Board Members Present Public Present
James R. Bright, Vice Chairman Gabrielle G. Protetzel John Rosenfeld
James Clunan, Chairman Michael M. V. Wiles Betty Allen
Joseph Tracy Mildred Johnson David Allen
Patti Reilly, S Penelope Elias Don Becker
Cliff Lippitt Frank Barnes
Carole Plenty Marion Barnes
Merrill F. Elias Mark Phillips
Sydney Roberts Rockefeller
John P. Gordon Chris Spruce
Eero Hederfine Sam Coplon
Dan Vashon Hook Wheeler
Barbara Orlando Charles Orlando
Michael Shattow Steve Salsbury
Kim Keene, CEO; & Recording Secretary
I. The meeting was called to order at 6:03 p.m.
II. The draft minutes from the January 22, 2007 meeting were unanimously approved as amended.
III. Chairman Clunan made a request to change order of agenda. Mr. Tracy replied that there was no sequence to the agenda. Mr. Clunan recommends starting with the Elizabeth J. & David T. Allen Conditional Use Permit.
V Conditional Use Permits
A. NAME: Elizabeth J. & David T. Allen
LOCATION: 2 S & H Lane, Mount Desert
TAX MAP: 8 LOT 95 ZONE: RW3
PURPOSE: Services 1 – Teach Art
SITE INSPECTION: 4:15 PM
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.
Chairman Clunan told the Board that he was an abutter to the Allens. He wanted to know if he should excuse himself. The Boards reply was no.
Site Inspection was attended by Chairman Clunan, and reported by Chairman Clunan. Nothing had changed from last site inspection that was attended by Mr. Bright, Mr. Andrews, myself and CEO Keene. Use record from last site inspection as record. Chairman Clunan asked Mrs. Keene if she had any comments, as Code Inspector. Mrs. Keene replied that she had already spoken with the Allens, the last time, and had no issues. Mr. Tracy asked Mrs. Keene if she had any advice from changing home business to services 1. One letter was received from the neighbors, Owen Craighead, Jr. and Kimberly S. Craighead. The letter was entered into the record. We have discussed the reason why this is an application for services 1. Mr. Clunan asks the Allens if they had anything to add. Mrs. Allen replied that she was perfectly happy to be
Services 1, a home business. Mr. Clunan asked about the parking. How many spaces are there, and about the pull off space? Mrs. Allen replied about fifteen cars. Chairmen Clunan asked, what is the maximum student load? Eight comfortably, replied Mrs. Allen. Are there any comments from the public, asked Mr. Clunan? Mr. Michael Shattow replied that he is in support of the art studio. He owned one of the homes that the art studio used to be in. Plenty of parking. No objections.
MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY Mr. Tracy; SECONDED BY Mr. Bright.
The Standards of Section 6 of the LUZO, as amended March 7, 2006, were reviewed as follows 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 it has heard the expert testimony of the applicants, and the CEO. They find that the application is in compliance with this sub
section.
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 activity will be located in an existing structure. No construction is involved and the application is therefore in compliance with this sub section.
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 that the plumbing system for the structure concerned is not within
200 feet of a public sewer. There is not any requirement for being connected to a public sewer. The board further finds that the sub surface sewerage disposal facilities are adequate for the use proposed by the applicant. And that this finding is supported by the report received from Teresa Davis, Licensed Site Evaluator. Letter dated September 22, 2006.
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 since there is no filling, grading, removal of sand or gravel and that no soil is being tilled, that this section is not applicable.
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 since there is to be no clearing of trees, no accumulation of slash, that this provision of the ordinance is not applicable.
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 the proposed use is compatible with the permitted usages within the district in which it is located, as measured in terms of its physical size, visual impact, and proximity of other structures and density of development.
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 shall not unduly burden the capacity of the Town’s facilities, or the ability of the Town to provide essential public services, such as and not limited to schools, fire and
police protection, refuse collection, and parking to its residents and visitors. Therefore the application is in compliance with this sub section.
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 that the proposed use shall not cause unreasonable congestion on the highways or public roads, or unsafe conditions with respect to the use of highways or public roads existing or proposed. Sufficient off street parking is available.
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 that 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 is similar to the use specified under as P. CEO or C in Section 3.5 and is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.
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 that the use will not be obnoxious or offensive by reason of odors, dust, smoke gas, fumes, vibrations, noise or other objectionable features. Nor would the use
prove injurious to the safety and welfare of the neighborhood.
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Mr. Clunan/ 4/0).
