Town of Mount Desert Planning Board
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
Meeting Room, Town Hall
6:00 pm, November 18, 2014
Public Present
Paul MacQuinn of Harold MacQuinn Inc., Stephen Salsbury of Herrick and Salsbury, Laurie C. Shncavitz, Gearald Shencavitz, James P. Aylen, Judith E. Aylen, Jeff Gammelin of Freshwater Stone, Ed Bearor attorney for Harold MacQuinn Inc., Elizabeth S. Roberts, Jan Coates, Daniel Pileggi attorney for the Shencavitz and the Aylens
Board Members Present
Meredith Randolph, Lili Andrews, Bill Hanley, David Ashmore
Also present was CEO Kimberly Keene, Attorney to the Planning Board James Collier, and Recording Secretary Heidi Smallidge.
Acting Chairman Bill Hanley called the meeting to order at 6:03 PM. Board members present were noted.
- Quarrying License Application:
Completeness Review:
Quarrying License Permit: #001-2014
OWNER(S): Harold MacQuinn, Inc.
OPERATOR(S): Freshwater Stone & Brickwork, Inc.
AGENT(S): Steven Salsbury, Herrick & Salsbury, Inc.
LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Edmond J. Bearor, Rudman Winchell
Counselors at Law
LOCATION: Off 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 clarified that this was a continuation of the completeness review. The Public Hearing would be scheduled for a future date. He reminded the Board that at the last completeness review the application had been found incomplete pending several submittal requirements. The members of the Board were noted. No conflict of interest was found. Attorney Collier stated that contrary to some public statements, his father did not know any members of the MacQuinn family and had never been to Maine. It was noted that Chairman Hanley was voted in as acting chair at a previous Board Meeting.
Ms. Randolph inquired about when the site visit would be discussed. Attorney Collier felt it should be discussed at the public hearing rather than now. It was agreed to discuss the site visit at the public hearing.
Steve Salsbury of Herrick and Salsbury pointed out the additional submissions he had made, along with a letter listing the items. Attorney Pileggi representing the Shencavitz’ and Aylens had nothing to add at this time.
Using the October 21, 2014 Minutes as a guideline, the Planning Board reviewed the sections of the application deemed not acceptable.
Section 6.1D.6: Mr. Salsbury noted the wording “Site Plan” had been added to the plan submitted. Mr. Ashmore inquired whether this was a survey plan. Mr. Salsbury noted it was not a survey plan; he did not recall that a survey plan was specifically required. Mr. Ashmore voiced confusion that the plan submitted by the surveyor was not in fact a survey plan. Ms. Randolph noted that the plan did not seem to include all the setbacks.
After some discussion Mr. Ashmore moved, with Ms. Randolph seconding, that the site plan was adequately renamed. Motion approved 4-0.
The submission was found acceptable.
6.1D.10: Ms. Randolph reiterated that not all the setbacks were on the plan. Mr. Salsbury noted that those setbacks waived by abutters were not included on the plan.
The submission was found not acceptable. Attorney Bearor stated he would get clarification on the setbacks on the Musetti land and update the plan for the next meeting.
6.1D.16: Mr. Salsbury pointed out to the Planning Board the proposed treeline for Phase 2. It was noted the treeline may shift if the Musetti setback shifts.
The submission was found acceptable.
6.1D.18: Mr. Salsbury showed that wells numbered 3 and 8 were added to the plan.
The submission was found acceptable.
6.1D.19: Mr. Salsbury noted the fuel storage was mentioned in the notes. He stated there was no operation that could be described as “washdown”.
Discussion ensued regarding the statement that no permanent storage of fuel would be on site. Mr. Salsbury suggested adding the words “no overnight storage of fuel on site”.
Submission was found to be not acceptable. It was agreed to add a note to the plan stating there would be no overnight storage of fuel onsite and no washdown of equipment or stone.
6.1F: Mr. Salsbury noted a detail sheet was given to the Board.
The submission was found acceptable.
6.1H: Mr. Salsbury noted the water issue was addressed on revised page 69 of his submittals. It was noted the water was potable.
The submission was found acceptable.
6.1J: Mr. Salsbury provided information on vibrations. The source of the information was provided. Attorney Collier preferred more information on what the control devices looked like.
After some discussion the submission was found acceptable.
6.1K: Attorney Pileggi noted there was a letter from Salsbury and Herrick dated October 6th that was to be submitted with the application. Attorney Collier pointed out that if it were presented to the Board it had been submitted, but he hoped it would be easy to find within the submissions.
Submission was found acceptable.
6.1M: Mr. Salsbury presented estimated quarry closure dates.
Submission was found acceptable.
6.1N: Mr. Salsbury presented a revised section to address landscaping, screening and buffering. Attorney Collier wanted specifics on what the screens looked like. Ms. Randolph agreed.
Submission was found not acceptable. More information regarding the specifics of the panels and curtains and other materials to be used was requested.
Ms. Andrews reiterated the list of items missing:
- A clarifying letter from Mr. Musetti regarding the setback waiver
- Setbacks marked on the plan
- Notes to the site plan stating no washdown of equipment or stone and no overnight fuel storage on site
- Information on attenuating and reducing noise including information on temporary panels around equipment, acoustical curtains, and any other noise methods they intend to use.
Mr. Salsbury stated he did not require a written list of the missing items. Attorney Pileggi found this acceptable.
Ms. Randolph moved, with Ms. Andrews seconding, to find the application incomplete. Motion approved 4-0.
Future meetings were discussed, as well as their content and procedure.
It was noted that Ms. Andrews had missed the last meeting, however she read the minutes and plans to listen to the recording of the meeting.
Ms. Andrews moved, with Ms. RAndolph seconding, to adjourn the meeting. Motion approved 4-0.
Meeting was adjourned at 7:40PM.
| 
