Town of Mount Desert Planning Board Workshop
Minutes of July 22, 2009
Public Present
Donald Cote, Fred Lippucci, Donna Lippucci, Sam Fox & Jean Travers
Board Members Present
Jerry Miller, James Bright, James Clunan, Ms. Reilly
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. Discussion of :
The board opened the floor for questions regarding the impending changes to the shoreland zoning ordinance. Ms. Keene explained that the Town requires landowners to be notified of zoning changes. A letter went out to those residents whose land will now be classified under resource protection; along Little Long Pond and along Ripples Pond. Ms. Keene stated that previously, protection had been only on the Town’s side. The State will mandate a 250 foot buffer along the entire shoreline. Ms. Keene added that the State permits some development within resource protection areas. The Town has historically allowed only such improvements as pathways. Ms. Keene made clear the State was the entity mandating these changes, not the Town.
Mr. Cote informed the Board that the water of Ripples Pond was exaggerated on the map; it was not nearly as large a body of water as the State has made it.
Mr. Bright noticed there’s only one lot without a house on it. The rest have houses, and so would be grandfathered. Ms. Keene added the owners of the lot could apply for a variance if they decided to build, if the Town agreed to adopt the State ordinance that allows development within their resource protection areas. Currently, under Town ordinance, the lot could not be built. Mr. Bright noted the question is whether it makes sense to change the Town ordinance for the one lot affected by the zoning changes. It was his inclination not to change the ordinance to accommodate one lot. Mr. Maffucci thought the land was taxed as not developable. The status of the land was not known.
Mr. Bright inquired whether the Town had received a lot of objection to the State’s mandate. Ms. Keene noted there had not been a lot of feedback.
Ms. Travers requested a short summary of the changes and what’s happening. Mr. Bright provided a quick history and noted that once the ordinance is close to completion a public meeting will be held to explain it all.
III. Discussion of Nonconforming Lots:
Mr. Rothe had sent out several options for nonconforming lots. Ms. Keene noted Mr. Rothe recommended option one. Mr. Bright agreed, except that it didn’t cover functional land divisions. Mr. Bright suggested adding section 4.6, which does cover such divisions, to Mr. Rothe’s recommended option. Ms. Keene mentioned that section 4.11 in the ordinance does cover functional land divisions. Ms. Keene suggested lifting the language from 4.11 and adding it in as 4.6.
Ms. Keene informed the Board she had asked Mr. Rothe about whether section 4.3.3 regarding expansion was necessary. The Town currently has a 30% expansion rule, which is simpler. She hasn’t heard back. Mr. Bright noted the wording states both floor space and structure volume can be expanded 30%. He felt it should be “or”, disallowing both expansions.
Ms. Keene pointed out alternative 1 on page 4.4 regarding nonconforming lots and merging of lots. The wording states that contiguous lots that don’t individually meet requirements will be combined. The Town does not currently have these requirements. She wondered if the Town did not want such a requirement, how it would affect the ordinance.
Mr. Fox voiced concern over whether the summer residents had been informed of the nonconforming rebuild requirements. He felt that many of the summer residents’ homes could be refused a request to rebuild. He wondered whether it was possible to find the history of the ordinance changes.
Mr. Bright requested Ms. Keene check with Mr. Rothe regarding the rebuilding ordinance. It doesn’t make sense not to allow a reconstruction of a nonconforming structure. He noted that in order to rebuild you needed to get the permit within 18 months of the building’s destruction.
Mr. Fox also noted his own house is 35 feet from the shoreline, making him in violation of a 100 foot setback. Would the Planning Board allow him to rebuild should he need to. Mr. Bright stated the Board would pursue checking into the question.
Ms. Keene told Mr. Fox that at the time of a rebuild, there would be a lot of questions to consider for each individual project. She requested also that Mr. Fox put his questions and points in writing to ensure the board finds answers to them. She added that the 100 foot setback was only on Great Ponds, and not on tidal waters. Mr. Fox was encouraged by the Boards’ words.
Mr. Clunan reviewed some of the definitions they had received back from Mr. Rothe. He questioned the words “charitable function” and “philanthropic aid” on page 83. Ms. Keene mentioned these terms were only in the context of signage. Ms. Clunan felt it was redundant.
Ms. Reilly asked whether the Board had done what Mr. Clunan suggested and put towers and wind turbines under “structure”. Ms. Keene noted the wording was left as it is for now. Mr. Bright clarified that Mr. Clunan had suggested defining cell towers and turbines as structures for the time being, keeping them at a height of below 40 feet until a good tower ordinance could be written.
Mr. Bright reviewed the Minutes discussion the ordinance. He felt the definition should read “any utility pole carrying power lines and voice transmission is exempt unless over forty feet”. It was agreed to include “under 40 feet in height” to the definition.
Mr. Bright reported he had talked with Mr. Lanpher. He had heard the Swans Island tower was not used because it was so expensive to run. Mr. Lanpher confirmed towers need to be 100 to 125 feet in height. It was estimated that there could be as many as 10 to 15 towers island wide to remove the “dead spots”. One tower can only carry a certain number of voices and the range is about 15 miles, line of sight. The more cell phones, the more towers were required. Mr. Bright also estimated it was approximately one million dollars to install a tower. If one company builds a tower, they are required by law to allow others to use it.
Mr. Bright inquired what was left of the ordinance work with Mr. Rothe. Ms. Keene noted timber harvesting changes, permitted uses, and zoning changes were left.
Mr. Clunan brought up the definition of “stream”. The definition taken out covered all zones in the Town, and the State definition only covers the shoreland area. The definition needed to be stopped at “wetland” to make it applicable to the entirety of the Town. It was agreed to cross out “within the shoreland area”.
With regard to timber harvesting, Ms. Keene suggested just having the Maine Conservation Dept. enforce it. She suggested waiting to see what Mr. Rothe suggested.
IV. Adjournment
Mr. Clunan moved, with Ms. Reilly seconding, to adjourn. Motion approved 4-0. Meeting was adjourned at 6:50.
Respectfully Submitted,
Heidi Smallidge, Recording Secretary
| 
