PLANNING BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 11, 2005
Board Members Present Public Present
Marc Sevigny, Chairman Rick Savage Mildred Johnson Bruce Tripp
James Clunan, Vice Chairman Eric Jones Marion Barnes Kelly Brown
Heather Jones, Secretary Steve Demers Frank Barnes Mike Darcy
Joseph Tracy Thomas Savage Steve Pinkham Matt Morehouse
Schofield (Sandy) Andrews III, alt Richard Wommack Doug Hopkins Mike DeAngelis
Patti Reilly, alt John Fernald Andrew McCullough Jim Bright
Lisa Renault Betty Fernald Celeste Law Harriet Whittington
Brian Reilly Noelle Reilly
Kim Keene, CEO; Darcel Winslow, Recording Secretary
I. The meeting was called to order at 6:04 p.m.
II. The draft minutes from the 09-26-05 meeting were unanimously approved as amended.
III. Public Hearings - Conditional Use Permits
A. NAME: Mary Morgan/Steve Demers, agent
LOCATION: 21 Rowland Rd., Seal Harbor
TAX MAP:29 LOT: 25 ZONE: R1
PURPOSE: To install a 76 foot stockade fence
Site Inspection: 5:40 PM
This item was taken out of order as all sections necessary had previously been covered and found in conformance at previous meetings. Mr. Demers is simply here for a vote on this matter.
It was confirmed the notice was published in the Bar Harbor Times and that the correct abutters had been notified.
No conflict of interest was reported. The regular members present are the voting members for this hearing.
Site inspection was attended by Mr. Andrews, Mrs. Reilly, Mr. Clunan, Mrs. Jones and reported by Mr. Andrews. He explained that only one abutter was present at the site inspection and that person was simply curious, they had no objections to what is being proposed. The abutter was pleased that the fence was not as long as previously thought.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION (Andrews/Jones)
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0.
B. NAME: Thomas Savage
LOCATION: 1265 Main Street, Somesville
TAX MAP: 9 LOT: 106 ZONE: R2
PURPOSE: Amendment to existing CUP # 19-2003
Site Inspection: 3:30 PM
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 attended by Mr. Tracy and Mr. Andrews and reported by Mr. Andrews. He explained that the land naturally falls steeply, it is approximately 125 feet deep by 35 feet wide. Mr. Savage has had extensive fill brought in on his property and the area is open to the road. Mr. Savage uses this area to park several vehicles and very large tree equipment.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION (Tracy/ Jones)
Mr. Sevigny asked Mr. Savage to explain why he is here, Mr. Savage answered by asking Mr. Sevigny to explain to him why he is here.
Mr. Sevigny explained that the area Mr. Savage uses as a parking lot is not where he indicated (on the right) parking would be on the original application.
Mr. Savage stated that he had adequate permits to run a CUP business from that property and has permits for his fill and a Maine DOT permit for the driveway and entrance.
Mr. Tracy asked Mr. Savage if he would consider parking the trucks in a specific spot, as a condition on the application.
Mr. Savage stated he would not agree to that condition. He explained that he lives on a dangerous road and he did this type of entrance/parking area for safety reasons. This enables his trucks to get off the road and back into his driveway safely without going into the road.
Mr. Tracy asked if he would agree to park behind the house and stated there is enough room there for 6 trucks.
Mrs. Jones asked if Mr. Savage has had his trucks through a winter.
Mr. Savage indicated he had not had trucks there over the winter the area was finished this spring. No, he will not agree to park behind his house, this limits him to only the exact length of his trucks. He indicated that he has only 3 trucks and a chipper and doesn’t understand the extent of the “eye-sore” he is supposedly causing.
Mr. Tracy suggested that Mr. Savage do landscaping to screen the area.
Mr. Savage stated that he will not spend thousands of dollars on landscaping; he is permitted to use this property in the way that he currently is and he feels he has not in any way abused the use as permitted with his previous approval.
Chairman Sevigny explained visual impact to Mr. Savage and suggested buffers.
Mr. Savage explained that the area on the original application is more unsafe than the current parking area. Mr. Savage stated that he employs several Mount Desert residents and he believes he does the best that a young person can do; the yard is kept clean and he still does not understand what terrible visual impact a few red trucks can cause. He added that if people would just keep their eyes on the road where they are supposed to be instead of gawking at his property, there would be no visual impact at all. He will not agree to any restrictions on his application. He doesn’t put his vehicles in front of his house; there is no eye-sore.
