Board Members Present Public Present Approved
James R. Bright, Vice Chairman Sam Fox Chris Spruce
James Clunan, Chairman Charles Orlando Barbara Orlando
Gerard M. Miller, alt Merrill Elias Penelope Elias
Joseph Tracy Shawn Murphy Coulter Monell
Patti Reilly, Secretary Cathy Phillips Hook Wheeler
John Rosenfeld Tom Minervino
Carole Plenty Sam Coplon
Chris Owen Sydney Roberts Rockefeller
Mildred Johnson
Kim Keene, CEO & Recording Secretary
I. The meeting was called to order at 6:11 p.m.
II. Moved to postpone the approval of the minutes from the February 12, 2007 meeting, till after this meeting. Motion to approve made by Mr. Tracy and Seconded by Mr. Miller.
III. Public Hearings – Conditional Use Permits
A. NAME: Town of Mount Desert
AGENT: Shawn Murphy, Harbormaster
LOCATION: 41 Harbor Drive, Northeast Harbor Marina, Northeast Harbor
TAX MAP: 24 LOT: 148 ZONE: SC
PURPOSE: Amendment CUP # 11-02, Expand existing finger float system.
SITE INSPECTION: 4:00PM
No conflict of interest was reported. The regular members present are the voting members for this hearing. It was confirmed the notice was published in the Bar Harbor Times.
Site Inspection was attended by Mr. Clunan & CEO Keene and reported by Mr. Clunan. The Chairman asks Harbormaster Murphy why the Town wants this done. Mr. Murphy replied that currently the floats are 6 feet wide. When the larger vessels come in, the gangways have entrance ladders placed on the docks, and they extend to the other side of the current float. People are tripping and risk falling overboard. Basically it is a safety issue. They want the new floats 10 feet wide to make room for a walkway and ladders. The extra 40 feet on the end of the south dock, is not large enough to let large vessels in. It can take up to a 165 foot vessel now. It limits the size for larger boats. Mr. Clunan asks CEO Keene if she had any comments. CEO Keene indicated that the newly proposed extension will not interfere with other boats
coming or going, like the ferries.
MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY Mr. Tracy; SECONDED BY Mr. Bright.
Mr. Clunan asks if there are any comments from the Board? No, none. He then asks if there are any comments from the public. No, none. The Chairman says that since this is an amendment, we can do an abbreviated statement of findings.
Section 5.7 of the LUZO, as amended March 7, 2006, were reviewed as follows:
5.7 An amendment to a Conditional Use Permit may be issued by the Planning Board only:
1. In conformity with the procedural and substantive requirements set forth in
Sections 3 and 6:
2. On finding that there have been significant changes of conditions or
circumstances
3. When justified by a statement of findings of fact and reasons The Board finds: the application is in conformity with the procedural and substantive requirements set forth in section 3 namely a marine activity in the Shore land Commercial District. The Board finds that the application continues to meet with specific use regulations in Sections 3.3.14 concerning Marine Structures. It conforms with sub standard 1 thru 6. approved (5/0)
Old Business-Continuation
IV. SUBDIVISION APPLICATION CONTINUATION
NAME: Island Housing Trust; Sam Coplon, agent
SUBDIVISION NAME: Ripples Hill
LOCATION: Beech Hill Road, Somesville
TAX MAP: 10 LOT: Portion of 48 ZONE: VR2
PURPOSE: A 19 lot subdivision of 9.99 acres
Continuation of February 12, 2007 meeting
Lett There has been additional letters from the public. Namely a letter from Mildred Johnson, and a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Merrill Elias. The Elias letter was sent by email to a number of the members of the Planning Board. It was also sent to some of the former members. The CEO received the email around 3:30pm today and she has made copies for the Planning Board members. The letters will not be read aloud today, but entered into the written record.
What the three letters say, is that there are concerns over water, money, and safety issues.
