Board Members Present Public Present
James Clunan, Acting Chairman Elliott Moon Hope Rowan Sam Coplon
Heather Jones, Secretary RJ Vander Zanden Jerry Suminsby Robert Ho
Joseph Tracy Edward Gould Brian Reilly David Irvin
Patti Reilly, alt Sam Fox Shawn Murphy
Kim Keene, CEO; Hope Rowan, Assistant; Darcel Winslow, Recording Secretary
I. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
Acting Chairman Clunan stated to the Board members and the public present the position that the Board is in with the Chairman’s sabbatical, he explained that Chairman Sevigny asked him to be acting Chairman in his absence. Mr. Clunan then explained that he would like to respectfully offer the position of acting Chairman to Joseph Tracy, as he is the senior member of the group.
Mr. Tracy declined the position and nominated Secretary Heather Jones for the position.
Mrs. Jones stated she may consider it.
II. The draft minutes from the December 12, 2005 meeting were unanimously approved as amended.
III. Public Hearings –
The Public Hearing was opened at 6:15 with Mr. Clunan suggesting that items B and C on the agenda be heard before item A to prevent the public present for those hearings from having to wait. He proposed that item 4c Haynes Conditional Use Permit be heard first as it is simply a change to Services 3 and will only take a short time. Chairman Clunan asked Mr. RJ Vander Zanden, agent for the Newlins’ if this would be okay with him.
Mr. Vander Zanden stated it would be fine with him.
Jerry Suminsby raised his hand and asked the Board if it is appropriate to change the time of a Public Hearing, he stated the Board of Selectman would do otherwise.
Mr. Tracy explained to Mr. Suminsby that the Board is allowed to move things around on the agenda as they see fit once a hearing has been opened.
Conditional Use Permits
C. NAME: Haynes Bros., LLC/Acadia Painting, Elliot Moon, agent
LOCATION: 40 Sylvan Road, Northeast Harbor
TAX MAP: 25 LOT: 54 ZONE: Village Commercial
PURPOSE: Services 3
Site Inspection: 3:00 P.M.
It was confirmed the notice was published in the Bar Harbor Times.
No conflict of interest was reported. The regular members present are the voting members for this hearing.
Site Inspection was attended by Mrs. Jones, Mr. Clunan and CEO Keene and reported by Mrs. Jones. She explained that this hearing is due to Services 3 only, the applicant wants to store ‘stuff’ outside of the building and to have office space. The items being stored outside will be kept out back of the building, Town guidelines will be followed and the stored items will be kept 42’ from the property line as required.
Mr. Tracy asked if the current permit is for Services 3.
Mrs. Jones explained that the current permit is for 2 apartments and storage; this application is for Services 3.
Chairman Clunan asked Mr. Moon to briefly explain what he is proposing.
Mr. Moon explained that he simply wants to turn the building into a paint shop and offices. The work that is done in the shop will be minimal, mainly “bad-weather” work, and the noise level will be no more than what is currently there. Mr. Moon also indicated that he wanted to post a sign on the face of the building.
CEO Keene reminded the Board that Mr. Moon is allowed 32 square feet of signage.
Mr. Moon explained that his sign will probably be roughly only 3’ x 5’ and that his current logo will be slightly altered from its current state.
Mr. Tracy asked Mr. Moon if there is an apartment upstairs in this building.
Mr. Moon indicated there are two apartments upstairs, one will be rented as an apartment and the other will be used as office space.
It was asked what type of ventilation will be used in this building, and it was agreed that the ventilation is not a Planning Board issue, ventilation is for CEO Keene to enforce.
Mr. Clunan asked Mr. Moon how many vehicles will be parked at this lot per day.
Mr. Moon explained that he has a rather large crew but most employees take their own vehicles to the job sites, he estimates that 4 or 5 vehicles may be there throughout a day and those vehicles will be parked in the back of the building.
Mrs. Jones asked how the unused paint is disposed of.
Mr. Moon explained that he currently separates the dark paint from the light paint and mixes the darks together and then the lights together. He uses this left over paint mix as a primer on other projects, he explained that a paint hardener can be purchased and used as well, but he prefers to recycle it.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION (Tracy/Jones).