Mr. Clunan asked how much room it takes to back a truck in.
Mr. Savage responded all 37 feet.
Mr. Andrews suggested a condition of parking as far back away from Main Street as possible given the circumstances [water, mud, etc.]
Mr. Savage was willing to agree to the condition Mr. Andrews recommended.
Chairman Sevigny explained to Mr. Savage that he would suggest a south side addition and some screening. He added that this is only a suggestion, not a condition.
Jim Bright, a member of the public, stated that he believes the Planning Board is being hard on Mr. Savage, he drives around the area in question everyday and he sees no negative visual impact at all. He believes the Board is picking and choosing what they enforce.
Chairman Sevigny suggested getting back to the application in front of them and believes the condition proposed is a good solution.
Brian Reilly, a member of the public, explained that he believes the Board is suggesting a condition that they can not enforce.
Chairman Sevigny stated that that will be for the courts to decide later, If necessary.
The Standards of Sections 3 and 6 of the LUZO, as amended March 8, 2005 were reviewed at the time of the original application therefore only the Standards of Section 5.7 of the LUZO, as amended March 8, 2005, were reviewed and found to be in conformance, as noted on the application.
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0.
B. NAME: David Rockefeller, Sr./Andrew McCullough, agent
LOCATION: 92 Cooksey Drive, Seal Harbor
TAX MAP: 1 LOT: 6 ZONE: RW3
PURPOSE: To widen, lengthen and deepen an existing fire pond.
Site Inspection: 5:15 PM
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 attended by Mrs. Jones, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Clunan and Mrs. Reilly and reported by Mrs. Reilly. Two members of the public attended as well, Mr. Hopkins and Mr. Pinkham. The proposal is to double the size of the existing fire pond. It will service existing homes in this area as well as the new subdivision. The proposed pond will have a 2500 foot radius and store 72,000 gallons of water. DEP found their application to be in compliance and complete and they received their DEP approval today. A copy of the approval is on file at the Town Office.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION (Tracy/Clunan)
Andrew McCullough explained that both the Kogod’s and the Rockefellers received notices from their insurance companies indicating a significant concern for the lack of water available to them for fire prevention. The homes in this area are very large and the insurance companies do not believe that the current 15000 gallon capacity is sufficient.
To minimize visual impact and maximize use, they have decided on a kidney shaped pond. The depth to bedrock is good here and the proposed spot is the most economical.
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.
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0.
C. NAME: Eric and Heather Jones
LOCATION: 83 Beech Hill Crossroad, Mount Desert
TAX MAP: 10 LOT 15 ZONE: R1
PURPOSE: To amend CUP # 99-17, to be able to store bait on property at trap pile.
Site Inspection: 4:00 PM
It was confirmed the notice was published in the Bar Harbor Times.
Conflict of interest was reported by Mrs. Jones, she recused herself. The regular members and an alternate member present are the voting members for this hearing.
Site Inspection attended by Mr. Clunan, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Tracy, Mrs. Reilly, Mr. and Mrs. Jones and Mr. Womack, an abutter. It was reported by Mr. Clunan.
A small building is proposed for the purpose of storing bait, the site is relatively level and
water runs freely away from the property. The number of trees cut will be about
three; only enough to make room for the building.
Chairman Sevigny explained to those present about the Appeal made to the Zoning
Board of Appeals, he indicated that it was only the second appeal in five years. Not all of
the Zoning Board of Appeals members were present at the meeting and the result was a
3/3 tie. A unanimous vote was then made to send the application back to the Planning
Board for another review of Sections 6.9 and 6.10 of the LUZO and Mr. Madeira stated
that if the two sections were discussed; they were not discussed enough. The Zoning
Board did not have the proper paperwork for the appeal and he stated that the
information in the minutes and the application were different.
Mr. Sevigny explained to those present who Mr. Madeira was and his role on the Zoning
Board, he also indicated that at that appeal it seems that many people in addition to the
appellate and appealee had a lot to say regarding the appeal. This application is back
before the Planning Board for those reasons.
Chairman Sevigny stated that on 9/29/2005, Town Manager MacDonald sent an email to
Maine Municipal Association Legal Department explaining the circumstances and asked
for their opinion and guidance on this matter. He read the response from Becky Seel,
Senior Staff Attorney at MMA Legal Services into the record.
