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

Lamoine Planning Board

Minutes of August 7, 2012 (Draft, subject to correction)

Planning Board Members

Present: Holt, Bamman, Gallagher, Tadema-Wielandt, and Fowler (alt)

Absent: Donaldson

Code Enforcement Officer, newly appointed Present: M. Jordan

Members of the Public Nancy Pochan

  1. Chairperson Holt called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
  2. Consideration of Minutes - Gallagher (Bamman) moved to accept the July 2 minutes as amended. Approved 4-0-1.
  3. Code Enforcement Officer's Report - Accepted as presented without discussion. CTW asked newly appointed CEO M. Jordan whether a new Deputy CEO had been appointed. Jordan answered no, explained the changes to the structure of the position, and raised the need to have one, due to a potential future conflict when Habitat for Humanity, of which he is a construction manager, makes application to construct a residence in Lamoine.
  4. Conservation Commission - Nancy Pochan reported, in response to a question from Chair Holt, that the Conservation Commission continues to work on their Open Space report and expects to finish it soon. The Commission will host a trail walk on Wednesday, August 8. Meet at Lamoine School @ 5pm.
  5. Old Business (none scheduled)
    1. D. Bamman reported that he had taken photos of the buffer, which R. McMullen had agreed to plant as a condition of the issuance, on January 3, 2012, of Permit 12-01, to construct a sand/salt shed on lot 21A on map 4. Bamman further reported that the buffer appeared to be well done.
  6. New Business (none scheduled) - Chair Holt explained that this, and future Gravel Ordinance workshops will be televised, based on a request from S. Salsbury for recordings thereof.
  7. Other Public Matters (none)
  8. Ordinance Matters - Chair Holt then opened a discussion, based on his memo, of the importance of reviewing and possibly revising the Gravel Permit Review Standards, in light of their vagueness, and the ramifications thereof, in current and future legal challenges to Permit application denials. Discussions ensued, on whether, and to what extent any of Review Standards 1-6 are worth preserving. The general consensus appeared to be that:

•  Review Standards 1 and 2 are too vague, that the word “unreasonably” in each is highly subjective, and at the very least, they should be consolidated. P. Fowler pointed out that the word “unhealthful” can, to some extent, be related to State and Federal standards. M. Jordan suggested that addition of the word “brook” would be useful in protecting against erosion and sedimentation.

•  Review Standard 3 appears calculated to preserve and protect the Lamoine Aquifer, but there is little or no base line data of its water levels, water quantity, or quality. It was suggested that test wells be drilled in various locations along the aquifer, and monitored regularly. P. Fowler reminded the Board that there many such wells in each of the gravel pits in Lamoine, although likely not deep enough for the purpose of base line data. Chair Holt stated that Cold Spring Water Company is required to test its water on a monthly basis. He further reminded the members that Appleton has very strong and specific language for water quality/quantity protection, which Lamoine has previously chosen not to adopt, either in whole, or in part. J. Gallagher stressed the Board's need for expert advice on such data. M. Jordan concurred, and stated that experts were necessary to interpret any such data.

Where and who such experts might be, and how, if necessary, to pay for them was asked. It was pointed out that people from the Muskie Center @ U. Maine have been working in Lamoine for years. Chair Holt agreed to investigate that, and other options.

•  Review Standard 4, relating to conservation of “natural beauty” through restoration should not be retained.

•  Review Standards 5 and 6 are mostly unambiguous, and should be retained.

•  Review Standard 7 is of the essence, and will be retained.

Chair Holt then raised the issue of the timing of presenting the revised ordinance for Town approval. It was agreed that rather than presenting it piecemeal, a complete, finished product will be more likely to be well received, and that it would be impossible to finish it in time to get it on the November ballot.

M. Jordan said he learned in a class he took for CEO purposes , that if a valid sub-surface wastewater permit design is recorded in the appropriate registry of deeds, it is valid, and benefits the parcel for which it is designed, “forever”. He then raised the question of whether the same might be applicable to a validly issued gravel extraction permit.

Chair Holt has been, and will continue to try to understand, and redraft the “purpose” clause of the Gravel Ordinance.

  1. Next Meeting: October 2, 7:00 pm
  2. Adjourned: 8:34 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

C. D. Tadema-Wielandt, Secretary Pro Tempore