.
Mr. Shiner said to Ms. Hlynka to consider if it’s subjective or an emotional thought, it is
not compliant with the ordinance, where the ordinance gives specific ‘can, cannot’ using
words like ‘shall’. I think to Attorney Burns’ point, preambles and purposes are difficult
to adjudicate because they are concepts. They are not things that state like ‘length of the
pier’ or ‘distance from an abutter’ or other things that are measurable. Consider it this
14

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

way. The normal course would be that the decision of this PB is made, then an aggrieved
party that doesn’t agree with that decision elevates to the Board of Appeals The Board of
Appeals has to look at the ordinance the same way we look at the ordinance. Basically,
they’re looking at the same song sheet, if you will, to figure out what should be allowed
and what shouldn’t. If that decision made by the Board of Appeals is not satisfactory to
an aggrieved party, then it gets elevated to the district court. There’s a sequence of steps
that would happen but I don’t think that we can really act on a purpose definition. I don’t
think the Board of Appeals could act on a purpose definition either because they are
referring back to the ordinance. Attorney Burns, do you have any thoughts on that?
Attorney Burns said no more than has been stated. I think the language you were
flagging, if I’m not mistaken, is language contained in Chapter 1000. There are shoreland
ordinances that contain provisions in their substantive review criteria that include, for
example, a maximum length for a dock or pier but have a separate criterion that says
essentially not withstanding the maximum, not dock or pier can be larger than is
necessary for the reasonable use, something to that affect. If your ordinance contains that
review criteria then, yes, you absolutely should apply that written criterion. That could be
construed as a substantive criterion but I do not believe that is currently in the ordinance,
if I’m not mistaken. I just wanted to clarify. At the risk of keeping everyone here for a
substantial amount of time, since I am here, one of my jobs is to be very fastidious and to
make sure that any decision that this PB makes that it is clear what basis the PB is
making that decision on. I would encourage this PB, using this template, which I believe
will run you through each of the substantive review criteria. I would encourage the PB to
discuss each of those review criteria to call out, one, whether you think that those criteria
have been met and, two, why in looking at the record before you that has been produced
and giving some signposts for the public, as well as the applicant, why you do or do not
view this criteria as being met.
Ms. Hlynka said that it sems that Ms. Mijal doesn’t have access to a microphone right
now and I just want to repeat her comments so that she is heard, “The ordinance states
that it needs to comply with the neighboring community. It is put there for this very
reason to respond to over development.” I responded, “Do you have the specific
ordinance?” and she quotes State law 38 M.R.S.A. §480-D. Standards The activity may
not unreasonably interfere with existing scenic, aesthetic, recreational or navigational
uses. I just wanted to make sure she wasn’t ignored and I repeated her words for
everyone in the room.
Mr. Shiner thanked Ms. Hlynka. At this point, let’s run through these conditions.
The motion templates were put up on the screen.
Mr. Brubaker explained that, in my staff reports, I usually have all templates. I have
approval and conditions, denial, and sometimes other motions to determine which one the
PB wants to use. The first one is a motion to encourage a shorter pier. The second one is
the approval motion, and the third is a denial motion.

15

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

Mr. Shiner read: “The motion to encourage the applicant to consider reducing the length
of the pier system in response to abutter concerns.” I would also add to that that the Town
Planner and I had brief discussion about the location relative to the riparian lines because
there is an ordinance that does allow for if an abutter is agreeable to be able to slide the
riparian lines up towards the abutter. We noted that the property already had a
relationship with the abutter to the south by virtue of the easement for the septic system.
We had spoken about this after the last meeting wondering, as a matter of curiosity, if
there was ever any conversation with that abutter because there was an existing
relationship to consider a discussion about the location of the pier as it projected from the
bulkhead more towards favoring that side to relieve some of the pressure to the abutter to
the north. That’s an open question.
Mr. Warren asked within the boundaries of remaining outside of the 25-foot setback?
Mr. Shiner said that that is something that is written in the ordinance that can be done.
Mr. Warren said perhaps, but it creates as much of a risk on the south side as the north
side and I’d rather, as I have, split the difference between the two properties; that we’re
talking about a handful of feet that it would move to the south.
Mr. Brubaker said that you are going beyond that so, based on what you just said, I
believe you were referring to rotating the pier further south to hit the 25-foot setback. Our
code does provide in §44-35(c ) the opportunity to actually encroach on the 25-foot
riparian setback.
Mr. Warren said that I would not encroach on the 25-foot setback. I’ve not talked to the
neighbor about it and would not want to hold up any of this discussion.
Mr. Wood added that it makes the approach difficult with the vessel. Mr. Brubaker is
right and he and I have talked about this. Rotating the pier so it’s not perpendicular
makes the approach difficult and it also results in less water.
Mr. Warren repeated that he would not be willing to go into the 25-foot riparian setback.
I just don’t want to get into a legal discussion with the neighbor. Not that I think they
would have any issue but I would like to respect them as much as I am respecting the
boundary to the north. I’m not against pushing it up to the 25-foot buffer.
Ms. Hlynka said that, once again, Ms. Mijal is speaking. Is it alright if I read it?
Mr. Shiner said that Mr. Brubaker will bring it up on the screen.
Mr. Brubaker suggested that, if the PB is willing to incorporate this, that someone read it
into the record for those who might not be able to see.
Ms. O’Connor read Ms. Mijal’s comment from the chat: “§44-35(c) requires the Planning
Board to evaluate whether the proposed facility is consistent with the dimensions of
16

