Mount Desert, ME - Planning Board Meeting Minutes

Planning Board Meeting Minutes - 06/25/07

Town of Mount Desert

Planning Board Minutes

for June 25, 2007

Board Members Present Public Present

Schofield (Sandy) Andrews III Arthur Smallidge

James Clunan, Chairman Sam Shaw

Joseph Tracy Barry Stratton

Patti Reilly, Secretary

Kim Keene, CEO; Margaret K. Porter, Recording Secretary

I. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.

II. The draft minutes from the May 29, 2007 meeting were moved until the end of the meeting.

III. Public Hearings - Conditional Use Permits

NAME: John Jay Pierrepont

AGENT: Arthur C. Smallidge

LOCATION: 78 Manchester Road, Northeast Harbor

TAX MAP: 27 LOT: 7 ZONE: SR2

PURPOSE: Animal Husbandry (Non-Commercial) - Up to 8 Hens & Chicks

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 Jim Clunan and Sandy Andrews and reported by Sandy Andrews. The site is off Manchester Road. The area is behind the house partially in the woods. In an old laundry yard, so it has a fence on two sides. Back of the house is on one side, and woods on the other. It is 30 feet from the closest border. On the North end of the house asks Joe Tracy. Yes, replies Sandy Andrews. Jim Clunan adds they have only one land abutter on their side of the road. The property is surrounded on three sides by Charles Butts property. Chairman Clunan asks CEO Keene if she has been out. Yes, she replies she has been to the property. Chairman Clunan then asks if there is any conflict of interest. Mr. Tracy says that he has sold furniture to the owners, so he wants to know if the Board feels that he may have a conflict. No conflict responds the board. Mr. Clunan asks Mr. Smallidge to describe what the owners want to do. The owners want to lease or borrow some organic laying hens from a farm in Gouldsboro to use for their personal use. Maybe July through the end of August. About 6 weeks says Chairman Clunan. Yes, just while the owners are here says Mr. Smallidge. It has been down played from 8 chickens to about 4 or 5. They have purchased a hen house that is somewhat moveable, so they can move it from spot to spot. Not to damage the lawn too much so that clean up is easier. chairman Clunan asks about varmints getting to the chickens and spreading chicken parts around the area. Mr. Smallidge says that they are using wire mesh fencing around the outside area. No correspondence from the public. No comments from the neighbors. No neighbors here. Charles Butt's caretaker is present. His name is Barry Stratton. Mr. Butt had me come for general interest about the project. Mr. Butt says that he has a pretty good relationship with the Pierreponts and they have talked about the proposed project After the first year they will discuss any problems with smell and or noise and take care of it at that time, as neighbors. Mr. Butt did ask Mr. Stratton to ask what happens when chickens become goats and goats become horses and horses become cows etc. In this area of zoning, when can this area become something different. He was a little surprised. If there was a change of animals, then the Pierreponts would have to come back before the Planning Board for approval. Mr. Andrews brings up the fact that the Pierreponts want to add to their house. When they do that, and move the chicken house, will they have to reapply? No, says CEO Keene, we are approving the use. It is a moveable structure and she just requires that they meet set backs. As long as the applicants understand that they have to keep outside the 25 foot setback. Open ended permit, the only thing that the Planning Board can do is limit it to 8 chickens. If they ever wanted to add more, they would have to come back to the Board. Mr. Tracy says that they should be specific that it is the structure of the coop that has to be 25 feet from the property lines, not the fence.

MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY Mr. Andrews; SECONDED BY Mrs. Reilly.

The Standards of Section 6 of the LUZO, as amended March 6, 2007, 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 Arthur C. Smallidge, Agent and Kim Keene, CEO fulfill the required Expert Testimony in this application. (4/0)

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 State certified soil scientist or geologist based on an on site investigation. Within the shoreland 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 on site factors such as depth to water table and depth to refusal. The Board finds the proposed use and portable chicken coop will be located on land generally level along with stable soils without causing adverse environmental impacts, including water pollution and/or severe erosion In compliance with this Section. (4/0)

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 that this Section is Not Applicable to this application. (4/0)

6.4 Erosion Control:

1. Filling, grading, lagooning, dredging, earth moving 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. Non conformance with the provisions of such Conservation Plan shall be considered to be a violation of this ordinance. The Board finds that in as much no filling, grading, lagooning, dredging, earth moving activities, and other land use activities shall be conducted in such a manner to prevent, to the maximum extent possible, erosion and sedimentation.

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 Shoreland

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 highwater mark of any waterbody. Slash shall be disposed of so that no part extends more than 4 feet above the ground.

4. Provisions of the State of Maine Shoreland Zoning Act shall apply in the State Mandated Shoreland 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 there will be no removal nor any clearing of trees or vegetation to accommodate the proposed use and portable structure (4/0)

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 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. (4/0)

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 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. (4/0)

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 that the proposed use and or portable structure will 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. (4/0)

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 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 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. (4/0)

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 that notwithstanding any other standard in this section the 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. (4/0)

All those in favor of the CUP for Jay & Lisa Pierrepont signify by saying "I".

(4/0)

NAME: Sam Shaw DBA - Shaw Jewelry Inc.

LOCATION: 128 Main Street, Northeast Harbor

TAX MAP: 24 LOT: 107 ZONE: VC

PURPOSE: Relocate an existing 7 ½' high stockade style fence.

