Town of Mount Desert Planning Board
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
Meeting Room, Town Hall
6:00 pm, September 24, 2014
Public Present
Julia Cheston, Noel Musson, Charles Miller, John March, Kenneth Miller, Deborah Miller, Sam Coplon, Rick Mooers, Tricia Blythe, John Fehlauer, Lelah Cole, Ted Bromage
Board Members Present
David Ashmore, Chairman Ellen Brawley, Bill Hanley, Dennis Kiley
Also present were CEO Kimberly Keene and Recording Secretary Heidi Smallidge.
Chairman Brawley called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. The Members present were noted.
August 27, 2014: The voting members for these Minutes were noted. It was found that there were several checklist omissions found:
Page 2, under Section 6A2.7 – The Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law were found to be Not Applicable, however they had not been voted on. Mr. Ashmore moved, with Mr. Kiley seconding, to find the findings of fact and conclusion of law to be Not Applicable. Motion approved 3-0.
In Section 6B17.5 – The Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law were found to be Not Applicable. Mr. Kiley moved, with Mr. Ashmore seconding, to find the Section Not Applicable. Motion approved 3-0.
Section 6B17.6 – The Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law was found to be applicable and acceptable, and the Conclusion of Law was that the Requirements were Met. Mr. Kiley moved, with Mr. Ashmore seconding, to approve the Section as noted. Motion approved 3-0.
Section 6B17.7 – The Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law was found to be applicable and acceptable and to see the application, and the Conclusion of Law was that the Standard was Met. Mr. Kiley moved, with Mr. Ashmore seconding to approve the Section as noted. Motion approved 3-0
Mr. Kiley moved, with Mr. Ashmore seconding, to approve the Minutes as amended. Motion approved 3-0.
Subdivision Approval Application(s)
- OWNER(S): Charlotte Alley
APPLICANT(S): Noel Musson, The Musson Group
LOCATION(S): 51 Beech Hill Cross Road, Mount Desert
TAX MAP(S): 010 LOT(S): 010 & 010-001 ZONES(S): Residential 1 (R1)
PURPOSE: Section 5.13 of the Subdivision Ordinance – Plan Revisions After Approval – Blaine W. Haynes et als Subdivision
Mr. Hanley confirmed there was adequate public notice. No conflict of interest was found.
Noel Musson of The Musson Group gave a history of the subdivision; it was created in 1978. In 2005 it was split into two parcels, but never approved. There is a 2-acre parcel, and a 2.3-acre parcel. One parcel has a house, and one has been soil tested. Mr. Musson presented the plan revisions to the Board.
A review of Section 5.13 was made and the need for a public hearing was determined. There was no public comment.
There was no checklist to review. The Board reviewed the application.
Section 4: Section 4 was found to be acceptable. The Findings of Fact were determined to be that the information required was included in the application. The Conclusion of Law was that the requirements of Section 4 were met. Mr. Hanley moved, with Mr. Ashmore seconding, to approve the Findings of Fact and the Conclusion of Law of Section 4. Motion approved 4-0.
Section 5: Section 5 was found to be acceptable. Findings of Fact were determined to be that the information required was included in Section 5. The Conclusion of Law was that the requirements of Section 5 were met. Mr. Hanley moved, with Mr. Ashmore seconding, to approve the Findings of Fact and the Conclusion of Law of Section 5. Motion approved 4-0.
Section 6: Section 6A was reviewed. The Findings of Fact were determined to be to see the application. The Conclusion of Law was that the standards of 6A had been met. Mr. Kiley moved, with Mr. Ashmore seconding, to approve the Findings of fact and conclusion of law in Section 6A. Motion approved 4-0.
Section 6B was reviewed. The Findings of Fact were determined to be to see the application. The Conclusion of Law was that the standards of 6B had been met. Mr. Hanley moved, with Mr. Kiley seconding, to approve the findings of fact and conclusion of law in Section 6B. Motion approved 4-0.
Section 6C was reviewed. It was determined to be Not Applicable. Mr. Ashmore moved, with Mr. Kiley seconding, to find the Section Not Applicable. Motion approved 4-0.