B. NAME: The Island Foundation
LOCATION: Peabody Drive – Azalea Gardens
TAX MAP: 5 LOT: 13-3 ZONE: RP
PURPOSE: 3.4.6 Excavation/Filling more than 50 Cubic Yards
SITE INSPECTION: 2:00 PM
AGENT: Carol Plenty, Ex. Director
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. Bright and reported by Mr. Bright. They want to dredge the pond and take the fill out from the pond and landscape the corner, where the old Hawtin house use to be. Then they want to leave a pathway between the berms. This will be 3 feet high, and not blocking any views of the gardens. Then they want to excavate an old cellar hole to make a low spot, for soil to dry out. Cutting a few trees, and landscaping with evergreens. Chairman Clunan asked CEO Keene if she had anything to add. They will be putting in a temporary road for access for the trucks and replace with blueberry sod or grass to look natural. No real access from route three into the lot area. Mr. Clunan asked what side of Route 3? Mr. Bright replied, on the left side of road toward Seal Harbor. No access point from main highway.
Carol Plenty Exec. Director of The Island Foundation made a request that the DEP permit be conditional with approval. Chairman Clunan asked if there were any comments from the pubic on this application. None were heard.
MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY Mr. Tracy; SECONDED BY Mr. Bright
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 the application is in compliance with this sub section.
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 proposed use can be established and maintained without causing adverse environmental impacts including severe erosion, mass soil movement, and water pollution, both during and after construction. Best management practices will be used while building roads and dredging, digging cellar hole. Application is in compliance with this sub section.
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 that this sub section of the ordinance is not applicable to this
application.
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 dredging, and earth moving activities proposed by the applicant shall be conducted in a manner to prevent to the maximum extent possible erosion and sedimentation. Sand and gravel is not being removed from natural beaches, and that slopes, greater than 25 percent are not involved. No soil is being tiled in a conservation district and therefore the application is in compliance with this sub section.
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 clearing of trees or conversion to other vegetation will be limited and necessary activities to prevent erosion will be undertaken. Not more then 25 percent of the trees within 25 feet of the Town and State roads
will not be undertaken. No accumulation of slash will be left within 50 feet of any Town or State road. A CEO permit for cutting large timber and more then ten cord is not required and the conditional use permit for cutting more then 50 cords is not required. The application is in conformance with this sub section.
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 will be compatible with the permitted uses within the district in which it is located. Measured in terms of physical size, visual impact. And density of development. The provision concerning proximity to other structures is not applicable.
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 shall not unduly burden the capacity of the Towns facilities, including public water and sewage. Nor the ability of the Town to provide essential public services such as but not
limited to schools, police, fire protection, refuse collection and parking to its residents and visitors.
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 that the proposed use shall not cause unreasonable congestion on the highways or public roads or unsafe conditions with respect to the use of highway or public roads existing or proposed. Further the Board finds sufficient off street parking is available.
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 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 accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.
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 that the proposed use if established would not 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.
Chairman Clunan called for a motion to approve. Mr. Bright referred to the condition of the DEP, and the Army Corps of Engineers. Permits to be satisfied prior to construction.
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (4/0).
IV. Subdivision Completeness Review
A.
NAME: Arthur Palmer Trust
AGENT: Stephen Salsbury
SUBDIVISION NAME: Palmer Trust Subdivision
LOCATION: Gray Farm Road, Somesville
TAX MAP: 11 LOT: 69 ZONE: RW3
PURPOSE: Proposed 7 lot subdivision
Chairman Clunan started the review by stating that the application seemed very thorough. It had been through a Completeness Review before, last August. Mr. Clunans asked Mr. Salsbury if there was anything different in the application, from before. No, Replied Mr. Salsbury. Many questions came up from the August meeting that need to be addressed, tonight. One had to do with the Engineer report on the dam. Another had to do with a wetland question that Mrs. Reilly had. Mr. Tracy had covenant concerns. Conditional on DEP approval. Let’s do the dam first. Mr. Salsbury introduced Mr. Don Becker from CES to answer any questions that the board may
have. Chairman Clunan asked how wide the road would be. Mr. Becker replied 20 feet. Can the dam handle that? Yes, replied Mr. Becker. The dam is 5 times wider then need be, if just a dam. The owners do not want to change the grade. They want it to look the same. Mr. Bright asked if the dam could handle the heavy construction equipment. Once the sub division is established, the heavy loads would end. Mrs. Reilly asked if the dam was private, and if any additional permits were needed. Yes, replied Mr. Salsbury, the dam is private, and no more permits were needed. Mr. Clunan asked if there were anymore questions about the dam. No, none. Mrs. Reilly asked about the wetland significance. Who determined whither these were not wetlands of significance and was told it was the consultant that did that. Mr. Becker replied that it was the State that decided what the rules were. Clear cut according to Mr. Becker. DEP has seen the plan. They have come out and made an actual site
inspection.. Mrs. Reilly wanted to see some kind of documentation stating this. DEP could not approve as submitted, because they are waiting for Town approval, first. Mr. Salsbury replied a catch 22 situation. The descriptions for wetlands of significance were determined by the natural heritage program from Maine. You can earn that status in the way you describe replied Mr. Becker. How was this determined that these were not? No real description says Mrs. Reilly. One was determined to be of significance and the others were not. One is tidal influence, the first on the left. No altering it. Activities are closer to it then they allow unless the plan were. To reflect that there were no alternatives. Which in this case, there are not. Anything done differently would be much more destructive replied Mr. Becker. Keeping it low enough no new earth work needed. No closer then current disturbance, even though we are going to be widening. Mrs. Reilly asked about the drainage.
