Minutes of the Lamoine Planning Board

May 9, 2001

Chairman Doug Coleman declared a public hearing on an application from Doug Gott & Sons, Inc. and the Town of Lamoine regarding a gravel permit application open at 6:31 PM

Present were:Planning Board members Doug Coleman, Joan Bragdon, Mike Garrett, Mary Ann Orzel, Perry Fowler, David Smallidge and Gordon Donaldson; Code Enforcement Officer John Holdsworth, Administrative Assistant Stu Marckoon, and members of the public Steve Salsbury, Tim Gott, Robert Gerber, Liz Champeon, Todd Sekera, Denise Barbieri, Lynn Tscheiller, Gary Googins, Beth Black, John & Susan Wuorinen, Bill Trotter (Ellsworth Weekly), Sarah Heifetz (Ellsworth Weekly), Jennifer Osborn (Ellsworth American), Beverly Coleman, Antje Ludwig, Jo Cooper, Glennon Walker, Charles Major, Peter Roy, Jay Barnes, Greg Martin, Marlane Rembold, John Jerabek, Jay Fowler, Mike Woodward, Tom & Lori Spruce, Jason Googins, Sue Scott, Laurence Lovett, Sally Smith, Royce Osier, Robin Barstow, Linda Mailhot, Scott Leadbetter, Tinker Bunker, Carol Duffy, Carolyn Larson, Maurice Googins, Cheryl Curtis, Nia Luck, Pat Haugh, Charles Weber, Pat Wallace, Lisa Branch

Doug said he would like the public hearing to run about 45 minutes, and read the guidelines for how information should be presented.

Steve Salsbury asked how much of the application would the board like reviewed, as he had no new information to offer.Doug said heíd received about 30 letters, but said this is not a referendum, and they have to deal with the application and the ordinance in order to make a decision

Testimony of Gary Googins Ė Mr. Googins said heís a lifelong resident and his land abuts Map 1 Lot 58.He said his well is 325 feet deep and the town monitors the well which is impacted by leachate from the dump.He said mining around the dump would threaten the groundwater.He said his plans for his property were spoiled by the dump and by mining, and his property has been devalued.He said the leachate creates a chemical trespass on his land.He said the town should keep the high land around the dump as a recharge area.Mr. Googins addressed the violation and read from the gravel ordinance.He said the mining commenced during the 1st week of January on town land, and ceased on March 20th.He said it started without a contract and proceeded without a permit.Mr. Googins displayed an aerial photo of what he said was missing.He said the town sold gravel in 1996 and 1999, but Gott did not work the pit last summer, and waited for future purchases.He said the town was faced with a violation, and the Selectmen said they appreciated Gottís honesty.He said Steve Salsbury reported 1,667 yards was taken.Mr. Googins gave some measurements and said his figures conflict with that measurement.Mr. Googins said if we are going to risk public health, we should be paid the full amount for all materials leaving gravel pits.He said the process followed in the past is as contaminated as the dump.He said the town must consider the best use for all involved.Mr. Googins read again from the gravel ordinance and quotes from Planning Board chairman Coleman and Selectman Jo Cooper.He said how we vote tonight will send a clear message.He said there should be no positive findings and the permit should be denied, and asked the Planning Board to deny the permit.

Testimony of Lynn Tscheiller Ė Ms. Tscheiller read section 1 of the gravel ordinance regarding protection of public health and no adverse effect on the groundwater.She displayed a list of chemicals which she called petro-chemicals that currently appear in four monitored wells around the landfill.She listed the health effects from those chemicals.She said if someone is drinking contaminated water and doctors donít know it, they canít find a cure for the ills.She said the missing link is the water tests, and a health survey needs to be done soon.She said the chemicals have been leaching out for a while.She said the contamination plume predicted by Bob Gerber is coming true and it may affect 30 wells that should be tested now.She said now that the Anderson well is undrinkable proves that the mining industry affects wells.She said the water tests are hard, cold facts and indisputable.She said any money gained is miniscule compared to costs to replace water.She said citizens have a right to enter a class-action lawsuit.She said if the Planning Board is not 100% sure it wonít harm the neighbors, it must deny the permit.