Mr. Sevigny went on to explain that they have three choices regarding proceeding with
this application.
1. Send this right back to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
2. Have a Public Hearing tonight on the very same application, reviewing only sections 6.9 and 6.10 as indicated by the Zoning Board.
3. Accept this as a brand new application and start the process over again allowing anyone who wants to speak and voice their concerns the chance to do so.
Mrs. Renault stated that she would like to go through this as a new application
Mr. Tracy agreed.
Mr. Clunan agrees, treat like a new application and give everyone the chance to speak.
Mrs. Reilly indicated she would like it to be heard as a new application as well.
Chairman Sevigny recognized that the majority would like this treated as a whole new
application and instructed the public that due to the large number of people here to speak
on this application, comments and questions will need to have a time limit of 3 minutes
for each person. He also indicated that Section 6 will be reviewed in its entirety.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION (Renault/Tracy)
Mrs. Jones noted for the record that several people present at this meeting didn’t
bother to take the time to come to or comment on this application when it was previously
before the Planning Board for approval, until it came time for the appeal. Mr. and Mrs.
Jones agreed to begin the process again as suggested.
Mr. Jones explained that he is proposing a 12 foot by 16 foot cooler/building to store bait
in for his business. He said some bait will be frozen and some will be stored in 55 gallon
drums (barrels). The drums are unsealed and without lids. The proposed building is 85
feet away from the road.
Chairman Sevigny asked Mr. Jones how the bait will be transported to the site.
Mr. Jones explained that he will haul the bait himself with his truck and it will be lifted off
his truck and into the building with some type of hoist.
Chairman Sevigny asked Mr. Jones why he needs to store bait.
Mr. Jones explained that due to lack of quality and quantity at certain times of the year, he
sometimes runs into shortages.
Chairman Sevigny asked Mr. Jones what happens if he has no bait.
Mr. Jones stated if he has no bait, he can not work.
Chairman Sevigny asked what color the building is proposed to be.
Mr. Jones indicated he didn’t know what color, but it will have electricity and be
refrigerated.
Mrs. Reilly asked Mr. Jones how much bait will be stored in the building at a time.
Mr. Jones explained that he is not certain but he believes 12 barrels would fit totaling
approximately 90 bushel.
Mr. Clunan asked how much bait is used out fishing each time.
Mr. Jones said it is hard to say, it could range from 5 bushel to 15 bushel. One barrel of
bait equals 4 1/2 bushel.
Mrs. Reilly asked if he had a power failure plan.
Mr. Jones stated no specific plan; he hopes it would stay cold. The bait is no good to him
if it is not refrigerated.
Mr. Tracy asked Mr. Jones if bait has a strong odor.
Mr. Jones explained that he works around bait everyday, so he doesn’t notice the smell.
He does know that fresh bait has much less odor than bait that is not fresh [for obvious
reasons]
Chairman Sevigny asked how close the nearest neighbor is and if there are any other
businesses in that area.
Mr. Jones responded he is not sure exactly how far the nearest neighbor is and yes, there
are other businesses in that area.
CEO Keene stated there are several other businesses in the area.
Mrs. Jones stated that this is a sealed unit, there will be very little odor if any coming from
a sealed, refrigerated building.
Mr. Andrews asked Mr. Jones if he had ever received any complaints about odor on
his property coming from his traps or rope.
Mr. Jones stated he has not.
CEO Keene reported that she has not received any complaints about the Jones’ property either. She stated that it is 80 feet 7 inches from the building site to the edge of the road and approximately 82 feet from the building site to the property line. There is a utility pole where the building site will be and they may need to slash a lot of trees for new utility lines making the site very visible from the road.
Mr. Jones explained that he had Michael Musetti come to the site and look at it, for that very reason and was told by Mr. Musetti that the lines could be run right through the trees.
He also indicated that he has all necessary permits and otherwise to run his business from his home. Running his business from home requires traps, rope and bait.
Chairman Sevigny explained that he is looking back at the Zoning Boards minutes for the purpose of answering the questions they previously had only, not for any other reason.
He stated that the minutes from the 1999 Planning Board meeting state in conversation only that there will be no storage of bait; it was not a condition on the original application.
Chairman Sevigny asked Mr. Jones how often bait spills.
Mr. Jones stated that he is simply picking it up out of the truck and putting it in the shed; there should be no spillage.
Chairman Sevigny asked Mr. Jones about the prevailing winds in that area.
