Town of Mount Desert Planning Board
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
Meeting Room, Town Hall
6:00 pm, October 21, 2014
Public Present
Gerald Shencavitz, Laurie Shencavitz, Paul MacQuinn for Harold MacQuinn Inc., Daniel Pileggi attorney for the Shencavitz’s, Ed Bearor attorney for the applicant, Erma Smallidge, Stephen Salsbury for Herrick and Salsbury Inc., Mike Deyling, C.H. Breedlove, M. Christine Breedlove, Jeff Gammelin, Candy Gammelin, Diane O’Connor, Attorney for the Planning Board
Board Members Present
Bill Hanley, David Ashmore, Dennis Kiley, Meredith Randolph
Also present were CEO Kimberly Keene and Recording Secretary Heidi Smallidge.
Bill Hanley called the meeting to order at 6:02 pm. He listed the attending members. Mr. Hanley identified himself as Active Chairman for the meeting in the absence of Chairman Brawley and Vice Chairperson Lili Andrews. He identified Meredith Randolph as Secretary Pro Tem. No conflict of interest was found.
- Quarrying License Application:
- Quarrying License Permit # 001-2014
OWNER(S): Harold MacQuinn, Inc.
OPERATOR(S): Fresh Water Stone & Brickwork, Inc.
AGENT(S): Stephen Salsbury, Herrick & Salsbury, Inc.
LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Edmond J. Bearor, Rudman Winchell
Counselors at Law
LOCATION(S): Of Crane Road, Hall Quarry
TAX MAP(S): 007 LOT(S): 075 ZONES(S): Residential 2
PURPOSE: To review completeness of quarrying license application
Chairman Hanley stated the meeting was only for the purposes of completeness review. He confirmed there had been public notice given even though it was not necessary.
Stephen Salsbury, representing Herrick & Salsbury Inc. presented a plan showing the perimeter of the property with Phase 1, the active quarry area, and Phase 2, the area for potential future quarrying activity. He pointed out the access road and the area for stormwater management. He pointed out the neighbors’ property on the map.
Attorney Dan Pileggi stated he had submitted the quarry plans to an engineer for feedback and had submitted those findings to the Board. He felt there was insufficient information on the application. The points he noted as missing included setback waivers, a detailed blasting plan, information on noise control, mining standards, context for the decibel level sited, information regarding dust control, and stormwater control. He asked that the Board look at the plans.
Chairman Hanley determined the Board had the authority to review the application submissions.
A review of the Completeness Review Checklist was made. The outcome of each section is noted below:
Section 6.1A: The submission was found to be Acceptable.
Section 6.1B: The submission was found to be Acceptable.
Section 6.1C: Attorney Bearor noted there were no liens, mortgages, easements, or other encumbrances on the land.
The submission was found to be Acceptable.
Section 6.1D.1: The submission was found to be Acceptable.
Section 6.1D.2: The submission was found to be Acceptable.
Section 6.1D.3: Ms. Randolph inquired what happened to the contour lines when they met the edge of the quarry. Mr. Salsbury stated that generally they meet the sheer wall face of the quarry. The wall will vary in heights. There will be fences protecting people from the edge. Ms. Randolph noted that some of the quarry area seems to be within the setback area. Mr. Salsbury noted the quarry areas within the setback areas are grandfathered work areas and the applicant prefers not to relinquish the area.
The submission was found to be Acceptable.
Section 6.1D.4: The submission was found to be Acceptable.
Section 6.1D.5: Mr. Salsbury noted there were no structures. Phase 1 was the active quarry area, and Phase 2 noted on the plan was the site for potential future quarry activity. Attorney Pileggi noted there seemed to be nowhere on the plan that showed the area of current activity. Mr. Salsbury stated the contours shown were taken earlier in the summer, with the exception of some blocks cut later in the summer. He pointed out the dotted line showing the existing activity area.
The submission was found to be Acceptable.
Section 6.1D.6: Ms. Randolph inquired whether the applicant would have to come back to the Planning Board for Phase 2. Mr. Salsbury didn’t know that it was a requirement, however the applicant will have to come back every five years as mandated by the ordinance. Ms. Randolph noted she would like to see where precisely within the two acres of work area rock has been cut. Mr. Ashmore asked how much of the area has had stone extracted from it. It was estimated that approximately half the area has had stone extracted. Mr. Ashmore inquired why the plan was called “Closure and Reclamation Area” instead of “Application Plan”. Mr. Salsbury noted they had meshed two plans together for convenience purposes. Mr. Ashmore noted usually a survey has a seal and statement of meeting the
standards of the survey which are not included on this plan. Attorney Bearor noted that wasn’t required, however Mr. Salsbury did survey the area. Mr. Salsbury noted the boundary lines and other necessary things were included. Mr. Ashmore noted that years in the future the plan will be difficult to find with this title. Mr. Kiley agreed with Mr. Ashmore – the title of the plan needed to be renamed.
The submission was found to be Acceptable.
Section 6.1D.7: Mr. Salsbury noted the pertinent information was on the plan entitled “SP2”.
The submission was found to be Acceptable.
Section 6.1D.8: The submission was found to be Acceptable.
Section 6.1D.9: The submission was found to be Acceptable.
Section 6.1D.10: It was noted all setbacks didn’t seem to be on the siteplan. Chairman Hanley inquired whether this was because there were setback waivers. Mr. Salsbury agreed it was, and added that the applicant was not obligated to follow the setbacks because they were grandfathered. Ms. Randolph felt that regardless of the grandfathering, the setback should be shown on the plan. Attorney O’Connell agreed the setback should be shown on the plan regardless of the grandfathering.
