Town of Lamoine, Maine
The Official Website of Lamoine's Town Government
Town Hall
Fire Department
Newly Added

Planning Board Minutes

May 3, 2011 - Draft, subject to correction

Planning Board Members Present: Tadema-Wielandt, Gallagher, Holt, Bamman, Donaldson, Fowler, and Jordan

CEO Present: Ford

Members of the Public: J. Tower, S. Salsbury, T. Walls, C. Korty

  1. Chairman Holt called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

    Holt announced that Donaldson had agreed to serve as Secretary for the remainder of the appointment year. Moved (Gallagher/Bamman) to nominate Donaldson as Secretary. Elected: 5-0

  2. Consideration of Minutes – April 5, 2011

    Moved (Gallagher/T-W) and approved (5-0) with the following corrections:

  1. Code Enforcement Officer's Report
    1. Permits Issued -- Accepted
    2. Enforcement Actions/Status

The CEO was questioned about the two consent agreements; his response revealed that the Goodwin agreement is under consideration by the Select Board and that the Seibel agreement is still under negotiation. Report accepted.

  1. Conservation Commission

C. Korty announced a program on the ecology of gardening with native species to be held May 11.

  1. Old Business
    1. Consideration of Gravel Permit renewals, John W. Goodwin, Jr . East Lamoine Pit (Map 1 Lot 75)

    Chairman Holt clarified the status of the application: with the submission of material by mail since the last meeting, this application is considered complete. Tadema-Wielandt requested of J. Tower, representative for the applicant,clarification of the statement that $136,500 was sufficient to restore completely the pit. Tower responded that it was sufficient, regardless of whether Goodwin or a “third part” was to restore it.

    Findings of Fact and Decision Review

    The Board's review (see checklist) found the application to conform to the review criteria in all respects except :

    #5 Will not adversely affect public ways. Reason: too much rock and gravel is often covering Rte 184 at the entrance to this pit, causing hazardous conditions for vehicles, bicycles, and other traffic.

    Discussion during the review included the following:

    Item 8A Excavation: Members questioned whether there were sufficient test wells to monitor groundwater levels throughout the pit. J. Tower indicated that Mr. Goodwin would dig a 15 foot test pit annually in the most heavily mined area (northerly section) in order that the CEO could observe conditions therein.

    Item 8D: Restoration: Members questioned whether the reported restoration in the southwest corner of the pit met the “85% successful” requirement. After discussion, the Board indicated by a vote of 3-2 that it did meet this requirement.

    Moved by Holt (Gallagher) to approve the permit with the condition that the applicant take corrective action to maintain safe conditions on the road surface of Rte 184 at the entrance to the gravel pit as soon as is practicable. Vote: 5-0

    Moved by Donaldson (Tadema-Wielandt) that the term of this permit be from May 3, 2011 to October 31, 2013. After discussion of alternative proposals, Donaldson called the question. Vote to end debate passed 4- 1 (Holt). Vote on the motion: (4-1) (Holt)

    1. Consideration of Gravel Permit renewals, John W. Goodwin, Jr . Davis Pit (Maps 4 & 5, Lots 41-1a and 41-1)

Chairman Holt announced that, with the submission of material by mail since the last meeting, this application was considered complete.

Considerable discussion ensued regarding the fact that less than 200 cubic yards of material have been removed from this pit in the past three years, thus meeting the definition of a “discontinued pit”. If this is the case, several members asked, should the applicant be a) restoring the whole pit and/or pursuing a new permit, not a renewal? Mr. Tower argued that the reduced use of this pit was a function of the economic downturn and assured the Board that in the future, the minimum amount of gravel would be removed. Chairman Holt stated that the Board should consider this an active pit but wished to make it clear to the applicant that the Board could consider the pit “discontinued”.

Findings of Fact and Decision Review

The Board's review (see checklist) found the application to conform to the review criteria in all respects except :

Item #2: Will not unreasonably result in erosion or sedimentation. Reason: the pit is not draining internally, as reported, but is draining across the western boundary in the area of the spring on the land of Davis, risking possible sedimentation on the Davis property.

