Town of Mount Desert Planning Board Workshop
Minutes of August 24, 2009
Public Present
Jean Travers, David Irvin, Anne Funderburk
Board Members Present
Joseph Tracy, Ellen Brawley, James Bright, Patti Reilly, James Clunan, Sandy Andrews
Kimberly Keene, CEO, Heidi Smallidge, Recording Secretary
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:08 p.m. by Mr. Bright.
II. Approval of Minutes:
June 22, 2009: Minutes could not be approved until more members were in attendance.
July 22, 2009: Mr. Bright noted that on Page 2, lines 48 – 50 noted the Town of Mount Desert could require as many as 15 towers to ensure coverage to all areas. This should read Mount Desert Island could require as many as 15 towers. Minutes were approved as revised, 3-0.
July 27, 2009: Page 2, line 38 reads “it was noted that the spot was several feet from residences.” The line should read “several hundred feet”. Minutes were approved as revised, 4-0.
August 5, 2009: Minutes could not be approved until more members were in attendance.
August 10, 2009: Mr. Tracy moved, with Mr. Clunan seconding, to approve the Minutes as presented. Motion approved 4-0.
III. Workshop:
Maps were presented to the Board showing the two or more contiguous acres at a 20 percent slope. However, it was found that the areas indicated possibly did not include those that crossed lot lines. Mr. Tracy requested Ms. Keene verify with Mr. Avila that the areas marked included those that crossed lot lines.
Mr. Bright inquired on whether Mr. Rothe had provided any more input. Ms. Keene informed the group that Mr. Rothe has a meeting with the DEP this week. Ms. Keene has sent the ordinance with the Board’s changes to Mr. Rothe, and told him the Town would need it back by September 9th.
Discussion of cell towers began. Mr. Bright reminded the Board they were to have read the Bar Harbor tower ordinance. He asked for comments.
Mr. Clunan reminded the Board that Bar Harbor Planner Anne Krieg had suggested the Board start with their policy. It would be Mr. Clunan’s suggestion that the policy for Mount Desert would be:
#1 – ascertaining how much coverage was wanted. He felt this was a technology advisory committee and selectmen’s issue.
#2 – coverage extent, which Mr. Clunan defined as coverage for all of Mount Desert, all the time.
#3 – Impact on the natural resources. Mr. Clunan referred to the comprehensive plan which noted the Town’s desire to keep natural resources in as pure a state as possible. He added that currently Mount Desert does not have a list of scenic vistas.
#4 – Public Safety from the threat of things like falling towers.
#5 – Public health, with regard to electromagnetism.
It was Mr. Clunan’s suggestion that the Board should review the Bar Harbor ordinance with an eye to these five policy points. Mr. Bright reminded the Board that by federal law, the Town can’t prohibit towers based on public health concerns. He felt that Bar Harbor had not allowed towers to be built near certain public buildings, probably as an appeasement to community concerns over health.
The Board agreed Mr. Clunan’s policy issues were appropriate to keep in mind with regard to the tower ordinance.
Ms. Brawley felt the goal was coverage for highways and residences. Mr. Bright wondered whether it were possible to get 100% coverage for Mount Desert.
Ms. Funderburk theorized that as year-round residences grow fewer, tower companies may lose interest in covering the area.
Mr. Bright noted the Town has no designated scenic vistas in Mount Desert. It would be up to the judgment of the Planning Board whether a vista could be compromised.
Both Mr. Bright and Ms. Brawley liked the ordinance and felt it could be adopted by Mount Desert with some changes.
Mr. Bright suggested adding to Section 6, Setbacks, “this provision may not be waived by abutters”.
Mr. Clunan suggested that the 105% standard plus setbacks noted in (e) of Section 6 would make most lots too small to accommodate a tower. It was noted that accessory structures also needed to meet setbacks in the Bar Harbor ordinance. Ms. Brawley wondered whether waivers could be allowed. Mr. Tracy noted the Town doesn’t prohibit tall trees due to the risk that they could fall. He wondered how much setbacks were needed. Towers don’t have a lot of mass for damage potential. Mr. Andrews suggested asking Ms. Krieg why Bar Harbor included this provision.
Mr. Bright noted that the Bar Harbor ordinance puts a lot of responsibility on the Planning Board.
Ms. Brawley pointed out Section 8(f) requiring demonstration of visibility. She noted Mount Desert has no “scenic resource”. Mr. Andrews suggested wording it as anything already or subsequently designated by the Board as a scenic resource.
Mr. Irvin suggested that the question of towers transcends town lines, and could perhaps be better addressed by a group such as the League of Towns, or a Park Advisory group. Mr. Clunan felt that the intentions and trends of the industry, the park’s interests were both pieces the Board needed sufficient information on. Mr. Tracy agreed the more information the better. Mr. Bright asked that the Board focus on the contents of this ordinance for now. He suggested sending the ordinance to the Selectmen with the suggestion of taking it up at the League of Towns. Mr. Clunan wondered whether the League of Towns included Trenton, Lamoine and Cranberry Islands. Mr. Irvin thought they were included.
