Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
Planning Board Meeting Minutes - 07/09/07
Town of Mount Desert
Planning Board Minutes
of July 9, 2007


Board Members Present                   Public Present
Schofield (Sandy) Andrews III
James R. Bright                         See attached sheet
James Clunan, Chairman
Gerard M. Miller
Joseph Tracy
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 June 11th 2007, and the June 25th 2007 meeting were not available for approval.

III.    Public Hearings - Conditional Use Permits

A.
    NAME:  Northeast Harbor United Church of Christ
        AGENT: Marie LaRosee
LOCATION:  Summit Road
TAX MAP:   5  LOT:   29-1    ZONE:  VR2
PURPOSE:  An amendment to a Conditional Use Permit #97-29
SITE INSPECTION: 5pm

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 James Clunan,Chairman, but it was a few days before the scheduled site inspection and not in the company of the applicant and reported by Chairman Clunan. There is a building behind the Church itself, know as the parish house which has lots of meeting space in it. There is an upstairs and downstairs, a parking lot and there are about 15 parking spaces. Chairman Clunan asks Mrs. Reilly if there was public notice. "Yes", replies Mrs. Reilly.   Chairman Clunan then asks CEO Keene if she has any comments on the childcare facility application. CEO Keene replies that she has none. Chairman Clunan then asks the Planning Board if there is any discussion.  The reply is "no". This is an amendment, so we do not have to go through the whole set of procedures we would normally go through for a Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Clunan then asks the applicant to speak about what they have planned for the daycare facility. Mrs. Marie LaRosee now tells about the plans for the daycare facility. We would like to provide child care to small children. There will be two childcare givers, for age's infant to six years of age. We would like to have a full time program. We would like to offer fifty weeks a year of full time care, five days a week and a part time program for three days in the mornings. That is what we would like to start with. We have a plan with the church that the potential is to then add a preschool program possibly in the second year. Chairman Clunan says that there was an activity like this at this location sometime in the past. What happen to that asks Chairman Clunan. Mrs. L arose says that she believes that this kind of service was not offered before. It was a summer program. And before that she believes that it was a preschool program. Mr. Joseph Tracy speaks up at this time to inform the public that the seating capacity of 60 people for the meeting hall has been passed. The meeting will be moved to the Seal Harbor Fire House.  Chairman Clunan announces to the public at this time that the second item on the agenda tonight, the development on the side of Acadia Mountain; the Robinson Lane Subdivision is a Completeness Review. In the case of a Completeness Review, the matter is for the Board. There are several more steps in this application in which the public will have an opportunity to actively participate. In this review, it is a Board review, open to the public, but not for comment from the public, only listeners. I know that you all have first amendment rights, and you will all be able to exercise them when we get to the public meeting, which maybe one or two steps down the road. There will also be an opportunity for you to visit the site itself when the Planning Board next visits the site for a public inspection prior to the public meeting itself. We are off to Seal Harbor, because we have exceeded our limit of 60 people.  A member of the audience asks what the date will be for the inspection. Chairman Clunan replies that we do not know yet. It depends on what happens tonight. Chairman Clunan then asks Linda what her question is. If the public meeting people were able to ask and make comments, could that be scheduled in a site to hold the volume of people that may attend? The meetings are the second and the fourth Mondays of the month. It will be scheduled down the road, replies Chairman Clunan and Linda asks if it will be this summer. We will see replies Chairman Clunan. It will be advertised asks a member of the audience? Oh yes, replies Chairman Clunan. It has to be, twice, in local News papers. Mr. Schofield Andrews adds that the agenda will also be posted on the Towns web site. (Now many people leave the Meeting hall for Seal Harbor.) Chairman Clunan proceeds to ask for a motion.

MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY Mr. Bright; SECONDED BY Mr. Andrews
Chairman Clunan says that we now need to look at provision 5.7.

5.7     An amendment to a Conditional Use Permit may be issued by the Planning Board only:

        1.   in conformity with the procedural and substantive requirements set forth in Sections 3 and 6; The Board finds the application in conformance with the procedural substance requirements set forth in Section 3 and 6 of the Land Use Zoning Ordinance. (5/0)

2.      on finding that there have been significant changes of conditions or circumstances;          The Board finds that an amendment to the conditional use permit 9729 is in        order because there have been significant changes in the conditions and            circumstances of the activity. (5/0)

        3.   when justified by a statement of findings of fact and reasons. The Board finds that         the proposed activity is justified in the proposed location and therefore is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan as well as the Land Use Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mount Desert. (5/0)

A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (6/0).

The Next item on the agenda is a Completeness Review. For the benefit of the public I would like to explain a few things, says Chairman Clunan. What we are about today is a completeness review. It is one of several steps describes in the Town Ordinances for consideration by the Planning Board of proposals for development or other changes in the Town. There are two ordinances involved. The Land Use Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance, which are mutually inclusive. In addition, there is the Town's Comprehensive Plan. The inattentive question that is to respect and maintain the character of the Town, protecting its environment, preserving its cultural aesthetic aspects and providing an excellent education for its children. Further the Comprehensive Plan provides that natural beauty, a clean environment and the character of the inhabitants are the most valuable resources of the Town of Mount Desert. Accordingly each proposal for development or other changes within the Town must be judged in relation to its effect on the preservation of natural beauty, a clean environment and community characteristics. Now a number of these standards are difficult to measure quantitatively. There are quantitative standards in the ordinances which we can look at and make judgments about. But there are other judgments which are qualitative and that is what we are going to be about in the process here tonight and as well as at other meetings here to come. We have already had one visit to the proposed site, and the applicant presented what is called a sketch plan. Showing what the applicant has in mind.  Giving us an opportunity to evaluate it in general. But this prior meeting was not a meeting in which we were making any commitments nor was the applicant. What we have now, tonight, is the first formal application in which the applicant will have the opportunity to present as the applicant understands it. How this proposal is in conformance with the comprehensive plan as well as the two ordinances that I have just described.  

