Town of Mount Desert Planning Board
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
Meeting Room, Town Hall
6:00 pm, May 28, 2013
Public Present
Andrew Hamilton representing Global Tower Assets, Earl Brechlin, Thomas S. Fernald, Carroll Fernald, James Allen, W. Owen Craighead, Eliza J. Bishop, Audra Klumb, Michael Deletetsky, Blaine Hopkins, Jerry Miller, Kathleen Miller, Jennifer Clapper, Don Edwards, Ted Bromage, John Fehlauer, Susan Warholak, Ted Warholak, Charles Lyons, Marsha Lyons, Catherine Drew Burdette, Margot Woolley, Gerard Vasisko, Larry Stabile, Moorehead Kennedy, Ellen Kappes, Bob Gashline for AT&T, John Rooney, Rudi Brunetti, William C. Fernald
Board Members Present
Bill Hanley, Chairman Ellen Brawley, Dennis Kiley, Lili Andrews, Joseph Tracy, and Sandy Andrews.
Also present were CEO Kimberly Keene, Attorney for the Town of Mount Desert James Collier, and Recording Secretary Heidi Smallidge.
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:03 p.m. by Chairman Ellen Brawley. The members present were noted.
II. Approval of Minutes
February 11, 2013: It was noted that Chairman Brawley, Mr. Tracy, and Mr. Andrews were present for the meeting. A page by page review of the minutes was made. MR. ANDREWS MOVED, WITH MR. TRACY SECONDING TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION APPROVED 3-0
March 25, 2013: It was noted that Chairman Brawley, Mr. Andrews, and Ms. Andrews were present for the meeting. A page by page review of the Minutes was made. MS. ANDREWS MOVED, WITH CHAIRMAN BRAWLEY SECONDING TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION APPROVED 3-0.
May 13, 2013: It was noted that Chairman Brawley, Mr. Hanley, Mr. Kiley, and Ms. Andrews were present for the meeting. A page by page review of the Minutes and the checklist were made. MS. ANDREWS MOVED, WITH MR. KILEY SECONDING, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS REVIEWED. MOTION APPROVED 4-0.
III. Conditional Use Approval Application(s)
A. Conditional Use Approval Application # 006-2013
OWNER(S): Eugene E. & Janet C.Aubry
APPLICANT(S): Eliza Bishop
LOCATION: 1 Old Firehouse Lane, Northeast Harbor
TAX MAP: 024 LOT: 108-001 ZONE(S): Village Commercial (VC)
PURPOSE: Section 5.6 – Amendment to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit/Application (CUP #018-2003)
SITE INSPECTION: 4:30 PM
Chairman Brawley determined the Board had jurisdiction to hear the application because it was an amendment to an application previously approved by the Board. It was noted there had been adequate public notice. No conflict of interest was determined. MR. HANLEY MOVED TO FIND THE APPLICATION COMPLETE.
Mr. Andrews made note of the unique situation involving the application. There were three applications and he was unsure which CUA was being amended. He pointed out the most recent application approved included outdoor seating. That particular application went through the courts. Chairman Brawley thought the prior CUA was dated 2003. Mr. Andrews stated there was an application in between the two; three CUAs in total. The middle application approved a bar, which is now leased to the present applicant to be used as retail. He opined that CEO Keene had gone back to the original 2003 application which only allowed for outdoor seating in the front and indoor seating. Chairman Brawley felt the intermediate applications have all become null and void. She asked why the 2003 CUP wouldn’t be
the correct permit to work from. Mr. Andrews admitted the 2003 CUA may be the correct one to work from; he was trying to determine which CUA was in place. Chairman Brawley stated the CUA in place allows for indoor and outdoor seating only. Mr. Andrews clarified that the outdoor seating is only in the front. He noted that application specified operating hours as well. Chairman Brawley noted the application before the Board was for just a shed in the back.
Mr. Andrews noted that in order to amend the application, it was important to understand exactly what was being amended.
Ms. Andrews noted the Board just couldn’t throw out an amendment to the site. CEO Keene noted the court threw out the amendment with the proposed outdoor seating in the back. No reapplication was made, therefore the amendment never happened. CEO Keene affirmed that the restaurant use was established by the 2003 CUA for indoor seating and outdoor seating in the front only. The bar is no longer in use at the restaurant. CEO Keene noted the bar was not part of the 2003 application.
Mr. Andrews noted the permit with the bar was part of the most recent CUP. He added that particular permit also had less seating than the 2003 permit allowed. CEO Keene noted the 2006 permit was approved. The 2006 permit allowed 37 seats in the front while the 2003 had 46. Inside, the 2006 permit allowed 26 inside, while the 2003 permit allowed 24. Mr. Andrews noted he was indifferent to which permit was used; he just wanted to be clear on the subject.
Chairman Brawley suggested they ask Counsel. Attorney Collier stated he had not studied the situation. He noted it was important to know which permit was in place. He felt the questions to be answered were what was the current use, and what was the current permitted use.
Mr. Andrews noted there had been three permits. The third one the owners had been told by the court they would have to re-apply with the Planning Board, however they failed to do that. Therefore, the third CUA was never completed. Mr. Collier inquired what the application said – which permit did it note it was an amendment to? Chairman Brawley noted the 2003 permit was the reference on the application. Mr. Collier asked if that permit were lawful and in place. CEO Keene affirmed, noting it was a permitted use that has been established. She confirmed Mr. Collier’s question that it is a permit not overturned by the court. Mr. Andrews noted there was a second permit approved subsequent to the 2003 permit. The second permit added the bar and changed the seating. He affirmed
it was still in place; however the bar is gone. Mr. Collier stated it was still in place by law; however the bar no longer existed. Once something no longer existed its use is discontinued. Mr. Andrews noted there was a third application that went through legal channels and was not approved. Mr. Collier felt it was the first permit, amended by the second, which would be amended.
To be clear, Mr. Collier stated the restaurant was permitted with 37 allowed seats in the front, and 26 allowed seats inside. Mr. Collier asked whether anything in addition to the restaurant is being proposed. CEO Keene stated no, the applicant was only requesting the addition of a shed in the back. Ms. Keene added that the question of hours of operation would be changing as well. The restaurant was approved to be open 7am to 11:30 am and again 5:30 pm to 11:30 pm. Eliza Bishop, applicant for the restaurant in question, noted the hours would be 11:30am to 5pm, six days a week.
