Mount Desert Planning Board Meeting Minutes
April 25, 2011
Public Present
Susan J. Grindle, Abigale Parker, Noel Musson, Anne S. Funderburk, Douglass S. Gray, Jr., Brad Gray, Jim Patterson, Ginger Seavey, and Douglass Hopkins
Board Members Present
Sandy Andrews; Ellen Brawley, Chair; James Clunan, Vice Chairman; and Gerard M. Miller
Kim Keene, CEO; Claire Woolfolk, Recording Secretary
I. The meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m.
II. Public Hearings
Conditional Use Approval Application(s):
A. Conditional Use Approval Application #006-2011
OWNER(S): Edith Dunham et als. (1/2) Int. &
Justin W. Heatter (1/2) Int.
AGENT(S): Alexa Davis & Abigale Parker
LOCATION: Upper Dunbar Road, Seal Harbor
TAX MAP: 31 LOT(S): 99 ZONE(S): VR1 – Village Residential 1
PURPOSE: Section 3.4 – Commercial Horticulture
SITE INSPECTION: 4:00 PM
No conflict of interest was reported. Sandy Andrews, Ellen Brawley, James Clunan, and Gerard M. Miller are the voting members for this hearing. It was confirmed the notice was published in the Bar Harbor Times on April 13, 2011.
Site Inspection was attended by Ellen Brawley, Jerry Miller, and reported by Ms. Brawley. The lot is an empty lot sloping east to west towards a ditch on the side of the road. There are houses on all sides of the property and across the street. The property has historically been farmed. CEO Keene reports that in 1999 the property owner, Mrs. Dunham, had approval to have a seasonal produce sales. CEO Keene read into the record the definition of Horticulture: the science and art of growing fruits, vegetables, flowers, or ornamental plants.
CEO Keene reported calls from an abutter, Judith Harvel, Mr. Patterson Ms. Harvel’s attorney who is present, and another neighbor, Ginger Seavey, called to inquire about the application.
The previous CEO, Terry Towne, did not approve an application for agricultural farming, which includes animals and dairy products, and Ms. Dunham’s request had to go to the planning board for approval. The owner’s application was commercial horticultural. Commercial horticulture includes the use of greenhouses for the purposes of seasonal sales.
MOTION TO APPROVE CUA Application # 006-2011 MADE BY Mr. Clunan; SECONDED BY Mr. Miller.
Mr. Patterson, representing Judith Harvel, questioned the applicants: Will there be manure or composting? The applicants said that manure would not be used, nor will household animal scraps be used. Plant materials will be composted and used to cover the crops to fix nitrogen in the soil.
Mr. Patterson reported that Ms. Harvel is not opposed to the permit being issued, but is concerned about protecting her property and asked that the following conditions be placed on the permit:
- Limitations on noise and light: Ms. Harvel requests that no outside lighting be used and weekly mowing be limited to mid-morning to mid-afternoon. Mr. Miller said the board cannot put a condition on the permit regarding the mowing because the town does not have a noise ordinance. The applicants stated that no outside lighting would be used and that they would verbally agreed to limit mowing/tilling/weed whacking to “reasonable” hours of the day.
- Parking /traffic - Primary access to the farm stand via Upper Dunbar Road: Ms. Harvel requests that advertising for the farm stand note that access should be from Upper Dunbar Road. The applicants expect only a couple of vehicles at a time. The produce stand itself will be close to the Upper Dunbar Road access. Mr. Clunan questioned parking issue which occurs on Lower Dunbar Road when cocktail parties are held at the Acadia Institute of Oceanography. Parking is sometimes difficult to maneuver at these events. Ms. Grindle said that the parking on Lower Dunbar Road has nothing to do with the operation being proposed by the applicants.
- Composting: Ms. Harvel requests that any compost piles be located near garden plots and not near her house. The applicants stated that they would use the old garden site for dry matter and plant matter for the purpose of composting. The compost could include coffee grounds, grass clippings, leaves and/or other plant matter. They reiterated that no animal waste would be incorporated into the compost.