The Standards of Section 6. of the LUZO, as amended March 8, 2005, were reviewed and found to be in conformance, as noted on the application with conditions.
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0.
B. NAME: Frank Newlin/RJ Vander Zanden, agent
LOCATION: Off Harborside Road, Northeast Harbor
TAX MAP: 26 LOT: 38-1 ZONE: SR1
PURPOSE: To construct a permanent dock and seasonal float and ramp.
It was confirmed that no notice was necessary as this is a continuation of the Public Hearing of December 12, 2005.
No conflict of interest was reported. The regular members present are the voting members for this hearing.
Chairman Clunan explained a site inspection was not completed as several inspections have taken place previously, the latest being done on 12-12-2005 the details of that inspection are recorded in the minutes approved at the beginning of this meeting. Mr. Vander Zanden was asked at the last meeting to provide several items of documentation relating to Sections 6.6, 6.9 and 6.10 of the LUZO and to provide proof of where the dredge line is prior to this meeting; he has done so. He was also asked to provide documentation that there are no Marine Standard violations relating to this application. A recommendation was also made that the applicant go to the ZBOA first to obtain a variance to determine whether the lot could be made buildable, because I believe we
have documentation in the record that there is a stream on the property which requires set backs of 75 feet. The lot is so narrow that it did not appear to those of us that attended the site visit to be a buildable lot; given not only the set backs from the stream, but the setbacks from the property line.
Chairman Clunan asked the Board members if they had any further comment on where they are with this application.
CEO Keene reminded the Board that they asked for the Harbormaster, Shawn Murphy to be present at this meeting to answer questions regarding this application and to clear up the issue of the exact dredge-line.
Mr. Vander Zanden stated he thought he already submitted a map of the dredge-line to the Board.
Chairman Clunan answered, this is a sketch on a scale of 1-100 showing public docks extended to a new capacity of 58 boats plus expanded dinghy storage.
Mr. Tracy asked what the second dotted line on the dredge line map was.
Mr. Vander Zanden stated this map was made 10-15 years ago.
Mr. Clunan read aloud a letter dated August 15, 2005 that Mr. Vander Zanden submitted to the Board [see applicants file] that he received from Harbormaster Murphy. Harbormaster Murphy had written a letter to The Army Corps of Engineers in Manchester, Maine.
Mr. Clunan then asked Harbormaster Murphy to comment on this application and on his letter; specifically asking if anything had changed since the letter was written. He went on to explain to Harbormaster Murphy that Mr. Vander Zanden had submitted a sketch that shows the proposed dock does not extend to the dredge line. He asked Harbormaster Murphy if he had seen this sketch.
Harbormaster Murphy explained he has seen the sketch and that he believes the plan has changed since he wrote the letter and since the original application, but he still has no objection; it still does not extend into the dredge line; you can not navigate a boat in that area at low tide anyway.
Mrs. Jones asked, at high tide what kind of boat can you navigate in that area?
Harbormaster Murphy replied, I suppose at high water something drawing 6 feet, 8 feet; depends on the skipper.
Mrs. Reilly asked Mr. Vander Zanden if a boat will be stored there.
Mr. Vander Zanden stated yes, a boat would be moored there at the float.
Mrs. Reilly stated this boat will be grounded at low tide.
Mr. Vander Zanden stated yes, it will be grounded.
Mrs. Reilly said, in the drawing here, it says the proposed dock drawn is not drawn to scale.
Mr. Vander Zanden explained that he did not draw to scale because he borrowed the map from the Harbormaster.
Mrs. Reilly said the proposed piles or pile slips whatever they are called say they are 40 feet.
Chairman Clunan explained that they are already in place there.
Mrs. Reilly continued, if you estimate the length of the pier and you tack on what should be there; it looks like you estimate it to be around 80 feet.
Mr. Vander Zanden stated there will be between 36 and 40 feet between the end of the dock and the pile floats.
Chairman Clunan explained to Mrs. Reilly that this information had already been established at a previous meeting.
Harbormaster Murphy stated for clarification, that the pile slips can only be entered from the back.
Chairman Clunan stated, looking at the minutes of December 12 the Chairman asked for proof of where the dredge-line is; do the Board members find what we received is sufficient and satisfactory.
