Town of Mount Desert Planning Board Meeting Minutes
Town Hall Meeting Room, Northeast Harbor
June 20, 2011
Public Present
Public in attendance included Annette Carvayal, Caroline Felkel, Douglas M. Miller, Deborah J. Reed, Richard Fuerst, Barry J. Hobbins, attorney for AT&T Wireless, Dick Broom, David Irvin, Diane Miller, Ted Bromage, Jean Travers, Witt K. Cochrane, Rita Redfield, E. Pat Foster, M.J. Penn, Linda Lewis, Margaret E. Smallidge, Audra Klumb, Bob Gashlin, and Edie Dunham.
Board Members Present
Board members present were Ellen Brawley, Robert Ho, Jerry Miller, Jim Clunan, Joe Tracy and Sandy Andrews. Mr. Andrews arrived late.
Also in attendance were Kimberly Keene, CEO, and Heidi Smallidge, recording secretary pro tem.
- The meeting was called to order by Ellen Brawley at 5:20 PM. Mr. Clunan confirmed that appropriate public notice had been given in the Bar Harbor Times on June 8, 2011.
Conditional Use Approval Application(s):
A. Conditional Use Approval Application # 017-2011
NAME(S): Timothy H. Gott
AGENT(S): Barry J. Hobbins, Esq.
LOCATION: 400 Pretty Marsh Road, Mount Desert
TAX MAP: 11 LOT: 8-1 ZONE(S): Residential 2 & Rural Woodland 3
PURPOSE: Section 6B.17 - Wireless Communication Facilities
SITE INSPECTION: 3:00PM
A site inspection was held at 3:00 pm. It was noted the application states the address as 400 Pretty Marsh Rd. Mr. Clunan stated the address was now Pasture Farm Way, and the application would have to be amended to reflect that change throughout. Ms. Keene noted it had been on the tax rolls as 400 Pretty Marsh Rd., but when the property was divided, the address for the site changed.
Mr. Clunan described the site. The elevation of the site was 175 feet. According to the application there was a culvert under the road to provide for flow, however the culvert was not visible to those in attendance; possibly the culvert was submerged. Road noise could be heard at the site. Mr. Clunan noted that cell phone reception was available on Route 102, but not on the low point of Pond Rd. There is a South side access road. Abutters properties include two houses; Ms. Miller’s home is approximately 500 feet from the proposed pole site and Ms. Reed’s home is further away.
Ms. Brawley inquired about public input. Ms. Keene reported she’d received one email from Deborah Reed.
It was agreed that the voting members for this hearing would be Mr. Ho, Mr. Tracy, Mr. Clunan, and Ms. Brawley. Mr. Clunan moved, with Mr. Ho seconding to approve the voting member slate. Motion approved 4-0.
Deborah Reed inquired about appropriate notice. She stated she had not received her notice until June 11th, and was unable to communicate with an attorney within that time. She also stated it was difficult to find counsel who haven’t worked with either the applicant or the company installing the cell tower.
Mr. Tracy inquired whether Ms. Reed had received proper notice. Ms. Reed answered she had received notice, but not with appropriate enough time to find counsel.
Ms. Brawley asked whether Ms. Reed had had counsel before. Ms. Reed said no, she had not.
Ms. Keene stated the letters had been sent June 10th
Discussion
The discussion was now open for public input. Ms. Brawley opened with the statement that balancing the intent of the Town and taking care of all townspeople as well as keeping the best interests of the abutters may very well prove to be a conflict.
Mr. Clunan noted that page 77 of the Land Use Zoning Ordinance refers to improving town communications facilities. Planning has to hear and decide on this application, trying to take both town quality and the residents’ interest into account. Mr. Clunan pointed out page 10 of the application that notes other sites. He inquired what coverage would be with these others sites, and how far along the other sites are to being put into use.
Bob Gashlin, representing AT&T Wireless, reported that there is a planned tower going in on Goose Cove Road in Trenton, one planned for Kelly Town Road in Tremont, and the one approved for the site in Town Hill. He noted coverage is based on the height of the tower allowed and its placement.
Mr. Ho inquired about camouflaging the poles. Mr. Gashlin said that yes, poles can be camouflaged to look like a pine tree. He felt regular poles do a better job, and the pine tree looking poles are not very convincing.
Audra Klumb of A&E Environmental noted that Acadia National Park did a review of visibility within a four mile radius. They did not feel a pole would have an impact.
Ted Bromage noted that there is very little or no signal in areas around the proposed tower, and a tower would be an asset. He felt that a pole that was not camouflaged would be the better choice.
