Mount Desert, ME - Planning Board Meeting Minutes

Planning Board Meeting Minutes - 07/27/09


	Town of Mount Desert Planning Board Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2009 Public Present Sam Fox, Ellen Brawley, Sumner Rulon-Miller, Anne Krieg, Sandra Kryder, Mark Kryder, Marilyn Damon Board Members Present James Clunan, James Bright, Patti Reilly. Sandy Andrews and Mr. Tracy arrived later in the evening Kimberly Keene, CEO, Heidi Smallidge, Recording Secretary I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:10 p.m. by Mr. Bright. II. Presentation by Anne Krieg, Planner Town of Bar Harbor on Wireless Communication Facilities: Ms. Krieg shared with the Planning Board her experiences during the creation of the Bar Harbor Cell Tower Ordinance. She stated Bar Harbor had created their ordinance in the best interest of Bar Harbor and with heavy use of the Town attorney. She added that federal laws apply in the construction of a cell tower. Ms. Krieg noted that Bar Harbor had started with a review of their Town policies. They proceeded with the policies of increasing infrastructure and protecting scenic vistas and viewsheds. Ms. Krieg mentioned Verizon has recently presented a request for a tower at Sweetpea’s Farm on Route 3. Ms. Krieg advised the Board to work with the industry; technology changes quickly. Bar Harbor worked with Verizon to create the ordinance. She added that an extensive amount of research was done, including looking nationally, at other towns, and industry needs. There are also issues with public health. Ms. Krieg noted federal law prohibits regulation for public health. They do allow a Town to regulate for aesthetics, property values, safety, necessity, and service benefits to the Town. Co-location is also required; a tower must be built so two other companies can locate on that tower. A Town would not be able to be discriminatory as to who co-locates. It was noted that when towers are installed at lower heights, more are necessary for proper coverage, and towers must have line of sight to be effective. Ms. Krieg suggested working with abutting Towns, adding an issue like this is really an island-wide issue. Ms. Krieg confirmed tower range is 15 miles. The Bar Harbor ordinance allows height to 125 feet. An engineer is required to prepare plans. The plans must show reach and benefit to the Town. Bar Harbor tried to give flexibility to the Board to work with the applicant. Ms. Krieg added that Verizon pays a lease for their towers. Bar Harbor barred towers from shoreland zones, but they are allowed in all other areas. Mr. Bright mentioned that as a stop-gap measure, the Board was considering calling a tower a structure and banning them from a height of over 40 feet. Mr. Clunan asked how long the ordinance research and writing process took. Ms. Krieg answered Bar Harbor had not been in a rush. She added that a very limited height makes the towers impractical. They began the work on their ordinance in August of 2007, ending in June of 2008. A Planning assistant worked about 10 to 20 hours per week through that timeframe. She added that none of the information they’d gained should have changed too much other than statistics, but it would be wise to check with an attorney. Mr. Bright noticed Bar Harbor had set no limit on the number of towers in Bar Harbor. Ms. Krieg agreed, but noted the company wishing to install a tower must prove the benefit to the Town. Peer reviews can be made if necessary. Mr. Rulon-Miller inquired as to whether a company can take property for their tower if the need is there. Ms. Krieg noted they could not. Mr. Bright asked when applying for a tower near the Bar Harbor/Mt. Desert town line, would the required maps show Mount Desert coverage? Ms. Krieg noted the Bar Harbor Planning Board could ask for that kind of evidence. Ms. Krieg added that the Town can set the stage by creating policies. Let the Town policies drive the ordinance. As an example, Ms. Krieg noted Bar Harbor’s valued viewsheds were listed in their Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Clunan asked about the road and utility access. Ms. Krieg noted that this was another item engineers had to show. Mr. Tracy inquired whether Ms. Krieg would be willing to review the Mount Desert tower ordinance. Ms. Krieg suggested the Town Attorney would be the better choice. She mentioned applications received become public information and Mount Desert could review them. She offered to get a copy of Bar Harbor’s research to Ms. Keene. III. Approval of Minutes from June 22, 2009, June 30, 2009, July 7, 2009 and July 13, 2009: It was agreed to move the approval of Minutes to the end of the meeting. IV. Conditional Use Approval Application(s) Conditional Use Approval Application # 012-2009 OWNER(S): Mark H. & Sandra L. Kryder LOCATION: 5 Wheelwright Way, Northeast Harbor TAX MAP: 3 LOT: 43-1 ZONE(S): SR2 PURPOSE: 3.4 – Animal Husbandry – Keeping of Livestock – 6-10 Chickens SITE INSPECTION: 4:00 PM It was confirmed there had been adequate public notice in the Bar Harbor Times. There was no reported conflict of interest. The site inspection was attended by Mr. Bright, Mr. Clunan, and Ms. Keene. It was noted the spot was several hundred feet from residences. Neighbors could not be seen from the area. Water was barely visible. It was a flat dirt area. Mr. Bright noted the drawing had been changed. The space was the same amount of area, just configured differently. There were no comments from the CEO. There was no Planning Board discussion. There was no correspondence. MOTION TO APPROVE WAS MADE BY MR. TRACY, WITH MR. CLUNAN SECONDING. SECTION 6 STANDARDS FOR USES, PERMITS AND APPROVALS 6A GENERAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 6A. 1 Compatibility The proposed use shall be compatible with the permitted uses within the district in which it is located as measured in terms of its: Physical Size: Findings of Fact(s): The proposed size is the designated area as defined by the submitted site plan. (4-0) Visual Impact: Findings of Fact(s): None (4-0) Proximity to other structures: Findings of Fact(s): The proposed area will be adjacent to a garden shed. (4-0) Density of Development: Findings of Fact(s): N/A (4-0) Conclusion of Law for s. 6A. 1 Compatibility: The proposed use will be compatible with the permitted uses within the district in which it is located as measured in terms of its physical size, visual impact, proximity to other structures, and density of development. In particular, (4-0) 6A. 2 Erosion Control 1. Filling, grading. Filling, grading … shall be conducted in such a manner to prevent, to the maximum extent possible, erosion and sedimentation. Findings of Fact(s): N/A (4-0) Conclusion of Law: Filling, grading, etc. will / will not be conducted in such a manner to prevent, to the maximum extent possible, erosion and sedimentation. 2. Removal of sand or gravel. Removal of sand or gravel from natural beaches or the disruption or removal of buffer strips that protect fragile land areas immediately behind a shoreline and on neighboring properties is prohibited. X N/A Conclusion of Law: The proposed use will / will not cause unreasonable congestion on highways or public roads, or unsafe conditions with respect to the use of highways or public roads existing or proposed. Sufficient off-street parking shall be available: Findings of Fact(s): Conclusion of Law: Sufficient off-street parking will / will not be available: 6A. 4 Impact on Town Services The proposed use shall not unduly burden the capacity of the Town's facilities, including public water and sewage, or the ability of the Town to provide essential public services (such as, but not limited to, schools, fire and police protection, refuse collection, and parking) to its residents and visitors. Findings of Fact(s): N/A (4-0) Conclusion of Law: The proposed use of will / will not unduly burden the capacity of the Town's facilities. [In particular, an undue burden will be placed upon] 6A. 5 Land Suitability All land uses shall be located on soils in or upon which the proposed uses or structures can be established or maintained without causing adverse environmental impacts, including severe erosion, mass soil movement, and water pollution, whether during or after construction … Findings of Fact(s): The soil is stable and topography is level. (4-0) Conclusion of Law: Proposed land use of 6 to 10 chickens will be located on soils so as to not causing adverse environmental impacts, including severe erosion, mass soil movement, and water pollution, whether during or after construction. (4-0) 6A. 6 Lighting - Outdoor X N/A p; (4-0) 6A. 7 Nuisances Notwithstanding any other standard in this section, the Planning Board shall not issue any Conditional Use Approval for any proposed use which if established would be obnoxious or offensive by reason of: Odors; X N/A +0" color="#000000" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:9pt;color:#000000;">… nor for any use which would prove injurious to the safety and welfare of the neighborhood. Findings of Fact(s): There will be no rooster or outdoor lighting. (4-0) Conclusion of Law: 6A. 8 Preserving the Town's Character The proposed use shall be consistent