The submission was found to be Not Acceptable. It was requested that all setbacks be included on the plan.
Section 6.1D.11: The submission was found to be Acceptable.
Section 6.1D.12: The submission was found to be Acceptable.
Section 6.1D.13: The submission was found to be Acceptable.
Section 6.1D.14: The submission was found to be Acceptable.
Section 6.1D.15: The submission was found to be Acceptable.
Section 6.1D.16: Mr. Salsbury noted the existing treeline was noted on the plan. Ms. Randolph noted the treeline would change with the implementation of Phase 2.
The submission was found to be Not Acceptable. It was requested that the proposed treeline for Phase 2 was included in the plan.
Section 6.1D.17: Mr. Salsbury noted a flood plain map had been included. There was an additional section in the application for stormwater management.
The submission was found to be Acceptable.
Section 6.1D.18: Mr. Salsbury noted that SP2 shows the wells. He added the Shencavitz well was omitted from the plan and he would update the plan to show that well. Attorney Pileggi noted the Heffner well was also missing from the plan. It was north of the Aylen property. Mr. Salsbury noted he would try to contact the Heffners.
The submission was found to be Not Acceptable. It was requested that the two wells be included on the plan.
Section 6.1D.19: Mr. Salsbury noted there was no storage or washdown on site. Ms. Randolph noted there must be something on site to fill generators. Mr. Salsbury noted the fuel was stored in the generators. Chairman Hanley asked about spraying equipment down. Mr. Salsbury noted there may be water sprayed for dust control, but no equipment or stone washing.
The submission was found to be Not Acceptable. It was requested that the situation of fuel storage and washdown were noted on the plan for future reference.
Section 6.1E: The submission was found to be Acceptable.
Section 6.1F: Chairman Hanley asked whether a narrative and a drawing were both included. Mr. Salsbury didn’t feel the drawing had been necessary. He felt there was no need for erosion control.
The submission was found to be Not Acceptable. A standard detail sheet was requested.
Section 6.1G: The submission was found to be Acceptable.
Section 6.1H: Ms. Randolph felt there should be parameters set for where the water used for cooling equipment came from. It was noted any water used on equipment was trucked in. Attorney O’Connell agreed that the ordinance was asking for information on where the water was coming from.
The submission was found to be Not Acceptable. More information regarding the specific source of the water was requested.
Section 6.1I: The submission was found to be Acceptable.
Section 6.1J: The submission was found to be Not Acceptable. Information on measures to control vibration was requested.
Section 6.1K: There was no fuel storage onsite. This item was considered to be Not Applicable. Attorney Bearor noted he had submitted a letter regarding spill prevention, control and containment. It was agreed the letter would be incorporated into the application.
Section 6.1L: Attorney Pileggi noted the plan submitted is more a generic statement regarding blasting and not a blasting plan. Mr. Salsbury stated the applicant was not anticipating any heavy use of blasting. Chairman Hanley noted that a plan had been submitted, and the merits of it would be discussed at the public hearing.
The Submission was found to be Acceptable.
Section 6.1M: Mr. Salsbury noted it was almost impossible to estimate when quarry closure would occur. And he was hesitant to state a date he would then be forced to hold to. When asked to provide a specific date, he suggested 200 years from the present. Ms. Randolph felt that an estimate could be made based on the volume of rock left and the amount estimated to be sold per year. Quarry walls were determined to be 20 feet at the highest. Re-vegetation was noted to be in the restoration plan. Ms. Randolph inquired when specifically the re-vegetation needed to occur. Mr. Salsbury noted that Phase 1 re-vegetation would occur once the Phase 1 quarry area closed, and Phase 2 was activated.
The Submission was found to be Not Acceptable. An estimate for date of closure was requested.
Section 6.1N: The Submission was found to be Not Acceptable. A report on screening and buffering and measures to be used to control noise, dust, vibration, and pollution from the operation more relative to landscaping and screening was requested.
Mr. Kiley moved the Board’s Finding of Fact to be that the application was found to be incomplete. Ms. Randolph seconded the motion. Motion approved 4-0.
Attorney Bearor noted that the list of requested items were not necessary on the application as long as they were included in the Minutes. The Planning Board acquiesced to this opinion.
Attorney O’Connell noted that per the ordinance, the Board was required to send a letter to the applicant explaining why the application was found to be incomplete. Attorney Bearor noted the letter was not necessary. Attorney Pileggi felt the applicant was allowed to waive the requirement of the letter. Ms. Randolph moved, with Mr. Ashmore seconding, to accept the Applicant’s offer that the Planning Board does not need to provide formal notification of the missing pieces of the application. Motion approved 4-0.
Mr. Kiley moved, with Ms. Randolph seconding, to find the Conclusion of Law was that the application requirements for new activities, reoccurring, or expansions of existing activities have not been met. Motion approved 4-0.
Discussion was held regarding the next meeting. After lengthy discussion, it was agreed to schedule a site visit Wednesday, November 12th at 1:00 PM. This site visit would be publicized so the public could attend. The next meeting would be scheduled for Tuesday, November 18th, at 6:00 PM
Mr. Kiley moved, with Ms. Randolph seconding to adjourn the meeting. Motion approved 4-0. Meeting adjourned at 9:10 PM.
| 