- Herbicides/Pesticides: Mr. Patterson asked about the intended use of organic herbicides or pesticides since the property is slops down towards Ms. Harvel’s property. The applicants said the only controls would be for red ants by using a special type of mushroom to deter the ants or an essential oil blend (cinnamon/cloves blend).
Ms. Seavey asked about the concept planned for the deer fence. The applicants explained that smaller animals would be able to pass through, but deer would not. The voltage would be low so as to not hurt neighborhood dogs. A solar panel will provide the energy source.
The applicants passed around a photo of the proposed greenhouse. The size is 8’ X 10’ and it is portable. CEO Keene said setback requirements will need to be met, even though it is a temporary structure. She will also need to issue a permit for the greenhouse and that a new permit will have to be issued each time they move it.
The Standards of Section 6 of the LUZO, as amended May 4, 2010 were reviewed as follows: See attached checklist for CUA # 006 -2011.
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION TO APPROVE CUA# 006-2011 with the conditions stated CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (4-0).
B. Mitchell P. Rales – 137 Peabody Drive, Northeast Harbor, Tax Map 3 Lot 33 – A condition was placed on an approved Conditional Use Permit Application #002-2010, for a Marine Structure (pier, ramp & float) when lighting is proposed on said Marine Structure a plan was shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Board.
No conflict of interest was reported. Sandy Andrews, Ellen Brawley, James Clunan, and Gerard M. Miller are the voting members for this hearing. It was confirmed the notice was published in the Bar Harbor Times on April 13, 2011.
MOTION TO APPROVE the proposed lighting on the Marine Structure pertaining to CUA #002-2010 MADE BY Mr. Miller; SECONDED BY Mr. Clunan.
CEO Keene went over the original application which proposed the removal of the existing pier and replacing it with a new one. The application was approved with a condition that if additional changes to lighting in the future, a lighting plan is to be presented to the board for approval. Mr. Musson has represented Mr. Rales for the last three years and was available for questions and/or comments. The requirements according to the LUZO 6A.6 and 6A.10 were determined to be met by the proposed plans.
The light fixtures are custom made and a photo was introduced so that the board could see the size-scale. The size of the lights are 6” X 2” and are considered low light with the goal of lighting only the pier and not to cast off light beyond the walk way. They are less than the lumens allowed by the LUZO and will be placed on the west side of the dock.
A letter was introduced to describe the light generated. CEO Keene reported that a neighbor contacted her to discuss the application and after conferring with Ms. Keene he is fine with the proposed plan.
Amendment #002-2010
6A.6 Lighting-Outdoor
1. Full cutoff. All lights greater than *1800 lumens (a 100 watt incandescent light produces 1800 lumens) shall be shielded to direct all light towards the ground.
2. Light trespass. All light shall be directed away from adjacent properties. The light sources in flood and spot lights shall not be directly visible from adjacent properties. High intensity light sources shall not be directly visible to motorists on public roads.
3. Excessive Lighting may not be used to direct attention away from existing business and community lighting.
- The lighting of structural canopies such as gas station canopies shall not be used to attract attention to the business. Areas under structural canopies shall be illuminated so that the uniformity ratio (ratio of average to minimum illumination) shall be no greater than 5:1 with an average illumination level of not more than 30 footcandles.
- Light fixtures located on structural canopies shall be mounted so that the lens cover is recessed or flush with the ceiling of the canopy.
Findings of Fact(s):
- Full Cutoff: The fixtures are considerably less than 1800 lumens.
- Light Trespass: The lights directed down to the walkway on the pier.
- Excessive Lighting: not applicable
VOTE: Findings of Facts approved as written 4 – 0 (Miller/Clunan)
Conclusion of Law: Proposed lighting meets the standards of Section 6A.6.
