Town of Lamoine, Maine
Town Hall
Fire Department

Lamoine Board of Appeals
Minutes of October 21, 2004

Approved November 10, 2004

Chairman Chris Tadema-Wielandt called the meeting to order at 6:32 PM

Present were: Appeals Board members Reginald McDevitt, Chris Tadema-Wielandt, John Wuorinen, Hancock “Griff” Fenton; Secretary Stu Marckoon (left shortly after the call to order, returned approximately 8:30 PM), Edmond Bearor (attorney for the Pettegrows), Donald Becker (CES Engineering), Gerald Ford, Robert Alvarez, Karen Dube (Court Reporter), Bill Baldwin, Tim Pease (attorney for the Pettegrows), Josette and Anthony Pettegrow, Kate Berry, Paul Frederick, and Gary Hunt (attorney for the appellants).

Secretary Marckoon had another meeting that required his attendance, and was unable to take written notes. The board agreed he would take the minutes by listening to the audiotape of the meeting.

Minutes of Previous Meetings June 17, 2004 - Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked for comments and/or revisions. Mr. Wuorinen said he found several things in the latest version that needed to be fixed up. He said he had marked them on his copies of the minutes. The board discussed the various changes. Mr. Fenton moved to approve the minutes with the corrections suggested by Mr. Wuorinen. Mr. McDevitt 2nd. Vote in favor was 4-0.

August 22, 2004 – Mr. Wuorinen reviewed the various changes to be suggested to the minutes, and noted them on his copy of the draft minutes. Mr. McDevitt moved to accept the minutes as amended. Mr. Fenton 2nd. Vote in favor was 4-0.

September 12, 2004 – Mr. Wuorinen moved to approve the minutes as written. Mr. McDevitt 2nd. Vote in favor was 4-0. Mr. Fenton apologized for his absence at the September 12th meeting.

Continuation of Alvarez et al vs. Lamoine Planning Board in re: issuance of Site Plan Review Permit and Shoreland Zoning Permit to Anthony & Josette Pettegrow (Seal Point Lobster Pound) – Mr. Bearor said he believed there were an agreed upon number of review criteria, and three were left for the Site Plan Review application. They were landscaping and buffering, noise, and comprehensive plan. Mr. Hunt agreed.

Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said the board has finished with review criteria #3, and would pick up with buffering and screening (#6). He read the standard for buffering and screening from the Site Plan Review Ordinance. He said the buffering zones are shown on one of the exhibits. Mr. Bearor said they were shown on Exhibit 3. The board looked at that exhibit. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said that is the plan dated October 21, 2003, Mr. Becker’s plan. Mr. Becker confirmed that was his plan. Mr. Bearor said along the road coming into the parcel there is a 50-foot wide strip shown, and within the strip are the words "existing buffer to remain". He said moving westerly, the proposed buffer is to be modified, and it shows cedar and spruce trees that were previously planted. He said the rest of the buffer strip would remain undisturbed along the property line to the southwest.

Mr. Bearor said the Planning Board stated that as a condition of granting the permit, the Pettegrows were to provide a written plan for the buffer between them and the Fredericks and Langlois property, along with a tradeoff of plantings to replace impervious surfaces. Mr. Becker said that’s what this plan is. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if this plan was in answer to the requirement to the Planning Board. Mr. Bearor said yes, and knowing they would go ahead with a Shoreland application, they showed the buffer on this plan.

Mr. Alvarez said he didn’t really think this plan should be used. He said this information is on a prior plan. He said this plan has approval boxes for a floodplain permit which is not part of this process, and he said the Board should not approve this plan, but should use previous plans. He said it’s not in the Board’s jurisdiction to approve a floodplain permit. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said he didn’t think they’re being asked to approve this plan. He said it’s being presented as an exhibit for the Site Plan Review Application.

Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if there were other plans that show the buffer areas for other abutting lots. He said there was no indication of buffers on the easterly and northerly sides of this lot. He said it appears from the legend there are trees surrounding the parking area. Mr. Bearor said he didn’t believe there was a plan showing the buffer with Mr. Alvarez on the east and north, but none of the activities are occurring in that area. He said there is no approval sought for any activity in that area, but if requested, the plan could be modified to show that. Mr. Alvarez said he had no buffer issues. He said they cut some brush, but it will grow back. He said he thinks there is adequate buffer there, as long as the brush is allowed to grow back. He said the buffer problem is along the roadway before Mr. Frederick’s house.

Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said it appears the dashed line is the edge of the 50-foot right of way. Mr. Bearor said that was correct. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said it would be difficult for the Pettegrows to maintain a buffer between themselves and the Fredericks because the right of way divides the two properties. Mr. Alvarez said he owns the right-of-way. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if it was on the Pettegrow property. Mr. Alvarez said no. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if this was part of a subdivision and if this is a subdivision way. Mr. Alvarez answered yes.

Mr. Frederick said there is an area within the buffer zone that is sometimes used as a storage area for road repair materials. He said he’s not sure if that is appropriate for a buffer zone. Mrs. Pettegrow said that was loam that was put there so they could re-vegetate the areas. She said the gravel used to maintain the road area is kept at the parking lot. She said it’s not a long-term storage area, and it was stockpiled there in anticipation this would be cleared up this summer.

Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said the plan indicates there is an area where the buffer remains, and a place where the buffer is to be modified. He asked if there were proposed restoration areas. He said it looks like a small triangle. He asked what the proposed modifications were to the buffer area, whether it was to be made more dense, wider or thicker. He said it appears to be a little thin at that spot, and he wanted to know the intentions. Mr. Bearor said the plan shows six trees be planted in that area. He said there is a mounded area shown by the crosshatch, and the buffer standards are met. He said there is no intention of not doing things mentioned on the plan. He said the Planning Board made the conditions they accepted and embarked upon. He said the buffer is 50-feet wide. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said there is a road running through it.

