Town of Lamoine, Maine
The Official Website of Lamoine's Town Government
Lamoine Planning Board
Minutes of September 3, 2013
Planning Board Members Present: Holt, Gallagher, Donaldson, Tadema-Wielandt, Fowler (alt)
Code Enforcement Officer Present: M. Jordan
Members of the Public C. Korty, S. Marckoon, S. Salsbury
Members of the Press None
i. Performance Guarantees: S. Marckoon articulated his concern that the new escrow account procedure was burdensome and place the Town in an undesirable position “managing private funds.” Fowler suggested that the escrow account be established at a bank by the operator and that the Town hold signatory authority over any and all withdrawals. He spoke with his banker who indicated that this was possible and straightforward to set up. Given the goal of ensuring that funds would be available to restore pits if the owner/operator sold, died, or went bankrupt, the consensus of the Board was that requiring current statements of financial capacity with each new permit and a “Restoration Escrow Account” were sound requirements. Donaldson moved (Gallagher) to pursue Fowler's suggestion. Approved 5-0.
ii. Appeals: The Board discussed a revised draft of the appeals procedures modeled on the Lamoine Site Plan Review. All seemed in agreement. Donaldson moved (Gallagher) to adopt the proposed language (granting Holt the privilege of making “minor edits”). Approved: 5-0.
iii. Setbacks: Holt summarized the intent of a draft revision as follows: to allow any previously existing pit with a Site Plan Permit at the time the new ordinance was adopted (3-13-13) to mine within 50' of the property line under several specific conditions. (See “Draft #5” relating to Section 8 A(1).) Jordan stated, “I agree with this” but noted that it was unnecessary to require that the Site Plan Permit be in hand “at the time the new ordinance was adopted” since the new ordinance no longer requires a Site Plan Permit. Discussion ensued regarding 1b(2) and 1b(3) and whether they were both necessary. After considerable discussion, Donaldson moved (Gallagher) to revise Draft #5 in order to a) omit “prior to” in (1); drop (2) and renumber; and add to (3) the requirement that permission by an abutting owner be written and recorded in the Registry of Deeds. Approved: 4-0-1 (Fowler)
Donaldson was tasked with drafting these revisions and sending them to Board members.
Gravel Permit Applications from:
The Board began with the two Goodwin applications, reviewing the written applications provided by Salsbury against the application materials and performance criteria in the newly approved Lamoine Gravel Ordinance.
- John W. Goodwin, Jr. (Map 4 Lot 41; Map 1 Lot 75): completeness reviews
- RF Jordan (Map 3 Lot 4): completeness review
- Harold MacQuinn, Inc (Map 3 Lot 13; Map 20 Lot 12; Map 3 Lots 31 and 33; Map 3 Lot 42; Map 7 Lot 7; Map 7 Lot 9) completeness reviews
Completeness Review for East Lamoine Pit (Map 1 Lot 75) : Information regarding all components of the application was located with the exception of Item # 2a(8) and Item # 2c. Item #2a(8) was marked “None”, but previous applications for this pit have identified some of the listed items on the parcel. Item # 2c (water quality) was accompanied by no data.
When Holt asked about these responses, Salsbury stated that his client disagrees with the requirement to provide this information and that he will not provide it. Holt reminded Salsbury that the Town has adopted this ordinance and that it must be complied with if Harold MacQuinn, Inc. intends to operate this gravel pit after the expiration of the current permit October 31, 2013.
The Board also discussed with Salsbury the fact that the application indicates only 3 test wells while the ordinance (see #2(b) and #4(j)) requires more than that. Salsbury mentioned that the ordinance offers no instructions regarding the placement of these wells. Several Board members indicated that, since their purpose was to document water levels throughout the pit, these wells should be distributed throughout the pit.
Board members also stated that the dimensions of the buildings/structures must be included (Item #4(g)).
Donaldson (Gallagher) moved to find the application incomplete (Items # 2a(8) and 2(c)). Approved 4-0-1 (Fowler).
The Board agreed to take up as many of the remaining applications as it could at the September 17, 2013 meeting.
Gordon Donaldson, Secretary