The drainage from the part of the roadway that will be disturbed for a short term will pose potential risk. Drains to a ditch and goes into a level trench. Where it is put back into a sheet form to drain into a pond. As oppose to the wetlands of significance. That is done partially to make the board more comfortable, also to make the DEP more comfortable. John Cullen has asked to be there before the start and recheck per page 38 of his report. He has been there to the site twice. We need a NRPA permit for them that require them to visit, even again. Mr. Clunan asked Mr. Tracy if he had anything about the covenants, to add. He voiced concern about restricting of animals. It is contrary to our LUZO covenant #4. Mr. Tracy mentioned chickens, cattle, and horses. Mr. Salsbury said that his client wants to be more restrictive than the ordinance, concerning farm animals, other than dogs and cats. If neighbors don’t mind, who cares said Mr. Tracy He would vote
a negative to the subdivision. Mr. Bright agreed. Mr. Salsbury asked if there were any more covenants, objected too? Mr. Salsbury believes that he can persuade the land owners to drop that one. Mrs. Reilly reminds the board that it is the land owners right to make covenants. Mr. Clunan wants to answer Mr. Salsbury’s question. Are there anymore covenants that the Board members present object too? No, just #4. Mr. Clunan replies, if you can talk to Mrs. Palmer. That can be arranged, replies Mr. Salsbury. Other then that, Mr. Tracy states that it is a professional application. Very complete.
Board reviewed the following Subdivision Ordinance sections against the submitted application and found the application to be in conformance except as noted:
4.2.1 Information on the Applicant:
1. Name of applicant/owner-Arthur Palmer Trust, 424 East 52nd, Apt. 5B, New York,
NY 10022.
2. Name of agent (if other than owner) with attached authorization for agent by owner. . Stephen R. Salsbury, Herrick & Salsbury, Inc., PO Box 652 Ellsworth, ME 04605.
3. If Applicant is a corporation, state whether the corporation is licensed to do business in Maine, and attach copy of Secretary of State's Registration the application is not a corporation.
4. Name of Applicant's authorized representative and authorization. Stephen R. Salsbury, Herrick & Salsbury, Inc., PO Box 652 Ellsworth, ME 04605.
5. Name, address, and number of Registered Professional Engineer, Land Surveyor, or Planner. Stephen R. Salsbury, Herrick & Salsbury, Inc., PO Box 652 Ellsworth, ME 04605 Engineer: Donald S. Becker, CES Inc., PO Box 639 Brewer, ME 04412.
6. Address to which all correspondence from the Board should be sent to: Stephen R. Salsbury, Herrick & Salsbury, Inc., PO Box 652 Ellsworth, ME 04605.
7. What interest does the Applicant have in the parcel to be subdivided (option, land purchase contract, record ownership, etc.)? (See Deed Pages 13-16)
8. What interest does the applicant have in any property abutting parcel to be subdivided? The applicant does not have any interest in the abutting land.
9. State whether preliminary plat plan covers entire, contiguous holdings of owner. The application covers the entire holdings of the applicant and owner.
4.2.2 Information on Parcel to be subdivided
1. Location of property: Map and Lot (from Town Tax Maps.) Tax Map 11 Lot 69 (See PAGE 7)
2. Survey maps of tract to be subdivided, as well as contiguous property of the owner of the tract, certified by a Registered Land Surveyor, tied to established reference points (attach to application). (See PAGE 54)
3. Current zoning district(s) of property. RW3.
4. Acreage of parcel to be subdivided. 36.4 Acres.
5. An SSWD, by a licensed soil engineer identifying soil types and a map showing the location of soil test areas, unless the parcel will utilize public sewer. There shall be at least one satisfactory soil test per lot. (See Pages 25-32)
6. Names of property owners within 1,000 feet from the parcel to be subdivided, and on opposite side of any road from parcel to be subdivided (show on Plat). (See PAGES 8-11)
7. Any restrictive covenants to be placed on the deeds. The application is not complete with respect to restrictive covenants.