Mrs. Jones did not find them satisfactory; she doesn’t understand how things changed so rapidly.
Harbormaster Murphy suggested that he believes the Army Corps of Engineers would have a much more precise map of the dredge line than the Town has.
Mr. Vander Zanden stated that he needs to get approval from the Army Corps of Engineers to proceed with this project after the Planning Board’s approval anyway.
Chairman Clunan asked Mr. Vander Zanden if he had contacted the ZBOA as recommended.
Mr. Vander Zanden stated that he has not contacted the ZBOA because Mr. Newlin wants the dock whether he can build on his lot, or not.
Mr. Tracy clarified that you want a dock on this lot whether you can build or not.
Mr. Vander Zanden stated he will pursue that option when the time comes, but wants to get one thing set first then concentrate on the house project.
Mrs. Reilly explained her concern that if this permit is granted, Mr. Newlin could go to ask for a variance stating he has already put X amount of money into this lot. She then asked Mr. Vander Zanden if Mr. Newlin bought this property under the current condition of being deemed unbuildable.
Chairman Clunan stated that the way he wants to take this hearing is to first hear CEO Keene
CEO Keene explained that the Board has already discussed this matter in detail at previous meetings and found that this lot was created before the ordinance was created. Secondly, the ordinance does not say, in order to have a dock you must have a buildable lot; it does not say that.
Chairman Clunan asked how that affects this; the lot was created before 1979.
CEO Keene stated yes, she believed it was 1972; it was created long before the ordinance was enacted.
Chairman Clunan stated to CEO Keene, This being said, Section 2.2 does not apply to this application, is that your understanding?
CEO Keene stated yes.
Chairman Clunan added, it is because we have a grandfathered law. He asked if the Board wanted to look over that section; they did so.
Mr. Tracy stated he agreed that section does not apply.
Chairman Clunan instructed all Board members to look at Section 2.2 of the LUZO and asked for comments.
All agreed, Section 2.2 does not apply to this application.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION (Tracy/Clunan).
Chairman Clunan then asked if there were any members of the public who would like to address this application.
He asked Attorney Gould [abutter Neilson’s attorney] to go ahead first.
Mr. Gould explained nothing had changed since the last site visit; nothing has change in the size and shape of the lot.
Mr. Vander Zanden stated to Attorney Gould that his client, Mr. Newlin understands the abutters objections, they have gotten years of enjoyment out of his property and even run their sewer line across it, nothing has to change except that he wants to begin using his property. He explained that he had some trouble contacting Mr. Newlin for a time because he was in Fort Lauderdale in the path of the hurricane down there. Mr. Newlin plans to spend the majority of the summer up here and would like to be working on getting a building permit while he is here. He stated there is some confusion as he can not find where it says in any ordinance that you need to build a house first. Regarding the Standards, I did check on the concern of the distance of 160 feet between the high and low water mark might be greater than the
distance the ordinance allows; that standard of the ordinance is met. It seems entirely appropriate to try to build a house in a residential area and it seems entirely appropriate to put a dock in the harbor; I cant see where the character of the Town would change, it would not affect traffic, this dock is in an area that the Harbormaster just told you, was not navigable anyway; there is enough room between the pile floats and I believe you are compelled to approve this permit.
Chairman Clunan stated we compel ourselves.
Mr. Tracy stated this is the first dock application that has come before the Board that is going to have an impact on the highway. He asked how they intended to use this lot.
Mr. Vander Zanden indicated they will put the boat at he harbor and walk up the 6 foot wide easement for the owners on the road to walk down to the shore and the owners on the shore to walk up to the road.
Mr. Tracy asked if Mr. Newlin will be the only one parking up by the road or will he have guests. He said he would like to find a way to put this into the conditions because this is the first dock before the Board that may have impact on the road. There is not even any frontage on the road.
Mr. Clunan asked Mr. Tracy what kind of condition he would expect, like one vehicle?
Mr. Tracy responded yes, one vehicle.
A member of the public asked the Board how they plan to enforce that condition.
Mr. Clunan stated that Mr. Gould was supposed to be next and then he would hear Jerry Suminsby.