Mr. Clunan responded to the question stating that the entire Northern Hemisphere’s prevailing wind is from the West.
Mr. Andrews asked if the shed will be empty sometimes.
Mr. Jones indicated that he doesn’t want to back himself into a corner but yes, the building will be empty most of the time, they run into problems with bait mostly in the spring, although it can happen at any time.
Chairman Sevigny asked will you only be storing bait to keep you from not working.
Mr. Jones responded by saying that is correct.
Chairman Sevigny asked Mr. Jones if there is any wildlife in that area.
Mr. Jones stated yes, he would think so.
Chairman Sevigny asked Mr. Jones if he thought that his bait would be more appealing to the wildlife than what is already around the area.
Mr. Jones stated it is a sealed building; it won’t be appealing to wildlife at all.
Mr. Andrews asked, At Islesford, the place Mr. Jones usually uses to get his bait, does anyone know how much bait is stored there. He stated it is a great odor inside of the bait building, but outside of the building, you can’t smell it at all. In fact, there is a restaurant next door to the bait storage and there is no impact or odor at all, and the restaurant is only 75-100 feet away. Some of the bait stored at the building is not even under cover. There is no impact.
Frank Barnes, an abutter to the Jones property, asked if any other lobstermen store bait on their property.
Chairman Sevigny stated none that he remembers but all applications are unique. The Comprehensive plan, the LUZO and the Subdivision ordinance must be followed if they are applicable to the application before them.
Mr. Clunan reminded Mr. Barnes that he lives in an R1 zone; commercial uses are permitted in that zone. Some uses are permitted and some are not, it is a mixed use zone.
Mr. Barnes asked what discussion was made when they zoned that particular area.
Mr. Tracy explained that the Planning Board can not refer back to previous times or determine what discussion was made in zoning a particular area; they can only look at what is before them.
Mr. Barnes asked why no bait storage was only discussed and not put in as a condition.
Chairman Sevigny explained that this was discussed in conversation only; it was not a condition in any way. That is why it is indicated as part of the discussion but not written into the conditions of the permit.
Mr. Tracy added bait storage was not an issue at that time.
Chairman Sevigny asked Mr. Jones, If he has already been permitted for commercial fishing, why he came back before the Board for a building. It would seem to fall under the use he is already permitted for.
Mrs. Jones responded to the question by saying that The Town told her to be safe, she should apply.
CEO Keene explained, by reading the definition of “commercial fishing”; it does need to be approved and permitted by the Planning Board.
Chairman Sevigny stated that he disagrees with CEO Keene.
Mr. Barnes stated he is also concerned about the compressor that will need to run; it will be noisy.
Mr. Jones explained he has not yet decided on refrigeration issues.
Chairman Sevigny asked Mr. Jones how far his home is from the proposed building.
Mr. Jones indicated he had not measured the distance, but believes it to be about 300 feet.
Chairman Sevigny asked about the distances from the other neighbors.
Mrs. Jones responded to this question. She indicated that the Wommack’s are about 300 feet, at an angle. The Barnes are between 250 and 300 feet away; “Debbie lives down on the corner” and they don’t even know where Celeste Law lives.
Mrs. Barnes stated she feels there is a big difference between storing and painting buoys and storing bait. 90 bushel of bait in barrels will stink and slosh. She indicated that she asked Mr. Jones what he proposes to do if bait is spilled; she indicated his answer was to just throw lime down. She went back to Mr. Andrews comment and stated she has been at that restaurant he was talking about, and it does stink. She stated she will be able to see and/or smell this building when she walks to her mailbox.
Mrs. Jones declared that the Barnes Family doesn’t even have a mailbox.
Mrs. Barnes stated this dilemma would not even be going on if the Planning Board had not told her husband to leave at the original meeting.
Mr. Clunan explained to those present what Mr. Barnes was told at that original meeting. He was told they may or may not have a quorum; it would depend on when other members arrived. Mr. Barnes chose to leave the meeting and not return; he was not instructed to do so in anyway. This was his own choice.
Mrs. Reilly stated to Mrs. Barnes that leaving was his own decision, “You left, it’s your problem not ours, you should have stayed and sat”.
Chairman Sevigny explained that sometimes things are taken out of order, this is not unusual or uncustomary; it depends on the circumstances.
Mrs. Barnes again stated she is concerned about odor and sloshes.
Mr. Andrews asked Mrs. Barnes if she has had problems in the past with the odor from his traps and rope.
