Town of Mount Desert Planning Board Meeting Minutes
Town Hall Meeting Room, Northeast Harbor
May 23, 2011
Public Present
Anne Funderburk, Douglass Gray, Jr., Brad Gray, Leslie Mahaney, Basil Mahaney, Charles Stephenson, and Edith Dunham.
Board Members Present
Sandy Andrews; Ellen Brawley, Chair; Gerard M. Miller, alt; and Joseph Tracy
Kim Keene, CEO; Claire Woolfolk, Recording Secretary
I. The meeting was called to order at 6:05 p.m.
II. Public Hearings
Conditional Use Approval Application(s):
A. Conditional Use Approval Application # 010-2011
NAME: Basil and Lesley Mahaney
LOCATION: 2 Lyman Lane, Northeast Harbor
TAX MAP: 025 LOT: 111-001 ZONE(S): VR1
PURPOSE: Sections 3.4 & 6B.7 Excavation or Filling greater than 50 cu yards.
SITE INSPECTION: 4:00 PM
No conflict of interest was reported. Sandy Andrews, Ellen Brawley, Gerard M. Miller, and Joseph Tracy are the voting members for this hearing. It was confirmed the notice was published in the Bar Harbor Times on May 11, 2011.
Site Inspection was attended by the applicants, Ellen Brawley and Sandy Andrews; reported by Mr. Andrews. The site is located across the street from the elementary school and next to the library. The site is wooded and applicant plans to move the existing driveway, add fill to level out the area, replace the rock wall along Lyman Lane with boulders and landscaping, transforming the area into a yard. It is in a residential neighborhood. They will also level out the library parking on their property, resulting in an increase in the parking area.
Public comments:
• Mr. Gray stated that he thinks the site improvement will not harm the neighborhood in any way.
• Ms. Brawley reported a conversation with Bob Pyle and he declared that the library is in total support of the plan.
Mr. Tracy suggested that in the future these types of applications fall within the authority of the CEO and that they should only be looking at this from an environmental standpoint. It was noted that Fill/Excavation will be placed on the list of LUZO revisions for 2012.
MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY Mr. Miller; SECONDED BY Mr. Tracy.
The Standards of Section 6 of the LUZO, as amended May 4, 2010 were reviewed as follows: See attached checklist for CUA # 010-2011.
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (4-0).
B. Conditional Use Approval Application # 011-2011
NAME: Grayline LLC; Douglass Gray, Jr.
LOCATION: 18 Main Street, Seal Harbor
TAX MAP: 030 LOT: 008 ZONE(S): VC
PURPOSE: Section 3.4 Services 3 (not wholly enclosed)
SITE INSPECTION: 3:00 PM
No conflict of interest was reported by board members. Sandy Andrews, Ellen Brawley, Gerard M. Miller, and Joseph Tracy are the voting members for this hearing. It was confirmed the notice was published in the Bar Harbor Times on May 11, 2011.
Site Inspection was attended by the applicants, Ellen Brawley and Sandy Andrews; reported by Mr. Andrews. The site is located on Main St. in Seal Harbor and was previously a convenience store and gas station. The area is paved for parking. There is a commercial building with a right-of-way drive to the right that goes around behind the building and down a steep slope to another building. Access to this other building is via crossing town land (hence the right-of-way). The town routinely stores large equipment on the land across the driveway. The area is already being used as storage for construction vehicles.
Currently RF Jordan is using the property to store vehicles while they are working on a job in the area.
Public comments:
A list was introduced of residents in support of this application by Mr. Gray Jr. Mr. Gray told the board that he decided to find out if the residents had an opinion one way or another as to the use of his property. While circulating the sheet in Seal Harbor, he didn’t come up against any opposition. In fact, a few residents couldn’t believe he had to get special permission to use his property to store his equipment.