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

surrounding facilities and the character of area. §44-35(c)(10) establishes the maximum
allowable pier length. That maximum is a regulatory limit not an entitlement to construct
the longest pier permitted. And then there’s a question there. What about the other
abutter?”
Attorney Louis responded to the two references made to State and local law by Ms.
Mijal. The reference to State statute I believe is inapplicable as that relates to the DEP
permitting. As the Chair noted earlier, the DEP has approved this application so I don’t
think that statute should come into this Board’s consideration. With regards to her
citation §44-35 and this Board evaluating whether or not this facility is consistent with
the dimensions of surrounding facilities, she is correct that that is a standard in your
ordinance. However, it’s not an applicable standard. That is from §44-35(c)(5), which
just relates to non-tidal waters. This is a tidal facility so that would not be applicable here.
The PB agreed.
Ms. O’Connor asked the Chair how do we want to do this?
Mr. Shiner said to just run down the list of things. I think we need to talk about each item
before we make a motion. The first from talks about Chapter 44 of the zoning permit
application and if all the ordinances have been met.
Ms. O’Connor said that, on page 3 of the Planner staff report, that is where the
dimensional standards being met/not met are articulated. So do we want to, to be very
clear, run through those. The one (10b) that is starred has been changed from the first
time Mr. Brubaker had done this evaluation to this July 28th report, the shortening of the
dock length.
Attorney Burns said that I hadn’t seen this draft language before. If the PB agrees with, or
wants to adopt, these rationales, that’s fine. This proposed language for the PB to utilize.
Ultimately, any decision you make you should make it your own. If you want to use this
as a guidepost, you may do so. Anything that is provided by staff or your counsel, you
should feel free to accept, reject, change and utilize as the PB sees fit. But, if you’ve
already reviewed this language before, then it may not be necessary to go through all the
categories. I don’t want to reinvent the wheel, if you have already done this.
Ms. O’Connor said that this first conditional applicable section of the Shoreland Zoning
Chapter 44 is stipulated as we have reviewed in prior meetings and as is described in the
document.
Attorney Louis said that we would just request that the criteria that the Planner has
simply noted are as met, that the PB articulate why it’s met just because I believe this
may go to appeal and, if so, it would be helpful for all folks reviewing this decision
understand why the PB has come to its decision rather than just the fact that it came to
that decision. I’m looking specifically at sections (6) and (11).

17

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

Mr. Shiner quoted (6): “No new structure built on/over/abutting pier, except where direct
access to water body required as operational necessity.” Met. There are instances that are
reported where people are building structures on top of the pier so, it’s structure on
structure. For example, you had a dock and you’re going to put up a bait shack on the
dock. Or the launch that goes out into the harbor has a huddle house where the guys hang
out. That is the type of structure built on/over/or abutting a pier.
Ms. O’Connor said, then, that it is met because there is no request to do that.
Mr. Shiner added that it’s almost like an auxiliary structure on the pier and there is
nothing like that happening here.
Ms. O’Connor quoted (11): “No structure shall extend more than halfway to the deep
channel centerline at mean low water.” Met. We have looked at the measurements and it
is nowhere near halfway. She showed visual documentation that has the measurements on
it.
Mr. Shiner asked Mr. Wood if you happen to know off the top of your head the number
from end of pier to mean low water.
Mr. Wood said that it’s like 1,000 feet. It should be on the plan.
Ms. O’Connor said that on this map/visual, it says 862 feet to low tide on 11/3/25, 678
feet to low tide. Are those the measurements you are looking for?
Mr. Shiner said yes, that they should be.
Ms. O’Connor said that the calculations, here, are between 511 feet all the way out to 862
feet at mean low tide.
Mr. Shiner agreed. That’s the low tide line so your channel center is going to be beyond
that. So it’s a number greater than that.
Ms. O’Connor said that those were the calculations we were provided.
Attorney Burns asked if the PB found those numbers to be credible.
Mr. Shiner said yes. We site-walked this particular location and, visually, it is a
substantial distance. I have no reason to doubt in the merit of the presentation.
Attorney Burns asked if the other members concur or do you have anything else to add to
that analysis?
All PB members concurred with the numbers, except Ms. Hlynka explained that, because
she is still learning all the different terminology for this type of project, she is deferring to
the other members who are very familiar with this aspect.
18

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

Mr. Wood said that I believe the field survey crew went out there at low water using a
tow station and shot that distance.
Mr. Shiner asked if there were any others on Mr. Brubaker’s list that Attorney Louis was
calling out.
Attorney Louis said that I don’t have any concerns. Obviously, it’s within the PB’s
purview to either adopt or supplement these conclusions. My only concern was
conclusions that didn’t have an articulated basis of support so that a reviewing body
would know why you all came to the decision that you did.
Attorney Burns said that I would encourage the PB, if you haven’t already, to review
staff’s comments. If you have anything you disagree with, would like to add, would like
to change; that again, this is the interpretation of staff and you want to make sure it
comports with your own understanding.
Mr. Shiner said that I don’t see anything on that review. He asked PB members if they
did. Ms. O’Connor and Ms. Braun said no. He asked Ms. Hlynka if she had the notation
from the July 28th meeting, the recommendation that has that list we are looking at. She
did. Mr. Shiner said that, on page 3, there is a grid with a series of summaries of a
paragraph and evaluation of the application with comments from the Planner. That’s the
section we are looking at. Where there was no evaluation, it was an “N/A” or “Met”.
Applicant’s counsel just asked us to comment on those things so there was some verbiage
under that evaluation. The question to you is, as you look down this list and the answers
that are given, does anything strike you as being not appropriate or something you want
to comment on, or do you want to accept it as written.
Ms. Hlynka started to talk about the DEP approval and Mr. Shiner said that that was a
different subject. He clarified that we are only talking about the §44 list on page 3.
Ms. Hlynka said okay.
Mr. Shiner said that I’m not seeing anything on that page 3 review. Regarding the starred
item, the pier length restriction has been something debated and discussed ad nauseum. It
still remains an issue but, to counsel’s point, it is not part of the ordinance in terms of any
limitation on that. I’m going down to the motion template, again. Does the PB want to
walk through this or are you good to go.
Ms. Braun said that I’m good to go.
Ms. O’Connor said that I am fine to proceed.
Mr. Shiner said that I am not seeing anything in those conditions that peaks me. It is all
standard.

