Town of Mount Desert Planning Board Public Hearing
Minutes of January 11, 2010
Public Present
Chuck Bucklin
Board Members Present
Ellen Brawley, Patti Reilly, Jerry Miller, Joseph Tracy, James Clunan, Sandy Andrews, James Bright
Kimberly Keene, CEO, Heidi Smallidge, Recording Secretary
Mr. Bright arrived late to the meeting. Mr. Clunan acted as Chairman in his absence.
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:03 p.m. by Mr. Clunan.
II. Approval of Minutes from October 26, 2009 and November 9, 2009
October 26, 2009: Mr. Clunan commented on the paragraph on page one mentioning aquifers. He noted the Town of Mount Desert did not have aquifers. No formal change was made. On page three Mr. Clunan inquired whether a finding should have been made near the top of the page. He noted there was no indication the Board did that. Mr. Clunan noted the word “constructive” should have been “construction” on page three. Mr. Clunan noted there was no motion on page 17. The motion was made as follows: “Ms. Reilly moved, with Mr. Andrews seconding”. This motion was approved 5-0.
November 9, 2009: Mr. Clunan referred to Line 29 of page one where it mentions an application was withdrawn. Mr. Clunan wondered whether any explanation of a withdrawal was necessary. It was agreed to reword the sentence to say “the application was withdrawn on November 9, after Chairman Bright pointed out it was within the resource protection area.”
Mr. Miller noted he was not at the inspection.
On page two, line 26 it was noted that “Keene” was misspelled.
On page three, line 48 the word “property” was misspelled.
On page four, line 32, Mr. Andrews noted the word “not” should be “now”.
Mr. Miller moved, with Mr. Andrews seconding to approve the minutes as revised. Motion was approved 6-0.
III. To Discuss Proposed Land Use Zoning Ordinance and Building Code Changes for May 2010 Town Meeting:
Mr. Clunan mentioned that Ms. Keene sent a memo December 24th noting a number of changes designed to make parts of the ordinance consistent with other parts and to clarify some sections. Ms. Keene presented the Board with a new copy of the ordinance with small changes and minor corrections; corrections of typographical errors for the most part.
Ms. Keene showed there had been sufficient public notice of this meeting in the local papers.
Mr. Andrews questioned allowing municipal activities to occur without any approval from the Planning Board. Ms. Keene clarified that a permit for fill would still come before the Board, but smaller maintenance like filling potholes wouldn’t necessarily have to come before the Planning Board. It was noted that between 10 and 49 cubic yards of fill were allowed unless it was within Resource Protection, but a conditional use permit was needed for 50 cubic yards or more.
Mr. Andrews felt, and Mr. Miller agreed, that the comma after stream protection under section 6B.7 made the statement confusing. He suggested breaking the section into two paragraphs to delineate where excavation is allowed and where it is not.
After several iterations, it was agreed on the following wording:
Filling, dumping, or excavation of any matter of ten (10) to less than fifty (50) cubic yards is allowed except in the Stream Protection District and the Resource Protection District, where it is prohibited. Excavation and filling greater than fifty (50) cubic yards shall require Conditional Use Approval of the Planning Board, and is prohibited in the Stream
Protection District and the Resource Protection District. Appropriate measures...
Ms. Keene pointed out that Municipal Activities are included in the permitted use chart, however there is no definition for what they are.
Mr. Andrews recommended that routine repairs to existing municipal structures be exempt from having to come before the Board. Mr. Bright added that a building project would have to come before the Planning Board. Ms. Keene reminded the Board that municipal activities and municipal facilities are two different things. Mr. Bucklin inquired how this would affect contractors. Ms. Keene answered a contractor would still have to get a road opening permit, but would be exempt from the fee. Mr. Bright mentioned that a road opening permit doesn’t have to come before the Planning Board now. Mr. Andrews stated the Board doesn’t want to become involved with reviewing and approving all routine municipal maintenance.
Ms. Brawley suggested removing the reference. It was noted removal of the section has to be done with a Town vote.
