Town of Mount Desert Planning Board
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
Great Hall, Neighborhood House
6:00 pm, July 23, 2012
Public Present
C.H. Breedlove, C. Keith Martin, M. Christine Breedlove, Carol J. Martin, Virginia Heffner, Valerie Chaisson, Ed Bearor, Paul MacQuinn, Ben Duhaime, Daniel Pileggi, James P. Aylen, Jean Travers, Laurie C. Shencavitz, Judith E. Aylen, Dick Broom, Deborah Reed, Diane Miller, Jean B. Gilpin, George Gilpin, Gerald Shencavitz, Seth Singleton, Jan Coates, Tom Fernald, Carroll Fernald, Patricia Carter, Robert Carter, Claire Woolfolk, Douglas Hopkins, Barbara I. Williams, Joan Williams
Board Members Present
Chairman Ellen Brawley, Bill Hanley, Joe Tracy and Lili Andrews
Also present were CEO Kimberly Keene and Recording Secretary Heidi Smallidge
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:04 p.m. by Chairman Ellen Brawley. Planning Board members present were named.
II. Approval of Minutes
MS. ANDREWS MOVED, WITH MR. HANLEY SECONDING, TO MOVE THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES TO THE END OF THE MEETING. MOTION APPROVED 4-0.
III. New Business
Owner(s): Harold MacQuinn, Inc.
Applicant(s): Fresh Water Stone & Brickwork, Inc.
Agent(s): Edmond J. Bearor, Rudman Winchell Counselors at Law
Location: Off Crane Road, Hall Quarry
Tax Map: 007 Lot: 075 Zone(s): Residential 2
Purpose: Determination of similarity of use pursuant to Section 2 of the Land Use Zoning Ordinance
Chairman Brawley announced she had a conflict of interest. The responsibility of an alternate Planning Board member was explained; i.e. that Bill Hanley, as an alternate Planning Board member, is able to act as a voting member in the absence of regular Planning Board members.
Mr. Collier opined that Chairman Brawley did not have a conflict of interest, but rather a bias with regard to the issue at hand. He agreed that recusal from the board was a wise decision and suggested the voting members on the question be Ms. Andrews, Mr. Hanley, and Mr. Tracy.
After some discussion, MR. TRACY MOVED TO RELUCTANTLY ACCEPT CHAIRMAN BRAWLEY’S RECUSAL FROM THE DISCUSSION. MR. HANLEY SECONDED. MOTION APPROVED 3-0.
MR. TRACY MOVED, WITH MR. HANLEY SECONDING, TO APPOINT MS. ANDREWS INTERIM CHAIRMAN FOR THE DISCUSSION. MOTION APPROVED 3-0.
Chairman Andrews verified appropriate notice had been published in the July 12, 2012 Mount Desert Islander. In addition, property abutters were notified.
No conflict of interest from the voting members was found.
Ed Bearor, attorney and agent for the property owner, stated that both Harold MacQuinn Inc. and Musetti, who owned the land before Harold MacQuinn Inc., have extracted minerals from the area in the past. The ordinance permits mineral extraction. Mr. Bearor read the definition from the ordinance. Mr. Bearor stated that quarrying is also mineral extraction. He stated that the ordinance also provides circumstances for approval of similar uses if quarrying isn’t considered mineral extraction. Mr. Bearor reminded the board that this meeting was simply to reach a determination regarding mineral extraction and quarrying. The application will be filed afterward. Mr. Bearor noted that if the definition from the LUZO is not clear, a specific dictionary was cited as the source for clarification. Mr.
Bearor read the definitions of “extraction” and “quarry”. The bottom line, Mr. Bearor felt, was that common sense should prevail.
MR. TRACY MOVED, WITH MR. HANLEY SECONDING, THAT QUARRYING IS INCLUDED UNDER THE DEFINITION OF MINERAL EXTRACTION.
Mr. Hanley requested more history regarding the site.
Current owner of Harold MacQuinn, Inc. Paul MacQuinn stated his grandfather Harold MacQuinn purchased stone extracted by the Musettis that came from the property. A number of stone projects on Mount Desert Island have been built with stone taken from the property. In the early 1980s the Musettis sold the property to Ronald MacQuinn, Paul MacQuinn’s father and then-owner of Harold MacQuinn, Inc. Paul MacQuinn stated that Harold MacQuinn Inc., has quarried the property ever since. Mr. MacQuinn has leased the property to Fresh Water Stone and stone from the property has been used locally since. Mr. MacQuinn stated there has never been a problem with operations at the site before.
Mr. Pileggi stated he was the attorney for Jerry and Laurie Shencavitz who reside in Hall Quarry. Mr. Pileggi felt the question at hand was being discussed in a vacuum. Circumstances such as the amounts to be quarried and time frames for quarrying activity needed to be clarified. Mr. Pileggi felt that the feeling among residents was there was a preference that companies not engage in large-scale operations out of the property. His suggestion was that the Planning Board not act so the application is filed. Then the details of the operation submitted with the application will provide the context to make a better decision. He noted that there was a difference between a small amount of stone removal and a large-scale extraction.