Mr. Bearor said the road is a staging area for the revegetation of other parts of the site, and when it’s complete, they could put a few trees in the road area. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said the entire buffer area should be a buffer, because the purpose is to attenuate the sound, and if there is a corridor that permits whatever is objectionable to be heard or seen, it’s not doing its job. He said if they intend to create a solid buffer in that area, he supposed that would be satisfactory.

Mr. Becker said the triangle is a landscape mound. He said the road has been there for about 30-years. He said the idea was to loam and grass it, but keeping it clear of major trees because it’s the access to the septic system. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked what access is needed to the septic area other than routine pumping. Mr. Becker said that was it. Mr. Alvarez said part of the problem with a skinny buffer is the power line is there, and the power line should not be a part of the buffer. He said the new trees are directly under the power line, and Bangor Hydro will cut them all off. He said that buffer is useless. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked how high the lines are. Mr. Alvarez said the utility cuts the brush under the lines. He said Bangor Hydro has rights to maintain under the lines. He said the Pettegrows are counting that utility right of way as part of the buffering zone.

Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked where the trees ought to be moved. He said the plan shows poles, and the wire appears to cross only one tree. Mrs. Pettegrow said if the cedar trees don’t survive, they’ve planted 10-black spruce, 2 hackmatacks, 3 pine tree, there are numerous fir trees coming up. She said if the others do survive, and they’re doing fine, there would be adequate growth in that entire area. She said in the area where the leach field is, there were 5-fruit trees planted this summer. She said there is a lot of new growth which exceeds 4-feet in the area coming into the property before the leach field. She said some of the trees that are gone because they died and fell down. She said natural revegetation is occurring. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said some species of trees are more appropriate for buffers and screening than others, and it sounds as if they have the right stuff in there. He asked Mr. Frederick what he thinks the purpose of the buffer is. Mr. Frederick said it was a visual thing, to allow that area to come back to a wild state. He said it might help a little on the sound.
Mr. Alvarez said his point was that natural vegetation does a better job of creating a permanent buffer than bringing in expensive trees that Maine weather would not accept. He said if the Pettegrows let the stuff grow, the problem would take care of itself. Mrs. Pettegrow said she thinks they’ve made a sincere effort to let that area re-vegetate. Mr. Alvarez said he agreed, but he didn’t think the power lines should be included in the buffer.

Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said it appears there is one pole within the buffer area, and the plan doesn’t show where the wires run, but it looks as if it takes about 25-30% of the width of the buffer area shown on the plan. He said it doesn’t appear that the line of poles is within the buffer area. He said if Bangor Hydro needs to trim the trees, they might take some of the trees along the edge of the buffer, but there are trees in back that already exist. Mr. Hunt said the Bangor Hydro easements say they have the right to trim all trees if they jeopardize the lines. He said the wire comes into the poles by the cedar trees, and then goes off to the house. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said it goes to another pole. Mrs. Pettegrow said they would not allow the trees to grow into the power line, as it would jeopardize her power. She asked if the Board would like them to say the trees would be trimmed after a certain point. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said Mr. Alvarez said Bangor Hydro would trim them, and they would lose part of the buffer. Mr. Bearor said Mr. Alvarez was correct. He said within a small area within that part they could do that. He said if Bangor Hydro cut one of their trees, they would plant a like kind tree in its place. Mr. Becker said the reason he put the cedar trees where they are shown, because to put them further back they would have to cut down trees already growing naturally.

Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said the 2nd category is screening, and asked Mr. Becker for the difference between screening and buffer. Mr. Becker said to him a screen is an attempt to create a dense screen from six feet down. He said that’s the reason they proposed cedars and black spruces. He said the spruce trees would grow 20-40 feet tall and retain their vegetation on the lower part, and die on the top part. He said some nice vegetation is growing there, and they’re attempting to create a thick visual screen at the site. He said it’s the intent to screen the site, because it is visible now. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said it does not appear as if there are any fences. Mr. Bearor said there were not.

Mr. Alvarez asked about noise. He said there is considerable noise from equipment running, especially in the summer when boxes have to be cooled. He said it runs for six to seven hours and is annoying, and it should be screened somehow. He said the Pettegrows have to do it. He said he could hear the diesel reefer unit running at night when everything else is quite. He said a sound screen would be nice, something to direct the noise up in the air. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked what might serve as a sound screen; was Mr. Alvarez talking about a fence. Mr. Alvarez said they make such screens for that purpose. Mr. Hunt said there are companies that make screening devices for things like generators and refrigerator devices. He said if the trucks were not parked there cooling off, you wouldn’t hear the noise. Mr. Fenton said if the trucks were there, were removed to cool down, and then came back, it would necessitate more trips on the highway, which is one of the complaints from the abutters. Mr. Alvarez said to chase the trucks somewhere else; to make noise somewhere else is not the way to do this. He said to try to contain the noise where this is, would solve the problem. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if he was talking about cooling down one of the trailers. Mr. Alvarez said they have to cool down the box unit in order not to kill the lobsters. He said there should be some sort of screen to block the sound from his direction and Mr. Frederick’s direction. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked where the refrigeration unit is. Mr. Alvarez said right over the cab. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked how high in the air that was. Mr. Alvarez said 8 or 10 feet.

Mr. Alvarez said sound companies produce them all the time for truck terminals and they’re not prohibitive. Mrs. Berry said she can hear the units if the wind is right. Mr. Alvarez said she lives about a half mile away from the site.

Mr. Bearor said they have not proposed any, but recognize the concern from Mr. Alvarez about the refrigeration units from the trucks. He said the ordinance sets what the noise level could be. He said the non-industrial noise levels are 65-decibels during certain periods of the day and 55-decibels at other times. He said the Planning Board asked that those units be sound tested and take means necessary if they exceeded the permitted levels. He said the idea of building a 12-foot wall around the parking area is not reasonable or likely to result in the desired reduction of noise. He said you might hear it, but the question is whether it’s unreasonable. He mentioned a recent Maine Supreme Court case involving a dock and its visual impact. He said if one hears the sound and it exceeds 65-decibels, then there is a problem. He said they have a half dozen different trucks with various refrigeration units on them. He said part of the Planning Board approval was to test the trucks with refrigeration units and file the test. He said the reason for not conducting the sound study is because of a variety of variables. He said they’re willing to conduct the tests, and he said he believes they will not exceed the limits.

Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked both Mr. Alvarez and Mr. Frederick if they were familiar with the noise levels on the others’ properties. He asked if the levels were similar on both properties. Mr. Alvarez said the configuration of the road and driveway creates a corridor to the Frederick property and the sound from the trucks travels in the corridor. Mr. Alvarez said the impact on his property is from the reverberation from the roof on the north side of the building. He said if the trucks are parked on the other side of the building he doesn’t get the noise impact, but Mr. Frederick and the Pettegrows do. He said that’s why he keeps coming back to a particular area with a screen that would shoot the sound up.

Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if the need to run the refrigeration units is on a scheduled basis. Mr. Alvarez said the Pettegrows know in advance when it will happen. Mrs. Pettegrow asked how far in advance they know. Mr. Alvarez said 6-to-8 hours. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if the Canadian trucks come down at night to get loaded. Mr. Alvarez said sometimes, and they have to cool. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if the trucks come down from Canada, pull up to the tank house, and fill up with lobsters and leave. Mr. Alvarez said sometimes they stay in the parking lot. Mrs. Pettegrow said the truck doesn’t run its reefer if they do stay there in the parking lot. She said they don’t run the truck or the reefer if they stay overnight, which doesn’t happen that often.

Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked Mr. Becker if he thinks there is a place in the parking area for the trucks to park that would be better for noise transmission prevention. Mr. Becker said he didn’t know if there would be any place that’s better than another. He said there are truck trailers not in use in the parking lots, and the Pettegrows have been attempting to use the trailers as a barrier between the refrigeration trucks and the abutters. He said he thinks that policy has helped them. He said a fence would be a significant cost because of the wind load on a solid fence. He said he thinks such a fence would be an eyesore, and would not be a good solution. He said the portable sound barriers are better, and the Pettegrows have assured him they’ve instructed their drivers to do that. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked how long that’s taken place. Mrs. Pettegrow said most of the summer. Mr. Alvarez said he’s noticed an improvement. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if Mr. Frederick had noticed any improvement. Mr. Frederick said he couldn’t say. Mr. Frederick said the sound issue is more a matter of the time of day. He said what’s acceptable at 7:00 PM is more intrusive at 10:00 PM. Mr. Frederick said ordinance states excessive volume is just one standard.

Mr. Bearor said review standard number 13 talks about other noise factors. He said he thinks the refrigeration units are more a matter of volume, not shrillness. He said it establishes what would be excessive noise and unreasonable hours for that noise to occur (section 13 of the ordinance).

Mr. Fenton said he was led to believe you can’t stop noise, but can try to muffle or absorb it, but it’s often deflected, and goes to another area. He said a fence that puts it up in the air; it could travel for miles over the water. He said he didn’t believe unless someone has been near the water understands how that sound transmission is amplified. He said he could understand the dilemma they’re confronted with in trying to minimize the impact. He said the box idea might have great possibilities. Mrs. Pettegrow said they have certainly tried.

Mr. Alvarez said they’ve done a wonderful job muffling the air blower that used to run 24-hours a day. He said that is now upstairs and it doesn’t annoy him any more. Mrs. Pettegrow said it’s a different piece of equipment.

Mr. Alvarez asked about the generator on the north side of the building. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if that’s the one that runs on Wednesdays at 10:00. Mr. Alvarez said that is very loud and shrill. He said the muffler system they have is the cheapest available, and the same manufacturer makes different systems. He said it makes a lot of racket and they should take care of that. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said the Planning Board imposed a condition on that. Mr. Bearor said that was correct. He said they were instructed to enclose the generator facing Alvarez and the refrigeration unit facing Frederick. He said the site visit showed the units. Mr. Wuorinen asked to describe the covering used. Mr. Becker said it would be a roofed enclosure, and would have already been done. Mr. Fenton asked if there would be sound absorbent material inside the building. Mr. Becker said if they put a wall between Mr. Alvarez and the machine, he didn’t think he could hear it. He said it should be a rather dramatic improvement. Mr. Wuorinen said he understands you need mass to block sound transmission. Mr. Becker said insulation also provides sound treatment. Mr. Alvarez said Mr. Becker’s suggestion should make a big difference, and the muffler coming toward him should go straight in the air instead of toward him, or deflecting off the building.

Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if Mr. Alvarez was familiar with the conditions the Planning Board imposed on the site plan permit – i.e. to enclose the generator, enclose the refrigerator and to conduct noise testing. Mr. Alvarez said he remembers them talking about it, but doesn’t recall specific standards. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked Mr. Alvarez if there were concrete suggestions that would satisfy his concerns. Mr. Alvarez said no matter what they do, he knows it will be running and that would be fine. He said he objects to the piercing, high shrill noise, and if they eliminate that, he would be happy. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said that’s the generator, and asked about the truck refrigeration. Mr. Alvarez said if they could cut that down or at least spot them like Mr. Becker suggested, it might solve it. He said he didn’t want to see the Pettegrows spend a bunch of money to put up a screen, and it would be fine if they could do it with what they have.

Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said we’re talking about buffering and screening and noise is a part of that. He said there is a noise standard in the review criteria. He asked if the Board believes the applicant has satisfied the standards for buffering and screening. Mr. Hunt asked if he was talking about the screening of the noise. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said his intent is to decide whether standard 6 is met, if there is adequate buffer and adequate screening. He said they’re not at the point yet where they determining whether there is a noise problem. He said they would get to that in section 13.

Mr. Fenton moved that the buffering and screening section in the ordinance as defined by the Planning Board’s stipulations meet the criteria. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said he wasn’t sure if the Planning Board stipulations were for the buffering and screening section. He said the Planning Board had conditions on the noise. Mr. Fenton said they’re almost intertwined. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt read the Planning Board conditions in regard to buffering. He said he guessed it’s the applicant’s contention that Exhibit 3 shows that it meets the condition.