The primary safety issue has to due with traffic. When the Board considers a sub division, such as this, the concern is, where the road from the subdivision enters the public way constitutes a safety hazard. Mr. Clunan asks the Board for comments. Mr. Tracy replied that he saw none. Mr. Bright asks if the only exit is on to the Beech Hill Road. No is the reply. Mr. Bright asks if it’s going to have an adverse effect down the road. There is a concern that additional traffic will pose a safety hazard. Does this Board have any thing to do with the safety effect that this subdivision may
impose, on the junction of Beech Hill Road and the Pretty Marsh Road? Chairman Clunan replies that it is not a question for this Board. This is a State road, so it has to go to the State to solve the problem. Mr. Coplon urges people to share their concerns at the next Traffic Committee Meeting, Thursday March 12th at the Somesville Fire House at 4:00pm. Chairman Clunan recognizes Mildred Johnson from the Public. Can the exit from the subdivision be on the Pretty Marsh Road instead? Mr. Coplon replies that The Island Housing Trust does not own that property on that side. Mr. Orlando from the public asks isn’t it true that the impact of this proposed subdivision would double the number of dwellings on Beech Hill Road? Mr. Coplon replies that studies have been done that take the number of trips that come and go and it generates a level of service, at an intersection. The number of trips generated can alter the level of service. When the trip level is low, as in this
case, it doesn’t change the level of service, it doesn’t change the threshold. So, it will not change the intersection. Are there going to be more cars? Yes. Intersection changes, No. Public asks if they are going to be year round residents? Mr. Coplon, Yes, year round residents. No estimates now for the number of people living there, asks Mr. Orlando. Mr. Coplon replies most are 3 bedrooms. Chris Spruce says that they have 11 approved apps now. Refers to where they work. All but 1, work locally. Mr. Coplon passes out a flyer on a traffic study. Level of safety will not change. Character will not change. No data on that intersection at this point. All traffic engineers in the US use this data for information.
Merrill Elias asks, does school bus go that way? Mr. Bright says that the bus goes up the road. Chairman says we cannot dictate buses. Carol Plenty I am a neighbor. I have lived in that neighborhood for 30 years. There are no children in that neighborhood now, so there are no school buses. She looks forward to the possibility of children in the area again. Pretty Marsh Road is now mostly summer houses. There is not very much traffic, at this time. Not many people live there. Chairman Clunan asks if this is from Pretty Marsh to Ponds End. Mrs. Plenty says from Pretty Marsh to the
Firehouse. Mr. Elias voices two concerns that he has. One being speed and the other being blind spots. “Vehicles travel down the hill too fast” says Mr. Elias. He also points out that there are some simple things that can be done as a community. Like more signage and more law enforcement.” You belong in a Traffic Committee Meeting”, states Mr. Tracy. Chairman Clunan can write letter to Traffic Committee voicing these concerns. Mr. Coplon is also concerned about traffic issues. He invites the public to come to a Traffic Committee Meeting.
Mr. Elias also asks do the laws of the state and federal, constitute the laws of housing projects? Example, if you try to enforce an issue, are there any State or Federal regulations that would prevent that? Mr. Coplon replies that affordable housing projects have been part of the staple of housing, for a long time. We will not discriminate on age, race, religion etc. Chairman Clunan wants to move on to money issues such as taxes, and if this project will be a burden on the Town. Mr. Tracy asks Chairman Clunan “what part of the LUZO does this fall under”? Chairman Clunan
replies, 6.7.-Impact on Town Services. Questions have been raised in some of the correspondence we have received, concerning taxes, and if they are sufficient. Schools need more kids. Plenty of room, small classes now. The average cost per child now is, $17,280.00. School is not full at this time. Chairman Clunan would hate to see it go smaller. Another issue of burden is Sewerage Disposal. Mr. Bright says that the Somesville Sewer Plant is operating at 50 percent capacity. No burden on that replies Chairman Clunan; he refers to Mr. Elias’ letter concerning sewer connections and cost. Ownership of the road is also in question. Chairman Clunan asks if the road is going to be a public or private road? The Island Housing Trust will formally go before the Town after the road is built. They want to make sure that they established Town standards while building the road. They went over the complete project with Tony Smith. Mr. Smith wrote a letter last November
asking the Trust to do certain things in the application. By doing that, they believe that they are in good standing with the Town. The letter from Mr. Smith dated November 3, 2006, stating that the Town will pick up solid waste. Mrs. Orlando asks how much will the infrastructure cost for this project? How much money does the Island Trust have? She has not seen any figures. Chairman Clunan recognizes Penny Elias. She asks about trash removal. There will be door to door pick up, replies Mr. Coplon. Chris Spruce replies to Mrs. Orlando’s question about money. It will be approximately a $1,000,000.00 cost. The Trust fund will raise some of it. Also the Trust is talking with banks now, about financing. Mr. Spruce says that a majority of his Board will not agree on this project without the funding in hand. Chairman Clunan asks, if the Planning Board were to go ahead and approve this tonight, you still would not be going ahead without the full amount? Mrs. Orlando asks how
much do you have now? Mr. Spruce says they need to raise half a million more. Chairman Clunan asks, what would happen if the project fails. Mr. Spruce states “We are not going to cut a tree till all finances are in place”. Mrs. Johnson asks, after everything is said and done, and if the Island Trust were to dissolve, who would be responsible for the subdivision? Mr. Bright responds that if the Island Housing were to dissolve, they would sign over to a like minded group to have those covenants enforced. There is an agreement with the Town. They insisted on also having some responsibility for enforcing the covenants.