        B.    
           SUBDIVISION COMPLETENESS REVIEW

          NAME: Robinson Lane Subdivision
        AGENT:  Greg Johnston, CES
        LOCATION: Robinson Lane, Hall Quarry
        TAX MAP: 7 LOT 84-1 ZONE: RW2
        PURPOSE: Create a 4 lot subdivision

The voting members were the regular members. We have with us an application for so called Robinson Lane Subdivision, represented by Greg Johnston from CES. Could you please tell us what you have in mind and explain a little bit about what you have submitted to the Planning Board, asks Chairman Clunan. The project as you know is RW2 zoning says Mr. Johnston. There is a little bit in the Shoreland Residential also says Chairman Clunan. Yes, a small portion says Mr. Johnston. I think this is probably a fair location. A lady from the public asks did we not just hear that this meeting was moved to the Seal Harbor Fire Station. "Yes", replies Mr. Tracy you heard that but enough people elected to leave the meeting reducing the number. (People grumbling) With all do respect, that is somewhat under handed, replies a voice from the public. Excuse me says Mr. Tracy, I realize that after I made the statement, I was unable to foresee what might happen. I suggested to the Board members that we go to Seal Harbor and they did not agree that we should. Chairman Clunan responds now, while you were out of the room I pointed out that everyone is entitled to express there first amendment rights of freedom of speech. However, the opportunity will come when we have a public meeting. This meeting is open to the public, but for discussion between the Planning Board and the applicant only and those agents representing the applicant. The public is fully entitled to listen to these proceedings, and hear what the applicant has in mind, so when we do get to a public meeting, which will include the opportunity to visit the site and also come to a meeting here or elsewhere depending on the amount of people. Suggestions and comments will be addressed then.  We are not at that point because they may withdraw the application. We understand we may not comment on this, but many of the people here want to hear what was going on. They were sent to Seal Harbor to listen to the discussion. Now, they have all left and the discussion is going on here. That is the only question there is out there. If you decided not to go to Seal Harbor, none of us heard that. Mr. Tracy responds with saying that he will drive to Seal Harbor and bring the public back. You better, replies a lady from the public. I think you should postpone the meeting for two weeks. There are only three or four people here for the applicant side and seventy-five Towns people here for this. This meeting should be adjourned for two weeks or so. CEO Keene says that she has called Mike MacDonald and informed him that if anyone should show up over in Seal Harbor, to tell them we are not moving over there. Mr. Tracy says that he would like to apologies to everyone for failing to foresee
The difficulties his statement caused. Chairman Clunan asks if anyone here had been to Seal Harbor and come back. No, no one. Chairman Clunan then asks the public why they stayed? We planned on going over when the Board left. Mr. Andrews says that the people have a right to hear what is being said. Chairman Clunan asks for a motion. Meeting is adjourned and moved to Seal Harbor.  (5/0)