with protecting the general character of the Town, conserving the natural beauty of the area and shall not tend to change the historical or cultural character of the neighborhood. Such use shall be similar to a use specified as P, CEO or C in Section 3.4 and shall be in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. Findings of Fact(s): There are other limited chicken runs in the Town. (4-0) Conclusion of Law: The proposed use will be consistent with protecting the general character of the Town, will be consistent with conserving the natural beauty of the area and will not tend to change the historical or cultural character of the neighborhood. Such use will be similar to a use specified as P, CEO or C in Section 3.4 and will be in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. In particular, (4-0) 6A. 9 Stormwater X N/A nbsp; (4-0) Conclusion of Law: 6A. 10 Vegetation 1. Clearing. Clearing of trees or conversion to other vegetation is allowed for permitted construction provided that: 1. Appropriate measures are taken, if necessary, to prevent erosion when activity is undertaken. 2. The activity is in conformity with State Mandated Shoreland Zoning. 2. Tree removal near town roads. Removal of more than 25% of the trees within 25 feet of any town or state road in any 12 month period shall require a Conditional Use Approval of the Planning Board. 3. Slash. No accumulation of slash shall be left within 50 feet of any town or state road or within 50 feet of the normal highwater mark of any waterbody. Slash shall be disposed of so that no part extends more than 4 feet above the ground. 4. Shoreland zoning. Provisions of the State of Maine Shoreland Zoning Act shall apply in the State Mandated Shoreland Zone for timber harvesting and clearing of vegetation, as per Title 38 MRSA § 439-A.5 and 439-A.6. 5. CEO Permit. A CEO Permit is required for cutting timber larger than 4 inches in diameter measured 4 ½ feet above ground when the total amount to be cut is greater than 10 cords but less than 50 cords in any one year period. 6. Conditional Use Approval. Conditional Use Approval is required from the Planning Board for cutting timber larger than 4 inches in diameter measured 4 ½ feet above ground when the total amount to be cut is 50 cords or more in any one year period. Findings of Fact(s): N/A (4-0) Conclusion of Law: 6B SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR ACTIVITIES AND LAND USES All subsections of Section 6B are not applicable excepting subsection 6B.1 (4-0) 6B. 1 Agriculture All spreading or disposal of manure shall be accomplished in conformance with the "Maine Guidelines for Manure and Manure Sludge Disposal on Land", published by the University of Maine and the Maine Soil and Water Conservation Commission, in July 1972. ; X N/A > 6B. 7 Excavation or filling Excavation or filling shall be permitted in any district only to the extent such activities are essential or are incidental to any permitted, conditional, or other lawful use. Filling, dumping, or excavation of any matter of fifty (50) cubic yards or greater within a twelve (12) month period shall require a Code Enforcement Officer permit provided that there are no slopes in excess of 4:1 and the activity is more than one hundred (100) feet from the normal high water line of a waterbody. Excavation and filling, greater than fifty (50) cubic yards in a twelve (12) month period, with slopes greater than 4:1 or within one hundred (100) feet from the high water line of a waterbody shall require a Conditional Use Approval of the Planning Board. Appropriate measures shall be taken to prevent erosion during or after the filling or excavation. All fill permits are approved for a twelve (12) month period only and expire twelve (12) months from the date of approval. The Code Enforcement Officer may renew either the Code Enforcement Officer permit or the Conditional Use Approval for additional twelve (12) month periods. X N/A r="#000000" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:9pt;color:#000000;">Findings of Fact(s): Conclusion of Law: 6B. 8 Fences and walls X N/A than 20 feet in length, and permanent uses projecting into fresh water bodies from normal high water level shall require Conditional Use Approval of the Planning Board. The Planning Board may issue guidelines to insure compliance with state laws. X N/A 6B. 10 Home occupations and home offices Home occupations and home offices (except those of a temporary or casual nature) shall require a permit from the Code Enforcement Officer to insure compliance with the following standards: … X N/A -family:Arial;font-size:9pt;color:#000000;"> Conclusion of Law: 6B. 11 Lots X N/A 1. Lots abutting more than one road … olor:#000000;"> be taken to minimize soil erosion both during and after construction. