Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
Planning Board Meeting Minutes - 08/27/14 Section 6 Checklist Municicpal Bay Hold
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 Spring, Esq.
        P. Andrew Hamilton, Eaton Peabody, Esq.
LOCATION:  29 Otter Creek Drive, Otter Creek
TAX MAP:  032      LOT: 007     ZONE(S): Village Residential 2 (VR2)
PURPOSE:  Section 6B.17 Wireless Communication Facility – Cell Tower
SITE INSPECTION: 4:00 PM

Checklist
Land Use Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mount Desert

** Note:        All Conclusions of Law are to be read as if they are prefaced by the words “Based upon said Findings of Fact …”

SECTION 6 STANDARDS FOR USES, PERMITS AND APPROVALS

6A GENERAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

6A. 1   Compatibility The proposed use shall be compatible with the permitted uses within the district in which it is located as measured in terms of its:
                
Physical Size:
Findings of Fact(s):    See applicant’s submission of July 23, 2014 (page 1)  

Visual Impact:
Findings of Fact(s):    See applicant’s submission of July 23, 2014 (page 1)  

Proximity to other structures:
Findings of Fact(s):    See applicant’s submission of July 23, 2014 (page 1)  

Density of Development:
Findings of Fact(s):    See applicant’s submission of July 23, 2014 (page 1)  


VOTE:  Findings of Facts         -      ____(Kiley/Ashmore)                     4-0________     

Conclusion of Law for s. 6A. 1 Compatibility: The proposed use will / will not be compatible with the permitted uses within the district in which it is located as measured in terms of its physical size, visual impact, proximity to other structures, and density of development.
In particular,  Given the aforesaid Findings of Fact, standard met                                      
VOTE:  Conclusion of Law           -    (Kiley/Ashmore)___4-0_                                  


6A. 2   Erosion and Sedimentation Control       

6A2.1-5      Soil Erosion Plan for unstabilized soil: Written soil erosion and sedimentation control plan required.

Findings of Fact(s):     CEO has / has not received a satisfactory written soil erosion and              sedimentation plan, which addresses: development to fit topography, erosion control measures,   stabilization of bare ground, and drainage ways and outlets.                                           
        See applicant’s submission of 7/23/2014 (Page 2)                                              
VOTE:  Findings of Facts        -       (Kiley/Ashmore) 4-0                                     


Conclusion of Law:      Standards of Sections 6A2.1, 6A2.2, 6A2.3 6A2.4 and 6A2.5 have / have    not been met.                                                                                          
                Given the aforesaid Findings of Fact, standards of Section 6A2 met                      
VOTE:  Conclusion of Law           -    (Kiley/Ashmore)____4-0_                                 

6A2.6  Removal of sand or gravel. Removal of sand or gravel from natural beaches or the disruption or removal of buffer strips that protect fragile land areas immediately behind a shoreline and on neighboring properties is prohibited.

X N/A                Applicable, Standard Met                 Applicable, Standard Not Met

Findings of Fact(s):                                                                                    
                                                                                                        
VOTE:  Findings of Facts        3-0 (Ashmore/Kiley)                                                     
Conclusion of Law:      Given the aforesaid Findings of Fact, standards of Section 6A2.6 met.   
                                                                                                        
VOTE:  Conclusion of Law        3-0 (Ashmore/Kiley)                                                     

6A2.7   Tilling of soil:   Where soil is tilled in a Conservation District, or where soil in excess of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet lying either wholly or partially within the area covered by this Ordinance is tilled in a Rural or Woodland District, such tillage shall be carried out in conformance with …

X N/A                Applicable, Standard Met                 Applicable, Standard Not Met

Findings of Fact(s):                                                                                    
                                                                                                        
VOTE:  Findings of Facts        3-0 (Ashmore/Kiley)                                                     
Conclusion of Law:      Given the aforesaid Findings of Fact, standards of Section 6A2.7 met    .       
                                                                                                        
VOTE:  Conclusion of Law        3-0 (Ashmore/Kiley)                                                     

6A. 3   Highway Safety:  The proposed use shall not cause unreasonable congestion on highways or public roads, or unsafe conditions with respect to the use of highways or public roads existing or proposed.  Sufficient off-street parking shall be available.
Findings of Fact(s):  
Highways or public roads: See applicant’s submission of July 23, 2014 (page 3)  
Off-street parking:    See applicant’s submission of July 23, 2014 (page 3)   

