Town of Mount Desert Planning Board
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
Meeting Room, Town Hall
6:00 pm, April 23, 2014
Public Present
Kevin Walls, Elaine Huber Neville, Gary Neville, Anne Funderburk, Walter Heiges, Tracy Hetzer, Robert Hetzer, Stephanie Clement, Jon Spring representing Municipal Bay Holdings, LLC, Mark Cook representing Municipal Bay Holdings, LLC, Bob Gashlin representing AT&T, Chris Buczko, John Kelly representing Acadia National Park, James Woolsey representing Acadia National Park, Richard Savage, Katrina Carter
Board Members Present
Bill Hanley, Chairman Ellen Brawley, Dennis Kiley, and Lili Andrews
Also present were CEO Kimberly Keene and Recording Secretary Heidi Smallidge. Attorney for the Planning Board James Collier was also in attendance.
The meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m. by Chairman Brawley. Planning Board members present were noted.
February 26, 2014: Voting members included, Chairman Brawley, Ms. Andrews, Mr. Hanley, and Mr. Kiley. A review of the Minutes was made. After some discussion, the sentence on Line 38 of page 1 of the draft was removed. The word “meeting” was changed to “application” on line 41 of page one. There were no other changes. Mr. Hanley moved, with Mr. Kiley seconding, to approve the Minutes of February 2, 2014 as amended. Motion approved 4-0.
April 9, 2014: Voting members included Ms. Andrews, Mr. Hanley and Mr. Kiley. A review of the Minutes was made. Ms. Andrews moved, with Mr. Kiley seconding, to approve the Minutes as presented. Motion approved 3-0.
- Conditional Use Approval Application #006-2014
- OWNER(S): Helen R. Tyson, Heirs of
AGENT(S): Gary & Elaine Huber-Neville, Permit Consultants
LOCATION: 11 Long Lane, Somesville
TAX MAP: 020 LOT(S): 023 ZONE(S): Shoreland Residential 3 (SR3)
PURPOSE: Sections 3.4 & 6C.7 – Marine Structure, Seasonal Ramp & Float.
SITE INSPECTION: 3:00 PM
Ms. Andrews confirmed adequate public notice and notice to abutters was given. No conflict of interest was found. The voting members were noted.
Mr. Hanley moved with Mr. Kiley seconding, to find the application complete. Motion approved 4-0.
Mr. Hanley described the site visit. He and Chairman Brawley were in attendance, as were the applicants’ agents. Currently a red marker indicates where the gangway will meet the shore. There is a marker where the float will be. It is proposed to build a 60 foot gangway with a 12’ x 20’ float. The gangway and float will be in a shallower area of the harbor protected by some rocks.
Mr. Neville explained that the gangway will fasten to a piece of granite. The float will bottom out at extreme low tide. The Army Corps of Engineers gave the permit number. There was no further public input.
Ms. Andrews moved, with Mr. Hanley seconding, to approve the application.
Mr. Kiley referred to section 6C7.4 and noted a temporary dock shall not be wider than 6 feet for non-commercial use. It was confirmed that the float does not count as the dock and it can be larger. The dock itself is not more than 6 feet in width.
Mr. Hanley moved to use the shortform checklist. Ms. Andrews seconded the motion. Motion approved 4-0.
The Board reviewed the application checklist, which is attached to these Minutes.
Motion to approve the application approved 4-0.
- Conditional Use Approval Application(s):
- Conditional Use Approval Application #007-2014
OWNER(S): Hillard W. & Betty A. Walls, Trustees
APPLICANT(S): Municipal-Bay Holdings, LLC; New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC
AGENT(S): Jonathan Springer, Esq.
P. Andrew Hamilton, Eaton Peabody, Esq.
LOCATION: 29 Otter Creek Drive, Otter Creek
TAX MAP: 032 LOT(S): 007 ZONE(S): Village Residential 2 (VR2)
PURPOSE: Section 6B.17 Wireless Communication Facility – Cell Tower.
SITE INSPECTION: 4:00 PM
Ms. Andrews confirmed there was adequate public notice and notice to abutters was confirmed. No conflict of interest was found.
