Town of Mount Desert Planning Board Approved
Minutes of April 26, 2004 5-10-2004
Board Members Present Public Present
Marc Sevigny, Chairman Doug Chapman
James Clunan, Vice Chairman James Bright
Heather Jones, Secretary Campbell Cary
Joseph Tracy Robert Ho
Samuel M. Fox III, alt Mark Dunbar
Robert Coolidge, alt Selena Dunbar
Michael Phillips
Jeff Katz
Bill Haynes
Brent Hamor, CEO; Barbara Williams, Assistant; Ellen Kappes, Recording Secretary
I. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
II. The draft minutes from the April 12, 2004 meeting were unanimously approved as amended.
III. Public Hearings - Conditional Use Permits (CUP)
A. Tabled from April 12, 2004
NAME: Nancy Ho - owner/Samuel R. Coplon - applicant
LOCATION: Sound Drive, Northeast Harbor
TAX MAP: 8 LOT 39 ZONE: Residential 1 and Rural Woodland 2
PURPOSE: To construct a bridge having a span of approximately 25 feet
Mr. Sevigny said the LUZO requires a CUP for the bridge because it is a fresh water related structure. It was determined to be a structure more than 25 feet in length. Mr. Chapman understood the length requirement and also that the bridge would be in an area where there is a minimum impact on the wetlands. He said the Hos and the Carys had been meeting to work out the shielding, putting a buffer in there to the reasonable satisfaction of the Carys.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION ((Tracy/Fox)
The application was found to be in order. The regular members present and alternate Dr Fox are the voting members for this hearing.
The Board reviewed the application against the following sections of the LUZO:
3.4.13 Fresh Water Related Structures
l. Access from shore. Mr. Chapman confirmed the applicant agrees the best management practices will be followed in the construction of the bridge in terms of the control of erosion.
2. Uses. Mr. Sevigny understood that there are no existing uses at the moment. Mr. Bright read the definition of use on Page 32. The use now is there is water running off and it is pretty to look at, very easy to define standards, he said. Mr. Sevigny noted there is a use now but the Board does not think the bridge interferes with the use of the land. The Board had already determined that, because of DEP findings, the current use is that of a wetland and that the use of the wetland is not impacted by a bridge.
3. Fisheries. There are no fisheries to be affected.
4. Size. Mr. Chapman said the bridge would be the minimum needed to cross over the wetlands. The Board finds the facility is no larger than necessary and is consistent with the
existing uses, conditions and character of the area.
5. Piers, docks, etc. Mr. Sevigny indicated the CUP was why the Board was there that night and said issuing guidelines were not necessary at that time.
Land Use Zoning Ordinance, as amended through March 4, 2004, Section 6. STANDARDS OF SECTION 6
The Standards of Section 6. of the LUZO, as amended March 2, 2004 were reviewed and found to be in conformance, as noted on the application.
Mr. Bright was concerned that Mr. Cary was not there. At that time, Mr. Cary appeared at the meeting and was asked if there is an agreement with the Hos about buffering. Mr. Cary said they had an accommodation about the bridge, a gentlemen's agreement. Mr. Sevigny requested a copy of the accommodation for the record. Mr. Tracy did not think a copy would be needed for a gentlemen's agreement. Mrs. Jones said a copy is needed because reference to it had been made at the meeting. Mr. Chapman agreed to formalize an agreement for informational purposes only.
