Town of Mount Desert
Planning Board
Minutes August 28, 2006
Board Members Present Public Present
Schofield (Sandy) Andrews III Katrina Carter
James R. Bright, alt Stewart Brecher
James Clunan, Vice Chairman Carla Haskell
Joseph Tracy Sherry Churchill
Patti Reilly, Secretary
Kim Keene, CEO; Joelle D. Nolan, Recording Secretary
I. Vice Chairman Clunan called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
II. The draft minutes from the August 14, 2006 meeting were unanimously approved as amended.
III. Subdivision - Sketch Plan Review
A. NAME: Evan Contorakes; Carla Haskell, agent
LOCATION: Joy Building; 141 Main St. Northeast Harbor
TAX MAP: 24 LOT: 78 ZONE: VC
PURPOSE: To convert 4 leased apartments into condo units.
SITE INSPECTION: 4:00 P.M.
No conflict of interest was reported. Mr. Andrews, Vice Chairman Clunan, and Mrs. Reilly attended the site inspection. Mr. Bright was present, but behind the building. Mr. Andrews reported. The building has been restored and was built in the early part of the last century, with a very attractive façade of stucco and granite. Currently the building has two retail units and four apartments. The interior is quite run down. Vice Chairman Clunan said although they were inside the building, that is really the CEO's purview. However, there was discussion of the roof and whether or not anything would be added on the roof. Mr. Andrews noted if a unit was added to the roof, a waiver from height restriction would be needed. Applicant is not proposing such an addition at this
time.
Mr. Tracy clarified the reason for the Board reviewing this application is because the proposal is a change in use. He suggested the Board doesn't really need to look at the building plans. CEO Keene confirmed the change isn't significant. Four existing apartments are being changed to condominium units, to be sold. She agreed changes to the building structure are not the purview of the Board. Mr. Tracy asked what the Board could find in this proposal to deny. It sounds like an administrative change. Mr. Bright asked if this is a change of use, wouldn't the proposal be subject to a full subdivision review. He expressed concerns about parking. Mr. Tracy noted the volume of use would not be increased. Mr. Bright suggested a single family dwelling would need 2 parking spaces. With
four apartments and 2 retail units, are there adequate parking spaces. He asked if employees of Colonel's Deli have access to the right-of-way, because they currently have a vehicle parked in what appears to be spaces for the Joy Building. Ms. Haskell relayed a conversation with CEO Keene in which it was noted there are no parking requirements in Northeast Harbor. They did discuss what would be acceptable regarding parking. Mr. Bright reminded the Board it has discussed parking issues and the related problems. Since this would be a new subdivision application all aspects must be looked at; parking is not grandfathered. Mr. Tracy believes the impact of the new use is no more than the old use. Mr. Bright disagreed.
Carla Haskell reviewed the sketch plan. They will tidy up the back area. The right-of-way will be reviewed by a surveyor. They hope to create a courtyard for parking. There will be two new parking spots against the building. The biggest feature to the building is the addition of an exterior stairway from the 3rd floor down. The interior stairway to the roof will be removed; although there will be an access to the roof. There will be restoration to the exterior front of the building. It was noted the Town does not have architecture standards. The condo units will be sold; the current owner will maintain ownership of the building and the retail units. Mr. Andrews brought up the issue of workforce housing. He related that Ms. Haskell thought an economic incentive could not impact this
proposal. For similar submissions in the future, he asked what measure could there be in the ordinance to make such a proposal feasible for workforce housing. Ms. Haskell had no ready answer. She did say the renovations to this building will be substantial. CEO Keene noted in 2003 Planning Board approved adding an apartment in the basement; however, the owner did not add the apartment. Vice Chairman Clunan expanded on the workforce housing issue. It appears with this arrangement, there would need to be six units, 2 of which would be workforce housing. Ms. Haskell would not want see the four existing units any smaller.
Vice Chairman Clunan referred to the Section 3.6 (footnote g) of the Land Use Zoning Ordinance (LUZO). It indicates that if a building is primarily residential space and is in a commercial district, the building must conform to the requirements in the adjacent district. CEO Keene disagreed because this is not a new use; the residential use (apartments) is existing. Mr. Bright insisted this is a new use and no longer grandfathered.
Vice Chairman Clunan concluded the discussion noting the next step is up to the applicant. The CEO will provide guidance with deadlines, etc.
IV. New Business
A. Stewart Brecher, Architect
RE: Map 3 Lot 43-1, 5 Wheelwright Way, Northeast Harbor
Mr. Brecher stated he is before the Board at the suggestion of CEO Keene after applying for a building permit. He had presented her with building plans that had been in process for 1 ½ years and was informed that the height restrictions, along the shore, had changed as of the most recent Annual Town Meeting (March 7, 2006). Reference was made to LUZO Section 3.6 footnote h² "Structures in any Shoreland district shall not exceed 35 feet. In exceptional cases, which meet the standards of this ordinance and will not adversely affect the skyline of the Town…" Mr. Brecher said the property has a conservation easement and review was done with Acadia National Park. The Park agreed that the new structure would be no more visible than the present structure. It is mostly shielded by very
mature vegetation. The height of the old house is 1 ½ stories. The issue is a retaining wall because the site is steeply sloping. The old house has a series of retaining walls that cascade down below the seventy-five foot shoreline limit. Although the new house is behind the 75 foot limit, the building is thirty nine feet tall if measured from the bottom of the retaining walls. Mr. Brecher said he could not find a clear explanation of what mean finished grade actually is. He also stated the project was not designed to circumvent the height restriction. In working with a one year old ordinance, it did not occur to him that this type of change would take place. He is in hopes that the Board will find, as the ANP did, that the new building will not adversely impact the site line from across the harbor. To change the building plan would be very costly. It appears that if he had applied for a building permit prior to Annual Town
Meeting, it would have been granted. He described the issue as the 12 and 13 foot high retaining walls to keep the building from sliding beyond the 75 foot setback line. The building is 2 stories except at the end with the retaining walls making up the difference between the existing grade and the terrace. There are some existing retaining walls. The building is at grade at the entrance side and is so steeply sloped on the edges that the retaining walls are necessary.
