Town of Mount Desert Planning Board
Minutes of June 28, 2004 Approved 7/12/04
Board Members Present Public Present
Marc Sevigny, Chairman Matthew Morehouse
James Clunan, Vice Chairman Deborah Morehouse
Heather Jones, Secretary Tom Fernald
Robert Coolidge, alt Carol Gordon Fernald
Joseph Tracy Bobby Burdick
Samuel M. Fox III, alt James R. Robinson
Stephen Zirnkilton
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 June 14, 2004 meeting were unanimously approved as corrected.
III. Public Hearings - Conditional Use Permits
A. Tabled from May 24, 2004
NAME: Matthew Morehouse
LOCATION: 92 Beech Hill Crossroad, Mount Desert
TAX MAP: 9 LOT: 93-1 ZONE: R1
PURPOSE: Expand CUP #00-29 to remove self-imposed restriction limiting number of vehicles permitted at site.
B. Tabled from May 24, 2004
NAME: Matthew Morehouse
LOCATION: 92 Beech Hill Crossroad, Mount Desert
TAX MAP: 9 LOT: 93-1 ZONE: R1
PURPOSE: Expand CUP #00-28 to remove restriction limiting number of vehicles permitted at site; to permit 2 employees at site; and to request signage up to 8 square ft
Mr. Sevigny determined that both A. & B. would be considered together.
Mr. Tracy called for a brief recess to review a letter from Jane Vris.
Mrs. Jones recused herself from voting because she is a neighbor. The other regular members present plus Dr. Fox, alternate, were the voting members for this hearing.
Mr. Morehouse thought Ms. Vris made some valid points and did not see that a number of them were at issue with their intents. He said that one of the two signs on the road by the museum says Rocky Coast Rock Shop. Mr. Sevigny said the permit application for that was for the creation of wholesale sales not retail.
Mr. Morehouse provided a sketch to scale rendering of the property in addition to clarification of available parking space.
Mr. Tracy thought it was ambiguous whether or not the application was for a garden stand for future gardens. Mr. Morehouse said they were trying to outline any future plans so they would not have to come before the Board again in the future. Mr. Tracy said a possible future stand would not be part of this application. He asked if the extra hoops were part of the application. Mr. Morehouse said the hoop house was not necessarily an expansion of the CUP because it was going over current active garden space, the 100' x 75' plot. Mr. Hamor thought one of the reasons for the application for possible future plans was so they could get them approved now. Mr. Tracy suggested erasing the word future, noting that such a structure would have to be started in a year, but he said he would be more comfortable if the Board had
a description for the record. Mrs. Morehouse was not sure if they would be ready to add a garden stand and greenhouse within a year. Mr. Sevigny indicated that they would have to come back when they are ready with elevations and a more specific description because it will be a permanent structure.
Mr. Hamor said they have adequate parking. They could easily put 14 vehicles in the parking area and also use space in the round turn area. He indicated that 8.3.4 says that for agriculture purposes an 8' sign is permitted.
Mr. Coolidge did not think the nature of the neighborhood would be changed. Mrs. Jones agreed and said it was already being changed with one acre lots being developed across the street. She thought a fence was probably not necessary and that what the Morehouses have done for screening is fine. They have left a lot of trees. Future gardens would be attractive to look at. Mr. Morehouse said they were allowing some of the undergrowth of pines to develop so the screening would only increase.
Responding to Mrs. Jones, Mr. Morehouse said it was difficult to put a number on the amount of vehicle traffic. He was sure they would have a very low impact in the area and that their off-street parking would satisfy the traffic impact concerns.
Mr. Tracy thought it would be a hardship for the Morehouses to put a restriction on the hours. He did not see it as a high impact operation.
Discussion followed about whether or not the ownership of the permit should go to future owners. Mr. Coolidge suggested that if the Morehouses submit an application for a garden stand, they can also ask at that time for the permit to go to a future owner. Mr. Morehouse agreed that question could be considered at another time.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE APPLICATIONS A & B to remove the self imposed restrictions on the number of vehicles permitted on the site; to permit signage up to 8 square feet in size based on the fact that it is an agricultural activity; to permit two employees other than the employers on the site; and to allow for hoop houses to be put on the 100' x 75' dimensional area. (Tracy/Fox ).