8. Proposed soil erosion and sedimentation control. Soil Erosion and control plans are shown on sheet 2 of 2 of plans prepared by Donald S. Becker, P.E. (See Pages 55-56)
9. Water supply. A water resource report prepared by S.W. Cole Engineering, Inc. has been provided. (See Pages 50-53)
4.2.3 Information on Subdivision
1. Proposed name of subdivision: Arthur Palmer Trust Subdivision
2. Number of lots 7
3. Date, north point, graphic map scale (show on Plat). (See PAGE 54)
4. Proposed lot lines with approximate dimensions and suggested location where known of buildings, subsurface sewage disposal systems, and wells (show on Plat). (See PAGE 54)
5. Location of temporary markers so located as to enable the Board readily to locate lots and appraise basic lots layout in the field (show on Plat) a site visit is scheduled for January 22, 2007.
6. Location of all parcels to be dedicated to public use, the conditions of such dedication, as well as the location of all natural features of site elements to be preserved (show on Plat). No parcels are being dedicated to the public.
7. A location map, consisting of a USGS Topographical Map, showing the relation of the proposed subdivision to adjacent properties and to the general surrounding area. The location map shall show all the area within 2000 feet of any property line of the proposed subdivision and shall be attached to application. (See PAGE 12)
8. Location and size of existing buildings and other essential existing physical features (show on Plat). (See PAGE 54)
9. Location of all wetlands, regardless of size, all water bodies and areas within the State Shore land Zone (show on Plat). (See PAGE 54)
10. Location of all drains which shall provide adequate storm water management. Drainage details are shown on sheets 1 and 2 of plans prepared by Donald. S. Becker, P.E. (See PAGES 55-56)
11. Location and size of any existing and proposed sewers and water mains, and culverts and drains. One culvert is proposed at the new road entrance as shown on plan 1 of 2 prepared by Donald S. Becker, P.E. (See PAGES 55-56)
12. Location, names, and widths of existing and proposed streets, highways, easements, building lines, parks, and other open spaces (shown on Plat). Proposed street details are shown on sheets 1 and 2 of plans prepared by Donald S. Becker, P.E. (See PAGES 55-56)
13. Names of abutters (show on Plat). (See PAGE 8-11)
14. If the subdivision, or any part of it, is in such an area the sub divider will determine the 100-year flood elevation and flood hazard boundaries within the subdivision. The subdivision is not in the flood plain. (See PAGES 18-19)
15. Other information not indicated above, as specified by the Board. The applicant today has provided expert testimony with respect to wet lands with special significant and the construction and durability of the dam.
5. 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 sub section. This is a rural area, and no buffering is required.
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 this is in compliance with this section and will be considered at the public hearing.
5.3 Construction Prohibited
Plans for road construction, grading and ditching shall be reviewed by the Board. The Board finds that this application is in compliance with this sub section.
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 those ditches and culverts indicated on the plan are suffient and therefore the application is in compliance with this sub section.
5.5 Easements The Board may require easements for sewerage, drainage, utilities, or public access.
The Board finds that this is not applicable as the board has not required easements for sewerage drainage, utilities, or public access.
5.6 Dedication for Yearround housing
Reserved
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 with respect to sub section 1 this application is in compliance with lot size, width, depth, frontage and shape and orientation.
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 Board finds that the soil characteristic requirements for this sub section have been satisfied therefore the
application is in compliance with this sub section.
5.7.3 The Planning Board shall determine if a division of land will be reviewed as a Cluster, a Workforce or conventional subdivision. The Board finds this subdivision will be reviewed as a conventional sub division.
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.
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 sub divider 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 subject property is not within 1500 feet of public sanitary Sewer Lines.
5.8.2 Where private subsurface sewage disposal is to be utilized, the sub divider 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 the application is in compliance with this sub section.
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 that the subject property is not located within the 100 year Flood Plain. (See Page 19)
5.10 Open Space Provisions: The Board finds that it does not require open space provisions or reservation of land as open space or recreational area, as this subsection not applicable.
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.
5.10.2 The Board may require that the sub divider 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.
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 that the application is in compliance because dug wells will not be dug and applicant has shown the availability of adequate potable water and that a test well is not required.
