Town of Mount Desert Planning Board
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
Meeting Room, Town Hall
6:00 pm, March 11, 2013
Public Present
Jerome Suminsby, Anne Funderburk, Carla Haskell, Eero Hedefine, Andrew Hamilton, Dick Day, Sanford Whitehouse, Steve Zirnkilton, Jane S. Zirnkilton, Rob Shea, Fred Howland
Board Members Present
Chairman Ellen Brawley, Dennis Kiley, Lili Andrews, Bill Hanley
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 deemed there was not a quorum for approving the Minutes. Approval of Minutes was tabled.
III. Section 4.3.4 Reconstruction or Replacement of a Non-Conforming Structure:
OWNER(S): G. Todd Mydland
AGENT(S): P. Andrew Hamilton, Eaton Peabody, Esq.
Carla Haskell, Design Group Collaborative Architecture
LOCATION: 19 Steamboat Wharf, Seal Harbor
TAX MAP: 029 LOT: 005 ZONE(S): Shoreland Residential One (SR1)
PURPOSE: Reconstruction or Replacement of an existing Single Family Dwelling, including all Utilities
SITE INSPECTION: 3:00 PM
It was determined there had been adequate public notice, and that abutters had been notified. No conflict of interest was found.
Mr. Hanley reported on the site visit. There were a number of people present for the visit. The property lines and the highwater line were reviewed. No change to the pier was planned. No work was planned for the vacant lot.
Chairman Brawley read an excerpt of Sections 4.3.4 and 4.3.2 to those present.
Andy Hamilton of Eaton Peabody represented Mr. Mydland. He described the project as replacing the building on the site, but not making it more non-conforming. The property is actually two parcels. The second parcel is vacant and has deed constraints that do not allow for building there unless it’s as an extension of a building on the first lot.
Dick Day of Plisga and Day noted the project anticipates removing and replacing what’s currently on the site. Prior to approaching the Planning Board, he noted the LUZO had been studied to ensure compliance. Mr. Day described several setbacks affecting the property. It was noted the building hangs out over the high water line. The decks will be at the extent of 5.5 feet; the applicant is allowed to reconstruct to that extent. Mr. Day noted the height of the proposed building would be 34.2 feet, lower than the allowable height of 35 feet. The total floor area would be 2711 square feet, and the volume of the building would be 15,539 cubic feet. Lot coverage would be 2365 square feet.
Carla Haskell of Design Group Collaborative Architecture explained that the proposed design outlines the area of the existing building. She noted the proposed building won’t reach over the water further than the building does now. Proposed expansion to the south conforms to the setbacks on that side. She noted soil erosion has been addressed in the plans and stormwater drainage will be located at the North and South ends of the building. The plans have been submitted to the MDEP. She added that the proposed fencing would be similar to the current fencing. The lighting would be designed to limit the amount of light pollution in the night sky.
Mr. Hamilton noted the CEO had determined the floor space requirements were met for the proposed building.
Steve Zirnkilton, whose mother lives near the house in question, requested that the deed restrictions for the property be read. Mr. Hamilton read the restrictions.
Anne Funderburk, a resident of Seal Harbor, asked for clarification regarding whether expansion of the building would be on the south side. Mr. Hamilton and Ms. Haskell confirmed it was. Ms. Funderburk asked how the expansion would affect the view. She inquired whether there would be new fencing.
Ms. Haskell noted the fencing would be replaced; however the height of the new fence would be slightly lower. The length of the fence would be shortened by approximately three feet. Ms. Haskell referred to drawings of the proposed house to elucidate to the view.
Sanford Whitehouse, who operates the Yacht Club, asked about the effect on street parking in the area. It was estimated that up to two parking spaces may be eliminated by the installation of a driveway; however the driveway leads to a garage that can accommodate two cars. The addition of the garage theoretically offsets the loss of two parking spots.
Mr. Zirnkilton asked whether any time limit for construction could be set. He noted that during past construction projects in that area, construction vehicles have been parked in such a way that people had difficulty getting into their own property. He hoped that, given the traffic congestion caused, that there would be no summer construction in the area.
Mr. Hamilton assured the public that the owners were well aware of the problems caused by past construction problems. They hope to avoid as many of the problems as they can. Demolition of the house will not occur until after Labor Day and once it has occurred, the work will proceed as expeditiously as possible. Mr. Hamilton is working towards a Fall 2013 or Spring 2014 construction.
There were no further questions from the public.
Chairman Brawley proceeded with the Board’s review of the project.
After some discussion, the Findings of Fact were found to be:
- Section 4.3.2.1 volume and floor area calculations presented by applicant satisfies the 30% limitation rule.
- Section 4.3.2.2 existing non-conforming structure has not been expanded since January 1, 1989.
- Section 4.3.2.3 the existing granite/block foundation will be used, and reinforced with concrete to accommodate newly proposed structure.
- Section 4.3.3 proposed structure meets setback to the greatest practical extent;
- Current lot coverage limits development into the Second Parcel as shown on the Plisga & Day plan;
- A deed covenant restricts development of the Second Parcel,
- Slope of land challenging on this site,
- Plans cover soil erosion; no trees will be removed and any vegetation removed will be replanted.
- Section 4.3.4 stone-clad foundation exists and will be reinforced with concrete.
- Removal exceeds 50% of market value per construction cost estimate of new replacement dwelling and appraisal of existing dwelling
Mr. Kiley moved, with Mr. Hanley seconding, to approve the Findings of Fact. Motion approved 4-0.
Conclusion of Law: Proposed replacement dwelling structure meets the requirements of Section 4.3.2, 4.3.3 & 4.3.4 of the Land Use Zoning Ordinance for the Town of Mount Desert.
Mr. Hanley moved, with Ms. Andrews seconding, to approve the application for the Reconstruction or Replacement of a Single Family Dwelling. Motion approved 4-0.
Ms. Andrews inquired about plans for the fence on the second parcel and expressed her hope that the height of the fence would be retained to preserve the view from the road. Mr. Hamilton assured her he would bring it to the owner’s attention.
There was no other business.
V. Adjournment:
Mr. Hanley moved, with Mr. Kiley seconding, to adjourn the meeting. Motion approved 4-0. Meeting was adjourned at 7:16pm.
| 
