Town of Mount Desert Planning Board Workshop Minutes
January 7, 2008
Somesville Fire Station, Somesville
Public Present
Dorothy Clunan; Becky Buyers-Basso; Sydney Roberts Rockefeller; Brian David Shaw; David Irvin; Edd B. Hamor; Jerome Siminsby; Debbie Musetti
Board Members Present
James Clunan, Chairman; James R. Bright, Vice Chairman; Joseph Tracy; Gerard M. Miller, alt; Patti Reilly, Secretary
Rich Rothe, Planning Consultant; Kim Keene, CEO; Danielle Goodwin, Recording Secretary
I. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m.
II. The Board met with Planning Consultant Rich Rothe of Rothe Associates, to begin the discussions of amending the Land Use Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances.
Chairman Clunan led the Board in introducing themselves, including their "day jobs" and why they were on the Planning Board. Chairman Clunan then ran through the intensive meeting schedule for the Planning Board Workshops over the next two months. The Workshops will take place at the Town Hall Meeting Room, Northeast Harbor at 5:00 PM on Thursday January 17th, 24th, 31st, 2008 and February 7th, 14th ,21st, 2008. Mr. Clunan also reported that the contract Rich Rothe inquired about was currently with the lawyers.
Chairman Clunan stated that they could proceed in two ways. The first way being to proceed with the information Riche Rothe sent to the Planning Board focusing on the prominent issue of steep slopes. Or look at the schedule for the next two months as the Town Meeting will be in May and any improvements should be submitted by February 22, 2008.
Rich Rothe suggested beginning with the latter, as starting with the big picture of where they're headed may take less time. Then get into the "nitty gritty" of the details.
The Board agreed. Chairman Clunan asked if a third ordinance for Site Plan Review was necessary or the essentials of such an ordinance could be integrated into the existing ordinance. Mr. Clunan suggested that Site Plan Review regulations could be incorporated at the beginning of Section 5 which covers how the Board would proceed in granting Conditional Use Permits.
Rich Rothe first introduced himself and shared that he has been working with Towns on comprehensive plans and ordinances for about 30 years. Mr. Rothe then revisited an earlier conversation he had with Mr. Clunan regarding the compressed time frame. The original proposal required an intense meeting schedule but could possibly be done by the Town Meeting in May. However, to meet the February submittal deadline it was suggested to first work with his nationally renowned partner, Randall Arendt on the big issues. Mr. Rothe offered the following three courses of action and suggested concentrating on a few areas for February.
1) Write a whole new ordinance which would take a lot of time.
2) Make changes to the existing ordinance, perhaps beginning with the steep slopes / subdivisions.
3) Create a third ordinance to supplement the Comprehensive Plan and address these issues. Which will depend on whether the New Comprehensive Plan is adopted and/ corrected.
Mr. Tracy pointed out that although it is in the best interest of the land owner to protect against erosion, the Acadia Mountain controversy is what brought attention to the issues of steep slopes and viewsheds. Mr. Tracy stated that such features couldn't really be defined by a number alone but needed to be looked at one by one. He thought we should begin by defining what and where the viewsheds were located and not so much general steep slopes that may not have an impact on the rest of the town.
Mr. Rothe explained the two approaches presented in the information he sent out, the first being to identify the important viewsheds and create a process for developing those. The second being to set some standards if those areas have not yet been defined, which ours have not. Although you can combine the two approaches, that would be a tall order for February. Mr. Rothe suggested starting with some standards in addition to compliance with the Land Use Zoning Ordinance.
Chairman Clunan agreed that it was hard to reduce viewsheds and other qualitative aspects of our town to numbers but liked the State's approach in assigning high, medium and low values to the views. The only reference we have to such a scale system is in the draft comprehensive plan on page 41 referring to Spectacular Scenery, "Mount Desert's most distinctive natural features are the rounded mountain peaks blending into the crashing surfs of the Atlantic Ocean." He suggested using scenery involving mountains and water as a starting place to define areas of high scenic significance.