Mr. Gould explained, it is my understanding, that it is the burden of the applicant to prove to the Board that they have met all of the requirements of the ordinance, and obviously, Mr. Newlin has had problems with this all along and where I want to start tonight is with this dredge-line. The only evidence on this dredge-line issue is the letter from the Harbormaster saying he doesn’t have any problem with it and that it doesn’t interfere with the dredge-line and this map that has been submitted by Mr. Vander Zanden. The Harbormaster stated that this map isn’t accurate so the scale of burden is not improving that the dock will not interfere with the dredge line. Secondly, even if you take a look at the map itself I understand that Mr. Vander Zanden said the dock is not to scale, but there is a scale on
this map. The application is for a dock 124 foot permanent structure and 62 foot ramp thereafter which will then descend on a 20 foot float; I recognize that the ramp is going to on one of the floats and that is the whole 20 feet out, but we are talking about 202 feet if we add all of these together; that information is being taken right from the application itself. If you take a look at the Harbor map, one inch is 100 feet, so I put a ruler on the point of the proposed dock and the drawing itself doesn’t even extend an inch which is the 100 foot mark; 150 feet is an inch and a half that comes out of that broken line mark that says 40 feet. 175 feet, an inch and three quarters is in the dredge-line; 200 feet is out beyond the dredge-line. If you use the scale on the map itself, it looks like the dock that is being proposed on the application is going at least to the dredge-line. Even if it doesn’t get all the way into the dredge-line, it is going out well beyond those
slips which already exist. We have been assuming by Mr. Vander Zanden representation, that there were going to be several feet between the end of the dock and those slips; at least using the scale on this map, the dock is going to be getting out into the slips. Again, it is the applicant’s burden to show that this is not going to happen.
Mr. Vander Zanden stated you can not use that scale, it has been copied and reduced, and enlarged for Town approval and you can not use that scale anymore. The dredge-line is outside of the pile slips; that is what the Harbormaster said; now it can vary, in this project it will vary; in the next project they will dredge in a different area than they did last time. The Army Corps. Of Engineers will make sure it is not in the dredge-line, but you can’t scale from that map because the Town has used it for ten different purposes and enlarged it and reduced it.
Mr. Gould responded I accept that, I think that just proves my point.
Mr. Vander Zanden said the Harbormaster said it was not in the dredge-line; how can I prove it without going out there with a shovel.
Mr. Gould continued that the issue has been raised about compatibility in the neighborhood, clearly there are docks in the area as well as some large commercial docks, this proposed dock however in a residential area, is by far, other than the commercial docks, the largest in the area; it is simply not compatible with the use there. There will be tremendous impact on the area with his large metal permanent structure sticking out into the harbor, and again, in proximity of these slips will create a problem. Also if you take a look at conformance standards, there has been a great deal of discussion about intended use of this proposed dock. Up until the last meeting, it was reasonably clear that without the variance, the Newlin’s could not build on this lot. He [Mr.
Vander Zanden] has been saying all along, that the purpose is to make it possible for them to build on their lot. But only now when that option is taken away from them, they want to put a dock there even if they can not build there; so what’s the purpose, to build a house, which is problematic or to bring a shallow boat to the shore. The purpose of this particular lot is something the Board needs to consider for two reasons; the conformance standards in number 7 state the facility should be no larger than necessary to accomplish the purpose for which it is designed. If the purpose is to build, you can do that at least without getting a permit in advance; so clearly this dock is too large for the purpose.
Chairman Clunan asked Mr. Gould for which purpose he is speaking.
Mr. Gould answered right now I am just speaking about building. If the purpose is to build, then the dock has no purpose. If the purpose is simply to moor the boat you certainly don’t need this large structure simply to bring this shallow draft boat up to the shore and I think this is the real problem here. This huge monstrosity of a dock really has no purpose; I would urge you to deny this application.
Mr. Tracy stated that he believes it does have purpose although it does not make sense.
Mr. Vander Zanden stated the other purpose is to have shore access. People build ten-thousand dollar mansions in Seal Harbor; what is their purpose? Mr. Newlin is going to use this dock 7 months of the year, he is going to spend 40 grand on it and your going to tax that like you do the land; it has a purpose; he wants access to his land, that’s enough.
Mr. Clunan stated that Jerry is next to speak.