19

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

Attorney Louis asked, for the record, if the PB was adopting, other than what it has
discussed, the Planner’s conclusions as to his other review criteria?
Mr. Shiner said that I believe that the conclusion of the PB is that the items on page 3,
§44-35(c) review, as written, have been accepted by the PB as accurate. The only thing
that we will have to make notation of is the fact that the length deviates from the
application.
Ms. O’Connor said that that is noted as ‘updated’ in the list, that the combined length is
119 feet.
Attorney Burns said that the last wrinkle, here, I will just note and forgive me if I’m
being redundant, I believe that this chart addresses criteria that are contained in §44-35(c)
relating specifically to docks, piers, and wharves. There are additional findings of the PB.
If you look at #2 of the draft motion. The provisions of §44-44 set out a set of general
criteria that integrate any of the specific criteria that are set forth in §44-35. What you
just went through are the specific criteria for wharves, docks, and piers. I just want to
make sure that the PB also talks through the general, substantive standards that are set out
here for §44-44.
The PB questioned what he was asking for.
Ms. O’Connor asked if the attorney wanted the PB to go line-by-line on things under #2
and say yes we have reviewed them? Is that what you’re asking or something different.
Attorney Burns said essentially yes. §44-44 sets up the procedure for administering
permits. Under §44-44(d), the PB is required, after the submission of the application, the
PB will approve the application, or approve with conditions, if it makes a positive finding
from the information presented of the proposed use. It then sets out 8 criteria that are
standard, and #8 incorporates the provisions of §44-35. You have to make positive
findings as to each of those and I would encourage the PB to talk through why you
believe those standards are met. You just talked through §44-44(d)(8), which is in
conformance with §44-35 Land Use Table. The other seven standards are also review
criteria.
Mr. Shiner read the pertinent standards. They jive 100%. Those are the articles that are in
our standard template. Is there any discussion on those? Members said no. Finally, there
are the conditions that are the standard conditions, which we always read in, and are
verbatim, per the ordinance. He asked at what point do you want to insert the revised
dock length? At the tail end?
The PB said yes.
Attorney Burns said that I know you all went through it and it seems like the consensus
of the PB that these standards are met. I would like to hear, for the sake of the record,
why. The question is essentially how the applicant has demonstrated that they meet that
20

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

standard. The answer may be based on the testimony, based on what you received as part
of their packet. But, making sure that whatever written decision is produced on the other
side of this is able to demonstrate the rationale for why you believe that these standards
are met. Have a bit more meat on the bones for each of those. I apologize for making you
re-tread that but I want to make sure the record is clear as to why you’re reaching those
conclusions.
Mr. Shiner said okay. Let’s just run through the list starting at the top (§44-44):
Will maintain safe and healthful conditions:
Nothing seen where there was any kind of water or waste or anything else happening as it
is a static pier. Safe and healthful conditions would be nothing sanitary in that realm but
would be more in regard to use in the cove with regard to people kayaking and
transitioning the area. They will put lighting on the structure, which would also
contribute to a safe environment.
Mr. Shiner said that it’s kind of an ambiguous statement but I don’t believe it’s a sanitary
or healthful condition I believe it’s more use and personal safety. It is a larger-thanaverage pier for the neighborhood. It will project more than the others. I can see that. I
think people that are using the area, they are recreating otherwise, they will have to use
more caution around this pier than others.
Will not result in water pollution, erosion, or sedimentation to surface waters:
That area has been fully developed. The upland side has been riprapped and it is all
contained. That was pre-existing before the 2023 house renovations. I do know that
additional soil was brought in but when we went on a site walk, it look uniform,
smooth, and established. Nothing appeared to be out of order.
Will adequately provide for the disposal of all wastewater:
There is no wastewater associated with this other than surface water runoff from being
an outdoor structure. It is a dock. It is on the water. There are no requirements for
provisions of drainage off the dock.
Will not have an adverse impact on spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, bird, or other
wildlife habitat:
The DEP document is heavily skewed for reviewing those issues and they did not
identify anything that they were concerned with and that were flagged to us. I think the
DEP would have flagged it if there was anything. We can have confidence in the report
provided to us by the DEP.
Will conserve shore cover and visual, as well as actual, points of access to inland and
coastal waters:
21

