Town of Mount Desert
Planning Board
Minutes October 10, 2006
Board Members Present Public Present
Schofield (Sandy) Andrews III Bill Ferm Paul Cecere
James R. Bright, alt Teresa Cecere Erma Smallidge
James Clunan, Vice Chairman Bob Smallidge Tony Smith
Heather Jones, Chairman Mathew Cecere Betty Allen
Gerard M. Miller, alt Renee Carter Verna Bloom Cocks
Joseph Tracy Dick Campbell Jean-Paul Taillon
Patti Reilly, Secretary Kim Horton Judie Kelley
Sue Noll Jack Noll
Kim Keene, CEO; Joelle D. Nolan, Recording Secretary
I. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
II. The draft minutes from the September 25, 2006 meeting were unanimously approved as amended. Board agreed to revisit the proposed change to the LUZO regarding Section 5.6 and the reference to 2.1 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Clarification is needed.
III. Public Hearings - Conditional Use Permits
A. NAME: Town of Mount Desert
AGENT: Tony Smith, agent
LOCATION: On Somes Sound adjacent to Manchester Road
TAX MAP: 25 LOTS: 20 and 30-2 ZONE: SR1
PURPOSE: Excavation or filling of more than 50 cubic yards within 100 feet of a waterbody and slopes greater than 4:1.
SITE INSPECTION: 4:45 PM
No conflict of interest was reported. The regular members present are the voting members for this hearing. It was confirmed the notice was published in the Bar Harbor Times
Site Inspection was attended by Chairman Jones, Mr. Clunan, Mr. Andrews, and reported by Mr. Andrews. He described the slope as very steep from the road to the beach. It has severely eroded; vegetation is gone; and the sidewalk is undercut. The sidewalk and portions of the road will be lost if something is not done soon. The area of the erosion is approximately 40 feet wide.
Public Works Director Tony Smith described the erosion area as 35 ft wide x 25 ft long. If left unchecked, erosion will soon take the sidewalk, portions of the road, underground electric and telephone, water and sewer. It is dangerous to pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk. The plan is to put 2 - 3 feet of heavy rip rap on the slope, after shaving it and putting on geo-textiles to prevent erosion through the rip rap. This area has been watched for several years; this year the erosion peaked due to heavy surf and rains. DEP and the Board of Selectmen have approved the proposed project. Work will be done by R. F. Jordan. The plan is to start tomorrow, if approved, and should be finished within a few weeks. This is not Town property. A portion is on Tennis Club property and a larger portion
is on "Lilac Ledge" property. Written permission has been obtained from the property owners; copies will be added to application, along with a favorable opinion from Maine Municipal Association (MMA). Mr. Smith said since the erosion has been from natural causes, they are not asking property owners to contribute to the cost of repair. Soil will be placed amongst the rip rap, and then grass seed will be sprinkled on the soil. The work should not bother the property above.
MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY Mr. Tracy; SECONDED BY Mr. Clunan.
The Standards of Section 6 of the LUZO, as amended March 7, 2006, were reviewed as follows:
6.1 Expert Testimony: The Planning Board or code enforcing officer(s) in deciding whether or not to issue a permit shall be governed by the standards set forth in this section. The Planning Board or code enforcing officer(s) may reasonably require an applicant for a permit to furnish at the applicant's expense expert testimony, including documentary material, to prove compliance with such standards. The Board finds that Tony Smith, Public Works Director has provided the necessary testimony and documentation to meet the standards of this section.
6.2 Land Suitability: All land uses shall be located on soils in or upon which the proposed uses or structures can be established or maintained without causing adverse environmental impacts, including severe erosion, mass soil movement, and water pollution, whether during or after construction. Proposed uses requiring subsurface wastewater disposal, and commercial or industrial development and other similar intensive land uses, shall require a soils report, prepared by a State certified soil scientist or geologist based on an on site investigation. Within the shoreland zone, the persons qualified to prepare these reports shall be certified by the Department of Human Services. Suitability considerations shall be based primarily on criteria employed in the National Cooperative Soil Survey as
modified by on site factors such as depth to water table and depth to refusal. The Board finds that the application meets the standards of this section as the applicant is trying to prevent further erosion; the work will be done either on the roadway, which is satisfactory, or at looking from the waterside there is enough room from the highwater mark to the area of work.