VOTE:  Findings of Facts        (Kiley/Ashmore)  4-0                                            
Conclusion of Law:   Standards of Sections 6A.3 have/have not been met.                                                                                                                                  
        Given the aforesaid Findings of Fact, standard met                                              
                                                                                                        
VOTE:  Conclusion of Law           -    (Kiley/Ashmore)___4-0_                                  

6A. 4   Impact on Town Services. The proposed use shall not unduly burden the capacity of the Town's facilities, including public water and sewage, or the ability of the Town to provide essential public services (such as, but not limited to, schools, fire and police protection, refuse collection, and parking) to its residents and visitors.

Findings of Fact(s):    See applicant’s submission of July 23, 2014 (page 3)  
VOTE:  Findings of Facts          -   (Kiley/Ashmore)   4-0                                             

Conclusion of Law:      The proposed use will / will not unduly burden the capacity of the Town's facilities.  [In particular, an undue burden will be placed upon]                                                     Given the aforesaid Findings of Fact, standard met                                            
VOTE:  Conclusion of Law           -    (Kiley/Ashmore)___4-0_                                  

6A. 5   Land Suitability:  All uses to be on suitable soils. All land uses shall be located on soils in or upon which the proposed uses or structures can be established or maintained without causing adverse environmental impacts, including severe erosion, mass soil movement, improper drainage, and water pollution, whether during or after construction.
        
Findings of Fact(s):    See applicant’s submission of July 23, 2014 (page 3)  
VOTE:  Findings of Facts          -     (Kiley/Ashmore) 4-0                                     
Conclusion of Law:      Proposed use  will / will not be located on soils so as to cause adverse environmental impacts, including severe erosion, mass soil movement, and water pollution, whether during or after construction.
        Given the aforesaid Findings of Fact, standard met                                              
VOTE:  Conclusion of Law           -    _(Kiley/Ashmore)____4-0                                 

6A. 6   Lighting – Outdoor    

1.      Full cutoff. All lights greater than *1800 lumens (a 100 watt incandescent light produces 1800 lumens) shall be shielded to direct all light towards the ground.

2.      Light trespass. All light shall be directed away from adjacent properties. The light sources in flood and spot lights shall not be directly visible from adjacent properties. High intensity light sources shall not be directly visible to motorists on public roads.

3.      Excessive Lighting may not be used to direct attention away from existing business and community lighting.
1.  The lighting of structural canopies such as gas station canopies shall not be used to attract attention to the business.  Areas under structural canopies shall be illuminated so that the uniformity ratio (ratio of average to minimum illumination) shall be no greater than 5:1 with an average illumination level of not more than 30 foot candles.

2.   Light fixtures located on structural canopies shall be mounted so that the lens cover is recessed or flush with the ceiling of the canopy.

Findings of Fact(s):    See applicant’s submission of July 23, 2014 (page 4)  

VOTE:  Findings of Facts          -    (Kiley/Ashmore)  4-0                                             

Conclusion of Law:              Given the aforesaid Findings of Fact, standard met                      
                                                                                                        
VOTE:  Conclusion of Law           -    (Kiley/Ashmore)________4-0_                             

6A. 7 Stormwater:  For development on all lots the applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan which demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Code Enforcement Officer that stormwater runoff has been minimized, and will not excessively exceed natural predevelopment conditions.
        
Findings of Fact(s):  CEO has / has not received a storm water plan which meets the standards of Section 6A.7.See applicant’s submission of July 23, 2014 (page 7)    
VOTE:  Findings of Facts           -    (Kiley/Ashmore) 4-0                                     

Conclusion of Law: Given the aforesaid Findings of Fact standards met.                          
VOTE:  Conclusion of Law           -    _(Kiley/Ashmore)____4-0__                                       

6A. 8   Vegetation      
1.      Clearing. Clearing of trees or conversion to other vegetation is allowed for permitted construction provided that:
  • Appropriate measures are taken, if necessary, to prevent erosion when activity is undertaken.
  • The activity is in conformity with State Mandated Shoreland Zoning.
2.      Tree removal near town or state roads. Removal of more than 25% of the trees within 25 feet of any town or state road in any 12 month period (except for those required to complete permitted construction) shall require a Conditional Use Approval of the Planning Board. Other woody plants must be retained or replaced with native species.
  • Slash. No accumulation of slash shall be left within 50 feet of any town or state road or within 50 feet of the normal high water mark of any waterbody.  Slash shall be disposed of so that no part extends more than 4 feet above the ground.
4.      CEO Permit. A CEO Permit is required for cutting timber larger than 4 inches in diameter measured 4 ½ feet above ground when the total amount to be cut is greater than 10 cords but less than 50 cords in any one year period.
5.      Conditional Use Approval. Conditional Use Approval is required from the Planning Board for cutting timber larger than 4 inches in diameter measured 4 ½ feet above ground when the total amount to be cut is 50 cords or more in any one year period.