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

This is a private lot. There is no easement for any public access on it. The shore cover
is a rip-rap buffer between the developed area and the resource. Visually, there are no
trees or anything there, other than a maintained lawn. There is no issue with regard to
cover, visual, or access from that property to the coastal waters, as it is a private lot.
Will protect archaeological and historic resources as designated in the comprehensive
plan:
There was nothing flagged on the report from the Comprehensive Plan with regard to
areas of significance.
Mr. Brubaker added that the Comprehensive Plan primarily repeats publicly available
State data in terms of archeological and historic resources. In terms of historic
resources, there are some in the general area. There are only three national registered
properties in Eliot and not very near this area.
Mr. Wood said that, one of Army Corps of Engineers’ questions was whether we had
contacted the Maine Historical Preservation Commission. We just got that information
back last week. They have no concerns and I will send that over to the PB.
Mr. Shiner said that, if there is a vote tonight, that would be a condition. The PB
agreed.
Will avoid problems associated with floodplain development and use:
There is no associated flood plain. This is a small 9,000 square-foot lot, private. The
street is upland. Water drains toward the property. There is a swale between this
property and the abutters’ property to the north for water drainage. There would be
nothing that would be a problem with flood plain.
Is in conformance with the provisions of section 44-35, land use standards:
We have gone through the chart of 14 items that are notated on page 3 of the July 28th
Planner’s Report to the PB. There was nothing flagged as inconsistent or problematic.
At this time, with that gone through, Ms. Hlynka had a question.
Ms. Hlynka said that I was just looking at the municipal code, again. The rules
specifically governing the piers and wharves. I was just hoping we could do the same
kind of thorough review, just go down and scratch things off to note that we’re really
following what’s intended. It’s under §44-35 Land Use Standards and everything under
(c).
Attorney Burns said that those were the items that were described in the table. Certainly,
as your lawyer, I will always encourage you to put more on the record as to why you hold
22

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

your position. But, if your answer is that you reviewed the staff recommendation and
adopt those findings as your own, that’s also sufficient. If you have anything else you
would like to add, change, again you can reject these findings entirely. It’s your
prerogative.
Mr. Shiner asked Ms. Hlynka if she was looking at the page 3 §44-35(c) review from the
Town Planner’s report?
Ms. Hlynka said that, as I go down the list, I was checking it against what was discussed,
and I think it does fit everything I can read. I had a question about whether or not it might
penetrate into a closed, if you consider the cove as its own waterway. I don’t know if
that’s applicable here.
Mr. Shiner said that I don’t think that is applicable. The cove is classified as a mudflat by
the DEP standards. It’s a tidal mudflat and you don’t really transit the cove to go
somewhere else. It’s not like it’s a thoroughfare to get from A to B. It’s a dead-end
basically.
Ms. Hlynka said that I agree.
Mr. Shiner said that the §44-35(c) review are all the items we listed already so I don’t
think we’ll be going through those, again, unless you have something that you flagged or
we missed or you want to bring up.
Ms. Hlynka said that, after reading it again, I’ll have to say that all are met.
Attorney Burns said that the very final thing is that prior to subsection C in §44-35, you
have subsections A (minimum lot standards) and B (principle and accessory structures). I
will leave it to you as to whether any of those provisions are applicable. But the
remainder of §44-35 I believe deals with specific land uses. I would just ask the PB to
look through to determine just to give this checkbox to show if there are any other
subsections of §44-35 that you review as applicable. Subsection C relates to piers,
wharves, and docks, specifically, which you’ve just reviewed. Subsection A deals with
minimum lot standards, which again this PB has already discussed. I think your view is
that this is a legally non-conforming lot. Subsection B deals with new structures,
generally, which may be applicable here. But I wanted to flag those for the PB again. I
believe these are in the notes that have come up in the PB’s discussion but I wanted to
note it here for the PB to just look through them to see if there are any items that are
applicable to this project. If you determine that the rest of the ordinance is inapplicable, I
would just want to hear you say that. I just want to make sure that somewhere in the
record you considered whether there are other applicable provisions.
Mr. Shiner said that I will start by saying that, with regard to §44-35 Land Use Standards
(a) minimum lot standards, I brought up in my notes this evening a question with regard
to item #4 “The minimum width of any portion of any lot within 100 feet, horizontal
distance, of the normal high-water line of” the resource, it was a dimensional question for
23

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

the lot, itself. I note for the record, that no portion of this lot meets any of the dimensional
standards, as notated, which would be required for a new pier structure in the Suburban
Zone with Shoreland Overlay. I also note that my understanding is that the entirety of this
project is dependent upon the non-conformance of the existing float-type pier. If this was
a new application, which was what I was commenting on in my original notes, it would
probably be considered a non-available application because of the dimension
requirements for the lot.
Ms. O’Connor said that I don’t think that’s correct. I think that the fact that it is a nonconforming lot is the first consideration. What I heard you say is that you would need to
consider it as if it were a conforming lot. You would not be able to put a pier on this lot
because it is non-conforming and I don’t think that’s what we’ve talked through.
Mr. Shiner said that my notes and my train of thought was that establishing what it would
take on a new property and new application. A different property as we are not discussing
‘this’ property, another property who wanted to have a pier in the district, the conditions
that would be required to exist in order to allow that. I just read back Item #4 on this with
regards to the 100 feet within the high-water mark to the resource and there is a notation
about all portions of the lot that have a certain dimension. In the Suburban Zone, they are
requiring that to be 150 feet. “All proportions” they call it.
Attorney Burns said that the prior conversation that this PB had regarding the
nonconformance may be applicable here. If you determine that this is a non-conforming
lot, then the provisions of §44-32(e) would apply. The provisions you just laid out are
required for lots in the Town. However, if this is a lawfully non-conforming lot of record,
then the PB would want to look at §44-32(e) to determine if, not withstanding the nonconforming lot conditions, this lot is buildable. Does that make sense?
Ms. O’Connor said yes. Sorry, this is very challenging because this is about the sixth 3hour meeting that we have had. We have worked our way through many of these things
and it is a bit of a struggle to go back through them. I appreciate the need to have it on the
record in one place.
Attorney Burns said that I note that there has been sufficient amount of discussion among
the PB during the Public Hearing and I want to make sure that is carried into your formal
deliberation. I know that this Public Hearing stretched for a significant amount of time. I
apologize for making you re-treading issues you have discussed a lot. It sounds like there
is consensus here that this is a non-conforming lot of record. If that is the consensus, does
the PB in viewing this §44-32(e), is it the PB’s view that this is a buildable lot not
withstanding the fact that there is a non-conforming lot of record? So, “A nonconforming
lot of record as of the effective date of this chapter or amendment thereto may be built
upon, without the need for a variance, provided that such lot is in separate ownership and
not contiguous with any other lot in the same ownership, and that all provisions of this
chapter except lot area, lot width and shore frontage can be met.”
All PB members said yes.
24

