Board Members Present Public Present
Marc Sevigny, Chairman David Irvin
James Clunan, Vice Chairman Michael Woodard
Robert Coolidge, alt Jeff Katz
Samuel M. Fox III, alt George Lauriat
Jennifer Booher
Bruce Tripp
Jerry Hartson
Larry Manna
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 August 9, 2004 meeting will be reviewed at the next meeting because not enough of those members present at that meeting were present at this one.
III.~~Public Hearings - Conditional Use Permit Applications
Phillip & Johanna Steiner/George Lauriat, agent
50 Northern Neck Rd, Mt Desert
Tax Map 16 ~Lot 4 ~Shoreland Residential 2
For a seasonal 18 ft dock
Site Inspection: ~2:45 p.m.
Dr. Fox reported on the Site Inspection which he and Mr. Clunan attended with Mr. Lauriat who took them to the shore and showed them the two rocks that are pretty separate at the shore end and a rock under the surface of the water on which they also intend to drill two holes, put in spikes and mount the seasonal ramp. It was quite clear that, on either side of the proposed dock, there were more than 25 feet to the property line. There are four buildings on the lot. The dock would be a justifiable addition.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION (Fox/Clunan ).
Mr. Lauriat said he applied for the CUP to cover all bases. The wording in the LUZO is kind of vague about whether or not it is necessary when a dock is not permanent.
The Standards of Section 6 and Section 3.4.13.1 through 3.4.13.4 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.~~~~~Public Hearings – Subdivision Applications
~~~~~~A.~~~~~Otter Creek Properties/Evan Contrakes/Jeff Katz, agent
~~~~~~~~12 Walls St, Otter Creek
~~~~~~~~Tax Map 33 ~Lot 13 ~Village Residential 1
~~~~~~~~Building subdivision, 3 dwelling units
Site Inspection: ~5:15 p.m.
It was confirmed the notice was published in the Bar Harbor Times. No conflict of interest was reported. Mr. Katz presented the requested revised Plat Plan.
Larry Menna asked about procedure: if the building had been constructed and if the original plans were filed as a 2 unit He wondered if it was normal procedure to get approval before or after building. Mr. Katz said one of the units could be opened up into two.
Mr. Sevigny said the applicants were asked to keep the plan as two units pending approval of three units because three would constitute a subdivision.
Mr. Sevigny reviewed the Standards of Section 5 of the Subdivision Ordinance as Amended through March 2, 2004
5. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
5.1 Buffer Mr. Katz said a fence is in the back and trees indicated on the plan are on the side. The Board finds the application is in compliance.
5.2 Conformance with other Laws. The Board finds the application is in compliance.
5.3 Construction. The Board finds the application is in compliance.
5.4 Ditches, Catch. The Board finds the application is in compliance and is not a land subdivision.
5.5 Easements The Board finds the application is in compliance and is not a land subdivision.
5.6 Dedication for Year_round housing Is reserved.
5.7 Lots and Density
5.7.1 The lot size The Board finds the application is in compliance and is not a land subdivision.
5.7.2 On-site sewage disposal The Board finds the application is in compliance and is not a land subdivision.
5.7.3 PUD or conventional subdivision. The land is 17,426 square feet. Mr. Hamor said the minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet in that district. The Board finds the application is in compliance and is not a land subdivision.
5.8 Sewage Disposal
5.8.1 within 1500 feet of a public sanitary sewer line, the subdivider shall connect with such sanitary sewer line by means of a main not less than 8 inches in diameter. The Board finds the application is in compliance, that the building is connected to the public sewer and is not a land subdivision requiring a main not less than 8 inches in diameter.
5.8.2 Where private subsurface sewage disposal is to be utilized, the subdivider must conform to all State of Maine Plumbing Code and LUZO requirements. Not applicable.
5.9 Land not Suitable for Development Not applicable.
5.10 Open Space Provisions
5.10.1 The Board may require that a proposed subdivision design include a landscape plan… Not applicable. It is not a land subdivision
5.10.2 The Board may require that the subdivider reserve an area of land as an open space… Not applicable.
5.11 Wells
5.11.1 …dug wells may be permitted… The Board finds the application is in compliance.
5.11.2 The applicant may be required to show the availability of adequate potable water. A test well may be required if a public water system is not utilized. Unnecessary.
5.12 Performance Bond Unnecessary for this application
5.13 Plan Revisions After Approval Mr. Sevigny reminded the applicant that he would have to come back before the Planning Board for any changes.
5.14 Street Design and Construction Not applicable.
5.15 Access to Direct Sunlight Not applicable.
5.16 Cluster Subdivision Development Not applicable.
.
The Standards of Section 6. of the LUZO, as amended March 2, 2004, were reviewed and found to be in compliance.
Mr. Coolidge asked about the front deck. Mr. Katz said it is about 20 feet from the real street line.
Mr. Coolidge thought the plans should match the reality. Mr. Sevigny asked Mr. Hamor to check the measurement from the edge of the pavement and note it on the plan if necessary.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION subject to a signature block so the Board can sign it and to Mr. Hamor’s check on the 20 foot setback (Clunan/Fox).