The Town could step in, if a foreclosure were to happen between the bank and an individual owner. The Island Housing Trust retains a second mortgage on the properties, in case something were to happen, then the banks would notify the Trust. The Trust would then step in and find a new qualified owner to take over. Banks would work with the Trust to keep it. Mr. Bright asks, can the bank take the property and remove the deed restriction? Mr. Orlando asks “What is the default rate experience for similar organizations that you know of.” Mr. Spruce is not aware of any.
Chairman Clunan, would like to move the meeting along, the next issue is water. Concerns have been expressed by neighbors as a result of a drought some years ago. Their well went dry. If more wells are dug in the area, it may cause the wells in the area to dry up more often. Is that your position, Mr. Orlando? That is a possibility, yes. We had testimony at the last meeting from a Hydro-Geologist who said that he has found a lot of fissures, that run straight down and horizontal. Fractures run both ways. Liernes run horizontal, replies Mr. Coplon. There is a well near the property now. When was the last time it was tested? Mr. Coplon replies the day of the last meeting February 12, 2007. No flow was done said Mr. Tracy. Mr. Coplon said that it is a 300 foot well and the water was up 22 feet. 275 feet was the depth, receiving 7 ½ gallons per minute. Expert says 5 wells are needed to fully feed the site. John Rosenfeld from the public informed the Board that he lives on
the North side of the Pretty Marsh Road. Water is one of his concerns. He built his house in 1978. He had a very good water source. It was an active spring. Good quality of water, could actually feed two houses. Mr. Tracy asks if it was a surface spring. Yes, Mr. Rosenfeld replied. In the spring 2001 it went dry. I had to have a new well drilled. He indicated to the Board that his house is about 800’ down from this project. Chairman Clunan asked Mr. Rosenfeld if his spring came back? Yes it did, but it is not clean. Not usable he says. Carol Plenty asks was there any new houses built in your area? Yes, in 1992 says Mr. Rosenfeld, only one house. Chairman Clunan recognizes Ms. Phillips, a pre-approved applicant. She spoke about her experience with many people on a single well that pump 5 gallons per minute and there wells were only 200 feet deep. Are there any other water comments, asks the Chairman Clunan? Mr. Orlando talks about a report from the Town
Manager of Mount Desert in 1992. He states that the production from well #2 was 380 feet deep yielded one quart per minute and from the first that yielded 7 gallons per minute. That was from the two existing wells near the road. Mr. Coplon says that they have found the first well, but are looking for the second. Mr. Clunan asks if either well is on the 9.99 acres in question? No, but adjacent to the property. Chairman Clunan asks if any of the Board members have any additional comments, on any of these three issues of safety; cost, water and burden on the Town? Would the applicant entertain a flow test on that well? Mr. Tracy replies, what good would that do? One well could pump a quart a minute and one could pump 7 gallons per minute. What are we going to change in our decisions? It doesn’t tell us anything about what is going to happen from the other wells, replies Mr. Tracy. Mr. Coplon says most people drill individual wells and don’t have a hydro geologic
study, to help them place their wells. The Trust is not going to move ahead without assurances that there is water. Under Tab 8 of your application is the sighting of 8 wells. The well closest to the road is test well #7? No, replies Mr. Coplon. The road has changed. Chairman Clunan asks where are you going to drill the first well? Mr. Coplon refers to the application number 1. When the road is built and we get into the earth, we will do a test well, replies Mr. Coplon. We are in the early phase of this project. What would be a satisfactory yield of that well, asks the Chairman Clunan? Jerry Miller looks into the minutes, and replies ½ gallon per minute.
Move to approve Mr. Tracy second: Mr. Miller
Comments from the public. Ms. Phillips wants to urge the Board and the neighbors to push this project to the next level. Donors are not going to want to donate to a project that does not exist. Concerns have been voiced and been unfounded. No real risk to the Town financially. Will benefit the schools, with more children. It has been found that the neighborhood is changing the character to be more seasonal in nature. That is true of the Town as a hole. This is a real opportunity to change things in a positive way. What is found is that there is a real lack of affordable housing. Mrs. Orlando says she is harping on water. If one or two of the wells should run dry, who’s responsible for digging more wells? Will that fall on the Town, or the Trust or the homeowners? Mr. Tracy replies that he see no way that the Town would be responsible. Mr. Tracy says, “if a well goes dry, it may mean it’s a bad well’. Will it be the homeowner’s job to drill the well, or will there be a bond
from the Housing Trust to pay for it? Homeowner’s problem, if it’s an individual well. If a shared well, shared problem. Mr. Elias would like to thank the Board. I realize you received our comments very late. Thank you for responding to our many questions. I just want to make a closing statement replies Mr. Coplon. “I want to thank the neighbors for coming. I have been working on the issue of affordable housing for some time, and there is such a need. As part of this project we took the existing Comprehensive Plan and the draft Comprehensive Plan and the changes to the ordinance such as in Section 5.1.6 important and exciting that we had the opportunity to create this project. It may be the first affordable housing, in the Town. Thank you”.