Mrs. Barnes indicated she had not.
Mr. Andrews explained that most often the rope and traps smell worse than the bait itself.
Celeste Law stated that she is only about 50 feet across from the Jones property and she has been around a lot of bait and bait sheds. She also stated that “she is not aware of a bait storage anywhere that doesn’t stink” and stated “If there is one, she would like to visit it”. She stated she is also concerned about the wild animals this bait storage will attract.
Mrs. Jones explained that Ms. Law is incorrect in saying she is 50 feet away. The shed is 80 feet from the road and then the road itself is at least 30 feet across, she is much more than 50 feet away. She also stated that wild animals come around all the time already, when she sees coyotes and raccoons she calls the wardens. A sealed container will not attract animals. Mrs. Jones also noted that even outdoor domestic cats attract coyotes and raccoons.
Mr. Tracy indicated that if this storage shed did in fact attract wild animals at first, the animals will investigate and realize there is no way to get to the food and leave. They will not keep coming back to an area where there is no food source.
Ms. Law stated that she believes there will be odor, the screening will be diminished and many trees will be cut down. She stated that she is literally across the street and her property value will decrease. She said that Mr. Jones said his fishing business is a supplement; she believes if it is just a supplement, he doesn’t really need it at all. She stated not to mention the noise that his proposed building will bring.
Mr. Tracy asked Ms. Law in this experience she stated to have with bait and bait sheds, just how many she has been around. Ms. Law would not answer the question. Mr. Tracy rephrased the question and asked “You have no experience with bait sheds at all, do you”?
Ms. Law responded, “No, I do not, my perception differs from yours.”
Mr. Tracy again explained to Ms. Law that this is a mixed use area and what that means.
Ms. Law stated that the Planning Board members are belittling their feelings and helping the Jones’.
Mr. Tracy responded by stating “How can you say we are helping them, they already had approval and we are making them do the whole process over again”.
Ms. Law stated that the screening is diminishing and this will make it worse.
CEO Keene responded to Ms. Law’s statement by explaining she was at the Jones site doing measurements with a 100 foot tape. Only three trees will need to be cut to accommodate the proposed building. It will not have the visual impact that Ms. Law is describing. She added that the Jones’ already have approval for a commercial fishing business on their property and they are well within what they are permitted for, to expand their business if they want too.
Mrs. Renault asked Ms. Law, “Do you actually live across the street?”
Mrs. Law answered, “My proposed site”
Mrs. Renault stated “That is not what I asked you, do you live across the street?’
Ms. Law again answered, “My proposed site”
Chairman Sevigny added that actually he believes there is a shed across the street from the Jones property and asked Ms. Law if that was her shed?
Ms. Law stated her shed is not the same thing as a bait shed.
Kelly Brown, a Northeast Harbor resident, asked what the Board does regarding property value.
Chairman Sevigny responded by saying “we don’t, we need to follow the standards.”
Jim Bright stated he is in favor of the applicant and believes the application should be approved. He explained that he has known Mr. Jones for some time and can say that Mr. Jones is a professional fisherman. In fact, he added, you could eat off the platform on his boat, it is so clean. He also informed Ms. Law that he has the same exact permit that Mr. Jones is applying for tonight and his property value hasn’t gone down, in fact the property value has quadrupled.
Matthew Morehouse, another resident stated that to operate a business under a CUP, specifically commercial fishing; storing bait would certainly be part of the job. Commercial fishing is allowed on R1 zoned property and what Mr. Jones is requesting is not unreasonable. He suggested a condition of not storing bait outside of the building. That alone may alleviate the concerns.
Chairman Sevigny asked Mr. Jones if he would agree with a condition that states bait can only be stored inside the building and if a spill occurs, he will promptly clean it up and deodorize.
Mr. Jones stated of course he would agree that is what he is asking for.
Mrs. Law asked how the visual impact this causes is any different than the visual impact they were discussing with Tom Savage.
Chairman Sevigny explained the differences in the two permits and restated that each application is unique.
Ms. Law said this shed does cause her visual impact; she is only 50 feet away.
Mrs. Renault again indicated that Ms. Laws property may only be 50 feet from the Jones property, but she does not live 50 feet away, as she is making it sound.
Mr. Tracy explained that they are applying for a rectangular shed; they can use it for anything they want.
Ms. Law stated that, “All combined they are in violation of whatever.”
