Town of Mount Desert Planning Board
Minutes of January 12, 2009
Public Present
Nat Fenton, Debbie Musetti, Nancy Merchant, Robert Merchant, Robert Benson, Seth Singleton, Jacqueline Spofford, Karla Spofford, Mike Musetti, and Barbara Williams.
Board Members Present
Joe Tracy, Sandy Andrews, Jerry Miller, Jim Bright, and James Clunan
Kimberly Keene, CEO
I. The meeting was called to order at 6:08 p.m.
Mr. Bright requested that Mr. Clunan act as Chairman for this meeting due to Mr. Bright’s absence during earlier meetings discussing this application. Mr. Clunan agreed to chair the meeting.
II. Public Hearing – CONTINUATION:
A. Subdivision Approval Application # 001-2008
OWNER: Michael Musetti
AGENT: Debbie Musetti
LOCATION: 49 Hall Quarry Rd, Hall Quarry
TAX MAP: 7 LOT: 1-1 ZONE(S): R2
PURPOSE: 6 Lot Subdivision
Mr. Clunan began the meeting by summarizing the progress made with this application so far. Ms. Keene reminded the board that the sketch plan and completeness review was done and the Board was engaged in the public hearing for the project. Mr. Clunan noted there were two questions before the Board at this point; the access to the property by the driveways noted as “Joe’s Way” and “Ron’s Way”, and the question of the vegetative buffer. The Board noted a letter from Attorney Nat Fenton asking the Board to grant a waiver for the required driveway setback stated in section 6.1 of the ordinance, specifically for the reasons of hardship and aesthetics. The Board reviewed the driveway plan.
Mr. Clunan wondered whether the information presented was sufficient to prove the applicant has a Right of Way over the Old Echo Lake Road. Mr. Tracy felt the Board doesn’t have to be convinced, but could grant approval based solely on the applicant and their agent’s assurances. The applicant is then responsible for defending their project if challenged legally. Mr. Clunan disagreed, noting that in public hearing the Board does in fact need to be shown the applicant has the right to use Old Echo Lake Rd.
Section 6.1 of the ordinance was reviewed. Ms. Musetti noted that the environmental impact of the waiver would be to create one narrower driveway instead of two, and to create less traffic on Grant’s Hill.
Mr. Andrews noted that a curb cut has a negative aesthetic effect on the neighborhood, and regarding the issue of topography, one road could serve all three lots on an existing curb cut. Environmentally the paving and increased traffic involved would not have a difference. Mr. Andrews felt there was no reason to grant this waiver.
Mr. Bright suggested the construction of a road would provide for three lots instead of two.
Mr. Musetti preferred not to have a driveway run through his business and noted he can cut a road on Grant’s Hill if he has to, however he felt that was what residents had wanted to avoid.
Mr. Bright noted the Change of Use Permit was passed to protect the aesthetics of the area and the Board shouldn’t overturn a CUP without due consideration. Mr. Bright added that the applicant will also want to keep this land as attractive as possible.
Ms. Musetti noted she’d talked with Brian Reilly of Maine Coast Heritage Trust regarding the maintaining of the area aesthetics looking for a solution to the issues surrounding this project, but had not had an opportunity to talk with him in depth, and Mr. Reilly was not able to attend the meeting. The Board asked whether further discussion could wait till after Ms. Musetti had discussed the issue further with Mr. Reilly. Ms. Musetti preferred not to wait.
Ms. Keene reviewed the original Change of Use Permit and noted that a condition of approval for the initial CUP was that the buffer was to remain in place. It was realized that an amendment to the original CUP was required to waive the buffer.
Mr. Fenton suggested that the CUP’s intent was to separate the commercial area from the residential area, and the use proposed is still trying to maintain that. Mr. Clunan asked that rather than trying to go through the waiver process, could the group develop conditions that allow the driveway and the CUP required buffer instead. Mr. Fenton noted that the location of the buffer is noted, but not what the buffer actually is. Mr. Clunan suggested that a heavier planting of native species evergreens could improve the buffer by increasing the overall opacity.
