Planning Board Minutes July 26, 2004 Approved 8/09/2004
Board Members Present Public Present
Marc Sevigny, Chairman Michael L. Ross Bev Paigen
James Clunan, Vice Chairman Jim Parker Verna Cocks
Heather Jones, Secretary Michelle Shaw Sam Cocks
Robert Coolidge, alt Brian Shaw Skip Fraley
Joseph Tracy Greg Johnston Renee Meer
Samuel M. Fox III, alt Carolyn Drew Rosalind Scheiner
Gerard Haraden Fred Scheiner
Adam Wales Michial Jewett
Connie Shea Jeff Katz
Jen Wales Jennifer Booher
Brent Hamor, CEO; Ellen Kappes, Recording Secretary
I. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
II. The draft minutes from the July 12, 2004 meeting were unanimously approved as amended.
~~~~~~~~
III.~~~~Public Hearings – Subdivision Applications
A.~~~~~~James R. Robinson
Tax Map 24 ~~Lot 24 ~Village Commercial
5 Rock End Rd, Northeast Harbor
Subdivision Application: ~3 lots
Site Inspection: ~5:30 p.m.
Mr. Hamor notified the Board that Jim Robinson had withdrawn his application. Mr. Sevigny said it would be prudent for him to put it in writing.
B.~~~~~~Brian Shaw
Tax Map 9 ~~LOT: ~(portion of) 10-1 ~~Zone ~Shoreland Residential 5 and Rural Woodland 2
Vista Way, off Ripples Rd, Mount Desert
Subdivision Application: ~Amendment to Long Pond Vista Subdivision to add 2 lots
Site Inspection: ~4:30 p.m.
No conflict of interest was reported. It was confirmed the notice was published in the Bar Harbor Times.
The site inspection was reported by Mrs. Jones. Next to the previously approved subdivision is a portion of land under purchase and sale. There is a road going into the existing subdivision and just shortly next to it is the road that goes down to the old Farnum house. They will not use that. They will use the current right of way. The current property owners use the cul de sac. She showed on the plan where the access will be. Walking down, they saw a couple of sites marked for potential house sites. Some buildings are already there.
Mr. Clunan asked if the slopes on the proposed lots, particularly on the one closer to the shore, are rather like the one in the existing subdivision. Mrs. Jones said yes.
Mr. Ross said there is the Farnum subdivision and the amendment that the Board approved. This would be a second amendment on the Farnum subdivision.
Mr. Johnston, an engineer from CES, said they wanted to revise the subdivision and to add 7½ acres to the Long Pond one and to define the subdivision at the same time. There will be one 2 1/2 acre lot and one 5 acre lot with shore frontage. They will be accessed by a cul de sac and a 50 foot right of way. A site evaluator found suitable soil on both sites. The access will be along the existing driveway and road to minimize the impact.
Mr. Tracy clarified that they were talking about 2 lots only, not the initial 5 lots.
Mr. Wales asked if the wetlands delineated were all within the 75 foot setback. Mr. Johnston said they were.
Mrs. Wales referred to the driveway that was described as having minimum impact. She did not think there was any concern shown about impact in the prior sites developed which had a huge visual impact because of the manner in which trees were cut down.
Mrs. Paigen said she was not opposed to the previous subdivision but that many of the people who live across the lake from the proposed subdivision are very concerned about impact, the steep slope and if the amount of run-off could affect the water quality. She appealed to Mr. Shaw to do less cutting than is legally allowed because of the slope. She thought one of the most valuable things about the property is the amount of trees on it and that taking so many of them down is not in the Shaw’s best interest.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION (Tracy/Jones). The regular members present, plus Mr. Coolidge, alternate, were the voting members for this hearing.
Mr. Sevigny said to the applicants that they had heard some concerns and that the Board obviously wanted them to follow the best management practices knowing how the folks at the meeting felt. That would be a condition of the approval. He asked the applicants to think about the cutting so that it did not create a visual impact.
Mrs. Jones said looking at the whole picture this has been a wooded lot for many years with a cottage on the water front. Very quickly there have been some graphic changes with approved subdivisions all within their bounds.
Mrs. Wales said most of the houses built around the pond can barely be seen from the water. Then there is a lot where somebody has cleared a huge lot, planted a lawn and built a big colonial which is referred to as the “mistake on the lake”. When you look at the lots being cleared now, it doesn’t appear that a landscape architect has been consulted. One of them is a big cleared lot with a complete lack of trees. She would never describe it as best management practices.
Mrs. Paigen said many people along the lake have not taken advantage of cutting even 10%. In this particular lot, everything along the shoreline has been cut. This was a drastic change which is rather ugly from across the lake.
Mr. Shaw said a lot of buffering will be planted for the house in question and that the Shaws will use best management practices. During the construction phase, at some point in time it will not look very pretty.