5.12 Performance Bond;
5.12.1 The Board may require that the sub divider 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 sub divider 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 sub divider 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. The Board finds that no performance bond is required. Due to the well known and positive
Reputation and performance of the applicant, agent, land surveyor and engineer.
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 provision after approval is understood by the applicant and that should there be changes the applicant will appear again before the Planning Board.
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 application meets the standards provided in that subsection with respect to the right of ways, and the other standards provided in
5.14.1 with the sighting of dead end streets. With the understanding that the approval by the Planning Board does not constitute evidence of any acceptance by the Town of Mount Desert of any of the streets or roads in this subdivision.
5.15 Access to Direct Sunlight: The Board finds that it is up to the applicant to determine therefore the applicant is in compliance.
5.16 Cluster and Workforce Subdivision: The Board finds that this section is not applicable.
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 Shore land, 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.
Public hearing is set for March 12, 2007
IV.
III. Public Hearings – Subdivision Application
A. 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
SITE INSPECTION: 3:00 PM
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. Bright, Mr. Clunan, CEO Keene, Mr. Baylor and Mr. Tucker. Reported by Mr. Bright. I would like to give a site inspection, but either we made a mistake or there has been a serious omission. No road marked out and no lots marked out. A site inspection of just unmarked land, Mr. Bright believes is in violation of 4.2.3 (5), location of temporary markers so located as to enable the board readily to locate lots and appraise basic lot layouts in the field. Mr. Clunan asked Mr. Bright what he did see. Mr. Bright replied that the overall boundary of the property was marked out. There is a swale half way up and the houses are going to be built around that. Gentle incline up to that point, and to a kind of plateau. To the eastern side of the swale, the houses will be lower down, from the houses on the western side. Land looked suitable, but was surprised that things were not marked out. Mr. Tracy said he did not think that the Board had ever approved a
subdivision without it being laid out. I can’t think of one, replied Mr. Clunan. Mr. Clunan asked if there was a previous site inspection. CEO Keene said that she thought in 2006. Mr. Coplon said that they didn’t stake the road out, because it was pretty clear where the road went. He asked if they could move forward and make it a condition approval. The Trust is a non-profit and Mr. Coplon didn’t want the Trust to go to the added expense. Clearly the Board feels that’s something that needs to be done in a timely fashion, replied Mr. Coplon. Mr. Clunan states that it is black and white here, not the Board, but the Town voted on the Subdivision Ordinance, that makes the requirements. Mr. Clunan replies that he is sorry if there was a mis-communication during the completeness review last year. CEO Keene is asked if this was ruled complete the last time the Board meet on this. Yes, the only required changes were to some of the
covenants. Mr. Bright asks if Mr. Coplon had talked with the traffic committee about that intersection in Somesville. Mr. Coplon said yes, and being a member of the Traffic Committee himself, he spoke with Tony Smith and Jim Willis. They talked about that area, being that the Pretty Marsh Road is a state highway. It gives the Town limited options to address. As a committee, they agreed to ask the DOT to come and meet with the Traffic Committee to address a number of points in Somesville, including this. Ms. Sydney Roberts Rockefeller states that there was an issue with the DOT, and since there was no longer a DOT office in Ellsworth, they have to contact Bangor now. Mr. Coplon says that Mr. Willis and Mr. Smith being on the Traffic Committee are aware of this project and that intersection in Somesville. Chairman Clunan says, given that one of the purposes of the Land Use Ordinance, is to quote” the development of an economically sound and stable community”. We are not trying to
hang this up on an oversight, says Mr. Clunan. Others can speak for themselves. What is being proposed has many a laudable aspects, to it. It is creating workforce housing which is needed here on Mount Desert Island. The Board is just trying to help the applicant through the steps of the Planning Board. Other issues that need to be addressed, that came up at the completeness review. Mr. Bright and Mr. Tracy had questions about the storage and the parking, says Mr. Clunan. Mr. Tracy asks Mr. Coplon what he has done since the last time to expand the parking. Mr. Coplon replies that what they have a total of 46 spaces for 19 homes. So there are 2 plus parking spaces for each home. In addition to those, there are temporary off street parking with turf areas for parking in case of a party or gathering. So, a total of eight additional spaces. The surface will be covered with gravel and loam, so it will grow grass. Mr. Clunan asks how long a vehicle could park there. Mr. Coplon says
