Town of Mount Desert Planning Board Public Hearing
Minutes of April 26, 2010
Public Present
Dennis Savarin, Terri Hanson
Board Members Present
James Clunan, Ellen Brawley, James Bright, and Sandy Andrews
Kimberly Keene, CEO; Heidi Smallidge, Recording Secretary
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:04 p.m. by Mr. Bright.
It was agreed that Mr. Clunan would act as Secretary in the absence of Ms. Reilly.
II. Conditional Use Approval Application(s):
A. Conditional Use Approval Application #005-2010
OWNER(S): Judith L. Swett
APPLICANT: Terri Hanson
LOCATION: 14 Main Street, Seal Harbor
TAX MAP: 30 LOT: 5 ZONE(S): VC
PURPOSE: Section 5.5 – An Amendment to a Conditional Use Approval granted on May 11, 2009 for restaurant use. The amended proposal is to enlarge the kitchen area to allow for more cold storage & prep area.
SITE INSPECTION: 4:00 PM
Ms. Keene and Mr. Clunan attended the site inspection. Mr. Clunan reported that there was an existing coffee shop/pizza place. The applicant hopes to enlarge the interior kitchen area to support restaurant activity. All work will be done entirely inside the building. It essentially doubles the size of the area used by restaurant staff.
Mr. Clunan confirmed there had been adequate public notice. There were no comments from the Planning Board. Mr. Andrews moved, with Ms. Brawley seconding, to approve the application as presented.
5.5 Amendment CUA #___005-2010_____________
An amendment to a Conditional Use Approval may be issued by the Planning Board only:
1.) finding that there have been significant changes of conditions or
circumstances; and
Findings of Fact(s): The size of the work area is to be doubled.
_______
4-0
Conclusion of Law:
Through doubling the size of the work area there is to be a significant change.
__________________________________________ __ 4-0
2.) in conformity with the procedural and substantive requirements set forth in
Section 6A and the applicable standards of Section 6B and 6C.
Findings of Fact(s): The application is an amendment to an existing CUP for which the Board
Gave approval. The original application was granted on 5/11/2009.
4-0
Conclusion of Law:
The amendment is on conformity with the procedural and substantive requirements set forth in Section 6A and the applicable standards of 6B and 6C. ______________________________________________________ 4-0__
3.) when justified by a statement of findings of fact and reasons.
Findings of Fact(s): The applicant is in compliance with the LUZO. There is no change of use.
There is no external impact.
4-0
Conclusion of Law:
The amendment to the CUP of 5/11/2009 is in accordance with the
LUZO. ____________________________________________________ _ 4-0
FOR BOARD USE
AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL
PERMIT CONDITIONS: In addition to all applicable federal, state, and town permits be in place prior to any construction, the following conditions apply:
Motion was approved 4-0.
III. Other Business:
Ms. Brawley informed the Board she could not attend the next scheduled meeting.
Ms. Keene informed the Board that a new Chairman would have to be chosen, as Mr. Bright has announced his resignation from the Planning Board. After some discussion, Ms. Brawley volunteered to act as Chairman.
Mr. Andrews reminded the Board that with regard to the Comprehensive Plan the Board had several deadlines and work to do. He requested that Ms. Keene review the work still left.
Mr. Andrews mentioned the Subdivision Ordinance and addressing view sheds as two more projects the Board needed to work on. Mr. Clunan remembered that some work had been done on view sheds, and wondered whether the Board could continue forward, or would pictures of potential view sheds be necessary to progress. Mr. Andrews did not feel pictures were necessary to move the work forward. Discussion ensued regarding funding for the work.
Mr. Bright suggested the Board begin the review of the revised checklist for standards of Section 6.
Mr. Andrews recommended having the choices of Applicable/Not Applicable at the beginning of each of the sections as a blanket for that section. “Not Applicable” will then indicate the section does not require review. It was agreed to include this option at the beginning of every subsection item. Ms. Brawley noted that for section 6A.1 it would never apply, but Ms. Keene suggested including it to keep the formatting uniform.