Findings of Fact(s):    See applicant’s submission of July 23, 2014 (page 8)  
VOTE:  Findings of Facts          -     (Kiley/Ashmore)         4-0                             

Conclusion of Law:              Given the aforesaid Findings of Fact, standard met                      
VOTE:  Conclusion of Law           -    (Kiley/Ashmore) 4-0                                     

6A. 9   Preserving the Town's Character The proposed use shall be consistent with protecting the general character of the Town, conserving the natural beauty of the area and shall not tend to change the historical or cultural character of the neighborhood. ~Such use shall be similar to a use specified as P, CEO or C in Section 3.4 and shall be in accord with the Comprehensive Plan.
Findings of Fact(s):    See applicant’s submission of July 23, 2014 (page 8)  
VOTE:  Findings of Facts          -     (Kiley/Ashmore)_____4-0                                 
Conclusion of Law:      The proposed use will / will not be consistent with protecting the general character of the Town, will / will not be consistent with conserving the natural beauty of the area and will not / will tend to change the historical or cultural character of the neighborhood. ~Such use will / will not be similar to a use specified as P, CEO or C in Section 3.4 and will / will not be in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. In particular,          Given the aforesaid Findings of Fact    
                Standard met                                                                            
VOTE:  Conclusion of Law           -    (Kiley/Ashmore)_____4-0_                                        6A. 10  Nuisances       
Notwithstanding any other standard in this section, the Planning Board shall not issue any Conditional Use Approval for any proposed use which if established would be obnoxious or offensive by reason of:

Odors;           N/A          Applicable, Standard Met     Applicable, Standard Not Met
Dust;            N/A          Applicable, Standard Met     Applicable, Standard Not Met
Smoke;   N/A          Applicable, Standard Met     Applicable, Standard Not Met
Gas;             N/A          Applicable, Standard Met     Applicable, Standard Not Met
Fumes;           N/A          Applicable, Standard Met     Applicable, Standard Not Met
Vibration;       N/A          Applicable, Standard Met     Applicable, Standard Not Met
Noise;           N/A          Applicable, Standard Met     Applicable, Standard Not Met
Outdoor lighting  N/A                 Applicable, Standard Met     Applicable, Standard Not Met

Other            N/A          Applicable, Standard Met     Applicable, Standard Not Met

… nor for any use which would prove injurious to the safety and welfare of the neighborhood.
Findings of Fact(s):    See applicant’s submission of July 23, 2014 (pages 8-9)       
VOTE:  Findings of Facts          -     (Kiley/Ashmore)__4-0                                            
Conclusion of Law:      The proposed use will not / will be obnoxious or offensive by reason of odors, dust, smoke, gas, fumes, vibration, noise, outdoor lighting or other nuisances.                  
        Given the aforesaid Findings of Fact, standard met                                              
VOTE:  Conclusion of Law           -    _(Kiley/Ashmore)_______4-0_                             


6B      SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR ACTIVITIES AND LAND USES
FOR REVIEW BY PLANNING BOARD

6B.1    Agriculture                                     X N/A            Applicable
6B.2    Air Landing Sites                               X N/A            Applicable
6B.7    Excavation (other than gravel pits) or filling  X N/A            Applicable
6B.8    Fences and Walls                                X N/A            Applicable
6B.12   Mineral Exploration and Extraction              X N/A            Applicable
6B.15   Sign Regulations                                X N/A            Applicable
6B.17   Wireless Communication Facilities                N/A         X Applicable, see below


        X N/A (Except for Section(s): 6B.17
                
Findings of Fact(s):  The proposed use will include none of the specific activities or land uses described in section 6B, except for Applicable Sections(s) noted above.

