Town of Lamoine, Maine
The Official Website of Lamoine's Town Government
|Minutes - November 14, 2017 (Draft, subject to correction)|
Planning Board Members Present: Bamman, Tadema-Weilandt, Legwere, Fowler, McMullen, and Gabel-Richards (alt)
Applicant: Bearer, MacQuinn, Salsbury.
Members of the Public: Jack Dodson, Katie Foster, Bruce Gillett, Catherine deTuede, Carol Korty, John Steed.
Call to order
Minutes from 2nd public hearing not available
Introduction - Bamman
Bearer, for applicant, response to public testimony. Made reference to several themes;
Notion that project will have a negative impact on neighboring properties (value). Can’t question anonymous responders to survey. “This doesn’t apply at all to review standards of this project.”
Survey was for “generalized” gravel pits, not specifically the one concerned in this application.
Questioned statement that assessed values have nothing to do with sales values. Claimed that record shows that assessed values are, in fact, comperable (never below 90% of sales values).
Comments related to “Preserve and Enhance the Landscape” section:
Holt left out in his comment, “in so far as practiable.”
Application is consistant with Comprehensive Plan.
Comments related to preservation of groundwater.
Nothing new added by Brusaert, previous concerns all answered and dealt with by Deyling.
Final comment, “this is not a popularity contest, but whether or not the applicant has met the standards.”
Response by Steed? (lawyer for FoL): Is assessed value reflecting proximity to gravel pits? Would values be higher if properties were not near a pit? Made reference to past board refusal of permit Gott.
Bruce Gillett: synopsis of realtors survey - survey does mention MacQuinn Pit specifically.
Bamman: Dates on application - all should read 2017.
Ownership - application should show MacQuinn as sole owner.
This is a current application being reviewed against previous ordinance.
Pileggi: application should have updated values/data. If current application is different from original, then it is new and will be reviewed against current ordinance.
Bamman: Board would like to compare originak map and and map submitted with current application.
Bearor: believes there is no change in what was asked for.
Pileggi: ask applicant to demonstrate that there are no substantive changes in the new map (May 2014)
Motion (Fowler/ Tadema-Weilandt) to recess while maps are sought. (5 - 0)
Back to order at 8:10 pm.
Salsbury: displayed and compred the two maps and showed no major changes.
Bamman: Gravel ordinance dealt with first site plan.
Gravel Permit Findings & Fact & Decision
Item 1: (unsafe/unhealthful conditions) Yes (4 - 0 - 1) T-W abstains
Item 2: (erosion/sedimentation) Yes (5 - 0)
Item 3: (water pollution/ groundwater supply) - Bamman & Tadema-Weilandt expressed concerns, sited conflicting expert testimony. Macquinn - “why do a peer review if youare going to ignore it?” Pileggi - decision should be based on “more likely than not” consideration. Legere - believes proposal presents a risk to perched water table.
No (2 - 2 - 1) (Fowler/ McMullen - Bamman/Legere - Tadema-Weilandt)
Item 4: (conserve natural beauty, restoration) Tadema-Weilandt - MacQuinn record in terms of renewal is cause for concern. Legere - provided details of failed restoration attempts.
Motion (Fowler/ T-W) to make clear that applicant must pay $0.05/yard for material mined from pit for restoration. (4 - 1) (Legere)
Yes (4 - 1) (Legere)
Item 5: (public ways) Yes (5 - 0)
Item 6: (adversely affect surrounding properties) - Bamman - Noise traffic, dust, etc. have a negative impact on neighborhood. No (2 - 2 - 1) (Fowler/ McMullen - Bamman/Legere - Tadema-Weilandt)
Item 7: (conforms to performance standards of section 8) Board question, is property line agreement, page 70, showing Walls as owner now owned by Manring? Yes
8A: Excavation Yes (5 - 0)
8B: Screening Yes (5 - 0)
8C: Groundwater Protection Yes (4 - 1) Tadema-Weilandt - the risk is too great for human error.
8D: Restoration Yes (3 - 2) (Tadema-Weilandt/Legere)
8E: Transportation Yes (5 - 0)
8F: Access Yes (5 - 0)
8G: Hours of Operation Yes (5 - 0)
8H: Noise - question raised about whether the town has the means to measure levels set in ordinance. Uncertain. Yes (5 - 0)
8I: Report Required Yes (5 - 0)
Discussion about whether conditions could be presented that would answer no votes in items 3 & 6. Any conditions must be based on ordinance and science.
Motion (Tadema-Weilandt) grant two weeks to provide information that would answer questions/concerns. Resulting discussion showed no clear agreement on what would be asked for. Motion failed (1 - 4)
Application is denied.
Pileggi asked to review findings of fact before submission. Also, Board still needs to proceed with Site Plan Review application. This can be denied based on section K-3 “ applicant needs to meet all standards of the gravel ordinance.”
Motiom to deny (Legere/T-W) (5 - 0)
Subsequent discussion of whether it would be better to go through entire checklist for site plan review application (Pileggi) resulted in motion to rescind previous vote (T-W/Legere) (4 - 1) (Fowler)
Next special meeting: 12/12 at 7:00 pm - Site Plan Review, bring findings of fact.
Motion to adjourn (T-W/McMullen) (5 - 0) 9:42 pm
Minutes submitted by Steve Gabel-Richards