Town of Mount Desert Workshop Minutes
January 17, 2008
Town Office Meeting Room, Northeast Harbor
Public Present
John Kelly, Acadia National Park; 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 continue the discussions of amending the Land Use Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances.
Chairman Clunan began the meeting by summarizing the Board's goals in response to Mr. Rothe's question from the January 7, 2008 meeting. Mr. Clunan stated that Mount Desert is a beautiful town that is unique in many ways and they would like to keep it that way. Allowing of course, for sufficient development so that people can not only live here but also work here as detailed in the Comprehensive Plan.
Chairman Clunan then reviewed the materials presented by Mr. Rothe regarding slope definition. He explained that using estimates he calculated the slope for the Robinson Lane Subdivision at ~29% but ran into difficulties trying to apply the equation elsewhere, for example his land, and would really like to see calculations done by a professional with the equipment and background to do so such as a surveyor.
Mr. Rothe interjected with a few house keeping points on approach. He suggested dividing the ordinance into sections to review, making appropriate changes and renumbering pages at a later date to allow for more rapid and focused progress. Mr. Clunan agreed. Mr. Rothe also suggested keeping the material in a 3 ring binder. Mr. Rothe further suggested proceeding tonight with section 6 if the Board agrees.
Mr. Bright expressed enthusiasm for being given some direction. The Board seemed to agree. Chairman Clunan reflected on how the Board might present their activities to the Warrant Committee. He suggested a caution against becoming overwhelmed as most of the changes thus far were organizational and for clarity rather than content, which had already been approved by the Warrant Committee. Mr. Miller pointed out the system of underlining any changes to allow the committee as well as the public to easily locate the alterations being voted on. Mr. Rothe also explained that the Board can continue working away on the changes they see a need for but can present as much or as little they feel comfortable with as complete for public vote for the Town Meeting in May and suggests beginning with the standards in section 6. Chairman Clunan and the
Board agreed with targeting the more important sections first as they may need some public explanation and discussion before being presented for a vote. However, Mr. Clunan pointed out that changes were generally broken down into separate articles for the Warrant Committee's vote so it may be feasible to attempt a full draft for the next Town Meeting. Mr. Miller also suggested a side note similar to those used in the Budget draft to indicate administrative changes such as relocations. Mr. Rothe also articulated, as he always does when working with municipalities that any changes are ultimately up to the Board and the Town's people so he will not take it personally or be offended if they disagree with any proposed changes and not to worry about hurting his feelings; he is there to work for the Town.
Mr. Bright asked how their progress was in comparison to other Town's he has worked with as the Board felt they were floundering a bit. Mr. Rothe explained that the initial meeting is really more of a brainstorming process for him to get an idea of the direction the Board is looking for and he felt that was successful in the last meeting. He further explained that it is not a linear process but a learning process and often times involves some back and forth and changing of minds as it evolves.
The Board began with Section 6 as that is where the heart of the changes (indicated by underlining) had taken place. Mr. Rothe explained that some of the changes suggested in conversations with CEO Kim Keene had been included for tonight's review.
Section 6.1 Expert Testimony
Mr. Rothe explained that this section bothered him as it was not so much a standard as a procedure and therefore he moved it to the introductory paragraph of Section 6 and renumbered the following standards. The Board agreed with Mr. Rothe's logic.
Section 6.2 Sanitary Standards
Mr. Bright questioned the cross outs that indicated the removal of points 1, 2 and 3 of Section 6.2.2 as being redundant. Mrs. Keene explained that those points are already in the Subsurface Waste Water Rules and it was unnecessary to specify them again in the plan. The Board agreed.
Mr. Rothe also explained that he changed the format to include indentations for clarity. Chairman Clunan questioned any of the changes having an effect on other points. Mr. Rothe explained that for this initial draft he had not proof read in that much detail but at a later date once approved he would be scouring for such details.
Sections 6.3 Erosion Control through Sections 6.9 Nuisances remain unchanged at this time and only require checking that the changes in other sections are consistent with the current literature.