Mr. Tracy said this hearing was about the two lots being proposed and not the previous lots.
Mrs. Meer read comments from her son asking the Board to do what is necessary to preserve Long Pond in all its natural beauty.
Mr. Wales said the concerns being voiced were about a pattern of development. If that pattern continues, it will have an impact across the lake and on the neighbors, he said. He did not think anyone was asking for stricter legislation and how people administer their lands.
Mr. Tracy reminded him that houses go through an ugly stage and even more so now with stricter leach field requirements.
The Standards of Section 6. of the LUZO, as amended March 2, 2004 were reviewed and found to be in conformance.
6.1 Expert Testimony. This is in the form of a report from civil engineer Craig Johnson and attorney Mike Ross.
6.2 Land Suitability. In compliance
6.3 Sanitary Standards. In compliance
6.4 Erosion Control. The Board finds the application is in compliance and requires that best management practices be followed to prevent erosion.
6.5 Vegetation. In compliance.
6.6. Compatibility. Mr. Sevigny reminded the applicants about the concerns of their neighbors. The application was found to be in compliance.
6.7 Impact on Town Services. in compliance
6.8 Highway Safety. Not an issue but in compliance
6.9 Preserving the Town Character: In compliance
6.10 Nuisances. In compliance
Mr. Sevigny said Section 5 had already been done. Mr. Clunan observed that the applicant was aware of the provisions of the subdivision ordinance through the approval of the previous subdivisions. He did not think it was necessary to go through Section 5 again.
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0.
Public Hearings – Conditional Use Permit Application
~~~~~~~~C.~~~~~Verna & Jay Cocks, Owners/Michial Jewett, Agent
~~~~~~~~10 Osprey Lane, Somesville
~~~~~~~~Tax Map ~8 ~~Lot ~112 ~~Zone ~Shoreland Residential 3
~~~~~~~~For seasonal ramps, walkway, and float
~~~~~~~~Site Inspection: ~3:45 p.m.
The site inspection was reported by Mr. Clunan who said the lot lies between Parker Farm Road and the Sound on the west side of the Sound. The land slopes down to the rocky shore. The plan is to build a float so it is all anchored to the granite ledge and so that the soil will not be interfered with. A path is already down there. The owner told them that changes in the path will not change significantly the appearance of the land or have much impact on erosion. There was a question of where the property line was. Mr. Fox, Mr. Tracy and Mrs. Jones were there also.
Mrs. Jones said the ramps were to be completely taken out seasonally.
Mr. Jewett, agent, showed the plan. There was a discussion of where the pin is and where the property line is.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION Tracy/Jones ).
After reviewing the plat and the plan, a conflict in the two were noted. Mr. Fraley said they were talking about a difference of 4 feet. Mrs. Cocks said she had called the abutter and left messages but had not been able to talk to him. Mr. Sevigny wanted to see exactly what would be done before voting to approve the application. Mr. Tracy noted the scale was way off on the plan.
Mr. Clunan said that if they moved the ramp further south on the shore there would be no place to put it. Mr. Tracy agreed that the proposed location was the best place to put it. If the property line is 55 degrees south of east, if the ramp is still on the Cocks’ property, waiving the setback would be okay as long as they give the Board a letter from the neighbor. If the ramp happens to encroach on the neighbor’s property, the Board would encourage shared docks.
Mr. Fraley said the abutter had said he was willing to allow the exact spot where the ramp was going to go as long as they met the requirements of the Board. Mr. Sevigny said the permission would need to be in writing.
Mr. Cocks said the suggestion about sharing docks was academic because Mr. Blanchard bought the 3 acres and immediately put them in a conservation easement. He is not interested in a dock. She thought he was away. He was not returning her calls about the 25 foot setback.
Mr. Tracy said he would feel comfortable if Mrs. Cocks told Mr. Blanchard that the Planning Board agreed that the proposed location would be the best place to put the dock. Also he thought Mr. Blanchard needed to be sent an accurate relationship to the right scale of his property line and the dock. Mr. Blanchard needed to sign off on that.
Mr. Sevigny said they needed to look at Section 3.6 D. of the LUZO. If they got the letter from Mr. Blanchard pursuant to that section, that requirement would be taken care of.
Mr. Tracy said they could not vote without the letter and the new plan with his signature on it.
Mr. Sevigny said the Board should table the matter until August 9th.
A MOTION WAS MADE TO POSTPONE THE COCKS’ APPLICATION UNTIL THE AUGUST 9, 2004 MEETING (JT/HJ).
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0.