Mr. Hunt said the Planning Board’s wording was from number 6 on the findings of fact. He said the vegetation plan was something that was to be submitted, but when they made the findings of fact, that was the end of their process. He said that was an odd thing to do because the Planning Board would never be reviewing the plan that was submitted, because their review was done when they made their findings of fact. He said they never left the meeting open to come back and look at the plan. He said they would never even know if the plan was submitted, unless they came in to check. He said there would not be a meeting of the board to determine if it was satisfactory. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said having the Appeals Board meeting de novo takes care of that. He said he understands the Planning Board left themselves no review. Mr. Bearor said any approval that leaves it on condition that would kick it over to the Code Enforcement Officer. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said Mr. Hunt’s point was that the plan the Pettegrows were required to submit needn’t be as comprehensive as this is; it could have shown a little line or something like that. Mr. Bearor said that was correct.

Mr. Wuorinen moved that the Board find that item 6 buffering and screening is met by the plan as submitted. Mr. Fenton 2nd. Vote in favor was 4-0.

Mr. Bearor said the next agreed upon condition for the board to consider was noise. He said the earlier discussion focused on that. He said the proposals for the chillers, generator and the parked vehicles are now offered as evidence that they meet applicable requirements. He said noise from a vehicle differs depending on where it’s parked and atmospheric conditions. He said the ordinance establishes day and night limits. He said they know they’re well within the limits because of the sound testing they’ve done. He said they’re prepared to comply with the Planning Board’s conditions that they test the units on a regular basis.

Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if Mr. Bearor’s clients are convinced they don’t exceed the limits set in the ordinance, and if that conclusion was reached based on tests having been done or off the cuff. Mr. Bearor said an industrial engineer visited the site. He said he would be happy to make that an exhibit. He said it would say they tested at a particular time of day, and there is a graph, but others will ask about other hours. He said they didn’t have to provide it to the Planning Board and he doesn’t have multiple copies. He said the Appeals Board would see the decibel limits are far below the standard. He said 60% of the time it’s less than 40-decibels, and less than 1% of the time does it exceed 50-decibels.

Mr. Bearor said he would with some hesitation offer this as an exhibit to the Board as part of the burden of proof on # 13. Mr. Wuorinen asked for a recess, during which copies could be made. He moved to take a health break and reconvene when copies are ready. There was no opposition and the board recessed briefly.

Upon reconvening, Chairman Tadema-Wielandt announced that the Board had received copies of the report to the Trenton Bridge Lobster Pound. It was marked as Exhibit 9 without objection.

Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked Mr. Hunt that if the Appeals Board were to impose the same noise study requirement whether he or his clients would want to have an expert to have some sort of input on the methods of testing, location and times of day. Mr. Hunt said he does not think the decibel limits are the point his clients wish to make. He said looking at section 13-A where it says excessive noise at unreasonable hours are required to be muffled, the decibel levels refer to volume, but the other factors are things the board can put limits on the source of noise because of the terms excessive or unreasonable hours. He said he didn’t think the standards that refer to times of day and decibel levels confine the board to determine what’s excessive or unreasonable. He read the scope of the Site Plan Review Ordinance. He said he thinks that is part of the discretionary function of the Board to determine what’s excessive or unreasonable. He said he’s not so sure this sort of thing requires expert input. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if the decibel reading is the only thing that needs to be satisfied. Mr. Hunt said the object is to balance the competing interests of the business property with the neighboring residential properties. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked what standard should be used. He asked if there was an objective standard that could be applied. Mr. Hunt said it could be a common sense standard. He said it could be a community standard of what’s bothersome to neighbors. He said there have been a number of neighbors, both here tonight and at other portions of this meeting, some seasonal residents who returned to their winter residences. He said the board has discretionary latitude to control noises, such as hours of operations, and when certain things can and can’t be done. He said that should be done on a case-by-case basis.

Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if Mr. Hunt had any suggestions for this particular case. Mr. Hunt said his clients would like to see a limit on the volume of traffic that goes in and out of the property. He said the parking lot is facilitating the business activity by providing more space for trucks to turn around and park. He said the applicants said if the parking lot wasn’t there, the trucks would still come in and out but it would be more difficult to turn around. He said the Board has the authority to set limitations and performance standards so it creates a limit on the level of business activity on this particular site. He said they didn’t have any definite numbers. He said they’ve talked about the number of trucks going in and out in the past, and there is some dispute between the two sides. He said it’s susceptible to quantification by business records which don’t contain proprietary information.

Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if limiting the volume of traffic would address the noise concerns. Mr. Hunt said he was suggesting that. He said if you look at the change in business activity at the site over the period of years it has been used as a lobster pound, the level of business activity under the Pettegrows ownership has increased dramatically. He said they’re much more successful at it than the previous owner, Mr. Coughlin. He said he thinks the Board has the authority to place some limits on the level of business activity because it’s not just a “sky’s the limit” situation at this facility.

Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if Mr. Hunt was suggesting that if the gate was closed at whatever hour was deemed to be reasonable that it would prevent the creation of this nuisance. He said what he’s heard from Mr. Alvarez and Mr. Frederick is that it’s the refrigeration units primarily what they object to. He said if the refrigerator trucks come in at 5:00, you’d still have the same level of noise. Mr. Hunt said the other neighbors going up the road are not as affected. He said the further away from the site, the less the refrigeration units make a difference. Mrs. Berry said they could hear them on the trucks going back and forth.

Mr. Alvarez said the problems don’t affect all the neighbors the same way. He said people on one end of the road are bothered by dust and traffic. He said he’s bothered by the noise and dust in the parking lot, as are the Fredericks. He questioned putting a gate up, as it would put unreasonable restrictions on the Pettegrows business. He said he didn’t think that’s right. He said he thinks the thing to address is the sheer volume of what drives this thing.

Mr. Wuorinen said they’re getting far afield of the noise thing. He asked if someone could explain the charts on Exhibit 9. He said he’s having trouble understanding the tables. Mr. Bearor said he would attempt to do it, and would defer to Mr. Becker for clarification.

