Public Present
David Irvin, Peggy Hobbs, George Davis, Nelson Davis, Jack Katz, Mike Olsen, Tim Culbertson, Katrina Carter, Kathleen Graves, and Izaak Giberson
Board Members Present
Sandy Andrews; Ellen Brawley, Chair, James Clunan, Vice Chairman; Robert Ho, alt; Gerard M. Miller, alt; and Joseph Tracy
Kim Keene, CEO; Claire Woolfolk, Recording Secretary
I. The meeting was called to order at 6:03 p.m.
Correspondence introduced to the board by Ms. Keene: an email from Bertha Uribasterra was read into the record. The email contained several questions regarding the damaged property of Rodney Barreto at 48 Otter Creek Drive. The questions pertained to the use of the property as a non-conforming property under the current zoning law (Otter Creek Inn and Market as a commercial property in a residential zone) and how that might change with the proposed zone change in the village. Ms. Keene was able to address many of the questions; some of the other questions may be addressed by the decisions of the planning board as they review the wording and definitions in the Land Use Zoning Ordinance (LUZO).
II. Workshop: To discuss the priorities for short term and long term planning as established by the Comprehensive Plan, and proposed Land Use Ordinance amendments.
Priorities
The board discussed prioritizing the following list of seven (7) items and decided that they were all important and that none of them superseded another, although some were going to involve more work than others.
1. Shoreland Zoning Compliance has already been dealt with because it is mandated by the Department of Environmental Protection. Ms. Keene said that some maps were to be updated and she is also working with the town manager to have someone hired to rewrite the ordinance wording. The Planning Board agreed that this was necessary.
2. Main Street Zoning Changes
The villages of Otter Creek, Somesville, Seal Harbor and Northeast Harbor (as part of its revitalization efforts) are looking to change current residential zoning to allow for commercial properties along their main (Main) streets. Some of these villages have commercial properties, but if the commercial operations lapse for more than one (1) year; the properties lose their grandfathered commercial status (excepting the properties on Northeast Harbor’s Main St. which are already zoned for commercial use).
Discussion with the public present regarding the creation of a village commercial zone ensued. Both pros and cons were discussed:
Otter Creek
Mr. Katz:
a) The village of Otter Creek has 574 campsites in the National Park’s campground with no access for guests to purchase a cup of coffee, a newspaper, batteries, bottled water, and other sundries. The residents of Otter Creek don’t want the main road to become overly commercial, but they do want to service the needs of residents and visitors.
b) Concerning the high speed of traffic through the village, there is no reason for traffic to slow down. More commercial uses would slow traffic down.
c) Additionally, the village is losing whatever sense of community there was with the closing of the two existing commercial properties.
d) There is a need to provide opportunities for people to try an entrepreneurial business and to give people a place to gather.
Ms. Dobbs is concerned about the parking in Otter Creek. The town’s ordinance only requires sufficient off-street parking for a business to get a permit. Would there be regulations on the type of commercial businesses allowed in the district due to available parking? Also, would the commercial zone be from the Burning Tree to Black Woods Camp Ground or just within the main part of the village.
Somesville
Mr. Irvin – The nature of commercial activity tends to be a place where people gather. Having commercial zones are essential to the villages as they are attempting to revitalize their sense of community with centers of activity and to maintain their village character. The challenge is how you create commercial zoning without spot zoning in a highly residential area such as Main Street in Somesville.
Ms. Brawley brought up the idea of having a village commercial zone that would be considered “light” commercial, meaning a commercial zone allowing restaurants, antique shops, book shops, small boutiques, offices, etc. Then the question regarding parking came up: is there a way to control the commercial properties with the limitation on available parking. This would be a particular issue for Somesville, but not so much for Otter Creek. Currently, when there is an event in Somesville, the participant’s park up and down the street and there is legally nothing to prevent them from doing so.
Ms. Graves pointed out the thriving commercial business in Southwest Harbor. She said Mount Desert is dying because it is so regulated. There is nothing to make people to come and stay, no place for people to get a cup of coffee, sit and visit, nothing in town to bring people out after 4pm. Members of the board pointed out that all of Main St. Northeast Harbor is zoned commercial, so having a commercial zone doesn’t mean that the town will have these types of businesses. Ms. Graves and Mr. Katz said that it does mean that it would be available for someone to try. Commercial zoning allows for entrepreneurial spirit. Mr. Andrews agreed that to increase the uses for the village through commercial zoning would be a way to open up opportunities.
The Board asked the public what they DON’T want in the villages.
Mr. Irvin said the town doesn’t want to create problems for neighbors of the potential commercial businesses (i.e. traffic, parking, and noise). The issue is how to avoid creating these problems. The current ordinance is use oriented and not impact oriented. Mr. Irvin suggested that there should be a shift from an use to an impact oriented ordinance.
• Mr. Katz doesn’t want a bar.
• Mr. Davis doesn’t want franchise businesses. Often local businesses are put out of business by franchises. He said wording needs to be put in the ordinance to avoid a franchise business from coming to town.
Ms. Brawley said she was hearing a consensus to allow low-impact commercial uses, defined similarly to services 1, 2, & 3 in the LUZO, which would permit retail but limit the size of the business based on square footage.
Mr. Clunan read what would be permitted in Otter Creek should zoning change from VR 1 to VC in the LUZO. The zoning change would add the opportunity to have: auto repair/sales, service/filling station, boat storage, repair and service, retail sales of commercial materials, hotel/motel, recreational facilities (indoor), restaurants, retail stores: grocery, clothing, hardware, paint, antiques, books, art), services 3: construction, masonry, carpentry, plumbing, painting businesses not wholly enclosed).