Testimony of Susan Wuorinen Ė Mrs. Wuorinen read section 1 of the ordinance.She said there are places of beauty in town that no longer exist because of mining.She said deep, empty holes remain.She said planning board members were sworn to enforce the town ordinance.She said what a landowner decides is up to him.She said she went to the town hall to read the permit application.She said there is no detailed plan for restoration, no solid financial guarantee, and no restoration plan with dates and details.She asked how a permit could be granted when the ordinance is not followed.

Doug said the restoration plan is on the map.Mrs. Wuorinen said there are no dates, and it indicates only 1-tree every 50-feet.Doug said she has raised a good point, and there is a lack of trust between Gott and the Planning Board because of the past violation.He said that rubs off on other gravel operators.He said he feels betrayed.He said he doesnít know how to take any of this information on the application.He said in the past there has been concrete restoration but they have not requested dates because itís hard to judge how fast they will remove the gravel.

Testimony of Denise Barbieri Ė Ms. Barbieri said her partner is Gary Googins, and their land abuts the town land.She said she is concerned with how the town looks, and the damage to wildlife and trees.She read a letter from the DEP sent in 1985 regarding violations at the town landfill.The letter said the site cannot be considered in compliance because it is over an aquifer and groundwater contamination is possible.She said she lives within 1000-feet of the dump, and it took 10-years for testing to start.She said it took another 5-years to test for petro-chemicals.She said she called the state for more tests, so it took a total of 15-years before contaminants were ever tested.She read from a letter dated January 26, 2001 from Stu Marckoon to Steve Salsbury regarding the sale of the gravel and noting the opposition.She asked why the Selectmen didnít put the sale out to a public bid to get fair bidding.She said the Selectmen are bound by a contracting authority order regarding competitive bidding.She said the town doesnít get competitive bids. Ms. Barbieri read section 4 of the contract between Gott and the Town.She said the contract was not terminated, despite a violation of the ordinance.She read from the gravel ordinance about obtaining a permit.She said she didnít understand by we keep doing business with someone who breaks laws.She said the town needs a full inventory of gravel.She said some want a new school, and if thatís to happen, the town needs to be good at business.She read the purpose of the gravel ordinance, and said she sees a lot of negatives.She said because the town will be paid $200,000 spread over 1,500 people, and 80% of the revenue goes to lower property taxes.She said for a $40/person tax reduction, 6,666 truckloads of gravel will leave Lamoine over 3-years.She said the town makes laws to get along better, but itís important to enforce the rules.

Testimony of Sue Scott Ė Mrs. Scott said sheís lived in Lamoine for one year, and is an outsider.She said sheís concerned regarding zoning in Lamoine.She said every portion of Lamoine is rural/agricultural.She read from the Building Code in Table H.She said the Planning Board and Selectmen make decisions on various items.She said rural and agricultural does not mean any of the various items she read.She said unless there are changes to the Building and Land Use ordinance, there will be drastic changes in the town.She said people need to force the Planning Board to make changes.Doug said the Planning Board didnít set the zoning.

Testimony of Jay Fowler Ė Mr. Fowler said the gravel operators deserve a little defense.He said people who moved to Lamoine must have decided the town looks good.He said heís been trying to build a business for 32-years.He said his pit doesnít exceed five acres, and heís regraded the pit.He said there is beauty to him in a gravel bank.He said he wonders why people are having such a time about the beauty of Lamoine when they selected it.He said an ad appeared in the Ellsworth American that looked like it was from the Planning Board, but it wasnít.He said the ad mentioned the number of truckloads and safety on the highway.He said the gravel operators can only work certain hours of the day and certain days of the week, and thatís discrimination.He said he would have loved to bid on the gravel, but Gott was in a position because of the property lines and the setbacks and sloping requirements to shut anyone else from taking the gravel.He said if there were no agreement with Gott, and there shouldnít be for anyone else, the gravel would still be standing there.He said $1.25 is still top dollar for gravel.

Mr. Fowler relayed a story regarding speeding and gravel trucks.He said when the dump was closed, they had to drill a hole through the dump and that should have been outside the dump because it gave contamination a chance to go through.John Wuorinen said 25% of water goes through the clay cap.