Mr. Collier felt that the application could be amended, noting the hours and the seating to be limited to 63 seats. Ms. Bishop confirmed 63 seats were acceptable to her. Chairman Brawley noted the number of seats could be included as a condition of approval. She noted the hours would also have to be amended. CEO Keene noted the hours proposed are less than the hours previously approved. It was requested that Ms. Bishop add and initial the hours of operation to her application.
Mr. Tracy inquired about the purpose or the shed and whether it would be a high-traffic use. Ms. Bishop noted it would serve as storage for non-food catering equipment like platters and coolers. Ms. Bishop estimated that people would be going to the shed maybe 2-3 times during the day, with potentially more visits when a catering job was imminent.
Mr. Collier suggested the original motion be nullified and a new motion made to say that given the materials submitted, the Board finds the application complete. This was agreed to by the Board. MR. KILEY MOVED THE MOTION AS STATED BY MR. COLLIER. MS. ANDREWS SECONDED THE MOTION AS RE-STATED. MOTION APPROVED 6-0.
Mr. Andrews noted he attended the site inspection. He reported there is a door at the back of the restaurant on the Southeast corner of the building. The proposed shed would be placed directly outside the door. It’s a grass area, surrounded by trees on one side and open area lawn on the other. The area is a distance away from other buildings in the neighborhood and will meet setback requirements. Ms. Andrews inquired whether details were given regarding what the shed would look like. Mr. Tracy noted there are no regulations concerning the appearance of the shed. Mr. Andrews noted he thought the shed would be metal.
Ms. Bishop stated that the shed would be 8’x 8’, 6 feet in height, painted dark green. There would be one door and it would be used for storing only non-food items and catering gear. The shed would not be wired or plumbed. There would only be exterior lighting with a 60 watt bulb at the back of the building where it already exists. Ms. Bishop plans to cater out of the space. She’ll be open six days a week, providing pastries, breakfast and lunch.
Chairman Brawley inquired whether there were any abutters or others affected by the proposed use that would like to speak. There were none. CEO Keene stated notices were sent and no one has contacted her with questions or concerns. No members of the public had questions.
Mr. Tracy inquired whether Ms. Bishop was familiar with the issues the previous owners had with the property and the reasons for the issues. Ms. Bishop affirmed she was. Mr. Tracy hoped Ms. Bishop would be sensitive to the concerns raised during the previous owner’s tenure.
Mr. Collier noted he hoped the applicant was applying for an accessory use. The application did not note it. Mr. Collier felt that the shed used for catering would be an accessory use to the restaurant. CEO Keene noted that catering was considered the same as a restaurant.
There were no further comments from the public. The review of the application was made. Mr. Andrews proposed using the short form of review for the application. Ms. Andrews and Chairman Brawley noted the amendment form could be used.
A review of the Amendment form was made.
MR. ANDREWS MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AMENDMENT WITH THE PERMIT CONDITIONS LISTED ON THE AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL WORKSHEET. MR. HANLEY SECONDED. MOTION APPROVED 6-0.
B. Conditional Use Approval Application #001-2013
PROPERTY OWNER(S): Global Tower Assets, LLC
AGENT(S): ATC Realty
P. Andrew Hamilton, Eaton Peabody Esq.
PROPERTY LOCATION: Someshenge Way, formerly a portion of 1049 Main St., Somesville
TAX MAP: 010 Lot: 147-002 ZONE(S): Village Commercial District (VC)
PURPOSE: Continued review of Section 6B.17 Wireless Communication Facility – Cell Tower
It has been determined previously that the Planning Board has jurisdiction to hear the application. It was confirmed there was adequate public notice. No conflict of interest was found.
Chairman Brawley noted that at the last meeting, the Board found there were some deficiencies in the application and they did not find it complete. In order to find this application complete those deficiencies will need to be addressed.
Mr. Hamilton of Eaton Peabody, representing ATC Realty, endeavored to make sure the Board’s records were complete and that Board members are aware of six components of the application. He requested that he be allowed to overview those components. Chairman Brawley acquiesced.
Mr. Hamilton noted the original Global Tower Conditional Use Application dated January 26, 2013. The second document is the Martin Environmental NEPA report dated October 3, 2012. The third document is the viewshed report by Audra Klumb submitted as part of the Martin Environmental report dated March 14, 2012. The next set of documents include proofs of notices that were provided to Town Code Enforcement Office, a notice in the Mount Desert Islander regarding the visibility assessment, the Global Tower letter dated approximately May 2, 2013 sent to individual property owners within 1000 feet of the subdivision property, and featured on the Audra Klumb website. The fifth document, was the supplemental filing which has now been numbered. Mr. Hamilton stated the Board should now have an exact replicate copy of what
has been previously received, now numbered making it easier to refer to. An index has been included with the supplemental filing as well. The final component is the latest Audra Klumb environmental assessment report dated May 23, 2013. Mr. Hamilton pointed out that this assessment was made based upon notice in the Mount Desert Islander, and digital notices. The newspaper notices correctly articulated the Board’s preference for private residences within a mile from the center of the tower whose owners contacted Ms. Klumb with a written permission form indicating they wanted their property assessed.
Mr. Hamilton reminded the Board that in Ms. Klumb’s assessment dated March 14, 2012, she had assessed public resources and public ways within four miles of the tower center. Within four miles for public roadways and public places, as well as historic places, and with respect to historic properties within the Somesville historic district the State Historic Preservation officer confirmed that there was no visual impact on those historic properties. He added that Acadia National Park was consulted and they confirmed that there would be no undue adverse visual impact on park resources. The most recent assessment addressed private residences, which they interpreted to mean existing private residences within a mile to the extent they received permission. Mr. Hamilton felt this has provided ample opportunity for the
public to know about the assessment opportunity.
Mr. Hamilton continued, turning to the list of existing items from the February 11, 2013 review where the Planning Board noted six items that needed to be provided. Those items included a structural design report for the tower which was previously waived by the Board. The applicant decided the Board neede the information and has now provided that it. Second, the 6B.17.8b submittal, the support of the tower without failure. Mr. Hamilton noted engineer Michael Deletetsky who was on hand, along with Robert Beacon provided the failure analysis report. This information was also waived by the Board, however it has now been provided. Finally the elevation drawings. Mr. Hamilton stated the ordinance calls for elevation drawings of the tower; the requirement had been waived by the Planning Board but it was
now provided. Details of the tower base were also waived, but the applicants provided it. Mr. Hamilton noted the documents mentioned can be found in pages 110 to 120 of the supplemental filing, as well as pages 23 through 26 for drawings. Page 24 and 25 for the details of the tower base. Also, the Planning Board recommended at the February 11, 2013 meeting the visual impact assessment from private residences and public spaces. Views from public spaces and public roadways had already been provided in the two assessments described previously. Mr. Hamilton hoped Ms. Klumb would be allowed to report on her findings to the Board. Mr. Hamilton mentioned the Planning Board wanted a picture of the utility building associated with the tower and that has been provided on pages 105 through 109 of the supplement. The Board had requested a signal propagation map at 115 feet height, 120 feet height and 125 feet height. That is shown on pages
21 through 31. A map showing where the tower would be visible in a one-mile radius is part of 6B178g and in the March 13, 2012 report as well as the May 2, 2013 supplement. Volumetric calculations can be found on page 165 of the supplement.
