Town of Mount Desert Planning Board
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
Meeting Room, Town Hall
6:00 pm, February 11, 2013
Public Present
Earl Brechlin, Darrell Wilson, Meredith Randolph, Michael Deletetsky, Blaine Hopkins, Thomas Fernald, Carroll Fernald, Sheila S. Swanson, Bill Swanson, Barbara Craighead, John Rooney, Bob Gashlin, Wells Bacon, Ted Bromage
Board Members Present
Chairman Ellen Brawley, Joseph Tracy, Sandy Andrews, and James W.J. Collier, Counsel to the Board.
Also present were CEO Kimberly Keene and Recording Secretary Heidi Smallidge.
The meeting was called to order at 6:07 p.m. by Chairman Ellen Brawley. The members present were noted. It was agreed that Sandy Andrews would act as secretary pro temp in the absence of secretary Lili Andrews.
January 14, 2013: Minutes were not presented for approval and it was deemed there was not a quorum for approving them. Approval of Minutes was tabled.
III. Subdivision(s):
- OWNER(S): Michael L. & Jan Q. Russell, Trustees
LOCATION: Sinclair Road/4 Sinclair Road, Northeast Harbor
TAX MAP: 027 LOT: 021 & 021-005
ZONE(S): Village Residential One District (VR1)
PURPOSE: Compliance with Section 5.13.2 of the Subdivision Ordinance of Town of Mount Desert. A Proposed Revision to the previously approved Subdivision (SD#001-2005)
Meredith Randolph was present on behalf of the owners.
CEO Keene explained that the issue was coming before the Planning Board because in the Subdivision Ordinance Section 5.13.2 a subdivision being revised needs to be heard before the Planning Board for decision regarding whether a public hearing is necessary. It was noted there are currently three lots. Lot Three has a duplex, Lot Two shows as vacant on the plan, but the Russells have since built a house on it. Lot One is vacant. What the Russells would like to do is merge Lots One and Two. Chairman Brawley asked for comments from the Board. There were none. Mr. Andrews felt this change impacted only the landowners. Mr. Andrews moved to approve the merger and not require a public hearing. Mr. Tracy seconded the motion.
Mr. Collier asked whether there was an increase to the area of the lots in question. There was not. Mr. Collier requested the section of the Subdivision Ordinance be read. CEO Keene read sections 5.13.1 and 5.13.2:
“No changes, erasures, modifications, or revisions shall be made in
any Final Plat Plan after approval has been given by the Board and
its written endorsement has been recorded on the Plan, unless the
Plan is first resubmitted and the Board approves any modifications.
In the event that the Final Plat Plan is recorded without complying
with this requirement, the same shall be considered null and void,
and the Board shall institute proceedings to have the Plat Plan
stricken from the records of the Town and the Registry of Deeds.”
“Applicants for revisions shall submit at least eight (8) copies of any
proposed revision. If the revision involves the creation of additional
lots or units, or extends the boundaries of the subdivision, a public
hearing shall be required. Otherwise the Board shall determine if a
public hearing is required.”
Motion approved 3-0.
Plans were signed and given to Ms. Randolph.
VI. Conditional Use Approval(s):
- Conditional Use Approval Application #001-2013
PROPERTY OWNER(S): Global Tower Assets, LLC
AGENT(S): ATC Realty
PROPERTY LOCATION: Someshenge Way, formally a portion of 1049 Main Street, Somesville
TAX MAP: 010 Lot: 147-002 ZONE(S): Village Commercial District (VC)
PURPOSE: Section 6B.17 Wireless Communication Facility – Cell Tower
SITE INSPECTION: 4:00 PM
It was confirmed that there had been adequate public notice. The abutters had been notified, and there was no conflict of interest reported from the Board members. A quorum was confirmed.
It was determined that the Board had jurisdiction over the matter.
Chairman Brawley stated that the first task was to determine whether the application was complete. Mr. Andrews stated he did not feel the application was complete. In section 6B.17.8.f.1 of the LUZO, Mr. Andrews read “The extent to which the proposed facility would be visible from scenic resources as determined by the Planning Board and from Acadia National Park.” As far as Mr. Andrews was aware, the Planning Board has never been consulted regarding the scenic resources that would be considered a priority. He added that Section 6B.17.8.g mentions that visual impact assessments are supposed to take into consideration views from public areas and private residences. Mr. Andrews felt there was very little assessment from private residences. There seemed to be nothing
from the immediate neighbors or from Squantum Point. Mr. Andrews also felt the coverage area maps were lacking in that they do not include the signal of the proposed tower in the Pretty Marsh area. Although the tower does not currently exist, it has been permitted and will presumably be built. The impact of a tower at lesser heights has not been included either.
