Town of Lamoine, Maine
Lamoine Board of Appeals
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt called the meeting to order at 6:40 PM
Present were Appeals Board members Chris Tadema-Wielandt, Reggie McDevitt, John Wuorinen, Hancock “Griff” Fenton; Secretary Stu Marckoon, Attorney for the Pettegrows Edmond Bearor, Attorney for Alvarez et al Gary Hunt, Anthony & Josette Pettegrow, Donald Becker (CES), Paul Frederick, Warren Craft, Gerald Ford, Robert Alvarez, Kate Berry.
Continuation of hearing – Alvarez et. al. vs. Lamoine Planning Board re: issuance of Site Plan Review and Shoreland Zoning Permits to A & J Pettegrow (Seal Point Lobster Pound).
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said he would like to continue the consideration of minutes until the next meeting. The Board agreed.
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said the hearing had gotten to section 16 of the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Bearor said they were at subsection 9 which refers to land use standards in Section 15, and it should be on letter “i”. He said when the last meeting left off, the board had considered section 16-a-3 a-through-i, and had reviewed all but “i”.
Mr. Bearor said standard “a” is a dimensional standard which refers to the minimum lot size, which he said was clearly met, and which the Planning Board found met the ordinance minimums. He said the frontage is clearly greater than 200-feet. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if Mr. Bearor was referring to Exhibit 3SZ. Mr. Bearor said yes, and he had nothing further to present on that. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said it appeared there was no need for anything further. He said an acre is 43,560 square feet. He said the Pettegrows have more than the minimum lot area and shore frontage required. There were no other questions.
Mr. Bearor said standard “b” refers to principle and accessory structures. He said the application is for a parking lot and turnaround area as shown in Exhibit 3SZ. He said the new gravel parking area is shown in darker blue. He said the distance from high water is 104-feet. He said that all new work is greater than 100-feet from the high water mark. He said the Planning Board findings agreed, and the one dissenting member felt the driveway and parking lot were indistinguishable from one another, so he couldn’t vote in favor. He said the plan shows that the parking lot is more than 100-feet from high water and not contrary to the provisions of the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance. He said the materials include a letter from Surveyor (Steve) Salsbury who set the stakes to establish the setbacks.
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked Mr. Bearor to speak briefly to the floodplain issues. Mr. Bearor said section 15-b-1 speaks about this, and it appears this area is outside the floodplain boundary. Mr. Bearor said he believed the floodplain boundary is depicted on the plan. He showed the Board that the improved area is outside the floodplain boundary depicted on the plan. Mr. Becker said Mr. Bearor was correct.
Mr. Bearor said the parking area elevation does not exceed 35-feet. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if he was talking about the height section. He said the next section doesn’t appear to apply to a parking lot.
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked about the next section, subsection 4, total area. Mr. Bearor read the standard from the ordinance. He said the unique aspect of this situation in which they find themselves, is covered under section 15 “o”. He said the lot coverage calculations were provided to the Board in the lower left hand corner of Exhibit 3SZ. He said previous testimony showed the property had been developed over time, and relevant dates are in the notes section in the corner of the plan. He said the existing coverage in 1993 was 18%. He said the lot coverage after construction of the tank house in 1996 was 21.9%, and total lot coverage with the house for which a permit was issued was 31.5%. He said restoration to the site of 25,296 square feet results in a lot coverage of 21.4%, which is less than what existed in 1996. He said construction of the parking area did not result in an increase of lot coverage when considered as a whole.
Mr. Bearor said the Pettegrows reached a consent agreement with the Town in connection with these activities, requiring them to come here. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if he had a copy of the consent decree. Mr. Bearor said he did not. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said Mr. Alvarez indicated it was in the package that he provided to the Board. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt thanked Mr. Alvarez for providing that. Mr. Bearor said the package from Mr. Alvarez also contains the notice of violation.
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked what the significance of 1996 was. Mr. Bearor said that was when the tank house was constructed. He said the town issued a permit, and the 10% coverage threshold was exceeded then. He said the Pettegrows have brought it back to ½ % less 21.9%.
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked what the significance of May 1993 was. Mr. Bearor said he didn’t know. Mr. Becker said it was a note from Mr. Salsbury. He said the submission to the Board of Appeals is the same as was made to the Planning Board. Secretary Marckoon noted that 1993 was the date when the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance was approved.
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked what would be involved in additional restoration to bring the coverage to 18%. Mr. Becker said they would have to do it, if the Board wanted. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if it was feasible, and if so, where it might be done. He said it doesn’t really appear that way to him. Mr. Becker explained the crosshatched areas and mid-shaded blue areas. He said he didn’t know what the roads are used for or if grass seed could be put down. Mr. Becker said around 7,500 square feet would need to be restored. He said there is nearly 5,000 feet of a 3-foot wide line. He said he’s unsure if has much meaning. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if the area shown on the plan depicts roadways, and if those roadways exist or are Rights-of-Way shown on the subdivision plan. He said he would guess those are traveled ways. He said he believes he has an answer to that question.
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked Mr. Becker if about 5,000 square feet would be sufficient to bring back restored areas. Mr. Becker asked if he could calculate it, and came up with 8,886 square feet. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said he understands it’s not a significantly large area. Mr. Becker said he didn’t know which side of the line it would fall on, but there is a tremendous amount of border on which that area is calculated. He said in theory half the line is not in the area. He said the area of the line was 34,000 square feet, so perhaps the numbers could have been presented more favorably.
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if the total lot size was calculated by a computer program. Mr. Becker said Mr. Salsbury did that using a computer program. He briefly explained how the computer program works.
Mr. Bearor said he didn’t believe there were any steep slopes or unstable soils, which section B-5 addresses. He said there are no stairs leading to the water. He said the Pettegrows have not proposed piers, docks, wharfs etc. He said they didn’t propose campgrounds or sites as outlined in sections “d” and “e”. He said section “f” refers to parking areas, and that’s what this is. He said they’re 104-feet from the high water mark. He said it is adequately and appropriately sized.
