Town of Mount Desert Planning Board Public Hearing
Minutes of March 8, 2010
Public Present
No members of the public were present.
Board Members Present
Ellen Brawley, James Clunan, Jerry Miller, Patti Reilly and James Bright.
Kimberly Keene, CEO, Heidi Smallidge, Recording Secretary
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:10 p.m. by Mr. Bright.
II. Approval of Minutes from February 8, 2010:
Ms. Brawley moved, with Ms. Reilly seconding, to approve the Minutes as presented. After a review of the Minutes was made, motion was approved 4-0. Voting members consisted of Mr. Clunan, Ms. Brawley, Ms. Reilly, and Mr. Miller.
III. Conditional Use Approval Application(s):
The two applications listed on the meeting agenda were withdrawn from discussion prior to the Planning Board Meeting.
IV. Recommended Proposed LUZO Changes for May 2010 Town Meeting:
Ms. Keene informed the Board that recommendations had to be made for the Town Warrant. She mentioned the suggestions Mr. Andrews had emailed. Mr. Bright suggested the Board review the Ordinance in order.
Changes noted included the title page with the change of date. Ms. Keene noted that “Functional Land Division” was missing from the Table of Contents. Mr. Bright noted the topic was still in there in the second paragraph on page 4-4 under section 4.5.2.
The Board reviewed section 4.6 on page 4-4 regarding “Functional Land Division”. Ms. Keene and Ms. Brawley noted that such a division is not required to go before the Planning Board for review and that no review is needed per that particular section of ordinance. After much discussion, It was the consensus of the Board to leave the wording as it was, but to add Ms. Brawley’s suggested wording, “which made the structures nonconforming” at the end of Section Two.
Ms. Keene noted that on page 3-6 that “Municipal Activities” were removed and replaced by the term “State Federal & Municipal Buildings”.
On page 3-8 there was a question on filling and earth moving. It was agreed to change P’s to C’s for filling and earth for anything more than 50 cubic yards.
On page 3-14 on Footnote M, it was noted that road frontage was removed and lot width on road was added. The wording “lot or lots shall” was also added.
On page 3-15 the word “street” was changed to “road”. Mr. Clunan inquired about the “added May 2008” notation and suggested it be amended. Ms. Keene agreed.
Mr. Clunan inquired about Footnote C, asking where it applied. It was noted it applies to page 3-13, 3rd paragraph down under Setbacks. It was noted two asterisks were needed on to refer to it. It was also agreed to take the work “paved” out.
On page 5-2, the words “all voting” were added to the last sentence of Section 4.1.
In Section 5.8 on page 5-3, Mr. Clunan felt that the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law would not need to be done if they were completed in Section 6. He added that the renumbering the Board had done is not reflected in the wording. Ms. Keene stated she’d update where the ordinance refers to the numbers. It was agreed to leave the rest as it was with no further changes.
Ms. Keene relisted the renumbering for page 6-3. (Kimberly, I have no idea what this is in reference to – maybe page 6.3 Section 6A.10?)
In page 6-8, Section 6B.7 the Board accepted the changes for excavation other than a gravel pit.
On page 6-11, Section 6B.13.2, it was agreed to leave the next to last phrase in. It was agreed to use the words “owner(s)” and “property(ies)” to indicate when there are more than one.
On page 6-15, Section 6B.18 – Ms. Keene cleared up the numbering to make it less confusing.
On page 6-24, Section 6B.19, the word “six” was used in “Access road serving six”. Mr. Andrews sent an email recollecting that the original feeling was to allow only up to five. After lengthy discussion, Ms. Keene felt it was clear the issue needed more discussion before it should be included in the ordinance. It was agreed to remove Section 6B.19.
On Page 8-1, it was agreed to add “an existing” to the definition “Accessory Structure or Use”.
Ms. Keene asked the Board whether the section of “Functional Land Division” could be its own issue for discussion, and the rest listed as basic housekeeping details. Mr. Miller felt it could, and Mr. Bright suggested mentioning that with Functional Land Division, we were just returning a clause that had been inadvertently removed.
V. Adjournment
Mr. Bright moved, with Ms. Brawley seconding, to adjourn. Motion approved 5-0. Meeting was adjourned at 8:20.
Respectfully Submitted,
Heidi Smallidge, Recording Secretary
| 