Mr. Bearor said they retained the services of Environmental Safety Professionals to do a noise survey of the property in June 2003. He said to look first at the diagram and the legend of the map which shows where the sound meter was set up, and what the reading found at that site was. He said they’re difficult to read, but if you follow them around, they’re basically in the 30’s and the 40’s. He said the one spike referred to by Mr. Wuorinen could be explained by Mrs. Pettegrow. He said that was the Pettegrows pickup truck pulling into the yard, not knowing the measurement was being taken. Mrs. Pettegrow said there were two trucks stopped and they were talking and she didn’t know the testing firm had been there that day and set up the meter right next to where the two trucks stopped. Mr. Bearor asked if the truck was a diesel pickup. Mrs. Pettegrow said it was.

Mr. Bearor said the bar graph shows the percentage of time and statistical distribution of the noise picked up around the site at two locations – the road/driveway intersection and a similar diagram along the shore. There is no spike in the 60-75 db range on the shore point. Mr. Wuorinen asked where the shore point was, and it was pointed out.

Mr. Bearor said based upon what is shown by the report, he didn’t see the need to expend the thousands of dollars necessary to do more study by this firm, so they didn’t. He said that’s why they have this report. He said he was confident they would meet the non-industrial decibel readings.

Mr. Wuorinen asked if Mr. Bearor could explain the tables attached with a db column, and what the db row across the table would be. Mr. Becker said he interprets the table so that if you’re looking at the 40db level with a 0, that’s the percent of time at each different decibel level. Mr. Hunt said if you look at the chart on the shore location, it kind of explains it.

Mr. Bearor said while he’s comfortable the Board would exercise good discretion, the law in several cases, including one from Georgetown, which saw the standard was to conserve natural beauty, which he said it was too vague. He said he takes that to mean that if you can’t quantify it, you can’t regulate it. He said he argued yesterday before the Law Court on scenic and aesthetic impacts. He said the justices were unanimous that it’s the type of standard that can’t be imposed on someone because an applicant needs to be assured that if there is a reasonable standard they meet, they would get a permit. He said there needs to be certainty for reasonable action from future boards.

Mr. Bearor said there is some question on some parts of the ordinance on standards, but this one is very clear. He said the term excessive and unreasonable is defined by the decibel section and times of day. He said intermittence, beat frequency or shrillness can’t be detected by a decibel reading device. He said he hasn’t heard testimony to define what shrillness means. He said he’s not heard the noise from the facility has those characteristics. He said he believes they’ve demonstrated to the Planning Board and the Appeals Board they meet the applicable standards, especially when they encapsulate the generator and refrigerators. He said he didn’t think noises captured at the property lines would exceed the standards.

Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said he was puzzled why the readings were not taken at the lines. Mr. Bearor said they did not present the technician with the information so as not to manipulate him, but fortunately some came near property lines.

Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked Mr. Bearor if it was his impression that the noise readings in the tables in Section 13 refer to all sounds rather than volume. He said the way he reads it, the sound pressure limit refers to volume. He said sound has other characteristics. He said someone driving by with the bass on the radio cranked up is different than other frequencies. Mr. Bearor said he’s had some experience with other sound cases. He said when experts do the readings, they can adjust the raw data upward or downward to compensate for the type of sound that is being experienced. He said you call into question the standard, but the standard refers to volume, if that’s what decibels measure, but they really measure sound pressure, or energy. He said he can’t be certain what the ordinance intended. He said to the extent there is beat frequency or shrillness that would amplify the levels, they are so far below the levels to begin with that no factoring is going to get them anywhere near the ordinance levels.

Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said he understands the point, but Mr. Hunt was talking about not only the noise levels on the sound coming from the Pettegrows property but the truck traffic coming in and out. Mr. Bearor said he made reference to Knox County last time in regard to the airport, and the neighbors were concerned about noise from airplanes. He said the airplane noise is regulated by federal authorities. He said the noise coming from the trucks is regulated by the state. He said it’s not regulated by municipalities, and the Town of Lamoine could not say people can’t travel down its streets or roads making noise greater than “x” if the standards set by the state are different. He said if a vehicle passes inspection, it meets the state standards. He said off-site, the noise being made by trucks that come and go is not a noise that a municipality may regulate, because the trucks are licensed to be on the public highway. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if the truck meets the state standard, it may go anywhere in the state. Mr. Bearor said that was correct. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked about a private road. Mr. Bearor said they have a right to be on that road as they are one of the owners. He said he was not as confident about his opinion on that.

Mr. Becker said they looked at the whole standard. He said the generator that runs on the side of the building and reflects toward Mr. Alvarez is noisy and shrill and operates intermittently is the reason they offered to enclose the structure, and that’s why it’s a condition. He said the infrequency of the cooling units is the reason to enclose the other side. He said the truck refrigeration units are not shrill but are intermittent, and might be more irritating because you hear it some nights, and don’t hear it others. He said the solution to that is to use two unused trailers as a block in both directions. He said the Pettegrows has a sound meter and they check the property line with it when noises are going, on a regular basis.

Mr. Becker said if and when the appeals are exhausted and they might prevail, when they enclose the units and the truck drivers deflect the noise away from abutters, and with continuous testing on site, they think it’s a reasonable course of action. He said because of where the limits are, the abutters might not get a lot of comfort from the ordinance because the applicants won’t have any trouble meeting this ordinances’ sound level. He said they’re sympathetic to the concerns, and they agree with the conditions imposed by the Planning Board and would accept those conditions again. He said there should be significant improvement if those things were done, and the unpleasantness would also dissipate.

Mr. Fenton said you see decibel readings on the Alvarez side from 37 to 46. He said the decibel readings across the pond range up to 55. He asked if there is a reason that the decibel readings on the east side are low and the west side are high. Mr. Becker said the reason for that is that the building acts as a barrier for the cooling units which don’t transmit to the Alvarez side. He said the generator was not running. He said he hopes when they enclose that, those noise levels will disappear. Mrs. Pettegrow said the air unit that Mr. Alvarez was talking about that they used to have was running. She said everything was running at full capacity at the time of the test. She said they have since changed the air pumps, and as Mr. Alvarez said, there has been a dramatic decrease in noise level from that change. She said that’s probably why that was reading 55 because of that air pump.