Board reviewed Section 5 of the Subdivision Ordinance:
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
5.1 Buffer Strip.
Buffers shall be considered in or for the following areas and purposes among others:
1. Along property lines, to shield various uses from each other;
2 Along interior roads running parallel to roads exterior to the site, to prevent
confusion, particularly at night;
3. Outside storage
4. To block prevailing wind patterns and to stop windborne debris from leaving the site. The Board finds that the application is in conformance with this subsection.(5/0)
Driveway accesses shall be designed so as to minimize the visual interruption of the buffer areas.
5.2 Conformance with other Laws, Regulations: The board finds that the proposed sub division is in conformance with Local, State and Federal ordinances as specified in this subsection. (5/0)
5.3 Construction Prohibited;
Plans for road construction, grading and ditching shall be reviewed by the Board.
The board finds that the application is in compliance with this subsection. (5/0)
5.4 Ditches, Catch Basins: Any culverts shall be at least 15" in diameter. Adequate
drainage shall be provided so as to reduce the danger of flooding and erosion.
The Board finds that the applicant is in compliance with this subsection.
(5/0)
5.5 Easements: The Board may require easements for sewerage, drainage, utilities, or public access. The Board finds that the application is in compliance with this subsection. (5/0)
5.6 Dedication for Yearround housing
Reserved: The Board find that based on the testimony of Mr. Chris Spruce, the Executive Director of the Island Housing Trust that in view of the requirement of eleven months residency per year, the project is restricted to year round residents. As stipulated in section 3 declaration of Covenants. Therefore it is in conformance with this subsection. (4/1)
5.7 Lots and Density:
5.7.1 The lot size, width, depth, frontage, shape and orientation and the minimum setback lines shall be in accordance with the Land Use Zoning Ordinance. The Board finds that the application is in compliance
with this subsection. (5/0)
5.7.2 Where individual, onsite sewage disposal systems are to be utilized, the size of each lot shall be based on soil characteristics, and shall, as a minimum, conform to M.R.S.A. Title 12, Section 4807 A as amended. The Boards finds this subsection is not applicable.
5.7.3 The Planning Board shall determine if a division of land will be reviewed as a Cluster, a Workforce or conventional subdivision. In order to conform to Section V of the Comprehensive Plan, special consideration shall be given to the preservation of open space and the character of the community in which the development is proposed. The Boards finds that the application is in compliance with this subsection. (5/0)
1. Land Subdivisions:
Density requirements shall be in accordance with Land Use Zoning Ordinance,
Section 3.6 Dimensional requirements remain as stated in the Land Use Zoning
Ordinance, Section 3.6
2. Nonland subdivisions (multiple units within a single structure): Overall net
density shall not exceed two dwelling units per minimum lot size in the district.
3. Overall net density shall be determined by the total number of proposed dwelling
units and the total acreage (including open spaces and recreational areas) within
the subdivision.
5.8 Sewage Disposal
5.8.1 Where any part of a proposed subdivision is located within 1500 feet of a public sanitary sewer line, the subdivider shall connect with such sanitary sewer line by means of a main not less than 8 inches in diameter, provided however, that the appropriate municipal agencies shall first have certified that extending the services will not be an excessive burden on the system. The Board finds that the application is in compliance with this subsection. (5/0)
5.8.2 Where private subsurface sewage disposal is to be utilized, the subdivider must conform to all State of Maine Plumbing Code and LUZO requirements. Furthermore:
1. Disposal sites shall be totally contained within the lot being serviced.
2. Systems shall be designed to the highest standards for the specified use.
3. There shall be no contamination of existing or proposed wells, or any other
water source. The Board finds that this subsection is not applicable.
5.9 Land not Suitable for Development: The Board shall not approve such portions of any proposed subdivision that are located on land below sea level, within the 100 year frequency flood plain, or on land which must be filled or drained or on land created by diverting a water course. In no instance shall the Board approve any part of a subdivision located on filled tidal land or filled or drained Great Ponds. The Board finds the application is incompliance with this subsection. (5/0)
5.10 Open Space Provisions
5.10.1 The Board may require that a proposed subdivision design include a landscape
plan that will show the preservation of existing trees (10" or more in diameter),
the replacement of trees and vegetation, graded contours, streams, and the
preservation of scenic, historic, or environmentally desirable areas. The street
and lot layout shall be adapted to the topography. Extensive grading and filling
shall be avoided. The Board finds that application is in compliance with this
subsection. (5/0)
5.10.2 The Board may require that the subdivider reserve an area of land as an open space and/or recreational area for use by property owners in the subdivision.