Chairman Brawley wondered about the total mass of the fully built out arrays; the actual mass is included, but the volumetric measurement, per LUZO section 6B.17.4, is not included. Chairman Brawley read the section:
“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.”
Blaine Hopkins, representing ATC Realty, explained the measurements of the arrays. He noted that even with four built-out arrays the volumetric measurement would be less than the 1900 cubic feet mentioned in the LUZO and that fact was mentioned in the application. Chairman Brawley felt the actual volumetric calculations would be good information to include in the application submission. Mr. Hopkins noted that the precise volumetric measurement is difficult to pin down because each company adding an array may require a different amount of space.
Mr. Andrews stated that a map showing areas from where the tower is theoretically visible would be helpful to the Board.
Mr. Hopkins mentioned that notice had been sent in accordance with the NEPA requirements. He noted a letter was included. He added that if his group went to a residence and found that the tower was not visible, they did not include photos in the visual impact assessment. Often times people prefer pictures not be taken from their property, making assessment difficult.
Sheila Swanson, a resident living near the proposed site noted that she had not known when the balloon test was being performed, although she would have liked to have been present. Wells Bacon, a resident living in the area noted he had not been informed of the balloon test and no one came to take photos from his property. He would have liked to have known when the test occurred so he could assess the situation for himself. Mr. Bacon felt there needed to be adequate public notice for the test.
Ted Bromage, a Somesville resident, noted that the visual impact assessment done for the Pretty Marsh area had been well publicized. Chairman Brawley noted the Pretty Marsh tower proposal had used a different contractor and there were no procedural requirements for public notice as of yet. John Rooney, a Somesville resident, remembered reading about this balloon test and knew when the test was being done. Mr. Hopkins mentioned it may have been part of the NEPA requirements. Mr. Hopkins noted that weather and wind also play a part in the balloon test. It is not a test that can be scheduled with absolute certainty.
Mr. Hopkins mentioned Mr. Andrews suggestion of the tower built to lesser heights. He noted the tower could probably be reduced by five feet, however the fourth potential additional carrier would be most likely eliminated. It was his opinion that the tower should be built to accommodate the maximum carriers, given the lot appears to be the only commercial lot in Somesville. Mr. Andrews felt the coverage data for varying heights was desired regardless in order for the Board to have as much information as they can. The tradeoff of the differing heights should be considered by the Board.
Mr. Bromage noted that if the height is reduced, potentially it could mean the necessity of an additional tower built somewhere to accommodate the subsequent reduction in coverage.
Ms. Swanson felt the tower would be sacrificing the aesthetic of the village and the historic feel of the area.
Mr. Collier stated that the purpose of the meeting is to determine whether the application is complete or not complete. Any comments not addressing that issue from the public are out of order. He inquired of the Board whether they would review the list of submissions. He noted he had several items he felt were missing as well. Mr. Collier suggested the best way would be to go through the list to note whether there’s been something submitted for each line item.
Mr. Collier referred to Section 6.A.2, Erosion and Sedimentation Control (page 1 of the applicant’s submission materials), with regard to a stormwater management plan. One plan had been submitted for the subdivision. Mr. Collier wondered if one had been submitted for the tower. Mr. Hopkins noted the plan for the subdivision incorporated the tower lot. The plan has not changed. Mr. Collier noted it should be included in this application as well since the two applications are completely separate. Mr. Hopkins affirmed the plan was included.
Mr. Collier referred to Section 6A.5, Land Suitability (page 2 of the applicant’s submission materials). At the end of the first paragraph of the application it states “the tower’s foundation will be designed based upon the results of geotechnical soil review”. Mr. Collier suggested the Board review and decide if the review should be done now or later. Mr. Andrews agreed that there were a number of items that may need to be only conditionally approved until a later time. The question also applied to Section 6.B.17.8. a, b, c, and d. Mr. Collier inquired how these issues had been addressed with regard to the Pretty Marsh proposal. Mr. Andrews noted much of this information, along with tower plans, had been submitted for the Pretty Marsh site. He added
that the Board may not necessarily be averse to approving the tower conditionally upon their seeking approval of the various items at a later time.