VOTE:  Findings of Facts           -   (Kiley/Ashmore)  4-0             
Conclusion of Law:  Section 6B is not applicable, except for                                    Sections(s):6B.____17________________________               ____

VOTE:   Conclusion of Law          -   (Kiley/Ashmore)  4-0___          
6B.17   Wireless Communication Facilities:

6B.17.2  Exemptions. The following activities and structures are exempt from a Conditional Use Approval:

  • A ground, building- or tower-mounted antenna, operated by a federally licensed amateur radio operator as part of the Amateur Radio Service, which is not licensed or used for any commercial purpose.
□ Exempt      X Not Exempt
  • Radio or television satellite dish antenna for the sole use of the resident occupying a residential parcel on which the satellite dish is located.
□ Exempt      X Not Exempt

  • A single ground- or building-mounted receive-only radio or television antenna including any mast, for the sole use of the occupant of a residential parcel on which the radio or television antenna is located.
□ Exempt      X Not Exempt
  • A ground- or building-mounted citizens band radio or two-way antenna, including any mast.
□ Exempt      X Not Exempt
  • A wireless facility that is integrated into an existing or proposed church steeple, flagpole, light standard, power line support device, water tower, or similar structure.
□ Exempt      X Not Exempt
Findings of Fact(s):            The proposed facility is not any of the exempt activities               
                        And/or structures.                                                              
                        (Kiley/Hanley)          5-0                                                     
Conclusion of Law:      The application is / is not exempt due to the above referenced activities and/or structures, in particular                                                                      
VOTE:  Conclusion of Law           -    (Kiley/Hanley)          5-0                                     

6B.17.3  Space requirements. The maximum height of any tower shall not exceed 125 feet, including antenna arrays and other attachments, subject to the approval of the Planning Board with possible conditions and restrictions to meet the purpose of this chapter.
□  N/A        □ Acceptable          □ Not Acceptable
Findings of Fact(s):            The proposed structure will not exceed 125’.                          
                                (Hanley/Kiley)          5-0                                             
                                                                                                        
Conclusion of Law:      The height of the tower will / will not exceed 125 feet, including antenna arrays and other attachments, and is subject to the following conditions and restrictions in order to meet the purpose of 6B.17.3:                                                                           
VOTE:  Conclusion of Law           -            (Hanley/Kiley)          5-0                             
6B.17.4  
Mass of antennas per user. The mass of antennas, including required antenna support structures, on a tower shall not exceed 1,900 cubic feet per array. The Planning Board may allow an increase in the mass if it determines an increase is necessary for the provision of services. The mass shall be determined by the appropriate volumetric calculations using the smallest regular rectilinear, cuboidal, conical, cylindrical or pyramidal geometric shapes encompassing the entire perimeters of the array and all of its parts and attachments.
□  N/A        □ Acceptable          □ Not Acceptable
Findings of Fact(s):            See Application                                                 
                                                (Kiley/Hanley)          5-0                             
                                                                                                        
Conclusion of Law:      The mass of antennas, including required antenna support structures, on the tower will /will not exceed 1,900 cubic feet per array. The Planning Board has /has not allowed an increase in the allowable mass as determined by the appropriate volumetric calculations using the smallest regular rectilinear, cuboidal, conical, cylindrical or pyramidal geometric shapes encompassing the entire perimeters of the array and all of its parts and attachments.                       
                                        Standard Met                                                    
VOTE:  Conclusion of Law           -    (Kiley/Hanley)          5-0                                     
6B.17.5  Lot area requirement. A wireless communications tower may be placed on a legally nonconforming lot that does not meet the dimensional requirements of the districts it is in after a finding by the Planning Board that such a tower siting will not jeopardize the health, safety and welfare of surrounding lot owners, and all setback requirements are met. This requirement does not apply to towers and antennas that are exempted in Section 8 – Structure Definition.
X  N/A  □ Acceptable          □ Not Acceptable