Mr. Rothe also liked the three-tier approach as it allowed for variety and discretion of the Board as opposed to straight standards. The information Mr. Rothe gave to the Board members was a collection of ordinances that have worked for other municipalities in a variety of states including one approach lessening density of development in relation to the steepness of the slopes. Mr. Rothe also suggested setting a goal for the time period leading up to the Town Meeting such as making certain amendments to the LUZO.
Mr. Bright explained that the focus has been on steep slopes as that was the main concern of the grantors. Although he doesn't oppose setting forth some standards as a foothold in the ordinance, he feels that they should improve the current ordinance and not create an entirely new one. Mr. Bright further pointed out the need to define slope and grade and decide which they would be using to reduce confusion.
Jerry Siminsby explained that he worked on the ordinances for Camden and they have a scenic view ordinance which impacts elevations over 500 ft. as well as separate requirements for sustained steep slopes which he believes is what needs defining.
Chairman Clunan posed the question of whether we need to take an inventory of areas of concern first or can proceed in creating standards for evaluation.
Mr. Irvin suggested that we make the standards flexible enough to adapt and evolve with the Town. He also stressed the political importance of maintaining flexibility and strongly advocated a GIS mapping system to readily provide information needed. Mr. Siminsby voiced that the new assessor Kyle Avila was making great strides with the tax maps showing grade which would be helpful.
Chairman Clunan reviewed the two main issues that the Robinson Lane Sub-division brought up. One being emergency access, the other being the scenic impact, and asked what goals Mr. Rothe and the Board might want to set over the next seven weeks.
Mr. Bright pointed out, standards for safety including clear roads and driveways that allowing for adequate emergency access would have been helpful with the Acadia Mountain application. He also proposed suggesting practices to camouflage development such as less cutting, screening, non-reflective glass or hidden lighting in scenic areas without getting into too much architectural design.
Chairman Clunan suggested outlining goals for the next two months to include addressing scenically significant areas, emergency access, and possible dark sky regulations. Mr. Siminsby recommended sorting time by assignments and priority. Chairman Clunan then asked for input on how to go about taking an inventory of Mount Desert.
Mr. Rothe suggested reviewing some of the standards in the material provided before answering the inventory questions to give him a better idea of what the Board and Town are looking for in an Ordinance.
As Acadia Mountain seemed to illuminate these issues, Mr. Bright briefly explained that the driveway was crudely put in going straight up the mountain with no regard to safety or visual impact. He further explained that the Board doesn't want to disallow development but would like to have seen switchbacks and a better construction design implemented; that is the kind of control needed in the ordinance whether on a steep slope or not.
Edd Hamor asked why scenic views had become and issue when they weren't ten years ago.
He declared that, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and he personally finds the modern homes built overhanging the ledges of Somes Sound beautiful. Mr. Hamor stated that any parcel with water frontage could be considered a scenic view and it didn't seem possible to inventory all the lots and come up with standards for February. He further stated that it wouldn't be fair to single out lots or areas to start with and sounded like an agenda to stop certain developments.
Mr. Rothe explained that none of the examples said you can't build at all but would provide some standards to ensure that it was done properly. Mr. Hamor was concerned that such standards would make it more difficult and expensive to build which he felt was what people were scared of.
Mr. Irvin suggested a two-pronged approach dealing with basic road safety standards, etc. for the meeting but taking more time to be thorough and come to an agreement on how to best govern development.
Mr. Siminsby offered focusing on areas of transition into ridgelines and Acadia National Park to soften the harshness along the already declared scenic line. Mr. Irvin and Mr. Tracy also asserted that the ordinance revisions should not be rushed for this year but the appropriate time should be taken to give thorough consideration starting with a full inventory so everyone's on the same page. Mr. Siminsby further suggested started with areas where the public service will go and allow the voters to decide if it would require additional funds.