The Standards of Section 6. of the LUZO, as amended March 2, 2004, were reviewed for both applications and found to be in conformance, as noted on the two applications.
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0.
Mr. Tracy advised that when and if the Morehouses decided to build the garden stand, they will need another site inspection.
C. Tabled from June 14, 2004
NAME: Edith Dunham
LOCATION: 21 Main St, Seal Harbor
TAX MAP: 30 LOT: 36 ZONE: VR1
PURPOSE: Animal husbandry, keep up to 8 hens as pets
Since Ms. Dunham did not need to be present, the Board agreed to move her public hearing to the end of the meeting.
D. NAME: Thomas J. Fernald
LOCATION: 128 Northern Neck Rd
TAX MAP: 17 LOT: 14 ZONE: Shoreland Residential 2
PURPOSE: to install a dock and float
Site Inspection: 5:00 p.m.
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.
Mr. Clunan, Mr. Tracy, Mrs. Jones, Dr. Fox and Mr. Hamor attended the Site Inspection which was reported by Mr. Clunan. The shorefront property is on the east side of Northern Neck. The new dock is for servicing one of the houses. The land slopes very gently to the dock. There is no evidence of erosion.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION (Tracy/Clunan ).
Mr. Tracy said it looked like it fit right in. Mr. Clunan said neighbors came to see what was happening and expressed no problems with the dock.
The Standards of Section 3.4.13. of the LUZO, as amended March 2, 2004 were reviewed and found to be in conformance, as noted on the application.
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 to APPROVE A 6' X 16' FLOAT AND TWO 16' X 4' RAMPS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0.
Mr. Clunan asked Mr. Fernald what he thought if after the fact permits were to cost more than before the fact permits. Mr. Fernald did not have an opinion. He had thought a permit went with the house.
Mr. Hamor suggested taking Ms. Burdick's application out of order because it was just a sketch plan review.
V. New Business
A. Bobby Burdick, Applicant; Karen Kettlety, Owner
Tax Map 9 Lot 90 Residential 1
33 Ripples Rd, Mt Desert
Subdivision, Sketch Plan Review
Site Inspection: 5:20 p.m.
Ms. Burdick circulated a copy of her plan. She explained that Karen Kettlety had 3 ¾ acres. Ms. Burdick's office is purchasing her house and the back lot. They are proposing to subdivide the back lot. Ms. Kettlety is trying to sell a portion along the southern boundary. As part of the subdivision they propose to put in a right of way from the road. She has checked to be sure they have a proper building site and leach field area.
The Site Inspection was reported by Mr. Coolidge.
The right of way and where it could go was discussed. Ms. Burdick said they could alter the configuration any way that would be necessary.
Ms. Burdick agreed to make a change in the right of way and provide written answers to Sections 4.2.1, 4.2.2 and 4.2.3, and Section 6 of the LUZO and Section 5 of the Subdivision Ordinance when she returns with her application.
July 12, 2004 was scheduled for the date of receipt of her application.
IV. Unfinished Business
A. James R. Robinson
Tax Map 24 Lot 24 Village Commercial
5 Rock End Rd, Northeast Harbor
Subdivision Application: Completeness Review, 3 lots
Mr. Robinson gave the Board a new letter from him addressing Section 6 and a topo map.
At 7:25pm., Mr. Tracy left the meeting.
Mr. Robinson said the survey was finished but not recorded and stamped. He had not been able to get it yet. He said the dimensions on the plat plan are from that survey. They are accurate within a foot. He hoped to have it sometime this week and hoped to go forward without it. Mr. Hamor saw no problem with not having it that night.
The Standards of Sections 4.2.1, 4.2.2 and 4.2.3. of the LUZO, as amended March 2, 2004 were reviewed. Mr. Coolidge noted the subdivision has no name. Mr. Robinson had not thought there was a need for it but named it 5 Rock End Road then. Mrs. Jones noted that the surveyor's license number was missing from 4.2.1.5. Mr. Robinson said he will have it when he has the survey. Mr. Robinson said he would revise his letter with the new information.
Responding to Mr. Sevigny, Mr. Robinson said the restrictive covenants would be placed on parcel 3 so that it cannot be sold on the open market. If it is not passed on within the family, the Housing Authority will find another person for it under their rules. Lengthy discussion followed about the covenants. Mr. Robinson said that, according to the LUZO, he could not do his own covenants which were more restrictive than the Housing Authority's.