Chairman Sevigny asked Ms. Law if she was talking about visual impact.
Mr. Tracy added that the Planning Board let Haynes put up a huge red building; that’s impacting.
Ms. Law stated to Chairman Sevigny that she wants copies of the LUZO, the Comprehensive Plan and Michael MacDonald’s letter and response from MMA Legal Services.
Chairman Sevigny told Ms. Law to see the Town to purchase those items.
Ms. Law stated, “It seems your decision is already made”.
Mrs. Barnes asked for an explanation of what exactly a hoist is.
Mr. Jones responded by explaining it is similar to a mast and boom set up.
Mr. Tracy explained there are many options for moving bulky objects.
Mrs. Barnes stated that she believes on good faith that the Jones’ will keep things in good condition, but did ask what she could do if they did not.
Chairman Sevigny explained the process to Mrs. Barnes.
Ms. Law asked how they can approve an application that clearly violates 6.8, 6.9 and 6.10.
Mr. Tracy stated to Ms. Law that 6.10 would be her only avenue of complaint.
Chairman Sevigny asked Ms. Law, “Do you know just how many businesses are up there in that area?’
Ms. Law responded, “No, not really, but they aren’t selling toilet art”.
Mrs. Jones responded by stating that “Ms. Law did not want her shed compared to a building to store bait in, and I don’t appreciate my building being called toilet art!”
CEO Keene stated that to her it appears that Ms. Law has a problem with the use of the building, not the building itself, which is what they are applying for.
Ms. Law stated that “The property is zoned commercial, but most are residential homes, not bait sheds!”
The color of the building was discussed and the Board suggested a neutral color, Mr. Jones agreed to this as a condition, as well.
Ms. Law asked “Will you require screening?’
Chairman Sevigny explained that the Board is requiring them to paint the building a neutral color to minimize the visual impact.
Ms. Law stated “but their cutting of trees continues”
Mr. Jones stated he would not agree to a buffer, it is a neutral colored building.
Mr. Tracy stated to Ms. Law that ‘No, we will not require a buffer.”
The Standards of Section 5.7 and The Standards of Section 6. of the LUZO, as amended March 8, 2005 were reviewed, in their entirety, and found to be in conformance, as noted on the application.
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0
Subdivision Application
E. NAME: Mikel DeAngelis/Ivy Woods Subdivision
LOCATION: Blanchard Road, Somesville
TAX MAP: 9 LOT: 12 ZONE: R1
PURPOSE: Subdivision Completeness Review
Site Inspection: 4:30 PM
It was confirmed the notice was published in the Bar Harbor Times.
No conflict of interest was reported. Three regular members present and two alternate members are the voting members for this hearing.
Site Inspection attended by CEO Keene, Mr. Clunan, Mrs. Reilly and Mr. Andrews and reported by Mr. Andrews. The attending members walked down the road to look at the property and found everything to be exactly as indicated on the plat.
The application was found complete at the previous meeting and Mr. DeAngelis was asked only to add the names of the property owners across the street to the proposed plat and to add the name Blanchard Road to the road, as such, on the plat. Mr. DeAngelis’ surveyor, Tom Benson provided the information requested.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION (Tracy/Reilly)
The Standards of Section 5 of the Subdivision Ordinance and Section 6. of the LUZO, as amended March 8, 2005 were reviewed and found to be in conformance, as noted on the application.
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0.
IV. Unfinished Business
A. Subdivision Name – Arthur Palmer Trust Subdivision
OWNER/APPLICANT:– Arthur Palmer Trust, Steven Salsbury, agent
LOCATION: Gray Farm Road, Mt. Desert
Map 11 Lot 69 ZONE RW3
PURPOSE – Completeness Review of proposed 7 lot subdivision of 36.4 acres
No conflict of interest was reported. Three regular members and two alternate members present are the voting members for this hearing.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION DUE TO NO RESPONSE FROM THE DEP, AWAITING APPROVAL (Tracy/Andrews)
This application will be placed on the agenda for the 10/24/2005 meeting.
V. New Business
CEO Keene asked Chairman Sevigny whether the Lehmen letter should be addressed. Due to the lateness of the evening, the Board voted (5-0 unanimous) to table the discussion until their next scheduled meeting of 10/24/2005.
VI. Meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. The next scheduled meeting/public hearing(s) is at 6:00 p.m., Monday, October 24 in the Meeting Room, Town Hall, Northeast Harbor.
| 