SITE INSPECTION: 4:45PM

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 Jim Clunan and Sandy Andrews. It will be reported by Sandy Andrews. The site is a 10' x 40' rectangle that use to be a right of way that has been done away with. It is abutted on one side by Kim Horton and the other side by Mr. Shaw, himself. They just want to move an existing fence further ten feet out. Chairman Clunan asks are there any conflicts of interest. No, none. Chairman Clunan then asks CEO Keene if she has any comments on this issue. No, because he is only moving something that is existing. We had a discussion at the site inspection about the setback requirements for the proposed shed of Village Commercial District and Mr. Shaw said he could get a letter from his abutter about the proposed five foot requirement. CEO Keene asks why is he asking for this. Chairman Clunan said for the fence. CEO Keene says that there are no required setbacks for moving a fence. Fences are structures replies Chairman Clunan. No, they are not responds CEO Keene, they are exempt. Set backs are on roads, and this is not a road. There is a letter replies Mr. Shaw, from the abutter. Chairman Clunan asks Mr. Tracy if a fence is a structure. He replies, I will go with Kim on this one. CEO Keene reads the description. The Board is all in agreement. This fence is exempt. Chairman Clunan asks about the shed. Do you plan to move this? Yes, replies Mr. Shaw. That is something different for CEO Keene to check out. We are here for the fence.

Application was advertised in a local paper in the Town.

MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY Mr. Tracy; SECONDED BY Mr. Andrews.

The Standards of Section 6 of the LUZO, as amended March 6, 2007 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 Sam Shaw, Applicant and Kim Keene, CEO fulfill the required Expert Testimony in this application. (4/0)

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 State certified soil scientist or geologist based on an on site investigation. Within the shoreland 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 on site factors such as depth to water table and depth to refusal. The Board finds the proposed fence will be located and maintained on soils without causing adverse environmental impacts, including severe erosion. In compliance with this Section. (4/0)

6.3 Sanitary Standards:

2. All subsurface sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in conformance with the State of Maine Subsurface Wastewater Disposal Rules and the following:

6.4 Erosion Control:

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 Shoreland

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.

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 Board member Andrew Schofield had concerns regarding a tree within the area. Mr. Shaw explained that the tree will be completely enclosed with the new garden. Also there will be no accumulation of slash within 50 feet of any Town or State road or right-of-way. (4/0)

All those in favor of the CUP for Sam Shaw signify by saying "I" (4/0)

Minutes from the May 29th meeting were approved as amended.

Other business:

Some discussion about an up coming subdivision were voiced by some of the Board members. Mr. Andrews wants to make sure that the mentioning of "view sheds" is added to the record. Mr. Tracy wants to make sure that the Board allows plenty of time for the site inspection. About two hours. Mr. Andrews suggest that the site inspection also be looked at from different locations, like across from Sargent Drive. Mrs. Reilly would like something about the existing road brought up and the huge scar that it has left behind. She also mentions the erosion caused by the road. Also, CES was the engineering company used to put in the road in question. Mr. Andrews says that he did not know who the engineering firm was, that was used for the septic systems for the project. The Board members reply, CES. Mrs. Reilly asks if anyone has been by Sargent Drive lately and seen all the erosion going on over across the way. CEO Keene replies that Dave Smith was the contractor that put in the driveways. Mr. Andrews talks about the comprehensive plan, and wants to make sure it mentions steep slopes and the limiting of development on steep slopes.

Mrs. Reilly says that all reference to PUD's was removed from the subdivision Ordinance, except that one spot. Chairman Clunan says that there is another place also. I would ask that the Town have an emergency meeting of the Town or ask Board of Selectman opinion if they are still valid, since the wording was to be taken out of the ordinance, says Mrs. Reilly. Mr. Andrews asks about MMA. If we could have an emergency meeting of the Town, I think that would cover a particular issue that is coming up very quickly. Mr. Tracy thinks that before you go and have a special meeting, you should go to MMA and ask if that is an OK thing to do and If doing that will take care of the problem and if it is legal. Many people are very interested in this project and most are not in favor. If the public demands that we not permit it, how do we deal with that? If it is an overwhelming public demand? Mrs. Reilly says that she has seen this happen in cities and the suburbs, places where the Planning Board has to take the publics view. Chairman Clunan says the clause in preserving the Towns character that you are getting to Mrs. Reilly is Conserving the Natural Beauty of the area. It is quite clear that it will not do that says Mr. Andrews. Didn't they start the development before the approval, asks Chairman Clunan. CEO Keene says that they did not start it. The septic system is part of the development says Chairman Clunan. It was permitted for four lots. Which is not a sub division under the ordinance says CEO Keene. When the soil scientist designed these systems, it was with the understanding that there was going to be four houses. There were two lots, but now there are four. It was purchased as two lots from Reynolds. Mrs. Reilly asks if there were previsions in the building permit for allowing someone else to examine steep slopes like that. CEO Keene says that she has no building code, I have no way to tell someone how to build a house here. The only thing we can do is have a special Town meeting and amend the LUZO. The Selectman could put a moratorium on new structures for 6 months. That would get us to December for the Town Meeting. The Selectmen will listen if a sufficient amount of voices are raised, other then ours, say Chairman Clunan. We do not have material to bring before the Selectmen to show an intense public interest. Speak to the Fire Chief about public safety and getting trucks up into the subdivision. Kim, please ask MMA about removing the phase" into these" from the sub division ordinance. If something is left in the wording, by accident, does it still apply asks Mr. Andrews. Kim, it's the last sentence in Section 3.3.

V. Meeting adjourned at 9 p.m. The next scheduled meeting/public hearing(s) is at 6:00 p.m., Monday, July 9, 2007 in the Meeting Room, Town Hall, Northeast Harbor.

Respectfully submitted,

Patti Reilly, Secretary