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

Ms. Braun said that we’ve already been through all of this many times. It is becoming
very frustrating to keep reviewing these points week after week.
Attorney Burns apologized. That is all I wanted to hear.
Mr. Shiner said that, if you’re going to critique, that’s me. I have struggled with this
particular section of the ordinance and, so, I want to be clear on it just as you want to be
clear on it. As I said, this is basically a continuation of the notes I presented earlier and, if
it is the sentiment of the PB that this is not applicable to the application at hand, then so
be it. We just ask for the motion, with the conditions, and we vote using our discretion.
Ms. Hlynka asked if we have the minimum lot frontage number for the building of a pier?
I’m having difficulty finding it.
Mr. Shiner said that the Shoreland ordinance for the Suburban Zone is a 150-foot street
frontage and the Shoreland ordinance references that the street number for frontage is
supposed to be reflected on the side facing the resource, so it’s 150 feet.
Attorney Burns said that I would note for the PB that, as long as all the provisions of the
chapter, except for lot area, lot width, and shore frontage can be met, then a nonconforming lot can be built upon, which I believe the PB has already decided.
Ms. O’Connor said yes.
Ms. Hlynka asked, then, that it does have the required shore frontage?
Attorney Burns said that what has been discussed is that this is a non-conforming lot as to
the shore frontage and, based on your discussions, because it is a nonconforming lot as to
shore frontage, then the fact that it does not meet the minimum shore frontage does not
prevent them from building an otherwise conforming structure there on the property.
Mr. Shiner said so, to answer your question, Ms. Hlynka, the 150-foot number is not
being met and it’s not being considered as a requirement.
Ms. Hlynka said that I see. Okay.
Mr. Shiner asked, before we move on, does counsel have anymore asks of this Board.
Attorney Burns said that I don’t believe so. To whit, as long as the PB determines that
there are no other subsections of §44-35 are applicable to this project. You discussed the
pier, wharves, and dock provisions substantially already. It sounds like there is consensus
among the PB members that the standards have been met. So, unless the PB determines
there are other applicable provisions you have, in my mind, worked through the standards
you need to review to determine whether or not you can grant this project.

25

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

Attorney Louis said that I think it might be worth going through subsection B because I
think a couple are applicable.
Attorney Burns said that subsection B in §44-35 deals with principal and accessory
structures.
Mr. Shiner asked if he was talking about “b. For principal structures, water and wetland
setback measurements shall be taken from the top of a coastal bluff that has been
identified on coastal bluff maps…”?
Attorney Burns said that Attorney Louis asked the PB to review subsection B because it
is a generally applicable standard to any principal or accessory structures. This is a
proposal to build a structure so it is applicable. So, subsection 1 says: “All new principal
and accessory structures shall be set back at least 100 feet, horizontal distance, from the
normal high-water line of great ponds classified GPA and rivers that flow to great ponds
classified GPA, and 75 feet, horizontal distance, from the normal high-water line of other
water bodies, tributary streams, or the upland edge of a wetland, except that in the
general development district the setback from the normal high-water line shall be at least
25 feet, horizontal distance. In the resource protection district the setback requirement
shall be 250 feet, horizontal distance, except for structures, roads, parking spaces or
other regulated objects specifically allowed in that district in which case the setback
requirements specified above shall apply. In addition:
a. The water body, tributary stream, or wetland setback provision shall neither apply to
structures which require direct access to the water body or wetland as an operational
necessity, such as piers, docks and retaining walls, nor to other functionally waterdependent uses.” So, what that section does is set up a setback requirement and then
it says that this does not apply to functionally water-dependent uses, including piers,
docks, and wharves. So, the PB has to determine whether or not that setback
requirement applies to this application.
Mr. Shiner said that this setback requirement does not apply to the application because it
is a water-dependent use that’s on and in the resource. I gave you a citation earlier in my
presentation to specifically comment on that fact. The setback does not apply to this
particular type of structure. Do we agree.
The PB members agreed that this setback requirement did not apply because the project is
a water-dependent use that is on and in the resource.
Attorney Burns read subsection 2: “Principal or accessory structures and expansions of
existing structures which are permitted in the resource protection, limited residential,
limited commercial, and stream protection districts, shall not exceed 35 feet in height.
This provision shall not apply to structures such as transmission towers, windmills,
antennas, and similar structures having no floor area.” Is it the PB’s view that this
proposed structure is less than 35 feet in height?