Mr. Andrews asked whether it made sense to simply remove the Bar Harbor terminology from the Bar Harbor ordinance and recast it as a Mount Desert ordinance.
Mr. Clunan asked whether this ordinance would be part of LUZO or a separate ordinance. Ms. Keene affirmed it would be part of the LUZO. Mr. Clunan wondered whether it was something the Board could refer to Mr. Rothe.
Mr. Andrews felt the best way to go about it was to go line by line through the ordinance with changes. Mr. Bright felt the work could be done and the ordinance to the Board by November.
The Board began the review of the ordinance.
Under Section 1(a), Purpose, It was noted “Mount Desert” and “Mount Desert Comprehensive Plan” needed to replace references to Bar Harbor.
Section 1(b), Purpose: It was agreed to delete reference to the “Acadia All American Road” and replace it with the Town of Mount Desert instead.
Section 1( c ), Purpose: Ms. Brawley wondered about the term “adjacent”. It was agreed to use the term “abutting” instead.
Section 1(d), Purpose: Ms. Keene noted the definition of “co-location” was “the use of a communications facility by more than one communications provider”.
Section 2, Exemptions: It was agreed to replace “site plan review” with “a conditional use approval”.
Section 2 (a), Exemptions: Mr. Andrews pointed out the phrase “antenna…which is no higher than the maximum height allowed in the district in which it is located…” He noted ham radio towers can be quite substantial and wondered how many towers like that were in Mount Desert. Mr. Bright mentioned ham radio towers are exempt now. Ms. Keene noted radio and TV antennas were exempt in other parts of the ordinance. Mr. Andrews felt this was the more logical place to have this particular exemption. After some discussion it was agreed to end 2(a) after “…for any commercial purpose”, deleting the rest of the section.
Section 2(b), Exemptions: It was agreed to leave it as is.
Section 2( c ), Exemptions: Mr. Andrews suggested ending the section after “… television antenna is located”.
Section 2(d), Exemptions: Mr. Andrews suggested ending the sentence after “…including any mast”.
Section 2(e), Exemptions: It was agreed to leave it as is.
Section 2(f), Exemptions: Mr. Andrews was not sure it made sense to exempt the Town. Leaving out the sentence meant only that the Town departments were not automatically exempt. It was agreed to remove the section.
Section 3, Space Requirements: It was agreed to leave it as is.
Section 4, Mass of antennas per user: Ms. Brawley felt the term “mass” was not accurate. It was agreed “volume” would be the better. Mr. Bright noted the mass of all the antennas combined wouldn’t equal 1900 cubic feet. Mr. Irvin suggested adding the words “per array” to the section. Mr. Clunan suggested asking Bar Harbor why they chose this wording. Mr. Andrews asked Ms. Keene to contact Ms. Krieg.
Section 5, Lot area requirement: Mr. Bright and Mr. Andrews felt this acceptable as it was written. After some discussion Mr. Andrews suggested adding “…and all setback requirements are met”.
Section 6(a), Setbacks: It was agreed to leave it as is.
Section 6(b), Setbacks: It was suggested to add the fact that abutters can’t waive setback requirements. After some discussion, it was agreed to make the fact that abutters can’t waive setback requirements its own section (f).
Section 7(a), Co-location requirements: It was agreed to remove reference to “site plan review”. Mr. Clunan asked about the request for “evidence that this notice requirement has been fulfilled”. Ms. Keene noted the Town does not currently send this type of correspondence certified at present. Mr. Andrews suggested replacing “in the town” with “servicers of the town regardless of tower location”. Discussion was had regarding notification requirements. Mr. Andrews asked Ms. Keene to ask Mr. Rothe whether we should notify people within 1000 feet for new towers. He wondered whether it should go in the Notification section of the LUZO, but Ms. Keene felt it should go here.
Section 8, Submissions: It was agreed to remove the first sentence up to “§125-66”.
Section 8(a) through (e), Submissions: It was agreed to leave it as is.
Section 8(f), Submissions: Mr. Andrews stated the Board needs to decide if they want scenic vistas and what that means. Mr. Irvin felt (f) and (g) overlapped. He added that if the Town did not have “scenic vistas” than an ordinance should not be written to them. After some discussion, it was agreed to delete the section after “…scenic resource and Acadia National Park”. Ms. Reilly wondered whether there was a definition for “scenic resource”. Ms. Keene did not have one. It was agreed to leave out “scenic resource” from (f). Mr. Tracy warned that everything visible from Acadia National Park. Mr. Andrews suggested it meant only the publicly accessible points in Acadia National Park. After some more discussion, it was agreed
to use the term “designated trails and ways”, in place of “designated scenic resource and Acadia National Park”.
It was agreed to leave review of the rest of the ordinance to another meeting. It was agreed to a meeting on September 9th to focus on a final look at the shoreland zone ordinance.
IV. Adjournment
Mr. Tracy moved, with Mr. Miller seconding, to adjourn. Motion approved 6-0. Meeting was adjourned at 8:20.
Respectfully Submitted,
Heidi Smallidge, Recording Secretary
| 