Mr. Wuorinen asked about the 25-foot setback from the upland edge of a wetland as required in “F-1”. Mr. Becker said the answer to that is found in the definition of wetland (page 40). He said the Shoreland Zone does not define the area as a wetland, and explained. He said the DEP model ordinance and the wetland definition are the same. He said freshwater wetlands near the parking lot do not meet the DEP definition of wetlands. Mr. Bearor said there needs to be greater than a 10-acre wetland to require the setback. He said the rules do not apply to small pockets of wetlands. Mr. Becker said the 75-foot setback does not exist anymore in the DEP regulations, but it does exist in the Town’s Ordinance. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if the town’s definition is defined by a state definition. Mr. Becker said the town’s definition was part of the state guidelines, and still is. He said that was the kind of wetlands that the ordinance was intending to regulate, known as jurisdictional wetlands. He said if the ordinance were applicable within 250-feet of all small wetlands, everything in town would be in the Shoreland Zone. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said it seemed clear to him that this was not a 10-acre or more wetland. Mr. Alvarez said he agreed with Mr. Becker and that (Richard) Baker advised of that 2-years ago. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked who Mr. Baker was. Mr. Alvarez said he is the Shoreland Zoning coordinator of the DEP.
Mr. Bearor said section “g” refers to roads and driveways. He said they’re not constructing anything new within 100-feet of the high water line, and the road on the plan exists. He said the Planning Board finding was the same as under “b” and “f”; that there had not been activities within 100-feet of the water. Mr. Frederick said Mr. Bearor said the road had existed prior to the existence of the parking lot. He said the road was widened at the same time as the parking lot was built. Mr. Bearor said he did not know what Mr. Frederick was speaking about. He said what’s shown on the plan as old gravel is indeed the old gravel road that leads into the property. Mr. Frederick said the original sketch given by Mr. Salsbury shows how the road was widened, the parking lot constructed, and the wetlands filled along the roadway. The board looked at page 29 of the Alvarez submissions).
Mr. Fenton said the handout from Mr. Alvarez had two definition arrows pointing to the same shaded diagonal striping area. Mr. Alvarez said the shading represents what the Pettegrows applied to the DEP for. Mr. Bearor said that’s partly correct. He said the shaded areas are areas they intended to fill, and also previously filled wetlands. He said the widening of the road was previously done. Mr. Becker said the DEP has an aerial photograph. He said the road was widened by someone after August 1, 1988, and the survey indicated it was already there and had been there for some time. He said if one walks on the road, it all looks the same; there is no differentiation between old and new. Mr. Becker said there is a defined line between the existing area and the parking lot.
Mr. Frederick said a letter from the Pettegrows to the DEP indicated the road would be widened. He said he recollected the road was widened in 2001. The board looked at a letter in the packet provided by Mr. Alvarez. Mrs. Pettegrow said that was not so. She said the trees were cut because of power lines, and Mr. Alvarez recommended that they cut them, and that he was a habitual complainer to Bangor Hydro. She said they were not cut for road widening. Mr. Alvarez said page 29 of his handout is another plan from Mr. Salsbury. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if that was the one dated June 4, 2001. There was some confusion over the page numbering of Mr. Alvarez’s handout.
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said it appears to him that Exhibit 3SZ, the plan from Mr. Becker and Mr. Salsbury, dated October 21, 2003 is the latest plan. Mr. Bearor said that is correct. Mr. Fenton asked what the legal road right of way in the area is. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said he was unsure and asked if there was a copy of the subdivision plan. Mr. Alvarez said Herrick and Salsbury did his subdivision and used that plan as the base map. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said he wondered how far the subdivision road goes. Mr. Alvarez pointed to the road on the map, and said the right-of-way is 50-feet wide. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said the point was the gravel roads shown on Exhibit 3SZ are not original subdivision roads shown on a plan of record. Mr. Bearor said the area at which the board was looking on the Pettegrow property is a driveway. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said it appears the right of way is outside of lot 12-2, and abuts the lot. Mr. Alvarez said that was correct.
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said he appreciated what Mr. Frederick said, but he thinks he has to rely on Mr. Becker. Mr. Frederick said in the DEP permit, Mr. Salsbury refers to a wetland impact. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked Mr. Becker if that was previously explained, that it was done by a former owner. Mr. Becker said a lot of that was the Pettegrows. He said the DEP decides the impact, and its based on the old maps. He said the Pettegrows bought the lot in 2001.
Mr. Alvarez said the wetlands were spotty, and they only had to get a permit for what was in wetlands. He said some of the parking lot fill was not in a wetland. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said it does not appear to be a jurisdictional wetland. Mr. Becker said that was correct. He said the DEP now requires a permit to fill wetlands. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt clarified the amount of wetlands.
Mr. Alvarez said if the wetlands were filled, it predated the new wetlands NRPW permit, it goes back way before that. Mr. Becker said he agreed. Mr. Frederick said it would suppose the wetland somehow stopped at the edge of the original road. Mr. Alvarez said that’s why they built the road there. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if that was the road Mr. Alvarez had constructed. Mr. Alvarez said yes, it was part of the original pound. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said that was the road that was constructed was shown in orange on Mr. Alvarez’s version of the plan. Mr. Alvarez said yes, it was a single lane, and two cars or trucks could not pass on the 12-foot wide road. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked Mr. Alvarez if that was the case until the pound was sold. Mr. Alvarez said yes, and that’s the way it was when the Pettegrows bought it.
Mr. Fenton read section g-1. He said the driveway is to a permitted structure (the tank building or the pound) and not necessarily to the new gravel parking area. He said he wondered why it was pertinent. Mr. Alvarez said he thinks Mr. Fenton is right. He said the original road was legal as it predated all the new wetlands designations.