that there are covenants in place. Stating that it is a temporary and short term parking. Did not have it designed to have it paved, so not to encourage parking. Really just over flow parking. Mr. Tracy asks about the covenants and what can be done in the open areas. Someone has a requirement to store a boat on a trailer. Could be a very crowded area. He wanted to see the amount allocated to the lots and the overall size. Mr. Coplon replied that there is nothing in the restrictions that would prohibit the owners from grouping together and building a shelter for kayaks or that kind of thing. The Housing Trust is not going to do that. People can elect to do that kind of thing in the future. Nothing to prohibit the home owners and the home owners association choosing a place that works for them to do that. Mr. Chris Spruce, the Director of the Island Housing Trust, says that there is a general reference to the draft that the Neighborhood Association had. One of the changes is in
Section #5 or might be #6 in your draft. Basically says a provision was provided that says “The developer may grant the right to establish a community garden, common recreational facilities, and other common amenities that have limited impact on the common open space.” Mr. Bright says that he has struggled on this whole thing since you were here last. My stumbling block is on the road and how young people starting out with limited cash and you are putting a road maintenance requirement on them. But, 20 years down the road, when the road had to be repaved, and the Town has not taken it over, it is going to be a substantial amount of money. Why not widen that section of road out to Town standards? Let the Town plow and maintain the road. He doesn’t feel that having the walkway is really in character to the neighborhood. Mr. Bright keeps going back to the expense for young couples just starting out. Mr. Spruce from the Island Housing Association replies
that the concept is having a walkable and family friendly street. The second thing is the reason that the Island Housing Trust will remain an associate of that association is the Trust is non-profit and often eligible for grants and funding that for profit organizations are not eligible for. Hope over time to contribute towards the maintenance of any of those share utilities, including road ways. The way that it reads, Mr. Bright says the owners of those houses will be responsible. The road / walk way is only about 400 feet long. In today’s dollars, it would only be around $4000.00 to replace. The Town hopefully would take over the responsibility of the other part of the road. Mr. Coplon says that he has talked a lot with Mike Bender and Tony Smith about the road. Spoke about plowing and fire access. Mr. Tracy asked how much space does the Town need for plowing. 8-10 foot was the answer. How wide was one lane of the road? 12 feet Mr. Coplon replied. Town could plow
through there. Mr. Bright brings the discussion to storage buildings. Mr. Spruce speaks of a standard size for sheds. They have a shed plan that people could build on their property. Each lot has a building envelope. 12’ X 16’ asks Mr. Tracy? More like 8’ X 12’ or 10’ x 12’ replied Mr. Coplon. Any more questions about parking and storage, asks the Chairman? Potable water is now introduced. Mr. Cliff Lippitt from S. W. Cole is with us tonight to answer questions about the water. Mr. Clunan asks if there is some kind of water already there. Yes, there is a well. It is 24 feet to water. We measured it in November and also tonight before this meeting. It is 24 ½ feet from top of casing. The well measured tonight more then Mr. Lippitts tape measure of 290 feet. 6 Inch well. Calculation of 400 gallons standing water. Not quite two times a standard house hold would use. The water actually came up ½ a foot from November. Mr. Tracy
mentions that some concerned neighbors may say that their wells have dropped from the time of the completeness of this subdivision. Can they be assured that by looking at this level? Yes, on this side of the site. Site has 4 sides. Island Housing Trust could monitor water very easily. Rise in ground water comes April from spring melt. Fracture trace analysis was done, replies Mr. Lippitt. Calculated on 20 units, convert to gallons per minute, you would need to supply water per day, you would need a well that could pump 3.75 gallons per minute. For all 20 units. It is not a lot of water, but again, the way that we would look at this from a point of view planning these again, they wanted to keep connection down as part of code to fewer then 25 people per well. So say 24 people per well would be 4 house holds and so that works out to be about .75 gallons per minute. Based on location, would be the minimum that you would need to meet the requirement. Individual wells would
look at as they got into construction. Fewer people hooked up to a well, the better. The twelve spots for wells, what are the odds that they will all have water, asks the Chairman? All, replies Mr. Lippett, ½ a gallon per minute at least. How many house per well? Mr. Coplon replied 6 well houses. Greater expense in having common wells, serving more than one home. Drill some wells that could be common wells. Individual wells would cost less. The idea is to minimize cost. Mr. Tracy asked if the fracture lines were vertical. Mr.Lippett replies that they are almost vertical. The few that he has been able to measure on the site have been very close to vertical. As they drill more fresh bedrock they will give them a chance to interpret the best way to drill. Mr. Clunan refers to 5.11.2. Applicant just answered this. The public has been very patient, but first let’s have a motion. Does not need a motion, at this time. Chairman Clunan opens the