Mr. Bright said the bridge opens up land which never had buildings on it and therefore would change the character of that section of the Town. Mr. Chapman said it was a quarry area. If there was ever a change, it was in getting away from an area being mined. Discussion followed about where the quarries were. Mr. Clunan said perhaps there is a dilemma about the town's character in this section of the Town. At the last meeting it was noted how many more road cuts have appeared along that stretch of highway. Members of the public had suggested referring the matter to the Traffic Committee to see about lowering the speed limit. That says to him the character of the area is changing. He wondered how the Board could interpret something you can't measure. Mr. Tracy said there is no subdivision that
the Board has ever permitted that hasn't changed the nature of that area. He did not find that argument held any water. Dr. Fox said it would be important to minimize the noise created when vehicles cross the bridge. The Board was assured at the last meeting that the bridge would be paved over with asphalt to inhibit any noise. Mr. Bright said the character of the neighborhood would be changed because the Board would be allowing a subdivision with homes that will be up to 5,000 square feet. The average home in that area is 1,250 square feet. Guest houses and outbuildings would also be allowed. What is now a year-round area will become a summer enclave. Mr. Sevigny disagreed with that assessment and told Mr. Bright he is entitled to file an appeal. Mr. Bright said it is in process.
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0
B. NAME: William & Charles Haynes
LOCATION: 40 Sylvan Rd, Northeast Harbor
TAX MAP: 25 LOT: 54 ZONE: Village Commercial
PURPOSE: Amend existing CUP #12-02 for Services 3 Carpentry Shop and storage of equipment to increase building size with a 24 ft x 48 ft addition.
SITE INSPECTION: 5:30 p.m.
It was confirmed the notice was published in the Bar Harbor Times.
No conflict of interest was reported. The regular members present and alternate member Dr, Fox are the voting members for this hearing.
Mr. Tracy reported on the site inspection. Ms Jones, Mr. Clunan, Dr. Fox and he had visited the site. They saw the existing building and four stakes which clearly mark the corners of the proposed new structure. There appears to be adequate parking. With a flat grade, erosion is not an issue. There is no vegetation to be removed. Mr. Haynes described his plan.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION. (Jones/Fox)
Mr. Haynes said the building would be the same height as the one there now, approximately 22 feet. Mrs. Jones noted the building meets the set backs.
Land Use Zoning Ordinance, as amended through March 4, 2003, Section 6. STANDARDS OF SECTION 6
The Standards of Section 6. of the LUZO, as amended March 2, 2004 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
Tabled from March 8, 2004
Conditional Use Permit Applications - Public Hearings
A. NAME: Jack Katz
LOCATION: Otter Creek Dr, Otter Creek
TAX MAP: 33 LOT: 44 ZONE: VR1
PURPOSE: fill in excess of 50 yards on slopes greater than 4:1
At the request of the applicant, the board tabled the application to May 10, 2004 to allow him time to finish gathering paperwork.
C. NAME: Edith Dunham Crowley
LOCATION: Lower Dunbar Rd, Seal Harbor
AX MAP: 31 LOT: 99 ZONE: Village Residential 1
PURPOSE: Animal husbandry, keep up to 8 hens
SITE INSPECTION: 5:00 p.m.
The applicant was not present. Abutter Mr. Katz said there is no water, no electricity. The chickens would be bait for the coyotes in the area. Mr. Sevigny disagreed saying a coop keeps predators out. Electricity is not required. People bring water to a coop. After discussing whether or not to table the application, the Board decided to wait for the applicant.
Mrs. Jones suggested reviewing the sketch plan before the 11 Sea Street applications.
V. New Business
A. Subdivision Sketch Plan Review
OWNER - Mark Dunbar
TAX MAP 10 LOT 12-1 ZONE Residential 1
Cider Ridge Road, Mount Desert
Mr. Dunbar showed his sketch plan for splitting a two acre lot down the middle into two one acre lots. Mrs. Jones is an abutter and will have to recuse herself from voting. Mr. Tracy owns a piece of land across Cider Ridge Road. Mr. Dunbar does not need a survey before the Board's site visit. Neighbors may show up but must come to the Planning Board to make comments. The site visit was set for May 10, 2004. Mr. Dunbar will be notified with the time.