Jerry Suminsby stated to the Board that the Selectmen and Public Works Director Smith had quite a discussion regarding parking and right-of-way on Harborside Road. The State is reminding the Town that their right-of-way be 33 feet from centerline meaning 66 feet total, this right of way encompasses the entire road in places, as well as property and parking areas in other places. Allowing parking for this lot on the road may not be something that we can do.
Mr. Clunan reminded all that the LUZO requires sufficient off the street parking; are we as a Board thinking we are going to require Mr. Newlin to find off the street parking if we approve this?
Mrs. Jones indicated she had a question for Shawn. As we look down at the harbor now, off to the left, in the summertime, there is some sort of summer residence float; is that correct, or Town residents float for docking boats.
Mr. Vander Zanden said he believed it is stated it was a dinghy dock but he’s not aware of any that are specifically restricted to Town use.
Sam Coplon spoke of discussion the Parking and Traffic Committees have had regarding this area and the road in question has specific parking and no parking areas. If the white line width is adequate, automobiles can park there. Mr. Coplon also asked the Board if a dock is considered a primary use or an accessory use. He stated that on page 27 under accessory structure it reads differently than it seems it is perceived. He stated he is just curious.
Chairman Clunan asked him if he was referring to the definitions in the LUZO; page 27 accessory structures. After a long pause; the Chairman asked Mr. Vander Zanden, what is it, is it a structure located on the same lot as the principle use of the premises.
Mr. Vander Zanden stated that it would be.
Mr. Coplon explained that it is a grandfathered use.
Chairman Clunan stated that right now what we have heard from Mr. Vander Zanden is that the dock is going to be the principle use.
Mr. Vander Zanden replied; until we get a building permit.
Chairman Clunan responded, okay. He stated, this is for Board members, It has been suggested in a couple of places; a workshop that he thinks Heather and Lisa attended, and maybe Joe attended; and also in an opinion we got from MMA in an appeal. The Board might vote on each finding relating to each section and sub-section individually. Now given the nature of this application it may be desirable in this case, where it applies to Standards in the ordinance; that may be apeallable. I can go through this and ask you to vote on each one, in this case because of the varying opinions between the applicant and the abutters.
Mrs. Jones asked if she could weigh in on that, because I have brought that to the table before after different trainings; I am leery of doing that because it has not been our practice to operate that way; in the past while the Chairperson is reading any Board member can comment either support or opposition which I know in the past when I have approached things I have put it in my opposition then I have my standing for anything I’m going to vote on in the end.
CEO Keene stated that with each application you should review section by section just because it is a clean and complete application; in the event of an appeal down the road, everything is covered.
Mrs. Jones asked CEO Keene, So you’re saying we should go section by section, even though that has not been our general practice?
CEO Keene responded yes.
Mrs. Jones asked, starting tonight?
CEO Keene replied, starting tonight, absolutely.
Mrs. Jones stated that she did not disagree with that all as far as the practice.
Chairman Clunan explained that it is much more time consuming.
CEO Keene responded you don’t want to be found not following the rules.
Chairman Clunan stated, hearing no further discussion, I am going to move on to findings of fact.
The Marine Standards Performance Standards; Section 3.14.1-3.14.10 were reviewed and The Standards of Section 6. of the LUZO, as amended March 8,
2005 were reviewed and voted on individually and found as follows,
Section 3.14.1 4-0 unanimous
Section 3.14.2 2-2 (Jones/Reilly nay) FAILS
Mrs. Jones stated that she apposes because she believes the applicant has not given us adequate information to show us that it does not go into dredge-line. She believes there is a lot more information to be seen here.
Mr. Tracy asked Mrs. Jones if she would still be apposed if they put a condition on the approval that the end of the dock be no closer than 36 feet away from the existing
moored floats.
Mrs. Jones stated no because she has other opposing issues.
Section 3.14.3 3-0/1 (Reilly abstaining)
Section 3.14.4 4-0 unanimous
Chairman Clunan asked Mr. Vander Zanden to refresh the Boards memory as to how he proposes not to interfere with the stream.
Mr. Vander Zanden stated he would stay 75 feet away from it.