floor up for questions. Mr. Charles Orlando asked, to what extent is it estimated that the cost of this project will impact the existing, and future tax base of the Town? The actual valuation of the homes and the amount the Town can assess the value of the home is limited under State law by deed restriction. They are deed restricted for resale. The Assessor can not value these homes beyond what that resale price is. If they are built at a certain cost(less than market) the assessor cannot go in and assess those homes at market rate replied Mr. Spruce. Has the estimate been made as to what that maybe, asks Mr. Orlando? No, replies Mr. Spruce. The new facilities that this will require? Schools and other services etc. Part of the reason that this is being done, is to populate the schools. People will be paying taxes, just not at market rate. That is what I am asking, replied Mr. Orlando. At what extent will the Town be expected to subsidize? Again the taxes will be based on what
it cost to build the house. Mr. Clunan asked what the taxes are now on the property. Mr. Spruce replies that they pay nothing in taxes, for they are non-profit. Before, the land belonged to the Town, so there were no taxes then. Mr. Tracy reminds everyone that the reason behind this is to add to the work force and the schools. Add to the population of the area. Mr. Orlando asks how the Town will be monitoring the residents in the new community servicing town jobs. Will that be criteria? There is a requirement to qualify for ownership here that a portion of every income has to be derived from working on Mount Desert Island. There is a maximum amount of income that the house has to earn in order to qualify. Again, Mr. Orlando asks, how will the Town be able to monitor that this is in fact what is happening? That is the job of the Trust, replied Mr. Spruce. The Trust will be a member of the association, and continue to own that portion of the land that is not owned by the
Neighborhood Association. You will continue to monitor all sales and acquisitions, asks Mr. Orlando? Yes, replies Mr. Spruce. The Island Housing Trust is not going to build this, and then walk away. Mrs. Barbara Orland introduced herself and says that she lives on Beech Hill Road. She has 2 points to make. #1 who will insure that the future problems will be covered by the Trust? And the 2nd is, living on Beech Hill Road I know from living there, the potable water supply is fragile. The property next to this property had their well dry out 5 or 6 years ago. They had to have it dug again. How are you going to insure potable water for 19 homes with an average of 6 persons per house at the rate you say you are going to get water. I know that there are times that I have to run to the laundry mat because of water. Are you telling me that young people moving in with small children are going to be expected to use a laundry mat in a dry spell and not be able to bathe
or not be able to do what they need to? Have you made any provision for this? Mr. Bright asks how deep your well is. Mr. Orlando replies, 140 feet and 20 gallons per minute. Mrs. Orlando states that she knows the water tables are fragile in that area. Does not see any provisions for that? Who is going to insure this? Or will it fall back on the Town? Individual home owners. Now, if the Town accepts the road, sewer line is put in, and then it will be the Town property. Mrs. Orlando wants to know if someone is willing to put up a $20,000. Bond, for down the road for those expenses? You have 20 gallons a minute and your well went dry? Mr. Bright asks Mrs. Orlando. She replies, about 5 years ago, when it was so dry, we went 2 years without any water. We had dribbles of water. Mr. Eero Hedefine, the engineer said the way the wells are setup, you have a minimum yield that you are looking for , its averaged over a day. But we also look at peaking factors in
the number of houses that serve a well. We look at a storage volume base on those peaking factors, and peak hour of a certain day. You are looking for a certain volume and depending on how deep the wells are, you have certain storage based on those depths in casings. Then it is based on the yield, you can get from that well. Then you look at volume and if you need more storage, you look at tanks in the well houses. Now, you need some tanks in the well houses to drive pressure to the houses. We also have to look at depending on the yield, if storage is needed. Mr. Tracy brings up the point that you may want to mention on one of your covenants, front loading washing machines, which use about half the water. Mr. Clunan asks Mr. Spruce to explain a little more about the use of highly efficient appliances. Houses are being built “green”, both in the design and the operation of the house. It only makes sense to use energy efficient boilers and or propane heaters, and
appliances. It makes no sense to build these homes the way that they are being designed and then stick in appliances that would throw it all out of whack. Idea is to make the house as inexpensive to operate as possible. Chairman Clunan asks about a provision in the covenants that talks about funding the activities of the Homeowners Association. Annual membership fees and a portion of the interior infrastructure costs, and The Trust Association will bare some of that cost. Mr. Clunan asks if this is a bonding or a reserving account. It would be an escrow or a reserve account. Would that be an account that could be used for the concerns that Mrs. Orlando voiced? Yes, says Mr. Spruce. Have you set a figure for that? We have to know how much the whole project will be before we can set a fee. Have to have more information before we can do that. I am hearing some of the concerns that you get into, some of the difficulties that public housing has had in other