1. The property owners may enter into a written agreement with the Selectmen for development and/or maintenance of the reserved land, but all costs of development and maintenance shall be borne by the property owners of the subdivision. The method for apportioning the cost as between individual property owners shall be subject to approval of the Town Selectmen.
2. The obligation to provide for the cost of development and/or maintenance of the reserved open space shall be included in the conveyance of each parcel of the subdivision to its rightful owner.
5.11 Wells:
5.11.1 Because they are difficult to maintain in a sanitary condition, dug wells may be permitted only if it is not technically feasible to develop other ground water sources. The Board finds the application is in compliance with this sub section as dug wells are not permitted in the subdivision. (5/0)
5.11.2 The applicant may be required to show the availability of adequate potable water. A test well may be required; if a public water system is not utilized. The Board finds the application is in compliance with this subsection as a hydro geologist has found that there is an expectation that there will be sufficient potable water as reflected inn the findings of S.W. Cole. (4/1)Bright
5.12 Performance Bond
5.12.1 The Board may require that the subdivider file with the Board at the time of submission of the Final Plan a performance guarantee in an amount sufficient to defray all expenses of the proposed improvements
.
5.12.2 The Board may recommend a maximum extension of 12 months to the guaranteed performance period when the subdivider can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Board and the municipal officers, good cause for such extension. Such recommendation shall be referred to the municipal officers for official action.
5.12.3 Before a subdivider may be released from any obligation requiring his guarantee of performance, the Board will require certification from the appropriate municipal officers to the effect that all improvements have been satisfactorily completed in accordance with all applicable standards (State, Federal, and local codes, Ordinances, laws, and regulations).
5.12.4 The Board may, at its discretion, waive the requirement of a performance bond and recommend a properly executed conditional agreement with the Town. Such agreement, if executed with the Town, shall be noted in writing on the Final Plat Plan and shall provide that the Board may approve the Final Plan or any part thereof, on the condition that no lot in the subdivision may be sold and no permit shall be issued for the construction of any building or any lot on any street in the subdivision until it shall have been certified in the manner set forth in paragraphs 5.12.3 above that all improvements
have been made within 2 years or such other period of time as the Board may require of the date of executing such conditional agreement. The Board finds the applicants credibility is such that it is not necessary for The Board to require the filing with the Board a Performance Bond. (5/0)
5.13 Plan Revisions After Approval;
5.13.1 No changes, erasures, modification, or revisions shall be made in any Final Plat
Plan after approval has been given by the Board and its written endorsement has
been recorded on the Plan, unless the Plan is first resubmitted and the Board
approves any modifications. In the event that the Final Plat Plan is recorded
without complying with this requirement, the same shall be considered null and
void, and the Board shall institute proceedings to have the Plat Plan stricken
from the records of the Town and the Registry of Deeds.
5.13.2 Applicants for revisions shall submit at least eight (8) copies of any proposed
revision. If the revision involves the creation of additional lots or units, or extends
the boundaries of the subdivision, a public hearing shall be required. Otherwise
the Board shall determine if a public hearing is required.
5.13.3 The revised Plan shall refer to the original Plan (and any other revisions) and state
the specific nature of the revision: The Board finds that this application is in
compliance with this subsection. (5/0)
5.14 Street Design and Construction
5.14.1 Widths of rightsof way for road construction shall be not less than fifty (50) feet.
The design and construction of all streets and roads shall be in accordance with
the State Aid Road Specifications of the State of Maine Department of
Transportation. Where an access road from a public road or highway is required
to serve 3 or more lots, said access road shall be in accordance with the
standards given below:
Street Construction Standards:
Minimum Right of Way Width 50 ft
Minimum road Width 16 ft
Maximum Grade* 12%
Minimum Centerline Radius 150 ft
Minimum Tangent between Curves of reverse alignment 50 ft
Roadway Crown 1/4 in/ft Minimum Angle of street intersection** (degrees)
75º
Maximum Grade within 75 ft of intersection 2%
Minimum curb radii at intersections 14 ft
Minimum width of shoulders (each side) 3 ft
Minimum thickness of material after compaction 18 in
Street Materials:
Aggregate Subbase Course (Maximum Sized
Stone 4 in)
Crushed Aggregate Base Course 3 in
* Maximum grade may be exceeded for a length of 100 feet or less, upon approval of the Planning Board
** Street intersection angles shall be as close to 90 degrees as feasible but no less than the listed angle.
5.14.2 Dead End Streets In addition to the design standards above, dead end streets shall be constructed to provide culdesac turnaround with the following minimum requirements for radii:
Property line 65 ft
Outer edge of pavement 50 ft
Inner edge of pavement 30 ft
Where the culdesac is in a wooded area prior to development, a stand of trees shall be maintained within the center of the culdesac. The Board may require the reservation of a twenty foot easement in line with the street to provide continuation of pedestrian traffic or utilities to
the next street. The Board may also require the reservation of a fiftyfoot easement in line with the street to provide continuation of the road where future subdivision is possible.
