Town of Lamoine, Maine
The Official Website of Lamoine's Town Government
Lamoine Planning Board
Minutes of August 7, 2012 (Draft, subject to correction)
Planning Board Members
Present: Holt, Bamman, Gallagher, Tadema-Wielandt, and Fowler (alt)
Code Enforcement Officer, newly appointed Present: M. Jordan
Members of the Public Nancy Pochan
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.
C. D. Tadema-Wielandt, Secretary Pro Tempore