Town of Mount Desert
Planning Board
Minutes Novembe 13, 2006
Board Members Present Public Present
Schofield (Sandy) Andrews III Chris Spruce
James R. Bright, alt Eero Hedefine
James Clunan, Vice Chairman Sam Coplon
Heather Jones, Chairman Becky Buyers-Basso
Gerard M. Miller, alt Sydney Roberts Rockefeller
Joseph Tracy Carol Williams
Patti Reilly, Secretary Ben C. Worcester III
Kim Keene, CEO; Joelle D. Nolan, Recording Secretary
I. The meeting was called to order at 6:04 p.m.
II. The draft minutes from the October 10 & 23, 2006 meetings were unanimously approved as amended.
III. Unfinished Business
A. NAME: Island Housing Trust
AGENT: Sam Coplon, Coplon Associates
SUBDIVISION NAME: Ripples Hill
LOCATION: Off Beech Hill Road, Somesville
TAX MAP: 10 LOT: Portion of 48 ZONE: VR2
PURPOSE: Subdivision - Completeness Review
Sam Coplon gave an overview of the project. The number of units has been revised to a total of 19. The road has been reconfigured to meander along the northern property line and make a loop around the units. Nine of the units will have parking spaces in front of the houses, and 10 units will have the use of two parking lots with a connecting service road. The intent is to have minimal vehicle use on the service road. Island Housing Trust (IHT) will propose to have the Town take over the public road portion of the road, and the private service road will be maintained by a homeowners association. Mr. Bright expressed concerns about not having the public road continue the entire loop. Specifically he asked about snowplowing. Mr. Tracy asked what is the disadvantage to having entire road as a public
road. Mr. Coplon said they want to avoid cars orbiting the loop, and to make the service road a child-safe area. The walking distance from the parking lots to the units isn't great. Nor is parking lot/service road a new concept. Chris Spruce, IHT, said about half the applicants for the units are in favor of the walking plan. The houses are generally 40-50 feet apart in the walking/service road area. Eero Hedefine, engineer for the project, did an informal poll of applicants. Many were willing to walk and liked the idea of a vehicle free area. The parking lots provide each unit with 2 parking spaces, with 4 additional spaces per parking lot. Although several Board members expressed concerns with what they considered minimal parking spaces, Mr. Coplon replied the design tried to give the maximum amount for the type of housing. Mr. Tracy asked if they would be willing to put a two car limit per unit in the covenants; Mr.
Coplon said it could be a consideration. Chairman Jones suggested they look at stabilized, vegetated areas for overflow parking.
Mr. Coplon described the houses as basic units with possible options/additions as can be afforded. Mr. Spruce said the buyer buys the lot and designates IHT as agent to build the house. They expect to build 5-6 at a time. Chairman Jones asked about accessory structures, as described on page 2 of the covenants. Mr. Spruce said the covenants are in draft form and have not been vetted by the IHT Board of Directors. It is likely there will be no accessory structures; there is no room, nor is it likely applicants will be able to afford the cost of building a garage. An outdoor accessible storage area is integrated into the houses, as well as a crawl space (no cellars). After a discussion of open space requirements and areas for common storage, Mr. Coplon said they would consider adding an option for individual
storage units, with specifications approved by IHT.
Mr. Tracy asked about open space requirements as it applies to Section 5 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Coplon referred specifically to Section 5.16.2.3 and said there is about 5000 sq ft beyond the required amount that could be used for common storage. Mr. Tracy continued with the covenants, page 2 #6 addressing home occupation, the last sentence seems severe in its restrictions of vehicle traffic and not supportive of workforce housing. Page 3, #7 of the covenants addresses animal husbandry. Mr. Tracy said he is sensitive to regulations that may not be necessary if neighbors are in agreement. He suggests adding language to allow if all are in agreement. Mr. Coplon referred to the density and desire to minimize opportunities for conflict. Mr. Tracy continued with #9; needs clarification of what
is/isn't an unregistered motor vehicle and the reference to camp, travel and unregistered trailers. He suggested changing the wording to "no unregistered motor vehicles or trailers, including travel trailers, etc." Covenant #12 regarding signs, he suggested taking out "wooden" if there is no objection to other sign material such as cast metal. And he said it is unclear what can/cannot be done in the common area. Can there be a community garden? Can trees be cut down trees for light? Clarification needed.