In summary, Mr. Hamilton felt all the submittal forms had been met. He added the applicants would be happy to walk the Board through every submission.
Departing from the review, Mr. Hamilton cited the Superior Court’s Decision in a case entitled Reed v. The Town of Mount Desert and AT&T Mobility. The court said that appellants who appealed the Planning Board’s approval “failed to consider the context of the Land Use Zoning Ordinance wherein the people of the town voted for an ordinance that allowed towers up to 125 feet in height. The eight pages of the LUZO addressing the wireless communications facilities comprised an effort to allow these towers after a thoughtful evaluation of their impact by the Planning Board. In the context of the LUZO the Board’s findings and conclusions concerning the point of Section 6A9 are supported by substantial evidence.” There was also a challenge with respect to effect on the character of the Town
and the court said with regard to the context of compatibility “In looking through the LUZO from Mount Desert, it is noteworthy that people put the time to spend eight pages of the ordinance defining the standards to be met in allowing the wireless communication facilities. Their initial purpose is to protect and preserve the aesthetic quality of Mount Desert and support the goals, policies and objectives of the Town of Mount Desert Comprehensive Plan, likewise the Planning Board supported its judgment of compliance with preserving the Town’s character plus citation to the telecommunication objectives found in the comprehensive plan... The Planning Board later referenced that the use proposed, communication tower, represented a harmonious use identified in the LUZO as essential services which reference communication facilities as recognized as essential services for the people of Mount Desert as identified in the LUZO.”
Mr. Collier reminded Mr. Hamilton that his discussion should be moving the meeting forward to the completeness review.
Mr. Hamilton agreed. He mentioned the reason for the height of the tower being set at 125 feet in the ordinance as supported by the Comprehensive Plan is because it is consistent with the purpose of the Federal Telecommunications Act, and it increases competition among the wireless providers. He noted the Town can’t effectively prohibit the provision of wireless services to wireless customers so therefore they very much encourage co-location facilities on the same tower. Mr. Hamilton pointed out that co-location on a single tower would be preferable to multiple towers with a single array each in near proximity. He informed the Board that there is a gap in coverage between the Trenton tower and the main part of the town, including the North end of Mount Desert. Mr. Hamilton explained that the materials look
to provide all of the detail that the wireless provisions in the Ordinance in Section 6B17. Mr. Hamilton reiterated that Global Tower sought to install a 125 foot tower and nothing in the ordinance seems to prohibit the height.
Mr. Hamilton turned to Audra Klumb of A&D Klumb Environmental LLC to discuss her visibility assessment of the tower.
Mr. Collier reminded the Board that the second Klumb visual impact assessment and the GIS map have only recently been received. He suggested the Board could find the application complete pending further review of these items or hold off on completeness. He hoped the Board would not feel pressured into finding the application complete before a careful review. Chairman Brawley felt that the application could be found complete upon receiving the materials, and decide whether they are acceptable further in the review. Attorney Collier noted that one option was to find it complete with the exception of the Klumb report.
Mr. Andrews felt that what Attorney Collier suggested made sense until the Board could look at the materials in detail. As an example Mr. Andrews stated he didn’t know whether, in fact, they covered all the places the Board suggested for the visual assessment. Mr. Kiley noted that a reference was made to the residences that requested the assessment, yet he did not find a list of those residences. Mr. Hamilton assured the Board that the list would be provided.
Mr. Hamilton spoke to the question of the completeness contingent upon further review vs. completeness based upon materials submitted. He noted that they provided an 18-page overview of the ordinance standards with italicized responses to each point. He noted Ms. Klumb’s report is mostly photographs, a two-page letter and the table.
Mr. Andrews noted there was a list of potential sites that were not private residences from which to take photographs. He specifically mentioned the picnic area on Sargent Drive, and the Babson Creek trail at the Maine Coast Heritage Trust offices. Chairman Brawley felt those sites were not included in previous minutes. Mr. Hamilton and Ms. Klumb assured the Board that the Babson Creek area was part of the assessment and they had paid close attention to the areas the Board noted in previous meetings. Mr. Hamilton felt that Ms. Klumb could speak to the areas that were part of the assessment.
Mr. Andrews could not find evidence that the Sargent Drive picnic area at Suminsby Park had been assessed. He remembered a list of areas discussed at previous meetings and one of them had been the Suminsby Park picnic grounds. Mr. Hamilton reviewed the past minutes to ensure all the places discussed there were included. Mr. Andrews reiterated there was a list made of scenic resources of the Town. This list was provided by the Planning Board in consultation to the applicants at an earlier meeting. Mr. Hamilton maintained they did the best they could, based on the written record of past meetings.
Chairman Brawley noted that in the body of previous minutes it was agreed that photos would be taken from Babson Creek, the Mount Desert Campground, Fraley’s Dock, and the fish ladder in Somesville. In another place in the Minutes, Babson Creek, the white foot bridge on Route 102, and the Mount Desert Campground were listed.
Mr. Hamilton stated the intent had been to complete the assessment in one job. Mr. Tracy felt that the tower would be minimally visible or not visible at all from the Suminsby Park picnic area. Mr. Andrews agreed, He worried that if this one were left out, could others have perhaps been left out. Chairman Brawley noted all the areas listed in the Minutes were included in the assessment. Mr. Andrews felt the fault lies with the list not being properly written down.
Mr. Collier suggested making a motion on completeness now subject to further review of Ms. Klumb’s report and the other materials submitted. He felt that allowing Mr. Hamilton go back and review the rest of the application and reviewing Ms. Klumb’s report in order of submission, may accommodate the extra time the Board needs to review the report properly. That way, the material is reviewed only once.