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 2. The location of the marine structure shall not unreasonably interfere with access to existing marine structures or points of public access, nor shall it unreasonably interfere with the use of other marine structures and landing places. Findings of Fact(s): Conclusion of Law: The location of the marine structure will / will not unreasonably interfere with access to existing marine structures or points of public access, and it will / will not unreasonably interfere with the use of other marine structures and landing places. 3. The marine structure shall be designed, sited, and constructed to minimize adverse impacts on significant wildlife habitats or unique natural areas including, but not limited to: fin fish and shellfish fisheries, salt marshes, eel grass beds, shorebird and nesting habitats, critical fish spawning and nursery areas. Findings of Fact(s): Conclusion of Law: The marine structure will / will not be designed, sited, and constructed to minimize adverse impacts on significant wildlife habitats or unique natural areas. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 4. Interference with the natural flow of any surface or subsurface waters shall be minimized during the construction and subsequent use of the marine structure. Findings of Fact(s): Conclusion of Law: Interference with the natural flow of any surface or subsurface waters will / will not be minimized during the construction and subsequent use of the marine structure. __________________________________________________________________ _____ 5. The marine structure shall be designed, sited, and constructed so as not to encroach upon officially designated navigation channels. Findings of Fact(s): Conclusion of Law: The marine structure is / is not designed, and will / will not be sited, and constructed so as not to encroach upon officially designated navigation channels. _______________________________________________________________________ _____________ 6. The Planning Board shall request comment from the Harbor Master in cases where the applicant proposes to build a marine structure in an officially designated mooring area. N/A X Applicable – comment requested 7. The marine structure shall comply with the dimensional limits listed below. The facility shall be no larger than necessary to accomplish the purposes for which it is designed. Its size and construction shall not change the intensity of the adjoining land use, and by no means shall exceed a total distance of more than one-third the width of the water body, when proposed for coastal or inland waters. Notwithstanding the dimensional limits below, in areas where the horizontal distance from the normal high water line to the mean lower low water is in excess of 160 feet, no permanent structure will be allowed seaward of the normal high water line. Marine Structure Dimensional Requirement Max. length of entire marine structure (i.e. pier, ramp and float combined) 225 feet 1 Maximum length of all permanent structures 150 feet Maximum length of all non-permanent structures (i.e. ramp and float) 75 feet 2 Maximum width of pier walkway 6 feet Maximum width of ramp 6 feet Maximum square footage of floats 400 square feet Max. square footage of floats for communal marine structures (see 8 and 9 below) 800 square feet 1 Or length needed to obtain six feet of depth of water at mean lower low water, whichever is less. 2 In cases where no permanent structure is proposed the applicant will be permitted to install a ramp and float extending no further than 75 feet into the water body. Findings of Fact(s): Conclusion of Law: The marine structural dimensional standards have / have not been met. The facility is designed for the purpose of . The facility will / will not be larger than necessary to accomplish the purposes for which it is designed. Its size and construction shall not change the intensity of the adjoining land use 8. If two or more shorefront lot owners choose to share a communal marine structure the applicant may request additional square footage of floats. X N/A bsp; ______________ 10. There shall be no more than one marine structure on a lot. X N/A ; sp; 2. State standards. All subsurface sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in conformance with the State of Maine Subsurface Wastewater Disposal Rules. X N/A ="+0" color="#000000" style="font-family:Arial;font-size:9pt;color:#000000;"> 