Continuation of Public Hearing
B. NAME: Kathleen Bollman, Dominick Coyne, Michael Phillips/Applicant Robert Coolidge
LOCATION: 11 Sea St, Northeast Harbor
TAX MAP: 24 LOT: 101 ZONE: Village Commercial
PURPOSE: building height in excess of 40 feet
C. NAME: Kathleen Bollman, Dominick Coyne, Michael Phillips/Applicant Robert Coolidge
LOCATION: 11 Sea St, Northeast Harbor
TAX MAP: 24 LOT: 101 ZONE: Village Commercial
PURPOSE: multi family dwelling: five apartments
D. NAME: Kathleen Bollman, Dominick Coyne, Michael Phillips/Applicant Robert Coolidge
LOCATION: 11 Sea St, Northeast Harbor
TAX MAP: 24 LOT: 101 ZONE: Village Commercial
PURPOSE: restaurant
E. NAME: Kathleen Bollman, Dominick Coyne, Michael Phillips/Applicant Robert Coolidge
LOCATION: 11 Sea St, Northeast Harbor
TAX MAP: 24 LOT: 101 ZONE: Village Commercial
PURPOSE: tree removal
Subdivision Application - Public Hearing tabled from March 8, 2004
SUBDIVISION NAME - 11 Sea Street Subdivision
OWNER/APPLICANT - Kathleen K. Bollman, Dominick Coyne and Michael Phillips
Representative - Robert Coolidge
TAX Map 24 Lot 101 ZONE Village Commercial
PURPOSE - Building subdivision with 5 dwelling units, 1 office, and 3 commercial units
Mr. Coolidge recused himself from the hearing. It was last advertised on Jan.15, 2004 but apparently not recently. The Board discussed a possible need for more recent advertising but opted to continue with the review.
Mr. Coolidge and Mr. Phillips explained the sketch plan. MMA had ruled they could only have two apartments. They are trying to make the building fit with the neighborhood. The basement level is below grade. The entrance off Fire House Lane comes into an elevator for handicapped access, public bathrooms, retail space, service kitchen, mechanical rooms and space for a dumpster. The dumpster on the Sea Street side will be behind louvered doors. The five parking spaces are for employees and apartment dwellers.
They are still trying to figure out the roof lines. They want to give it a classic pitch because it will be on the downward slope from Sea Street and fairly prominent from Asticou, across the harbor and in the harbor. It needs to be part of the historical character of the Town. Ms Williams asked about the height of the Holmes Store building. Mr. Phillips thought it is well over 55 feet. From the middle of the lower grade to the peak of the hip roof, the 11 Sea Street building would measure 47 feet 8 inches. The peak is back, about a third of the way up the building. It is buffered by a stand of trees to the west and would not affect anyone's view on that side. It would be downward from Main Street buildings. Asked by Mr. Clunan what the skyline looks like now from the marina, Mr. Phillips said
the condominiums, the Greene house, several other gambrel roofed houses and the Docksider are on the right. The Town building and the parking lot are on the left. There is a great grade change between the end of the Town building and the parking lot and then this site goes up. The grade on the site changes 14 feet from one corner to the other. From there the grade goes up another 16 to 18 feet before it gets to Main Street with the Nitze house and the Carter's metal building on the left. Across the street is the Holmes Store. Below that is a farm-style house and below that are two other houses. The mass of the building won't appear to be as big as it is because of the step of the hillside. From the lowest point, it would be more than 40 feet. It would be under 40 feet on the high side. To get the 7 feet on the hip roof, the section that would protrude would be less than 15 feet in width, going to a point. When seen from the harbor, it
will look like it fits in. A flat roofed brick style building is not really the vernacular of this town, Mr. Phillips said. The 7 feet would give them a traditional building.
Mr. Clunan mentioned the style of the library, recently termed village vernacular and asked if the applicants thought the hip roof would not adversely affect the skyline of the Town. A proper hip roof would definitely not do so was the reply. The intention is to make it look like a renovated, not a new building.
Mr. Phillips noted that the actual height violation doesn't occur until a third of the way into the middle of the building if a hip roof is used. He understood the Board had said at the sketch plan review that it would consider a violation if it wasn't so pronounced at the downward side of the building. They tried to accommodate that in the design. Dr. Fox recalled the definition of the reference point from which you measure is the mean of the lowest aspect of the building. Mr. Phillips said there is a 2 foot 6 inch difference between the lower and the upper sides. The mean line is shown in the center of the building.