Mr. Miller asked if ATV's, canoes, and kayaks are allowed. Mr. Spruce replied no to ATV's in the common area, but canoes and kayaks may be stored in the storage area of the individual units. Mr. Coplon said they have tried to strike a balance between what is appropriate and what is reasonably expected to fit into a community like this, as to what items are allowed on the property. In reply to Mr. Bright's question about deed covenant #11 screening of trash receptacles, Mr. Coplon said it is expected that the trash cans will be kept in the storage rooms of the units.
Mr. Coplon said there will be public sewer and common wells that service 3-4 units per well house (size approximately 12 ft x 10 ft). Water will flow from a well, to a pump house (probably 4 pump houses), to pressure tanks, to houses as needed. Mr. Hedefine described the distribution system; however, the final plan depends on water flow (gpm) from the wells, which have yet to be drilled. The system acts like a public water supply. All costs of maintaining the pump house buildings will be the responsibility of the homeowners association. Area well drillers have been consulted and a hydro-geological study (photo-linear analysis) has been done. Likely locations for the wells have been identified, along with expected yields. Mr. Coplon referred to a well drilled near the property line about 20 years ago,
that yielded about 6 gallons per minute. Mr. Tracy suggested measuring the current ground water level of that existing well to use as a baseline of current water table. A lowering may indicate excessive pumping by the subdivision.
Mr. Bright noted the Board has already received a letter from a neighbor expressing concerns about the supply of water in the area. He would like assurance that there will be an adequate supply of water and that neighbors won't suffer. As more subdivisions are proposed, he believes the issue of water supply needs to be addressed. Chairman Jones agreed, and noted this is the largest development this Board has reviewed. Mr. Coplon offered to have a hydro-geologist attend the public hearing if Board wishes, and review the current hydro-linear analysis on this parcel
Board reviewed the following Subdivision Ordinance sections against the submitted application and found the application to be in conformance except as noted in italics:
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. Information combined with #4.
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.
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). See tab #6 of 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). List has been compiled by Town office staff and will be added to the application. Chairman Jones requested that names of property owners across Beech Hill Road be added to the notification list.
7. Any restrictive covenants to be placed on the deeds. To be amended and re-submitted prior to public hearing.
8. Proposed soil erosion and sedimentation control. Drawings reviewed and explained by Mr. Hedefine.
9. Water supply.
Chairman Jones expressed concerns about traffic at the intersection of Pretty Marsh Road and Beech Hill Road. The entrance onto Beech Hill Road is dangerous. Increased traffic during the summer months only exacerbates the problem. Now there is the potential of 38 more vehicles entering Beech Hill Road from this proposed subdivision. She suggested that the solution implemented on the Whitney Farm Road, a stop sign, has been very effective. As a member of the Traffic Committee, Mr. Coplon said he would address the issue with the committee, as well as with this application.
4.2.3 Information on Subdivision
1. Proposed name of subdivision.
2. Number of lots units
3. Date, north point, graphic map scale (show on Plat). See tab #5 of application
4. Proposed lot lines with approximate dimensions and suggested location where known of buildings, subsurface sewage disposal systems, and wells (show on Plat). See tab #7 of application
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 (show 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.
MOTION MADE (Reilly), SECONDED (Clunan), AND UNANIAMOUSLY CARRIED (5-0) TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION AS COMPLETE, PENDING INCLUSION OF THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES (Deed restrictions, items on plat, additional stabilized parking).
IV. New Business
General group discussions
A. Get organized for Land Use changes for 2007 Town Meeting
Chairman Jones reminded Board members that the Planning Board has scheduled a public hearing on November 27, 2006 for the proposed changes to the LUZO and Subdivision Ordinance. Also, Board members are meeting with the Warrant Committee on November 28, 2006.
Proposed changes (deletions with strikethrough and additions with underline) were reviewed and voted on as follows:
1. p. 34 Definition
Existing:
HEIGHT OF A STRUCTURE: The vertical distance between the mean finished grade at the downhill side of the structure and the highest point of the roof, excluding chimneys and antennas.
Proposed Change:
HEIGHT OF A STRUCTURE: The vertical distance between the mean finished original grade at the downhill side of the structure and the highest point of the roof, excluding chimneys and antennas.
MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (7-0) TO RECOMMEND THE PROPOSED CHANGE FOR THE 2007 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT.