4. Signs Permitted: Permanent Signs: X N/A sp; 6B.18 Street/Road Design and Construction Roads shall hereafter be located, constructed, and maintained in such a manner that there is minimal potential for erosion. Adequate provision shall be made to prevent soil erosion and sedimentation of surface waters. Additionally, all roads constructed shall conform to the following standards … X N/A p; Conclusion of Law: 6B.19 Vehicles, Unregistered No more than two (2) unregistered and/or uninspected vehicles may be stored on any residential lot, unless said vehicles cannot be viewed from any public way. X N/A sp; (4-0) V. New Business – Discussion with applicants applying for Alternate Board position: Ellen Brawley and Sumner Rulon-Miller introduced themselves to the Board. Mr. Clunan inquired whether they had reviewed the Planning Board Ordinance. Ms. Brawley had read the ordinance; Mr. Rulon-Miller had not. Mr. Clunan inquired what each of the members felt they had done that related to the work of the Planning Board. Ms. Brawley stated she had been a member of the Warrant Committee and felt it gave her a lot of knowledge of the workings of the Town. She had also served on the Solid Waste Committee and Acadia Disposal District. In addition she has served on several boards for various organizations on the island. Mr. Rulon-Miller noted that he’d moved to Mount Desert in 1951, becoming a permanent resident in 1985. He was inspired to become involved when his godchildren entered the school system. He serves on the finance committee and warrant committee. In addition he has served on school boards for several different schools. Mr. Clunan inquired whether the prospective members could make the current Planning Board schedule. Both affirmed they could. Mr. Andrews inquired whether the candidates had read the draft of the comprehensive plan and what their thoughts were on the document. Ms. Brawley mentioned she had read the document, but it was too much information to quickly summarize. After some discussion of the Board, it was the consensus to recommend to the Board of Selectmen the appointment of Ellen Brawley to the Planning Board. Mr. Rulon-Miller was encouraged to continue attending meetings to stay involved and reapply when openings occurred. Mr. Clunan suggested Mr. Bright write a memo to the Selectmen with this recommendation. VI. Workshops: It was agreed not to discuss workshop topics tonight. A discussion of the future meeting schedule was had. Timber harvesting and definitions changes were to be the topics of the next discussion. Ms. Keene thought the Board would receive from Mr. Rothe updates on definitions, nonconformity, adding stream protection to the zoning map and timber harvesting. She’ll send information to the Board as she receives it. It was noted the progress so far was the State had returned the definitions with changes, and the timber harvesting issue were the large part of what was left of the work. It was agreed towers could be considered “structures” should the Board run out of time in creating their tower ordinance. Approval of Minutes: June 22, 2009: It was agreed to delay approval of these Minutes. June 30, 2009: Mr. Clunan moved, with Ms. Reilly seconding, to approve the Minutes as presented. Motion approved 5-0. Mr. Clunan inquired whether Mr. Tracy had spoken with the Rockefellers about a tower on Bartlett Island. Mr. Tracy noted he had and they’d like to have a tower. July 7, 2009: Mr. Clunan moved, with Ms. Reilly seconding, to approve the Minutes as presented. Motion approved 5-0. July 13, 2009: It was noted the final vote to the application was missing from the Minutes. Once included, it was agreed to approve the Minutes as presented, 5-0. Mr. Clunan asked about the access to Whitney Farm Rd. noted in the Minutes. It was clarified that the access would be from Whitney Farm Road in winter and summer, and from Oak Hill Rd. in the winter only. Mr. Andrews brought up a notification in the Hancock County Planning News stating that $25,000 grants were available to Towns for things like scenic views inventories. It was noted that Towns were required to work together to receive the grant. It was agreed it was worth approaching either Southwest Harbor or Tremont about a scenic inventory. Mr. Andrews agreed to talk with Millard Billings of Tremont, and Mr. Bright would approach Town Manager Mike MacDonald. VII. Adjournment Mr. Tracy moved, with Mr. Clunan seconding to adjourn the meeting. Motion approved 5-0. Meeting was adjourned at 7:40. Respectfully Submitted, Heidi Smallidge, Recording Secretary