Chairman Clunan addressed the Board once again regarding expectations for the next seven weeks. Mr. Miller expressed interest in a specific Site Review Plan that could be done for the
Town meeting and easily disregarded if voted down. Mr. Bright suggested beginning with road standards, safety, and drainage then looking at viewsheds.
Discussion continued with an emphasis from Mr. Hamor on not rushing the viewsheds and Mr. Irvin on cracking down on enforcement of the ordinances already in existence.
Upon Dorothy Clunan's request Mr. Rothe gave a synopsis thus far: He stated that the aim was not to stop development but come up with some standards for development. He would like to look at the Camden Ordinances as they sound comparable but is not ready to make any changes or suggestions at this time. Where it was his first meeting with the Board the goal was really just to review and discuss some sample ordinances in an effort to get an idea of what our Town's specific needs are and what the kind of Ordinance the Town is looking for then get into the details.
Mr. Rothe and the Board proceeded to review and discuss each of the follow examples:
1. Excerpt from SPO Comprehensive Plan Handbook, Scenic Resources
2. Protecting Local Scenic Resources, Community-Based Performance standards, Maine State Planning Office, prepared by Robert F. Faunce
Chairman Clunan reported, the first example listed a wide variety of scenic resources which the
State suggested be inventoried and analyzed but left the question of how to measure them?
The second sample offered a tool for measuring scenic resources with the Visual Impact Matrix
on page 13. However, the question remained as to whether or not this could be implemented
without a complete inventory which will and should take time therefore exceeding the Town
meeting deadline.
Mr. Rothe explained that he included example one to show that the State does suggest doing an inventory and analysis of scenic items although that inventory may not necessarily be included in the Comprehensive Plan. There are handbooks on how to conduct a scenic resource inventory which he could acquire if needed. The next step would be a draft protecting scenic resources through a subjective and qualitative process. This would provide a way to regulate development through mitigation without prohibiting.
Chairman Clunan pointed out that the Visual Impact Matrix on page 13 could provide a tool for the Board and Developer to agree on mitigation. The matrix contains 16 boxes and rates the scenic significance on a scale of unrated to high and scenic impact of none to severe to determine the level of mitigation required. Although the matrix system would require some sort of inventory of scenic features, Mr. Clunan liked this idea and asked for the Boards input.
Mr. Miller suggested coming up with a list of what the Board sees as important scenic vistas and getting more public involvement. Mr. Rothe offered several approaches including reviewing each village individually, public input through the map dot method, add the matrix to the ordinance now and utilize it once the scenic resources have been identified. Additionally, Mr. Bright suggested having the public vote on the decisions regarding scenic resources at the Town Meeting.
The Board further discussed introducing language to the draft ordinance now, the effects of cumulative impact and tables for measuring such impact on page 15 and 16, as well as the inevitable dilemma of improved standards causing higher cost vs. affordable housing. Mr. Rothe suggested not making any decisions at that time but simply reviewing the language to start, making any changes and possibly voting on language to include at the next meeting.
Chairman Clunan then read an excerpt from the State Planning Office Draft on page 17 where he got stuck:
"No municipal approval, including a building permit, may be granted unless it is determined that a proposed activity will not unreasonably interfere with designated scenic views or views from designated scenic resources. As used in these performance standards, "unreasonably interfere" shall be mean____________."
It still leaves it to the Town to fill in the blank which is the most difficult part of this process. Mr. Rothe suggests that might be where one would insert the box A criteria from the matrix on page 13.
Mr. Bright suggests concentrating on upgrading road standards for the Town Meeting and then look at how and if they want to address scenic views. He recommended that all Board members review the sub-division standards and recall the issues that instilled fear to begin with and address that at the January 17, 2008 meeting. Mr. Irvin stated that he believed most of those issues could be taken care of through stricter enforcement of the current standards. He believed it was common sense to avoid erosion and allow for emergency access when building a home and instead of plugging literature into the current ordinance suggested a new ordinance and strongly advocated a GIS system as an invaluable tool to answer the necessary questions and help create districts within the Town.