Mr. Fowler said there is some stuff the tax assessors in town are not allowed to look at.He said a goat farm moved in next to him, and then called the state on his sand pile and starting up trucks might affect the goats.He said to look at his land vs. the goat farm, and the farm is whatís deteriorated.He said water runs through the farm into Partridge Cove.He said if they can only work certain hours, itís still a free country, but then a wood machine sets up 24 hours a day, and no one says a word.He said the Planning Board would look for regulations against them, and asked about the trees.He again asked why people moved to Lamoine, and said history goes back to the gravel pits.He said he didnít understand why they should impose problems on everyone else.Doug said gravel is on the agenda tonight; they may work on wood lots later.

Testimony of Robert Gerber Ė Mr. Gerber said he did a study in 1983 which identified gravel deposits, the aquifer and groundwater.He said he has no opinion, but did have some questions, and then would say what the potential impact would be.He asked how many acres the proposal is for.Doug said 3.8, but he didnít understand the application.There was a lengthy discussion.Steve Salsbury said about 9-acres total between the two lots.Mr. Gerber asked how close the excavation would come to the landfill toe, the fence area.Tim Gott said no closer than whatís dug now, about 50-feet.Mr. Gerber asked if that means further away.Mr. Gott said yes.David Smallidge asked if there has been any mining within 50-feet of the landfill.†† John Holdsworth asked if they would taper back from the 50-feet away.Mr. Gott said yes.

Mr. Gerber asked what the reclamation plan was.Mr. Gott said everything excavated would be loamed, seeded and planted with trees.Mr. Gerber asked about the source of the loam.Mr. Gott said it would be field loam, hauled in from outside Lamoine.Mr. Gerber asked about the thickness.Mr. Gott said 4-inches.Mr. Gerber asked what the grass seed specs are.Mr. Gott said a conservation mix, hydro seeded.Mr. Gerber asked about lime and fertilizer.Mr. Gott said itís mixed in.Mr. Gerber asked about the cost of hydro seeding.Mr. Gott said he didnít know, Atlantic Landscape charges $40/1000 square feet.Mr. Gerber asked about trees.Mr. Gott said theyíd be 20-feet apart and would be pine trees, as they grow well on sandy soil.

Peter Roy, Mr. Gottís attorney, said theyíre in agreement with the town and the Planning Board will approve later the slope and vegetation plan.Mr. Gerber said the reclamation might weigh on the decision.Mr. Roy said theyíd be back on that at some point.A brief discussion followed.Doug said they accepted the Gott application as complete, and now theyíre getting expert testimony to see if they need more.

Mr. Gerber asked what the guarantees would be if Mr. Gott could not do the restoration.He asked how much effort is involved in regrading.Mr. Gott said they used a D-8 for 3-weeks on other areas.He said it might take a week or 3-4 days for this.Mr. Gerber said in the Sanborn Head report there was a well with a much higher water level than the others.He asked if thatís any indication of a clay layer sloping toward the pit.Liz Champeon said it appears that water was on top of a clay lens.Mr. Gerber said he wonders if a 50-feet setback to the landfill is appropriate.Ms. Champeon said she saw no sign of a clay slope.There was a brief discussion, and Ms. Champeon said she didnít feel it was relevant to the effect on groundwater.She said the slopes on the plan are appropriate for what they know.A discussion followed.

Ms. Champeon said the question is does excavation of gravel affect the movement of water coming out of the landfill, and the answer to that is no.Mr. Gerber said no one wants to have the landfill collapse, and listed reasons for that concern.Mr. Gerber questioned Mr. Salsbury about the topographic mapping, and asked if he had considered aerial photogrametry.Mr. Salsbury said the measurements were needed right away and he could not wait for a flight.

Mr. Gerber asked if any of the proposed pit could be seen from the public way.He asked if any noise monitoring is done.He asked if the applicant were willing to put up a bond for reclamation.Mr. Roy said heís not sure if Mr. Gerber should be asking questions regarding Mr. Gottís finances, and heís not sure what that has to do with the testimony the Planning Board sought from Mr. Gerber.Mr. Gerber said heís also here as a concerned citizen of the state.Mr. Roy said the board is in a better position to ask.Doug said the question of financial capacity was answered when the board found the application complete, and they are convinced Mr. Gott is financially capable.

Mrs. Scott asked Mr. Salsbury if there any examination of the soils around the perimeter for leaks from the landfill, and if there were plans to do that.Gordon said Mr. Gerber has the floor and he should finish.Mr. Gerber asked about the SPCC (spill prevention and control) plan, and what plans there are for leaks in the pit, and if there are spill kits in the trucks.Mr. Gott said his workers have gone to classes.Mr. Gerber asked about what measures would be implemented to stake the boundaries.Mr. Gott said any land that is not theirs, you can rest assured it will be well marked and he would put up a fence if necessary.