MR. ANDREWS MOVED TO FIND THE APPLICATION COMPLETE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL REVIEW OF THE KLUMB REPORT OF VISUAL IMPACT FROM PRIVATE RESIDENCES AND THE GIS MAP SHOWING AREAS FROM WHICH THE TOWER WILL BE VISIBLE FROM ONE MILE AND SUBMISSIONS FOR SECTION 6B.17.7A.
Mr. Andrews mentioned one final issue he had noticed in the ordinance. As he reads it, the co-location requirements and the way the ordinance is written the applicant is required to “send written notice by certified, first-class United States mail to all other owners of communication towers in the Town and all licensed communication providers utilizing existing towers regardless of tower location”, meaning any towers servicing the Town regardless of where they are. Mr. Andrews noted there are towers and communication providers servicing the Town. Mr. Hamilton inquired which ones those were. Mr. Andrews stated there were various other towers on Mount Desert Island that provided service to the Town of Mount Desert.
Mr. Hamilton felt the purpose of the co-location provision is to make sure that when an applicant sites a tower, they are giving notice to the area that others can co-locate there. He noted there was a notice of intent that was given as exhibit I to the conditional use application. That notice of intent is what the ordinance uses as a vehicle to ensure that everyone who might want to co-locate on this tower know they have the right to do so. Mr. Andrews was unsure Mr. Hamilton’s explanation was the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Andrews felt the ordinance suggested that evidence has to be shown that the applicant requested co-location on other applicable towers prior to applying for a tower of their own. It makes no mention of others siting on the proposed tower.
Mr. Hamilton felt the cart was being put before the horse. Notice can’t be sent before the tower has been approved. Mr. Andrews reiterated that this section of the ordinance was about the applicant requesting to co-locate on other towers. Chairman Brawley agreed, but asked if there are already towers that don’t provide the service needed how would co-locating on that tower help? Mr. Andrews agreed it made no sense, but it is what the ordinance seems to require. Mr. Hamilton felt it was designed to allow for co-location where it pragmatically covers. Mr. Andrews and Chairman Brawley disagreed with Mr. Hamilton’s interpretation.
Mr. Andrews noted that if someone were to appeal the application this is a requirement that has not been provided. An appeal can be made because these materials haven’t been provided.
Mr. Collier stated that in reading through the exhibit, his understanding is that they currently have agreements with many other providers and whenever a new tower is sited, there’s an automatic notice sent stating essentially that a new tower is in place and others are invited to co-locate on it. Mr. Andrews restated that he felt this was not the intent of the ordinance. He said the section is about the applicant for a new tower must demonstrate that they have requested co-location on other towers.
Mr. Hamilton noted permission can only be asked if such towers exist. Mr. Andrews reiterated that the ordinance says that if someone has a tower, permission has to be asked of that tower provider by the applicant.
A review of Section 6B.17.7a was made: “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…”
Mr. Hopkins of Global Tower Assets noted that the towers on Mount Desert Island not located in Mount Desert are not intended to serve the Town of Mount Desert. Mr. Andrews agreed. Mr. Hamilton restated that other towers don’t service the Town; there is a coverage gap. It’s the reason for this tower application. Chairman Brawley inquired whether the definition of service is that it’s intentional and it’s supposed to actually provide service. Mr. Andrews felt that regardless of intent there are towers providing service to portions of the Town of Mount Desert. Mr. Hamilton understood Mr. Andrews’ point, however his plain language interpretation is that a tower has to intentionally service the Town and there are none doing that. There are no additional towers out there on
which Global Tower could co-locate that would provide service to the Town of Mount Desert. Mr. Hamilton noted that there was a significant coverage gap in large areas of the Town of Mount Desert. Mr. Andrews agreed. Mr. Tracy added that no one tower could fill the gaps in the Town of Mount Desert.
Mr. Collier suggested that what was meant was if a tower was sited in another town for example, and arrays could be added that would serve Mount Desert proof has to be shown that they tried to do so. Chairman Brawley noted there wasn’t any such tower.
Mr. Hamilton noted that if there were a 250 foot tower in Southwest Harbor that could project into Mount Desert, then a service provider should try to get permission to co-locate on that tower. Those conditions don’t exist. The applicant can’t meet requirements on something that doesn’t exist. Mr. Collier suggested simply sending notice to the other towers in the area asking if co-location there would result in coverage for Mount Desert. Responses will come back telling you coverage from that tower would be impossible but the requirements would be fulfilled.
Mr. Hopkins noted that AT&T is already on the Southwest Harbor tower.
Mr. Collier felt the letter in Exhibit I covers that. There are ongoing agreements with other tower owners and providers.
Ms. Andrews noted that nowhere in the application does it discuss that the Southwest Harbor tower was approached to explore possibly extending service into Mount Desert.
Mr. Hopkins restated that the applicant for the tower in Somesville is already on the tower in Southwest Harbor.
Mr. Tracy noted that deciphering the coverage maps will explain the coverage fully.
Mr. Andrews reiterated he agreed fully. However the ordinance states this requirement. He added it might be useful to simply include in the application that they have found no other towers that provide service to this area. Mr. Collier agreed, and added that they could include the statement that they didn’t find towers that could provide service, or they did find towers and verified that service from them wouldn’t extend to this area of Mount Desert.
Mr. Hamilton noted that the plain language says notice must be given. The opportunity of a tower already standing that provided coverage was researched by a company that works with AT&T. AT&T knows that a tower that provides coverage to this area of Mount Desert does not exist. Mr. Hamilton submits that if the Board can give plain language interpretation that makes sense to the overall provisions of the wireless communications section then the applicant will try to do that and not ask people to do more than what the plain language of the ordinance requires. Mr. Andrews concurred. He would be satisfied with a statement saying the applicant has not formally notified other owners of other towers because they know none of those towers could provide service to the area.
Mr. Hamilton felt the notice of intent fulfills the requirement.
A review of the notice of intent was made. Chairman Brawley noted the letter of intent sounds more as if the applicant were offering co-location on their tower, rather than asking for co-location on other towers. Mr. Andrews suggested drafting up a quick statement as he suggested.
Mr. Hamilton felt Mr. Hopkins could offer a statement for the record. The statement could be made orally, as effectively as written. He stated that based upon research done by Global Tower there are no other towers for this service territory that would provide co-location and thus under the ordinance they’re not required to notice.
Mr. Collier disagreed; he didn’t believe this allowed the applicant to disregard contacting other providers. The ordinance states the applicant is required to contact them. Mr. Hamilton noted the language refers to service areas. The other towers don’t have the ability, given the topography, to include the Town of Mount Desert.
