Town of Mount Desert Planning Board Public Hearing
Minutes of November 9, 2009
Public Present
Sumner Rulon-Miller, Ned Butler
Board Members Present
Joseph Tracy, Sandy Andrews, Ellen Brawley, Jerry Miller, James Bright, James Clunan
Kimberly Keene, CEO, Heidi Smallidge, Recording Secretary
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:10 p.m. by Mr. Bright.
II. Approval of Minutes
It was agreed to defer the approval of Minutes to the end of the meeting.
III. Conditional Use Permit(s):
A. Conditional Use Approval Application # 016-2009
OWNER(S): Nancy K. Ho
AGENT(S): Michael Ho
LOCATION: Long Pond/Kimball Camp Road, Mount Desert
TAX MAP: 18 LOT: 1 ZONE(S): RP
PURPOSE: Section 6B.9 Fresh Water Related Structures & Section 6B.13 Marine Structures Performance Standards
SITE INSPECTION: 2:30PM
This application was withdrawn November 9, 2009 after Bright determined it was in the RP District.
IV. New Business:
OWNER(S): Edwin F. Butler Jr.
LOCATION: 16 Butler Road, Mount Desert
TAX MAP: 8 LOT: 87-1 ZONE: SC
PURPOSE: 4.10 Relocation of Non-Conforming Structure
SITE INSPECTION: 3:30 PM
The Board agreed to appoint Mr. Andrews as recording secretary. It was found that there was adequate public notice. It was noted there was no conflict of interest. Voting members for this application were Mr. Tracy, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Bright, Mr. Clunan, and Ms. Brawley.
The site inspection was attended by Ms. Brawley, Mr. Bright, and Mr. Clunan. Mr. Clunan reported that the building in question was located on the West side of Butler Road on the Southwest side, close to the road. The land of the proposed site slopes toward the water. There is a swale, an oak tree and vegetation. The water runs from the building and land towards the swale. The road is supported by a three to four foot wall. An existing carport is partly on the abutting neighbor’s property. The neighbor happens to be Mr. Butler’s brother. The proposal consists of moving the building off the abutting property and out of the setback area. However, the building will remain slightly within the right of way.
Ms. Keene reported that she had been asked why the building couldn’t be relocated to the parking area already there. It can’t be relocated there due to aesthetics and drainage issues. Ms. Keene talked with the Public Works Director about leaving a building within the right of way. Public Works Director Tony Smith noted he had this discussion with the Maine Municipal Association and was advised against allowing the placement of anything within the legal right of way. It can interfere with the ability to repair, maintain, or improve a road and can create a liability for the Town should an accident occur involving the object in the right of way.
Mr. Tracy inquired how far into the right of way the building would be. Mr. Butler stated the building was currently seven or eight feet over the right of way. Once moved, the building would be approximately three feet over the right of way at one end, two feet on the other end. He added that this was essentially the only entrance to the property. Mr. Miller asked why the building couldn’t be moved a bit further. Mr. Butler noted the oak tree was in the way. As it’s an attractive tree and provides a canopy, he’d prefer not to cut it.
Mr. Tracy moved, with Ms. Brawley seconding, to approve the application.
For clarification, Mr. Bright read section 4.10 aloud to the Board.
Ms. Keene noted she’d received an email from abutting property owner John Butler stating he was not opposed to the project.
It was agreed that sewage system questions were not applicable as the building in question was not hooked up to sewer.
STANDARDS OF SECTION 4.10 ~ RELOCATION OF NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE
A nonconforming structure may be relocated within the boundaries of the lot on which the structure is located provided that the Planning Board finds that the proposed new location and design are more appropriate with regard to:
Location: The Board finds:
Findings of Fact:
1. Current location is 1 ½ feet over property line of the neighbor and ranging from two to eight feet in the Town ROW for road.
2. The proposed location meets the setback requirement from neighbor and will only be a maximum of approximately five feet in the Town ROW.
Conclusion of Law:
The proposed new location will be less non-conforming than the current location. (5-0)
Character and Natural Features: The Board finds:
Findings of Fact:
Conclusion of Law:
N/A (5-0)
Fencing and Screening: The Board finds:
Findings of Fact:
N/A (5-0)
Conclusion of Law:
Landscaping and Topography: The Board finds:
Findings of Fact:
1. A mature oak will be preserved
2. The proposed driveway will do minimal damage to the landscape.
Conclusion of Law:
Proposed relocation is appropriate concerning landscaping and topography (5-0)
Traffic and Access: The Board finds:
Findings of Fact:
Proposed relocation will provide access to the lot and will create better site lines for traffic entering Butler Road from MDI Yacht Yard.
Conclusion of Law:
The proposed location will be more appropriate with regard to traffic and access. (5-0)
Signs and Lighting: The Board finds:
Findings of Fact:
N/A (5-0)
Conclusion of Law:
Potential Nuisances: The Board finds:
Findings of Fact:
N/A (5-0)
Conclusions of Law:
The site of relocation conforms to all setback requirements to the greatest practical extent as determined by the Planning Board, and provided that the applicant demonstrates that the present subsurface sewage disposal system meets the requirements of state law and the State of Maine Subsurface Wastewater Disposal Rules (rules), or that a new system can be installed in compliance with the law and said rules. In no case shall a structure be relocated in a manner that causes the structure to be more nonconforming. In determining whether the building relocation meets the set back to the greatest practical extent, the Planning Board shall consider the size of the lot, the slope of the land, the potential for soil erosion, the location of other structures on the property and on adjacent properties, the location of the septic and other
on-site soils suitable for septic systems, and amount of vegetation to be removed to accomplish the relocation.
Finding of Fact: The Board finds:
No plumbing in the structure.
Conclusion of Law:
N/A (5-0)
APPROVAL CONDITIONS: In addition to all applicable federal, state, and town permits be in place prior to any construction, the following conditions apply:
Motion was approved 5-0.
II. Minutes:
June 22, 2009
Mr. Clunan felt that the paragraphs on Pages one and two regarding what Greg Johnson said were not clear. He offered a re-wording of the section. Minutes were approved as revised, 4-0.
August 5, 2009
Minutes were approved as presented, 3-0.
September 28, 2009
On page 4, line 21 Mr. Clunan suggested “light bulb will be under 100 watts”. Minutes were approved as revised, 6-0.
October 7, 2009
On page five, line 20, Mr. Andrews suggested changing “for” to “by”. Minutes were approved as revised, 6-0.
V. Other
Mr. Andrews asked whether the issue of scenic vistas could be revisited now that the work on the ordinance revisions was done. It was agreed to begin the work again. Mr. Bright requested the Board bring their thoughts and proposals to the next meeting.
It was noted there was only one meeting in November and one meeting in December.
VI. Adjournment
Mr. Tracy moved, with Mr. Andrews seconding, to adjourn. Motion approved 6-0. Meeting was adjourned at 7:05.
Respectfully Submitted,
Heidi Smallidge, Recording Secretary
| 