In Section 6A.2.1, Mr. Andrews suggested that the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for number one be moved to below Section 6A.2.3 to encompass all three subsections.
Ms. Keene inquired whether the section of the ordinance regarding outdoor lighting should be included in Section 6A.6 or left out?
Mr. Andrews mentioned that the stormwater section of the ordinance in Section 6A.9 is not functional as a checklist. Ms. Keene asked whether including Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for each item in the subsection would improve it. After some discussion, it was agreed that Applicable/Not Applicable options for each numbered subsection would be included. Ms. Keene agreed to add a Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at the end of Section 6A.9. It was agreed to format Section 6A.10 this way as well.
Mr. Andrews suggested that for Subsection 6B, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for each item be removed. At the end of the entire section, add several places where Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law can be included.
With regard to the Section on Wireless Communication Facilities, Mr. Andrews suggested removing the “Purpose” section, as it is not pertinent to the checklist. It was agreed to include “Acceptable Plan Received, Standard Met” check boxes for each of the submissions, and to include a place for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at the end of the section.
It was agreed that the Section of “Design Standards” did not need the Not Applicable/Applicable options there because they were redundant with the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law.
It was agreed in Sections 6C.2 and 6 to remove the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, and to keep the Not Applicable, Applicable, Standard Met, and Applicable, Standard Not Met options.
For Section 6C.5, it was agreed that Subsections 1 and 4 should have “Not Applicable/Applicable” options. These options should also appear on Subsections 2, 3, and 5. The final “Not Applicable/Applicable” option could be deleted.
Mr. Andrews inquired whether the Definition needed to be included in 6C.8. Ms. Keene felt it should be included. After some discussion it was agreed to remove the “Not Applicable/Applicable” options and keep the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law at the end.
In Section 6C.10, it was agreed each subsection needed Not Applicable/Applicable options. Mr. Andrews suggested including lines after each one for notes if deemed necessary. He suggested labeling these lines as “Findings” or “Comments”.
In Section 6C.12 Ms. Brawley suggested removing the not Applicable/Applicable options and using Findings of Fact and Conclusion instead. The Board agreed.
In Section 6C.13, it was agreed to delete Subsection 1. It was agreed to use the checklist options “Acceptable/Not Acceptable” rather than “Not Applicable/Applicable”. It was also agreed Subsections 4 and 6 needed these checks as well.
It was agreed to note the signature section was “Signatures of All Voting Board Members”. This would alleviate any confusion should a Board Member abstain from the vote for any reason.
Ms. Keene returned to Section 6B.8. It was agreed to remove the Not Applicable/Applicable options, and keep the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law. Mr. Andrews suggested removing the first paragraph, remove subsections 1 and 2, but keep the listed items under Subsection 1 as five standards. He further suggested using “Acceptable/Not Acceptable” options under each of the five standards.
In Section 6B.7, Ms. Keene suggested using the options Applicable, Standards met or not. Mr. Brawley reminded the board that it needs to be determined whether more than 50 cubic yards are involved or not.
Discussion of the checklist changes was concluded.
Mr. Clunan mentioned that he had received a request from Sam Shaw regarding changing the zoning in the village of Northeast Harbor so no setbacks were required between buildings. He asked the Board whether this was something the Board should address. Mr. Andrews noted that if the setback requirements were removed, it would require more stringent fireproof requirements and he added that the Board shouldn’t act on a suggestion from a single resident.
It was agreed that in light of his years of faithful, commendable service to the Planning Board, that Mr. Bright’s resignation was a very distressing development for the Town of Mount Desert. All Board members, as well as Ms. Keene, expressed their sorrow at his departure.
IV. Adjournment
Mr. Andrews moved, with Ms. Brawley seconding, to adjourn the meeting. Motion approved 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:08.
Respectfully Submitted,
Heidi Smallidge, Recording Secretary
| 