5.14.3 The approval by the Board of a subdivision plan shall not be deemed to constitute or be evidence of any acceptance by the Town of Mount Desert of any street, road, or rightofway. The Board finds that the plans accompanying the design for the proposed roads and access lanes are in compliance with the Street Construction Standards, not withstanding the requirement for a 16” wide width of road. (4/1) Bright
5.15 Access to Direct Sunlight. The Board finds that there is sufficient access to
direct sunlight, therefore the application is in compliance with this
subsection (5/0)
5.16 Cluster and Workforce Subdivision: The Board finds that the plan design
requirements of the ordinance are satisfied by the applicant as
demonstrated in the application as Tab 2. (5/0)
5.16.1 Purpose: The purpose of the cluster and workforce subdivision standards
is to encourage new concepts of cluster housing with maximum variations of
design that will result in:
1. Permanently protected open space and recreational areas;
2. A pattern of development that preserves the natural beauty of the site, trees,
outstanding natural topography, wildlife habitat, and to prevent soil erosions;
3. An environment in harmony with surrounding development and/or the
traditional community characteristics;
4. A more creatively designed development than would be possible through strict
application of other sections of the Land Use Zoning Ordinance;
5. Uses of land that promote efficiency in public services and facilities with small
networks of utilities and streets;
6. Development of housing that is more economically viable for the year-round
working community.
5.16.2. Plan Design Requirements
1. Permitted Zones and Uses: Cluster and Workforce Subdivisions are
permitted in all Zones except for Shoreland, Conservation, and Resource
Protection Zones.
2. Density:
a. The density of the subdivision shall not exceed the density requirements of the zone in which it is located. Density is calculated by applying the minimum lot sizes to the developable portion of the parcel (i.e. not wetland or steep slope). For the purpose of calculating density for subdivisions that include Workforce Housing, the area of the entire parcel may be used (i.e. including wetland and steep slopes). Workforce Housing will use the entire parcel. Density requirements and density bonuses for workforce housing shall be calculated from lines (A) and (B) of the minimum lot size standards in the LUZO Dimensional Requirements Section 3.6.
b. Multiple Zoning Districts: If the parcel being subdivided is located in more than one zoning district, the overall density of the subdivision shall not exceed the combined density requirements of the districts in which the subdivision is located.
c. Workforce Housing Density Bonuses: Projects that include covenants held by a qualified workforce housing entity may receive density bonus as follows:
1. An increase of up to 50% in the gross residential density of the site may be permitted if at least 50% of the residential units are conveyed with covenants designed to benefit the creation and preservation of workforce housing.
2. An increase of up to 75% in the gross residential density of the site may be permitted if 100% of the residential units are conveyed with covenants designed to benefit the creation and preservation of workforce housing.
3. Open Space requirements: The cluster subdivision must include open space that meets the following requirements:
a. The total area dedicated for open space must equal or exceed the sum of the area by which the building lots are reduced below the minimum lot size otherwise required for the respective zone (i.e. the non-cluster subdivision minimum lots size). Open Space requirement for Workforce Housing: When calculating the open space requirement for qualified workforce housing development, the density bonus units shall be excluded.
b. The open space shall be accessible to the residents of the development.
c. The open space may be used for low-intensity recreation, subsurface wastewater disposal, agriculture, or other passive outdoor living purposes and for preserving the natural features of the site. The open space shall not include rights-of-ways, parking areas, tennis courts, swimming pools, or other areas of impervious surface, or similar recreational development. The use of open space may be further limited or controlled at the time of final subdivision approval if necessary to limit impact to adjacent properties.
d. Whenever possible, some portion of the open space must be located adjacent to the existing public road(s) serving the development so as to preserve a rural or traditional appearance from such roads.
e. The open space shall be protected by a legal instrument satisfactory to the Planning Board, sufficient to assure its maintenance and preservation for its intended purpose. The legal arrangements shall specify ownership of the open space area, responsibility for maintaining the limitation on the uses, payment of taxes, insurance and other fees, and any other specifications deemed necessary by the Planning Board. Any association or entity formed to own or maintain the open space shall not be dissolved without the consent of the Planning Board.
f. The open space may not be further subdivided, except:
1. Part or all of the common open space may be conveyed for public ownership with approval by the Town; or
2. Easements may be granted for underground utilities.
4. Development Layout: Each lot or building must be an element of an overall plan for the entire parcel. When the development consists of the creation of lots, the plan shall establish a building envelope for each lot within which the buildings will be located. When the development involves the construction of multiple buildings on one (1) or more lots, the plan shall show the general location of each building.