Mr. Hopkins stated that if he submitted plans for a specific tower and then the tower changes in some way, all the submitted materials would need to be revised. He proposed presenting to the Board an accurate set of foundation plans and tower plans based on the results of this meeting. Mr. Hopkins needs to bore into the site before he can determine what type of building materials he can use. In order to make this determination he will need to cut trees in the area and bore holes. He noted that he had promised Bangor Hydro he would avoid, to the greatest extent possible, any blasting.
Mr. Andrews felt it was reasonable to approve the plans after the fact. Mr. Collier clarified that Section 6.A.5, Land Suitability, says “If this conditional use is approved, the applicants will contract to have a geo-technical soil boring and will provide the Town with a copy of that report prior to applying for a building permit.” Mr. Collier stated that procedurally, if the Board proceeds with conditional approval of the plans with respect to Sections 6.B.17.8.a, b, c, and d, the final approval for the technical matters in those sections, as well as the land suitability, should lie with the Planning Board and not the CEO. That way concerned residents will have a final chance to review the situation and make comments.
Mr. Collier noted another question regarding submissions. He noticed a pre-cast concrete building was mentioned. He asked if a submission of what the building would look like would be included. Mr. Hopkins noted that the building could look a variety of ways, but a basic description was included. Mr. Collier asked that a picture of the building be included in the submission.
Review of the submissions continued. Chairman Brawley confirmed Exhibit A was not included. With regard to Exhibit B, Mr. Collier noted that Exhibit A was one of the items that could be approved later; he wondered if Exhibit B couldn’t be submitted now. Chairman Brawley noted Exhibit B can’t be determined until the soil testing had been done. It was agreed that A, B, C, and D would all be submitted to the Planning Board at a later time.
Mr. Andrews noted that with regard to Exhibit F the Planning Board has not made a determination about scenic resources, therefore the submission can’t be included. Mr. Hopkins noted the Historic Preservation office and Acadia National Park have approved the plan. Mr. Andrews noted that no pictures had been taken from Squantum Point, the eastern side of Somesville Harbor and all residences. It was noted that Exhibit F refers only to scenic resources as determined by the Planning Board and from Acadia National Park. The ordinance requires the Planning Board to list what scenic resources are priorities. Mr. Andrews asked whether the Board should make that determination at this meeting. It was noted there was no list of scenic resources in the ordinance of the Town Charter. Mr. Andrews
noted a project to create such a list was currently underway.
Babson Creek, the white bridge on Route 102 and the selectman’s meeting house, and the Mount Desert Campground, were noted as scenic resources of significance. Mr. Andrews felt that except for views from the water, most of the other places noted would fall under “private residences”. Mr. Hopkins stated there was no way to build a tower 125 feet high and not impact scenic resources. Mr. Andrews felt the question was whether the impact offsets the good.
Mr. Collier asked whether it was visible from the area in Somesville with the selectman’s building, library, and white bridge. Mr. Andrews noted the plan mentions the area in question and it was deemed the balloon was not visible.
Mr. Hopkins noted the visibility testing had to pass Acadia National Park’s approval. This meant going through a review by the cultural resource manager, a review by the State Historic Preservation Office who in turn approved the area of potential impact, a 4-mile radius around the tower.
Mr. Andrews felt what was really needed was a map that showed in one color the places from which the tower is theoretically visible. Mr. Andrews mentioned the Park had a map showing the tower’s impact. Mr. Collier noted that it was his opinion that the pictures provided underrepresented the impact the tower would have. Mr. Hopkins worried that the time involved would be lengthy and it may be difficult to get permission to be on the property of some residents. Mr. Andrews felt a coordinated effort with the Town would be necessary.
Mr. Hopkins noted that the assessment could be expected to take into consideration every residence in town. Mr. Andrews reiterated that cooperation with the Town could help pinpoint the areas needed for assessment. Mr. Collier suggested that a letter to abutters as well as a public notice in the papers should be enough to fulfill any due diligence obligations. Mr. Andrews mentioned including close residents that aren’t abutters. He felt this was the reason to start with a map and assess what might be impacted as a tool for sending to specific areas in town. Chairman Brawley noted that announcing a specific day would be difficult as the balloon test can only be done weather permitting. Mr. Andrews voiced concern regarding those people who will be visually impacted by the tower, but
are not abutters.
Barbara Craighead, an owner at the Mount Desert Campground, stated she would be happy to have them take pictures from her property.
Mr. Deletetsky, the engineer for ATC Realty, asked who would be responsible for taking all the pictures, especially if a large number of residences request them. Mr. Collier noted the pictures should be representative of an area, but that does not necessarily mean pictures must be taken from each and every residence that asks.