6B.17.6  Setbacks.
  • The center of the base of any wireless communications tower must be set back a minimum of 105% of the tower height or the required minimum setback of the district in which it is located, whichever is greater.
□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable
  • No part of the structure, including anchors, overhead lines, masts, etc., shall be located in the required district setback or in any required buffer area both on the ground or in the air space above the ground.
□  N/A        X  Acceptable           □ Not Acceptable
  • Accessory support buildings containing electronic equipment and any other structures accessory to the wireless communications tower shall meet the required district building setback.
□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable
  • If more than one wireless communications tower is proposed on a single lot or parcel, they shall be clustered as closely together as technically possible.
□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable
  • If other non-accessory uses are located on the same lot or parcel as a tower, all structures associated with such other uses shall be located a minimum distance of 105% of the tower height from the center of the base of the tower.
□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable
  • Setback requirement cannot be waived by abutting property owner as otherwise allowed in Section 3.5 footnote (d).
□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable
Findings of Fact(s):            See Application.                                                        
                                                                                                        
                                                                                                        
                                                                                                        
                                                                                                        
                                                                                                        
                                                                                                        
                                                                                                        

Conclusion of Law:      All requirements for setbacks have been met.                                    
                                                                                                        
                                                                                                        
VOTE:  Conclusion of Law        (Kiley/Ashmore) 3-0                                             


6B.17.7  Co-location requirements.

  • Existing towers. Applicants for Conditional Use Approval for a new communications tower must send written notice by certified first-class United States Mail to all other owners of communications towers in the Town and all licensed communications providers utilizing existing towers, regardless of tower location, to service the town, stating their siting needs and/or co-location capabilities in an effort to meet the town co-location requirement.  Evidence that this notice requirement has been fulfilled shall be submitted to the Planning Board and shall include a name and address list, copy of the notice which was sent, and a statement, under oath, that the notices were sent as required.  An application for a new wireless communications tower must include evidence that existing or previously approved towers cannot accommodate the communications equipment (antennas, cables, etc.) planned for the proposed tower. Such evidence would be:
1.      Planned, necessary equipment would exceed the structural capacity of existing and approved towers, considering the existing and planned use of those towers, and existing and approved towers cannot be reinforced to accommodate planned or equivalent equipment.
2.      Planned equipment will cause electromagnetic frequency interference with other existing or planned equipment for that tower and the interference cannot be prevented or mitigated.
3.      Existing or approved towers do not have space on which planned equipment can be placed so it can function effectively.
4.      Other documented reasons that make it technically or financially unfeasible to place the equipment planned by the applicant on existing and approved towers.
X Acceptable    □ Not Acceptable
  • Construction of new towers. A proposal to construct a new wireless communications tower must include evidence that the tower can structurally support a minimum of three antenna arrays for co-location purposes.
□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable
Findings of Fact(s):            See Application.                                                        
                                                                                                        
                                                                                                        
                                                                                                        
                                                                                                        
                                                                                                        
                                                                                                        
                                                                                                        
                                                                                                        
                                                                                                        
Conclusion of Law:      All requirements for co-location have been met.                         
                                                                                                        
                                                                                                        
VOTE:  Conclusion of Law        (Kiley/Ashmore) 3-0                                             

6B.17.8  Submissions.  In addition to all of the relevant Conditional Use Approval Application submission requirements, the following submissions, in a form acceptable to the Planning Board shall be required, unless waived by the Planning Board:

(a)~    A report from a professional engineer registered in the State of Maine that describes the communications tower, the technical reasons for the tower design and the capacity of the tower, including the number(s), type(s) and volume of antenna(s) that it can accommodate and the basis for the calculation of capacity.

□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable

(b)~    For pole-mounted facilities, certification by a professional engineer registered in the State of        Maine   that the design is adequate to support, without failure, the maximum forces expected from wind,         earthquakes, ice/snow loading when the pole is fully loaded with antennas, transmitters, other  equipment, and camouflaging, as described in the submitted plan.

□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable

(c)~    Elevation drawings, cross-sectional area or silhouette, of the facility, drawn to scale and showing     all measurements, both linear and volumetric, showing front, sides and rear of the      proposed facility,      including all fencing, supporting system for transmission cables        running         between the tower and   accessory structures, control panels, antennas, and existing structures and trees. Reference any        design characteristics that have the effect of reducing or eliminating visual obtrusiveness.