6.3 Sanitary Standards:
1. All plumbing systems within two hundred (200) feet of a public sewer shall be connected to public sewer where available in accordance with local, state, and federal laws and regulations. The Planning Board may waive this requirement if all other standards of Section 6 are met.
2. All subsurface sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in conformance with the State of Maine Subsurface Wastewater Disposal Rules and the following:
1. All subsurface sewage disposal systems shall be located in areas of suitable soil of at least one thousand (1,000) square feet in size (which is defined by State of Maine Wastewater Disposal Rules, 144A CMR 241, Tables 700.1 and 700.2).
2. The minimum setback for subsurface sewage disposal systems shall be no less than one hundred (100) horizontal feet from the normal high water mark of a water body. This requirement shall not be reduced by variance except for replacement systems.
3. Holding tanks for sanitary wastes will be permitted only when approved by the Plumbing Inspector, and only if arrangements have been made for periodic removal and disposal of wastes in accordance with all laws and the tank is constructed of impervious material.
The Board finds that this section does not apply.
6.4 Erosion Control:
1. Filling, grading, lagooning, dredging, earth moving activities, and other land use activities shall be conducted in such a manner to prevent, to the maximum extent possible, erosion and sedimentation.
2. Removal of sand or gravel from natural beaches or the disruption or removal of buffer strips that protect fragile land areas immediately behind a shoreline and on neighboring properties is prohibited.
3. On slopes greater than twenty-five (25) percent, there shall be no grading or filling within one hundred (100) feet of the normal high water mark, except to protect the shoreline and prevent erosion.
4. Where soil is tilled in a Conservation District, or where soil in excess of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet lying either wholly or partially within the area covered by this ordinance is tilled in a Rural or Woodland District, such tillage shall be carried out in conformance with the provisions of a Conservation Plan which meets the standards of the State Soil and Water Conservation Commission, and is approved by the appropriate Soil and Water Conservation District. The number of the plan shall be filed with the Planning Board. Non conformance with the provisions of such Conservation Plan shall be considered to be a violation of this ordinance. The Board finds the application meets these standards as the applicant will be fixing the
shoreline to avoid further erosion. Mr. Smith stated there may be removal of a few small trees. Best Management practices will be applied.
6.5 Vegetation:
1. Clearing of trees or conversion to other vegetation is allowed for permitted construction provided that:
1. Appropriate measures are taken, if necessary, to prevent erosion when activity is undertaken.
2. The activity is in conformity with State Mandated Shoreland Zoning.
2. Removal of more than 25% of the trees within 25 feet of any town or state road in any 12 month period shall require a Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Board.
3. No accumulation of slash shall be left within 50 feet of any town or state road or within 50 feet of the normal highwater mark of any waterbody. Slash shall be disposed of so that no part extends more than 4 feet above the ground.
4. Provisions of the State of Maine Shoreland Zoning Act shall apply in the State Mandated Shoreland Zone for timber harvesting and clearing of vegetation, as per Title 38 MRSA § 439-A.5 and 439-A.6.
5. A CEO Permit is required for cutting timber larger than 4" DBH when the total amount to be cut is greater than 10 cords but less than 50 cords in any one year period.
6. A CUP is required from the Planning Board for cutting timber larger than 4 inches DBH when the total amount to be cut is 50 cords or more in any one year period. The Board finds that the application meets the standards of this section. There will be minimal clearing, if any.
6.6 Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the permitted uses within the district in which it is located as measured in terms of its physical size, visual impact, proximity to other structures, and density of development. The Board finds that the application meets the standards of this section as the applicant will provide more support and stability to the existing sidewalk.