Mr. Kiley moved, with Mr. Ashmore seconding, to approve the subdivision approval application as presented. Motion approved 4-0.
- OWNER(S): David Irvin, Julia Cheston & Michael & Helen Saxenian
AGENT(S): John March
LOCATION(S): Over Mills Road & Woods Road, Mount Desert
TAX MAP(S): 012 LOT(S): 013-025, 013-029 & 013-004
ZONES(S): Rural Woodland 3 (RW3)
PURPOSE: Section 5.13 of the Subdivision Ordinance – Plan Revisions After Approval – Ober Mills II & Woods Road Subdivisions
Mr. Hanley confirmed there was adequate public notice. No conflict of interest was found. John Marsh, representing Mr. Irvin, noted there were simple applications for the lot owners to acquire small pieces to even out their lots.
There was no application checklist to review. The Board reviewed the application. There were actually two applications; one for the property in the Ober Mill Road Subdivision, and one for the property in the Woods Road Subdivision. It was agreed to review both applications concurrently, but to vote on each one individually. It was noted the land was coming from Dave Irvin’s retained land and into lots that are within two different subdivisions.
Section 5: Section 5 was reviewed. The Findings of Fact for the Woods Road Subdivision were that Section 5 was found to be not applicable as no new lots were applied for. The Conclusion of Law for the Woods Road subdivision was that it was not applicable. Mr. Kiley moved, with Mr. Ashmore seconding to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for the Woods Road Subdivision for Section 5. Motion approved 4-0.
The Findings of Fact for the Ober Mill Road Subdivision were that Section 5 was found to be not applicable as no new lots were applied for. The Conclusion of Law for the Ober Mill Road subdivision was that it was not applicable. Mr. Hanley moved, with Mr. Ashmore seconding to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for the Ober Mill Road Subdivision for Section 5. Motion approved 4-0.
Section 6: Section 6 was reviewed. The Findings of Fact for the Woods Road Subdivision were that Section 6 was not applicable as no new lots were applied for. The Conclusion of Law for the Woods Road Subdivision was that it was not applicable. Mr. Hanley moved, with Mr. Kiley seconding, to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for the Woods Road Subdivision Section 6. Motion approved 4-0.
The Findings of Fact for the Ober Mill Road Subdivision were that Section 6 was not applicable as no new lots were applied for. The Conclusion of Law for the Ober Mill Road Subdivision was that it was not applicable. Mr. Kiley moved, with Mr. Hanley seconding, to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for the Ober Mill Road Subdivision Section 6. Motion approved 4-0.
Section 4: Section 4 was reviewed. The Findings of Fact for the Woods Road Subdvision were to see the application. The Conclusion of Law was that the standards had been met. Mr. Ashmore moved, with Mr. Hanley seconding, to approve the Findings of Fact and the Conclusion of Law for the Woods Road Subdivision Section 4. Motion approved 4-0.
The Findings of Fact for the Ober Mill Road Subdvision were to see the application. The Conclusion of Law was that the standards had been met. Mr. hanley moved, with Mr. kiley seconding, to approve the Findings of Fact and the Conclusion of Law for the Ober Mill Road Subdivision Section 4. Motion approved 4-0.
Mr. Kiley moved, with Mr. Hanley seconding, to approve the revision of the Woods Road Subdivision. Motion approved 4-0.
Mr. hanley moved, with Mr. ashmore seconding, to approve the revision of the Ober Mill Road Subdivision. Motion approved 4-0.
- Conditional Use Approval Application(s):
- Conditional Use Approval Application # 020-2014
OWNER(S): John E. Anthony
AGENT(S): Deborah Miller, Ken Miller & Sam Coplon, Coplon Associates
LOCATION: 123 Peabody Drive, Northeast Harbor
TAX MAP: 003 LOT(S): 035-001
ZONE(S): Shoreland Residential 2 (SR2)
PURPOSE: Section 6B.8(2) Fences and Walls – Exceeding CEO Authority,
SITE INSPECTION: 4:30 PM
Mr. Hanley confirmed there was adequate public notice. No conflict of interest was found.