Mr. Fenton said that data might be obsolete, and the noise level might be less now. Mrs. Pettegrow said the noise readings were taken in June of 2003, and Mr. Alvarez said they’ve decreased the noise levels considerably. Mr. Frederick asked if Mrs. Pettegrow knew how many trucks were involved. Mrs. Pettegrow said it was a full day and the trucks were all busy. She said it was an unannounced day. Mr. Bearor said it was June 4th and 5th.

Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said to Mr. Hunt that he suggested limiting the volume of business might be a way to address some of the concerns of the abutters about noise and dust. Mr. Hunt said that was right. (Tape 1 ends here)

Mr. Hunt said he would have to refer back to the beginning of the ordinance about balancing the rights of the landowners with the corresponding rights of neighboring and abutting landowners and he thinks if that’s what the purpose of the ordinance is, the board has authority to impose reasonable conditions. He asked where the balancing takes place if you don’t make some decision on what the limits are for a business like this.

Mr. Bearor said the response suggests there is no authority because there is no authority for the board to limit one’s commercial activities. He said there could be, as there are ordinances in town that limit the days and hours that gravel pits can operate. He said if there is authority only if there is an ordinance that does that. He said if you’re going to rely on the general-purpose section to impose those conditions, the Law Court said in Stewart vs. Sedgwick the purpose section is not standards. He said if the Board could balance things, perhaps the neighbors could leave during summer months and find other residences. He asked why, as shocking as that sounds, that would not be as reasonable as asking his clients to curtail their economic livelihood as an accommodation to the neighbors. He said the pound has been there a lot longer than they have. He said he did not mean to be provocative or argumentative, but merely to point out the slippery slope the Board could avoid by not trying to balance interests by restraining someone else’s activities.

Mr. Bearor said the ordinance contains review criteria be it noise, dust, buffering etc. and you have to evaluate the application in that regard. He said they’ve known all along the issue with the neighbors has been hours of operation and truck traffic. He said they could not voluntarily limit themselves given the business they’re in. He said they would not voluntarily entertain a condition like that. He said they’re willing to have the application evaluated on the conditions contained in the ordinance, but they’re not willing to let the board limit business activities.

Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked Mr. Bearor if he thinks the Board’s choices are to approve or disapprove. Mr. Bearor said or approve with conditions too. He said on the topic of noise, the ordinance gives the Board the latitude to evaluate and say you can’t operate a particular business for example if you found where they couldn’t operate at less than 70-decibel 24 hours a day. He said the Board would find they couldn’t meet the standards. He said his clients could meet the standards regardless of the time of day.

Mr. Frederick said in the Shoreland Ordinance requires a business to apply for and obtain an expansion of business permit. He said he filed a complaint with the town in 2002 against the lobster pound on that basis. He said he met with the Board of Selectmen and they suggested that he take back the complaint and the hours of operation and truck traffic would be covered within the Site Plan Review. He said he regrets doing that now, but he’s still hopeful that at some point that discussion will take place, perhaps within the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance. He said he’s not sure he agrees with Mr. Bearor that this is not the place.

Mr. Alvarez said he disagrees with Mr. Bearor on limiting traffic. He said the ordinance has a big section on traffic and asked why it might require a traffic study if the Board has no authority to do anything about it. He said the purpose of the ordinance is to protect against undue disturbance against such things as traffic. Mr. Bearor said the Board has that right, and they’ve reviewed that standard. He said the traffic study is triggered by a certain number of trips or other factors. He said if that were the case, you could insist on such a study. He said it’s not an automatic translation into authority that one limit their hours of operation, unless the study demonstrates an intersection along a traveled route was subject to a high level of accidents during a particular hour of the day. He said barring anything like that, he didn’t think the Board has any authority to place limitations on hours of operations or numbers of trucks other than by way of evaluating the application by the standards set forth in the ordinance.

Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said he thinks there has been testimony to the effect that the parking area which the application is for has reduced traffic volume, or has not increased it. He said it looks like that which has increased traffic volume is the volume of business; the number of lobsters that come in and out. Mr. Alvarez said that’s what’s created the traffic concern, is the volume. He said the amount of waste and noise is all in relation to the volume of business. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said it’s his opinion that’s not what this appeal is about. He said the appeal is whether the Planning Board made a mistake when they issued the site plan review permit in clearing the parking area and enlarging the parking area for these trucks, and the Board is told that has reduced some of the truck traffic.

Mr. Alvarez asked what it was reduced from. Mr. Frederick said that’s ridiculous. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said it’s reduced traffic coming up and down the Seal Point Road. Mr. Alvarez asked when the traffic reduction started; at what point do you measure it. He said the pound operated for 14-years with 120,000 pounds for an entire year. He said it’s gone now to over 5-million pounds a year. Mr. Pettegrow asked where he got that number. Mr. Alvarez said it’s gone way up and it runs into the millions. He said one of the trucks in four loads could fill or empty the pound. He said if it made one trip a week for the entire year, they would have over a million and a half pounds of volume. He said they have six trucks, and by simple arithmetic, the volume would stagger your mind.

Mr. Bearor said if he understands the testimony the last time here, what we are saying is with the reconfiguration of the parking area, they need fewer trucks coming in and out of the facility. He said they’ve never said there wasn’t an increase in the business at the facility. He said the application before the board for the increased parking area reduces traffic, and if they didn’t have the increased parking area or maneuverability there would be more trucks going in and out, because business is going up. He said the limiting factor is size of the pound itself.

Mr. Alvarez said it’s been a misconception from the start. He said using the pound’s capacity of 120,000 pounds has nothing to do with it. He said the pound isn’t even being used. He said the capacity of the tank room is entirely different from the pound. He said that room holds roughly 500-crates, or about 50,000 pounds.

Mr. Bearor said the parking area itself reduces the amount of traffic in and out. He said if the parking area were eliminated, there would be more traffic on the road, and there would be no review authority for the town. He said what they’re ending up with is a better project at the site as a result of them being there.

