Board Members Present Public Present
Heather Jones, Secretary Gary Neville, agent for the owners
Robert Coolidge, alt Elaine Cooper-Neville, agent for the owners
Joseph Tracy Carmen Sanford
Samuel M. Fox III, alt Julie Russell
Mark Dunbar
Selena Dunbar
Barbara Williams, Assistant; Ellen Kappes, Recording Secretary
I. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Coolidge served as Chairman.
II. Approval of minutes
The draft minutes from the August 9, 2004 meeting were unanimously approved as circulated. Review of the draft minutes from the August 23, 2004 meeting was postponed because only two of the members at that meeting were present at this meeting.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
III.~~~~Public Hearings - Conditional Use Permit Applications
~~~~~~~A. ~NAME: ~Jonathan and Mary Conrad
~~~~~~~~LOCATION: ~70 Broad Cove Rd, Somesville
~~~~~~~~TAX MAP: ~8 ~~~~LOT: ~129 ~~~~ZONE: ~Shoreland Residential 3
~~~~~~~~PURPOSE: ~construct 6 ft x 50ft pile supported dock with seasonal ramp 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 Site Inspection was reported by Mr. Tracy who said they saw markings on the rocks where the ramp was to be attached to the shore and were told where the ramp would go out. Mr. Fox said the end of the float will be essentially 14 feet at mean low water. That brought up a concern with the LUZO which is a work in progress but 3.4.14.7 as written allows maximum lengths of entire marine structures or length needed to maintain 6 feet of depth at mean lower low water at low water, whichever is less. At the site visit, the statement was made that it was appropriate to have the length of the float at right angles to the shore line so they could bring the proposed vessel in facing the shore line so it would not be buffeted by wakes. He said it was incumbent to the Board to advise the applicant what would be in the best interests
of resolving this difficulty.
Mr. Coolidge asked if the 6 feet could be from the inboard end of the dock. He and Ms. Williams discussed the problem. Mr. Neville said he knew about the length requirements of the Town and that they were well short of those. He was not aware of the 6 foot regulation. He asked if they could go through the application as presented and then talk about possible solutions. The Board agreed.
Mr. Neville said the site is all granite and appears to be an old quarry area. There is a lot of angular stone on the shore. The water depth drops off quickly. The owners’ original intent to have 10 – 12 feet of water there is what drove the design. The survey plan shows 6 inches less water than a mean low tide but still not an extreme low tide. He was realizing that the 10 – 12 feet is not allowable. The dock could be built by not going to the low water mark. The 48 foot length is comfortable at low tide. Mr. Conrad was talking about docking fairly large boats. With one float, docking could be on both sides. Mr. Neville thought they could get into the range if the fixed dock were shortened by 10 feet.
Mr. Coolidge said the Conrads could either shorten the pier or move the float in. He said the Board wrote this regulation last year and is still finding out things about it. It might get changed in the future, allowing the Conrads to move the float out without having to add on.
Mr. Neville said the float could be slid all the way in towards the shore. The inshore chains could be shortened.
Mr. Coolidge said the Board is not allowed to grant an exception to the 6 foot limit in the ordinance. He was willing to have the footage be measured from the inboard end of the dock. Mr. Tracy was willing to concur. Looking at the plans, the Board and Mr. Neville discussed where the gangway could be. Mr. Tracy asked where he came up with the 28 feet. Mr. Neville said he was concerned when the owners were talking about boats with 10 – 12 feet of draft. Even a 40’ boat would overhang the float. He was picking a fairly narrow size. He thought it was a unique situation since the water dropped off so quickly. Mr. Tracy said the ramp and dock should be as small as possible. Mr. Coolidge said it should be no larger than necessary to accomplish the purposes for which it is
designed.