Mr. Hunt said the only implication from the sentence read in g-1 is that the board ought to look at what the permitted structure was. Mr. Fenton said regardless of which is permitted as a principle or accessory, it’s not the parking lot. Mr. Frederick said he was confused why the road was widened and it was not included in the permit. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said he would have to rely on Mr. Becker as a professional in the absence of a plan presented by the plaintiffs. Mr. Alvarez asked about the Salsbury plan on page 27. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said the version he has is dated June 4, 2001 hand written. Mr. Alvarez said he wrote it on there due to size. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said Mr. Becker’s plan is dated 2003. Mr. Alvarez said the plan shouldn’t change – it’s the same surveyor.
Mr. Pettegrow said the first day of the project, John Cullen (DEP) came down and told him what he could do and what he couldn’t do. He said Mr. Cullen gave them a permit for the parking lot, was down after the parking lot was put in, and was down a couple months ago, and he didn’t think they filled in any wetlands they shouldn’t have. Mr. Alvarez said Mr. Cullen’s report is on page 2 of his handout.
Mr. Bearor said he would let the board decide whether the standard applies. He said if there is any question the road was wider, any widening, if it occurred was outside the 100-foot area. Mr. Alvarez said the question is whether it took place in the 250-foot area. He said they would need a permit to fill over 10-cubic yards. Mr. Bearor said the standard (g) says roads must be 100-feet from the water.
Mr. Bearor said item “8” refers to signs, and no sign is associated with the project. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if the board addressed subsections of “g”. He said he didn’t think g-2 applies. Mr. Bearor said g-3 doesn’t apply either, as it’s not in the Resource Protection. Mr. Bearor said g-4, slopes, refers to banks, and the slopes are greater than 2:1. He asked Mr. Becker if road banks are steeper. Mr. Becker said no. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked about the slope of the parking lot. Mr. Becker said it’s about 1-percent. He asked if that conforms to the standard. Mr. Becker said yes. Mr. Bearor asked if there were any road grades greater than 10-percent. Mr. Becker answered no.
Mr. Bearor asked Mr. Becker to speak about item §6, drainage. Mr. Becker said there is no evidence the Pettegrows built any roads, so he didn’t know how drainage applies. He said the road drains to an un-scarified buffer strip on the ocean side. Mr. Bearor said the Pettegrows did not install the culvert shown on the plan. Mr. Becker said the road was not channelized, and the drainage goes into the wooded buffer strip. He said it’s consistent with the ordinance.
Mr. Alvarez said Mr. Bearor was mistaken on the culvert; the Pettegrows put that in. Mr. Bearor asked Mrs. Pettegrow if they did. Mrs. Pettegrow answered yes, that Mr. Alvarez had recommended it. She said water used to run over the road.
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if item 6 applies. Mr. Becker said he didn’t think so. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked about item §7. Mr. Becker said item §7 is ditch relief, and is written a little differently than other codes he’s seen. He said the road is pretty flat, and he’s not sure what water it would give relief to. He said unless there is some amount of water to convey, there is no application for a cross culvert on their site. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked about the grade. Mr. Becker said it’s 1-percent. He said the rule was written to prevent turning road ditches into a stream. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked Mr. Becker if it was his opinion that it was constructed to minimize such problems. Mr. Becker said he believes it is functioning properly.
Mr. Bearor said they don’t have any signs. He said storm water runoff was addressed as part of the site plan review application. Mr. Wuorinen asked if it was necessary to address it again. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if it’s part of this application. Mr. Bearor said he asked to cross-reference it in the Site Plan. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if it was in Exhibit 2 to the site plan review. The Board looked at that plan.
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said the plan shows watersheds and directions of water drainage. Mr. Alvarez said he was concerned with a ditch on the east side of the parking area which turns toward a culvert. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said Mr. Alvarez was concerned that it wasn’t shown, but it was. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said he didn’t know if the Board had to go into the plan any further.
Mr. Bearor said items “6j”, “6k”, “6l”, “6m” and “6n” are not activities that are relative to this project. He asked the Board to find that they are not applicable, and read each activity. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said that was OK. Mr. Bearor said item “6o” refers to clearing of vegetation for development. He said that was addressed in “6b”, but he would be happy to review it again, and the explanations are the same. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if there was any clearing less than 100-feet from the high water mark. He said it doesn’t appear that way as the parking lot is 104-feet from high water and the road is between the new construction and existing roads, it doesn’t appear clearing was necessary. He asked Mr. Becker if he knew whether there was any clearing done. Mr. Becker said there was none. He said the area is not in the Resource Protection District, so it’s not within 100-feet. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said section “6o-2” applies. He asked if no clearing had been done within that 100-feet. Mr. Becker said section “6-o-3” applies. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if the project is in compliance. Mr. Becker said the 40-percent rule applies to the area beyond 100-feet. He said they have not exceeded 40-percent clearing in the Shoreland Zone. Mr. Fenton asked if this lot is in the CFMA district. Mr. Becker said it should be, but it is not. Mr. Bearor said it’s in Limited Commercial.
Mr. Alvarez said the last paragraph applies, that 40-percent is not the correct figure, it’s 25-percent. Mr. Becker said both numbers apply. He said the 40-percent rule applies to overall clearing, and 25-percent is the maximum cleared opening standard. He said to exceed that, 1.5 acres would have to be cleared. Mr. Alvarez said he disagreed and believed 25-percent is the total of all clearings. Mr. Becker urged the board to read both standards and said 40-percent applies to the overall lot and 25-percent applies to the cleared opening.
Mr. Alvarez said Mr. Baker (DEP) read through the minutes of the last meeting and found confusion regarding clearing. He read from a letter from Mr. Baker to himself dated January 30, 2004. Mr. Bearor said he never received that letter. Mr. Hunt said he did. Mr. Alvarez said the 40-percent applies to the first 100-feet. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said none of the construction is within 100-feet of the high water mark, it’s moot. Mr. Alvarez said the rest of the lot, about six acres, one can clear a total of 25-percent. He said he believes they have exceeded that grossly. He asked the board to look at an aerial photograph. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if Mr. Alvarez was referring to the first page of his handout, and what date was it taken. Mr. Alvarez said May 1996, taken by the USGS. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if there was any photo showing the current existing situation. Mr. Alvarez displayed a picture taken near a power pole which shows the whole area cleared.
