Town of Mount Desert Planning Board
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
Meeting Room, Town Hall
6:00 pm, July 9, 2012
Public Present
Blaine N. Hopkins, Sheila S. Swanson, William C. Swanson, Scamp Gray, Brad Gray
Board Members Present
Chairman Ellen Brawley, Jim Clunan, 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 6:03 p.m. by Ellen Brawley. Planning Board members present were named.
II. Approval of Minutes
CHAIRMAN BRAWLEY MOVED, WITH MR. CLUNAN SECONDING, TO MOVE THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES TO THE END OF THE MEETING. MOTION APPROVED 3-0.
III. Subdivision Application(s)
Completeness Review:
Property Owner(s): A.C. Fernald & Sons, Inc.
Applicant(s): Global Tower Assets, LLC
Agent(s): ATC Realty
Property Location: 1049 Main Street, Somesville
Tax Map: 010 Lot: 147 Zone(s): Village Commercial District
Purpose: To create a 3-Lot Subdivision
Blaine Hopkins stated he was the authorized agent to participate in the review. Chairman Brawley stated that public notice was not necessary for a completeness review hearing. She stated that abutters to the property were notified.
Chairman Brawley explained that the completeness review process was to see if the application meets sections 4, 5, and 6 of the subdivision ordinances and LUZO.
A review of the submittals and the “Global Tower Assets, LLC Application to the Town of Mount Desert for Subdivision Approval” was made. Chairman Brawley noticed that the surveyor only signed off on one page of the plans submitted. Ms. Keene stated it was acceptable.
With regard to Section 1 of the application addressing section 4.2.1, Mr. Hopkins requested a waiver for a soils report as no residential use was proposed at this time. He assured the Board that soil tests would be made before any building started. Ms. Keene felt this was acceptable. The soil tests were made for sanitary suitability and no buildings were planned that required sanitary means.
It was noted that the parcel two (Bangor Hydro) deed was not included in the submittals. Chairman Brawley requested it.
Ms. Andrews inquired about an access easement. Mr. Hopkins noted that an access easement was shared between Bangor Hydro and AC Fernald.
With regard to Section 2 and 3 of the application addressing sections 6A.2 and 5.14.1, Ms. Keene inquired whether the road would be upgraded and whether an erosion control plan was in place. Mr. Hopkins assured her the road would be upgraded. He didn’t have an erosion control plan, but felt one may have been included in the original tower plans. Ms. Keene asked for one to be included in this plan. She also noted the plan must be engineered.
With regard to Sections 1 and 3 of the application addressing sections 4.2.2 and 12, Chairman Brawley asked whether water supply was an issue. Mr. Hopkins reported it was not.
With regard to Sections 2 and 3 of the application addressing sections 6A.2-5 and 6A.7 and 12 of the Subdivision Ordinance, Mr. Clunan asked why no stormdrains were proposed. Mr. Hopkins said there was drainage proposed, but it was on the original site plan. Mr. Hopkins asked if he should resubmit the original site plan as a subdivision plan. Ms. Keene asked whether it had been engineered. Chairman Brawley suggested that the site plan be submitted, but it should not be called a subdivision plan as there was a lot of irrelevant information there as well. Ms. Keene requested that things like storm drainage should be detailed and a written description from an engineer should be added.
Mr. Hopkins reminded the board that he is simply trying to get approval for a subdivision. If the subdivision is approved, then he will return for a proposed tower and buildings. He stated that until then there would be no road upgrades, no drainage, and the lease would not even be finalized in court until then. Ms. Keene stated he would still have to submit the subdivision plans as though he intends to build and it has to be done prior to applying for conditional use permit. The site plan can be submitted as a subdivision plan with all the details necessary to this hearing; however it should not show the proposed cell tower.
With regard to Section 1 of the application addressing section 4.2.3 - 4 of the Subdivision Ordinance, Ms. Keene wondered if abutting owner Mr. Beals was on the sewer system. If so, his line could cross the proposed subdivision lots and should be located. She requested Mr. Hopkins find out.
With regard to section 3 of the application addressing section 5.1, Mr. Clunan asked about buffering along Mr. Beals’ property. Mr. Hopkins noted the trees there were 15 to 40 feet tall. Chairman Brawley and Mr. Clunan agreed the existing buffer was probably adequate.
With regard to section 3 of the application addressing section 5.14.2, Ms. Keene inquired about an appropriate turn-around or cul de sac. Mr. Hopkins was investigating but had not yet heard from the fire chief.
With regard to section 3 of the application addressing section 5.4 – The Board was assured they would be able to review ditches and catch basins when the plan is submitted.
With regard to section 3 of the application addressing section 5.5, it was noted appropriate easements would be on lots being developed
It was agreed that section 3 of the application addressing 5.6 was not applicable
With regard to section 3 of the application addressing section 5.7-1 it was agreed that the lots meet required dimensions
With regard to section 3 of the application addressing sections 5.7-2 and 5.8, it was agreed no sewage was being proposed.
With regard to section 3 of the application addressing section 5.7-3, Mr. Clunan determined the division was conventional.