2. p. 33 Definitions
Existing:
COOKING FACILITIES: comprise:
(1) a stove, microwave, or other cooking device; and
(2) [a] a sink and/or [b] a refrigerator
Proposed Change:
COOKING FACILITIES: comprise:
(1) a stove, microwave, or other cooking device; and
(2) [a] a sink and/or [b] a refrigerator
A lengthy discussion ensued regarding whether or not the proposed change is more restrictive than the existing definition. The discussion also included how guest cottages are used, and how a sink and refrigerator contribute to "cooking". CEO Keene interprets the current definition as allowing a stove and refrigerator, but not a cooking facility. Some Board members disagreed.
MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (7-0) TO RECOMMEND THE PROPOSED CHANGE FOR THE 2007 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT.
3. p. 3 Section 2.7.6
Proposed Addition:
Driveway Construction: All driveways shall meet the following construction standards:
a) Minimum travel surface width: 12 feet
b) Minimum unobstructed width: 14.5 feet
c) Minimum vertical clearance: 14.5 feet
The minimum construction standards must be maintained at all times to provide adequate ingress and egress for emergency vehicles.
Culverts with a minimum 15 inch diameter shall be installed at the end of driveways to provide for adequate drainage at the intersection with public or private ways where ditching exists.
MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (7-0) TO RECOMMEND THE PROPOSED CHANGE FOR THE 2007 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT.
4. p. 3 Section 2.7.7
Proposed Addition:
Driveways & Roadways - Shall be setback a minimum of 5 feet measured from the edge of the fill extension from property lines.
MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND CARRIED (5-2 Clunan & Tracy) TO RECOMMEND THE PROPOSE CHANGE FOR THE 2007 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT.
5. p. 12 Section 3.5
Existing:
Home Occupation has a "C" for all districts except RP.
Proposed Change:
Replace "C" with "CEO". (See attached for corrections Section 3.5 table)
MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (7-0) TO RECOMMEND THE PROPOSED CHANGE FOR THE 2007 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT.
6. p. 18 Section 3.6 NOTES
Existing:
(d) In all district restrictions on setback of structures from property lines may be varied or nullified by written agreement with the abutting property owner. Said agreement or a copy of said agreement showing signatures shall be filed at the Municipal Office.
Proposed Change:
(d) In all district restrictions on setback of structures from property lines may be varied or nullified by written agreement with the abutting property owner. Said agreement or a copy of said agreement showing signatures shall be filed at the Municipal Office. (See attached for corrections to Section 3.6 table)
MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (7-0) TO RECOMMEND THE PROPOSED CHANGE FOR THE 2007 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT.
7 p. 18 Section 3.6 NOTES
Existing:
(h²) Height: Structures in any Shoreland district shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet. In exceptional cases, which meet the standards of this ordinance and will not adversely affect the skyline of the Town, a Conditional Use Permit may be issued notwithstanding the above height limitations. Placement of fill with the intention of circumventing this height requirement is prohibited.
Proposed Change:
(h²) Height: Structures in any Shoreland district shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet. In exceptional cases, which meet the standards of this ordinance and will not adversely affect the skyline of the Town, a Conditional Use Permit may be issued notwithstanding the above height limitations. Placement of fill with the intention of circumventing this height requirement is prohibited. (See attached for corrections to Section 3.6 table)
MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (7-0) TO RECOMMEND THE PROPOSED CHANGE FOR THE 2007 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT.
8. p. 23 Section 5.6
Existing:
Any application for subdivision approval shall be directed to the Planning Board in accordance with Section 2.2.1.
Proposed Change:
Any application for subdivision approval shall be directed to the Planning Board in accordance with Section 2.2.1 2 of the Subdivision Ordinance of the Town of Mount Desert.
MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (7-0) TO RECOMMEND THE PROPOSED CHANGE FOR THE 2007 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT.
9. p. 25 Section 6.8
Existing:
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.
Proposed Change:
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 on-site parking shall be available.
MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND FAILED (2-5 Andrews, Clunan, Tracy, Reilly, Miller) TO RECOMMEND THE PROPOSED CHANGE FOR THE 2007 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT.
In addition to the foregoing list, the Board agreed to propose the following:
p. 36 Section 15 Definitions
FENCE/WALLS, SOLID: Any fence in which the individual solid portions visually exceed the open portions. The individual solid portions shall not exceed twelve (12) inches in width.
p. 7 Section 3.4 Regulations
3.4.7. Fences and walls: A solid fence (as opposed to a rail or similar fence) and walls, more than four (4) feet in height, measured vertically from the ground directly beneath the fence or wall, shall require either a Code Enforcement Officer or a Conditional Use Permit. Such fences or walls shall not unduly restrict scenic views. The structural side of the fence shall not face the public view.