Mr. Bearor said they would rely on what Exhibit 3SZ has for calculation of lot coverage of 21.4 percent. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if that 21.4 percent is to be held against the 25-percent standard. Mr. Becker said they didn’t do any clearing beyond that. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if it’s the same as 25%. Mr. Becker said no. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if was defined differently. Mr. Becker said yes.
Mr. Fenton said there was previous discussion about this area of the lot that the previous owner had cut and burned trees. He said it was not the Pettegrows who did it. Mr. Frederick said that’s immaterial because no clearing can exceed 25-percent, no matter who did it. Mr. Fenton said if the land is divided, the percentage goes up. Mr. Frederick said if the Pettegrows had come forward when they built the parking lot, the application would have been rejected. Mr. Becker said the 21.4% is not the amount of the lot that is cleared. He said that’s the percentage of impervious area. He said that percentage is cleared. He said the Pettegrows took down 5-trees to build the parking lot, and they have planted 27 trees. He said he doesn’t know what the cleared amount is, but there is no evidence it is greater than 25-percent. Mr. Bearor said clearing and lot coverage are not synonymous. Mr. Becker clarified the difference.
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said the 25-percent standard includes land previously developed, so whether or not the Pettegrows cut down trees, that’s immaterial. Mr. Becker said that is correct. Mr. Becker said he doesn’t believe they’ve exceeded the standard. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if they were close to the standard. Mr. Becker said he thinks they are close.
Mr. Alvarez said page two of his hand out is a letter from John Cullen, and read from it. He said letter was written at the time the parking lot was under construction. Mrs. Pettegrow said that was not true. She said Mr. Cullen was there before they ever did anything toward building the parking lot. She said a permit was issued by the DEP and at that point there was a lack of communication between the contractor and the surveyor about all the permits being received. She said that’s how this all started. She said there was no work done prior to Mr. Cullen’s inspection.
Mr. Alvarez said the earliest report is dated April 27, 2001, and he was there that day. He said a logging contractor was there for 4-to-5 days. Mr. Bearor said there is no evidence to suggest the DEP issued an after the fact permit. Mr. Alvarez said on page 3 of his handout are pictures that Mr. Cullen took, and it shows the lot was stripped. Mr. Becker said the pictures don’t show construction, and clearing is allowed without a permit. Mr. Alvarez said Mr. Cullen said he understood that this was supposed to be a truck turning area. Mr. Becker said Mr. Cullen was there as part of the permitting process.
Mr. Pettegrow said they had to delineate the wetland area. Mr. Frederick said the impervious surface was 31-percent. He said some was re-vegetated, but it’s still a clearing. Mr. Becker said they have proposed to revegetate with trees, and some areas would be grassed. He said there aren’t many trees in some areas. He said they couldn’t plant at the high water mark. Mr. Frederick said any part that has not been re-treed needs to be counted toward the cleared percentage. Mr. Becker said only if it’s been cleared. He said most of the re-vegetation plan has been planted, and some areas are on hold because of the appeal.
Mr. Frederick said he believed this was a gray area and the Board can’t take the word of either party. He said Mr. Becker contends that the clearing is close, but less than 25-percent. He said he contends it’s greater than 25-percent. He said the board should not accept either party’s word without proof. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked what the proof would be. Mr. Frederick showed the picture supplied by Mr. Alvarez, taken from the edge of his driveway. He said there are no trees in this entire area. Mrs. Pettegrow asked what was sticking up. Mr. Frederick said the trees would eventually grow. He said he couldn’t see how the calculation is less than 25-percent. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said they’re talking about the entire lot. He asked Mr. Frederick if he had an idea of the percentage. Mr. Frederick said he did not. Mr. Alvarez said he thinks it’s around 40-percent of 6-acres cleared. Mr. Bearor asked the basis for that calculation. Mr. Alvarez said it could be solved by a surveyor. He said it should be on the plan, and it is not. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked Mr. Alvarez if he was suggesting more than 1.5 acres was cleared. Mr. Alvarez said yes. He said the measurement could be done in an office, and he thinks it’s an important enough issue. Mr. Becker said the device used is accurate to within 15-percent.
The board took a break at 8:28 PM, and reconvened at 8:38 PM.
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked Mr. Becker to explain the difference between lot coverage and cleared openings. Mr. Becker said in this case he didn’t believe there is much difference. He gave an example of a building with a sheep pasture in which there would be a significant difference. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if lot coverage refers to impervious surfaces. Mr. Becker said the ordinance refers to a number of things, including the septic system, the house, and driveway - structures. He said in this case there is not a great deal of difference. He said the drawings show there was a time when the lot was 31.5-percent cleared. He said most of that predates the Pettegrows. He said there is some evidence the lot was 25-percent cleared when they purchased it. He said the Baker letter compared the case on facts provided to him and on the state mandatory Shoreland limits, which does not match Lamoine’s ordinance. He said he knows if they survive the appeal there will be less than 25-percent cleared. He said he couldn’t say whether the lot currently is or is not 25-percent cleared. He said he could say they would institute the vegetation plan, and it would be under 25-percent.
Mr. Bearor said he would refer to erosion and sedimentation control plan in the Site Plan Review application for criteria “i”. He said he’d take a cue from the Board that this topic was covered. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said it has. Mr. Bearor proceeded on to item “q”, soils and read the standard. He said they proposed to construct the parking lot, they have constructed it, they have used it, and the soils are adequate for the use. Mr. Becker said the soils were named after Lamoine and gave a lengthy explanation about soil types. He said the soils are suitable and the water table was near the surface, so they needed some gravel. Mr. Bearor asked if the soils could support the use. Mr. Bearor said yes, and you could see that it supports trucks. He said there are a couple feet of gravel there. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if Mr. Becker designed the parking lot. Mr. Becker said no, it was not designed. He said it was built before there was a permit and before he was involved. He said Tim Gott did it, and Mr. Gott has lots of experience and is a contractor who gives people a product that works. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said section “q” refers to soils, not with the gravel added.