Section 3.14.5 4-0 unanimous
Section 3.14.6 4-0 unanimous
Section 3.14.7 1-3 (Jones/Clunan/Reilly nay) FAILS
Section 3.14.7 4-0 unanimous
Chairman Clunan stated he believes a structure of this size to moor a dinghy is excessive.
Mr. Tracy stated he believes this also but the LUZO doesn’t say that it has to make sense; it says it is the size for which it is designed. If he wants to have a boat floating three-quarters of the tidal cycle, that is his decision. Most people want it floating one hundred percent of the tidal cycle but if this is the minimum size dock for his boat to float three quarters of the cycle; your suggesting, though I agree it doesn’t make sense, in my reading he is upholding to that and I don’t see how he isn’t.
Mrs. Jones asked Harbormaster Murphy if Mr. Newlin had a mooring out there.
Harbormaster Murphy was unsure off the top of his head.
*Section 3.14.8 and 3.14.9 were found to be not applicable to this application--unanimous
Section 3.14.8 n/a
Section 3.14.9 n/a
Section 3.14.10 4-0 unanimous
Chairman Clunan explained that next the Board will vote on Section Six of the LUZO which has ten sub sections:
Section 6.1 3-0/1 (Reilly abstaining)
Mrs. Reilly asked about the expert testimony relating to shellfish and wildlife.
Chairman Clunan and Mr. Tracy explained.
Section 6.2 *found not applicable 4-0 unanimous
Section 6.3 4-0 unanimous
Section 6.4 4-0 unanimous
Section 6.5 4-0 unanimous
Chairman Clunan asked Mr. Vander Zanden if any trees would be removed.
Mr. Vander Zanden explained; only one small tree which is more like a shrub.
Chairman Clunan explained the removal of this one tree/shrub would not be in violation of the ordinance.
Section 6.6 2-2 (Jones/ Reilly nay) FAILS
Chairman Clunan explained that we have Mr. Vander Zanden’s submission from the most recent packets which he read aloud.
Section 6.7 4-0 unanimous
Section 6.8 4-0 unanimous
Mrs. Jones commented on the parking issue and stated she doesn’t understand how a condition on parking could be enforced and that she did not know how the Board could put this type of restriction on this application when there are many other lots with no parking in that area.
CEO Keene stated that Mr. Vander Zanden already explained that Mr. Newlin has a parking spot here in Northeast; he has property on Cranberry Isles as well.
Mrs. Jones agreed and said she believes that takes care of it.
Mr. Tracy stated he believes it is a mistake to judge this based on who owns this property right now, if he sells he can only sell to someone who has in town parking; if you make it a condition, that is what is going to happen so I think we should specify that no street parking is allowed for this already congested parking area.
Chairman Clunan asked Mr. Tracy if he would like to make that a condition.
Mr. Tracy stated yes, I want that as a condition.
Some discussion of precisely what to put as a street address was discussed.
Mr. Vander Zanden stated that Mr. Newlin had owned this property for 30 years without any parking restrictions.
Mr. Tracy answered well now he has one.
Mr. Vander Zanden stated that he believes this is an unfair restriction; your [Planning Board] is taking away a right this property already had now that he wants to start using his land. You have not put the same restrictions on the adjoining land; I think there is a concern regarding traffic there as you get closer to Town; the white line is too close to the sidewalk; that area should be restricted to no parking at all, but I don’t believe you can put a specific restriction on a right that he already has right now.
Mr. Tracy stated we are not putting it on the applicant; we are putting it on the dock.
Mr. Vander Zanden asked, so the dock can’t park there?
Mr. Gould stated the ordinance says sufficient off-street parking will be available which suggests to me that the applicant must show as part of the application that there is sufficient off-street parking. There is no off-street parking available associated with this dock.
Mr. Vander Zanden explained this is a non-conforming lot; the right of way is pedestrian only; you can’t even take a scooter down there.
Chairman Clunan stated that the ordinance reads that the use shall not cause unreasonable congestion; on Harborside Drive. You can not put that restriction solely on the applicant and assume that he is going to use his Cranberry Island parking space. You can make that restriction but the applicant is stating that this is restricting the use of his land. Although highway safety especially in this space is a great concern and must be adhered to. Mr. Vander Zanden stated that the applicant [Mr. Newlin] is aware that there a specific restrictions already in place on this road and he is aware and he acknowledges that; he can search for a place on the road and if there is none, he can walk.