Mr. Hamilton listed the towers in the area: The Trenton tower which can project to certain areas of Mount Desert, and the tower near the Pretty Marsh Road will project to some areas once it’s online. His summation was that the Town of Mount Desert cannot be served by other towers in the area. Mr. Hopkins added that existing coverage was not of a high quality that companies typically provide. In looking at the maps, Southwest Harbor is providing only a yellow zone – a one to two-bar coverage. Mr. Hamilton felt that under the language of the co-location requirement, there are no towers appropriate under that co-location requirement and therefore the applicant did not notify. Mr. Andrews inquired whether the Board, based on that statement, could waive the requirement.
Mr. Collier didn’t feel the requirement could be waived. In looking at the requirement, he agrees it’s confusing, but it states that notice must be sent to others already servicing the Town and the notice has to say the applicant plans to build a tower in Mount Desert. They notice the tower in place already services parts of Mount Desert, can the provider confirm that co-location on the towers won’t enhance Mount Desert coverage. The providers then must respond with an affirmation to that effect. The notice must be sent.
Mr. Hamilton noted that in the Supplement, pages 22 through 27, the applicant had submitted for the record a plan as well as an outdated feasibility alternative statement. Mr. Hamilton added that Mr. Gashlin was in attendance and he conducted the coverage studies and it might be helpful to hear from him as well.
Mr. Collier asked what about the notice required to be sent to other providers. Mr. Andrews stated the exercise was almost certainly a waste of time, yet it was required by law. Mr. Collier stated the purpose of such an exercise was to do so in case a provider responded to say that co-location would provide the coverage to the area in question.
Bob Gashlin of AT&T reported that AT&T is currently located on every tower in the area. Mr. Tracy suggested that fact makes the point moot. Mr. Andrews suggested that a statement saying that AT&T are already co-located on every tower serving the Town and that service does not provide the coverage needed for this area of Town may be what is necessary to satisfy the requirement.
Mr. Hamilton noted that pages 19 through 21 of the supplement are maps of coverage. On the fourth paragraph on Page 19 it says “Currently there is effectively no service coverage in the Town of Mount Desert for personal wireless facilities. This is not surprising, as there is no operating tower in Town. There are towers in the Towns of Trenton, Bar Harbor, and Southwest Harbor; however, those do not adequately cover Mount Desert.” Mr. Hamilton felt that if they have a pragmatic view of the facts and the requirements of the ordinance and they look to page 20 they are given an evaluation of potential co-location sites and feasibility. In examining other sites around town with potential co-location opportunity as an alternative to the proposed tower it is revealed there are significant constraints to
co-location making other alternatives unfeasible. The ordinance states that an applicant must give notice if there is a co-location opportunity. On page 20 it is determined there is no co-location opportunity.
Mr. Kiley noted that Mr. Gashlin stated co-location already exists, however the wording in the submittal suggests that the opportunity to co-locate does not exist. Mr. Hamilton noted the towers they are already co-located on do not provide coverage for the Town of Mount Desert. Mr. Kiley asked for clarification whether AT&T were co-located on all the area towers or not. Mr. Gashlin confirmed they are co-located on all area towers. Chairman Brawley felt that was what needed to be in the record; that AT&T is already on all other towers in the areas that service the Town of Mount Desert.
Mr. Collier clarified that the ordinance says all other owners of communication towers and all additional providers. Chairman Brawley saw no point in requesting to co-locate on a tower on which they are already co-located.
Mr. Hamilton noted the ordinance says all other owners of communication towers in the Town. He asked what other communication towers would the Town like them to look at, other than the Town Hill Fire Station, which they looked at, and the Congregational Church spire, which they looked at. Mr. Hamilton asked for the names of others that existed in the Town. Mr. Andrews noted it doesn’t have to be in the Town. Mr. Hamilton noted the first part of the ordinance does specify within the Town. Chairman Brawley noted that the ordinance goes on to say all licensed communication providers regardless of location. Mr. Hamilton noted that was licensed communication providers. Chairman Brawley asked whether that didn’t mean they have to go to all licensed communication providers. Mr. Hamilton
felt that there was no carrier that provides coverage for the Town of Mount Desert. Mr. Andrews noted there was no language anywhere in the section saying the tower has to provide effective coverage. Mr. Hamilton stated the entire purpose of the Federal Telephone Act was to provide effective coverage. He noted that effective coverage was the goal of the Federal Telephone Act but not at the cost of a plethora of towers throughout the Town, which was why co-location was required where it was feasible. However, co-location is not feasible to achieve effective coverage in this part of Mount Desert. Co-location is already being done and it’s not working. Chairman Brawley suggested the ordinance needs wording added to indicate this was required where it would be effective.
Mr. Collier stated he understood that AT&T was on all the other towers. He’s simply reading the submission requirements and the requirements state that the applicant has to send notices to every provider. It’s the process that must be done. In the submissions there is no evidence of notice sent to other providers. The notices must be sent and a list must be provided under oath that it was done.
Mr. Hamilton realized the argument could not be solved. He reiterated that they are on all the local towers and those towers do not provide effective coverage to areas of Mount Desert.
Mr. Andrews stated his concern was that if the application is approved without this done, anyone who wants to appeal could have a winnable argument on this point without evidence that letters to providers were sent.
Mr. Kiley noted that earlier, the Board was told they could find the application conditionally complete pending the review of some materials; couldn’t this also be a condition of approval? Mr. Collier agreed it was a good idea. The Board could take exception to the completion and let the attorneys argue the point. Mr. Hamilton stated it was a redundant requirement in this context.
Chairman Brawley agreed, however until it is fixed it remains a requirement that must be done. Mr. Hamilton felt that the Board should have the power to interpret their ordinance in a way that makes sense.
Ms. Andrews asked about the waivers for which the applicant decided to provide materials. She noted the materials submitted seem to be for a different cell tower. Mr. Hamilton noted the applicant provided an analogy of exactly what a report looks like for another tower, in this case from the Town of Wilton. The Wilton material runs from page 121 to 164. It is essentially a sample report from another Town.
Ms. Andrews noted a tower and foundation design plan submitted seemed like a taller tower than the one planned for Mount Desert. Mr. Hopkins noted it was. Mr. Hamilton noted the reason for sending that was to show the design drawings as well as the post construction monitoring to show how the finished product and design compare.