Meeting is reconvened in Seal Harbor at the Seal Harbor Fire Station. We are continuing the discussion on the Robinson Lane Subdivision application being represented by Greg Johnston from CES. The purpose is to develop a two lot subdivision. Chairman Clunan says that before he asks Mr. Johnston to continue his presentation for the members' of the public that are here, I would like to apologize for the confusion on where we were going to continue the meeting. The intention was because the Town Hall only holds 60 people by fire code, and we had more then that present, we had announced that we could move to Seal Harbor. But the Board did not actually make that decision on the expectation that some people would simply go home and we could stay in Northeast Harbor. For those of you that missed it, this is part of a process that has many steps. This is the second step of many. There will be ample opportunity for members of the public to express their views and observations and opinions at future meetings, and also to attend a public site inspection. Usually held the same day as the Planning Board meeting. Chairman Clunan invites Mr. Johnston to speak now. Tell us what you have in mind. Lot acreage is the big question. The total lot acreage is 19.6 acres. It is known as RW2. There are four lots ranging in size-Chairman Clunan speaks up and says I want to contradict you, I think part of it is SR2 as well. That is correct says Mr. Johnston. Lets make it clear from the beginning what we are talking about says Chairman Clunan. A small portion of the property is in SR2, says Mr. Johnston. Could you please move the board so that we may see it, says Sydney Roberts Rockefeller. Chairman Clunan reminds the public that this meeting is for the Planning Board. You will see this again states Chairman Clunan. Greg Johnston moves the plans closer for the Board members to see. A lot of environmental studies have been done since the last meeting. Studies on the habitat, areas on preservation. We have moved the road, it's more of an angle now. The size of the road being purposed is two eight foot lanes. A sixteen foot gravel way. Two three foot shoulders, for a total of a twenty-two foot roadway. The three foot shoulders will be grass filled. Other work that has been done is intense soil work. There are four septic system sites on the parcel. The total bedroom capacity is 27. And having that spread throughout these four lots there will be nine units. We have not chosen where those units will be. We can go through each septic system to see where they are and what capacity each one is designated for. You will note in your package the engineer for the project put a second and third party reveals those septic systems as submitted. Bill LaBelle has done the work.  And we had more done this summer. Moyse Environmental has reviewed the septic designs drawn by Mr. LaBelle. Mr. Bright asks Mr. Johnston if the site work that they have in their packets is the work from Mr. LaBelle. What is the work being done this summer that you just mentioned? Originally the Board had asked about some soil samples being larger. A request for a third party review was asked for at that time. That info is in this packet also. Septic system "A" is 450 gallons per day, five bedrooms, Septic system "B" is 720 gallons per day and eight bedrooms, and septic system "C" is being dedicated to a divided parcel and is not part of the subdivision. Septic system "D" is 540 gallons per day, six bedrooms and septic system "E" is 720 gallons per day, eight bedrooms. Having those septic systems dedicated to those lots two units on "D" 4 units on "B" 2 units on lot one. Chairman Clunan asks about lot "C". Mr. Johnston says septic system "C" is conveyed to an abutter and is not part of the subdivision. Chairman Clunan then asks about "D". Mr. Johnston says that "D" is dedicated to two units. So it's 27 bedrooms on this peculiar shaped lot with one lot in the middle with a septic system, allegedly does not have anything to do with that lot, but it is right there with similar type soils, responds Chairman Clunan. "Yes", replies Mr. Johnston, it has the capacity of ten bedrooms. Mr. LaBelle , says that  site "E" is an extremely difficult site. The system fill extensions particularly on the down hill side should not be driven on.  He means vehicles. Show us where the driveway is going to be for that lot and still conform to the setbacks and not drive over the proposed septic system. First, says Mr. Johnston you are talking about septic system "E"? "Yes", replies Chairman Clunan.  We have not determined where the house is going to be. It may be below. So we would pump it. It would be designed so you would not drive over the proposed septic system. The permit that is drawn for it, you couldn't do it. A HHE 200 form. Chairman Clunan asks for an explanation of what that form is. The HHE 200 form that is designed for the system that is used on a house site.  Did any other members of the Board have any questions, did you Kim? CEO Keene explains that a septic system can be driven on. Provided proper chambers are designed and installed in the disposal field.. Chairman Clunan states that Mr. LaBelle is not recommending that.  CEO Keene says that she has not seen any plan that Mr. LaBelle has designed for this. What it says on it is HHE 200. He has recommended concrete chambers, says Mr. Johnston. They don't recommend anything until the owners tell them where they want to put the house, and where you are going to put the driveway. I don't think that it is customary at this point and time for us to do that. Mr. Johnston, I think where I am getting confused is the last time we met you gave us a sketch plan in which you had house locations, says Chairman Clunan. Then I read this HHE 200 Form and it indicates, don't drive on the septic system and I see the house up above the septic system. We are just lay people here, we don't understand this stuff. I think that I will go back to your question says Mr. Johnston. The driveway can and maybe go with that septic system. It is not intended to go over that septic system, and we don't know exactly where the house is going to be on that lot. Mr. Bright says you don't know where the houses are going to be opens a lot for me. The nature of this subdivision and the concern about it and the view, I feel needs to have designated house lots. Part of getting this through us, is a convenience on view sheds and stuff. In order to do that we need to know right where the houses are going to be. All of a sudden you could have four houses together with that second floor vista cut right out  like that and that is an eye sore. I will give you a heads up on another of my thoughts. Why I want a house site is because that slope is so steep that you are going to be doing a lot of filling and I feel the requirement of knowing exactly what the original grade is and how much fill you are going to be putting in, so when CEO Keene goes to OK the design of a house she is not going to guess they added 10 feet of fill. I guess they added 15 feet of fill because the height of the house has to go from the original grade. Mr. Tracy says that you have to be more precise here for building envelopes. Yes, says Mr. Johnston. I appreciate what you are saying. I think that there are a number of things to go through in Section #4 of the Ordinance that are required for the completeness the last thing of which is the requirement of the completeness and other things requested of the Board.   When putting it all together we started with something's that are customarily submitted, HHE- 200 and we have gone and done additional things, including environmental reports and such. Mr. Bright says that he thought it was an opportune time to talk about where the houses were going to go. To get back to the septic's Mr. LaBelle states in his permits that an engineer should be designing the piping from the houses to the individual tanks. He would like to see a plan. The Board agrees. While we are talking about the lots, says Mr. Johnston, can we talk about some of the things we have looked at and where we have been since last time. We have talked about the roads and the grades and stormwater and I think that there was a request for us to see what would happen in the section of the road. How high would the road be built up. We have gone and we have some cross sections. We look at the cross section taken in peculiar locations taken at different areas. We have talked to the owners and they are prepared to commit to screenings. Retaining walls all over.  We have done a split between filling in at the center line, having a really long gradual slope and the vegetation directly down side to be maintained. Six foot planting shelves for screening. On the uphill side we have provided a cobble ditch along that side. Also we have looked at putting copping stones up there. Some of the filled slopes we have, we have a nine foot filled wall with a planting hedge. That is some of the items we have looked at and I think that additional information for the Board and the effect of the layout of the project. We are preserving an area of white pines. When we get to the site visit, we can walk it, it is kind of a unique area. Hopefully I hope that gives you an idea of some of the changes we have done to the road. If you have other questions and we can get to and I hear views, easements, and building envelopes but we are looking for more from the Board for comments. Mr. Tracy has a question. It is on the road cross section, a discrepancy and some confusion, it appears on three of the four cross sections you have this dimension of height and width.  Showing a slope on the large stone retaining wall, it looks like a 1 to 3 or something 60 degree steep but your triangle next to it says 1 foot and 1 foot, which suggests 45 degrees.  