The plan shall show the location and size of all building envelopes, roads, utility easements, common areas, common structures, parking areas, footpaths, and private yard space related to individual residential units. The placement of buildings and treatment of spaces shall reflect the purpose of this section and meet all other relevant requirements of this Ordinance.
5. Road frontage requirement: Only the lot over which the main access road lies shall meet the required road frontage for the zone in which it is located. Other lots may have less or no road frontage, as determined by the Planning Board.
6. Setbacks: The Planning Board may reduce the side and rear setback requirements for the internal lot lines of the project, but not the setbacks from the boundaries with adjacent parcels.
7. Public land and facilities: The Town must approve any provisions for the maintenance and upkeep of public land and facilities within subdivision.
8. Protection of natural and scenic features: building envelopes, proposed buildings, roads, or other improvements shall be located to preserve the existing scenic and natural features of the property to the greatest extent practicable.
9. Streets: access from public ways, internal circulation, and parking shall be designed to provide for vehicular and pedestrian safety and convenience, emergency and fire equipment, snow removal, street maintenance, refuse collection, and other delivery and collection services.
10. Drainage: adequate provision shall be made for management of storm water runoff and erosion control.
11. Sewage Disposal: The subdivision shall be served by public sewer or shared subsurface systems, unless the Planning Board finds that these systems are not practicable or permissible under the State of Maine Plumbing Code.
12. Water Supply: The subdivision shall be connected to a common water supply and distribution system unless the Planning Board finds that:
a. Adequate ground water is available at all locations proposed for individual water systems, and;
b. the ground water source (s) proposed for the individual water systems is safe from both on-site and off-site contamination.
13. Utilities: all utilities shall be installed underground unless specifically waived by the Planning Board. Transformer boxes, pumping stations, and meters shall be screened from view from public locations.
14. Buffering: forest management, planting, landscaping, disposition and form of buildings, fencing, and screening shall be used to integrate the proposed development with the landscape and the character of any surrounding development.
The Standards of Section 6 of the LUZO, as amended March 7, 2006, were reviewed as follows:
6.1 Expert Testimony: The Planning Board or code enforcing officer(s) in deciding whether or not to issue a permit shall be governed by the standards set forth in this section. The Planning Board or code enforcing officer(s) may reasonably require an applicant for a permit to furnish at the applicant's expense expert testimony, including documentary material, to prove compliance with such standards. The Board finds that hearing the expert testimony of Chris Spruce, The Executive Director of The Island Housing Trust and other experts indicated in the application , that the application is in compliance with this subsection. (5/0)
6.2 Land Suitability: All land uses shall be located on soils in or upon which the proposed uses or structures can be established or maintained without causing adverse environmental impacts, including severe erosion, mass soil movement, and water pollution, whether during or after construction. Proposed uses requiring subsurface wastewater disposal, and commercial or industrial development and other similar intensive land uses shall require a soils report, prepared by a Statecertified soil scientist or geologist based on an onsite investigation. Within the
shore land zone, the persons qualified to prepare these reports shall be certified by the Department of Human Services. Suitability considerations shall be based primarily on criteria employed in the National Cooperative Soil Survey as modified by onsite factors such as depth to water table and depth to refusal. The Board finds that the application is in compliance with this sub section. (5/0)
6.3 Sanitary Standards:
1. All plumbing systems within two hundred (200) feet of a public sewer shall be connected to public sewer where available in accordance with local, state, and federal laws and regulations. The Planning Board may waive this requirement if all other standards of Section 6 are met.
2. All subsurface sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in conformance with the State of Maine Subsurface Wastewater Disposal Rules and the following:
1. All subsurface sewage disposal systems shall be located in areas of suitable soil of at least one thousand (1,000) square feet in size (which is defined by State of Maine Wastewater Disposal Rules, 144A CMR 241, Tables 700.1 and 700.2).
2. The minimum setback for subsurface sewage disposal systems shall be no less than one hundred (100) horizontal feet from the normal high water mark of a water body. This requirement shall not be reduced by variance except for replacement systems.