26

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

All PB members agreed.
Mr. Shiner said that we have looked at the engineer’s drawings and they have given us a
cross-section elevation for the location of the bulkhead to the ramp to the pier to the
floats. The height of the pier above the high water mark I believe was 4 feet, a number
greatly less than 35 feet. There were no further comments from the PB on that.
Attorney Burns read subsection 3: “The lowest floor elevation or openings of all
buildings and structures, including basements, shall be elevated at least two feet above
the elevation of the 100-year flood, the flood of record, or in the absence of these, the
flood as defined by soil types identified as recent floodplain soils.”
Mr. Shiner said that, with this particular requirement, the bulkhead that is here is not an
entrance bulkhead into the house. It is a poured, concrete bulkhead. Buildings and
structures being discussed for this application are water-dependent structures. The singlefamily residential house has already been permitted, inspected, and occupied and meets
all the requirements with regards to height on the flood plain. Do we agree?
All members of the PB agreed.
Attorney Burns read subsection 4: “The total footprint area of all structures, driveways,
parking areas and other nonvegetated surfaces, within the shoreland zone shall not
exceed 20 percent of the lot or a portion thereof, located within the shoreland zone,
including land area previously developed, except in the general development district,
adjacent to tidal waters and rivers which do not flow to great ponds classified GPA,
where lot coverage shall not exceed 70 percent.”
Mr. Shiner said that this impervious area is already established where the bulkhead
attaches to the ramp. There is no increase. It is existing. It is not changing. There is no
change to the lot coverage but I can’t tell you what the lot coverage is
All PB members agreed.
Attorney Burns said that #5 is the retaining wall. Are there any retaining walls being
proposed as part of this application.
The PB said no and this is not applicable.
Attorney Burns read subsection 6: “Notwithstanding the requirements stated above,
stairways or similar structures may be allowed with a permit from the code enforcement
officer” Does the PB view that requirement as applicable to this application?
Mr. Shiner said that there are no stairways requested from the application.
Attorney Burns asked if there was anything further on subsection B that the PB would
like to note.
27

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

The PB said that there was not.
Attorney Burns said that the PB has just looked through §44-35(a)(b) and (c). In the PB’s
view, are any of the subsections of §44-35 applicable to this ordinance? Those being (d)
Campgrounds., (e) Individual private campsites., (f) Commercial and industrial uses., (g)
Parking areas., (h) Roads and driveways.. (i) Signs., (j) Stormwater Runoff.
Mr. Shiner said that, with (j), there is no change to the grading and there is no impact on
stormwater runoff on this application. There are no drainage dips or water drain-outs to
be installed. There is no ditch relief, cross-drainage, or any of the things mentioned in 7
applicable. No septic hazards, no essential services, no mineral exploration and
extraction, no agriculture, no proposed clearing of vegetation or trees for cutting.
Attorney Burns said that Subsection (q) deals with erosion and sedimentation control. I
recommend the PB look that over to determine if anything is applicable in here. “All
activities which involve filling, grading, excavation or other similar activities which
result in unstabilized soil conditions and which require a permit shall also require a
written soil erosion and sedimentation control plan.”
Mr. Shiner said that all activities proposed are not disturbing the upland. He added that
Subsection (r) Soils there is no disturbance in the upland of the soils. Subsection (s)
Water Quality. There is nothing being deposited. It is natural rain runoff. Subsection (t)
Archeological Sites. There are none reported and we have already talked about adding a
condition that the applicant will submit the report from the Maine Historical Preservation
Commission. That takes us all the way through that ordinance.
Attorney Burns said that, based on the PB’s review of §44-35, the discussion I’ve heard
is that the PB’s consensus that, based on the reasons you have laid out in your
discussions, the applicable provisions of §44-35 have been met by this application. Is that
a fair summary of where the discussion has led.
The PB agreed that it was.
Attorney Burns said that that brings you to the last substantive criteria in your draft
motion, as well, in §44-44, which sets out the review criteria for this application. So now
that you’ve gotten through those criteria, the question before the PB is, based on that
discussion, has the applicant met their burden to demonstrate that their application
complies with the ordinance provisions that you just discussed?
The PB agreed that they have.
Attorney Burns said that, if the PB has further discussion, now would be the time to have
that discussion about whether any of the provisions are met or not met. If the PB is
comfortable with where you have landed in this. I would recommend that the Chair
recommend a motion.
28