And I find that very confusing I don't know what to believe. Mr. Johnston asks are you talking about the shoulder or the wall side here? Can you explain the right triangle? It's a 60 degree triangle that you have drawn and you have a dimension that is a 45 degree triangle. That is for somewhat of a scale purpose just to draw your attention to the slope says Mr. Johnston. Mr. Tracy states the wall is drawn at a one to one, that triangle is not accurate. I would like accurate maps. We need to look at this and we can't translate it like you can, we have got to look at what is on here and I would appreciate seeing some accurate representation of what the actual cross section is without the distortion of the confusing change in the horizontal/ vertical scaling. Do you understand that, ask Mr. Tracy. Yes I do says Mr. Johnston and in response to that I think we can get to  something but in this size, we couldn't necessarily do a one to one we wouldn't be able to get it on a piece of paper. I am talking of the distortion of the horizontal/ vertical dimensioning, which adds a great deal of confusion, says Mr. Tracy. Point taken. Other things we have done, not necessarily on other applications, is dividing buffers to the exterior perimeter. Cutting restrictions that the Town has along the Shoreland Zone. The State mandate limits cutting in those areas. Strict deed easement on views from second story. Limited to a 40 percent tree volume around the house. Mr. Andrews says that he is a little confused on what he sees as an 80 foot square or rectangle around the residence. What happens outside that? Currently there are no restrictions, and it sounds like it could be clear cut. Greg Johnston says no, there is a note on the plans that say outside of this cutting will be prohibited. Chairman Clunan would like Mr. Johnston to read the whole thing, he believes that there maybe some loop holes in it, in his opinion. The restrictions are within the zoning around the house 40% of the trees 3 and 4 inch diameter in any 10 year period. 150 foot area around the house outside of that it's limited to convenience for not cutting except dead and diseased dying trees and utilities. Mrs. Reilly asks who will determine these diseased and dying trees. That I believe is State shoreline zoning. Mr. Andrews wants to know where it says that. Mr. Johnston replies " I believe it is #3". The Board would like more clarification on this. Chairman Clunan asks if there is an exception for the road. Mr. Johnston states by the time we get through the necessary width of the road and the height of the road for clearance and emergency vehicles and stuff you have got another large area that is going to be without trees. Chairman Clunan indicated that it was mentioned at a previous meeting that it would be very helpful to have a 3D image of this. We are interested in seeing where all the holes are going to be in the vegetation. When you get done with roads, utilities, easements, views and 80 feet around the buildings all of this. you can already see holes on that hill. Yes, says Mr. Johnston that is further down. It is where Mr. Smith put in several septic systems says Chairman Clunan. It doesn't look pretty say Chairman Clunan. Mr. Tracy wants to know how one measure 40% of the trees as the canopy or you count the number of trees, regardless of diameter breast height and you can take 40% of that if it happens to be the largest in there? It generally is taken as space of volume, so you can't take a 8 inch tree and replace it with a two inch tree says Mr. Johnson. It is based on 40% of the volume.of trees four inches or more in diameter, measured 41/2 feet above ground level. 8 trees count as one 12 inch tree adds Mr. Tracy. Exactly says Mr. Johnston. You have 9 building sites, and you are going to have three bedroom units asks Mr. Tracy. Mr. Johnston states there is a mix right now of 2 and 3 bedrooms. Mr. Tracy asks the question, are they all going to be divided such that nobody has to split the pumping between two septic fields? That is correct says Mr. Johnston. Mr. Andrews says that the one there is for eight bedrooms. Is there going to be an eight bedroom house? Potentially says Mr. Johnston. How have you calculated the bedrooms on these, asks Mr. Tracy? The soils say Mr. Johnston. (repeat of bedroom numbers for each lot as stated above) In reading how this proposal conforms to subdivision ordinance, in section 5.7.2 it says, the proposed development will be serviced by individual septic systems, says Mrs. Reilly. Goes on to say that the proposed lots will be serviced by shared septic systems. I don't understand how individual (?) I think the first question is that they are on individual septic systems says Mr. Johnston. Chairman Clunan says while we are on septic systems I would like to call The Boards and Mr. Johnston attention to exhibit 4 which show the test pit logs and HHE 200 forms. Lets look at the last two pages. It is a letter to Michael Ross, Esq. whom is a lawyer in Ellsworth. It is from Moisey Environmental Services concerning soils confirmation site visit. I believe that this is the third party evaluation. This is in response to our request for an independent evaluation of the sites. I am concerned about the last paragraph in this letter. He then reads it into the record. "Our only concern is the slope of the existing ground surface, the disposal rules state that the slope beneath a disposal field shall not exceed 20%. Our field measurements were done with a hand held clinometers which indicated that the slope in and adjacent ti the disposal field to be within the range of 15 to 20%.   We did not make any measurements with a laser level or similar more accurate instrument but after our site visit we confirmed with Mr. LaBelle, that he had made his measurements with a "Pop level "  which is an excepted method. Mr. LaBelle was aware that the slope was "around 20%" and located his disposal fields accordingly to be in compliance based on our review of his design documents." So, what we are getting from Moisey, is Mr. LaBelles opinion states Chairman Clunan. This is not a second independent third party. I think that if you read that  I think Mr. Mois has done something very similar to Mr. LaBelle. He has used what is the standard practice in the field of not dragging a four man survey crew . They use a "pop level" and they take their measurements, says Mr. Johnston. Mr. Moyses statement  says between 15 and 20% as Mr. LaBelles does. Neither has stated that it is greater than 20%. Chairman Clunan says that around 20% can be taken as 21 or 19%. If there is something else that you are requesting, says Mr. Johnston lets look at it. But that is the standard practice. Chairman Clunan says that he is sure that it is, but it just leaves him a bit skeptical that we found sites that are less then 20% particularly since the overall slope of this whole site, if you take it along some lines, it is more then 20%. That is why you have to do this road, and snake it around so much. We are back to the slope problem. Mrs. Reilly asks if they know how much fill it is going to take to fill in for the septic fields to acuminate the leach fields. Mr. Johnson says that he does not know. She is wondering about erosion control. Mr. Andrews has a question about the covenants. In your 20 foot wide view clearings, you said that the view vista may not be cleared to the ground and shall be maintained to include permanent vegetation below the second story elevation. That mean grass and liken qualify as permanent vegetation. Yes says Mr. Johnston. Mr. Andrews then asks if he had given anymore thought to third party enforcement of the covenants as apposed to a deed restriction that nobody is responsible for enforcing. We have thought about that says Mr. Johnston. We have also talked with the owner. Some of these things have been put as conditions of approval on the subdivision itself then it would be enforceable by the Town, says Noel Musson of CES. Mr. Tracy asks about getting the degree of the slope. You take the 20% and divide that by two and get the degree of the slope? Is that correct? What degree slope is 20%? (garbled) I would like to draw The Board members attention to septic system "B" and also to graphic scale in the bottom right corner. It looks like it is not to scale. Would you agree asks Mr. Tracy. It looks like it is in violation of the 20% rule. Mr. Johnson replies with the topography often done by air photography, to find small inclusion of areas. You may also notice that paths of the area show up and when you go up there, it is not the case. There are small areas that cannot be identified. So we may not be seeing an accurate representation of the actual elevation from this, states Mr. Tracy. Mr. Tracy would like another opinion. The Board agrees. Mr. Bright now wants to talk about the covenant concerning exterior paint colors. I think the darker colors would blend into the area better. No white paint. It would show through the woods. At one point you mentioned height restrictions beyond the 40 foot limit.  Are you still contemplating that asks Mr. Andrews. We changed the height of what (?) the second floor. They need to approach it from the standpoint of the height of the house in relation to the canopy. Not necessary a fixed height. After all, that is what the people care about.  Mr. Johnston will speak with the applicant. Mr. Bright says, back to your septic, on the curtain drain above the fields. You have suggested either straw or filter fabric. I would ask that you go with filter fabric because the straw will break down after a while and fill in. Am I wrong in that thinking? No, replies Mr. Johnston. We could have either or says Mr. Johnston. But we could ask you to do filter fabric. I am just thinking down the road when they rot. I agree says Mr. Johnston. Mrs. Reilly asks if the curtain drains are similar to French drains. Yes, replies Mr. Johnston. It is built into the slope, and the surface water drains into it. The run off that comes down the roads, we propose several areas to catch the water and slow it down. The idea of storm water run off is not that you can store rain fall. It comes down to timing. You take a slab and put it on the most absorbent thing in the world, You have more run off volume. The storm water run off litigation is to control that volume in a slower state so that it assimilates the redeveloped state in a ? mode. So the road itself we put in a number of collection areas and level spreaders (see packet) filtration trenches that are under drains (?) Allows that excess water to filtrate over time and discharge through an underground PVC pipe. There are culvert under the existing roads, says Mr. Johnston And then the water gets to the down hill side of the road says Mr. Bright and then what happens? At that time it is the same rate of run off as pre-developed. There are three existing culverts crossing the road. The existing road says Mr. Bright from what he has observed, is a nightmare.