6.7 Impact on Town Services: The proposed use shall not unduly burden the capacity of the Town's facilities, including public water and sewage, or the ability of the Town to provide essential public services (such as, but not limited to, schools, fire and police protection, refuse collection, and parking) to its residents and visitors. The Board finds that the application meets the standards of this section as the applicant will reroute public water as necessary to continue services, and avoid further erosion.
6.8 Highway Safety: The proposed use shall not cause unreasonable congestion on highways or public roads, or unsafe conditions with respect to the use of highways or public roads existing or proposed. Sufficient off-street parking shall be available. The Board finds that the public will be minimally impacted.
6.9 Preserving the Town's Character: Preserving the Town's Character: The proposed use shall be consistent with protecting the general character of the Town, conserving the natural beauty of the area and shall not tend to change the historical or cultural character of the neighborhood. Such use shall be similar to a use specified as P, CEO or C in Section 3.5 and shall be in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. The Board finds the application meets the standards of this section by preserving the natural beauty of the area and will also provide natural maintenance to make the rip rap less visible.
6.10 Nuisances: Notwithstanding any other standard in this section, the Planning Board shall not issue any conditional use permit for any proposed use which if established would be obnoxious or offensive by reason of odors, dust, smoke, gas, fumes, vibration, noise, or other objectionable features, nor for any use which would prove injurious to the safety and welfare of the neighborhood. The Board finds that the application meets the standards of this section.
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0).
B. B. NAME: Elizabeth Allen
LOCATION: 2 Fitz Hugh Lane, Northeast Harbor
TAX MAP: 8 LOT: 95 ZONE: RW3
PURPOSE: Services 1-Art Studio
SITE INSPECTION: 4:15 PM
Mr. Clunan noted that he is an abutter to this property and recused himself from hearing this application. No other conflict of interest was reported. The regular members present, except Mr. Clunan, plus alternate member Mr. Bright are the voting members for this hearing. It was confirmed the notice was published in The Bar Harbor Times.
Site Inspection was attended by Chairman Jones, Mr. Clunan, and Mr. Andrews, and reported by Mr. Andrews. He clarified that the property is located in Somesville. The building is set back from Route 198 about 100 feet. Land slopes steeply towards the back of the building. The room in question is at the back of the building, at the bottom of the slope. That area of the rather large building is not visible from Route 198, but is from Fitz Hugh Lane. The room is approximately 30 ft x 30 ft, set up with painting tables and cupboards. The building is still under renovation, but is nearing finish.
Mr. Tracy asked if the applicant qualifies for Home Occupation. Chairman Jones said she discussed this with CEO Keene. Their reasoning for using Services 1 had to do with vehicular traffic entering and leaving the premises from/to Route 198, the amount of people on premises at any one time, and some of the activity that might take place. Mrs. Allen asked for a definition of Services 1. Chairman Jones read from Section 3.5 of the LUZO. Mrs. Allen stated the studio would be open only 7 - 8 days a month.
MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY Mr. Tracy; SECONDED BY Mr. Andrews.
Mr. Clunan suggested that some of the abutters were not notified. The application shows that Map 8 Lot 94 and Map 10 Lot 94-3 have "no listed owner". It was determined that Map 8 Lot 94-5 is now owned by Jensen/Shattow; and that Map 10 Lot 94-3 should have been Map 8 Lot 94-3 and the owners are Mr. and Mrs. Clunan. Board agreed that all abutters need to be notified, and to re-schedule this hearing until October 23, 2006. Mrs. Allen needs to check her schedule and will let CEO Keene know if she is available 10/23/06. Board advised Mrs. Allen that she can authorize someone, in writing, as her agent to act on her behalf at the public hearing, and referred to the schedule of meetings. Board and Mrs. Allen discussed conditions placed on her prior CUP's for an art studio. Evidently there were
restrictions regarding advertising and signs. Chairman Jones stated this is a new application, prior conditions do not apply; and suggested she review this new application with CEO Keene and make changes to accommodate her current needs.