3. Holding tanks for sanitary wastes will be permitted only when approved by the Plumbing Inspector, and only if arrangements have been made for periodic removal and disposal of wastes in accordance with all laws and the tank is constructed of impervious material. The Board finds the application is in compliance with Sections 6.3.1, 6.3.2 and 6.3.3. (5/0)
6.4 Erosion Control:
1. Filling, grading, lagooning, dredging, earthmoving activities, and other land use activities shall be conducted in such a manner to prevent, to the maximum extent possible, erosion and sedimentation.
2. Removal of sand or gravel from natural beaches or the disruption or removal of buffer strips that protect fragile land areas immediately behind a shoreline and on neighboring properties is prohibited.
3. On slopes greater than twenty-five (25) percent, there shall be no grading or filling within one hundred (100) feet of the normal high water mark, except to protect the shoreline and prevent erosion.
4. Where soil is tilled in a Conservation District, or where soil in excess of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet lying either wholly or partially within the area covered by this ordinance is tilled in a Rural or Woodland District, such tillage shall be carried out in conformance with the provisions of a Conservation Plan which meets the standards of the State Soil and Water Conservation Commission, and is approved by the appropriate
Soil and Water Conservation District. The number of the plan shall be filed with the Planning Board. Nonconformance with the provisions of such Conservation Plan shall be considered to be a violation of this ordinance. The Board finds that the application is in compliance with this subsection. (5/0)
6.5 Vegetation:
1. Clearing of trees or conversion to other vegetation is allowed for permitted construction provided that:
1. Appropriate measures are taken, if necessary, to prevent erosion when activity is undertaken.
2. The activity is in conformity with State Mandated Shore land Zoning.
2. Removal of more than 25% of the trees within 25 feet of any town or state road in any 12 month period shall require a Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Board.
3. No accumulation of slash shall be left within 50 feet of any town or state road or within 50 feet of the normal high-water mark of any water body. Slash shall be disposed of so that no part extends more than 4 feet above the ground.
4. Provisions of the State of Maine Shore land Zoning Act shall apply in the State Mandated Shore land Zone for timber harvesting and clearing of vegetation, as per Title 38 MRSA § 439-A.5 and 439-A.6.
5. A CEO Permit is required for cutting timber larger than 4" DBH when the total amount to be cut is greater than 10 cords but less than 50 cords in any one year period.
6. A CUP is required from the Planning Board for cutting timber larger than 4 inches DBH when the total amount to be cut is 50 cords or more in any one year period. The Board finds
that the application is in compliance with this subsection. (5/0)
6.6 Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the permitted uses within the district in which it is located as measured in terms of its physical size, visual impact, proximity to other structures, and density of development. The Board finds that the proposed use is in compliance with this subsection. (5/0)
6.7 Impact on Town Services: The proposed use shall not unduly burden the capacity of the Town's facilities, including public water and sewage, or the ability of the Town to provide essential public services (such as, but not limited to, schools, fire and police protection, refuse collection, and parking) to its residents and visitors. The Board finds that the proposed use is in compliance with this subsection. (5/0)
6.8 Highway Safety: The proposed use shall not cause unreasonable congestion on highways or public roads, or unsafe conditions with respect to the use of highways or public roads existing or proposed. Sufficient off-street parking shall be available. The Board finds is in compliance with this subsection. (5/0)
6.9 Preserving the Town's Character: Preserving the Town's Character: The proposed use shall be consistent with protecting the general character of the Town, conserving the natural beauty of the area and shall not tend to change the historical or cultural character of the neighborhood. Such use shall be similar to a use specified as P, CEO or C in Section 3.5
and shall be in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. The Board finds the proposed use is in compliance with this subsection. (5/0)
6.10 Nuisances: Notwithstanding any other standard in this section, the Planning Board shall not issue any conditional use permit for any proposed use which if established would be obnoxious or offensive by reason of odors, dust, smoke, gas, fumes, vibration, noise, or other objectionable features, nor for any use which would prove injurious to the safety and welfare of the neighborhood. The Board finds the application is in compliance with this subsection. (4/1) Bright
The Board reviews the conditions of the application. Mrs. Reilly reads them into the record.
MOTION TO AJOURN MADE BY Mr. Clunan; SECONDED BY Mr. Tracy
V. New Business
The Town failed to notify all the abutters for a new restaurant back in October, 2006 . It is beside Sam Shaw’s business on Main Street. The 30 days to file an appeal had expired. Restaurant owners received their permit. Mrs. Horton and associates went ahead and got their bank loan etc. to start business. An appeal by the abutters will be filed.
VI. Meeting adjourned at.9:12 p.m. The next scheduled meeting/public hearing(s) is at 6:00 p.m., Monday, March 12, 2007 in the Meeting Room, Town Hall, Northeast Harbor.
Respectfully submitted,
Patti Reilly, Secretary
| 