Nothing slows down the water when it gets there says Mr. Johnston. There are trenches to be built of stone. No storage on the uphill side of that road. Mr. Bright says that none of it will go down the right hand side of the road? Some of this water will come down in a flash flood, not being able to sink in and does go across the road, says Mr. Johnston. The reason being, there is no storage uphill of the road. The culverts, the drain in a regular rain storm, day to day, rain down on the top hill side of the road and pass the culverts that are there. With the revised plan, it is take that water and, first of all build up the sides of the road and the water will go behind and let it pass to the culverts over time. And send it over on someone else's land, says Mr. Bright. That's where it goes now, replies Mr. Johnston those culverts are there. But, this subdivision isn't there responds Mr. Bright. Who ever built that road at that time, owned that whole piece of property. Mr. Bright is just looking down the road when somebody says "hey you're dumping your storm water and it's coming on my property, and you do not have permission." Interesting question says Mr. Johnston all around anywhere when you build. If I were the abutter says Mr. Bright, I would be saying that "I do not want the storm water drain onto my property you need to take those culverts out". This is like a twenty-five year storm replies Mr. Johnston. Chairman Clunan responds "we've had two  this year". Mr. Bright says that he would ask for permission from the abutters that those storm waters draining off on their properties is ok with them. Let me continue with what Mr. Bright was making a point about the abutters. There is a provision in the purchase and sales agreement that the agreement between the Graysons and Mr. Smith that does not effect the premises owned by Grayson not previously conveyed to Patten, and impending agreements with the Douglas Croston Baker. Are they the down hill people asks Chairman Clunan. No they are not responds Mr. Johnson. Who is down hill? Anybody? Bakers are down below. Mr. Smith says that the road services a Harvey Shields. It is on the market says Mr. Smith. You have taken all the water coming down  and put it into two pools  and 4 culverts, so you have narrowed it all down and its going to be going out in four outlets, says Mr. Bright. Not necessarily says Mr. Johnston. Those culverts right now that exist, exist in ? 300 feet. There really are four locations for the water to disperse. I see what you are saying says Mr. Johnston. When we get to the site inspection we can view all that. Chairman Clunan now wants to speaks about the provision in the Ordinance about drainage and runoff. The subdivision Ordinance  5.4 which provides for 15 inch culverts. You are saying that you are providing adequate drainage. Yes, says Mr. Johnston. What is there now, isn't says Chairman Clunan. I believe it could be improved, replies Mr. Johnston. Mr. Andrews asks about emergency vehicle excess, particularly in the winter. How is a fire truck going to make it up one of these roads when it is black ice? This is a north facing slope replies Chairman Clunan. The slopes on this road are not unlike other roads that you drive on says Mr. Johnson. If salted and plowed, people can make it up. 18 % sure it gets sticky. Mr. Tracy says that the slopes around are not anything near that, and many are not north facing. Mrs. Reilly wants to know who is responsible for the maintenance of the road. Private road, so home owners are. What is the length of the road asks Chairman Clunan? 1500 feet long, replies Mr. Johnson. No cul-de sec says Mrs. Reilly. There will be a adequate turn around space for emergency vehicles, says Mr. Johnston. On your road construction, I do not see any design for the road coming in from the main road to this development and from my one time driving in there, there is a lot of work to be done to bring it up to subdivision code, replies Mr. Bright.  We would need to see that plan also. Yes, it needs some improvement says Mr. Johnston. In the street design and construction department in the Subdivision Ordinance, the maximum grade permitted is 12%, may exceed with approval from the Planning Board. Looking at your not to scale elevation here on the plans, it looks like it violates this grossly says Mr. Tracy. I believe with the Boards approval, it can be at a greater slope replies Mr. Johnston. Back up says Mr. Tracy I would like you to address my question of the road being grossly in violation of what our State requirement is as far as the steepness goes. It is not says Mr. Johnston. It is not something that I have picked up on or any of the other engineers have picked up on. Are you exceeding the 12% maximum grade in the 100 feet or greater, asks Mr. Tracy. Yes, we are says Mr. Johnson. So you think these plan don't apply because you are accessing a public road asks Mr. Tracy. If I am reading this correctly says Mr. Johnston that is what I believe it to say. Mr. Bright wants to know why this is considered a separate access from the Hall Quarry Road. That is part of your access.  Once you leave Hall Quarry you are on the access to the subdivision. That is your access road. So you are coming off a public road says Mr. Bright. We believe Robinson Lane is a private road says Mr. Johnston. To answer your question, we do exceed 12%, it has been customary in our experience with the Board that, if you are avoiding blasting, excessive tree cutting, that the provision that the Board may allow to exceed for less then the 1000 feet. Grades are about 18% and that is for less than 100 and 50% for less than 100. Two sections ask Mr. Bright. Yes. These standards are for safety says Mr. Tracy. We are not questioning the standards; I think that a lot of the roads that are under 20% are passing. Chairman Clunan explains to Mr. Johnson that every application is different, what this Board and its predecessors may have done in the past maybe useful to you as guidelines, but it's not necessarily what they are going to do now or in the future. The topography is different in every case. Secondly I think given the other consideration which are on the edge of adequacy or compliance. We are starting to build up the number of situations where my doubts are increasing about the suitability of this project. I think it is very important for you to look seriously at what you can do to meet the standards concerning the 12% grade. Mr. Tracy says that he is dumbfounded. He is very surprised that an application is before the Board that defies the requirements and interpreting it in there own matter. Not mentioning the fact that you are violating the ordinances says Mr. Andrews. Mr. Johnston says we are going over the plans with you and your power to do. You are allowed to modify in the best interest. I am here to get the information and by no means would we withhold this from you. That is why the plans were provided to you. Mr. Bright says that he is not going to say that we can't go along with that, but I would like to see another option. I have a question about the center lot. You are talking four houses. Does that under State Code, make that another subdivision? Three or more lots and units say Mr. Johnston. That is why we are here now. That is part of this subdivision. We are approving four lots says Mr. Bright. You are asking us to approve another inside the subdivision inside the four lots. No, Mr. Johnston says we are asking you to approve the partial with nine units. Mrs. Reilly says I am still unclear on, there are nine units and four lots. If different individuals purchase homes on one lot, do they each own their own portion of land or do they commonly own the lots or what? They commonly own the lot.  Mr. Bright asks CEO Keene if she could provide the Planning Board before the next meeting on this subdivision, with the States interpretation of what constitutes a subdivision. CEO Keene says "a three lot parcel or having three lots within a five year period and a single dwelling unit three or more within a five year period. I guess I don't understand why you need to show houses on the lots, when you are asking for more lots. You kind of have two subdivisions going on. That is why we want approval for the number of units. What is the reasoning thought for showing buildings when you know you can pull a permit from me," asks CEO Keene. (Garbled)  It is the only way they can by the septic requirement says Mr. Andrews. He is maximizing his options, says Mr. Johnston. As the market changes, he can change. Mr. Tracy now talks about street design. Chairman Clunan says that he would now like to go through all the points that have been made.