The motion (previously noted on page 8 of these Minutes) was reread:
MR. ANDREWS MOVED TO FIND THE APPLICATION COMPLETE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL REVIEW OF THE KLUMB REPORT OF VISUAL IMPACT FROM PRIVATE RESIDENCES AND THE GIS MAP SHOWING AREAS FROM WHICH THE TOWER WILL BE VISIBLE FROM ONE MILE AND SUBMISSIONS FOR SECTION 6B.17.7A. MR. KILEY SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION APPROVED 6-0.
Mr. Hamilton stated that Attorney Collier suggested the Board go through pages 1 through 18 giving all the detailed ordinance requirements. He noted there are approximately 15 pages. He began a review of the items.
Mr. Hamilton noted the project description was well stated. He read excerpts of the description:
“Site: The proposed development site is located off Main Street in the Town of Mount Desert… located behind a commercial building on a lot with a Bangor Hydroelectric substation. The site has good elevation and mature vegetation. Existing vegetation will be maintained to the maximum extent possible and will be removed only to the extent necessary for construction of the access driveway, cul-de-sac, and tower compound, and for the installation of utilities… Other factors in the siting were the proximity to other commercial and industrial structures, and the unavailability of other towers or structures upon which co-location is possible (in light of the lack of other communications towers in town or in close proximity, the applicant had no contacts with
‘all other owners of communication towers,’ … Information from the FCC Antenna Registration Database, radio frequency information, and radio frequency propagation maps are included with this application.
Consultation with Acadia National Park: … it was determined that the visual impact of the proposed tower would have no adverse effect within the Park (documentation provided in the 3rd party National Environmental Policy Act “NEPA” screening report)
Tower: …consists of a 125-foot tall monopole-style wireless telecommunications tower. The proposed tower will be located within a 4,000 square-foot fenced “compound” area. The compound will be surrounded by an 8-foot tall chain-link fence topped with … barbed wire, and accessed through a 12.5 foot wide chain link gate.
Within the tower compound there will be concrete pads for the installation of electrical and telephone service, and telecommunications equipment installed by AT&T.”
Chairman Brawley believed the compound area was no longer 4,000 square feet. Mr. Hamilton noted the size of the lot had changed to comply with tower setbacks, but the compound remained the same size.
Mr. Hamilton noted he had believed that three tangent points were set along the roadway as well as a center point to the south, a point at the corner of the Bangor Hydro lot and at the outside perimeter of the circle. The surveyor made clear that those points as shown on the subdivision plan will provide adequate geometry for any surveyor examining the area.
Attorney Collier noted that originally the applicant had been lax on pinning the property. This would be acceptable to him.
Mr. Hamilton continued with excerpts of the “Project Description”: He noted the ordinance required that size not exceed 1900 cubic feet per array. Per the project description they plan to comply with that requirement. Further dimensions from AT&T mobility are as follows: An array of 13.1 cubic feet, the panels are suggested, necessary safety measures are identified. Access and traffic is estimated to be no more than one or two vehicle trips per month, per wireless carrier, in a light-duty truck or van. Utility and municipal services, no water service is required, no waste, noise, or odors will be generated by the proposed structures, electricity and telephone services will be installed, there will be no lighting or signs because the tower is under 200 feet in height the FAA does not
required lighting. The equipment shelters and the compound lighting will be down-shielded lighting and on only when maintenance is required after dark.
Mr. Hamilton added that the applicant also provided as part of the supplemental the propagation map showing tower height at 105, 120, and 125. Those propagation maps demonstrate that in order to have co-location options for other carriers on the same towers the towers have to be at the 125 foot height. Co-location won’t be effective otherwise. Mr. Kiley asked whether a lower tower would only affect some carriers but not all. Mr. Hopkins noted that ideally, AT&T and a company like T Mobile would be at the top of the tower because they operate at 1.9 gigahertz, whereas companies like US Cellular or Verizon are at 850 and could go in the two lower levels. Mr. Gashlin added that at the highest proposed level, AT&T is barely getting the signal to the far reaches such as the Crooked Road, the high
school, the intersection of 198 and Sargent Drive and Echo Lake.
Mr. Hamilton noted setbacks were addressed and are 105% of the tower height for a total of 131.25 feet from land owned by abutting property owners. With the consent of the landlord, the long-term lease provides for 431.25 feet as shown on the subdivision plan. Mr. Hamilton thought the plain language of the ordinance noted it is not a fall zone, it is a setback zone so it serves both purposes. No part of the construction, including anchors are located in the setback as shown on the site plan. Most of the rest of the setback issues Mr. Hamilton notes are in the index.
Mr. Hamilton noted he wouldn’t revisit section 7a as there had been lengthy discussion earlier in the meeting.
Regarding construction of new towers, the applicant has shown the tower can support a minimum of three antenna arrays for co-location purposes. The ability to support a minimum of three is dependent on the height of the tower to ensure both space and coverage availability. Mr. Hamilton felt the record should show they did not rely upon the waivers granted, but provided the information in some detail. They have a report from a professional engineer registered in the State of Maine describing the communication tower in a technical report. Mr. Andrews asked for confirmation that the plan is to build the tower exactly as presented in the technical report. Mr. Hamilton confirmed it was. He added if there were any amendments to that occasioned by design prior to construction, they would return to request an
amendment reflecting the change.
Mr. Hopkins noted that during the construction, an engineer will be on hand to monitor the work and put together a report for submission to the Town and in that and under the professional seal of Mr. Deletetsky the report will confirm that the tower was built as it was presented. The report will be on file with the CEO.
Mr. Hamilton added that the documents relating to the engineering considerations are the geotechnical engineering investigation on pages 90 – 104, structural design foundation report by Robert Beacon on pages 110 – 120, and the post-construction monitoring report on pages 120 – 164. The next requirement is the report on the support without failure analysis is provided in some detail on pages 113 – 118 and consists of a series of calculations. Mr. Hamilton noted that elevation drawings have been provided; the ones set forth from AMEC are on pages 23 – 26, and finally the details of the tower base is provided in three places, on pages 24-25, 110 – 112, and 119 – 120.
Moving on to parking area, in Exhibit A of the original Conditional Use Application and Exhibit G photos of the building as requested as part of the February 2013 review of the Planning Board and are on pages 105 – 109. Mr. Hamilton noted all the materials he cited have been provided to the Board.
Mr. Andrews suggested that rather than Mr. Hamilton taking the Board through the submissions one by one, perhaps it would make more sense for the Board to go into its approval process where they have to be reviewed one by one anyway. Chairman Brawley agreed and noted that such a process would allow for the public to speak to the issues as well. Mr. Hamilton hoped that Ms. Klumb would be allowed to speak to her assessment report.