Mrs. Reilly suggested including the matrix from page 16 of the State Planning Guide now, to show reasonable progress for the next Town Meeting. It would provide a base and show what the Board is working on while allowing appropriate time to define the scenic vistas and garner public input and let them decide what governs the one box "A" deemed the land unacceptable to build on. Mrs. Reilly further suggested creating one district with an over lay of scenic vistas, visiting the areas to narrow down scenic vistas, even the dot method is effective and all would provide a good foundation with some visible progress and allow time for thorough evaluation.
In an effort to determine a direction, Chairman Clunan presented two options for proceeding to the Board members. First, being to introduce the undefined matrix into the ordinance at the next Town meeting as a "place holder" allowing the Board time to research and gather public input and vote on what defines a scenic vista. Or to continue going through the material Mr. Rothe brought from other ordinances and see if there was anything they wanted to adopt.
During discussion amongst the Board members Mr. Bright observed that it would be a hard sell to get the public to include the matrix undefined and thought it better to focus on the safety and road regulations as they were more feasible for the time period. Mr. Tracy also expressed sincere concern for taking a slow thorough approach before taking any action.
Mr. Rothe then presented two tracks 1) Make the changes wanted now for example, the road and safety standards, 2) Gather language to take to the villages for public input on processes for the scenic view impact analysis. He suggested working on both at the same time; the earlier of the two would provide some immediate progress and allow needed time to research the more time-consuming and controversial issues. Mr. Rothe then introduced example #4 from Durango as being less controversial and giving some standards the Town may want to implement now.
Mr. Hamor requested that the Board create a standard for viewsheds but still look at each application individually. Mr. Siminsby offered that he believed Vinal Haven did conduct a scenic inventory and expressed concern for consideration of the uniqueness of Mount Desert largely due to Acadia National Park.
Mr. Rothe then introduced example #5 dealing with more specifics of storm drainage on slopes. This resurrected the question of how to measure a sustained slope which Mr. Rothe does have information on and will get to the Board.
Mr. Irvin stated that he did like the idea of the matrix as it allows for the uniqueness of the town and would like to see more matrix examples. Mr. Bright expressed concern for public hesitation on implementing ordinances from other towns and states because Mount Desert is so unique. Mr. Rothe explained that most towns do look at other ordinances and adopt them or tweak them so that they work for their town and are rarely created from scratch.
Chairman Clunan then led the Board in reviewing the literature as underlined by Mr. Rothe:
1. Excerpt from SPO Comprehensive Plan Handbook, Scenic Resources
Did not contain anything the Board wished to review.
2. Protecting Local Scenic Resources, Community-Based Performance standards, Maine State Planning Office, prepared by Robert F. Faunce.
The Board agreed that they all liked the matrix and the language on pages 17 to 21 and would like to further review it and consider it for the ordinance. Mr. Rothe also suggested selecting excerpts to insert as a "place holder" in the draft ordinance with no commitment until further reviewed. On a separate note the Board decided to have Mr. Rothe research definitions for slope and grade and include a definition section. Mr. Irvin questioned the philosophy of including a place hold with out definitions. Chairman Clunan also requested that the word "biota" in the definition section be replaced with "plant and animal life."
3. Except from Washington Township, Morris County, New Jersey
Mr. Rothe included this example for the sketch which can be included in ordinances. Mr. Bright deduced the general idea of this information to be that by proceeding with caution a town could develop and protect its' scenic resources at the same time. Mr. Tracy pointed out that we would still need definitions for example, "ridgeline." Mr. Rothe included some underlined excerpts on pages 7 and 8 of #3 as examples of ordinances requiring camouflaging. Mr. Rothe also introduced example #3 section 3, (9) and talked about another standard referring to elevation. Chairman Clunan pointed out that we still need to define ridgelines and viewsheds. Mr. Bright stated that he did not wish to tell people what building materials they could use but would like to be able to prevent hot pink houses for
example. Mr. Miller pointed out that our topography is different from Morris County and while that may have worked for them most of our residents are already above that line.