Mr. Andrews asked what would happen if the Board deemed there were no exceptional circumstances. The building would have to be re-designed, which would take thousands of hours. There was discussion of the slope, terraces, retaining walls and the character of the new house. Mr. Bright expressed concerns about the visual impact from the water. He says the current house is almost invisible from the water and the new one would be a lot more visible. Mr. Brecher disagreed. He described substantial, mature vegetation along the entire 75 foot setback going down to the water. Mr. Tracy suggested it is only a matter of 4 feet. Mr. Bright said he thought 4 feet would not make a difference because there is already a huge visual impact. Mr. Brecher countered they are hoping not to increase the visual
impact, and it seems the ANP agrees. There is sufficient vegetation between the harbor and the house, with trees that are a hundred feet tall. From the face of the terrace to the shore there can be no cutting. Mrs. Reilly suggested that Mr. Brecher provide the Board with a letter from ANP stating its opinion. Mr. Tracy related details from a prior height variance granted by the Board. It too involved a steeply sloping site. The architect presented two proposals to the Board. One looked nicer, but did not meet the height requirements; the other had a low pitched roof which met the requirements. The Board chose to approve the proposal that looked nicer and gave the height variance. Mr. Bright suggested a site visit.
Mr. Andrews wondered if this qualifies as an "exceptional case" and if the Board should waive something because of an error made by the agent on behalf of the client. CEO Keene asked how the Board wanted to proceed. If a Conditional Use Permit application is necessary there are advertising deadlines to be met. The soonest a CUP application could be heard would be September 25, 2006. Mr. Andrews said he would prefer to see a design that meets the ordinance. Mr. Brecher stated he could not afford the two thousand hours that would take. He then asked at what point a retaining wall becomes a separate structure. A lengthy discussion followed regarding the lay of the land, vegetation, comparison of other houses in the area, visual impact, the existing foot print compared to the new, and whether
or not the new house could be moved back.
Mr. Tracy asked what are the slopes of the land and the depth of the house. Mr. Brecher referred to a side elevation plan. Almost an entire floor of land slopes and then continues to go down. Mr. Tracy asked how he determined the 39 foot height. Mr. Brecher replied he measured from the highest point on the west side of the building and the lowest point around the circular terrace. Fifty-two was the high point and the low point was 38. The low point is 3 feet higher than basement. Mr. Tracy asked how high the building would be if measured from the lowest point along the perimeter of the building - taking away the terrace. Mr. Brecher calculated 32 feet. As an exercise, Mr. Tracy suggested if the terrace was not stone, but was built up on steel posts with a wood deck, the building would
then meet the height restrictions. It seems there are areas, in this particular case, which the ordinance is not sensitive to. The slope of the land forces the need for a low building, and the low terrace exacerbates the situation. There is a ten foot change in just the terrace. It's a low building. Vice Chairman Clunan asked Mr. Tracy if he thought this was an exceptional location and Mr. Tracy agreed, due to the steep slope. From the plan, measurements were calculated on the slope: there is an 8 foot change across 24 feet which is a 33% slope. The closest point is 77 feet from the shore. Mr. Andrews asked if Mr. Brecher requested a building permit, based on the plan presented, with no terrace, and assuming the measurements are correct, would it be granted? CEO Keene thought it would. Could he then return later to obtain a permit for the terrace? When is a terrace part of the landscape and when is it part of the
building, asked Mr. Brecher. Mr. Andrews asked about State rule regarding shoreland zoning and how it compares to the Town's ordinance.
Discussion of measurements from various points of the building and terrace continued. Several scenarios were considered. Mr. Brecher concluded a change in the difference between the high and low point by 8 feet to get a mean of 4 feet is necessary. It appears the exceptional circumstances would be the slope of the land. Chairman Clunan suggested that the 100 year old trees remain as screening. Mr. Brecher said he felt his client would be willing to maintain the vegetative screening. It was agreed that a CUP application would be presented for the 9/25/06 meeting. Mr. Brecher will have documentation, photos and letter from ANP.
B. Vice Chairman Clunan reported on inquiries from citizens of the Town
1. Out door wood furnaces; are they a nuisance because the particulate matter that comes out of them is far more unpleasant than an ordinary woodstove. This concern from a citizen with asthma.
2. Is a hunting platform a structure; CEO Keene said no, if it is temporary.
Mrs. Reilly commented on the mirror posted to a tree on Route 3, Seal Harbor. Apparently it is used to assist with a "blind" driveway. CEO Keene stated she has no jurisdiction in this matter.
C. CEO Keene suggested a workshop meeting to review the LUZO together. There are areas that need minor tinkering.
D. Sherry Churchill introduced herself as the hired consultant to work on the Comprehensive Plan. Progress slowed this summer due to the many commitments of the committee members. She hopes to pick up process in next few weeks. She encouraged Board members to give her feedback. She looks forward to meeting with the Planning Board and Comprehensive Plan Committee. Board members discussed the sections of the Comprehensive Plan they were given to review.
V. Meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. The next scheduled meeting/public hearing(s) is at 6:00 p.m., Monday, September 11, 2006 in the Meeting Room, Town Hall, Northeast Harbor.
Respectfully submitted,
Patti Reilly, Secretary
| 