□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable

(d)~    Detail of the tower base or method of attachment to a structure. If the facility will be        attached to an existing building or structure, measurements and elevations of the structure     shall be        provided.
□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable

(e)~    Details of all accessory structures, including buildings, parking areas, utilities, gates, access roads,        etc.
□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable

(f)~    A narrative and demonstration detailing:

  • The extent to which the proposed facility would be visible from scenic resources as determined by the Planning Board and from Acadia National Park.
  • The tree line elevation of vegetation within 300 feet of the proposed tower.
  • The distance to the proposed facility from the designated scenic resources.
□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable

(g)~    A visual impact assessment, which shall include a photo montage, field mockup, or other techniques, shall be prepared by or on behalf of the applicant who identifies the potential visual impacts at design capacity, of the proposed facility. Consideration shall be given to views from public areas, as well as from private residences and from Acadia National Park, archaeological and historic resources, including historic districts, areas and structures, specifically those listed in the National register of Historic Places, or eligible for inclusion. The analysis of the impact on historical and archaeological resources shall meet the requirements of the Maine State Historic Preservation Officer in his/her review capacity for the FCC. The overall analysis shall assess the cumulative impacts of the proposed facility and other existing and foreseeable communications facilities in the area and shall identify and include all feasible mitigation measures consistent with the technological       requirements of the proposed communications service.
□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable

(h)~    Site photos showing vegetation, existing and adjacent structures and views of and from the      proposed site. Topography of and land uses on the proposed parcel and on abutting       properties.
□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable
(i)~    Landscaping plan showing location of proposed screening and fencing, planting areas,    proposed plantings, existing plant materials to be retained and trees or shrubs to be   removed.
□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable

(j)~    Identification of any other communications facilities existing or proposed on the site.
□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable

(k)~    A written description of how the proposed facility fits into the applicant's communications     network, including a demonstration of a coverage and/or capacity problem, demonstration         that all        alternatives and existing structures have been identified and fairly rejected, that the         proposed height is the minimum height necessary to achieve the targeted coverage area and a     description of how other tower heights would change the coverage area.
        It should also describe reasonable anticipated expansion of the proposed facilities on the proposed     site and related facilities     in the region and reasonable anticipated changes of technology and their        effect on expansions of the     proposed facility. This submission requirement does not require         disclosure of confidential business     information.

□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable

(l)~    A letter of intent that commits the tower owner and successors in interest to:

1)      Respond in a timely, comprehensive manner to a request for information from a potential co-location applicant.
        2)      Negotiate in good faith for shared use by other parties.
□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable

(m)~    Evidence that co-location on existing or an approved tower is not possible per co-location section      above or in adjacent towns. If the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or      approved tower site, the applicant must assess whether such tower site could be changed to      accommodate the proposed tower and generally describe the means and projected cost of shared use        of the existing or approved tower site.
□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable

(n)~    Proof of financial capacity to build, maintain, and remove the proposed tower.
□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable

Findings of Fact(s):
        6B.17.8 a-e – evidence submitted by Applicant is acceptable                                   
                (Hanley/Ashmore)        5-0                                                             
        6B.17.8 f-h – evidence submitted by Applicant (Klumb/Environmental Report) is acceptable      
                (Hanley/Ashmore)        5-0                                                             
        6B.17.8 i-n – evidence submitted by Application is acceptable                                 
                (Hanley/Ashmore)        5-0                                                             

Conclusion of Law:      All required submissions have / have not been submitted in a form                acceptable to the planning board, or have been waived.                                         
VOTE:  Conclusion of Law:                                                                               
6b.17.8 a-e –based on evidence submitted, standards met; subject however, to the submission_____
To the CEO a geotechnical report and tower and foundation plans stamped by an engineer          
Prior to the permit being issued.  Which plans will show that the soils are suitable.                   
(Hanley/Ashmore)        5-0                                                                             
6B.17.8 f-h – Based on evidence submitted, standard met, subject to SHPO review and approval  
(Hanley/Ashmore)        5-0                                                                             
6B.17.8 i-n – Based on evidence submitted, standard met                                               
(Hanley/Ashmore)        5-0                                                                             

6B.17.9  Design Standards. The following design standards shall be met by the applicant. The Planning Board, as part of the Conditional Use Approval review process, shall determine if the applicant has complied with these standards. All communications facilities shall be designed to blend into the surrounding environment to the greatest extent feasible. To this end, all of the following measures shall be implemented:

(a)~    Towers shall be constructed of metal or other nonflammable material unless specifically waived by       the Planning Board due to technical or engineering reasons.

□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable

(b)~    Accessory facilities shall be adjacent to the tower base unless an alternative location will be         less    visually obtrusive or topographic considerations require an alternative location.

□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable

(c)~    Accessory facilities shall be constructed out of no reflective exterior materials with earth toned colors       or shall be placed underground, if possible.