Section 6.10 Lots
Mr. Rothe explained that one of the things that really struck him was that the current ordinance contained standards throughout various sections and he felt that it made more sense to put them all together so they could be easily located. Although, he had not yet moved all of them, many of the "new" standards in Section 6 were simply relocated from other sections including Section 6.10 points 1, 2 and 3 previously of Section 2.8 and 2.9 of the Land Use Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Bright pointed out that on page 3-15 Section 3.6 footnote g exempts Shoreland Commercial Zoning which he did not agree with and wanted to make sure that the new Section 6.10.3 was correcting that error. Mrs. Keene explained it was covered in Section 2.9.
Section 6.4 Minimum developable area per lot.
Mr. Rothe explained that this section was basically trying to determine that there was a minimum useable, developable area on each lot even though the useable area may not be in one spot. Mr. Rothe further expressed that he did not care for the third sentence, "The Developable area shall be located outside of any setback areas (unless setback areas are reduced pursuant to Section 3.6, footnote d) … "as it did not make much sense. However, Mrs. Keene and the Board members explained to him that they had tried to eliminate that sentence before but the Warrant Committee felt it should remain for political reasons. Although it could be challenged as an illegal delegation of authority, Mr. Rothe did see the practical side and they decided to leave it in and proceed.
Mr. Tracy also pointed out that the reference to road frontage in the second sentence should be removed as they had decided to do away with road frontage requirements to account for back lots. Mr. Rothe had seen Ordinances work without road frontage as long as there was still a standard for minimum developable lot area. Mr. Tracy stated that he was not opposed to having such a standard in the ordinance but the setback standards for septic systems alone ensures a certain degree of developable lot size. Chairman Clunan suggested a standard measuring the distance from the house and leach field footprint outward rather than inward from the property line. Mr. Rothe explained that he hadn't seen standards set up quite that way although he had seen them done as a percentage. After further discussion of alternative ways of measurement including
zone, contiguous rather than square footage, and reviewing the previous definition for PUDs, Mr. Rothe stated that he would put something together for the next meeting for Section 6.10.4.
Section 6.11 Driveway Construction
Mr. Rothe explained that he separated the driveway and storm water standards. Furthermore, he took the current shoreline standards the Town had already implemented and asked the Board if they were comfortable enough with those standards to apply them to the rest of the Town. The Board agreed although Mr. Miller did point out that it was changes such as these that should be noted when presented to the Warrant Committee so that only the change itself and not the entire standards could be reviewed.
Mr. Rothe also explained that he duplicated the road standards from Section 2.7 for driveways and inserted them here (6.11.6) as it made sense to have the driveway standards located in this Section 6.11 Driveway Construction. He further moved the Road Standards to Section 6.13 Street Design and Construction.
Chairman Clunan backs up to Section 6.11.3 on culvert diameter and 6.11.4 on new driveway construction asking if they would present a new builder with conflicting standards. Mr. Bright explains that they would not be conflicting as point 4 indicates the need to remedy a situation where runoff onto the road may occur. Mr. Rothe explains that it is also further explained in appendix A and Section 6.12 Storm water.
Mrs. Keene interjects that she is having a tough time with the parenthesis placed after the heading in Section 6.11 Driveway Construction ( from Section 2.7.6, formerly applied only in Shoreland area) as the intent of adding the driveway construction was to apply to any district not just Shoreland. Although it is located under Section 2.7, it also talks about just road construction and a driveway is not a road. There is currently a lawsuit going on having to do with driveway setbacks and therefore she would rather have that removed. Mr. Rothe explains that he interpreted that point 2.7.6 should apply to all areas. Mrs. Keene agreed that it was the intent for 2.7.1 through 2.7.5 to apply to Shoreland and when 2.7.6 was added it was intended to apply to all districts and therefore, probably should have started a new section rather than
as a subsection. However, because the Town is mid lawsuit because of the misinterpretation she feels it should be removed from the draft going to Town Warrant. The Board agreed.