Mr. Hanley moved, with Mr. Kiley seconding, to find the application complete. Discussion ensued.
John Springer, representing Municipal-Bay Holdings, LLC, explained to the Board that the applicants would like to waive the submission of some materials for the time being. They would be submitted later in the process. It was noted the visual study was not yet done; the applicants required feedback from the Board prior to conducting it. Also, the geotechnical analysis was difficult to do logistically. The applicants were asking the Board to find the application complete, pending the submission of some of these materials.
Mark Cook of Municipal-Bay Holdings, LLC addressed the geotechnical analysis, noting that it would be difficult to get the truck and drill into the area without first building the road. He assured the group that the study would be done. It was necessary in order to build the tower.
Mr. Hanley discussed the site visit. He noted that in attendance were himself, Chairman Brawley, and Ms. Andrews. Also in attendance were representatives for the tower, representatives for AT&T, and selectmen. Mr. Hanley noted they walked to the site; it was a circuitous route to the site, and through heavily wooded areas. The tower site is back behind the treeline. They hope to preserve the trees on the Otter Creek Road side of the site.
Discussion of the height of the tower was had, and the choice of a pole, versus a mono-pine.
Anne Funderburk was concerned whether the ground at the site was appropriate for the construction of a tower. Mr. Cook noted the geotechnical study would determine the type of foundation necessary for the tower, however towers have been built on all types of ground. Chairman Brawley requested examples of towers built on the type of ground the site has.
Regarding the visual assessment study, Mr. Cook noted the applicants had been in discussions with the Maine Historic Preservation and the Acadia National Park. Ellen Brawley noted the visual assessment should include views from the neighbors’ homes.
It was noted the site is 662 feet from Otter Creek Drive.
Some of the residents of the area voiced confusion and concern over the process and the information available to them. Chairman Brawley tried to explain the process and the submissions expected to be presented and reviewed.
Chris Buczko asked for confirmation that New Cingular Wireless was connected to AT&T, and inquired whether the municipality would have the opportunity to use the tower. Attorney Springer confirmed that New Cingular Wireless was essentially AT&T, and noted that sometimes municipalities do have opportunity to use the tower for emergency response use, however they would have to approach the owners regarding use. Mr. Buczko noted he was looking for benefit of the tower for those not using it. Chairman Brawley noted that there will be more than just Cingular using the tower; Verizon could potentially become a user for example.
John Kelly from Acadia National Park stated the Park was comfortable with the Board approving the application contingent on visual impact assessment.
Chairman Brawley noted there were other submissions missing as well. Discussion of the geotechnical analysis was resumed. Mr. Hanley noted that having at least a geological map would be a good start for the next meeting. Mark noted that the tower engineering plans wouldn’t be submitted until they had the geotechnical report, but in the meantime they could submit the soils type and the tower typically designed for that soil type along with construction drawings. Mr. Hanley questioned whether it would be possible to get the drawings signed off without all the tests. Attorney Collier noted that if something comes up or a concern is voiced, the Board can require it to be done earlier.
Chairman Brawley noted that all of Section 6A submissions seemed to have been submitted. She began a review of Section 6B. In section 6B.17.8A Chairman Brawley notes a report regarding the technical reasons for the design and capacity is missing. Section 6B.17.8B is also missing. Section 6B.17.8C has been submitted. It was noted that A and B would not be able to be submitted until the geotechnical analysis was completed.
Mr. Hanley inquired how drawings can be submitted without the geotechnical analysis. Mr. Cook noted the plans don’t address the soils. Attorney Springer noted that the Board was right in requesting these but most of the time Boards allow this later as a conditional approval. Mr. Gashlin for AT&T noted that prior cell towers in Mount Desert have had their geotechnical analysis submitted at a later date.
Mr. Kiley requested a report on the mono-pine design regarding reception. He would also like information on the tower’s impact if it were shorter than 125 feet.
Mr. Hanley asked for the coverage map to be translated into cell reception bars. Attorney Springer noted that they would submit RF Plots to clearly show the coverage. Chairman Brawley requested the RF plots be large to be displayed so the public can also see.