Mr. Gerber said the Planning Board asked him if they should be concerned regarding the groundwater.He said itís a big resource in town, and there is a lot of gravel activity.He said in looking at the data, there obviously is an impact from the landfill, including low levels of Volatile Organic Compounds.He said iron and manganese seem to be the biggest, and some wells are impacted.He said those will be there whether gravel is extracted or not, and there is no real effect from the gravel extraction.He said the leachate would happen anyway.He said if the leachate from the landfill hits a clay layer and leaks out the side of the landfill, youíd see it.He said if it does happen, it can be dealt with.He said he didnít see that the excavation per se is a great hazard.He said the gravel level is lowered down, and if something else happened in this pit at a later date, there would be less of a buffer.He said as for the landfill, the leaching would happen anyway.He said gravel mining will not lose water quantity and the quality wonít be affected by the operation.

Mr. Gerber said he heard the term toxic used in relation to the landfill.He said itís not really a toxic dump.He said itís a typical municipal landfill.He said a few homes are affected, and there are ways to deal with that and itís a town issue.

Mr. Gerber said heís a little concerned with the operation as it gets close to the landfill, and he doesnít know if it will collapse.He said they have to be vigilant for clay layers.He said there is a possibility that would be an issue.He said if the board approves of mining, there are conditions that can be put on to assure a minimum impact.He said some restoration estimates, financial assurance instruments, a guarantee of 90% for grass cover and trees for 2-yers.He suggested at the end that aerial photogrametry be used to document the final contours, as that is good documentation and can be used to calculate volume.He said noise monitoring is a possibility; there is a performance criteria in the ordinance and suggested Gott hire someone to measure it quarterly.He said stakes should be set at the top of the banks to see how close they can go.He said there might be some more screening from the public way.

John Wuorinen asked about the effect of acid rain falling on a reduced layer of gravel and how that affects water quality.Mr. Gerber said acid rain is neutralized quite rapidly, and requires a very low buffering capacity.He said itís not a major effect to be concerned about.Mr. Wuorinen asked if the acid rain would not leach out more of the manganese.Mr. Gerber said things in the landfill leach out manganese, and the top zone is critical on reclamation.

Jay Fowler said there were no big industries in town; the only toxics in the dump are a few paint cans.He said everything was burned and buried.He said he doesnít think the dump was as bad as some others.Mr. Gerber said based on his experience, this is not a major concentrated source of toxics.Ms. Barbieri said the Volatile Organic Compounds in here well are identified as a hazardous waste, and small businesses made midnight dump runs.She said no one wants to drink those chemicals.She said she wonít drink it and wonít even shower in it.

John Holdsworth asked if Mr. Gerber thinks a 5-foot separation is suitable, or should it be greater.Mr. Gerber said the ordinance calls for 5-feet, the proposal is for a 20-foot separation from the water table.He said maybe an increase in the ordinance might be OK with less of a requirement for monitoring.He said the difference between 5 feet and 10 feet is not big.He said 10 is better than 5, but realistically it just takes longer for contaminants to reach the groundwater.

Joan Bragdon said the town has a lot of large pits to be restored, and asked how much open pit is safe, and should the Planning Board require restoration of 4-to-5 acres.Mr. Gerber said youíre better off with topsoil and vegetation on there.He said heís talking about the potential for dumping, and he canít answer about the legal issues about the amount to be reclaimed.He said the main problem with an open pit is no buffering layer.

Gordon said he thinks he heard Mr. Gerber say the only serious hazard is a clay layer.He asked how deep the trash is.Jay Fowler said 25-to-30 feet.He said the area was once approved for septic tank dumping in the 1970ís.Mr. Gerber asked if the trash is 25-feet below the fence.Mr. Fowler said probably, but only 12-to-15 feet below on the lower end.Gordon said he was concerned about the destabilization of the slope.

Joan said the DEP recommended staying 100-feet away from the wells and landfill and asked if Mr. Gerber agreed.Mr. Gerber said it was probably safer.Joan asked about the pond in the Smith pit.Mr. Gerber said itís probably perching on a clay layer.