It was then suggested that each village have a meeting to find out what the residents want as far as commercial properties. Mr. Davis will head up the Otter Creek meeting and invite the Planning Board to attend. Mr. Clunan suggested that the village representatives be familiar with the current LUZO and what is approved by each zoning area when they get together to discuss what they want to see.
The board said that what could be done before 2012 is to broaden the definition of what is allowed to be sold seasonally in addition to firewood. This would open up small commercial avenues to allow for the sale of ice, eggs, etc. on the side of the roads.
3. Subdivision Ordinance Update – Mr. Tracy doesn’t think that there needs to be major work done on this item, but that there may be some areas to restrict what can be done. Mr. Andrews stated that conservation concepts need to be added to keep in line with the comprehensive plan. Ms. Keene’s notes for issues to address include: 1. housing, 2. residential development, 3. ridge lines, and 4. cluster housing. The road frontage requirement has been dealt with.
Tasks identified from the comprehension plan are:
• Review lot density (including cluster housing)
• Standards to protect wetlands and habitat
Mr. Andrews is concerned about giving a developer the flexibility to build cluster housing with conservation land. Perhaps the Board could work to include a conservation density bonus in addition to a workforce density bonus. Another concern is dealing with waste water within the cluster housing concept.
Mr. Tracy is concerned about the restriction on wooded areas. He thinks it is a shame that someone would be penalized for creating an open space. For example, a space for children to enjoy, or a garden and that we (as a town) should want to encourage these activities; that there are plenty of trees around the island and perhaps some open spaces for recreation are needed.
Mr. Andrews will do some work on the language in the subdivision ordinance with regards to the cluster housing concept to get something ready for the town meeting in May. Mr. Ho suggested that they do some homework and come back to it for a future meeting and move on to another topic.
4. Vistas and View sheds – Definition and Ordinance update
The board’s consensus is that this is a big item that should be professionally addressed by a planner. It is not something that could be addressed for the May meeting without being rushed. Mr. Andrews suggested that the board should request a budget item to address this issue next year. Ms. Keene said that she has a budget for planning board services of $8,000/year and currently has $22,000 available for use, in addition to the unspent money gifted to the town from Mr. Strawbridge (approximately $30,000). Ms. Keene is working to get a temporary planning consultant to professionally handle some of the issues facing the town: shorelands, vistas and view sheds, subdivisions etc. Mr. Clunan said there is a sense of obligation to continue and get the ordinance written to protect other areas in the town because
of the gift, which the town has spent part of, and to act on it without too much more delay. Mr. Andrews said that acting on it could include the process of finding out what the various options are that can be done to protect views. When going through the analysis the Board may find that they are not concerned with the issue could decide to abandon the matter. Either way, the Board needs to go through the analysis. Mr. Irvin suggested that the Board create a process to deal with issues when they arise as opposed to trying to pre-identify what they will be.
5. Storm Water Management Town-wide Ordinance update.
The ordinance was adopted in 2008, but there are problems within it that need to be corrected. The ordinance has been reviewed by an engineer and there are several loop-holes to be dealt with. Ms. Brawley asked if this was something that needed to be worked on professionally. Ms. Keene said it did need professional attention. Currently the ordinance only addresses those along a shoreline or steep slope, nothing for properties that are inland. Simplicity and consistency are needed in order for the CEO to effectively enforce the ordinance. Currently, Ms. Keene requires a plan of anyone developing a lot near the property line. Tim Brochu, CES, has offered to assist. Mr. Andrews suggested that Ms. Keene spearhead the project with an engineer and bring to the board suggestions for changes.
6. Roads and Driveways – Ordinance update
Ms. Keene suggested that they address it somewhat, but that focus should be on Shoreland Zoning.
7. Proposed 2011 LUZO changes: (1:34:02)
Ms. Keene presented her proposed changes for the LUZO to get the feedback from the Planning Board. See attached list for proposed changes as discussed and agreed to by the board.
III. Other Business
Dave Irvin questioned if the subdivision ordinance amendment to plat plans required Planning Board approval. Specifically, would the Planning Board need to hold a public hearing if an owner wanted to alter the shape or size of a lot.
Mr. Irvin said he has a neighbor who is purchasing a lot which abuts two other lots the neighbor already owns and wants to combine the three lots, which previously was a single lot. He wouldn’t be changing road access or the lot shape other than eliminating the interior property lines. Would this require a public hearing?
Ms. Keene has spoken on similar issues with the Maine Municipal Association (MMA) to get their feedback.
1. With regards to amending an approved subdivision, the MMA’s response was if you make a modification once the plan has been approved and recorded within five (5) years, it would have to come back to the Planning Board for revision. This led Ms. Keene to believe that a modification to revert back to the original arrangement after five (5) years would not need to come before the planning board for approval.
2. Another question came up recently regarding a subdivision that was approved in the late 1970’s where a subdivider wanted to relocate a right-of-way. The MMA’s position was that if it wasn’t the developer who dictated the right-of-way then it wouldn’t require the planning board’s approval; if it was the developer, then it would need to come before the planning board.
Ms. Brawley stated that if the revision involves the creation of additional lots or units, or extends the boundaries of the property, then it would require a public hearing. Otherwise, the board can determine if a public hearing is required.
Since this meeting is a workshop, this item should be placed on the agenda for the November 8th meeting for discussion to approve.
IV. MOTION TO APPROVE THE DRAFT MINUTES FROM the August 9th, 2010 meeting as amended BY Mr. Ho and SECONDED BY Mr. Clunan. A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (4-0).
V. Meeting adjourned at 8:53 p.m. The next scheduled meeting/public hearing(s) is at 6:00 p.m., Monday, November 8, 2010 in the Meeting Room, Town Hall, Northeast Harbor.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Clunan, Secretary Pro-tem
| 