CEO Keene noted that although the balloon is quite visible from Mrs. Reiber’s house, she is not an abutter. Ms. Keene felt letters may need to be sent to people living beyond the abutter’s area. Mr. Collier noted that Mr. Hopkins needs to make a good faith effort to contact those living within the potential impact zone of the tower.
Mr. Andrews noted there were no pictures from on Somesville Harbor or Babson Creek.
It was agreed that Mr. Hopkins would publish notice in the Mount Desert Islander newspaper, and CEO Keene would provide Mr. Hopkins with a list of abutters. CEO Keene reminded the Board that an abutter list will not include residences like Mrs. Reiber’s house. Mr. Andrews mentioned the Fraley’s dock as another place for pictures to be taken.
Bill Swanson, a resident living close to the site noted that the tower will be visible from the carriage trails in Acadia National Park. Chairman Brawley agreed it would be visible, but small; and the Park had signed off on the visual assessment done from their land. Mr. Collier inquired whether residents on the Oak Hill Road could see the tower. It was felt the area was too wooded to be visible.
Mr. Hopkins confirmed that notice would be put in the Mount Desert Islander newspaper, and photos would be taken from Babson Creek, the Mount Desert Campground, Fraley’s Dock, and the fish ladder next to the library in Somesville. A picture from Fraley’s dock should be an acceptable representation of the view from the harbor. In addition a letter should be sent to abutters and residents within a certain radius, and Maine Coast Heritage Trust should be contacted. CEO Keene would provide the addresses to Mr. Hopkins.
Chairman Brawley felt the letter to residents within a radius was not reasonable. It was agreed the letter would go out to abutters only and pictures would be taken from their property and anyone contacting Mr. Hopkins as a result of the newspaper notice. Mr. Collier reiterated that the Board only requires a good faith effort.
Submission H was confirmed present.
Mr. Andrews asked if the Landscaping plan was included. It was confirmed to be in the subplans. Mr. Hopkins noted the present vegetation would be maintained to the maximum extent possible, and no new vegetation would be introduced.
The identification of other communications facilities, either existing or proposed was confirmed present.
A written discussion of how the proposed facility fits into the communications network was confirmed present. Mr. Andrews noted that with the proposed Pretty Marsh tower, the site is located, but not the coverage impact of the tower, which should be included. Mr. Andrews added that he would like to see maps showing coverage impact at various tower heights. Mr. Hopkins asked what lower heights the maps should be drawn at. Mr. Hopkins noted the lowest AT&T could have a tower at was 120 feet; a height that provides marginal coverage. Mr. Andrews suggested maps at 125 feet in height, 120 feet in height, and 115 feet in height with an explanation as to how the coverage changes at the different levels.
Mr. Bromage suggested a report of how many residences and businesses could potentially benefit from the tower at the varying heights. Mr. Collier noted the information was already part of the plan submissions.
Mr. Collier asked about the statement in the submissions that there were no usable towers within a ten-mile radius. Mr. Hopkins noted there were no towers currently used by AT&T, and presently none whatsoever in the Town of Mount Desert.
Mr. Andrews suggested that when the balloon test was next made that Planning Board members are given notice so they can observe the test from various places around Town as well.
The review of the list of submissions was finished. A review of the materials required for submittal was made. It was confirmed that for the present time the foundation design was not necessary.
CEO Keene inquired whether the Board had reviewed Section 6.A. Mr. Andrews and Chairman Brawley felt it was included in the application.
With regard to the mapping, Mr. Collier suggested Mr. Hopkins talk with Gordon Longsworth of College of the Atlantic (COA). Mr. Collier noted that COA had done extensive mapping on Mount Desert Island and may have information already available on the island that would be of use to Mr. Hopkins.
After much discussion with regard to the motion, Mr. Tracy moved to find the application not complete; the applicant will submit the following items:
- LUZO Section 6.B.17.8.G concerning visual impact assessment from private residences and public spaces
- Waivers having been given for submission requirements for LUZO Sections 6.B.17.8.A, B, C, and D, which will be submitted and reviewed at a later time
- Submission of a picture of the building
- Signal propagation map at 115’, 120’, and 125’ tower heights
- GIS map showing areas from which the tower will be visible within a two-mile radius, which is part of 6.B.17.8.G
volumetric calculations of the AT&T antenna array
Mr. Andrews seconded the motion. Motion approved 3-0.
Mr. tracy moved, with chairman brawley seconding, to adjourn. Motion approved 3-0.
Meeting adjourned at 8:28pm.
| 