Ms. Champeon said the clay layer they are concerned about is underneath 45-feet of sand.She said if you took the sand off, it is relatively stable. Mr. Gerber said he was talking about wet clay friction angles.There was a brief discussion about engineering matters on clay stabilization.Jay Fowler said they were talking about bottom of the pit ponds, and he says itís like a big mud puddle.There was a discussion about why the pond is green (probably from pollen).

David Smallidge asked about 25% of the rain going through the landfill cap.Mr. Gerber said initially the caps shed 90-to-95% of the rain, but after frost action, it breaks down.He said a synthetic cap is better.There was a discussion about landfill monitoring.Mr. Gerber said if you want to stop groundwater contamination you need a better cover.

Gordon said he thinks we have exhausted the information needed for the hearing.Ms. Tscheiller said Mr. Gerber projected a contamination plume and asked if that has changed.Mr. Gerber explained itís a steady state plume, and explained the plume process in terms of chloride numbers.He said the plume is pretty much what the DEP is documenting.Ms. Tscheiller asked about monitoring wells.Mr. Gerber said the wells are close to the landfill, and one is needed on the South end.

Doug closed the public hearing at 8:07 PM.

Ms. Tscheiller and Mrs. Wuorinen handed the Planning Board copies of their speeches.

MinutesóMike moved to adopt the minutes of April 20, 2001 as presented.Perry 2nd.Vote in favor was unanimous

Gordon moved to adopt the minutes of April 24, 2001 as presented.Mary Ann 2nd.Vote in favor was unanimous.

CEO ReportóJohn Holdsworth said the Planning Board had a written copy of the permits issued, and there was nothing unusual to report at this time.

Gott Pit Permit Ė Doug said the board has heard the public speak.He said he has a problem with the application and finds it very confusing.Stu Marckoon held up the official applications, indicating four maps and lot.He said one indicates 3.3 acres, and one 12-acres and read the map and lot numbers.Gordon asked if that was the package the board accepted as complete.Doug said it was.Stu said he gave the board everything submitted.†† Gordon said there are two permit pages, but are considering it one application.

Gordon said the hazard is from digging below the current grade of the landfill.He said if there is a hazard, if we granted this permit, we would be increasing the chances of destabilizing the slope below the landfill, and if the digging went on, it could be getting into contaminated water.He said he didnít know if it would increase the hazard if you were digging above the landfill, as it would not be the same as the Norridgewock landfill. Joan said the plot plan shows several things within 100-feet of the landfill.†† Mr. Gott said they would have no problem moving the excavation back 100-feet from the landfill, and the board could do that as a condition.

Doug said he has a concern with the previous violation. Mr. Gott said he would put in a fence to mark the limits.Doug said it would be essential.He said there is a question about how much gravel was improperly removed, because the size of the gap seems large.Mr. Gott said if you look back to the permit, a 25-foot setback was in effect in 1996, and thatís what Mr. Salsbury took measurements from.He said the estimates from Mr. Googins are guesses; the banking is out further than 25-feet.Mr. Salsbury said he only measured to the 25-foot setback, and the cut was 130 to 140-feet.

Doug asked what would happen if they dig in, and start turning up garbage, would they call the town.Mr. Gott said yes, they would stop and also ask a geologist.He said he is willing to meet every couple of months with the Code Enforcement Officer, itís no problem.Mary Ann said the CEO should have free access to all pits all the time.There was a brief discussion and many were under the assumption the CEO has such access.Mr. Holdsworth said Doug Gott and Reggie McDevitt have given him permission to go in anytime.

Gordon said if the top of the landfill is 220-feet above sea level, why would it be a safe practice to dig below that level.He said two experts have said that could possibly destabilize the landfill.He asked if that is a significant enough hazard to say to the applicant you canít dig below 220-feet.

There were a number of questions from the audience regarding whether the Planning Board could receive any more information from the applicant once the public hearing is closed.Attorney Roy said Mrs. Champeon is trying to share some data with the board.David Smallidge said the board had asked a question, and sheís trying to answer it.

Gordon said two people talked about slope destabilization at the landfill.He said his questions had nothing to do with the truth of that, but itís time for the board to make a decision, and this is a big enough question that needs an answer.He said he was going back for more information.