C. NAME: William Patten
AGENT: Richard Campbell, agent
LOCATION: 4 Hummingbird Lane, Somesville
TAX MAP: 15 LOT: 5-2 ZONE: SR2
PURPOSE: 3.4.7 Fence exceeding CEO authority.
SITE INSPECTION: 3:30 PM
No conflict of interest was reported. The regular members present are the voting members for this hearing. It was confirmed the notice was published in The Bar Harbor Times.
Site Inspection was attended by Chairman Jones and Mr. Bright, and reported by Mr. Bright. The fence has been built and the dimensions are different from the application. It is approximately 25 feet long, the highest point is 9 feet 6 inches, and it is approximately 15 feet over the required 75 foot set back. This would be an "after-the-fact" application.
Mr. Campbell presented information. The reason for the fence is to provide privacy for the applicant as well as the abutter. There was a boardwalk fence that connected the two properties. Also there was a building that provided privacy. As the property was developed the new building became somewhat overwhelming in size. The existing building was removed and the property opened. The application represents the architect's proposal to scale, but the opening for the fence was larger. Also driving the size were some substantial trees that they did not want to remove; they avoided digging and cutting near the roots. The uneven terrain and the arc on the fence contributed to the discrepancy in height.
Chairman Jones stated that Board members took measurements, and even using the sketch submitted with the application, it shows the boardwalk as 75 feet off the water and the fence goes to the water. Mr. Campbell explained that happened because of the trees. At a minimum anything in the 75 foot setback needs to be removed. Then the remaining fence would have to be considered. Mr. Campbell asked if the Board could move forward, approve what it can, and then they would comply. Board said it would be best to re-apply.
Vegetative screening was discussed as an option
Mr. Campbell withdrew the application.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED (Mr. Clunan/Mr. Andrews) TO ACCEPT WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPLICATION. A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
D. NAME: Kim Horton and Jean Paul Taillon
LOCATION: 1 and 3 Old Firehouse Lane, Northeast Harbor
TAX MAP: 24 LOT: 108-1 ZONE: VC
PURPOSE: Amendment to CUP # 18-2003
SITE INSPECTION: 5:15 PM
No conflict of interest was reported. The regular members present are the voting members for this hearing. It was confirmed the notice was published in The Bar Harbor Times.
Site Inspection was attended by Chairman Jones, Mr. Clunan, Mr. Bright, Mr. Miller, and Mr. Andrews, and reported by Mr. Clunan. He described the location and how to get to it from Main Street and Firehouse Lane, Northeast Harbor, and used the oak tree sitting on the east/west property line as a pivot point. He referred to the building that currently appears to be a garage; the applicant plans to make this area into a bar, with two means of egress. The larger building is the existing restaurant that includes the kitchen and seating for 24. Also there is a gravel patio (seating for 37) out front between the oak tree, restaurant, and bar. The north/south property line runs through the restaurant building about 1 ½ feet in the 20 foot right-of-way (r-o-w). This r-o-w extends from the parking lot
behind the museum into the area of the house, now owned by Ms. Horton. There is also a 3 foot r-o-w . Mr. Clunan hoped for clarification of the various r-o-w's.
Chairman Jones referred to the additional information presented by Mr. Taillon, labeled "Proposed Changes to #3 Old Firehouse Lane". Mr. Clunan said the number of new seats is significant. Also the operating hours will include breakfast from 7:00 to 11:30 a.m., and dinner from 5:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. The new backyard area will be closed at 10:00 p.m. with a final seating at 8:30 - 9:00 p.m.
MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY Mr. Clunan; SECONDED BY Mr. Andrews.