Section 5.9 of section 3 of the application was deemed not applicable
With regard to section 3 of the application addressing section 5.10 Ms. Andrews inquired whether trees being cut needed to be shown. Mr. Clunan felt they didn’t have to be shown. Ms. Keene noted they planned to preserve existing vegetation well within the 50 foot right of way.
Section 5.11 of section 3 of the application was deemed not applicable
With regard to section 3 of the application addressing section 5.12, Chairman Brawley inquired about performance bonds. Mr. Clunan didn’t recall ever requiring one before. Ms. Keene noted there had been times that such a bond would have been of benefit to the town. Mr. Clunan noted the only real risk was if a road was built but drainage was not installed. After some discussion it was agreed to require a performance bond of $75,000.00 to be available for review at the next meeting.
With regard to section 3 of the application addressing section 5.13 Chairman Brawley asked whether this was necessary. Ms. Keene noted they would have to approach the Board with any plan revisions made within five years of approval.
With regard to section 3 of the application addressing section 5.14 discussion ensued regarding a turn-around or a cul de sac. Mr. Hopkins felt that a cul de sac couldn’t be built to accommodate a fire engine. Ms. Keene noted that the plan for the road now essentially discontinues another lot’s road frontage. The board discussed ways to prevent the discontinuation but no solution was agreed to. Ms. Keene also reminded Mr. Hopkins that the lot line should go to the middle of the right of way.
Chairman Brawley noticed the applicant was requesting a waiver on the maximum grade.
Mr. Clunan noted the overhead clearance was 14 ½ feet. Mr. Hopkins mentioned there would be no phone.
Section 5.16 of section 3 of the application was deemed not applicable.
With regard to section 2 of the application, it was noted virtually everything in this section had been covered earlier in other sections. Mr. Clunan inquired whether lighting would be installed. Mr. Hopkins stated there would be no lighting.
It was noted that Section 6B does not apply and section 6C was only for property in the shoreland zone.
MR. CLUNAN MOVED, WITH MS. ANDREWS SECONDING, TO FIND THEE APPLICATION INCOMPLETE UNTIL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS LISTED WERE FULFILLED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE PLANNING BOARD. THOSE CONDITIONS BEING: SUBMISSION OF THE BANGOR HYDRO DEED, AN EROSION CONTROL AND SEDIMENTATION PLAN, A SITE PLAN WITH A DESCRIPTION OF DRAINAGE WRITTEN BY AN ENGINEER, SOIL TYPES, THE LOCATION OF EXISTING SEWER, IF ANY, A $75,000 PERFORMANCE BOND, AN ACCEPTABLE TURN-AROUND AREA WORKED OUT WITH BANGOR HYDRO, AND A PLAN SHOWING LOT LINES GOING TO THE CENTER OF THE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY.
MOTION APPROVED 3-0.
IV. Approval of Minutes
May 29, 2012 – Chairman Brawley inquired of the Board whether it would be acceptable to use Sandy Andrews’ email pertaining to the May 29th minutes, along with the two attending Board members present, to accept the Minutes. The suggestion was approved to by general consensus. Mr. Clunan moved, with Chairman Brawley seconding to approve the Minutes as amended by Mr. Andrews’ email. Motion approved 3-0, the third vote being Mr. Andrews’ stated approval in his email.
June 11, 2012 – There was no quorum for approval. Minutes were tabled.
June 12, 2012 – There was no quorum for approval. Minutes were tabled.
V. Other
Mr. Gray inquired whether the Planning Board had received the letter he hand-delivered to the Town Manager. Neither Chairman Brawley nor Ms. Keene had seen a letter. Chairman Brawley noted that she had not seen a letter, however she knew a letter from Mr. Gray had been on the Selectman’s agenda.
Mr. Gray stated his letter requested that the Planning Board continue with the process of making changes to the LUZO. Ms. Keene noted that the Board would continue the revision work, however not until Fall, due to the difficulty to obtain a quorum and the busy summer schedule. Chairman Brawley assured Mr. Gray that the Planning Board was attuned to the issues he is concerned with. Ms. Andrews suggested that Mr. Gray might want to propose some language. Chairman Brawley noted that language proposed at the Town Meeting was too broad and was not language the Board would have approved. She suggested that details like limitations on size of equipment and quantity of materials might be things to consider. Ms. Keene observed that it was a difficult situation. Not even the state regulations define
“heavy” with regard to construction equipment.
Mr. Gray felt that if there were no definitions, then perhaps he could leave any type of equipment or materials in the area in question. Ms. Keene noted that in the absence of clear definitions, common sense was used. She added that because of the ambiguity it was a very complex discussion, attorneys would be required, and without careful planning, the Town could be open to lawsuits. The entire subject had to be approached carefully. She assured Mr. Gray that discussion would continue this fall.
Mr. Clunan added that the Board can’t move effectively until the decision of whether to hire a planner is made.
MR. CLUNAN MOVED, WITH MS. ANDREWS SECONDING, TO ADJOURN. MOTION APPOVED 3-0. Meeting was adjourned at 8:09pm.
| 