Doug said there is a potential risk to the town, and itís an important point.He said other applications are not that close to a landfill.Jay Fowler said usually when pit permits come up for discussion, the applicants sit up with the Planning Board and discussion takes place.Mr. Roy said the application is before the board.He said there was no contact between Mr. Gerber and his clients and it seems reasonable for the applicantís expert to respond.Joan said the DEPís Mr. Birk brought up the subject of instability.Doug said the board is willing to listen to the response.

Ms. Champeon asked if there is a concern regarding slope stability.Both Gordon and Doug said yes.Ms. Champeon showed a chart from a groundwater course at Princeton.She said she has some experience with the failed Norridgewock landfill.She said the clay material here is different from Norridgewock, that the clay consolidates because there is 48-feet of sand on top.She gave an explanation of how the Norridgewock landfill collapsed, and said she disagrees with Mr. Gerber in regard to the friction angle.She said the slopes need to be flatter in sand than in clay.She said the angles at this pit are designed to meet sand and gravel material.She said clay could be a steeper slope.She said thatís why the slopes on this plan are drawn at the angle they are.

Gordon reviewed the display and had questions about stability.Ms. Champeon said it has to do with angle, not height.Gordon asked if there is an increase in the chance of destabilization and leachate discharge.Ms. Champeon said not if the angles are right.Gordon asked what assurance they have.Ms. Champeon explained.Joan asked about the possibility of a wet clay slide.Ms. Champeon said if the applicant hit clay, they would not dig it, and she would be surprised if the clay was wet just given where itís located.She said the clay is outside the area theyíd be excavating anyway.†† At this point Joan and Ms. Champeon reviewed the plot plan.

Mike said there is a risk of stability of the slopes, and he is disinclined to support the application.Joan said she agreed.Gordon urged someone to make a motion.

Mike moved to approve, with the understanding he would vote no.Joan 2nd.Vote was 0 in favor, 5 opposed, Donaldson and Fowler abstaining as alternates.

Jay Fowler asked about why his son Perry had to abstain from voting, and suggested that others associated with opposition to the plan ought to abstain as well.He said Joan and Mary Ann worked on this matter at the town hall.Mary Ann said she has come up to the town hall because the material is there, and the opponents have seen some of the material sheís reviewed.Joan said when she became part of the planning board she went out with a map to find out things for herself.Gordon said this is a separate issue that should be taken up later.Perry said he would put a gag on himself and will continue to abstain in this matter.Gordon said itís up to all members to properly disqualify themselves if there is a conflict.

Doug said the board could put on conditions, one being a 100-foot setback from the landfill.Mike asked what guarantees stability.He said anything less than disallowing digging below the landfill is a risk of instability.He said the issue is the relationship between the gravel pit and the landfill.Perry said Mr. Gott was making an offer to not touch two areas indicated on the plot plan in orange.There was a long discussion among board members and the applicants as they looked over the maps.

Mike suggested drawing up conditions as they look at the land in a site visit.David moved to recess this portion of the meeting until Saturday morning (May 12, 2001) at 8:00 AM at the site in order to vote upon a permit with conditions then and there.Mary Ann asked about public notice.Stu said itís merely a continuation of this meeting.He said he would post something at the town hall and let the media know and e-mail it, and that should be more than sufficient.Mike 2nd the motion.Vote in favor was 5-0.

New Business Ė Stuwe Subdivision Ė Doug announced that had been withdrawn by the applicant earlier in the evening.

Leadbetter (Map 14, Lot 67) Ė Mr. Leadbetter appeared and handed each Planning Board member the DEP permit issued for his land.Mr. Holdsworth said, as he understands it, Mr. Leadbetter wants a gravel pad on which to park his RV outside the Shoreland Zone.He said itís over 250-feet from t water.Jay Fowler said heís asking to move the pad into the Shoreland Zone and has requested a Shoreland Permit.He said the land is not suitable for a home because it will not pass a soil test.

Sue Scott read from page 4 of the Building and Land Use ordinance regarding unsuitable lands.She said she spoke with the DEP, and they will inspect the land that has already been filled.She said she would like the Planning Board to hold off action until then.Mr. Fowler said Jon Cullen of the DEP was there and approved the location permit.Mrs. Scott said no one from the DEP has been to the site.Mr. Fowler said thatís not true and restated that Mr. Cullen from the DEP was there.David asked Mrs. Scott what her capacity is.She said she is a neighbor, and in her deed no temporary housing is allowed.Gordon asked Mrs. Scott to wait until the application presentation to the Planning Board is done.