Attorney Collier asked how low the tower could be before an additional one was necessary. Chairman Brawley hoped the tower would cover to the gatehouse. Mr. Kiley felt it wouldn’t even cover to Seal Harbor.
Ms. Funderburk asked how many people a cell tower in this location would serve.
Mark Cook noted the tower should provide a three-mile coverage. Mr. Kelly noted that Cadillac Mountain was just under three miles from the proposed tower site.
Sites for the visual impact assessment were discussed. Chairman Brawley asked about the visual impact from the ocean. Mr. Kelly noted the ocean was outside the National Park jurisdiction.
Mr. Kelly noted that the sites for visual assessment the Park was interested in were:
Carriage roads and trails
Blackwoods Campground
Day Mountain
2 to 3 views from the Park Look Road from Otter Cove
Gorham Mountain
Cadillac Mountain
Eagles Crag
South Ridge Trail
The South ridge of Dorr Mountain
Attorney Collier added Fish House Road
Mr. Walls suggested Otter Point
Ms. Andrews asked about Bear Island and Baker Island
Mr. Kelly noted there was no line of sight from Bear Island, and there was a line of sight from Baker, but it was beyond five miles distance.
Mr. Hanley suggested Champlain Mountain.
It was noted that if other sites were found to be necessary, they could be added to the list.
Attorney Collier mentioned the views from abutters’ houses. He noted they were at different heights throughout the town. Chairman Brawley felt that the one-mile radius notification would cover most of the town. The notification process was discussed. Tracy Hetzer noted she was more concerned about the view from inside her house, rather than her driveway. Attorney Springer noted they would not enter residents’ houses to take pictures, however the residents could take pictures of their own. Ms. Andrews hoped the visual assessment could be done before the leaves come out. It was noted that timing would be tight for that.
Chairman Brawley asked whether they could have multiple balloon heights. Mr. Cook noted that weather was a big factor, however the balloon could be altered in photos to show height differences. Mr. Kiley asked whether there were any possibility of a variance in the proposed 125 foot height. Mr. Cook felt they could only provide minimum coverage at 125 feet. Mr. Kiley noted he would like to see some indication of where 100 feet in height was. Ms. Funderburk asked whether anything under 125 feet was unacceptable. Attorney Springer noted it would be discussed at the hearing.
Walter Heiges suggested that flyers or posters be printed and displayed in Otter Creek to better publicize the balloon test.
Mr. Hetzer asked whether the tower coverage would extend to Schoodic or Blue Hill. Chairman Brawley noted it would not.
It was noted by Attorney Collier and some Board members that the completeness and final approval should not be on the same night. Attorney Collier noted that when meetings were simply tabled to a future date the dates were not publicized to the public. Creating a separate meeting to discuss approval of the application would allow for better public input, particularly for a contentious issue.
Katrina Carter voiced concern regarding changing precedent not only for this particular case, but this case while in the middle of the process. It would cost the town money for the extra meeting, and it was not the uniform process the other cell tower meetings had. It seemed inappropriate to change the process at this point.
Chairman Brawley noted the issues that arose from the Somesville cell tower seem to necessitate some change. Attorney Collier added that making the process less would be unlawful, however, adding to it would not.
Regarding the visual assessment, Mr. Cook noted that in the last assessments done, they notified people up to 500 feet from the tower, and publicized for the rest. It seemed that would be acceptable. Chairman Brawley noted that she wanted all residents notified that were on the tax map sheet C-1.
It was also noted that the newspaper public notices for the balloon test should be in larger type to be more visible.
A further review of the submissions was made.
Motion to find the application complete was defeated, 0-4.
Mr. Kiley moved, with Mr. Hanley seconding, to find the application incomplete. Motion approved 4-0.
It was noted that submissions 6B.17-8A, B, C, F, G, and H were all missing and would require a response or submittal from the applicant.
Mr. Kiley moved, with Mr. Hanley seconding, to table the Completeness Review to June 25, 2014, 6pm, with submittals due by june 6, 2014. Motion approved 4-0.
Mr. kiley moved to adjourn. Ms. Andrews seconded. Motion approved 4-0. Meeting adjourned at 8:23 pm.
| 
