Town of Mount Desert Planning Board Workshop
Minutes of August 10, 2009
Public Present
Sam Fox, Anne Funderburk, Jean Travers, Marilyn Damon
Board Members Present
James Clunan, Joe Tracy, Ellen Brawley, James Bright, Patti Reilly
Kimberly Keene, CEO, Heidi Smallidge, Recording Secretary
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:09 p.m. by Mr. Bright.
II. Review of the Definitions:
Ms. Keene reminded the Board that they reviewed the definitions with the DEP comments at the August 5 meeting.
As follow-up to several questions the Board had, Ms. Keene looked up the term “GPA” and found it was simply a classification meaning “Great Pond”. The DEP informed her that the Town does not have to have the classification if the term is pulled from all references. The Board agreed to remove all references of “classified GPA”.
Regarding the definition of “Family”, it was agreed to add “one or more persons related by blood or marriage” to the definition.
Regarding the word “Beyond” in the definitions of “Marine Body” and “Piers, Docks, etc.”, the DEP defined “beyond” as upland from the shoreline. The correct term would be “below”. The Board agreed to use the word “below”.
Regarding Mr. Fox’s letter, Ms. Keene had reviewed the Town of Belgrade’s ordinance. Mr. Fox believed Belgrade had the same 75 foot setback Mount Desert did. Mr. Keene spoke with the CEO of Belgrade and learned that the setbacks went to 100 feet in 1989. Regarding Mr. Fox’s question about a warrant to approve the shoreland zoning, Ms. Keene found a 1992 warrant to add freshwater/Great Ponds and to raise the setback to 100 feet. It was defeated in the vote.
Ms. Keene reminded the Board there were several definitions tabled at the last meeting until more of the Board members were present. The Board reviewed those tabled definitions:
Timber Harvesting: The DEP reported to Ms. Keene that 80% of the Towns are appealing or adopting the ordinance. The ordinance will go into effect June 1, of 2011 or 2012. It was suggested by Mr. Bright to keep the ordinance the Town has if it’s acceptable to the State.
Lot Coverage: Ms. Brawley summarized last week’s discussion, the question of whether parking lots and driveways should be excluded from lot coverage. Ms. Keene noted that currently the definition used by the Town does not include driveways. She added she had not yet found the definition of “Lot” in the State guidelines. Mr. Tracy suggested the DEP is assuming driveways and parking lots are impervious areas. He wondered whether the Town could change the wording to “impervious area”. Ms. Keene felt this would necessitate the inclusion of individual pavers, each being an impervious surface. Mr. Clunan suggested that some driveways are unpaved and grassy. Mr. Tracy suggested just the mention of “impervious surface” removes the need to further define driveways and
lots. Mr. Reilly noted there would be two different rulings between those lots in shoreland and those not. Ms. Keene hoped to avoid creating two different rules. After some more discussion, Mr. Tracy moved to approve the DEP’s recommended wording, with Mr. Clunan seconding. Motion approved 5-0.
Structure: Ms. Brawley reminded the group that the question was whether to add “and towers” after “poles” to ensure inclusion of cell towers. After some discussion, it was agreed by the Board to use the following wording:
“STRUCTURE: Anything constructed or erected, as a permanent fixture on, above, or below the surface of the land, or water, including a porch, deck & or patio. Anything constructed or erected that would be considered a structure but for the fact that it is temporary and not permanent which is within the state shoreland zone as defined and which is not water dependent will also be considered a structure. The term structure shall not include flagpoles, church steeples, poles customarily used for the transmission of voice and/or electricity, radio towers, television antennas, radio antennas, driveways, roads, and subsurface wastewater disposal systems. Sign posts, as referenced in the "Ordinance Regulating the Building and Street Numbering in the Town of Mount Desert", shall not be included as
structures.”
Timber Harvesting: It was agreed to keep the first sentence and not use the rest. The Board agreed to see what the DEP would say about such a change.
Width of Lot: The Board reviewed the recommended definition, as well as a July 24th memo from Mr. Rothe mentioning the definition. Mr. Tracy felt the definition defines shore frontage or road frontage, but not lot width. Mr. Clunan noted the memo Mr. Rothe sent does not reference “in a straight line”. Ms. Keene felt the words “in a straight line” should be kept. After some discussion, it was agreed to leave the definition as the DEP recommended.
Discussion of Section Three Land Use Districts:
Ms. Keene handed out Section Three with DEP comments to the Board. A misprint that includes a zone, “SR4”, was noted and it was agreed to remove it.
Mr. Brawley noted the DEP had rewritten the “Resource Protection” section. Mr. Clunan noted the principal change seemed to be the removal of the two-acre condition. Ms. Keene added that areas of two or more contiguous acres are noted in section 4. Mr. Bright asked whether the Town had a Conservation Zone. Ms. Keene noted they did. She also mentioned that as far as she had been informed, not all waterfowl areas were considered “resource protection” by the DEP. Mr. Tracy asked whether the two contiguous acres had to be within the same lot, or was this independent of lot lines. Ms. Keene promised to ask.
It was noted a 20% slope was a very low angle.
Ms. Keene noted that all reference to “rivers” would be deleted.
It was noted there is now a substantial “Miscellaneous” section. Within that section, Ms. Keene pointed out that 10 cubic yards of fill will now require Planning Board approval.
Ms. Keene pointed out that the DEP has included “Mineral Extraction”. The Town has excluded it since the 1990s. The Planning Board agreed to remove reference to “Mineral Extraction”.
Ms. Keene also noted “Signs” should be removed from the chart; it was not supposed to be included.
Ms. Keene asked the Board to review carefully the Section and decide what should be removed.
The Board agreed to disallow miscellaneous uses in Resource Protection, except for “outdoor non-intensive” uses. Mr. Bright noticed that in the new Stream Protection zone everything was deleted from use. With the exception of the Miscellaneous uses Ms. Keene pointed out.
With regard to 10 cubic yards of fill, Ms. Brawley asked who is mandating that. Ms. Keene noted it was the State. Mr. Tracy requested Ms. Keene ask the DEP whether someone resurfacing their driveway or building a house would need to come before the planning board for driveway fill.
Ms. Keene mentioned to the Board that in the Resource Protection section, there is a 35 foot height restriction, but it doesn’t apply to windmills having no ground space. She noted this was on page 18 of the guidelines.
III. Adjournment
Mr. Bright moved, with Mr. Tracy seconding, to adjourn. Motion approved 5-0. Meeting was adjourned at 8:09.
Respectfully Submitted,
Heidi Smallidge, Recording Secretary
| 