Mr. Bearor said section “r” refers to pollutant discharge, and it was discussed that they wash vehicles with only clear water. He said otherwise there is no fuel storage on site. He said he would contend there are not activities on the parcel that give rise to pollution. Mr. Alvarez said it’s not that easy about washing. He said pages 46-to-49 of his handout shows that activity is prohibited. The Board read that section of Mr. Alvarez’s presentation. Mr. Bearor said he’d had no opportunity to review Mr. Alvarez’s handout. He said it didn’t strike him as a prohibition on power washing vehicles. He said he stands by his earlier position regarding the activities that take place on the property.
Mr. Bearor said there are no archaeological sites on the parcel, and pointed to Mr. Alvarez’s subdivision proposal as stating this.
Mr. Bearor said that completes the review under section 15. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if that concluded Mr. Bearor’s presentation. Mr. Bearor said he didn’t know what the board might choose to do next in regard to the public hearing. He said he would like the opportunity to respond to the public hearing or the Alvarez handout. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said the Alvarez handout ought to be entered as an exhibit. Mr. Bearor said he had no objection but he would like the opportunity to comment. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said the Alvarez handout would be Exhibit 4SZ. He said he’s concerned that Mr. Alvarez’s page numbers are not the same as those in the copy handed to the board. Mr. Alvarez said that was his fault. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked how many pages there were in the handout. Mr. Alvarez said there were 49, some of them double-faced. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said the official exhibit has 49-pages. Mr. Bearor confirmed his copy had 49-pages.
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said accompanying Exhibit 4SZ was a note from Mr. Alvarez asking to make a presentation. Mr. Alvarez said he wanted to do that at the public hearing. Chairman said he felt this has been ongoing since June, so now it’s Mr. Alvarez’s turn.
Mr. Alvarez referred to exhibit 4SZ. He said page one was an aerial photograph from the US Geological Survey dated May 14, 1996. He said it shows the area as mostly wooded. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked what the line drawn on the photograph depicted. Mr. Alvarez said they were the approximate property lines. (Tape 1 ends here)
Mr. Alvarez said page two was the field determination from John Cullen of the DEP. He said Mr. Cullen was called to the site by Tim Gott. Mr. Alvarez pointed to the last paragraph of the report and said that’s where Mr. Cullen told the project to stop until they obtained a DEP permit. Mr. Bearor said he did not see that in there. Mr. Alvarez said he was there that day and said that Mr. Gott told him the DEP shut them down. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked Mr. Alvarez read the highlighted paragraph which he did as follows: “Also (this is Cullen speaking) I noted that the cleared area on the road heading to the pound contained some freshwater wetlands. I understand that this is proposed to be a truck turning / parking area. The wetland is in the Shoreland Zone so an NRPA permit will be required to fill this area. He drew the area in there and I yellowed it in to show what he was talking about”. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked Mr. Alvarez to read some additional wording which Mr. Alvarez did as follows: “cleared area contains some freshwater wetland NRPA Permit required to fill this area”. Mr. Alvarez said it’s a very spotty thing because the wetland is not in a square block, it runs wherever it run. He said Cullen couldn’t determine where it is, the Pettegrows had to hire a wetland delineator.
Mr. Alvarez said on page 3 are three photographs taken that same day and they’re with the permit he copied in Bangor. He said they got that permit in June. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if they were from the same document as the field determination. Mr. Alvarez answered yes.
Mr. Alvarez said page 4 is a DEP publication on clearing vegetation in the Shoreland Zone, including a listing of reforestation requirements. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt noted that selected parts of the 4-page document (pages 4, 5, 6 & 7) have highlighted sentences. Mr. Alvarez said he did the highlighting.
Mr. Alvarez said page 8 refers to when he and his neighbors decided to ask experts about Shoreland Zoning, so they e-mailed Richard Baker of the DEP and he agreed to meet with them. Mr. Alvarez said Mr. Baker asked them to prepare questions which they did and he answered, and Mr. Alvarez said he highlighted the areas he thought important to the case. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said that comprises pages 8,9 & 10 in Exhibit 4SZ. Mr. Alvarez said on page 9 was a section regarding reforestation and clearing in excess of 25%.
Mr. Alvarez said page 11 is a letter from Mr. Baker to Mr. Alvarez in response to questions Mr. Alvarez asked regarding lot coverage. He said all the letters from Mr. Baker were copied to the Planning Board or the Board of Appeals.
Mr. Alvarez said page 13 is a copy of the Planning Board minutes. He said the last two paragraphs showed very strange thinking on the part of the planning board. Mr. Bearor said his page 13 was not Planning Board minutes. A short discussion followed on what page 13 actually contains. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said that appears in the official exhibit on page 23. He said the document says it was approved by the planning board on 2/23/04 with some sections highlighted. Mr. Alvarez read from the minutes. He said the paragraph he read said to him they don’t want to enforce clearing without a witness.
Mr. Alvarez said the next page is the title page of a booklet the DEP puts out about Shoreland Zoning. Mr. Bearor said booklet pages 1-through-8 are not included, and the board has just been given various pages out of the book the appellants think are important. He said it would be good to have the whole booklet. Secretary Marckoon said he was unsure if the town has the booklet.
Mr. Alvarez said he highlighted the areas he thought were important. He said page 15 (page 11 of the booklet) talks about what belongs in the limited commercial district. He said the next page (and it was noted that the photocopier blacked out some words) talks about non-conforming structures. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said the first sentence says non-conforming structures are usually buildings, but one should make reference to local ordinance definitions. Mr. Alvarez said the document is based on the state model ordinance, not Lamoine’s ordinance.