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0.
B.~~~~~~Bobby Burdick, Applicant; Karen Kettlety, Owner
Tax Map 9 Lot 90 ~Residential 1
33 Ripples Rd, Mt Desert
Land division, 3 lots
Site Inspection: ~4:15 p.m.
Mr. Sevigny said this application was about a subdivision of land into different lots. Ms. Booher said Karen Kettlety, the current owner, is keeping one lot and selling two acres to Ms. Burdick and her.
Mr. Hartson, abutting property owner, was concerned that he might be able to see a house from his house. He asked about the wetlands area which does not have a year round stream but is wet now after the rain. He asked if a driveway was permitted on a wetland and if trees could be cut on it. He was told yes to both questions but that the size and number of trees permitted are limited. He has cleared for a blueberry field between his house and the property in question. Without the trees, he would be able to see a new house.
Mr. Sevigny said the wetlands could not be filled for a lawn. Ms. Booher said the people who are purchasing the property are unlikely to do anything to a wetland and that they would not be clear cutting it.
Mr. Hartson was concerned about the amount of development in his neighborhood.
Possible locations for the driveway were discussed.
Mr. Sevigny said Mr. Hartson might want to put buffering on his property. He noted that on June 14, 2004 Joe Brochu identified 36,843 sq. ft. of wetlands on the applicant’s property. Ms. Burdick said that there is a setback requirement of 25 ft. for a building and she showed the only legal area for a building.
Mr. Hartson asked if a business is permitted on residential land. Ms. Burdick said it is not a home business. Mr. Sevigny said there is nothing that prohibits them from having an office.
Mr. Sevigny said that in R1, the setback from the normal high point of the wetlands is 75’, not 25’. Ms. Booher clarified that if it is a forested wetland the setback requirement is 25 ft. Mr. Hamor said according to the State, a forested wetland is not a wetland. Mr. Sevigny said it would be necessary for Mr. Brochu to identify the area as a forested wetland so that a 75 ft. setback would not be required.
Mr. Hamor said it would be necessary to see if Ms. Kettlety had gotten a permit for a home occupation. Ms. Booher thought it was for an office and that she and Ms. Burdick had been there for 4 years as renters.
The Standards of Section 5. of the Subdivision Ordinance, as amended March 2, 2004, were reviewed
5. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
5.1 Buffer Mr. Sevigny said it sounded as if the applicants will need a buffer. Mr. Clunan asked if the board could make a provision for the trees to remain in the wetland as a buffer. The board found the applicant will be required to maintain a 25 ft. buffer along the eastern edge of the property between the subdivision lot and the lands of Alfred G. Hartson.
5.2 Conformance with other Laws in compliance. Mr. Sevigny reminded the applicant that they are expected to comply with State, Federal and Town regulations.
5.3 Construction in compliance.
5.4 Ditches, Catch in compliance. None are planned
5.5 Easements in compliance.
5.6 Dedication for Year_round housing in compliance.
5.7 Lots and Density in compliance.
5.8 Sewage Disposal
5.8.1 The lot is not within 1500 feet of a public sewer. In compliance
5.8.2 in compliance.
5.9 Land not Suitable for Development not applicable
5.10 Open Space Provisions in compliance.
5.11 Wells in compliance.
5.12 Performance Bond not necessary.
5.13 Plan Revisions After Approval in compliance. The applicants have been notified that they have to come back for revisions.
5.14 Street Design and Construction .
5.15 Access to Direct Sunlight in compliance. There is no building at this time.
5.16 Cluster Subdivision Development in compliance. This is not a cluster subdivision.
The Standards of Section 6. of the LUZO, as amended March 2, 2004, were reviewed.
6.1 EXPERT TESTIMONY The Board has the wetland delineation completed by Joe Brochu on 6/14//04 indicating that there are 36,843 feet of wetland on the easterly portion of the land being subdivided.
6.2 LAND SUITABILITY in compliance
6.3 SANITARY STANDARDS There are test pits on two properties that don’t currently have a house on them. in compliance.
6.4 EROSION CONTROL in compliance. There is no building at this time.
6.5 VEGETATION in compliance. If the applicants do cut in the wetland they will have to get a permit from the CEO.
6.6 COMPATIBILITY in compliance.
6.7 IMPACT ON TOWN SERVICES in compliance.
6.8 HIGHWAY SAFETY in compliance.
6.9 PRESERVING TOWN’S CHARACTER in compliance.
6.10 NUISANCES in compliance.
Mr. Hartson asked if he would be made aware if someone wants to cut trees on the wetland and applies for a permit. Mr. Sevigny said not necessarily. Mr. Hamor said the Town has no provisions to notify anyone.
Mr. Sevigny said the Board would not sign the document that night. It needs to be changed to say forested wetland.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION (Coolidge/Fox).
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0.