Mr. Vander Zanden stated we are trying to get water access to this lot; we really won’t need road access.
Chairman Clunan explained that the ordinance does not say sufficient off-street parking on the lot; it says sufficient off-street parking period; is there sufficient off-street parking somewhere? He added we are talking about the two worst weeks in August, really when
everybody goes crazy trying to get a spot.
Mrs. Reilly explained, it makes no difference to her who owns the lot, I don’t know Mr. Newlin, but the non-conforming lot and excessive pier for just a dinghy is excessive; why cant he just pull up to the public dock.
Mr. Vander Zanden replied he wants his own access. You want your own garage; not your neighbors. What is excessive? Million dollar houses are excessive those get built all the time.
Mrs. Reilly stated she is thinking of responsible planning and responsible development.
Mr. Vander Zanden suggested a condition that this dock would create no more on street parking than what already exists in this area; there is an existing problem there.
Mrs. Reilly stated because that is public parking there.
Mr. Suminsby stated there is no legal parking in that area.
Mr. Clunan stated that the proposed use does not cause unreasonable congestion on the road to which the applicant has foot access. (i.e: Route 198/ Harborside Rd)
Section 6.9 4-0 unanimous
Section 6.10 4-0 unanimous
Chairman Clunan explained that two findings the vote was 2-2 which means that the application was not agreed to by the Board. One section was 3-1. Accordingly, the Board must deny the application.
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION DID NOT CARRY. THE APPLICATION IS DENIED.
Mr. Vander Zanden thanked the Board for their time and their answer.
The Board thanked Harbormaster Murphy for his time.
IV. (con’t) Public Hearing
Proposed changes to LUZO for 2006 Town Meeting Warrant articles.
Each article being submitted as a warrant article was reviewed and discussed individually. A few minor clerical changes were made. Proposed amendments to the LUZO will be concerning Signs; Height of structures; Removal of an inoperative provision concerning Planned Unit Development; Relocation of non-conforming structures; Height of structures in Shoreland Districts; and Density in subdivisions that include workforce housing.
V. Discussion with members of the CPC regarding proposed changes to Planning Boards authority and duties. Specifically, a recommendation that changes be made to the LUZO and Subdivision Ordinance that would recognize the creation of a separate “Comprehensive Plan & Review Board” (“CP&RB”) with the power to hold public hearings, accept petitions, make recommendations to the Selectmen, and a draft Planning Board motion, which was agreed to by the CPC/ORC at its January 4 meeting, to divide the functions of the Planning Board.
Jerry Suminsby began the conversation indicating to the Planning Board that the Board of Selectmen sent him back before the Planning Board for this discussion. He stated that the BOS were willing to consider this change but wanted a discussion to take place between the CPC, the Planning Board and the Board of Selectmen. He stated that after this discussion took place tonight, he believed a letter confirming this discussion took place and was agreed upon would be enough for the Board. He then asked CEO Keene if she thought a letter would be enough for the BOS.
CEO Keene firstly stated to Mr. Suminsby that she would not and can not speak for the BOS and stated that the record of the January 3 Board of Selectmen’s meeting indicated that an article creating a second board had been removed from the Warrant, contradictory views of the CPC/ORC were strongly brought forth by Mr. Suminsby and Mr. Reilly.
There was a very lengthy discussion of these two proposals among the CPC/ORC members and the Planning Board, as well as a great deal of input by David Irvin; he offered many suggestions.
After extensive discussion visiting the pros and cons viewed by all those in attendance in detail, the four members of Planning Board present agreed unanimously that a second board would not serve the best interest of the Town. The Planning Board will however consider enlarging the existing Planning Board to better serve the interest of the entire town and both ordinances.
Board members agreed to write a letter to the Board of Selectmen regarding the outcome of this meeting; Acting Chairman Clunan advised he would write and forward the letter to The Board of Selectmen.
VI. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M. the next scheduled meeting/public hearing(s) is at 6:00 p.m., Monday, January 23, 2006 in the Meeting Room, Town Hall, Northeast Harbor.
| 