Ms. Funderburk doesn’t see any reason the Grays can’t use their property for their business as long as it does not detract from the character of the town. She pointed out the age and historical nature of the buildings in the area. She feels it would be a detraction to the appearance of the village to have construction equipment stored at the same level as the sidewalk. Her request is that if construction equipment is to be stored on site that it be stored on the lower level so that it is not apparent from Main St. She has no problem with pickup trucks parking there, but does not want to see earthmoving equipment parked by the sidewalk.
Mr. Mahaney commented that he doesn’t think it’s fair that heavy trucks (i.e. dump trucks, Town garbage trucks, oil trucks, etc.) had parked there when the property was a village market, but that the owner, a taxpayer, would not be able to use his property to run his business and park his own equipment.
Edie Dunham said she was very concerned about keeping piles of gravel there. She said the large vehicles were parked there all winter. She also doesn’t want to see the construction vehicles in the center of the village as it detracts from the character of the neighborhood. She also pointed out that the construction equipment is an attractive nuisance to children in the area since they are parked right next to the sidewalk.
Mr. Gray responded by saying there were two out of state vehicles and a mail truck using the property for parking last week, and another day there was a large truck and an 18 wheeler parked there. He thinks it would be ironic if the town didn’t pass this. That he, the owner, would not be able to use the property to park his equipment, but that other people in town would be able to use it to park vehicles much larger than his there.
Ms. Funderburk, said that yes, the parking area had been used by a wide variety of vehicles on a temporary basis when the market was open, but they were not stored there on a long-term basis. When the Village Market closed, that is when everyone started using it as a general parking area. She further stated that since the Grays did not post the parking area as “Parking by Permit Only”, they have not been able to control the use of the parking area. Only the mail truck has permission to park there. She is concerned about the continual presence of the small back-hoe. She doesn’t want the Grays to not be able to use their property to run their business, after all they own the property; she just asks that they consider the character of the village.
Mr. Gray further stated that he doesn’t want to make the property look like a junk yard, but he just wants to be able to use the property for his current business operations.
Mr. Stephenson is opposed to the proposed use and that his interpretation of the LUZO does not give the Planning Board authority to approve this even if they wanted to. He questioned if only in RW2 or RW3 Zone is it possible for the ZBOA to grant a Conditional Use permit for construction equipment, storage of construction equipment, or heavy vehicles? Perhaps these terms aren’t defined, but he thinks a 4-yard dump truck, back hoe and piles of sand and gravel qualify. Mr. Stephenson thinks it’s suitable for Mr. Gray to have a business and wouldn’t want to drive anyone out of business; but he would like to have the equipment and the sand/gravel piles placed out back and out of sight, if in fact the board does have the power to grant a variance.
The CEO remarked that the Planning Board has the authority to review this application because she issued a Notice of Violation letter to Mr. Gray in response to a complaint that was brought before the Town Manager. She then asked Mr. Gray to come before the board at the end of the April 25, 2011, meeting to get clarification from the Planning Board for conducting the proposed use on the property. There are two sections in the ordinance that the business could potentially fall under: Services 3 (not wholly enclosed) for a construction business, and Storage of Construction Equipment and Heavy Vehicles. CEO Keene felt there is some ambiguity within the ordinance and wanted the board to make the call as to how to classify the business. The board chose to go with Services 3; they have the authority to review the
application under Services 3. Chairman Brawley added that from the description of Mr. Gray’s equipment, it didn’t sound like the same type of equipment they saw being stored down below the market building. He has smaller equipment such as a mini-excavator.
Mr. Stephenson thinks the board is duty bound to consider the fine distinction between the two choices it has when deciding whether the storage of equipment is in character of the town within the village commercial definition, especially when they are at the point in the hearing when public opinion is not invited.
Mr. Tracy questioned the board’s decision to hear this application under Services 3. He would like to table this application until they can get a legal opinion as to whether they can hear this application under Services 3. Mr. Miller agrees that they could be opening a can of worms. The board agreed to find out what the ordinance intends before making a decision.
