Town of Mount Desert Planning Board Workshop
Minutes of September 9, 2009
Public Present
Sam Fox, Deborah Reed, Jean Travers
Board Members Present
Joseph Tracy, Sandy Andrews, James Bright, Ellen Brawley, James Clunan and Jerry Miller
Kimberly Keene, CEO, Heidi Smallidge, Recording Secretary
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 p.m. by Mr. Bright.
II. Workshop:
Ms. Keene spoke to Stephanie MacLagan of the DEP regarding the Resource Protection Area. Per Ms. MacLagan’s email dated 9/3/09, “Densely developed areas do not have to be RP whether they meet any of the RP criteria. We can accept the lodge and cabins as dense development; however, that does not mean the entire lot is removed from RP, only the densely developed portion. Any remaining portion of the lot that meets the RP criteria must be RP. Dense development is considered 2+ structures in the shoreland zone that are 500 ft apart or closer.” In light of this information a number of lots Ms. Keene had been considering Resource Protection are not. Her count of lots under resource protection had been 156. That amount has been cut to 33. Seven of those lots are already protected under
conservation. The Board reviewed the list of remaining lots under Resource Protection. Mr. Miller asked how this would affect the building plans at Camp Beech Cliff. Ms. Keene stated the building area is not under Resource Protection. Ms. Keene distributed a map showing the areas.
Ms. Keene asked the Board to use the meeting on the 14th to focus on wireless communications and towers. Ms. Keene had mailed out the newly revised ordinance and asked that the Board review the ordinance to ensure she’s missed nothing.
A discussion of what to allow in Resource Protection ensued. Mr. Andrews suggested counting only the 250 foot setback as Resource Protection. Mr. Tracy worried this would affect people without suitably buildable land beyond that setback. Ms. Brawley reminded him the Town had little choice. Mr. Bright noted the State allows building and the Town could too. Mr. Bright suggested creating two Resource Protection Districts; #1 for places like around Ripples Pond, and #2 for the sloped areas. These two different districts could have different allowances. Mr. Andrews added that to build on the sloped area, proof should be shown that it’s the only option. Mr. Miller noted proof needs criteria to measure by. Ms. Keene warned the Board that this would involve a lot of change to the maps and
ordinances.
Ms. Keene suggested that in light of the time involved to create two districts, would the Board consider sending the ordinance as finalized to the State for approval then change it later. Mr. Bright felt there wouldn’t be much to rewrite. Mr. Bright suggested keeping an overlay zone for the sloped areas. Mr. Andrews suggested keeping the ability to build as an exception. Ms. Keene said this could be done by creating a footnote for any construction the Board decides to allow.
Ms. Keene read the State exception footnote. After much discussion, the footnote read as follows: “The Planning Board may approve permit for a single family residential structure, dwelling, or accessory structure for a lot in the Resource Protection District located in the Resource Protection district designated on the overlay map as areas of two or more configuring acres with a slope of 20% or greater.”
Mr. Andrews suggested adding conditions. After more discussion, the conditions were set as follows:
“(a) There is no location on the property, other than a location within the Resource Protection District, where the structure can be built.
(b) The lot on which the structure is proposed is undeveloped and was established and recorded in the registry of deeds of the county in which the lot is located before the adoption of the Resource Protection District.
(c) The total ground floor-area, including cantilevered or similar overhanging extensions, of all principal and accessory structures is limited to a maximum of 5,000 square feet.
This limitation shall not be altered by a variance. “
A discussion regarding the upgrading of the charts to reflect the changes to the ordinance followed.
Ms. Keene asked whether the Board hadn’t agreed to remove Excavation and gravel pits. They thought they had and it was agreed to remove it from the chart.
Mr. Andrews felt home occupations should be allowed in the Resource Protection zone. Ms. Keene marked it as CEO approval.
Ms. Keene inquired whether mineral exploration and extraction and campgrounds had been taken out previously. Mr. Miller opened that mineral extraction should have to be approved before it can happen.
Mr. Andrews referred to section 3.9 asking whether allowing a house in an area would also necessitate allowing sewage and driveway construction and service drops. Ms. Keene felt electrical should qualify as a P, and Driveways should qualify as X9. Following through the list, soil and water conservation practices were P, structures accessory to allowed uses X9, Wildlife management P, similar permitted uses P, and clearing and thinning of trees X.
Under Essential Services, all should be marked X in the Resource Protection Area.
Ms. Keene asked about fire prevention activities and whether they were permitted. She noted there was no definition for these activities. Mr. Andrews felt they could be permitted unless they included clear cutting. It was agreed fire prevention activities and forest management should both come to the CEO.
Mr. Bright felt that once the State reviewed the ordinance, the Planning Board should have the Town attorney review the ordinance as well. Ms. Keene felt this was why the Town contracted with Mr. Rothe. Mr. Andrews agreed with Mr. Bright, noting it would be smart to review the document for legal language and consistency. Ms. Keene cautioned the Board that it may result in another entire revision lengthening the process, and time is very limited.
Discussion turned to the tower ordinance.
Ms. Brawley suggested an amendment to the section on co-location of towers and distributed a revision for review.
Ms. Keene informed the Board that there has been someone scouting sites for AT&T. He planned to be at the meeting on the 14th to talk with the Planning Board.
Ms. Reed asked whether this man worked for the cell tower companies. Ms. Keene clarified that the man in question sites acceptable areas for tower placement for AT&T.
Ms. Reed stated she was curious as to where the Board was heading on allowable zoning areas for the placement of towers. She informed the Board that someone in her Pretty Marsh neighborhood has already contracted and accepted money for a cell tower site. She is concerned for the health and devaluation of her property.
Mr. Bright noted that by federal law, the Town cannot limit placement due to public health issues. Ms. Reed felt that may be true, but placement can be kept at a distance.
Mr. Bright noted that neighbors won’t be allowed to adjust setbacks, and Mr. Clunan added that if the lot is narrower than 260 feet, a tower can’t be placed. Mr. Bright noted structures have to be monopoles. And a company would have to prove benefit to the Town.
Ms. Reed noted the property she mentioned is in zone RW3, and that the same owner plans to put a subdivision in around the tower.
Mr. Fox asked about whether the Board intended to hold to the 75 foot setback area on page 3-12. Mr. Bright noted the Town would be forced to follow the rules the State is setting forth, including the 100 foot setback.
III. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned by general consensus at 6:50.
Respectfully Submitted,
Heidi Smallidge, Recording Secretary
| 