SUBDIVISION REVIEW FORM
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
2.      Name of agent (if other than owner) with attached authorization for agent by owner.
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.
4.      Name of Applicant's authorized representative and authorization.
5.      Name, address, and number of Registered Professional Engineer, Land Surveyor, or Planner.
6.      Address to which all correspondence from the Board should be sent.
7.      What interest does the Applicant have in the parcel to be subdivided (option, land purchase contract, record ownership, etc.)?
8.      What interest does the applicant have in any property abutting parcel to be subdivided?
9.      State whether preliminary plat plan covers entire, contiguous holdings of owner.( Mr. Grason and his wife and the acreage and shape of lot)

4.2.2   Information on Parcel to be Subdivided
1.      Location of property:  Map and Lot (from Town Tax Maps.)
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).
3.      Current zoning district(s) of property.
4.      Acreage of parcel to be subdivided.
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.
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).
7.      Any restrictive covenants to be placed on the deeds.
8.      Proposed soil erosion and sedimentation control
9.      Water supply. (shared wells)

4.2.3   Information on Subdivision
1.      Proposed name of subdivision
2.      Number of lots ( # of units on each lot)
3.      Date, north point, graphic map scale (show on Plat).
4.      Proposed lot lines with approximate dimensions and suggested location where known of buildings, subsurface sewage disposal systems, and wells (show on Plat).
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)
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).
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.
8.      Location and size of existing buildings and other essential existing physical features (show on Plat).
9.      Location of all wetlands, regardless of size, all water bodies and areas within the State Shoreland Zone (show on Plat).
10.     Location of all drains which shall provide adequate storm water management.
11.     Location and size of any existing and proposed sewers and water mains, and culverts and drains.
12.     Location, names, and widths of existing and proposed streets, highways, easements, building lines, parks, and other open spaces (shown on Plat).
13.     Names of abutters (show on Plat).
14.     If the subdivision, or any part of it, is in such an area the subdivider will determine the 100-year flood elevation and flood hazard boundaries within the subdivision.
15.     Other information not indicated above, as specified by the Board.(building envelopes, underground wiring)

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 wind borne debris from leaving the site.