□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable

(d)~    New accessory facilities shall be no taller than one story in height and shall be treated to look like a        building or facility typically found in the area.

□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable

(e)~    All buildings, poles, towers, antenna supports, antennas and other components of each communications facility site shall be initially painted and thereafter repainted as necessary     with matte finish paint. The color(s) selected shall be one that the Planning Board determines will minimize their visibility to the greatest extent feasible. To this end, improvements that will be primarily viewed against soils or trees shall be painted colors matching these landscapes, while elements         which rise above the horizon shall be painted a blue gray that matches the typical sky color at that location unless the Planning Board determines that an alternative proposal will minimize visibility.  All feasible components will be painted brown matte and other matte colors to minimize visibility.
□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable

(f)~    The Planning Board may require special design of the facilities where findings of particular    sensitivity are made (e.g., proximity to historic or aesthetically significant structures, views and/or         community features).    See findings of fact below
□  N/A        □ Acceptable          □ Not Acceptable

(g)~    Sufficient anticlimbing measures and other security measures preventing access to the site shall be     incorporated into the facility, as needed, to reduce the potential for trespass and injury.
□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable

(h)~    Only security lighting is permitted. All outdoor lighting shall meet Section 6A.6 standards of  the Land Use Zoning Ordinance unless required by the Federal Communications     Commission, Federal Aviation Administration, or other federal agency.

□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable

(i)~    Advertising and commercial signs shall not be permitted on a communications facility.

□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable

(j)~    Guy wires shall not be permitted as part of a communications facility.

□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable

Findings of Fact(s):    (f) Applicant will use a unique asymmetrical “Eastern White Pine”           
        Monopine design.                                                                                
           ((a) - (d) and (g) – (j)) See application for details                                             
        (e) See above                                                                                   
VOTE:  Findings of Facts           -  (Kiley/Ashmore)   4-0                                             

Conclusion of Law:  All communications facilities will/will not be designed to blend into the surrounding environment to the greatest extent feasible.
        Given the aforesaid Findings of Fact, standard met                                              
VOTE:  Conclusion of Law           -    (Kiley/Ashmore) 4-0                                     
6B.17.10  Location. All communications facilities shall be located so as to minimize their visibility and to minimize the total number of towers in the Town. The following measures shall guide the location:

(a)~    Communications facilities shall not be sited in areas of high visibility, as determined by the Planning Board, to meet the purpose of this subsection unless the facility is designed to minimize its profile by blending with the surrounding existing natural and man-made    environment in such a manner as to be effectively unnoticeable. Monopine design – see submittal of August 19
□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable
The height of a communications tower that is located within the view shed of a scenic vista, scenic landscape or scenic road, as determined by the Planning Board, may be, at the discretion of         the Planning Board, subject to  height limitation.~ Such limitation may restrict the height of the tower such that it does not exceed the height of vegetation within 300 feet of the proposed location.Tower dropped 5 feet.
□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable
(b)~    No facility shall be located so as to create a significant impact to the health or survival of rare, threatened or endangered plant or animal species.  See USFWS database research completed 12/12/2013, Maine Dept. Inland Fisheries and Wildlife letter dated 12/9/2013, Maine Dept. of Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry letter dated 12/10/2013.
□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable
(c)~    No facility shall be located within areas two hundred fifty (250) feet of the normal high-water line    of any great pond or salt water body, or areas within two hundred fifty (250) feet of the upland edge   of a coastal or freshwater wetland, or areas within seventy-five (75) feet of the high-water line of a  stream.  
□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable
Findings of Fact(s):            See above.                                                              
VOTE:  Findings of Facts           -    (Ashmore/Andrews) 3-0-1 (Kiley in abstention)           
Conclusion of Law:      The proposed communications facility will / will not be located so as to minimize its visibility and to minimize the total number of towers in the Town.                        
VOTE:  Conclusion of Law           -    (Ashmore/Andrews)       3-0-1 (Kiley in abstention)             
6B.17.11  Standards. In addition to the criteria and standards, listed in Section 6 of the Land Use Zoning Ordinance these additional criteria and standards shall be utilized by the Planning Board in reviewing applications for Conditional Use Approval for proposed communications facilities:
(a)~    Mitigation measures have been utilized to screen antennas and towers from view from public      rights-of-way or scenic vistas, either by landscaping, fencing or other architectural screening.
□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable
(b)~    Antennas shall be as small as technically possible in order to minimize visual impact.
□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable
(c)~    Creative design measures have been employed to camouflage facilities by integrating them with   existing buildings and among other uses.
□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable
(d)~    Other technically feasible sites have been investigated, and if available, the proposed facility        has     been located in order to minimize the effect on visually        sensitive areas.
□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable
(e)~    Co-location, where technically feasible and visually desirable, on an existing tower, has been  investigated, and if technically and financially feasible, the proposed facility is co-located.
□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable
(f)~    Use of an existing community facility site, such as utility poles, has been investigated as a   potential site for a tower, antennas and other equipment and, if available and technically feasible     and visually desirable, is proposed as the site for the facility.
□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable
(g)~    Adequate bonding for removal of the communications, facility, in a form, and amount     acceptable to the Town Manager has been submitted.
□  N/A        X Acceptable            □ Not Acceptable
Findings of Fact(s):                                                                                    
        See Section 11 of Applicant’s submission of July 23, 2014 (pages 12 – 14)                   
VOTE:  Findings of Facts           -   (Kiley/Ashmore)  4-0                                             