jurisdictions. These are not public housing, they are single family homes. These people are financially strong enough to have a conventional mortgage. What is happening is the Island Housing Trust is acting as the agent to build the houses, with the mortgagee’s money. It is a turn key thing. The Trust is using the money the home owners can borrow to build their houses. It converts to a traditional mortgage, so that this is not public housing, not rental housing, this is home ownership. The people who are buying here are financially strong enough to acquire a mortgage. What the Trust is doing, is giving them a vehicle by which they can buy a home, replied Mr. Coplon. Could you explain how The Trust is raising its money? $50,000.000 a few years ago to help with the pulmonary soft cost of the project and to pay for people like Mr. Coplon etc. They have raised $200,000.00 this year from various members of the community and various foundations and we are continuing to
do that. We have a goal to raise an additional several hundred dollars to help with this development. Not to buy homes, but to help raise some of the cost. We should hear from the bank next week and we will continue to fund raise. Chairman Clunan asks Mrs. Orlando if that helps answer some of her concerns. She is afraid looking down the road a large tax payers bill and I see a problem with water. She thinks it needs to be a huge fund to insure the maintenance of this whole development. Mr. Bright asks if they could put the road in and then drill to determine how many houses could be put in? Mr. Bright has water concerns also. Mr. Lippett says as they put the road in, they will drill wells. The Trust will test the pumping of the first “common” wells, for yields. We also will be monitoring other wells as we are doing the pumping test, to see the impact out toward the property lines. At that time we can put together a good ground water module for impact away from the
site, as well as what the sustainable yield is at the sight in order to provide water for the site it’s self. Mr. Tracy asks about the storage on the140 foot, 20 gallon per minute well serving two people, drying up next to nothing. Mr. Lippett responds that he has no idea what the pumping test was on that well, and some fractures and some shallow recharge fractures where they are getting there recharge. Not building any speck houses. Every house they build will be sold before they build it. Mr. Bright says he does not understand the financial requirement for being in the covenants. Part of The Trust application process. The maximum income for a person buying a home is $64,000.00. Is it a requirement for an applicant to work on Mount Desert Island? Part of the requirement is for part of the income is earned on Mount Desert Island. The figure being at least $10, 680.00. In the application, they have to show a pay stub. Mr. Merrill Elias, whom lives close to the propose
project, says that looking at notes back from 15 years ago, when talk started on this project, the first two things on the list are water and increased traffic. He is not satisfied with the explanation that he heard here tonight. He is worried about the increase of traffic, and the impact on the community. With respect to the Traffic committee, our concern with the project like this is what impact the intersection will create by this subdivision has on highway safety. Beech Hill Road and Pretty Marsh intersection is a Traffic Committee issue. I don’t think we can make a decision on this project based on an intersection that is an 8th of mile away, replies the Chairman. This project does not come out at that intersection. I don’t see the connection. Mr. Elias replies that it makes an impact on the community. The issue is the increase of traffic from the subdivision. Mr. Coplon responds that the traffic is a problem with or without this project.
Mr. Coplon encouraged Mr. Eilas to participate in the Traffic Committee meetings. They need to get more people at the meetings. They need to get DOT involved. State road, not a Town road, so any changes need to be made by them. Mr. Clunan says that there are two criteria in the ordinance when we can deal with this. One is whether the project would cause unreasonable congestion and will it cause unsafe conditions. He is being told that the unsafe conditions already exist. We can urge the Traffic Committee to look into this. Mrs. Roberts-Rockefeller says that the Traffic Committee meets every 2nd Tuesday of the month at 4pm at the Someville fire house. You are welcome to come. Mr. Clunan asks if there are anymore issues from among the public. We have heard about water, we have heard about traffic, we heard about liability. Mr. Eilas asks if the Board will accept hand written documents. Yes, replies Chairman Clunan. Mrs. Orlando asks who is going to
monitor the income level of the people there and who is going to throw these people out, if they get good paying off Island jobs? No- one, they own the house. The requirements are for the application, says Mr. Spruce. Mr. Coplon says that he will have the surveyor go and stake out the centerline of the road.
Mr. Clunan requests a continuation.
The meeting will continue on February 26, 2007
No public notice needed
MOTION TO AJOURN MADE BY Mr. Clunan; SECONDED BY.Mr. Tracy
VI. Meeting adjourned at. 9:30 p.m. The next scheduled meeting/public hearing(s) is at 6:00 p.m., Monday, February 26, 2007 in the Meeting Room, Town Hall, Northeast Harbor.
Respectfully submitted,
Patti Reilly, Secretary
| 