Driveway accesses shall be designed so as to minimize the visual interruption of the buffer areas.
(fire breaks)
5.2     Conformance with other Laws, Regulations

5.3     Construction Prohibited
Plans for road construction, grading and ditching shall be reviewed by the Board.

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.

5.5     Easements The Board may require easements for sewerage, drainage, utilities, or public access.

5.6     Dedication for Year round 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.

5.7.2   Where individual, on site 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.

5.7.3   The Planning Board shall determine if a division of land will be reviewed as a Cluster, a Workforce or conventional subdivision.

In order to conform to Section V of the Comprehensive Plan, special consideration shall be given to the preservation of open space and the character of the community in which the development is proposed.

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.      Non land subdivisions (multiple units within a single structure):  Overall net density shall not exceed two dwelling units per minimum lot size in the district.
3.      Overall net density shall be determined by the total number of proposed dwelling units and the total acreage (including open spaces and recreational areas) within the subdivision.

5.8     Sewage Disposal

5.8.1   Where any part of a proposed subdivision is located within 1500 feet of a public sanitary sewer line, the subdivider shall connect with such sanitary sewer line by means of a main not less than 8 inches in diameter, provided however, that the appropriate municipal agencies shall first have certified that extending the services will not be an excessive burden on the system.

5.8.2   Where private subsurface sewage disposal is to be utilized, the subdivider must conform to all State of Maine Plumbing Code and LUZO requirements. Furthermore:
1.      Disposal sites shall be totally contained within the lot being serviced.
2.      Systems shall be designed to the highest standards for the specified use.
3.      There shall be no contamination of existing or proposed wells, or any other water source.

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.

5.10    Open Space Provisions

5.10.1  The Board may require that a proposed subdivision design include a landscape plan that will show the preservation of existing trees (10" or more in diameter), the replacement of trees and vegetation, graded contours, streams, and the preservation of scenic, historic, or environmentally desirable areas.  The street and lot layout shall be adapted to the topography.  Extensive grading and filling shall be avoided.

5.10.2  The Board may require that the subdivider reserve an area of land as an open space and/or recreational area for use by property owners in the subdivision.
1.      The property owners may enter into a written agreement with the Selectmen for development and/or maintenance of the reserved land, but all costs of development and maintenance shall be borne by the property owners of the subdivision.  The method for apportioning the cost as between individual property owners shall be subject to approval of the Town Selectmen.
2.      The obligation to provide for the cost of development and/or maintenance of the reserved open space shall be included in the conveyance of each parcel of the subdivision to its rightful owner.

5.11    Wells

5.11.1  Because they are difficult to maintain in a sanitary condition, dug wells may be permitted only if it is not technically feasible to develop other ground water sources.

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.

5.12    Performance Bond

5.12.1  The Board may require that the subdivider file with the Board at the time of submission of the Final Plan a performance guarantee in an amount sufficient to defray all expenses of the proposed improvements.

5.12.2  The Board may recommend a maximum extension of 12 months to the guaranteed performance period when the subdivider can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Board and the municipal officers, good cause for such extension.  Such recommendation shall be referred to the municipal officers for official action.

5.12.3  Before a subdivider may be released from any obligation requiring his guarantee of performance, the Board will require certification from the appropriate municipal officers to the effect that all improvements have been satisfactorily completed in accordance with all applicable standards (State, Federal, and local codes, Ordinances, laws, and regulations).

5.12.4  The Board may, at its discretion, waive the requirement of a performance bond and recommend a properly executed conditional agreement with the Town.

5.14    Street Design and Construction

5.14.1  Widths of rights of 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 Sub base 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 cul de sac turn around 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 cul de sac is in a wooded area prior to development, a stand of trees shall be maintained within the center of the cul de sac.  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 fifty foot 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 right of way.

5.15            Access to Direct Sunlight.

5.16            Cluster and Workforce Subdivision

5.16.1 Purpose:  The purpose of the cluster and workforce subdivision standards I               s to encourage new concepts of cluster housing with maximum                     variations of design that will result in:
1.      permanently protected open space and recreational areas;
2.      a pattern of development that preserves the natural beauty of the site, trees, outstanding natural topography, wildlife habitat, and to prevent soil erosions;
3.      an environment in harmony with surrounding development and/or the traditional community characteristics;
4.      a more creatively designed development than would be possible through strict application of other sections of the Land Use Zoning Ordinance;
5.      uses of land that promote efficiency in public services and facilities with small networks of utilities and streets;
6.      development of housing that is more economically viable for the year-round working community.