Mr. Hanley moved, with Mr. Ashmore seconding, to find the application complete. Motion approved 4-0.
Mr. Hanley attended the site visit with three agents for the applicant and an agent for the abutter, Mr. Strohacker. Metal poles had been set to show where the fence would go along the East property line extending from Peabody Drive to the shore. The fence would be delineated into three sections. The second section angles around a shed built near the property line. The posts would be encased in cedar. The panels for the fence would all be the same size. However the topography results in some of the fence sections to be above the 6 foot height allowable by the CEO. Mr. Hanley noted there had been an email in objection to the fence near the shed. There is a view easement at the end of the fence run, which the applicant is mindful of.
Deborah Miller, a caretaker for the Anthony’s, supplied some history for the area. The Anthony’s had bought the property earlier this year. They had designed a fence they felt was innocuous. The wood will be an untreated cedar that grays with time, matching the shed the neighbors have close to the property line. They had been in talks with the Strohackers and the Anthony’s had felt they had come to an agreement with the Strohackers with regard to the fence.
CEO Keene noted she issued a permit with the understanding that it was six feet in height. The topography resulted in parts being taller than 6 feet, which requires Planning Board approval. Chairman Brawley inquired whether it could be shortened to meet the 6 foot height. Mr. Hanley noted the aesthetics of the fence no longer work with the fence being truncated in sections.
It was noted that the Strohackers email requests that the fence be built further back on the Anthony’s property. Ms. Miller noted that moving the fence back is essentially ceding that property to the abutters. She added the Strohackers can still see over the fence. Than Anthony’s home, being on lower ground will have the feel of privacy. It was noted that waiving the setback and building the shed so close to the property line does carry risk of this type. Chairman Brawley suggested that the Anthony’s and the Strohackers might continue discussions on how to compromise on the situation.
After some discussion, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Hanley moved, with Mr. Ashmore seconding, to approve the application.
Mr. Hanley moved, with Mr. Kiley seconding, to use the shortform. Motion approved 4-0.
A review of the checklist and Section 5.9 were made and are attached to these Minutes.
Motion to approve the application was approved 4-0.
- Section 4.3.1 & 4.3.3 Reconstruction or Replacement of a Non-Conforming Structure
- OWNER(S) NAME: Mimi Mooers
AGENT(S): Rick Mooers
LOCATION: 9 Althea’s Way, Mount Desert
TAX MAP: 019 LOT(S): 012-003
ZONE(S): Shoreland Residential 2 (SR2)
PURPOSE: Reconstruction or Replacement of an existing Single Family Dwelling, including all Utilities
SITE INSPECTION: 3:00 PM
Mr. Hanley confirmed there was adequate public notice and abutters were notified. Mr. Ashmore stated he had a conflict of interest. Mr. Kiley moved, with Mr. Hanley seconding, to accept Mr. Ashmore’s recusal. Motion approved 3-0.
CEO Keene stated the issue was before the Planning Board due to more than 50% of the market value was gone from the building, and it was within the shoreland zone.
Chairman Brawley reported that she had attended the site visit with Mr. Ashmore and Mr. Mooers. They planned to stay away from the water but it does sit quite close to the water now. The back and side away from the water would be expanded, but the building couldn’t be moved further back due to ledge. The building was an existing non-conforming structure. The volume increased will be no more than 22.5% area increase, and 24.4% volume increase – less than the 30% increase allowed. CEO Keene noted he can replace the building at the same location with up to 30% increase in size. The Planning Board has the right to determine whether Mr. Mooers could move the building to meet the setbacks.
Mr. Mooers noted the foundation was stone.
A review of the applicable Sections were made. It was determined that Section 4.3.4 was not necessary to the application. The Checklist is attached to these Minutes.
Mr. Hanley moved, with Mr. Kiley seconding, to approve the application. Motion approved 3-0.
There was no other business to discuss.
Mr. Kiley moved, with Mr. hanley seconding, to adjourn the meeting. Motion approved 3-0. Meeting was adjourned at 8:29 pm.
| 