Mr. Alvarez said page 15 refers to non-conforming uses, and that only residential uses can be expanded 30-percent, nothing else can be expanded. He said he highlighted the flood elevations on page 19. He said the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance says the first floor must be 1-foot above base flood elevation anywhere in the Shoreland Zone. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked what portion of this project Mr. Alvarez was concerned with. Mr. Alvarez stated the site plan review requires the plan show all floors, and they show only the garage floor which is not the lowest floor.
Mr. Alvarez said page 21 talks about parking areas. He said the parking area flows directly into a ditch and then into Partridge Cove with no retention at all. He said page 22 talks about the 25-percent allowance for clear cutting. He said page 24 is a report of Mr. Cullen, which is in there twice. He said page 25 is the original application to the DEP originated by Mr. Cullen and might be one of the most significant documents. He said the Pettegrows were represented by Mr. Salsbury and the DEP is careful to keep the town posted because local permits are required. He said the Town was not aware of the DEP process because the town was not given notice.
Mr. Alvarez said the next page is the permit from the DEP Commissioner. He said he highlighted that a copy would be sent to the town. He said this never reached the Planning Board – it went to the CEO and disappeared. He said had this been properly handled by the town, all the controversy would have been avoided as they would have had town permits.
Mr. Alvarez said the next page (27) is the plan Mr. Salsbury submitted to the DEP for the wetlands alteration permit. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if that was part of the DEP application. Mr. Alvarez said at this point there was no conflict between the neighbors and the Pettegrows. He said Mr. Salsbury drew the plan as it is. Mr. Bearor said all the application materials are in the materials provided to the Board. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if it was the Shoreland Zoning or the Site Plan application. Mr. Bearor said in the Shoreland Zoning, Exhibit 2SZ.
Mr. Alvarez said when the project started in 2001 it never reached the town level. He said page 28 is a narrative by Mr. Salsbury that was submitted to the DEP. He said he highlighted that it was to renovate the lobster pound and expand the operation. Mr. Fenton said there was a photograph on the page, and asked what the date was. Mr. Alvarez said it was from the winter before last. Mr. Bearor said it was not part of their application. Mr. Fenton asked if it was the winter of 2002/03. Mr. Alvarez said yes.
Mr. Alvarez said the next page was part of the application from Mrs. Pettegrow to complete the building, which was drawn by Mr. Salsbury. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if that said plot plan. Mr. Alvarez said it was a page from a standard building permit application. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if it part of the application for a parking lot. Mr. Alvarez said no. He said the reason he included it was to show what Mr. Salsbury showed as the road pre-conflict. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked what the application was for. Mr. Alvarez said he thinks it was their house. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said it was dated 7/9/02. He said the only reason he submitted it was because of Mr. Salsbury’s estimate of the road.
Mr. Alvarez said page 30 shows the Terra-Server designation to show where he got the aerial photograph on the front page. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if it was a smaller version of the front page. Mr. Alvarez said yes.
Mr. Alvarez said page 31 is a memo addressed to the Appeals Board calling attention to damage to the roads. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said that’s his page 32. Mr. Alvarez said he’s saying the damage to the roads in the spring is very significant. He said the Pettegrows continue to haul during that period and it does significant damage to public roads. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked how they could run on the roads if they are posted. Mr. Alvarez said produce haulers could get state permission to haul perishables. He said he didn’t believe the Pettegrows were doing it properly. Mr. Bearor said the Pettegrows get the permit and they’ve never been cited by the DOT. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if the permits are available by filing an application and paying a fee. Mr. Alvarez said yes. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if MDOT limits the number of permits. Mr. Alvarez said they can get a block of tickets, and must call the MDOT. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if simply by making an application one could get a permit. Mr. Alvarez said they are designed only for necessary transport and he didn’t think this was necessary. He said during the testimony for the site plan review Mr. Becker had said that the damage to roads was not applicable in the spring because of the roads being posted, and Mr. Becker gulped when Mr. Pettegrow said they have an exemption.
Mr. Alvarez said his page number 29 is a sketch and shows a narrow driveway has been widened. He said the next 3-to-4 pages are newspaper clippings that when they came out were more a more balanced report than the official minutes. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said he has 5 pages of newspaper clippings.
Mr. Alvarez said pages 39, 40 and 41 are the notice of violation issued by the Code Enforcement Officer on September 24, that orders the parking lot to be removed by October 25, 2002. He said that notice was never appealed by the applicant and it’s his opinion that the order still stands.
Mr. Alvarez said the next series is a consent agreement between the town and the Pettegrows. He said the agreement contains an order to remove the parking lot, and he believes that order still stands and has not been enforced by the town. He said there has been no explanation for that.
Mr. Alvarez said the next item is a letter from Richard Baker dated November 30, 2004. He said that after he left the last appeals board meeting he thought the board ignored certain things. He said he gathered papers and sent them to Mr. Baker who reviewed the files and wrote the letter. Mr. Alvarez said there is a lot more to this than the applicant presented. He said Mr. Baker noticed in the draft of the Appeals Board minutes there was a lot of discussion regarding waste discharge as it applies to truck washing. He said Mr. Baker attached the DEP waste discharge information that discusses outside vehicle washing. He said that is prohibited unless it’s discharged and collected into a POTW (Publicly Owned Treatment Works).
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said page 33 is a memo to the Appeals Board dated September 10, 2004 which talks about discharge of untreated wastewater. Mr. Alvarez said that talks about parking lot washing and overboard discharge. He said he hoped the overboard discharge would be discussed in the Site Plan ordinance, but the Appeals Board ruled the big new building didn’t count toward the site plan, and he thinks the Board was wrong. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if the wastewater discharge is a town issue. Mr. Alvarez said no, it’s a state matter for discharge into any state waters. He said the DEP and the EPA misconstrue what their (the Pettegrows) discharge is. He said in the closed system in warm weather the residue goes directly overboard. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked Mr. Alvarez if the process the Pettegrows use did not exist when Mr. Alvarez ran the pound. Mr. Alvarez said it did not. He said the problem is a high concentration of nutrients and he can smell it in the summer when the Pettegrows clean the filters. Mrs. Pettegrow asked Mr. Alvarez if he smelled it every day. Mr. Alvarez said it is supposed to be two-feet below the low water mark. He said the Pettegrows are immaculate housekeepers, but the residue from the process goes overboard. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked what the solution would be. Mr. Alvarez said it should go below the low water mark. He said the DEP might require the Pettegrows to treat the outflow. He said the DEP thinks the Pettegrows handle 500-crates of lobster, and they handle millions.