Mr. Jean-Paul Taillon spoke to the rights-of-way: At one point the two r-o-w's were contiguous and were intended for a subdivision that never developed. He has talked with the Town Manager and Assessor regarding removing the r-o-w with a quit claim release (50% to Mr. Shaw and 50% to Ms. Horton). They have come to an agreement with Sam Shaw, the abutter to the 20 foot r-o-w. However none of the plans are contingent upon the removal of a r-o-w. The proposed patio does not extend into the r-o-w; however, the current building does about 18 inches. It appears the proposed patio fence would also extend into the r-o-w; however. Mr. Taillon described the benefits of the fence and agreed to move it out of the r-o-w.
Mr. Tracy asked for clarification of the various attachments to the application describing the seating plans. Mr. Taillon described the seating as follows: 10 in the bar, 37 in the front patio, 26 inside the restaurant, and 42 in the backyard patio, for a total 115 seats. At full capacity there would be 8 employees plus an owner on premises.
Mr. Tracy wondered how many cars 115 restaurant patrons would bring in and where would they park. Mr. Taillon explained there is a nearby Town parking lot. He believes there will be ample space available for the hours they will be open. Since they will not be open for lunch, the restaurant will be closed during the peak retail business hours. He thinks the breakfast patrons will consist of locals that will walk-in, rather than people coming by car. Mr. Bright said he is concerned with morning parking; employees will need parking, and the nearby town lot is full by 9:30 a.m.
Concerns were expressed about the potential for noise generated from the backyard patio (an area of 24 ft x 40 ft). Mr. Taillon described in detail the awning system that he believes will help buffer the sound, the ground cover (blue stone), and lighting that will be from the ground up to avoid points light; and he stated that that area would be cleared of patrons by 10:00 p.m. Service would continue until 11:30 p.m. in the front section. Again the lighting would be subdued in the front. Both Mr. Taillon and Ms. Horton described their efforts to keep the sound and light as unobtrusive as possible. Mr. Clunan referred to the LUZO and the Standards of Section 6, particularly sections 6.8, parking, and 6.10, noise. He does not see enough information about parking in the application. Also he doesn't see
any numbers, in the awning description, that refer to decibel reduction. And he mentioned that noise has been an issue at that location. Mr. Taillon said awning companies do not have information on decibels. He has heard about the noise issues caused by the prior owner and has talked with the owners of the Maison Suisse. Their issue was not with the restaurant noise, but with the profanity and noise generated by the former owner. Mr. Tracy suggested the material of the awning and blue stone on the ground would not reduce the noise. This use appears to have the greater potential for noise, due to the expanded backyard patio area. Mr. Clunan asked if Mr. Taillon knows of restaurants where this awning system has been used successfully, and could he get testimonials. Mr. Taillon replied, yes. CEO Keene said there have been no questions or complaints regarding this application. Mr. Miller stated the awning is not a sound
deadening system, all agreed. Mr. Taillon said he knows an acoustics expert in Bar Harbor; he could ask him to come before the Board and answer questions, and he will try to do what he suggests, if it is cost effective.
Chairman Jones asked if structures in the patio need to meet setbacks; CEO Keene replied, yes. Chairman Jones reminded the Board that this application is an amendment to an application in which the Board approved LUZO Section 6.8. Discussion continued regarding parking and the lack of availability. Mr. Taillon explained they hope to hire locals and they are sharing some employees with Sam Shaw. Chairman Jones asked what they want for a sign. Mr. Taillon will address that later with CEO Keene. He is familiar with the limitations.
Section 5.7 of the LUZO, as amended March 7, 2006, were reviewed as follows:
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 that the application meets the applicable Standards of Sections 3 and Section 6. The additional expansion is in conformity with the initial use and meets the standards. Board adds the condition that for the backyard outside patio use, the last seating will be at 8:30 p.m. Mr. Bright asked if music will piped in to the patio area and Mr. Taillon said not at this time. It is the Boards understanding that there will be no live or piped in music at the backyard patio. It was stated that if there is a noise complaint, it will be referred to the police because there is no noise ordinance; they would most likely see it as a
disturbance of the peace. CEO enforcement is limited to conditions imposed by the Board on the permit.