Mr. Bright vocalized that it has always bothered him that we have standards to protect land that is not developable but then there is always an exception for lots that don't fit the standard description and it seems to contradict itself. Mr. Tracy points out that it is not always cut and dry; there are exceptions that can be made. Mr. Miller suggests keeping wording in the ordinance that says the Board may grant exceptions when furnished with proper proof but not must so the Board maintains discretion.
Section 6.12 Storm water
Mr. Rothe explains that this is a new section that deals with runoff in terms of water quantity rather than steep slopes. Mr. Bright asked why tidal waters were exempt as that is what our livelihood is based on. The Board decided to remove that exemption at the bottom of page 6-4. Mr. Rothe introduced Appendix A in response to last meetings concern of new standard requirements like expert testimony considerably increasing the cost of the application. He pointed out that the applicant did not need to hire an engineer but simply think about where the storm water would drain to and come up with a simple plan to handle it similar to the illustration in appendix A.
Mr. Rothe stated that the vegetative buffer may be a new concept but he did would bring some literature with specific examples for the next meeting. Mr. Bright and Mrs. Reilly bring up the need for a standard regarding a revegetation plan in the permit process to give the Board an idea of what the finished product will look like, make sure the plant materials being used are not invasive and going to cause problems, and allow for some control in making sure it gets done and done correctly.
Mr. Tracy asked where the figure of 600 feet came from as it seemed like a large distance. Mr. Rothe argued that when dealing with nutrient runoff 600 feet could be considered lenient and it was not a set back but a zone requiring specific preventative regulations. There was further discussion of the minimum 25 foot buffer as a simple standard to start with that would cover most issues while allowing for conditions at the Board's discretion. Then the standard could always be revisited and "beefed up" or a separate ordinance created, depending on the depth the Board wanted to get into with the storm water standards. Mrs. Reilly stated that she would like to see a standard of at least 50 feet for a buffer. The Board decided to have Mr. Rothe add language to specify the drainage into the Town's existing storm drains and briefly
discussed some semantics.
John Kelly form Acadia National Park announced that the Park Service had been working with the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife on an island wide culvert project to allow wildlife transportation under roads to improve habitats. Mr. Kelly explained that over the past year IF&W and himself had done surveys of each culvert and are taking that information into consideration when opportunities to repair or replace these culverts arise. As the goal of standard 6.13.2 seemed to be very similar to those of the new project, Mr. Kelly suggested the Board take advantage of the work done with the wildlife biologist. Mr. Kelly enthusiastically offered to put together information and language containing specifics for the Board to consider habitat preservation as the roads are updated. Mr. Rothe confirmed that habitat conservation becoming a
popular issue among municipalities. Chairman Clunan asked about possible federal funding. Although Mr. Kelly had not confirmed any yet he was looking and Mrs. Reilly had some ideas for possible funding.
On a side note, Mr. Rothe expressed concern for the Shoreland Zoning Ordinances. As the ordinance stands now he explained, the Town has bits and pieces of Ordinances but not enough to meet Maine State requirements. He suggested drafting a separate ordinance to cover Shoreland Zoning at a later date. Chairman Clunan explained that he and Mrs. Keene had received correspondence and spoken with Jen Kaire from the State of Maine on the Shoreland Zoning. Mrs. Kaire advised them that the Town standards would have to be brought up to date by July 1, 2009 and could be intergraded into the current Land Use Zoning Ordinance as a separate section. Mrs. Keene further explained that former Town Assessor, Mr. Brushwine had spoken with Rich Baker from the State regarding that camps on the water as most of them are non-conforming and the State allowed the
Town to implement a setback of 75 feet instead of 100 feet. Chairman Clunan and the Board agreed that the issue needed to be addressed but should be a goal for the 2009 Town Meeting.
Mr. Rothe summarized that he had taken the standards for Section 6.13 Street Design and Construction from the sub-division standards in section 2.7 of the Land Use Zoning Ordinance and applied them to all streets. Chairman Clunan questioned how such implementation would effect the "little guy" when building. It was determined that these standards would affect streets only not driveways, shielding the "little guy" a bit.