Mr. Irvin added the problem may not be restricted to ridgelines for example Seal Harbor Hill vs. Somes Sound and suggested using Seal Harbor as a pilot project. Mr. Rothe also suggested keeping it simple and starting with one area they want to protect such as hilltop views rather then trying to include any view that could be scenic and become overwhelmed with a seemingly never ending project. Mr. Irvin pointed out that this effort was made possible by a couple of people on Somes Sound who donated the money and agreed with choosing a few areas that everyone agrees are of scenic significance for example, Somes Sound (a National treasure), Hall Quarry, etc. Mrs. Reilly observed a pattern that many of these issues have been discussed over the past 7-10 years but not yet addressed as the task is
quite daunting.
4. Excerpt from Durango, Colorado Hillside Protection Ordinance
Mr. Rothe then directed the Board to example #4 with wording on hillside protection. Specifically 10-13-3 Hillside Protection Review Process (a) and (b) which declared that "The development review and permitting process is determined by the slope of the lot on which the work was to be done." He especially liked the features in (b) 1. and 2. (a) and (b). which stated that existing family and two family zoned lots would require CEO review for work on slopes of a certain percentage (for example 20%) or greater. Non-residential and multi-family zoned lots would require the same CEO review for work on slopes in a certain range (for example 20-30%) and those over that range (30% or greater in this example) would require a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Bright pointed out that a lot of that
could be done by the CEO now and would easily fit into our current ordinance.
Mr. Rothe further suggested inclusion of a site analysis addressing topographic and geological conditions, and extent of the area being disturbed (example 10-13-4 Required Submittals on page 2) as a requirement for such CUP Application Submittals. Chairman Clunan asked how much such requirements would cost. Mr. Irvin commented that it would considerably increase the cost. Chairman Clunan remarked that the question before the Board was whether or not they wanted to include a placeholder for a Site Analysis. Mr. Clunan further explored the question of cost trying to find a balance between ideal regulations and consideration of people trying to build a house on their land. He pointed out the exemption for single family housing to help however, that would make it more difficult for developers to
get the most value out of their land. Mr. Bright was not willing to exempt individuals and thought it should be the same across the board.
Mr. Irvin noted the philosophical dilemma that creating such regulations presents, "Is the point to say, here is the standard by which we want our community to live by and you are obligated to do that or does the Board say, here is how you must have things done and demonstrate to me that you have done it that way." Mr. Irvin and Mr. Bright had a brief debate on the need for regulations in place to enforce and protect vs. risk level.
Chairman Clunan again posed the question of introducing a site analysis into the Land Use Zoning Ordinance to include (although not exclusively) steep slopes. Mr. Bright referred to the "Best Management Practices" as covering most of those issues. Mr. Miller pointed out that it does say "may" require and therefore the Board could determine which components were applicable and required.
Mr. Rothe then presented 10-13-5 Grading, 10-13-6 Street Standards and 10-13-7 Access and Driveways (pages 3-4) as excerpts most likely to be used on a regular basis. In further discussion with the Board, Mr. Rothe explained that such a site analysis requirement would not be as in depth as a Site Analysis Review Ordinance but would still target majors areas of concern before being presented to the Board. He further explained that it should really be the responsibility of the applicant to gather that information before coming to the Board as it makes the application much more meaningful in addition to making the applicant more involved, aware and knowledgeable. In additional discussion of the grading standards in example #4 in comparison to those currently in Mt. Desert's Sub-division
Ordinance, Mr. Bright suggested tweaking the current sub-division regulations and applying them generally in the Land Use Zoning Ordinance to allow some control now and further address the safety issues by consulting with the Fire Chief. Mr. Tracy reflected that it had not been a problem yet and therefore he did not think it was necessary. There was brief discussion among the Board leading to example #5.