Diane Miller stated she abuts the property and shares the road with the applicant. She voiced concern regarding the traffic required for maintenance, and is wondering if she’s protected if the road can’t carry the impact of added traffic. Ms. Brawley said that the Town cannot cover a private road.
Ms. Miller inquired whether the Town will cover the depreciation of her home when the view is diminished. Mr. Clunan asked what the appraisal was currently. Ms. Miller said she could get it appraised both before and after the tower is installed.
Ms. Reed asked whether it was the Planning Board’s opinion that the tower will not devalue their land.
Mr. Clunan noted it was the focus of the Board to increase cell and internet coverage and enhance the E911 system.
Mr. Tracy noted that the towers may not help the abutters increase their value, but it may increase other property owners values due to an increase in coverage.
Caroline Felkel noted that her place of residence has no land line, no Redzone internet, no DSL, and no cable. She will welcome a tower to improve her communications ability. Ms. Reed suggested she was an employee of the applicant, Tim Gott. Tim Gott stated Ms. Felkel did not work for him.
Dave Irvin requested a presentation of exactly what was being proposed. Ms. Brawley stated that the entire application was available to the public in the Town Office.
Mr. Irvin asked whether there was vegetative screening. Ms. Brawley and Mr. Clunan both noted it was already there.
Mr. Hobbins noted there was minimal noise and no vibration. Mr. Clunan asked when the town would be informed that the FAA would not require lighting. Mr. Hobbins noted they were waiting on the letter, but if it were a concern, the Planning Board could make no lighting a condition.
Richard Fuerst asked how loud the tower’s accompanying machinery would be, particularly on a winter’s night. He noted the Phone Company generator and construction at the site can be heard. Mr. Hobbins stated the noise was well below the standards required. Ms. Miller inquired how often the generator goes off. Mr. Gashlin reported that the generator was a typical 4 foot by 6 foot size. There were sound deadening skins on it, as well as an exhaust muffler. The generator will cycle on every ten days during normal business hours and will go on when the power is out.
Ms. Miller requested that it be put in the record that the addition of this tower would be life changing to her.
Mr. Fierce stated that the arrays at the top of the pole would be visible from the road. He requested he be able to address the ordinance. He stated there are three standards regarding the installation of a tower that do not meet the ordinance. He felt that the tower would not meet the ordinance’s requirements on compatibility with regards to size and visual impact. He felt the tower would be a nuisance due to noise. Additionally, he felt that the tower would not be consistent with protecting the character and beauty of the town.
It was then discussed where to begin a review of the application. It was agreed by general consensus that Sandy Andrews, who had arrived late, would be a voting member of the board as well as the secretary. Mr. Andrews mentioned he was a shareholder in AT&T and inquired whether that were a conflict of interest. It was deemed not a conflict.
Ms. Reed inquired whether the Planning Board had a sense of how many abutters were opposed to the tower, and whether their concerns would make an difference to the Board. Mr. Miller noted the only communication the group’s had has been with Acadia National Park and they were in favor of it.
Margaret Smallidge stated her family did not want the tower so close to their property. M.J. Penn noted there were no other options for a location site, and she appreciated the tower. Richard Fuerst stated he was in support of the tower.
Ms. Reed asked if new technology came along that made the tower obsolete, would it be taken down. Mr. Hobbins said that applicants can’t be held to standards not yet in place. AT&T would have a five-year lease for the tower with a renewable option.
Edie Dunham inquired about placing a tower on top of Cadillac Mountain. Would the entire island be covered with a tower at this location? It was noted there would be shadows of no coverage even with a tower on Cadillac.
A MOTION TO APPROVE CUA # 017-2011 WAS MADE BY Mr. Ho; SECONDED BY Mr. Tracy.
The Standards of Section 6 of the LUZO, as amended May 3, 2011 were reviewed as follows: See attached checklist for CUA #017-2011.
The Board reviewed Section 6B.17.2 – 6B.17.8.h and then motioned to table the meeting until the next evening.
Mr. Ho MOVED TO TABLE THE MEETING ON JUNE 21, 2011 AT 6:00PM IN THE TOWN HALL; SECONDED BY Mr. Tracy.
The review of CUA# 017-2011 closed 7:52PM and will reconvene Tuesday, June 21, 2011 at 6PM. (2:30:00 Tape 1)
June 21, 2011
Public Present
Public in attendance included Deborah J. Reed, Richard Fuerst, Barry J. Hobbins, attorney for AT&T Wireless, Dick Broom, Diane Miller, Jean Travers, Bob Gashlin, and Timothy Gott.
Board Members Present
Board members present were Ellen Brawley, Robert Ho, Jerry Miller, Jim Clunan, Joe Tracy and Sandy Andrews.