Mr. Tracy noted that 100 or less cubic yards of stone removed would not require a permit. Mr. Pileggi felt the ordinance was not clear on that point. Mr. Tracy reminded those in attendance that the question was only whether quarrying was mineral extraction. Mr. Pileggi felt that per the Town’s definition more information is required in order to make that determination.
Ms. Breedlove stated that granite is not a mineral and so an operation removing granite could not be defined as mineral extraction.
Mr. Breedlove reported that he had lived in the area since 1995 and had often walked the property in question. Other than people coming in occasionally to remove rock already broken up, there has been very little historic activity on the site. It was very different from what’s been happening there the past two years. Mr. Breedlove would like to know the definition of continuous use.
Mr. Singleton noted he had lived in the area since 1977. He agreed with Mr. Breedlove’s statements. He noted that recently large areas of stone wall and trees have been removed. He added that in 1977 there were significantly fewer houses in the neighborhood. Hall Quarry has now become a residential community and is no longer a back road to an isolated quarry. How the community around the property has changed should be taken into account.
Ms. Andrews inquired whether work was continuing on the site. Mr. Bearor reported that all operations ceased with the complaints received. Fresh Water Stone would like to go in to remove the already-extracted materials, however they have not.
Mr. Tracy reminded those present that the only question before the board was whether quarrying is considered mineral extraction.
Mr. Collier did not recall an application for mineral extraction coming before the Planning Board prior to this. He did believe the property owner did intend to remove more than 100 cubic yards of stone, which would be removed through cutting and boring the stone. Mr. Collier explained that this hearing was a procedural matter; submitting an application would be a waste of time if quarrying and mineral extraction are not found to be the same.
Mr. Aylen stated that Mr. Collier said quarrying is not allowed in any zone in the Town of Mount Desert. Mr. Collier clarified that he believed he stated that in his opinion quarrying was not on the list of uses.
Mr. Shencavitz stated that rock versus mineral was the heart of the discussion. He submitted eight definitions indicating granite was not a mineral. Therefore, in his opinion, the work being done on the site was not mineral extraction.
Mr. Hanley asked whether the process for extracting a rock like granite was different from extracting a mineral. Mr. MacQuinn noted that the rock was cut into blocks onsite, then taken from the site and cut into other shapes. The operation doesn’t blast or dig to avoid weakening the granite. Mr. Duhaime confirmed the operation process.
Mr. Collier read the LUZO definition of mineral extraction. He noted that Mr. Bearor made the assertion that more than 100 cubic yards of rock would be removed from the site.
Mr. Bearor noted the question seems clear, and they would like to proceed.
Ms. Aylen stated she abutted the site. The work being done there is like having jack hammers operating for long periods of time, and large equipment operating. It’s a large and noisy operation.
Mr. Tracy stated that the more he learned of the operation the more negative it sounded. However, the board is only deciding if mineral extraction and quarrying is the same thing.
Ms. Heffner noted she had lived in the area since 1988. She asked when it would be the appropriate time to talk about issues like noise.
Mr. Collier stated that if and when a permit is applied for the issues can be discussed and the Planning Board can fashion conditions for the applicant based on public input.
Chairman Andrews closed the public hearing.
Mr. Tracy stated that in looking at the evidence he could only conclude that quarrying is mineral extraction. Mr. Hanley and Chairman Andrews agreed. MOTION APPROVED 3-0.
There was a brief recess while the room cleared. Chairman Brawley returned to the board as Chairman.
IV. Approval of Minutes
June 11, 2012 – MR. TRACY MOVED, WITH MS. ANDREWS SECONDING, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION APPROVED 4-0.
June 12, 2012 – Chairman Brawley noted one correction. On the checklist on Page 2 all of section 6B should have been checked as Not Applicable. MR. HANLEY MOVED, WITH MR. TRACY SECONDING, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MOTION APPROVED 4-0.
June 25, 2012 – It was noted that Ms. Reed had made a request to include in the Minutes a section of the meeting she had transcribed. Mr. Tracy suggested postponing approval of the Minutes until the Board could obtain legal advice. Ms. Reed noted her 30 days to appeal was nearly over. She stated she submitted an appeal today without the Minutes in order to make the appeal deadline. Mr. Tracy felt it was the right thing for her to do. Ms. Andrews felt that if what Ms. Reed had was a transcript then it didn’t need to be included in the Minutes. Ms. Reed noted that the Appeals Board only refers to what’s in the Minutes. MR. TRACY MOVED, WITH MS. ANDREWS SECONDING, TO TABLE THE APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 25 MINUTES UNTIL A LEGAL OPINION CAN BE OBTAINED. MOTION APPROVED 4-0.
July 9, 2012 – There was not a quorum present to approve the Minutes.
V. Other
Chairman Brawley noted the Board would have to find dates for additional meetings to discuss views and scenic vistas and the LUZO. She would be sending out a survey to find dates members were available to meet on.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:36 by general consensus.
| 