Mr. Pettegrow said they showed John Cullen the whole system and he saw no problem with it. Mrs. Pettegrow said they have a document from Mr. Cullen stating that, but did not bring it with them tonight. Mr. Bearor said they would provide a response, but not tonight.
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if there were any other comments from the public, and there were none.
Mr. Hunt said Mr. Alvarez spoke of the road posting and said he looked at the MDOT web site which does provide for trip tickets for each trip. He said he could provide a copy of it, and it’s a relatively minor thing. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said he didn’t see how relevant it is because there is no local control over public roads, and if it’s simple as getting a permit, the damage will occur to the public roads. Mr. Pettegrow said the first year they got the exemption the first trip in there were 6-phone calls made to the DEP and State Police, so they were checked out thoroughly. Mrs. Pettegrow said all the vehicles carry an exemption and they don’t have to be renewed, they’re for the life of the vehicle as long as they own it. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if it were a document they could provide. Mrs. Pettegrow said she could.
Mr. Hunt said there should be a discussion regarding the issue of the operation being an industrial or limited commercial use. He said the definition is in the back of the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Bearor said before that starts, he has prepared a lengthy memo and has had it since October 20th. He said they would have to respond to the materials in Exhibit 4SZ. He handed out a memo. Mr. Hunt said he would like the opportunity to review and respond in writing. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said he was planning to come back tomorrow night, only half tongue-in-cheek. Mr. Alvarez said it’s a complicated matter and will take more than tomorrow to absorb it all. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if Mr. Alvarez was speaking for the Board or his counsel. Mr. Alvarez said all of this stuff should have been here July 30th.
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said Mr. Hunt was prepared to make a presentation on use. Mr. Hunt said that was addressed in his letter of July 30th. He said the term expansion of use, industrial, and commercial are all in the back of the ordinance. He said his clients have said the use of the property has been expanded through increased hours of operation and increased traffic and so forth. He read the definition section of the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance. He said with the completion of the tank building, there was an expansion of use. He said the prior owners did not have anywhere near the volume of lobster or trucks. He said the parking lot is increased ground area. He said the board should not confine its review to just the parking lot. He said when the permit was granted to the prior owner it was granted as an accessory structure.
Mr. Hunt said to compare the income from the building to the tidal pound, it’s no longer an accessory structure but a principle structure. He said the definition of substantial start which is completion of 30-percent as measured as a percent of total cost, there is no information on the tank room. He said he’s not going to get into enforcement issues, but if you look at the parking lot as an expansion of use, the Board could consider whether the parking lot is something that could be permitted or could have conditions on it. He said the issue is primarily traffic, trucks and the level of activity on the property. He said the other issues are important, but that’s the real issue.
Mr. Fenton asked Mr. Hunt to assume that the parking lot is removed and the Pettegrows still wished to have lobsters, there was testimony that if they couldn’t park big trucks, there would be many more trips of smaller trucks. He asked how that would jibe with the request to reduce traffic. He asked if the appellants want the parking lot to not be permitted. Mr. Hunt said his clients don’t want to cause the Pettegrows business to shut down. He said the object of the appeal is to limit the amount of business activity on the property to fit the definition of limited commercial district. He read the definition of the zone in section 13C of the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance. He said one of the positions is because of the level of activity this has evolved into something other than a light commercial activity and it might be industrial. He said it implies there are limits to what can be done in the Limited Commercial District vs. the CFMA zone.
Mr. Hunt said with more smaller trucks it would be true if the same amount of product was coming in and out of the property. He said maybe there should not be so much product that this site can accommodate and the zoning ordinance acts as a limiting factor on how much business can take place. He said if this were in the CFMA district those constraints wouldn’t apply.
Mr. Fenton said if they cut the volume but use smaller trucks there would still be the same number of trips. He asked if truck traffic is the issue of the appeal how do you mitigate traffic. He said if you remove the parking lot or limit hours of operation, the main concern of reducing traffic might not be met. He said that confuses him and he needs to look at the issue.
Mr. Hunt said the size of the trucks is an issue. Mr. Frederick said not only the number of trips but the hours of operation are a concern. He said there are some deliveries at 11:00 PM. Mr. Hunt said the neighbors up the road are bothered by trucks.
Kate Berry asked if this was in the limited commercial or light commercial zone. She said the Appeals Board needs to decide when there is one too many trucks. She said she’s afraid of growth but feels the operation is OK now. She asked how many more trucks are allowed before the town says that’s enough.
Mr. Frederick said the real issue is compatibility. He said the Pettegrows want to do whatever they can do to make money. He said that’s difficult to accept. He asked if they choose to run 24/7, is that acceptable. He said his clients are asking the board to suggest reasonable limits.
Mr. Alvarez said Mr. Baker of the DEP was asked if the new operation is no longer a limited commercial use. Mr. Alvarez said the response was that the answer must come from the Planning Board or the Board of Appeals. He said limited implies limits. He said he would like the Appeals Board to consider that.
Mrs. Pettegrow said the definition of limited commercial tells what is prohibited. She said it’s pretty cut and dry that industrial use is prohibited. Mr. Hunt said it also says the limited commercial district includes mixed light commercial and residential uses. Mrs. Pettegrow asked if there was a definition of light commercial. Mr. Bearor said no.