Also in attendance were Kimberly Keene, CEO, and Claire Woolfolk, recording. (Arrived at 6:30PM)
The meeting was re-convened by Ellen Brawley at 6:04 pm with all voting members in attendance. All present are voting members of this hearing except Mr. Miller.
Chairman Brawley reported that she received an email from Deborah Reed that morning formally requesting that this hearing be postponed and rescheduled to a later date so that she could find an attorney to represent her interests and have time to apprise him/herself of the complicated issues surrounding this application. The attorney for the applicant presented a date stamped (February 19, 2010) initial submission to the Town of Mt. Desert. Mr. Hobbins stated that it has been no secret that this site has been under consideration for two years (exhibit 7). CEO Keene denied the application in February of 2010 because of a subdivision issue which had to be resolved before it could move forward. Mr. Clunan responded by stating that the initial application never became public notice. Ms.
Reed said that she did not hire an attorney based on the rumors of the possibility of a tower being constructed on the abutting property over the last two years.
Mr. Tracy stated that the Board was already in the middle of the hearing and that they should continue. The recourse for Ms. Reed is to file an appeal if she is opposed to the final decision. Mrs. Brawley said that the board does want to observe the rights of the citizens and that they should not make a final decision on the matter until such time that Ms. Reed can hire an attorney. Mr. Andrews and Mr. Tracy disagreed and said that ordinance is set up the way it is to give abutters advance notice and that their recourse is to file an appeal. Mr. Andrews further stated that the Board also needs to respect the applicant’s position and continue with the hearing. Chairman Brawley said that the James Collier, the town’s attorney, suggested that they not make a final decision until Ms.
Reed has legal representation. Mr. Collier felt that the Board should be sure that the abutters’ rights have not been violated. Mr. Tracy and Mr. Andrews again stated the hearing has already begun and that Ms. Reed has recourse through an appeal. Mr. Clunan said that what Mr. Andrews is referring to is found in Section 5.7 of the ordinance.
Mr. Tracy moved that the Board continue with the proceeding and carry it to conclusion; Seconded by Mr. Andrews. A vote was taken and the motion to continue was passed. 3-2 (No – Brawley and Clunan)
The Board continued with the review beginning with Section 6.B.17.8.i. Board Members Present: Sandy Andrews; Ellen Brawley, Chair; James Clunan, Vice Chairman; Robert Ho; Gerard M. Miller, and Joseph Tracy.
Before beginning the review of Section 6.A, Mr. Andrews stated that it is important to bear in mind the purpose of the ordinance as stated in Section 1.3 when considering this application. He then read Section 1.3:
The purpose of this Ordinance is to carry out the intent of the of the Comprehensive Plan of the Town; to safeguard the comfort, convenience, safety, health, and welfare of the people; to preserve the Town’s cultural and aesthetic resources; to protect the environment; and to promote the development of an economically sound and stable community.
In addition, Mr. Andrews also quoted Section 1.2 under Assumptions. “The future of the Town will depend largely on the balance achieved between conservation and development. “ (emphasis added) and further stated “that this is our role as the Planning Board to try to strike that balance between the benefit for the most people while harming the fewest people and environmental things that we can.” Mr. Clunan added to accomplish that with respect to specific applications, the Board’s role is to make sure that the applicants conform with the ordinance in all its aspects.
Upon the review of Section 6A.1 Compatibility, Mr. Fuerst and Ms. Reed requested an opportunity to make public statements. Chairman Brawley allowed their comments.
(1:17 Tape 2)
- Mr. Fuerst stated that he felt it was vitally important to distinguish that a 125’ tower is not a permitted use, but is rather a conditional use if it meets the standard of 6A. That the Planning Board must judge if the conditional use is compatible with the permitted uses in the surrounding area. Mr. Andrews said he would agree with Mr. Fuerst’s comment.
- Ms. Reed agreed that she struggled with this as well. She said that in her research she has tried to determine what she is permitted to do in a rural woodland zone. For example, she cannot cross country ski without violation or needing a permit, but she can raise a horse. She said there aren’t that many permitted uses. Mr. Andrews said you could build a house and that there were several permitted uses, then referred Ms. Reed to the permitted uses from the LUZO table.
After the comments, the Board continued their review of Section 6.
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION TO APPROVE CUA # 017-2011 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0).
V. Meeting adjourned at 10:18 p.m. The next scheduled meeting/public hearing(s) is at 6:00 PM., Monday, June 27, 2011 in the Meeting Room, Town Hall, Northeast Harbor.
Respectfully submitted,
ORIGINAL SIGNATURE ON FILE IN TOWN OFFICE
Schofield Andrews, Secretary Pro-tem
| 