2. on finding that there have been significant changes of conditions or circumstances: The Board finds that there is a significant change with the addition of 44 seats in the rear of the building (backyard patio).
3. when justified by a statement of findings of fact and reasons: The Board finds that the application meets the standards of 6.8 as this is already permitted and the applicant has taken steps to minimize 6.10 nuisances. Mr. Tracy stated that he feels the issue of nuisances (noise) has not been addressed sufficiently.
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE ADDED CONDITION, CARRIED (3-2, Mr. Clunan and Mr. Tracy voting nay).
IV. New Business
NAME: Paul and Teresa Cecere
LOCATION: 153 Hall Quarry Road
TAX MAP: 7 LOT: 77 ZONE: R2
PURPOSE: Request for zoning change to RW2
Attorney William Ferm addressed the Board on behalf of the Cecere's. They would like the Board to consider recommending a zoning change from R2 to RW2 in the area in which they reside. Attorney Ferm said he realizes this is a process and requested the Board to let them know if more information is needed. He gave a brief description of the history and use of the property. In 1992 they received CUP, zoned R2, for a home occupation for fish sales and prepared food for take out. About 5 years later they came back to the Board for expansion of that use and were denied. Attorney Ferm's interpreted the Board's denial as a case of unable to expand a use that was already beyond its limit. He read directly from the actual findings of fact: "The Planning Board determined that they were unable to vote
in favor of the applicant's request because the existing grandfathered use exceeds the limits of uses permitted under the parameters of a home occupation; i.e. the activity is not in keeping with the surrounding residential uses. The space to be used is not pre-existing and not all products sold are made on the premises." The Cecere's are looking again at whether or not to expand. The current zoning prohibits expansion for the existing use. Their choices are to seek a change in the zoning or relocate the business. Part of the question is if the area was re-zoned to RW2, what would that allow them to do. It would allow, with a CUP, a retail business greater than a home occupation, and it would allow customers to consume food on premises. Their arguments in favor of a zoning change include the fact that lots across the street are zoned RW2. Attorney Ferm presented copies of two prepared statements, with a summary sheet of replies,
to show community support and opposition. One was circulated to Hall Quarry neighbors and the second was presented to their customers (Island wide, at least). Board reviewed. Attorney Ferm made three points: there is RW2 zoning across the road, there is community support, and what the Cecere's have done is going well - it is the kind of use of property and industry that we want to encouragge in this town.
Mrs. Cecere spoke to the issue and said their current building is too small. There are three employees (Mr. & Mrs. Cecere and son Mathew) and they want another son to join them. They are trying to accommodate the special health needs of customers and need more room to display wares. They would like to remove a storage shed and expand the existing building by approximately 24 ft x 28 ft. Mr. Andrews asked why expand there instead of finding another location. Mrs. Cecere said it is partly monetary, current location is known and convenient for customers, and their home is there. The lot size is 1.25 acres.
Chairman Jones asked for comments from the public. Mr. John Noll, a neighbor spoke to problems with parking, traffic, noise, and changes in the atmosphere of neighborhood. Mrs. Verna Bloom Cox spoke in support of the Cecere's and their business. She lives in Somesville, shops at Cecere's frequently and has never experienced problems with traffic or parking. She doesn't see this proposed change as a threat of overdevelopment by commercial businesses. CEO Keene noted that R2 zoning does not restrict use to only residential; some commercial uses are allowed. Mr. Robert Smallidge, a resident of Hall Quarry, said although he is not a nearby neighbor, he is in favor of the business. It is a good business for the community. Judith Kelley, abutter, and owner of her property prior to Cecere's purchase
of their property, gave a detailed history of the development of the business and her numerous concerns regarding business expansion in a residential area.