VOTE: Conclusion of Law as written 4 – 0 (Miller/Clunan)
6A. 10Nuisances Notwithstanding any other standard in this section, the Planning Board shall not issue any Conditional Use Approval for any proposed use which if established would be obnoxious or offensive by reason of:
Odors; X N/A -family:Arial;font-size:9pt;color:#000000;">Smoke; X N/A p;
Condition(s): Any future changes to the pier lighting will require planning board approval.
VOTE: Condition(s) 4 – 0 (Clunan/ Miller)
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION TO APPROVE the proposed lighting on the pier with stated condition CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (4-0) See attached Conditional Use Permit/Approval for CUA Amendment #002-2010 approval signatures.
Vistas and Views: Discussion of the list of candidates for the vistas and views ordinance.
Discussion is post-poned until the next meeting.
- Douglass Gray and Brad Gray are owners of the Village Market in Otter Creek. On April 5, 2011 CEO Keene issued Notice of Violation letter regarding the trailer, truck, excavator, and back hoe being stored on the property in response to a complaint posed to the Town Manager, Durlin Lunt.
Storage of construction equipment and heavy vehicles is not permitted by the LUZO. CEO Keene contacted the Grays to see what their business is. It could fall under Services 3 (not wholly enclosed) for construction. They use small equipment in their construction business. Mr. Gray is coming to the board to see if they would approve the use with a CUA Permit.
The board asked the property owners what the intent for the use of the property. Mr. Gray stated that the building is only being used in the basement area as a mechanical workshop. The business is described as construction to include the operation of a mini-excavator and mini-dump truck by the owner. The Grays don’t need a commercial license to operate these machines.
The store will not be occupied by the owners or operated as retail unless they had a tenant interested in doing so. Mr. Gray pointed out that there is equipment stored nearby on the town property by Jordan’s Construction.
Mr. Andrews said the business is NOT the storage of the vehicles. Mr. Clunan pointed out that the snow plows are stored on the premises during the off-season.
Mrs. Funderburk, Seal Harbor resident, is concerned that the Village Market has become a repository for the vehicles. She said it is not in keeping with the village character. The property is not a garage or service station and that the use has changed dramatically. Others in town also use the parking lot for extra parking (i.e. the Post Office).
Chairman Brawley asked Mrs. Funderburk if it would be less objectionable if the equipment was stored out of view of the road, perhaps down below the building in the back. She said certainly it would be more aesthetic to have them out of view from the road.
Mr. Clunan brought up that Section 6A.9 (Preserving the Town’s Character) references the Comprehensive Plan. He questioned if the board should amend the wording for the Conclusion of Law. Mr. Andrews suggested that it was put in to allow the board leeway to deny or approve an application. If the board were to use it to deny an application, it would have to be in opposition to the comprehensive plan. Mr. Miller said that he thought the wording should remain as part of the checklist.
- The board discussed how they will respond to questions at the Town Meeting on May 3, 2011.
- Ms. Brawley reported on her training as Planning Board Chair:
- The board must vote on both Finding of Facts AND Conclusions of Law separately.
- The board is able to do a major and/or minor review of the LUZO. CEO Keene will research on how to have a minor checklist.
- Site visits need to have at least two board members present and they can’t have any discussion with the applicant because it constitutes a public meeting; a quorum must be present to conduct a meeting. Board members must tell the public that they need to attend the hearing in order to discuss any concerns. Conversation should be limited to the applicant explaining their proposal for clarification to board members.
- CEO Keene alerted the board members to upcoming applications for future hearings.
V. Meeting adjourned at 8:06 p.m. The next scheduled meeting/public hearing(s) is at 6:00 p.m., Monday, May 9, 2011 in the Meeting Room, Town Hall, Northeast Harbor.
Respectfully submitted,
ORIGINAL SIGNATURE ON FILE IN TOWN OFFICE
Sandy Andrews, Secretary Pro-tem
| 