Mr. Andrews noted that speaking to the assessment report would be taking things out of order, however it shouldn’t be a problem. Mr. Tracy noted that members of the public were leaving the meeting without having the chance to speak.
Mr. Hamilton continued. He noted the viewshed analysis was in two parts; March 2012 and May 2013.
Ms. Klumb reported that they evaluated the visibility of the tower based on the requirements of the ordinance. Public areas, private residences, Acadia National Park and historic places were evaluated; Acadia National Park and historic places were evaluated in the earlier report. Private residences were done in May 2013. Ms. Klumb sent notices to all residences within 1000 feet of the proposed tower site and abutters were asked to submit permission to photograph the simulated tower from their properties. Additionally an article was placed in the newspaper to notify people with property within one mile of the proposed site and notice of permission to photograph from their property was also sent to them. Ms. Klumb reported that a boom lift with a large orange cloth attached at the top was raised to the height of
the proposed tower. Ms. Klumb then went to all properties of interested people that had given permission. She noted there were 14 on the list and additionally the list of places the Planning Board had requested views from. She took photos from the areas in question whether the boom list was visible or not. Ms. Klumb offered to read through the list. She noted there was also a map with photograph areas indicated included. The map shows a one-mile radius.
Mr. Hanley asked about a note in the cover letter state that the boom lift was approximately 25 feet east of the tower site. He inquired if there was a significant grade change in that area that could affect the visibility. Ms. Klumb noted the grade was different; however the difference was taken into consideration when the boom was raised into place.
Mr. Andrews asked whether there was anything about the assessment that stood out to Ms. Klumb. Ms. Klumb noted the tower wasn’t significantly visible from too many places. Mr. Tracy noted he looked at the lift from several different locations and found it was visible in a few locations, mostly from the highway coming down Route 102 right before Kitteridge Brook. Approaching the Somesville One Stop, looking at photo 3A was pretty typical of the view. The tower was clearly visible above the tree line, however to see it, one is looking through a mass of wires and telephone poles. He felt the tower couldn’t be argued as an eyesore in light of the poles and wires already there. From all locations on the highway, Mr. Tracy felt the tower was less visible than the poles and wires.
Mr. Hamilton inquired of Ms. Klumb’s professional evaluation experience with the property owners. Ms. Klumb reported the owners she met were very easy to deal with and most weren’t home. Mr. Andrews felt that from the photos it was clear that some of the residences would have a noticeable visual impact from the tower. He added that it probably wouldn’t be any less noticeable if the tower were lower. The Board members agreed. Mr. Andrews noted that some of the residences where the tower was only marginally visible would have no impact at all if the tower were lowered. Chairman Brawley agreed, but felt the co-location requirement was a good argument for keeping the tower at its proposed full height. Mr. Andrews noted that views were done from the campground and from the residence on
Sargent Point which make him more comfortable with his concerns regarding the view from the Eastern side of Somes Sound. Chairman Brawley noted the photos from Somes Harbor show that the tower is not very noticeable. From the campground she noted the tower sticks up above the trees. Owen Craighead, co-owner and manager of the Mount Desert Campground noted he had to point out the boom lift to his employees because they did not notice it. Chairman Brawley noted it would be more noticeable when the arrays were added.
Chairman Brawley asked the public if they had any questions for Ms. Klumb. Kathleen Miller, a resident of Somesville stated that her house on Route 102 did not have cell service until they got a micro cell tower. She appreciated Mr. Tracy’s comments that Route 102 was crowded with wires and poles, making the visual impact of the tower there more minimal. She added that those using the Mount Desert Campground might be able to see the tower however they will also most likely appreciate the cell service it will provide. She stated she would be in great support of having the cell tower.
Mr. Craighead noted they are effectively the largest “hotel” in Mount Desert. They have thousands of AT&T customers that have been disappointed for a number of years because there was no cell phone coverage. Although they are supposed to be here on vacation to relax, Mr. Criaghead has reached the conclusion that people can’t relax without cell phone coverage. He felt that cell phones have become a necessity for people. Mr. Craighead added that it was a safety issue. As an example, if his mother were to slip while walking in the campground during the winter, it would be hours before he realized. Someone injured there would have no way to call for help.
Catherine Burdette, a resident living on Oak Hill Road noted she worked with tourists during the summer and she’s learned they no longer carry maps. They simply rely on their computers to find their way.
Chairman Brawley requested that questions be restricted to the visibility study. John Rooney, the property manager for the Berwind family houses in the Somesville area, stated that from these houses the tower was not highly visible. He noted the houses he manages are all empty at the moment because the family that owns them need cell service and internet and they can’t get them. He noted the issue is an economic issue as well.
Attorney Collier noted that Mr. Andrews proposed earlier that it might be more efficient to go through the checklist, discuss each one, ask Mr. Hamilton questions, invite public comment, take a vote on the item, and move to the next item. Mr. Collier felt the suggestion was a good one.
Chairman Brawley agreed and suggested they start with Section 6A of the checklist. Mr. Andrews inquired whether a motion was necessary. Chairman Brawley agreed it was. MR. ANDREWS MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION. MR. TRACY SECONDED.
It was agreed to use the long form of the checklist. Mr. Andrews suggested reviewing Section 6B17 first to work from the specific issues before addressing the general. It was agreed to do so by general consensus.
Mr. Rooney inquired whether the Board would decide tonight to approve or not approve the application, or would they decide at a later date. Chairman Brawley noted that given the lateness of the hour, she felt the Planning Board would probably not get the final decision done before the end of the meeting. Mr. Rooney asked whether the Planning Board were the ultimate decider of the approval. Chairman Brawley confirmed the Planning Board was the ultimate decider. She felt that if the Board rescheduled to finish the meeting at a later date, then they would be able to take the time to review those sections of the application previously mentioned for which they felt additional review was necessary.
Jerry Miller, a resident of Somesville inquired whether the Planning Board could definitively confirm whether or not they’d finish the meeting tonight. He felt that if the Board noted they “probably” would not get to the end, and some of the public left only to find later that they did get to the end it would be disingenuous. Chairman Brawley noted that there were several items that were unresolved and will remain so until further review. This makes it an almost certainty that the meeting would have to be continued at a later date. Mr. Tracy noted that whether the public chose to leave the meeting or not was at their own risk with regard to what occurs at the meeting after their departure.