~~~
C.~~~~~Britt L. Hulbert
~~~~~~~~Mike Woodard, Agent
~~~~~~~~Amendment to Ober Mill Subdivision
~~~~~~~~Tax Map 12 ~Lot 13-15 ~Rural Woodland 2
~~~~~~~~770 Indian Point Road, Mt Desert
~~~~~~~~Adding a lot
~~~~~~~~Site Inspection: ~3:30 p.m.
It was confirmed the notice was published in the Bar Harbor Times. No conflict of interest was reported.
Mr. Clunan reported on the site inspection which he and Dr. Fox attended. No one else was there. They walked down along a drainage ditch nearly to the pond. The forested area extended from the road to pretty close to the pond. They crossed the stream to the cleared area where a structure is proposed and then walked up a grassed over road. It was very steep at the edge of the Ober Mill Road. It is all wooded along the Indian Point Road. The pond drains westward.
Mr. Sevigny noted that the applicant wants to make the lot into two lots.
Mr. Clunan said this was an interesting application because of a fairly small area where the building could take place. There is a considerable distance to the area where the test pits were made in the woods near the road. The line between the septic and the leach field will have to cross the stream that was created when the pond was built. He understood that is a protected water body because of the stream.
Mr. Hamor said the pond was man made and therefore not regulated by the DEP. Mr. Irvin said it was built as a fire pond. He said the drainage of that area as a whole is principally from a wetland to the south and the wetland at the fork of Ridgewood Lane and Ober Mill Road. Because the geology of the area is all rubble, water flows through the ground in that section. Whether or not the pond is a water body was discussed. Mr. Woodard said this was why he had John Cullen come from the DEP to the site. He defined the stream as needing the protection of at least a 25 foot setback but he found the pond to be man made and not requiring any setbacks.
Mr. Irvin was concerned about the power that runs underground and wanted to be sure the depth required by Bangor Hydro is maintained and that the steepness of the hill is not aggravated.
The driveway and access to the newly created lot were discussed. Mr. Clunan was concerned about the visibility problem entering Ober Mill Road. Mr. Woodard thought the driveway needed to be acceptable to the CEO in terms of grade, safety and visibility. Mr. Sevigny thought the Board needed more clarity about what would happen there. Mr. Hamor suggested that the applicant record on the plan what is expected to be constructed. Mr. Woodard thought the Board could make approval conditional upon the driveway not impacting the underground power line adversely and that any access to the Ober Mill Road would be from a plateau of some depth so a car could sit on the top and look both ways. Dr. Fox said the culvert should be considered.
Mr. Sevigny suggested saying that any power drawn from the existing pole or pole box will be underground to the lot.
Mr. Woodard asked if the subdivision could be approved subject to the above two issues and that the clarification be put on the mylar.
Mr. Irvin said he intentionally did the subdivision being signed as 14 lots, not 15, so that he would have the ability in the future to make a 15th lot. He asked if this amendment was using up his 15th lot. According to Nat Fenton, this is not the case. His house lot was exempted as a lot from the subdivision but it has to be shown. It was not an issue at the moment.
Mr. Sevigny noted that Sections 5 and 6 of the LUZO were covered for the previous subdivision.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED REGARDING THE ACCESS ROAD AND THE UNDERGROUND POWER. (Coolidge/Fox).
A VOTE WAS CALLED AND THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0.
V.~~~~~~Unfinished Business
A. ~SUBDIVISION
Ober Mill Subdivision II
Richard Davis Irvin
Tax Map 12 ~Lot 13 (between Indian Point Road and westerly end of Woods Road, Mount Desert ~Rural Woodland 2 & Rural Woodland 3
Land Subdivision 49.5 acres divided into 9 lots
Approval and signing of final plan
Mr. Irvin said his DEP approval was missing previously. Mr. Hamor noted that the application was already approved pending receipt of DEP approval. Mr. Irvin said he would be back with an amendment because of requirements of the DEP. The Board signed the final plan.
VI.~~~~~New Business
Mr. Irvin said somebody wants to buy the lot at the far end of Ridgewood Lane Road. The sale of the lot would help pay for the building of the road. The ordinance says one can’t sell until all services are provided to the lot. Could he sell the lot? The issue was discussed. Mr. Sevigny advised Mr. Irvin to get a letter for the Planning Board from the purchaser stating that the situation was ok with him and that he is aware of Mr. Irvin’s intent to provide the services. The Board would then waive the requirement.
Mr. Hamor asked about notifying abutters about an amendment to a subdivision. He said the Town has been notifying them and Mr. Sevigny thought that was only fair to them. He suggested that Mr. Coolidge might take to the Ordinance Review a conversation about how many lots would trigger notification and advertising.
Following a discussion of an August 16, 2004 letter from the new Secretary of the State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers, Mr. Sevigny said he wanted to hear a lawyer’s interpretation about when an engineer has to be involved and if a plat plan has to have his stamp on it.
A.~~~~~~Ordinance changes, discussion tabled.
VII.~~~~Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. The next scheduled meeting/public hearing(s) is at 6:00 p.m., Monday, September 13, 2004 in the Meeting Room, Town Hall, Northeast Harbor.
| 