Mr. Fox said the owners might find it worthwhile to request a variance. Mr. Neville did not think they would want to go that route. He thought they were fairly close to a solution. The 6 foot contour is 10 feet away. So, he said, if he stated that night that the inshore end of the float will be at 6 feet of water, that’s doable and meets the ordinance. The owners will have 8 feet in the middle of the float and 11 or 12 feet at the end of it.
Mr. Tracy thought the Board was interested in minimizing the size visually and physically of shorefront docks. Mr. Coolidge did not think it was necessary to know what the size of the boats would be.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION with the conditions that the inboard end of the float be at mean lower low water, no further out than the 6 foot contour, as verified by the CEO, and that the CEO not sign the permit until the new drawings showing the changes are delivered. (Tracy/Jones).
The Standards of Section 3.4.14 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 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0.
IV.~~~~~Unfinished Business
~~~~~~~~A.~~~~~Mark Dunbar
~~~~~~~~Twin Pines Subdivision
~~~~~~~~Tax Map 10 ~Lot 12-1
~~~~~~~~8 Cider Ridge Rd, Mount Desert
~~~~~~~~Divide 2.30± acres into 2 lots
~~~~~~~~Completeness Review of application
Mrs. Jones said she is an abutter but would participate in the discussion.
Mr. Dunbar indicated he bought the 2.3 acre lot from Blaine Haynes within the last 5 years.
Ms. Sanford did not like the idea of a subdivision on a dirt road that has on it four houses which are tucked in and respectful of neighbors’ properties. The zoning was changed in 1989 or 1991. They did not realize it had been changed. She did not think a subdivision would be appropriate. Her neighbor would be greatly impacted. Her own house has been impacted already by the Dunbars’ house because their light shines into her bedroom. She believed there were wetlands on the very thin piece of property. Her family had been there for 24 years and not had to think about the possibility of a subdivision.
The Board reviewed the application. When asked about Section 4.2.3.9, Mr. Dunbar said he was not aware of any wetlands. Mrs. Jones said a stream runs down along her backyard to their property. Mr. Coolidge said they needed to have the property surveyed for wetlands because the subject will come up later.
Mrs. Jones noted that some of the exhibits had not been completed. She did not have the FEMA map. Mr. Coolidge advised the applicants to be very careful about saying at the public hearing that there are no wetlands if there are. That would greatly delay the project. If they have a site with wetlands, they would have to show that it is a buildable lot even through it has wetlands. Mr. Coolidge said, regarding Section 5 of the Subdivision Ordinance and Section 6 of the LUZO, it is helpful for both the applicant and the Board to have proposed answers or responses. If the applicant wanted to make a case that something shouldn’t be required, that would be the place to do it rather than waiting for the public hearing.
Ms. Sanford asked about buffering. Mr. Coolidge read the regulations for buffering. Mrs. Jones said they might be something to consider. Depending upon what the wetlands might be, there might be a limit on where the building site will be. It might have an impact on the neighbors. Although the zoning is one acre, the other owners there have more acreage. Possibly the owners and neighbors could come to some sort of agreement about buffering. Ms. Williams said she would encourage the landowners to do something together first without getting the Board involved.
Ms. Jones said the survey of the wetlands, the list of the abutters and the FEMA map were what was still needed.
Mr. Tracy said, assuming the lot division contains buildable land, he could not imagine a reason why the Board could deny the application. The zoning was discussed.
Ms. Russell, who has the lot just north of the proposed lot, said it looked as if the house will have to be built close to the road. She was concerned about buffering.
Mr. Coolidge advised the applicant to determine the type of the possible wetlands because different regulations apply to different types of wetlands.
A tentative October 12 public hearing was discussed. The Board decided to let Brent Hamor and Joelle Nolan pick a date after they learn about the wetlands. Mr. Dunbar indicated he would make some calls the next day to get an idea of the time frame.
V.~~~~~~New Business
A.~~~~~~Ordinance changes, discussion tabled
VI.~~~~~ Meeting adjourned at 7:15 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., September 27 2004.
| 