Mr. Fowler said he had a plot plan and he spoke to Robert Abelson who lives in that area who said the land in question is not wet so long as a drainage ditch is maintained.He said the neighbors didnít maintain it any more and the tide kept filling it in so it doesnít drain.†† He said he wants to put gravel in for a travel trailer to park there for no more than 120-days.He said heís dug out enough material to put gravel in outside the Shoreland zone, and the RV would be out of view.

Gordon asked how this squares with the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance and the Floodplain Ordinance.Mr. Fowler said he had the flood plain checked out, and if itís up so many feet to the first floor it works, but there is no structure so itís not applicable.Ms. Scott asked who takes the waste out.Mr. Fowler said itís likely to be him with his pumper truck.†† He said theyíre trying to keep hidden from view.He said as long as they stay out of the 250í Shoreland setback they donít have to ask for anything.He said theyíve come to ask to stay back only 125 feet with the gravel so the trailer would be closer.

Mr. Holdsworth said there is a conflict as the flood plain is also the resource protection zone.He said he couldnít issue a permit for a walkway down to the water.He asked if this would be in the flood plain.Gordon said it has to be in the flood plain.Mr. Holdsworth said a surveyor set the stakes for the flood plain.He said the flood plain isnít what he always thought it was because it uses the mean tide instead of the high tide.There was a quick discussion of the flood plain.

Mr. Holdsworth said he knows the DEP was there, there was a permit issued, and the 100-year flood plain was marked.Mr. Fowler said wetlands mean a certain type of grass grows.Linda Mailhot asked when the public gets to ask questions.David said no public hearing is required.Mrs. Mailhot asked if that means no input from abutters.Laurence Lovett asked if Mr. Leadbetter is allowed to put in an RV, will others.Mr. Fowler answered quite likely.Joan said the Planning Board could do something about that.David asked how big the lot is.Mr. Fowler said 1.2 acres.Mary Ann asked about the 100-foot frontage.Mr. Holdsworth said that requirement is grandfathered.

Mr. Holdsworth asked Mrs. Scott if she said there were restrictions in the deeds.Mrs. Scott said yes.Mr. Holdsworth says he sees nothing in the Leadbetter deed.David said there seems to be a problem in the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance on page 14 regarding lot coverage, and read the standard which canít exceed 10% of the lot. Gordon said there are provisions for individual campsites which might apply with their own standards.David said the frontage would be grandfathered.Mrs. Scott said here deed states no campers at all.

David said where things stand now, and the board knowing what it knows, they will have to come back with a revised plan.There was discussion about digging out a drainage ditch.Gordon asked the applicants if they have what they need.Mr. Fowler said he thinks so and appreciated any guidance the board could offer.Gordon asked if this would constitute a wetlands.Mr. Holdsworth said that requires a DEP permit, and they have one.

There was a discussion regarding deed restrictions in the sub-division.Gordon asked if the board has jurisdiction in that matter.Mr. Holdsworth said neither the Planning Board nor the CEO have that issue under their jurisdiction.Mrs. Scott asked about filling in wetlands.Gordon said the state overrules the town.Mr. Holdsworth said the town ordinance could be more restrictive.Gordon said there is no viable application now; the applicants should talk with Mr. Holdsworth and suggested looking at pages 16 and 17 of the ordinance and filling in wetlands.

Building Permit Extension Ė John & Carolyn Larson Ė Mrs. Larson said theyíre asking for another year to build their home on Seal Point Road.Gordon asked what they are building.Mrs. Larson answered a house, but they havenít quite gotten there yet. Gordon moved to extend the building permit for another year.Perry 2nd.Vote in favor was 5-0.

Pettegrow Ė Mr. Holdsworth stated this issue no longer had to come before the board as the permits were issued long ago and the project is, by definition, substantially completed.

Next Meetings Ė The Board will meet on May 22, 2001 at 7:00 PM to work on the Building and Land Use Ordinance.The next regular meeting will be on June 5, 2001.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:45 PM

Respectfully submitted, Stu Marckoon, Administrative Assistant.(Meeting was taped, tapes on file at the Lamoine Town Office).