Town
of Lamoine, Maine
|
Town
of Lamoine, Maine |
|||||
LAMOINE LONG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE
|
||||||
Chairman B. Jones called the meeting to order at 7:05pm
Members Present: T. Dickey, D. Ford, M. Garrett (Secretary), R. Graham, B. Hanson, B. Jones (Chairman), M. Jordan, L. Landon, D. McCurdy, K. Rybarz, J. Thibeault, J. Wourinen, J. Young
Others Present: G. Ford, S. Joy
Members Absent: G. Crawford, E. Curtis, Jane Fowler, Jay Fowler, P. Fowler, C.W. Hemingway, B. Marckoon, R. McDevitt, S. Smith, F. Stocking (V. Chairman), C. Tadema-Wielandt, L. Tadema-Wielandt
Minutes: On account of the Secretary “forgetting” to bring copies of the minutes of the September 28th meeting for consideration, minutes were not available. Those minutes will be considered with these minutes at the next meeting.
AGENDA
Moratorium. This being the chief agenda item for the evening,
much discussion was held. The discussion included some of the salient points
presented at the HCPC Subdivision workshop on September 30th.
B. Jones wondered if a moratorium is necessary.
D. McCurdy said another approach to a total moratorium would be to restrict
the number of building permits
Issued in a given year.
B. Jones observed consideration of zoning is part of comprehensive planning.
J. Wourinen believes “cleaning up” the Building & Land Use Ordinance
is a priority.
S. Joy: When it comes to comprehensive planning, it is well to have local people
develop the plan. Also, it
is somewhat easier if you have a plan to update as opposed to starting at ground
zero.
M. Garrett. Zoning is the mechanism with which local folks determine what kind
of activities should be
located in specific areas. Since zoning can impact property values, it is not
an easy process.
K. Rybarz summarized the September 30th HCPC workshop presentation. Eventually
it should be posted
on a web site. The pros and cons of appellate versus de Novo appeals’
hearings were aired. Cluster
development was also discussed. No conclusions were reached.
M. Jordan is concerned that the price of house lots in Lamoine precludes “average
income” families and families with kids from locating in Lamoine. We should
consider permitting smaller sized lots in inland areas – away from the
shore.
S. Joy noted that existing onerous “open space” requirements with
no corresponding “carrots” should be measured when contemplating
M. Jordan’s point above.
Motion: “The Long Range Planning Committee does not see the need for instituting a building moratorium at this time”. J. Wourinen was the lone dissenter, arguing a moratorium would allow time for long range planning and to secure passage of needed BLUO revisions.
At the same time the Committee passed the motion, a note was made that these listed issues need be considered in any short or long range proposals entertained by the Town. Further, it is noted, any one of these issues could become justification for instituting a moratorium if adversely impacted by rapid, unplanned growth.
1. Quality and quantity of water.
2. Road conditions and the amount of traffic on them
3. School population.
4. Public safety – fire and police protection
5. Transfer Station – in two aspects. Growth could necessitate adding
to the hours of operation and, conceivably, an order by the State of Maine to
move the location of the station.
6. Recreation and Parks which should include as well the “visual”
appearance of all operations in the Town.
7. Permit requests so numerous the Planning Board cannot process them in timely
fashion.
M. Garrett will draft a statement for presentation to the Board of Selectmen for consideration at our next meeting.
There ensued a rambling, free flowing session of thoughts and ideas. To wit:
D. McCurdy. Can we find a way to “unblock” Town resistance to proposed
changes to the BLUO?
L. Landon. ALL of the aforementioned seven listed items should be considered
for each and every short and long range proposal considered by this Committee.
R. Graham. Urged the Committee to consider the visual impact of any decision
reached. K. Rybarz moved and L. Landon seconded a motion to add “visual”
to Recreation & Parks above. The motion passed unanimously.
J. Wourinen: A “reliable” source with an engineering background
has noted the ‘geology’ of Blunt’s Pond could be “destroyed”
by gravel operations.
D. Ford raised the issue of individual property rights vis a vis the need/desire
to impose controls thereon.
B. Jones concurs the issue needs to be kept foremost in mind.
S. Joy. Gravel pit operators get “blamed for a lot”. He is more
concerned with the impact of the Transfer
Station on the aquifer than any gravel extraction operation.
J. Young. (Said with tongue in cheek. I think!) If we want more people to come
to meetings (Town Meeting in particular), we should consider a “tax break”
for those who attend.
B. Hanson. Before attempting to reach any decisions, we should attempt to find
out “what the Town wants”. A discussion centered on just who is
“the Town”? Favoring a questionnaire of some sort, B. Hanson will
bring to the Committee “suggestions” about how we might procedurally
proceed.
R. Graham. The Committee needs to consider “worst case scenarios –
a 100 unit subdivision; a large extraction operation. Even if approved by all
requisite Federal and State agencies, do we have the tools to shape to local
specifications?
Agenda for the October 28th meeting:
1. Decide what to include in the Committee’s interim report to the Selectmen
in November.
2. Define Long Term goals
3. Discuss possible survey/questionnaire strategies to be supplied by B. Hanson.
Meeting adjourned at 8:43 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael F. Garrett, Secretary.