Mr. Frederick said the application to the state clearly states the expansion of the parking lot is a necessity in order to expand the business. He said they’ve built the parking and expanded the business. He said the parking lot allowed them to bring in more trucks, expand their hours of operation, and create more noise and traffic. He said if that’s not the case, then somebody owes an explanation to the state.

Mrs. Pettegrow said it’s for safe interior circulation. She said there was an adequate area to turn trucks around to help reduce the volume of traffic coming in there. Mr. Frederick said that’s not what was stated to the state. Mr. Bearor told Mr. Frederick to take it up with the state. Mr. Frederick said he was trying to take it up with the town.

Mr. Alvarez said the tank house holds roughly 500 crates or 50,000 pounds. He said you couldn’t say the tank house has a capacity of 50,000 pounds when it empties out every other day. He said what they’re talking about is volume. He said every time the tank house empties out and fills, there is that much more traffic coming up and down the road. He said the pound is a bit player; it’s not being used.

Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said it’s being used as the basis for a pre-existing use. Mr. Alvarez said the pre-existing use was a traditional lobster pound. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said as far as he understands it, it’s still being used as a lobster pound. He said this appears to be beyond the scope of the board’s jurisdiction in this matter.

Mr. Alvarez said the Pettegrows put about 20,000 pounds into the lobster pound last winter. Mrs. Pettegrow said to Mr. Alvarez that he just stated that they did not use the pound. Mr. Pettegrow said he did use the pound, and there was a lot more than 20,000, but he wasn’t going to tell him how much because it’s none of his business.

Mr. Bearor said it’s not a non-conforming use. He said a portion of the structure might be non-conforming. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said the use is not non-conforming.

Mr. Becker said the DEP views this to be an expansion because they view the site used in business activity, so expansion is the fact they built a parking lot that didn’t exist previously. He said they didn’t expand the building. He said it didn’t refer to the fact the business might contract or expand depending on market conditions which is not a permit issue. He said the DEP considers it putting unused land into use. Mr. Frederick read a portion of a letter from Mr. Salsbury to the DEP. Mr. Becker again restated that the DEP views the parking lot as an expansion; using it for trucks instead of a wetland. He said it’s not making the claim they’re expanding the building or putting more units inside.

Mr. Hunt said the letter states the Pettegrows are renovating the lobster pound and plan on expanding the operation. He said the letter further states larger trucks will be needed to take lobsters in and out and to bring in feed. He said that’s incompatible with what Mr. Becker said. He said that means an expansion of the business activity, not an expansion of the parking lot. He said it didn’t make sense. He said it only makes sense if you interpret it to mean they’re expanding a business activity.

Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said he thinks they bought the pound with the expectation of expanding the business. He said it was for sale because it wasn’t a going concern, and they discovered a way to make it a going concern. He said if the Board were deciding that, where could they draw the line; how successful could they be before the Board told them enough and stop bringing in six 18-wheelers a week and cut it down to three. He said he had a problem with that concept, though he understands where Mr. Hunt is coming from, balancing the rights of the abutters to not want a constant stream of traffic coming in day and night. He said Mr. Bearor’s point is that when you buy a commercial property is that you look at what’s permitted, and what the ordinances allow you to do. He said whoever created the Site Plan Review Ordinance set forth decibel levels for industrial and non-industrial uses. He said if the Pettegrows created levels of 80-to-90 decibels, they would look at the ordinance and say that’s not permitted and they would go someplace else. He said there has to be some certainty to what you can do before you invest the money. He said you couldn’t do things that are detrimental to the rights of your neighbors.

Mr. Hunt said you could apply for permits before buying the property. He said purchase and sale agreements have conditions on obtaining certain permits. He said the Pettegrows might rely on others to get their permits, and it’s an after the fact permit, so the obligation of due diligence rested on somebody who didn’t get the permit. He said a look at the history of the building, he would take issue with the Code Enforcement Officer’s (CEO) advice that no permit was needed to complete the building. He said there is nothing in the record of the project on how much was spent to complete the building. He said the CEO just sort of blew it off.

Mr. Bearor said this has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Mr. Wuorinen said they keep wandering away from item 13, and asked if the board could hear a set of conditions that have to do with noise control. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said the Planning Board set forth three conditions to be met by the applicants. Mr. Wuorinen asked to read them. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said the Planning Board found the noise from the generator, the refrigeration units and the truck traffic is a major concern for the appellants, and conditions relating to noise were set as a pre-condition of the application on September 15, 2003. He said the conditions are to control noise and the Pettegrows will enclose the generator facing the Alvarez property (Map 8 Lot 12), enclose the refrigeration unit facing the Frederick/Langlois property (Map 8 Lot 12-4) and conduct a noise test of truck refrigeration on site and provide those test results to the town record. He said Mrs. Pettegrow agreed to conduct such a test. He said the Planning Board accepted that offer as a condition of permit issuance. He asked if the conditions were reasonable. He said if there are going to be noise tests conducted, he would assume whoever’s conducting the test would have the limits of this ordinance in mind. He said Mr. Bearor indicated that was not the case on the preliminary tests.

Mr. Wuorinen asked if it could be reworded to have the Pettegrows have the responsibility of showing the noise levels meet the ordinance requirement, and make that a condition instead of just saying that they make the measurements. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said the purpose of making the measurements is to show conformance with this particular standard. Mr. Wuorinen said the wording used should be in the condition instead of just a logical conclusion. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said it would be counter productive to conduct tests that didn’t comply with what’s set forth in the standard, as he’d have to do it again. He said there would be no harm in re-crafting the language. Mr. Wuorinen said the condition should be that the sound level is measured, and the result shown to meet the standards of the ordinance.

Mr. Hunt said he didn’t believe his clients are contending the sounds emanating from the operation even come close to the thresholds of the decibel levels. He said that wasn’t the argument they were making, so he’s not sure it’s important for the board to say the applicants have to have tests done to show compliance with those standards. He said he didn’t think that has to be done.

Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said it’s Mr. Hunt’s clients belief that the sound levels do not exceed those permissible under the ordinance. Mr. Hunt said that’s been a contention. Mr. Alvarez said former CEO John Holdsworth worked with him using a primitive sound meter that proved unreliable. He said the town did try. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said they might not have had the benefit of looking at exhibit 9. He said it appears there really aren’t any locations along the edges of the property that come anywhere close to exceeding the levels. Mr. Alvarez said he’s not seen the report, but he doesn’t doubt it. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said notwithstanding the generator being enclosed and the refrigeration. He asked if that was still an issue. Mr. Becker said they agreed to do that.

Mr. Alvarez said a puff of wind would set the town’s noise meter off. Mr. Bearor said noise readings are invalidated in the wind in trials he’s done. Mr. Frederick said someone has already done a study. Mr. Alvarez said he had no qualms about the numbers. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if that was the case, is it the appellant’s position that it’s no longer necessary for the Pettegrows to conduct the noise test for the current operations. Mr. Hunt said he would agree that it’s not necessary to conduct any more sound tests. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if the conditions of enclosing the generator and refrigeration units would be sufficient. He asked if there might be further conditions other than those suggested which he didn’t feel were proper.

Mr. Hunt said parking trucks running in a certain way between two non-running trailers so the silent trailers would buffer the noise of the noisy truck. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said the Pettegrows would use all reasonable care to use what’s on site to minimize the noise. Mr. Bearor said they would accept that. Mr. Hunt said it might be that they keep sufficient idle equipment trailers on the property to act as a sound barrier.

Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if more trailers would produce a better result. Mr. Becker said two is sufficient. He said that’s been the Pettegrows practice, and educating the truck drivers produces a better benefit. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if there was any benefit to three or four trailers there. Mr. Becker said the idea is to bounce the sound up. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said you’re boxing it, not deflecting it. Mr. Becker explained how it works, and that they’re protecting it in two directions.
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said water does nothing to attenuate sound. Mr. Becker said if you’re on the point, you really don’t notice the noise. He gave an example of an in-town operation using several trucks.

Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said the board received a letter dated July 17, 2004 from a man who lives on Partridge Cove and he’s indicated he could hear the idling trucks across the water. He said that was before the voluntary mitigation efforts. Mr. Becker said the only direction the noise would go now is into the woods.

Mr. Wuorinen moved to find the conditions recommended in Number 13 noise would be met subject to the first two conditions to enclose the generator and enclose the refrigerator, and the third condition now is the Pettegrows keep and use sufficient idle equipment to provide noise buffering to the neighbors. Mr. McDevitt 2nd. Vote in favor was 4-0.

Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said the last of the review criterion is item 16. Mr. Bearor said yes, the Comprehensive Plan. He said the parking area is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, and the Planning Board conclusion says it all. He said the Planning Board found the Comprehensive Plan specifically acknowledges a lobster pound operation at this site. He said the sentence on page 119, quote “there is substantial lobster pound operated by Mr. Alvarez”. Mr. Bearor said the standard that something be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan is one of those kind of amorphous standards, but in this situation, having said that, believe that we demonstrate by the words of the Comprehensive Plan itself that we are in conformance. He said the Comprehensive Plan is not an ordinance but a policy statement of the town. He said it has a section within it called land use policies with suggested zoning. He said there is nothing about this project that is inconsistent with that plan. He said it specifically references the lobster pound. He said that is sufficient for the Board to find they meet the condition of paragraph 16.

Mr. Bearor said he prepared a memorandum, and read from it. He said Section F of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, which says there should be a continuation of the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance in accordance with and at the level recommended by the state. He said the lobster pound is in and should remain within the Limited Commercial Zone. He said it’s express language that the pound remain within that zone, and a letter from Mr. Hunt on July 30th says the same thing. He said that’s sufficient demonstration that this development is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. He said they could debate at the appropriate time whether this is an industrial use. He said he thinks the Planning Board was correct in its conclusion.

Mr. Hunt said he thinks the discussion would be circuitous if talking about the Comprehensive Plan, and this is not the place to argue about what the Limited Commercial Zone means because that’s within the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance. He said that would boot strap the Shoreland Ordinance into the Site Plan Review Ordinance, and that’s not needed.

Mr. Wuorinen moved to find that the activity meets the requirement of conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. McDevitt 2nd. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if it were more accurate said the plan prepared for the site plan conforms with the comprehensive plan. Mr. Wuorinen said that’s good. Mr. McDevitt indicated he would 2nd that. Vote in favor 4-0.

Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if that was the last of the review criteria that was not agreed to. Mr. Bearor said yes.

Mr. Wuorinen said the next item of business is to look at the Shoreland Zone. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said he didn’t know if they’re at that point yet. He said they need to give approval to this part. Mr. Bearor said it appears they’ve reached the conclusion of this appeal, he would like to go home this evening. Mr. Alvarez said he agreed with Mr. Bearor. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said he would entertain a motion to approve the application of….

Mr. Alvarez said the Board has not had a public hearing yet. He said much of what the appellants have learned came at these meetings, and came through Mr. Bearor’s testimony. He said there should be one public hearing that includes both the site plan and the Shoreland Ordinance at the end of the Shoreland Ordinance. He said he didn’t think this is ready to be approved.

Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked how this public hearing should be conducted. Mr. Alvarez said at the end of the Shoreland Zoning appeal, the Board should call a public hearing, and then go to the decision. Mr. Alvarez said he thinks the Board would make a procedural mistake to approve without a public hearing, and it could come back to haunt.

Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said he would accede to Mr. Bearor’s request to adjourn for the evening and continue in the not too distant future. Discussion followed on the next meeting time. It was agreed to meet on November 10, 2004 at 6:30 PM.

Mr. Bearor said he did not expect a very long presentation on the Shoreland Zoning matter.

Mr. Wuorinen moved to adjourn. Mr. Fenton 2nd. All were in favor, and the meeting adjourned at 9:43 PM

Respectfully submitted

Stu Marckoon, Secretary