5. Excerpt from Sample Mountain and Hillside Protection Ordinance, White County, Georgia
Mr. Rothe explained that they may find several standards like those in Sec. 30-214 Requirements for Roads and Driveways on page 14 for example that would provide a good basic road standard. Mr. Bright announced that at previous meetings those concerned about the scenic views mentioned that tightening up the road standards may take care of a good part of that and that's why he keeps throwing it out there. Not to mention it could be tackled for Town Meeting and show some good progress.
Mr. Irvin asked if these changes were general or to be applied to sloped areas only to which Mr. Rothe responded that he envisioned some, such as driveway and runoff standards to be universal. He also acknowledged that these excerpts were put together for general discussion which may initially be a little confusing. However, with the feed back from the workshop and further discussion with CEO, Kim Keene, he would tailor the excerpts that the Board has shown interest in to fit the town and improve our current ordinances. It will be a work in progress and if the Board decides they don't like something it can always be thrown out. Mr. Rothe directed the Board to page 13, item (g) Impact on adjacent property, as a good regulation to include and stated that he would be giving them more information
on storm water runoff and drainage regulations as they are very important and common in coastal Maine. After brief discussion, it was decided that the concept of the degree of steepness determining the extent of development did not suit the town.
Mr. Rothe then asked for the Board's thoughts on (b) Partial Screening page 18. Mr. Bright asserted that it would be nice to be able to review the vegetation of completed project although not necessarily screening. Mr. Irvin debated, that would give the Board too much government over people's lives. Mr. Tracy again thought it was unnecessary. Chairman Clunan recalled an application which the Board did request a vegetation plan for. However, it was pointed out by Mr. Bright that unless the application is brought before the Board for another reason they would not have any recourse. The Board decided 3/1/1 to include it in the draft.
6. Excerpt form Brea, California Hillside Zoning Ordinance
Mr. Rothe and Chairman Clunan summarized this excerpt as showing how to calculate average slope, and is a methodology which makes the number of structures per acre proportional to the steepness of the slope therefore changing lot size. Mr. Clunan asked how this example might apply to the condos and affordable housing projects. Mr. Rothe stated that the affordable housing regulations were already exempt from other standards and it would be up to the Board to decide if they wanted to exempt them from this one as well. Before much discussion of Berming and Retaining walls, Mr. Rothe determined that from tonight's conversations he did not think the Board would want anything form example #6 and they agreed.
7. Excerpt from Hillside Regulations of Various Cities
Mr. Rothe introduced #7 as examples of what other cities had done as far as viewsheds. However, starting with a limited view of what we want to do with viewsheds the Board may wish to address these at another time. Mr. Tracy interjected that he did find the example and illustration on page 24 interesting. The current height standards measure from the lower corner to the roof, not considering slope and doesn't allow for this type of development. Therefore, Mr. Tracy declared that the way height is measured on a slope needs to be redefined. Mr. Rothe suggested a set of guidelines as recommendations in addition to standards which would be enforceable as people may be open to suggestions they wouldn't have thought of on their own. Mr. Irvin thought that was a good idea that could also
be carried over into the sub-division ordinance.
Mr. Rothe suggested waiting on having Mr. Ardent join the meeting until we're done with the
brainstorming process. He also reported that he spoke with Mike MacDonald regarding the contract and
billing perhaps based on percentage of work done. Chairman Clunan appointed Mr. Bright and
Mrs. Reilly as contacts regarding the contract as they have the most prior experience. Mr. Rothe
stated that he will also include something regarding insurance. Mr. Rothe handed out more
information regarding dark sky lighting ordinances for the next meeting.
IV. Meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. The next scheduled meeting/public hearing(s) is at 5:00 p.m., Thursday 17, 2008 in the Meeting Room, Town Hall, Northeast Harbor.
Respectfully submitted,
Patti Reilly, Secretary
| 
