Public Present
Noah Hodgetts via video conference call.
Board Members Present
Sandy Andrews; Ellen Brawley, Chair, James Clunan, Vice Chairman; Robert Ho; Gerard M. Miller, alt; and Joseph Tracy
Durlin Lunt, Town Manager; Kim Keene, CEO; Claire Woolfolk, Recording Secretary
I. The meeting was called to order at 4:08 p.m.
It was confirmed that the workshop notice was published in the November 17 and December 1, 2010 Bar Harbor Times.
II. Workshop: For proposed Land Use & Shoreland Zoning Ordinances & Zoning Map amendments for May 2011 Town Meeting.
A. Presentation by Noah Hodgetts, Restore Northeast Harbor
A presentation was made by Noah Hodgetts of suggested changes to the Land Use Ordinance (LUZO) to help facilitate the revitalization of downtown Northeast Harbor as part of the Restore Northeast Harbor project.
Mr. Hodgetts summarized his 12/6/2010 presentation to the Board of Selectmen (BOS) as amended according to their initial feedback. He outlined two items he would like the Planning Board to consider incorporating into their proposed LUZO and zoning amendments for the May 2011 Town Meeting:
1. Look at the possibility of reducing the side set-back on the Main Street Village Commercial (VC) district in Northeast Harbor from 5’ to 0’ so that buildings on Main Street would be more consistent with commercial zoning than the current setback, which is typical of residential zoning. The proposed area of concern is between Summit Road and Neighborhood Road. An alternative to this suggestion would be the creation of an overlay district.
2. Allow temporary uses on the village green (Shoreland Commercial district) which would require spot zoning due to the Shoreland Zone restrictions. The BOS have a Use of Public Space ordinance which allows for case by case approved uses of the village green. Currently the zoning allows for selling seasonal produce via permit from CEO. The revitalization committee would like to amend the ordinance to make it less of a case by case basis.
Planning Board Chair, Ms. Brawley, asked about the NFP life safety code addressing the reduction in setbacks on Main Street and the implications of making all the setbacks 0. Ms. Keene said this was brought up by Sam Shaw of Restore Northeast Harbor and that any changes would have to meet fire safety codes.
The board discussed what would happen if a 0 setback was put in for all of VC. It was noted that changing the setback would allow residential properties within the zone to be built right up to the property line.
Mr. Andrews suggested dealing with the issue via a footnote in the ordinance chart. Mr. Clunan looked at the lots within the suggested boundaries and pointed out that there are some residential lots located within. Mr. Andrews then suggested listing the actual lots on the footnote. Discussion ensued as to whether it could become spot zoning if they did identify particular lots with a footnote and if so, spot zoning is frowned upon. However, it was also noted that this is something quite different than an individual requesting special zoning for something on a single property.
Mr. Hodgetts said he will get the list of lots and the map that the footnote would apply to, and the board will check to see if it is legal to address the setback issue with a footnote. It was noted that property owners and abutters will have to be notified prior to this amendment to the LUZO.
It was also noted that the back of some of these commercial lots go all the way to Tracy Road. The board would have to check into the implications of the reduced setback for these properties.
Planning Board members were in agreement that village green falls under the domain of the BOS. While shoreland zoning prohibits, parks, playgrounds, recreational facilities etc., the green is grandfathered for public uses and the BOS will need to amend their public ordinance to address the Restore committee’s requests.
Mr. Lunt asked Mr. Hodgetts to draft wording to assist the BOS in amending their ordinance. The current regulation is sufficiently vague and the BOS do not want to tamper with the wording. Therefore, the new wording would need to be flexible enough to grant permission for public uses such as a seasonal farmers’ market or a weekend art show (as examples), while giving the BOS the ability to deny something they don’t want to approve.
Mr. Hodgetts agreed to put together wording to this effect. Planning Board members suggested that they would be willing to look at what he is proposing and offer their endorsement prior to presenting to the BOS.
B. Review of proposed changes to the LUZO
The Planning Board began their review where they left off from the prior workshop on 11/29/2010 with 4.5 Non-Conforming Lots.