MOTION TO Table the hearing until the legal opinion is obtained for what is intended under Services 3 vs. Storage of Construction Equipment MADE BY Mr. Tracy; SECONDED BY Mr. Miller.
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION TO TABLE CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (4-0).
Mr. Miller suggested the applicant look into the history within the district as to how other businesses stored their construction equipment.
III. Other Business
Vistas and Views: Discussion of the list of candidates for the vistas and views ordinance.
Ms. Brawley and Mr. Clunan had gotten together to discuss how to approach the revision/development of the ordinance. Mr. Clunan had found a number of definitions and descriptions, one of which came from the State Planning Office Comprehensive Plan workbook. They identified a definition to possibly include as part of the ordinance language for vistas and viewsheds.
Ms. Brawley read from the terminology regarding Scenic Places Worthy of Protection, from the State Planning Office:
Scenic Resource – An attribute that gives a community identity and makes it an appealing place to live. A scenic resource could be
• A vista of a segment of the community.
• A specific extraordinary view.
• A landmark so tied to the identity of a community that its destruction would be a social or cultural loss.
Ms. Brawley and Mr. Clunan thought it was an excellent definition, and that a good approach would be to put this definition in the ordinances definition section. Then under Section 6A.9-Preserving the Town’s Character where the ordinance talks about conserving the natural beauty of the area, put in reference to the definition as follows:
…conserving the natural beauty and scenic resources of the area as determined by the Planning Board…
The next task would be to determine specific vistas to qualify under the definition.
The board members continued to discuss how to proceed with the project. Mr. Miller suggested that the board should open up to the public for their input of what a view shed is. Ways to get the public involved included doing a public survey, have a local paper write an article about what the town is doing, and to invite the public to workshops.
Mr. Andrews said they would need a dedicated meeting and a facilitator for the public to establish a list to put in the LUZO. The board could continue to work on the wording for the ordinance in tandem of the public meetings. Mr. Andrews also suggested that the town approach Friends of Acadia or Maine Coast Heritage to pay for a consultant to work with the public in order to establish the list of view sheds.
Mr. Miller concurred that the process is two separate steps:
1. ID view sheds
2. Drafting language for the ordinance
He said both could be done simultaneously. Mr. Andrews doesn’t think that you could have public meetings without a preliminary list and some of the work already done on the wording. The board could start the ball rolling by hiring a consultant to identify and establish our viewsheds and to help with the wording. Board members agreed that more examples from other towns/areas are not needed.
Discussions on how to hire the consultant ensued. Including the amount to be paid and whether the position had to be bid on. It was agreed that the bid process would be reviewed and that a meeting with the Town Manager to discuss the release of funds to pay the consultant is needed. Mr. Andrews volunteered to meet with Mr. Lunt, Town Manager.
Mr. Andrews MADE A MOTION that the board approach the Town Manager to release monies from the designated funds for hiring a consultant to draft Scenic Vistas Ordinance language and to identify the vistas; SECONDED BY MR. MILLER.
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (4-0).
IV. Minutes
The draft minutes from the February 28, April 11, and April 25 meetings were unanimously approved. The minutes of May 9, 2011 were tabled due to lack of a quorum for that meeting.
A MOTION to approve the minutes from the February 28, 2011 meeting as WRITTEN was MADE BY MR. Miller; SECONDED by MR. Tracy.
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (3-0)
A MOTION to approve the minutes from the April 11, 2011 meeting as AMENDED was MADE BY MR. Andrews; SECONDED by MR. Tracy (3 -0).
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (3 -0)
A MOTION to approve the minutes from the April 25, 2011 meeting as AMENDED was MADE BY MR. Andrews; SECONDED by MR. Miller.
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (3-0)
V. Meeting adjourned at 8:04 p.m. The next scheduled meeting/public hearing(s) is at 6:00 p.m., Monday, June 13, 2011 in the Meeting Room, Town Hall, Northeast Harbor.
Respectfully submitted,
Sandy Andrews, Secretary Pro-tem
| 