Ms. Williams noted that it was very important for the Board to review the affordable housing covenants very carefully. The Ordinance Review Committee intended that affordable housing covenants would be looked at closely by the Planning Board. Mr. Sevigny told Mr. Robinson that the Board will need to see a copy of the covenants as soon as possible. In describing the covenants, Mr. Robinson said his whole intent is to keep kids in the Town of Mount Desert school system. Responding to Mr. Robinson's comment that he had to turn over control of the covenants to the Housing Authority, Mr. Sevigny said he could set up a private corporation. Ms. Williams said he would have to become a work force housing entity with longevity and then he would be the enforcer. The LUZO says a private corporation could be the
entity. Mr. Robinson said he could change the use of his present corporation. If the Board would let him be the private corporation, he could stop negotiating with the Housing Authority. Mr. Sevigny responded that the private corporation would have to be for the purpose of advancing work force housing and that the Board would have to be comfortable with the covenants. Mr. Zirnkilton suggested that he talk with his attorney about being a non-profit corporation. Mr. Sevigny read the definition of a qualified work force housing entity. Its fundamental purpose must be to promote year-round housing opportunities for the professional, business and service sectors. Ms. Williams noted how important that piece is because if a developer tries to get around the rules to get more lots on less land, the Board needs to determine whether or not it is satisfied with the covenants.
Mr. Robinson suggested that the Board look at in the future what would happen if the non-profit corporation dissolves. The LUZO does not cover that possibility. He said his covenants are written so they can't be taken off. They are in perpetuity. Board members discussed requiring the deed to state that any changes in the covenants have to be reviewed by the Planning Board. Mr. Robinson thought that it is illegal for a lawyer to try to modify a covenant.
Mr. Sevigny was reluctant to review Sections 5 and 6 at this meeting because the public was not there to listen to it. The Board discussed at great length how the applicant should answer the LUZO guidelines. Mr. Coolidge said the Section 5.7.3 should be applicable because part of it is about density. Mr. Hamor said they needed to look at 5.16 about work force housing. Ms. Williams said it should be considered as work force or cluster subdivision because one of the lots is smaller than minimal lot size. Mr. Robinson was told to refer to 5.16.2 about cluster subdivisions when answering 5.7.3. Responding to Mr. Robinson, Mr. Sevigny said under 6.1 the expert testimony would come from the owner and surveyor.
Mr. Robinson said he would come to the next meeting on July 12 with a completed application for review. The Board scheduled July 26 for a public hearing. Mr. Sevigny said the application could not be approved without a work force entity. Mr. Robinson will speak to his lawyer about a corporation. The Board discussed what type of written proof would be needed from the Attorney General's office. Mr. Sevigny was concerned about approving the application for work force housing if no qualified entity is in place to supervise the subdivision. Mr. Clunan agreed the Board's decision was important because it would be setting a precedent. This matter was discussed at length.
The completeness review was signed so that the public hearing could be held on July 26. The Board reviewed with Mr. Robinson what specifics will be needed before July 12. They are the revised letter from him, the survey and information on the work force housing entity.
C. Tabled from June 14, 2004
NAME: Edith Dunham
LOCATION: 21 Main St, Seal Harbor
TAX MAP: 30 LOT: 36 ZONE: VR1
PURPOSE: Animal husbandry, keep up to 8 hens as pets
It was confirmed the notice was published in the Bar Harbor Times.
Mr. Clunan said that at the last meeting, the Board went through the review process pending the site inspection which had not been done.
The Site Inspection was reported by Mrs. Jones. The land slopes upward. The house is hidden by woods and a rock wall. A section about 10' by 15' at the rear right corner is wired off for chickens with a hen house next to the main house. No neighboring houses are in close proximity. Mrs. Jones commented that this would be a case in which a drawing attached to the application would have been helpful.
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.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION (Zirnkilton/Jones ).
The regular members present plus Mr. Coolidge, alternate, were the voting members for this hearing.
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0.
The Board discussed whether or not it would want future meetings to be taped. It had just learned that the tapes must be saved if they are made. Mr. Sevigny will speak with Town Manager MacDonald about the matter.
VI. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next scheduled meeting/public hearing(s) is at 6:00 p.m., Monday, July 12, 2004 in the Meeting Room, Town Hall, Northeast Harbor.
| 