Mr. Tracy said the parking still looked woefully inadequate for all of the uses being put to the building. It burdens other areas. The height is an issue. Mr. Sevigny mentioned a letter from Mr. Madeira which suggested the Board should read the ordinance where it refers to exceptional cases. Mr. Tracy did not know that the application was an exceptional case. He said his initial proposal was taking the average elevation and allowing that so the applicant wasn't hamstrung by the sloping site. The Board did that successfully for a building on the way to Seal Harbor, providing a precedent. Dr. Fox said for Barbara Nealy's house at the head of Somes Sound, the Board told them it had to reduce the height. It was a learning experience because the Board had not read that the definition was the mean of the
lower story. He did not think an exception was given on that house. Mr. Tracy thought the proposed house is a giant building for the spot. He felt a little uneasy about that but did not think the LUZO addresses that. It is well within the set back requirements and lot usages but the increase in height increases the volume. Referring to the house next door, he said it would look like it would be surrounded by giant structures. If this goes through, it puts the Planning Board on the front line. He was not sure he could approve a height allowance on top of a giant building. He thought a flat roof is the village vernacular. Mr. Philips said the only true flat roof is on the old elementary school. The hip roof was an aesthetic choice. He said it is consistent with other buildings on Main Street. Mr. Tracy said they get away with it because they are in the thick of things. The Sea Street building is on the periphery. Ms
Williams thought a flat roof is not the best planning decision even though it gets them out from under the gun of peoples' complaints if they allowed the height. That peak in the middle would not make a difference to the neighborhood and that it will look better to have a peaked roof than a flat one. Mr. Tracy suggested lowering the height of the stories and making a shallower pitch of the roof. Mr. Phillips said the heights are not exorbitant, being 8 feet on the 2nd level, 10 feet on the first and 9 feet in the basement.
Regarding the parking, Mr. Phillips thought two spaces per apartment are more than they need. He said all the businesses in town are not required to have on site parking. He thought the five spaces are adequate for any overnight uses. The public lot would be enough for day uses. Mr. Tracy mentioned the 6 office spaces. Mr. Phillips said that is a daytime use. The purpose of the building is a shore base for his family and their business. A lot of their parking requirements are handled in other ways. Mr. Tracy said the Board could not permit just for Mr. Phillips's particular use. Mr. Phillips said they could lease off-site parking. He asked the Board to identify an acceptable number of spaces. Mr. Sevigny said they have to look at possible future uses. There might be secretaries and other
personnel in the office spaces. Mr. Phillips said some of the office space would be for retail use. Mr. Tracy asked how many people the retail space would employ. Mr. Phillips did not know what the retail business will be. They plan to draw on the boat traffic and people already in the lots below. He said they would comply with the Board's requirement. The elevations of the parking spaces were discussed. The drawing was not complete. Mr. Tracy was not ready to vote on the incomplete drawing. Mr. Sevigny said the vote would be basically on approval of the project.
Mr. Phillips thought it was too bad they couldn't have more than two apartments so they could have some for year round housing. Both of the two are needed for the family. The parking spaces being required for Mr. Leddy's building were discussed. Mr. Tracy suggested calling on MMA for guidance on the parking issue. Mr. Hamor said the question is how far the Board can go before it gets challenged. Reacting to discussion about the clarity of the LUZO, Mr. Sevigny said the Ordinance Review Committee is working hard to improve it. Responding to Mr. Sevigny's comment that the Board's decision could be appealed, Mr. Phillips said he wanted to work with the Board.
Mr. Sevigny said every application has to be looked at individually on its merits only. He said more information is needed from MMA. People have complained already and talked about filing an appeal. The Board wants to avoid that process.
Mr. Tracy said compliance with the height restriction would give a smaller target for an appeal. He had been hoping to see several proposals.