There were questions raised regarding whether the proposed wording that was added by Maine Municipal Association was adequate to fulfill the requirements of lots less than 20,000 square feet that are not on public sewer. After discussion it was determined that the new wording is sufficient.
Section 6 Revisions:
• 6A.2 Erosion Control remove entire section and replace with wording from 6C.5 Erosion and Sedimentation Control and add 2. Removal of sand or gravel wording; and 3.Tilling of soil at the end, thereby eliminating redundancy.
• 6A.5 Land Suitability remove paragraph and replace with wording from 6C.12 to eliminate redundancy.
• 6A.7 Stormwater revised as follows:
2. Applicability. All new construction and development in any shoreland district must be designed to minimize stormwater runoff from the site in excess of the natural predevelopment conditions.
3. Stormwater plan required. For development on all lots that are within 75 feet of a water body and where drainage is towards the water body, or on slopes of 25% or greater, or drain to a Town, State or Local roadway drainage system, the applicant shall submit a site plan that demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Code Enforcement Officer that the project will comply with this stormwater standard. Moved from 6A.7.2: The applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan which shows that stormwater runoff has been minimized and will not excessively exceed natural predevelopment conditions. In the event that the proposed project includes on site stormwater conveyance structures evidence, will be provided that insures that these structures have been sized properly and can handle anticipated
flows. In the event that a development discharges storm flows into any off site conveyance and or control system, evidence will be provided that the off-site systems can handle the anticipated flows without resulting in any adverse conditions. (see Code Enforcement Officer for example of stormwater plan)
• 6B.6.6 Driveway setbacks from water bodies and wetlands. moved to 6C.10
• 6B.7 Added …“is allowed as described as specified in Section 3.4 of the Land Use Zoning Ordinance.” and removed of ten (10) to less than fifty (50) cubic yards is allowed, except in the Stream Protection District and the yards shall require Conditional Use Approval of the Planning Board, and is prohibited in the Stream Protection District and the Resource Protection District.
• 6B.9 removed in its entirety, and added and Freshwater to 6C.8 (now 6C.7 Marine and Freshwater Structure Performance Standards due to renumbering).
• Remaining items in 6B will be renumbered.
• 6C.5 moved to 6A.2 (see above)
• Remaining items in 6C will be renumbered.
• 6C.6 added …“resource protection or”…
• 6C.8 added “and Freshwater”
• 6C.10 added to Setback, …“In reducing the setback, the Planning Board shall maintain, to the greatest practical extent, the seventy-five (75) foot setback; This shall neither apply to approaches to water crossings, nor to driveways in the Shoreland Commercial District that provide access to permitted structures, and facilities located nearer to the shoreland due to an operational necessity, excluding temporary docks for recreational uses. Driveways providing access to permitted structures within the setback area shall comply fully with the requirements of Section 6B.6 except for that portion of the driveway necessary for direct access to the shoreline.”
• 6C.10.3 Replaced wording with “New roads and driveways are prohibited in a Resource Protection District except that the Planning Board may grant a permit to construct a road or driveway to provide access to permitted uses within the district. A road or driveway may also be approved by the Planning Board in a Resource Protection District, upon a finding that no reasonable alternative rout or location is available outside the district. When a road or driveway is permitted in a Resource Protection District the road and/or driveway shall be set back as far as practicable as determined by the Planning Board from the normal high-water line of a water body, tributary stream, or upland edge of a wetland.”
• 6C.12 Soils moved to 6A.5 (see above)
Ms. Keene will confirm with the Department of Environmental Protection that eliminating the redundancies noted in 6A.2/6C.5 and 6A.5/6C.12 are acceptable.
III. Other Business
Mr. Tracy brought up the One-Stop movie kiosk. Ms. Keene informed the board that it has been unplugged with plans to relocate the unit to the basement area of the premises until One-Stop submits and receives approval for the additional signage from the board.
IV. The meeting adjourned at 5:18 p.m. The next scheduled public hearing(s) is at 6:00 p.m., Monday, December 13, 2010 in the Meeting Room, Town Hall, Northeast Harbor.
Respectfully submitted,
Claire Woolfolk, Recording Secretary
| 