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

Mr. Shiner asked, at this point, any last call for comments? There were none and the
motion was made.
Ms. O’Connor moved, second by Ms. Braun, that the Planning Board approve the Shoreland
Zoning Permit Application for PB26-04 for construction of a permanent pier, seasonal
gangway, and seasonal float at 419 River Road (Map 25/Lot 7), with the following findings of
fact (in addition to other applicable findings of fact to be included in the Notice of Decision):
1. All applicable sections of the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 44) and Shoreland
Zoning Permit Application have or will be met.
2. Based on the information presented by the applicant and in accordance with Sec. 44-44,
the Planning Board finds that the proposed use:
a. Will maintain safe and healthful conditions;
b. Will not result in water pollution, erosion, or sedimentation to surface waters;
c. Will adequately provide for the disposal of all wastewater;
d. Will not have an adverse impact on spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, bird, or
other wildlife habitat;
e. Will conserve shore cover and visual, as well as actual, points of access to inland
and coastal waters;
f. Will protect archaeological and historic resources as designated in the
comprehensive plan;
g. Will avoid problems associated with floodplain development and use; and
h. Is in conformance with the provisions of section 44-35, land use standards.
The approval includes the following conditions (Conditions 1-3 are standard.):
1. The property may be developed and used only in accordance with the plans,
documents, material submitted, and representations of the applicant made to the
Planning Board. All elements and features of the use as presented to the Planning
Board are conditions of approval and no changes in any of those elements or features
are permitted unless such changes are first submitted to and approved by the Eliot
Planning Board.
2. The permit is approved on the basis of information provided by the applicant in the
record regarding the ownership of the property and boundary location. The applicant
has the burden of ensuring that they have the legal right to use the property and that
they are measuring required setbacks from the legal boundary lines of the lot. The
approval of this permit in no way relieves the applicant of this burden. Nor does this
permit approval constitute a resolution in favor of the applicant of any issues regarding
the property boundaries, ownership, or similar title issues. The permit holder would be
well-advised to resolve any such title problems before expending money in reliance on
this permit.
3. The applicant authorizes inspection of premises by the Code Enforcement Officer
during the term of the permit for the purposes of permit compliance.
4. Pending receipt of the report from the Maine Historical Society, which will be provided
by the applicant to the Planning Board.
5. The condition of approval is for a 119-foot total pier length, which is adjusted down from
the original 128-foot length in the original application.
29

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

6. No later than 20 days after completion of the development, the applicant shall provide to
the Code Enforcement Officer post-construction photographs of the shoreline
vegetation and developed sites.
VOTE:
Karina Hylnka – Yes
Carmela Braun – Yes
Suzanne O’Connor – Yes
Paul Shiner - Yes
Motion unanimously approved
Mr. Shiner said that, at this point in time, the application has been approved. We look
forward to receiving the materials, as opined here. With regards to any aggrieved
party, or party that has status, you have 30 days of which to make application to the
Board of Appeals. All decisions may be appealed to the Board of Appeals.
Attorney Burns said that the Notice of Decision has to be provided within seven days.
Mr. Shiner clarified that the Notice is approved within 30 days.
Atty Burns said that I would recommend that the Town provide the Notice of
Decision no later than seven days to the applicant, unless the applicant agrees to an
exception.
Mr. Shiner clarified that we have to have a successive meeting in order to approve
any Notice of Decision, so the next scheduled meeting. We hold meetings on the first
and third Tuesdays of each month.
Attorney Burns said that, in that case, I would recommend that the Town provide the
two parties with a notification that the PB is taking a vote to approve the application
and then, at your next meeting, vote to adopt your Decision. A written notice should
be provided to the parties within seven days.
Mr. Shiner said that, if there is nothing else, I think that concludes our business with
this particular application. Thank you for your patience.
Note: At this time, the PB took a 5-minute break.
ITEM 6– NEW BUSINESS - NONE
ITEM 7 – OLD BUSINESS
A. 8 Wisteria Lane (Map 14/Lot 6), PB26-06: Shoreland Zoning Application to
construct a 30’X60’ fixed pier, leading to a 3’X32’ gangway, landing on a
10’X20’ float and will be located by float piles.

30

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

Received: June 22, 2026
1st Heard: August 4, 2026 (sketch plan pier review/completeness)
2nd Heard: August 18, 2026 (continued review)
Public Hearing: _______, 2026
Site Walk: None
Approval: _______, 2026
Ms. (Kuerstin) Fordham, agent for Harold Moore ,(Riverside Pickering & Marine), was
present for this application.
Ms. Fordham said that we are proposing a 6X30’ pier leading to a 3X32’ gangway and a
20’ float. I want to address a couple of things that were brought up in the previous
meeting. Mr. Chair asked me to find out when this was built. I went back through all the
Town records. I got nothing from the Maine DEP. To the best of my ability, I believe it
was built in 2014 and has been existing there since. It has been bought and sold many
times with the structure that is there now. The existing structure is going to be removed
and disposed of off-site so it will no longer exist.
Mr. Shiner asked, when you are talking about the existing structure, which part are you
talking about? Isn’t it like a very long, steep slope that’s got something and then it
flattens out onto a float?
Ms. Fordham said that it is basically their walkway down to the float. It sits right on the
shoreline.
Mr. Shiner said so the float has been pre-existing?
Ms. Fordham said that everything here, that ramp and this float, have been there since
2014. But they are going to be gone as soon as everything gets approved.
Ms. O’Connor added that there are some close-up photos in the package.
Ms. Fordham said that you asked me for the frontage and that is on the existing
conditions plan. It is 149.05 feet. I’ve highlighted the water so it’s easier for everyone to
see. We have our setbacks here. One of the concerns was expansion on the nonconforming structure. There is no expansion. It’s going away and we’re building a new
one; that we’re building a conforming structure. If you have any questions, let me know.
Mr. Shiner said that there are two green lines. Is that the riparian lines?
Ms. Fordham said that that is showing the setbacks. As far as the expansion, there is no
expansion. We will be removing it and it will be built brand new.
Mr. Shiner said that the new pier is inside the mean low water mark, which is good.