Item 8A: Excavation. Reason: See note Item #2.

Discussion included the following concerns:

Item #1: Donaldson raised concerns that the slopes were too steep, had remained that way for too long, and constitute a danger to the public, particularly given the absence of a barrier at the entrance to the pit.

Item #4: Members inquired whether the large level area along the southern boundary could be mined further (and if not, should it not be restored). Mr. Tower's associate had noted that there was little useful material in that area. Mr. Tower indicated that there might be.

Item #8D: Restoration. Donaldson questioned whether more of the northwestern edge of the pit could be mined, given the proximity of the boundary. If not, should it not be restored? Discussion led to the conclusion that it could be further mined.

Item 8F. Access. No barrier is in use at the entrance to this pit. The Board witnessed members of the public driving into the pit and parking.

Moved by Bamman (Donaldson) to approve the permit with one condition: that a berm or some type of barrier be erected to prevent surface runoff from leaving the pit. Vote: 5-0.

Moved by Donaldson (Gallagher) that the term of this permit be from May 3, 2011 to October 31, 2013. Vote: 4-1 (Holt)

The Board requested that Mr. Goodwin notify the Board when the condition is met.

Ordinance Fee Workshop – May 16, 2011 7PM Fowler and Jordan will attend.

Discussion of Appeals Board Decision – Gott v. Planning Board - The Appeals Board will reconvene May 11 to reconsider its decisions because the Chair has indicated that he wishes to change his vote on some issues. It appears that the initial decision to support the Planning Board's decision on two counts will change.

Discussion of request to change Residential Zone between Buttermilk Road & Douglas Hwy to Rural & Agricultural Zone Carried over to next meeting.

Survey - Jordan and Donaldson distributed first drafts of topics to include in the survey. The survey would seek citizens' opinions about the Maine Uniform Building and Energy Code and on the nature and location of future development in the town. Members will study the drafts, send feedback to Mike and Gordon, and we will take this up in June.

  1. New Business
    1. Gravel Permit Applications – Doug Gott & Sons , Inc. (Map 4 Lots 16 & 11, Map 1 Lot 67-1) Clarification of the status of this application: There are two pits (Alexander Map 1 Lot 67-1) and Davis (Map 4 Lots 11 & 16) and thus two applications. For purposes of completeness review, the Board will review them together as the applicant has presented a single document to cover some aspects of the application.

The Board performed a completeness review for the Alexander and Davis pits (see checklists). Information was present on all required items.

Moved by Bamman (Donaldson) to find both applications complete. Vote: 5-0.

A Site Inspection was scheduled for 5/16 at 5 p.m.

  1. Site Plan Review – Preapplication and Application from Travis Walls , for greenhouses on Map 10 Lot 29-5. Mr. Walls explained his plans to erect two 30 X 96 foot greenhouses on his property to grow vegetables for his own use and, if there is excess, to sell those at a farmstand. Members of the Board informed Mr. Walls that he would have to obtain a permit if he intended to change the use of the greenhouses to “commercial”, which he acknowledged.

Completeness Review of Pre-Application (see checklist)

Moved by Donaldson (Gallagher) to find the Pre-Application complete. Vote: 5-0.

Completeness Review of Application (see checklist)

Regarding item I-2, the Board discussed the adequacy of the site plan submitted by the applicant. Finding that all required information was on the plan (or, the case of bearings, can be found in the deed), Donaldson moved ( Tadema-Wielandt) that the Board considers the May 3, 2011 site plan sufficient. Vote: 5-0.

Moved by Bamman (Tadema-Wielandt) to find the Application complete. Vote: 5-0.

A Public Hearing was set for June 7 at 6:30 p.m. at the Town Hall.

  1. Other public matters

S. Salsbury inquired whether the Board would “expect the same level of information” on Site Plan Review applications that were similar to the Walls application. Board members responded in various ways that it was impossible to answer this question without seeing the application itself. The best approach is to make certain that all information called for by the ordinance is present, detailed, and clear.

  1. Ordinance Development carried over the a future meeting

The meeting adjourned at 10:18 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gordon Donaldson, Secretary

Next Meetings