6.14 High Elevation Areas
Mr. Rothe explained that after surveying many different ordinances he submitted an altered version of Camden's Ordinance as a discussion point for the Board. He pointed out that Mount Desert contained only a small percentage of land over a 300 foot elevation. Mr. Tracy suggested looking at the Beech Hill property currently under development as a model when the Board looks at steep slope and elevation standards. Chairman Clunan noted that the viewpoint examples submitted by Mr. Rothe would allow for more detailed look at such areas for example, from Route 102 and Norumega.
Mr. Kelly reported that when the Acadia Mountain Development was before the Park they printed a map to show land elevated over 250 feet that was not already protected by the park which was not much. The park then applied an overlay of lands otherwise protected, by easements for example. Mr. Kelly offered to furnish the Board with copies of this GIS map outlining the minimal unprotected land at elevations of 250 feet. Mr. Rothe agreed that would be very valuable as the current topography maps show only elevation and in increments of 100 feet only. He stated that he added standard 6.14 for the Board's discussion as it is a good basic standard that would cover many high profile areas.
Mr. Kelly questioned the disallowance of 'clustering'. He pointed out that it may be wise to leave that open as an option as under certain circumstances clustering could be a solution to minimizing visual impact. After brief discussion of workforce housing and the benefits the Board decided to leave the clustering option open.
After brief discussion of Section 6.14.3.4. Mr. Rothe agreed that standard was too strong and would redraft it for the next meeting along with increasing the 10 foot standard in Section 6.14.3.5 and defining "ridgeline". Mr. Bright also voiced concern for limiting the amount of cutting allowed in those areas.
6.15 Protecting Scenic Resources
Mr. Rothe pointed out that this standard would be better than 6.14 once applicable areas are defined as it is more detailed and gives you a system for evaluating and measure visual impact. This is the "place holder" with the matrix (page 6-12) the Board decided to include for further exploration and review.
6.16 Sign Regulations
Chairman Clunan explained that this standard was implemented and useful for one particular application. Mr. Rothe stated that he felt the wording was not adequate for the ordinance and the Board agreed to remove it as it was no longer required.
Mr. Kelly reported that based on the Bar Harbor Conservation Commission meeting last December inspired the Park Service to seek professional assistance in writing a Lighting Ordinance that would have a common core among the all the Towns on Mount Desert Island with optional sections that tailor the ordinance to each Town's specific needs. They are working with the Astronomy institute to cover the cost which would allow their Lighting Consultant Peter Lord, to meet with our Planning Consultant, Mr. Rothe at no charge to coordinate efforts.
Chairman Clunan and the Board members expressed interest in participating in this project and inquired as to the deadlines. Mr. Bright suggested utilizing the assistance and beginning with a basic ordinance for the upcoming Town meeting that can always be added to and improved upon.
Mr. Rothe briefly described the information he had brought regarding Dark Sky Ordinances. Mr. Kelly agreed to proceed in coordinating efforts in whatever manner the Board wished and suggested they hear Mr. Lord's presentation on Dark Sky Ordinances as it would also give the public a chance to hear him and get involved. The Board agreed to hear the presentation at the next meeting January 24, 2008.
The agenda for the next meeting includes:
" Hearing Mr. Lord's Dark Sky Presentaion
" Reviewing the revisions to Section 6
" Reviewing either Section 5 Conditional Use Applications or Section 7 Code Enforcement Officer (depending on time restraints)
The Board members and Mr. Rothe briefly discussed administrative editing and formatting of the Land Use Zoning Ordinance. Upon Chairman Clunan's request, Mr. Rothe summarized his notes from the evening.
IV. Meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. The next scheduled meeting/public hearing(s) is at 5:00 p.m., Thursday 24, 2008 in the Meeting Room, Town Hall, Northeast Harbor.
Respectfully submitted,
Patti Reilly, Secretary
| 