The discussion was opened to the public.
Nancy Merchant voiced her concern that stormwater runoff was currently an issue, and more development and pavement would increase the runoff. Mr. Clunan noted that the new LUZO ordinances would not allow runoff increase and the applicant would have to engineer a stormwater system that would contain the additional runoff. Ms. Williams inquired as to whether there was a plan now in existence to address the possible increase in runoff. Ms. Keene noted there was a plan. It was also noted that a problem with runoff on the road is a problem for the Public Works Department and they should be made aware of any problems residents are experiencing.
Mr. Singleton asked how wide the road would be and who would be responsible for maintaining it. Ms. Keene noted that a road would need to be 16 feet of paved travel surface, plus three foot shoulders on either side. A driveway only needed to be 12 feet wide. Mr. Musetti noted that a road association for the subdivision would maintain the road.
It was agreed that access onto the Macomber Pines Road would be a better alternative, but the Macomber Pines Road Association would not allow a connection.
Mr. Andrews suggested that the Musettis discuss with Brian Reilly some additions or changes to the project that would improve its environmental status, then return to the Board. The changes suggested by Mr. Reilly could potentially offset the issue of the road requirement enough to make a road requirement waiver more viable. Mr. Miller added that the maintenance of water standards would also make for a better case. Mr. Bright added that the CUP amendment needs to be addressed prior to anything. Ms. Keene gave the Musetti’s the appropriate paperwork for the CUP amendment.
Ms. Williams asked whether there would be a buffer around the quarries. She hoped there wouldn’t be blasting too close.
Ms. Merchant noted that a driveway on Grant’s Hill would still leave two lots without access. It was noted that Mr. Musetti may have to engineer another driveway as well. Ms. Merchant suggested Mr. Musetti put the road in through his business lot.
It was noted that February 9th was the next meeting for continuation of this application. The Amendment paperwork for the CUP needed to be returned soon.
Mr. Musetti asked for some direction. Mr. Tracy noted eight foot tall trees of native evergreen vegetation for the buffer. Mr. Clunan asked whether runoff should be addressed further in the amendment. Mr. Benson asked whether a buffer strip was required as stated in section 5.1 of the ordinance
Mr. Tracy stated these were developable lots that the Musetti’s have to have access to. If they come in with a strong planting plan that offers more conservation protection he’d be inclined to agree to the project even if there are complaints from neighbors.
Mr. Clunan noted that if there were no further questions from the public, it was agreed that the Board requested a CUP amendment with extra vegetative buffer. It was agreed the public hearing would continue February 9, 2009.
IV. Workshop
Discussion ensued regarding different scenic vistas. Bartlett’s Island shore and the Pretty Marsh shoreline were listed. It was suggested that the board find someone to take them out on a boat to view these vistas.
Mr. Andrews suggested that taking a look at the Gwathmey Siegel house for educational purposes might be useful. Ms. Keene noted permission would be needed to get onsite.
Ms. Keene noted the state mandated changes to the ordinances. Some of the changes she knew of included the Board having more say regarding the shoreline than the EO, the Board would be able to review a lot once a building’s removed and will be able to change the footprint to a more acceptable area. It was noted that January 22nd, 2009 a meeting was scheduled to discuss this issue. Road frontages and the definition of a 20% grade were also suggested as talking points for the changes.
Mr. Bright mentioned the travel reimbursement suggested by the Board of Selectmen for the Planning Board members.
Mr. Clunan noted that he records his mileage for tax purposes and in 2007 he traveled 604 miles on Planning Board business. Mr. Miller and Mr. Bright suggested the Planning Board leave approval and the specifics up to the Board of Selectmen. Whatever they would like to do would be acceptable.
VII. Adjournment
Mr. Tracy moved, with Mr. Andrews seconding, to adjourn the meeting. Adjournment was approved 5/0, and the meeting adjourned at 8:50 pm.
The next schedule meeting/public hearing(s) is in the Meeting Room, Town Hall, Sea Street, Northeast Harbor at 5:00 p.m., Monday, January 22, 2009.
Respectfully Submitted,
| 