Ms. Keene pointed out that in the Land Use checklist, page 3-6 the label “post office, fire station” is used, but there is no definition. Mr. Miller noted they’re simply buildings. Ms. Keene noted that in looking at it with an eye toward use, it may not necessarily be exempt in some areas. Mr. Andrews suggested using the term “municipal and other government facilities”; Ms. Brawley agreed. After some more discussion, it was agreed to use the term “municipal, state, and federal buildings”.
Ms. Keene next addressed “Change of Use of a Non-Conforming Structure” in section 4.3.4, page 4-3. She noted that in the second paragraph a list of eleven items are noted. She wondered if there should be a corresponding checklist in the application. It was agreed that a checklist should be added.
In section 5.3.4.1, page 5-2, Ms. Keene reported that Mr. Clunan had suggested that the wording should be “…such decision should be signed by a majority of the voting members of the Planning Board.”
Ms. Keene asked whether another checklist for the standards noted in section 5.8 was necessary. Mr. Miller noted checklists were quicker and provided more clarity to all involved in the application process.
Ms. Keene mentioned that Mr. Clunan felt items 6A.8 and 6A.10 should be switched.
Ms. Keene noted that Mr. Clunan felt that 6B.9 should be worded slightly differently. The words “nor with” should be replaced by “including” in section 6B.9.2.
Mr. Clunan suggested changing section 6B.13.2 to keep setback waivers uniform with other places. Mr. Bright asked whether he was asking for exemption. Mr. Clunan noted exemption provisions were already included at the end of the paragraph in the footnote on page 3-14. Mr. Andrews suggested letting Ms. Keene write it up to keep the mention of setbacks identical.
Ms. Keene felt that road standards needed to be returned to the ordinance. Mr. Bright summarized that if a driveway accesses three or more lots it becomes a road. Ms. Keene said there needs to be a way to keep that rule from affecting a dedicated right of way to a small family compound of several lots. Ms. Brawley asked whether the ordinance couldn’t just allow for driveways servicing three lots. Mr. Miller mentioned that the ordinance could be worded to allow a pre-existing driveway. Mr. Clunan wondered whether the Town could adopt minor road and major road classifications. A minor road being something better developed than a driveway, but without all the requirements of a major road. Mr. Bright asked at what point a minor road would become a major road. Mr. Tracy noted that
statistics concerning cars and travel would be necessary.
Mr. Miller requested that Ms. Keene look into a system of graded roads. Mr. Andrews requested a list of the different situations in which land can be divided. Ms. Keene said she’d create the list of situations, and research the road grading systems of other Towns.
Ms. Keene mentioned that the expiration dates of permits conflict in different sections of the ordinance. It was agreed to remove reference to it from section four. Mr. Bright noted he wanted work to have started within a year of permit issuance.
Discussion ensued regarding Accessory Structures. Ms. Keene noted that as the ordinance is currently worded a property owner couldn’t put up a shed on an empty lot because there is not a primary structure already there. She noted several people have asked her about this situation from a variety of districts. Mr. Miller suggested making that section of the ordinance applicable only to lots with a structure. Mr. Andrews mentioned that no where does the ordinance say the shed has to be an accessory structure.
Ms. Keene handed out a newly revised Conditional Use Application for the Board’s review. She asked that Board members review it to ensure she hadn’t missed anything.
Mr. Tracy requested that all applications be presented to the Board accompanied by sketch plans drawn to scale. Mr. Bright added an applicant can simply be told their application is not complete without the sketch plan.
Mr. Miller mentioned the possibility of land use in the Somesville area be reviewed in an effort to attract businesses.
Mr. Clunan noted that there was a property transfer for Basso in the paper recently. Ms. Keene mentioned the lawsuit was still in review.
Discussion of February’s meeting was held. It was found that there would not be enough members to attend a February 22 meeting. It was agreed to cancel that meeting. Ms. Keene requested that all Board Members provide her with their meeting availability.
IV. Adjournment
Mr. Clunan moved, with Mr. Miller seconding, to adjourn. Motion approved 7-0. Meeting was adjourned at 7:55.
Respectfully Submitted,
Heidi Smallidge, Recording Secretary
| 