31

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

Ms. Fordham said yes. The reflectors have also been added to the float and to the pier, as
requested to address the pilings below mean low water. It does not push or reclassify this
pier into commercial. It’s a residential structure. It’s intended use is residential on the lot.
Mr. Shiner said yes.
Ms. Fordham said that those were all the questions that came to me on the last meeting.
Mr. Shiner asked if the float/dock was permitted by the Code Enforcement Officer in
2014?
Ms. Fordham said that there was not one permit in the Town folder and the Maine DEP
has not gotten back to me on my request for a property search.
Mr. Shiner said okay. So it probably hasn’t been seen before.
Ms. Fordham said that my guess is that, if it had been seen, it would have been caught.
Mr. Shiner said that, given what we’ve learned tonight, the elevated gangway that’s over
land doesn’t count because it’s over land. It’s only once it hits the resource. That’s the
actual affective length, I believe, that we’re interested in. It is where the high water mark
is. It’s by the first rock. Isn’t that first pier just at the shoreline?
Ms. Fordham said that this is the highest observable tide line and the mean low water line
is down ‘here’. We are 6 feet above the highest observable tide line and roughly another
4 feet above that.
Mr. Shiner said that the distance from about half way on that gangway, there looks like
there are three supports.
Ms. O’Connor asked if it is where it says “limited salt marsh area”, that middle piling?
Ms. Fordham said that that is the end of the salt marsh. This design actually decreases the
impact to the salt marsh by 156 square feet what is existing right now.
Mr. Shiner said that your outer float is going to ride the pier with the tide.
Ms. Fordham said correct, and the float has skids so it’s not going to sit in the resource.
Mr. Shiner said that the DEP will comment on that.
Ms. Fordham said yes, that we have already received their approvals.
Ms. Hlynka asked if we have copies of that DEP report?

32

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

Ms. O’Connor said that hard copies were provided at the meeting today. It’s probably in
your email. It was sent this afternoon.
Ms. Hlynka said that I do have it.
The PB reviewed the DEP findings at this time.
Mr. Shiner asked what the total length is of what is there currently in terms of how deep
it goes into the resource?
Ms. Fordham said that it is an 8X20’ float and a 3x20’ gangway.
Mr. Shiner said that the ramp was further upland so this will project further out into the
resource.
Ms. Fordham said yes.
Ms. O’Connor said that the existing one is perpendicular. It is a ‘T’-shape, correct? There
are stairs and a ramp down and, then, there’s the floating dock. Whereas, this proposed is
just a long extension over the water.
Ms. Fordham said yes.
Mr. Shiner asked the Planners, with regard to application completeness, is there anything
you guys caught that’s not in the package that should be?
Mr. Brubaker said that he did not catch anything.
Ms. O’Connor said that our job today is to determine if the application is complete.
The PB agreed.
Mr. Shiner said that the question at hand is that the Planners are saying that they have the
materials, we have the DEP information, consider the application complete, and call for
the public hearing.
Ms. O’Connor moved, second by Ms. Braun, that the Planning Board find PB26-06,
Map 14/Lot 6, construction of a 6’X30’ fixed pier leading to a 3’X32’ gangway
landing on a 10’X20” gangway at 8 Wisteria Lane application complete and
schedule for a public hearing.
VOTE
4-0
Motion approved
The PB scheduled the Public Hearing for September 15, 2026.

33

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

ITEM 8 – REVIEW AND APPROVE MINUTES
Ms. Braun moved, second by Ms. O’Connor, to approve the minutes of June 2,
2026, as amended.
VOTE
4-0
Motion approved
ITEM 9 – NOTICE OF DECISION - NONE
ITEM 10 – OTHER BUSINESS/CORRESPONDENCE
There are three more dock applications in the queue. Two are dock-related and one is
shoreland preservation because of a collapsing seawall.
Note: The PB will be back to Town Hall for a Public Hearing on current draft ordinances
(farm ADUs and septic systems). The SB is going to vote on them August 27th. The SB
decided they did not want to go for a ‘data center’ ordinance at this time. They are going
for a 180-day moratorium. The rationale being is that there is work happening at the State
level and there would be a bit more research needed to characterize the size of the data
center that would go in the C/I Zone only. Power consumption is number X less than,
footprint size is number N or less than. Those were not decided and reviewed to be the
kinds of things to be put into an ordinance. We are going to do something but we weren’t
quite ready to go to the voters with it.
Ms. O’Connor said that the Town will vote on a moratorium on data centers on
November 3rd of this year. 180 days only gets us to May so there will be a window,
potentially, where there is nothing, no coverage for the Town.
Mr. Shiner said that we can say to the SB when they are reviewing the moratorium that
there is a coverage gap and we need another number that’s bigger.
Mr. Brubaker said that State law constrains options, there, but if I’m not mistaken, the
Town Meeting has to initiate the moratorium. There may be a provision for the SB to
extend a moratorium.
The PB’s intention was to bring this to the attention of the SB so that a gap does not
happen and the Town is covered.
ITEM 11 – SET AGENDA AND DATE FOR NEXT MEETING
This meeting will be administrative.
The next regular Planning Board Meeting is scheduled for September 1, 2026 at 6PM.
34

Town of Eliot
DRAFT REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES (Town Hall/Hybrid)
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592

August 18, 2026
6:00 PM

ITEM 12 – ADJOURN
Ms. Braun moved, second by Ms. O’Connor, that the Planning Board adjourn.
VOTE
4-0
Motion approved
The meeting adjourned at 9:15PM.

________________________________
Carmela Braun, Secretary
Date approved: ___________________
Respectfully submitted,
Ellen Lemire, Recording Secretary

35