Mr. Hunt read from Mr. Baker’s letter of January 2002. He said according to Baker, the concern about the pound stems from increased use of the facility and the traffic. He said at some point a facility could be expanded so much it would not be deemed compatible with the surrounded uses. He said that point is not black and white, and it’s up to the town to make that determination. Mr. Hunt said sometimes intense commercial activities might not be appropriate in this district. He said some commercial activities are acceptable and some aren’t. He said the trend in the law for is that if you can’t quantify it you can’t regulate it. He said according to Mr. Baker the boards that administer the Shoreland Zoning do have some area within which they can look at a particular activity and decide whether it’s light commercial or has gone to a more intense commercial or industrial use. He said he thinks the challenge for the Board is to come up with a well-reasoned decision one way or the other. He said courts do that, and in this situation the Planning Board and Board of Appeals have room to make a reasoned judgment.
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if Mr. Hunt had any similar cases he could cite. Mr. Hunt said he asked Mr. Baker and was told no.
Mr. Fenton asked what would happen if the lobster catch dropped dramatically and the pound reduced activity, and then the water warmed up again and they had a banner year with an increase in business. He said what the appellants are asking becomes difficult with drops and increases in business. He said it’s very difficult to legislate. He said there are many variables. He said for the last 15-to-20 years this has been a lobster pound. He said most properties were sold after the pound was put in. He said people knowingly built where there was a pound. He said they understood there was some commercial activity.
Mr. Hunt said it’s not the same situation as when there is a subdivision at a pig farm. He said the tidal lobster pound was very different from the tank room activity. He said the work could be done on an extended calendar. He said the 2nd floor of the building is jammed with shipping boxes. He said packaging is part of an industrial operation. He said it’s not the same as the general store wrapping up sandwiches. He said it’s a question of degree.
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said he would like Mr. Hunt to include in his answer to Mr. Bearor’s memo a paragraph telling where the Board has authority to place conditions.
Mrs. Berry said when they bought down there it was like a mom & pop store and it’s more like a Wal-Mart now. Mr. Pettegrow asked if they put limits on the business, would the neighbors help them pay the bills.
Mr. Alvarez said the question of what belongs in the zone is vague in the ordinance. He read from page 15 of the handout (Exhibit 4SZ) and said that explains things. He said the lobster pound is a CFMA type of use. He said the comprehensive plan said the zoning was to be kept Limited Commercial not CFMA.
Mr. Bearor asked if he was going to make a presentation now. Mr. Wuorinen said he had a couple of mop up items. He said the Board should mark Mr. Bearor’s memo as Exhibit 5SZ. There was no objection. Mr. Wuorinen said Mr. Alvarez raised a question regarding discharge from the tank room, and he said he didn’t have enough information to make the decision on that. He asked if the Board should get further testimony on the tank room discharge.
Mr. Bearor said the applicant would provide what is needed. He said he didn’t think the discharge from the facility is within the purview of the application for construction of a parking lot. He said he’s not sure that’s an issue, but if the Board thinks it is, he did not want to jeopardize his client’s position. Mr. Wuorinen said it’s part of the discussion of the expansion of use. Mr. Bearor said expansion of use is an interesting concept, and if the Board were convinced it was an industrial use, it would be non-conforming and not permissible to expand. He said the fact that one expands use does not require a permit. He said the argument is this is a commercial activity; expansion is not a poison pill. He said if the Board wants information on any aspect of the activity, they’d get it for them.
Mr. Wuorinen said he was asking the rest of the board what they’re consensus was. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance reads about pollutants in section 15-r. He said it’s not clear what that means, and if an expert should elucidate that it’s one thing. He said other activities regulate those forms of discharge, and perhaps the DEP regulates. Mr. Bearor said DMR does as well. Mr. Wuorinen said our local law makes it pertinent. Mr. Bearor said the activity under review is the parking lot.
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said there was a permit issued for the tank room, and they’ve been down that road. He said that was done, and no town permit was necessary to install the equipment. Mr. Fenton said he thinks it was pertinent in the fact in eliminating a situation. He said if the Pettegrows have information that shows the lobster water does not pollute the bay and the bay is found to have contaminates in it, that would eliminate one of the sources in our ordinance.
Mr. McDevitt said this covers a broad spectrum. He said he thought the board was here to find out about the parking lot, the number of trucks and washing. He said we’re now down to the tank room, and asked what the Board is working on. He said the ordinance says wash water is directed to vegetated area, and it purifies itself.
Mr. McDevitt said Lamoine is a bedroom community with no industry or noise and people flock here. He said when the town has something like this bringing in a sizeable amount of income it will discourage other people to come to town and asked where the tax money would come from to keep going. He said the town needs some industry to subsidize the ordinary taxpayer, most of whom are retired folks.
Mr. Fenton said if the Pettegrows could produce the document from the DEP that says the filter water doesn’t pollute, he’d like to have it. Mr. Wuorinen said that would take care of it. Mr. Alvarez said Mr. Becker should contact the DEP and list out what goes into the water. He said the proper place to address discharge is under the site plan review. He said the hearing did not apply to the building. He said the town never had the opportunity to address the building. He said the only permit was issued by the Code Enforcement Officer who exceeded his authority.
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt said Mr. Bearor agreed to provide evidence that they have the permits or that permits are not required. Mr. Wuorinen said there is a stretch of local road the trucks travel over and wondered if there are load limits on that local road. Mr. Marckoon (the Road Commissioner) said he’s not an expert, but he doesn’t post the road because the state isolates that road by posting Route 204. Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if the town has the authority to post and what the limit is. Mr. Marckoon said they do, and the limit is the same as the state, with the same exemptions. Discussion followed on whether the town could grant exemptions.
Chairman Tadema-Wielandt asked if there was any more testimony. There was none. Discussion followed on scheduling the next meeting. It was settled that the Board would meet again on this matter on January 11, 2004 at 6:30 PM. Mr. Hunt said he would have the rebuttal to Mr. Bearor’s memo (Exhibit 5SZ) by the end of the month.
Mr. Wuorinen moved to adjourn and Mr. McDevitt 2nd. Vote in favor was 4-0 at 10:44 PM.
Stu Marckoon, Secretary
Lamoine Board of Appeals
Approved as edited by the Board of Appeals on January 11, 2005