Mr. Phillips said they could make the project comply. It is not worth dissention. They had tried a gambrel roof plan and found it to be hideous. He said they can't eliminate a floor because they want an antique and shop for a family member on the bottom floor. Another floor would be for a gourmet to go thing. The impetus for the building was to service the family's life style.
Mr. Phillips noted there are 5 things in front of the Board and asked if they were all unable to be addressed. Mr. Coolidge noted that the Board decided at a previous meeting that a CUP is not needed to remove one tree. Mr. Hamor said they could get housing in a commercial district out of the way.
Mr. Sevigny saw two major issues - the height and the parking. Regarding the height issue, he read LUZO Section (h) on page 16. He did not think exceptional is a word he would normally use for a case like this but, based on the location and unique character of the site, maybe it is. This is why they need to ask MMA for clarification on the language. Mr. Clunan asked if exceptional is used regarding sites or frequency. Frequency could be ruled out. The Board is really addressing the uniqueness of the site. Mr. Tracy thought the Board could rule out the slope because they have addressed it. Mr. Phillips offered to take the issue off the table if it was going to be that contentious. They could make the building happen within 40 feet. It was a visual preference. He did not want to cause an
appeal. Mr. Sevigny said they needed to consider the visual impact.
Mr. Phillips thought that, with the exception of height, the application meets the LUZO. He argued the parking question. He wanted guidance from the Board or MMA.
Mr. Clunan was not so concerned about the height of the building because it would blend into the present architecture of the Town. Mr. Hamor said he had taken a lot of heat about a permit he issued to Ken Smith for two buildings but that he really had to look for them from across the harbor. Mr. Sevigny said his only hang up is in the word exceptional. Mr. Phillips said the lot is exceptional because it borders a Town lot and the Town Office. It is the secondary main street in Town and over the next 50 years will go commercial. It is important that a significant architectural building be put on it. It sits out in the public view and needs to be something representing the character of this Town. It should be a house vernacular rather than a commercial vernacular.
Mr. Sevigny directed Mr. Hamor to write a letter to MMA asking how expansive the Board can go with the word exceptional and if it can look at the unique characteristics of the lot and the building in granting an exception. Dr. Fox added particularly in view of the aesthetics.
Mr. Fox asked for alternative plans with a mansard roof or a gabled roof and suggesting getting a picture from across the harbor with the building worked into it to see how it would look. Ms Williams was interested in seeing a calculation of the volume of the building if more of it went up to 40 feet with a flat roof.
Mr. Sevigny said the letter to MMA should also ask if five parking spaces are sufficient for a building with 2 apartments, 6 office spaces and two retail establishments. Parking restrictions and possibilities were discussed. Mr. Phillips did not want to turn the lower level into a parking garage.
Asking where deliveries would be made to retail section, Mrs. Jones was concerned about delivery trucks blocking Sea Street and making noise early in the morning. She suggested deliveries be made from Fire House Lane.
Mr. Coolidge asked if the Board would be more likely to approve the application if one of the offices were a work force housing unit. Would they have to start from square one because of the new ordinance? Mrs. Jones did not think so. Would they then want more or less parking? Mr. Clunan thought the Board could look separately at the new ordinance.
Mr. Phillips said the clientele they expect to service are people working in town and island traffic. It would be more like Rooster Brothers than the Docksider. It would not be a fast food place. It would provide an indoor place for people to eat while waiting for a boat. It is not a money making project. There will be a $2 million construction budget. They will be lucky if they get $50,000 in rent before expenses.
The Board reviewed Section 5, Subdivision Ordinance as amended through March 2, 2004
5.1 Buffer Strip No additional buffer required.
5.2 Conformance with other Laws The building shall conform with laws and regulations.
5.3 Construction Prohibited Subdivider shall comply with 5.3.
5.4 Catch Basins Mr. Coolidge said there is an existing catch basin where a lot of the water
off the bank is going now and maybe one in front of the Town Hall. Mr. Sevigny asked the applicant to elaborate on the catch basins.