IV.~~~~~Unfinished Business
~~~~~~~~A.~~~~~Otter Creek Properties/Evan Contrakes/Jeff Katz
~~~~~~~~12 Walls St, Otter Creek
~~~~~~~~Tax Map 33 ~Lot 13 ~Village Residential 1
~~~~~~~~Building subdivision, multi-family dwelling
~~~~~~~~Subdivision Application: ~Completeness Review
The Board reviewed the applicant’s answers to Section 4 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Sevigny said under 4.2.1.8, “which abuts the parcel” should be added to “same owner of 14 Walls Street”. Mr. Clunan suggested clarifying 4.2.1.9 by saying the plat plan covers the parcel and the location and the existing building is shown thereon. Mr. Sevigny suggested saying the plat plan covers the parcel that the building is currently located on.
Under 4.3.3.6, Mr. Sevigny said the Board would need the list of property owners within 1,000 feet from the parcel and on the opposite side of the road and a copy of the plat.
Mr. Katz decided to name the subdivision 12 Walls Street.
Under 4.2.2.4, 4.2.3.7, 4.2.3.9, 4.2.3.10 and 4.2.3.10, the answers should not be NA.
Under 4.2.3.13, Mr. Clunan said the abutters have to be included on the plat also.
The Board reviewed Section 5 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
5.1 Buffer Strip. In compliance.
5.2. Conformance with other Laws, Regulations. Complete
5.3. Construction Prohibited. Complete. Mr. Katz said it is being built as a triplex.
5.4. Ditches, Catch Basins. Mr. Sevigny said the Board had asked that they be identified on the plat. NA is not the correct answer.
5.5. Easements. Complete
5.6. Year-round housing. Complete
5.7. Lots and density. Mr. Sevigny said that would be covered under the building subdivision if the Board approves it.
5.7.2. NA
5.7.3. NA
5.8. Sewage Disposal. The building is on public sewers.
5.9. Land not Suitable. Complete
5.10. Open Space Provisions
5.10.1. Complete
5.10.2. Complete
5.11. Wells
5.11.1. Mr. Sevigny said the applicant should say there is an existing drilled well which provides adequate water.
5.11.2. The same answer as the above should be given.
5.12. Performance Bond. Complete
5.13.1. The word “any” should be deleted.
5.14., 5.15 and 5.16. Mr. Sevigny said NAs should be deleted wherever they exist and the answer “it is not a subdivision, it is a building” should be given.
The Board decided to cover Section 6 at the Public Hearing which was scheduled for August 23, 2004.
B.~~~~~~Bobby Burdick, Applicant; Karen Kettlety, Owner
Tax Map 9 Lot 90 ~Residential 1
33 Ripples Rd, Mt Desert
Subdivision Application: ~Completeness Review
The Board reviewed the applicant’s answers to Section 4 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Sevigny said the Board needs the Ripples Road LLC when it is done.
Ms. Booher said they were not the owners of the three acres. They were just purchasing 2 acres. Mr. Hamor clarified that the first division would be when Karen Kettlety sells the two acre lot to Burdick and Booher. The first division is the purchase and sale agreement and is contingent upon the subdivision.
The list of property owners within 1,000 feet was still needed.
Mr. Sevigny said a name will be needed for the subdivision. The number of lots should technically be given as three.
The Public Hearing for this application was scheduled for August 23, 2004.
Mr. Sevigny said the information was complete subject to what the Board determined still needed to be completed.
V.~~~~~~New Business
A.~~~~~~11 Sea Street Subdivision
Owner/Applicant – Kathleen K. Bollman, Dominick Coyne and Michael Phillips
Representative – Robert Coolidge
11 Sea Street, Northeast Harbor
Map ~24 ~~Lot ~101 ~~Zone ~Village Commercial
Purpose: change in covenants
Mr. Coolidge recused himself. He acted as agent and said it was not an actual change. A condition was removed during the hearing but it was on the conditional approval that was signed. Originally there would be 5 dwelling units with one for year-round housing. That was changed to two. That was scratched out on the application in a number of places. The new papers without the condition needed to be signed by the Board.
Mr. Clunan asked what would happen to the old papers. Mr. Coolidge said the old copies had not been filed yet. Mr. Sevigny indicated it would be sufficient if it was on the record that the Board had a second mylar which the applicant wanted the Board to sign that does away with the first one. He suggested writing what happened on the old copy.
The new final plat plan which superceded the old one was signed.
Mrs. Jones said Mr. Hamor had received the required letter from the Neighborhood House giving its approval to St. Mary’s plans for a fence. She said there were a lot of times when the Board approves things contingent upon receipt of a letter but that it had no follow through as to whether or not the letter came in. Mr. Hamor had suggested to her that it be put on the agenda for the following meeting. Mr. Sevigny said that was a good idea and that it would be a good administrative policy to require that letters be submitted within two weeks.
B.~~~~~~Ordinance changes, discussion
VI.~~~~~Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 8.03 p.m. The next scheduled meeting/public hearing(s) is at 6:00 p.m., Monday, August 9, 2004 in the Meeting Room, Town Hall, Northeast Harbor.
| 