5.16.2. Plan Design Requirements
1.      Permitted Zones and Uses:  Cluster and Workforce Subdivisions are permitted in all Zones except for Shoreland, Conservation, and Resource Protection Zones.
2.      Density:
a. The density of the subdivision shall not exceed the density requirements of the zone in which it is located. Density is calculated by applying the minimum lot sizes to the developable portion of the parcel (i.e. not wetland or steep slope). For the purpose of calculating density for subdivisions that include Workforce Housing, the area of the entire parcel may be used (i.e. including wetland and steep slopes).  Workforce Housing will use the entire parcel.  Density requirements and density bonuses for workforce housing shall be calculated from lines (A) and (B) of the minimum lot size standards in the LUZO Dimensional Requirements Section 3.6.
b. Multiple Zoning Districts:  If the parcel being subdivided is located in more than one zoning district, the overall density of the subdivision shall not exceed the combined density requirements of the districts in which the subdivision is located.
c. Workforce Housing Density Bonuses:  Projects that include covenants held by a qualified workforce housing entity may receive density bonus as follows:
1.  An increase of up to 50% in the gross residential density of the site may be permitted if at least 50% of the residential units are conveyed with covenants designed to benefit the creation and preservation of workforce housing.
2.  An increase of up to 75% in the gross residential density of the site may be permitted if 100% of the residential units are conveyed with covenants designed to benefit the creation and preservation of workforce housing.
3.      Open Space requirements:  The cluster subdivision must include open space that meets the following requirements:
a. The total area dedicated for open space must equal or exceed the sum of the area by which the building lots are reduced below the minimum lot size otherwise required for the respective zone (i.e. the non-cluster subdivision minimum lots size). Open Space requirement for Workforce Housing: When calculating the open space requirement for qualified workforce housing development, the density bonus units shall be excluded.
b. The open space shall be accessible to the residents of the development.
c. The open space may be used for low-intensity recreation, subsurface wastewater disposal, agriculture, or other passive outdoor living purposes and for preserving the natural features of the site. The open space shall not include rights-of-ways, parking areas, tennis courts, swimming pools, or other areas of impervious surface, or similar recreational development. The use of open space may be further limited or controlled at the time of final subdivision approval if necessary to limit impact to adjacent properties.
d. Whenever possible, some portion of the open space must be located adjacent to the existing public road(s) serving the development so as to preserve a rural or traditional appearance from such roads.
e. The open space shall be protected by a legal instrument satisfactory to the Planning Board, sufficient to assure its maintenance and preservation for its intended purpose. The legal arrangements shall specify ownership of the open space area, responsibility for maintaining the limitation on the uses, payment of taxes, insurance and other fees, and any other specifications deemed necessary by the Planning Board. Any association or entity formed to own or maintain the open space shall not be dissolved without the consent of the Planning Board.
f. The open space may not be further subdivided, except:
1. part or all of the common open space may be conveyed for public ownership with approval by the Town; or
2. easements may be granted for underground utilities.
4.      Development Layout: Each lot or building must be an element of an overall plan for the entire parcel.  When the development consists of the creation of lots, the plan shall establish a building envelope for each lot within which the buildings will be located.  When the development involves the construction of multiple buildings on one (1) or more lots, the plan shall show the general location of each building.
        The plan shall show the location and size of all building envelopes, roads, utility easements, common areas, common structures, parking areas, footpaths, and private yard space related to individual residential units. The placement of buildings and treatment of spaces shall reflect the purpose of this section and meet all other relevant requirements of this Ordinance.
5.      Road frontage requirement:  Only the lot over which the main access road lies shall meet the required road frontage for the zone in which it is located. Other lots may have less or no road frontage, as determined by the Planning Board.
6.      Setbacks:  The Planning Board may reduce the side and rear setback requirements for the internal lot lines of the project, but not the setbacks from the boundaries with adjacent parcels.
7.      Public land and facilities: The Town must approve any provisions for the maintenance and upkeep of public land and facilities within subdivision.
8.      Protection of natural and scenic features: building envelopes, proposed buildings, roads, or other improvements shall be located to preserve the existing scenic and natural features of the property to the greatest extent practicable.
9.      Streets: access from public ways, internal circulation, and parking shall be designed to provide for vehicular and pedestrian safety and convenience, emergency and fire equipment, snow removal, street maintenance, refuse collection, and other delivery and collection services.
10.     Drainage: adequate provision shall be made for management of storm water runoff and erosion control.
11.     Sewage Disposal: The subdivision shall be served by public sewer or shared subsurface systems, unless the Planning Board finds that these systems are not practicable or permissible under the State of Maine Plumbing Code.
12.     Water Supply: The subdivision shall be connected to a common water supply and distribution system unless the Planning Board finds that:
a.      Adequate ground water is available at all locations proposed for individual water systems, and;
b.      the ground water source (s) proposed for the individual water systems is safe from both on-site and off-site contamination.
13.     Utilities: all utilities shall be installed underground unless specifically waived by the Planning Board. Transformer boxes, pumping stations, and meters shall be screened from view from public locations.
14.     Buffering: forest management, planting, landscaping, disposition and form of buildings, fencing, and screening shall be used to integrate the proposed development with the landscape and the character of any surrounding development.

Section 6 will be reviewed at the public meeting. Chairman Clunan says that the Completeness Review was not found complete. Too many questions still unanswered. Mr. Johnston says that they are not ready to reschedule at this time. We need to talk to the owner.

MOTION TO APPROVE THE ROBINSON LANE SUBDIVISION AS INCOMPLETE Mr. Bright; SECONDED BY Mr. Tracy (0/5)

MOTION TO AJOURN Mr Tracy ; SECONDED BY  Mr. Andrews (5/0)

IV.     Meeting adjourned at 9 p.m.  The next scheduled meeting/public hearing(s) is at 6:00 p.m., Monday July 23, 2007 in the Meeting Room, Town Hall, Northeast Harbor.

Respectfully submitted,




Patti Reilly, Secretary