1. A Code Enforcement Officer Permit may be issued for solid fences or walls up to six (6) feet in height provided that:
a. A setback of six (6) feet is maintained from roads, sidewalks, and right-of-ways.
b. It does not obstruct highway visibility.
c. A plan for vegetative screening, in the six (6) foot setback area, is provided that produces a minimum of twenty (20) percent cover of the fence or wall area. The plan must be implemented and maintained.
2. Fences or walls that do not meet the above criteria shall require a Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Board.
MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED (7-0) TO RECOMMEND THE PROPOSED CHANGES FOR THE 2007 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT.
Board also considered Subdivision Ordinance Section 4 Procedures for Subdivision Review (specifically the need for a formal application, and Section 4.2.4) and decided to postpone proposing any changes because further evaluation is needed.
V. Meeting adjourned at 9:27 p.m. The next scheduled meeting/public hearing(s) is at 6:00 p.m., Monday, November 27, 2006 in the Meeting Room, Town Hall, Northeast Harbor.
Respectfully submitted,
Patti Reilly, Secretary
Changes made to the table in LUZO Section 3.5 Permitted, Conditional, and Excluded uses by District:
Under COMMERCIAL: Home Occupation for all districts except RP, C (Conditional Use Permit Required) changed to CEO (requires permit from CEO).
Changes made to the table in LUZO Seciton 3.6 Dimensional Requirements for Districts:
Page 15 MINIMUM WIDTH OF LOTS *see Note (i) changed to *see Note (d); SETBACKS FROM property lines** changed to property lines and **see Note (d) deleted.
Page 16 SETBACKS FROM property lines** changed to property lines and **see Note (d) deleted.
Page 17 MINIMUM WIDTH OF LOTS *see Note (i) changed to *see Note (d); SETBACKS FROM property lines** changed to property lines and **see Note (d) deleted.
Section 3.6 Dimensional Requirements for Districts: minimum area, width of lots, setbacks, etc.
NOTES:
(a) Uses in Conservation District are regulated by Section 2.4. No structures are permitted in Resource Protection District.
(b) All distances shall be measured horizontally in a straight line.
(c) Measured from edge of right-of-way where legally established or, where not, from edge of paved road surface.
(d) In all districts restrictions on setback of structures from property lines may be varied or nullified by written agreement with the abutting property owner. Said agreement or a copy of said agreement showing signatures shall be filed at the Municipal Office.
(d) Minimum Width Requirements for Cluster Subdivision and Workforce Housing development shall only apply to lots in a subdivision that is approved by the Planning Board under the cluster development provisions. (Formerly (l))
(e) SC setback from shore 75 feet except for water related structures.
(f) A newly created lot, any portion of which is within the State Mandated Shoreland Zone, and which increases the number of lots wholly or partially within the State Mandated Shoreland Zone, must have at least the minimum shore frontage required by this section.
(g) Primary residential use in a Commercial District must meet the dimensional requirements of the adjacent residential district. This requirement does not apply to projects that include covenants held by a qualified workforce housing entity.
(h¹) Height: Structures in any non-Shoreland district shall not exceed forty (40) feet. In exceptional cases, which meet the standards of this ordinance and will not adversely affect the skyline of the Town, a Conditional Use Permit may be issued, notwithstanding the above height limitations. Placement of fill with the intention of circumventing this height requirement is prohibited.
(h²) Height: Structures in any Shoreland district shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet. In exceptional cases, which meet the standards of this ordinance and will not adversely affect the skyline of the Town, a Conditional Use Permit may be issued, notwithstanding the above height limitations. Placement of fill with the intention of circumventing this height requirement is prohibited.
(i) All lot lines abutting a road in a subdivision approved after March 4, 1997 shall run to the middle of the road's right-of-way.
(j) Lots abutting a cul-de-sac may have a width of lot on a road or right-of-way that is not less than 50% of the minimum width of lot required for the District in which it is located, provided that the width of lot at the required setback from a road or right of way equals the normal required width of lot for the District in which it is located.
(k) Minimum Lot Size for Cluster Subdivision and Workforce Housing development shall only apply to lots in a subdivision that is approved by the Planning Board under the cluster development provisions.
(l) Minimum Width Requirements for Cluster Subdivision and Workforce Housing development shall only apply to lots in a subdivision that is approved by the Planning Board under the cluster development provisions. (Becomes the new (d))
| 