Conclusion of Law:      The proposed communication facility   does / does not meet the listed    criteria and standards.  In particular:                                                                        
        Given the aforesaid Finding of Fact, standard met.                                              
VOTE:  Conclusion of Law           -    (Kiley/Ashmore) 4-0                                     

6C      SHORELAND ZONING STANDARDS FOR REVIEW BY PLANNING BOARD

Land Use Standards. All land use activities within the shoreland zone shall conform with the following provisions, if
applicable.

        X N/A:  Findings of Fact: The proposed lot is entirely outside the Shoreland Zone.
   VOTE:  Findings of Facts       -  (Kiley/Ashmore)   4-0                     
Conclusion of Law: Section 6C is not applicable, given the aforesaid findings of fact
   VOTE:  Conclusion of Law       -   (Kiley/Ashmore)  _4-0____________        
FOR BOARD USE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/approval
APPLICATION:            007-2014________                        
PERMIT CONDITIONS:  In addition to having all applicable federal, state, and town permits be in place prior to any construction, the following conditions apply:

        Per the letter dated August 27, 214 from Sheridan Steele to Chairman Brawley,           
        The applicant shall:                                                                                    •Utilize market-leading techniques to design and camouflage the tower as a “monopine” that        
        Will blend into the surrounding environment to the greatest extent feasible and is              
        Based off an Eastern White Pine, which is characterized by asymmetrical branching.              
        •Reduce the height of the monopole structure to 120 feet A.G.L. and antennas to 119 feet      
        A.G.L. as depicted in the applicant’s construction drawings by Dewberry Engineers, Inc.               dated August 18, 2014, to allow for the addition of camouflaging materials up to                        125 feet A.G.L.;                                        ____________                             •Paint the entire tower and antennas, as feasible, a dark earth tone (e.g., green or brown)           with a matte finish; and                                                                                •Arrange for the National Park Service to participate meaningfully in the design process              by having the opportunity to comment on the monopine design at specified points                  in the process (e.g., allow and take into consideration NPS comments on 50%, 75%, and           90% construction drawings).                                                                     
(KileyAshmore)  4-0                                                                             
                                                                                                        
                                                                                                        
                                                                                                        
                                                                                                        
                                                                                                        
                                                                                                        
                                                                                                        
                                                                                                        
                                                                                                        
                                                                                                        
                                                                                                        
                                                                                                        
APPLICATION
APPROVED:       __8/27/2014_                    DENIED:                 
(Date)                                          (Date)

NOTE:    The holder of a Conditional Use Permit/Approval must construct and operate the approved conditional use as applied for and as represented during the permitting process to the Planning Board.

NOTE:    The Land Use Zoning Ordinance requires that a Conditional Use Permit/Approval must be undertaken within one year from the date of approval, or a new permit must be obtained.

MINUTES OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING CONSTITUTE A PART OF THE RECORD FOR THIS MATTER


SIGNATURES OF ALL VOTING BOARD MEMBERS:

        Ellen T. Brawley                                                Lili Andrews                    
        David Ashmore                                           Dennis Kiley                    
        Meredith Randolph                                        ORIGINAL SIGNATURES ON FILE.