A review of the checklist, starting with section 6B.17, was begun. Highlights and decisions from the review can be found there.
With regard to Section 6B.17.3, Attorney Collier suggested that the Board allow the public to speak with regard to whether the tower should be shorter. Chairman Brawley opened the discussion. Larry Stabile of Someshenge Way, a direct abutter to the tower site stated he would like the tower shorter. The effect of the tower on his property was probably greater than the effect of the tower on any other property in Mount Desert. He would prefer no tower at all, but short of that, he would prefer a tower at the lowest height possible per the ordinance and the Federal Telecommunications Act. Chairman Brawley understood that Mr. Stabile would want the tower shorter. It was noted Mr. Stabile’s house was # seven in the photographs. Mr. Collier asked Mr. Stabile to state for the public record his reasons
for wanting the tower shorter. Mr. Stabile noted that from what he has seen of the appearance of cell towers and from the view of the crane from his property he can only conclude it will be highly unsightly and such a tower will damage his property value. Mr. Hamilton offered that it’s important to note that the observations and perspectives of immediate abutters should always be noted and respected. However, Mr. Hamilton felt this was one of the areas of land use review where the needs of the many sometimes appropriately have to be considered. There’s no way to construct a tower shorter than 125’ that will provide effective wireless coverage, nor can a shorter tower accommodate the co-location of additional arrays as required. Mr. Hamilton stated he respects the individual rights, but he felt this was one instance where unless there’s very specific testimony that provides basis for the Board to find the tower height needs to be
shorter, the applicant has provided substantial evidence to show why it needs to be where it is as it was designed. Chairman Brawley noted there were two conflicting standards, one of which was a standard that requires co-location and one that requires us to try not to damage the abutters. They do conflict. Chairman Brawley stated the Board would consider this conflict as they make their decision.
Mr. Collier asked whether any evidence proving the property value damage has been presented. Mr. Stabile stated he did not have evidence of that at this time.
Ms. Andrews inquired whether the Board should find as a fact that the applicant has given the Board evidence of what the coverage is from lower towers. Chairman Brawley stated the propagation maps showed the coverage.
Mr. Hanley asked how scale was determined in the various photos. Ms. Klumb reported that scale was determined by the size of the item they’re photographing. They take the height and dimensions of the crane as well as the ladder attachment and the scale is based on the size of that. So the crane or tower can be photoshopped in at an appropriate scale.
It was questioned whether a vote occurred on item 6B.17.3. Attorney Collier suggested a motion and vote to reconsider the motion. MR. ANDREWS MOVED TO RECONSIDER THE MOTION, MR. TRACY SECONDED. MOTION APPROVED 6-0. The vote on Section 6B.17.3 then proceeded as shown on the checklist.
The Planning Board continued their review of the checklist.
Section 6B.17.7.a of the checklist, “Co-location Requirements, Existing Towers” was deferred.
Chairman Brawley interrupted the review to note the time was 9:05. Mr. Hamilton suggested finishing up the item they were currently on, 6B.17.8.g, before closing the meeting.
Mr. Collier suggested completing item g then suggest a motion that items a through g have been submitted as indicated and a conclusion of law that based on the foregoing standard has been met.
Ms. Klumb stated for the record as to the finding as to cumulative impact, “the cumulative impact of the proposed facility and other existing and perceivable communications facilities in this area is mitigated by the design of this tower. The tower’s design will allow up to four communication carriers. Other towers which may be located within the Town of Mount Desert would not be situated such that both or any other towers would be visible locally.” Mr. Hamilton stated a letter would be sent dated May 30 which includes the testimony of Ms. Klumb. He added that he and the applicant were open, if the Planning Board had any questions regarding the information covered at this meeting, to have further conversation about any of it. Attorney Collier noted it was an acceptable plan, but he
cautioned against doing it too much, but for a few items that would be acceptable.
Attorney Hamilton wanted to recap all the documents they are including in the application submittals have been provided and extra copies are available. He noted the extra copies would be available at the CEO’s office. He listed the Martin Environmental Report, the original conditional use application. He noted eight submittals that the applicant would be relying on as their evidence:
1 – January 26, 2013 original conditional use application, amended to read January 29, 2013
2 – October 3, 2012 Martin Environmental Report
3 – March 14, 2012 Klumb Environmental Viewshed Report
4 – Packet of notices that the Code Office has regarding the supplemental visibility assessment
5 – Submittals to the supplemental filing dated May 9, 2013
6 – May 23, 2013 Klumb Report
7 – AMEC Tree Study TS-1 Plan
8 – Letter to be dated May 30, 2013 provided by Audra Klumb regarding visual impact
CEO Keene inquired whether the stormwater plan had changed since the last one presented. Mr. Hamilton said there had been no change.
Mr. Collier asked for a motion. Chairman Brawley noted that first a ruling was needed for the sections of the checklist reviewed by the Board.
MR. ANDREWS MOVED, WITH MR. HANLEY SECONDING, TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT 6B.17.8.a – f, BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED AND MOVING TO APPROVE THE CONCLUSION OF LAW THAT THE STANDARD HAS BEEN MET. MOTION APPROVED 6-0.
Mr. Craighead inquired when the Board estimated the process would be done. Without the tower, Mr. Craighead felt his campground was at a competitive disadvantage. Chairman Brawley noted that the board was going to have to at least one more meeting, possibly two. Mr. Craighead asked when that meeting would occur. Discussion of when the meeting could be continued ensued. Mr. Collier noted that if the application is not very carefully considered it leaves room for an appeal on any decision made by the Board which can add years worth of additional time. Mr. Craighead understood the need for careful consideration; however he noted there have now been three or four meetings with regard to the tower. Mr. Collier corrected Mr. Craighead, saying this was only the first formal meeting with regard to the tower. The others had been subdivision hearings for the property.
Mr. Hamilton wondered whether a special meeting could be scheduled. Mr. Andrews noted that with a continuation public notice was not necessary. June 5, 2013, 5:00 pm was chosen tentatively as a meeting continuation date, depending on member and facility availability. Mr. Andrews suggested that between the meetings, perhaps the attorneys could discuss and come to an agreement on 7A. Mr. Collier felt this was possible.
MR. TRACY MOVED TO CONTINUE THE MEETING TO JUNE 5, 5:00 PM. MR. KILEY SECONDED. MOTION APPROVED 6-0.
MR. ANDREWS MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. MR. KILEY SECONDED. MOTION APPROVED 6-0.
Meeting was adjourned at 9:25 pm.
| 
