(Lamoine) — Do voters want to borrow up to $350,000 to purchase
about 25.2 acres of land for future town needs? That question will be
answered in Lamoine’s voting booths on November 2nd.
The proposal for a land purchase comes from nearly two years of work
by the Public Works Study Committee. The town meeting in March 2003
instructed the committee to look for a suitable piece of land for any
of a variety of municipal uses. Chairman Ken Smith and several committee
members spent long hours sending out questionnaires to large tract owners,
compiling the results, walking potentially suitable pieces and talking
with landowners. The best proposal is for a 20-acre parcel behind Lamoine
Consolidated School, along with two smaller pieces to access the larger
parcel.
The largest piece of land belongs to Duane Crawford and Julie Tilden
of Shore Road, and it comes with a price tag of $250,000. The major
component of the cost is that the owners are presently in the process
of developing a subdivision on this parcel, and estimate that lots could
sell for as much as $45,000 each. With 10-lots, the revenue could potentially
be $450,000. Even at $35,000 per lot, the $250,000 selling price represents
a discounted revenue to the owners. The subdivision proposal is before
the Planning Board which could review the application for completeness
at its October meeting. Should the application be found complete, the
subdivision conceivably could receive approval at the November 8th Planning
Board meeting. The Public Works Study Committee believes if the town
does not approve the purchase and the subdivision is approved, the chance
to purchase the parcel might vanish.
The other two pieces of land belong to the Swanberg and Miller families.
Each have agreed to sell parcels to access the Crawford/Tilden land
provided voter approval is given, and they would have access to their
land from any future town road.
The Selectmen faced a tough decision on whether to put the proposal
before the voters. The Public Works Study Committee recommended the
matter be put to a town wide vote soon, given the pending subdivision
approval. The Budget Committee, meeting jointly, recommended against
the purchase because of the amount of money and the fact that there
are no concrete proposals for what to do with the land at this point.
The School Building Committee took no position on the matter, as that
committee’s work is still in its infancy, and the school does
not know if it will need a piece of land yet.
The Board of Selectmen voted 2-0 in favor of putting the matter to a
referendum vote in November. Selectman Glenn Crawford abstained from
voting, as his brother owns the largest lot under consideration. Chairman
Jo Cooper expressed concern over the timing of the vote, worrying the
town might be rushed into a decision because of the pending subdivision
application. The vote also coincides with a statewide property tax cap
referendum and presidential election, and while the purchase would be
explained at a public hearing in October, those generally are not well
attended. Selectman Perry Fowler expressed the same reservations, but
both voting Selectmen felt the matter should go to the voters to have
the final say. Had the Selectmen voted not to send this to town meeting,
the issue would not be considered.
The question on the local ballot will ask to borrow the entire $350,000.
Town bond attorney Mike Trainor advised that any loan could have an
early pay-off provision should voters wish to dedicate surplus or other
fund balance monies in the future to paying down that loan.
Selectmen Terms Question
Following the vote in June to increase the size of
the Board of Selectmen to five, the other question on the November ballot
will ask to change an ordinance to clarify how the Selectmen will be
elected. The current order regarding municipal elections provides for
only three, staggered positions on the Board of Selectmen. The question
in June, generated by a citizen petition, did not propose to change
that ordinance, so based on legal advice, the Selectmen have proposed
to put that ordinance change to voters.
The change is relatively simple, and will be listed in its entirety
on the November ballot. It will clarify that there will now be five
Selectmen elected, and the election in March 2005 will elect one position
to a 1-year term, one position to a 2-year term, and one position to
a 3-year term. Starting with the election in March 2006, there will
be two Selectmen elected to three year terms, the same in 2007, and
one Selectman elected in 2008 and so on. A public hearing on both questions
will be held on October 21st.
Lobster Pound Appeal Continues In October
(Lamoine) — Four members of Lamoine’s Board of Appeals gave
up six hours of a pleasant Sunday afternoon in August to listen to testimony
regarding an expanded parking area at the Seal Point Lobster Pound.
The Board, apparently, has only just begun to listen, as it has yet
to complete the testimony gathering process and issue rulings.
At issue are Shoreland and Site Plan Review permits issued by the Planning
Board allowing the expanded parking lot area. Abutters of the project
filed separate appeals on both matters, triggering the Board’s
action.
The evidence gathering is much like a courtroom in a civil trial, and
is quite tedious. First, the Board must find whether each application
is complete. It determined that the Site Plan Review Application was
complete, and the board is proceeding to find out whether the information
submitted in the application meets the standards for the ordinance.
So far, only positive findings have resulted, and the attorneys for
both the lobster pound owners (Anthony and Josette Pettegrow) and the
appellants have agreed that several parts of the ordinance are undisputed.
The dispute is about the amount of traffic generated by the lobster
pound operation on Seal Point Road. The appellants argue that the pound
has become a year-round industrial operation. The Pettegrows say the
property continues to operate as it was permitted as a lobster pound,
only the volume of business is greater.
A 2nd hearing date in September was adjourned when one Appeals Board
member failed to show. The Board will reconvene on Thursday, October
21st to continue hearing the appeal from the point they left off in
August.