Mr. Clunan referred to the long list of customers and said he sees it as promoting the development of an economically sound community; however there is also a need to look at the consequences of a zoning change for all the residents in this substantial area. He referred to LUZO Section 3.5 Table of Permitted Uses by District and noted there are quite a few more uses that could be permitted by this Board in that area that are not currently allowed in R2. Another consideration would be setback changes; a lot of places would come into non-compliance. Chairman Jones noted that lot coverage allowed in R2 is 40% and in RW2 it is only 15%. Mr. Tracy acknowledged the letters of support and the good food produced, but suggests the neighbors could be negatively impacted more than people living on the other side of Hall Quarry. He noted the statements that were circulated did not describe the full impact of a zoning change. The business has done so well it has outgrown its existing
location. He would vote to not recommend a zoning change in this case. Chairman Jones sees this as spot zoning. She referred to the rewrite of the Comprehensive Plan; and recognized points made by Mr. Clunan and Mr. Tracy. Mr. Andrews said he believes the area was zoned R2 for a reason: it is primarily a residential neighborhood. The commercial uses are limited to allow people to get started in a business; but the zoning also recognizes that once a business has outgrown its neighborhood, the impact can be negative; then it is time for the business to move on to a commercial area. He sees that as the intention of the current zoning. Mr. Mathew Cecere (son) made the point that if they moved the business across the street to the RW2 zone, they would have opportunity to apply to the Board for a CUP for this same use; if granted, the impact to the neighborhood would be the same. Mr. Tracy suggested RW2 could be re-zoned to R2.
Mr. Bright thinks the change was made to R2 because many of the village commercial businesses died out. He talked about the desire to keep the workforce in town and to see the villages grow. He suggested there is a compromise that would bring back the village of Hall Quarry. Mr. Smallidge asked if this Board has the ability to set aside areas specifically for commercial development. No, that would either be the Board of Selectmen or town vote.
Mr. Clunan suggested that since so many neighbors have responded to the Cecere's questionnaire, and remembering that when the Comprehensive Plan Committee did their local meetings the turn out in Hall Quarry was strong, that the residents of Hall Quarry get together on this issue and come up with a re-zoning proposal that would encompass the whole area of Hall Quarry for the Board to consider. Mr. Tracy agreed that having an entire neighborhood or village making a zoning change proposal would have a greater impact than one property owner. Attorney Ferm asked how the Comprehensive Plan Committee might perceive such meeting - would it cause problems? As the Planning Board liaison to the CPC, Mr. Andrews replied that he thought they would welcome the input. Chairman Jones thanked the Cecere's and Attorney Ferm for coming
in and starting the process. She said this is a difficult issue for the Board to consider because although they want businesses to stay and continue to grow in the Town, the Board is not prepared to spot zone one area, nor would they re-zone the whole area. A positive next step would be to work with the residents of Hall Quarry through a village meeting. Attorney Ferm would like to keep this request before the Board. Chairman Jones suggested more information and education is needed prior to any recommendation for a zoning change; she would not be in a position to make a recommendation for the 2007 Annual Town Meeting. Mr. Andrews said there are notes from the Comprehensive Plan Committee meeting in Hall Quarry that should be available.
B. Mr. Clunan suggested the Town needs professional help with the rewrite of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Andrews explained that Planner Hope Rowan resigned last spring. Sherry Churchill was recently hired to replace Ms. Rowan. It appears much of the work done did not meet State requirements. Ms. Churchill has done a massive rewrite. He is not sure when it will be done. Few Committee meetings were held during the summer months, but the Committee appears to be back on track. Mr. Bright suggested any request for help needs to come from the Comprehensive Plan Committee members. Jerry Suminsby is the designated Chair.
V. Meeting adjourned at 9:56 p.m. The next scheduled meeting/public hearing(s) is at 6:00 p.m., Monday, October 23, 2006 in the Meeting Room, Town Hall, Northeast Harbor.
Respectfully submitted,
Patti Reilly, Secretary
| 