5.5 Easements The Town has voted to allow easements for public sidewalks along Sea Street and Firehouse Lane.
5.6 Dedication for year round housing Reserved
5.7 Lots and Density That might change.
5.8 Sewage Disposal Subdivision will be on public sewer.
5.9 Suitability All of the lot is suitable for development.
5.10 Open Space Open areas shall be landscaped.
5.11 Wells Subdivision shall be served by public water supply.
5.12 Performance Bond Subdivider owns other property in the area, including a house in Seal Harbor; a performance bond is not needed.
5.13 Revisions Applicant shall comply with 5.13.
5.14 Design Subdivision is one lot. Unnecessary.
5.15 Sunlight There is no problem because the lot is on the south side.
5.15 Cluster Subdivision is not cluster unless it becomes affordable. Ms Williams said according to the ordinance now, they could put in three units if they dedicate one for affordable housing.
Land Use Zoning Ordinance, as amended through March 4, 2004, Section 6. STANDARDS OF SECTION 6
6.1 EXPERT TESTIMONY The Board finds there is adequate expert testimony.
6.2 LAND SUITABILITY The Board finds the land is suitable for purposes of this application.
6.3 SANITARY STANDARDS The project will be on public sewers. Public Works Director Smith has written a letter stating that it is suitable. The Board finds the application is in compliance.
6.4 EROSION CONTROL The Board finds the application is in compliance.
6.5 VEGETATION The Board finds the application is in compliance.
6.6 COMPATIBILITY The Board finds the application is in compliance; however it does want to see some different plans that show the visual impact. Mr. Tracy reminded the Board of their discussion about putting a closing time for the terrace. Mr. Phillips didn't think they would want it to be later than 10:00 pm.
6.7 IMPACT ON TOWN SERVICES A letter from Public Works Director Smith states the Town shall not be unduly burdened by the impacted on the Town sewer system.
6.8 HIGHWAY SAFETY The applicant has indicated he has sufficient off street parking. The Board finds it shall require a letter from Police Chief Willis stating that the project does not adversely affect highway safety.
6.9 PRESERVING TOWN'S CHARACTER The Board finds the application is in compliance. The applicant shall provide different views showing all four sides.
6.10 NUISANCES Mr. Phillips said they would stop serving at 9:00pm. People could stay outside on the deck until 11:00pm. The Board specified that any lighting be low intensity.
Mr. Sevigny said subject to a response from MMA related to the two questions on height and parking and subject to the requirements made in the review of the LUZO Section 6 and Section 5 of the Subdivision, the Board could move the application along somewhat.
Mrs. Jones spoke to the issue of people not knowing about the review. She thought there should be public notification with an ad in the paper about the continuation of the public hearing on May 10.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED TO POSTPONE EDITH DUNHAM CROWLEY'S APPLICATION UNTIL MAY 24, 2004 (Clunan/Jones).
Mr. Clunan said the Board did not have enough information about the plans, where the hen house would be or what it would look like. Mr. Hamor has received calls from neighbors because the hens will be on a vacant lot.
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0.
New Business:
B. Ordinance changes, discussion Deferred
C. Mr. Hamor asked if out a 10 x 96 additional greenhouse being built on Beech Hill Crossroad would be considered by the Board as an expansion of a CUP granted a couple of years ago for a greenhouse and beds. Do they need to come back for a permit? Mr. Sevigny
said, if it is another structure, it is an expansion. Mr. Tracy thought they would have to come back. Mr. Hamor will write to them.
D. Mr. Hamor asked about another structure, a hoop garage, that Pectic Seafoods has put up on a platform. Mr. Hamor will contact him, telling him he is in violation and that he needs to come before the Board. He will check to see if permission was granted for a Home Occupancy. A couple of neighbors have voiced opinions.
The Board agreed to put a regular ad in the May 6 paper for the 11 Sea Street public hearing on May 10, 2004.
VI. Meeting adjourned at 8:52 p.m. The next scheduled meeting/public hearing(s) is in the Meeting Room, Town Hall, Sea Street Northeast Harbor at 6:00 p.m., May 10, 2004.
| 
