Town of Lamoine, Maine
OF THE LAMOINE PLANNING BOARD
Minutes: Minutes of the March 9, 2004 meeting were approved as presented.
Code Enforcement Officer’s Reports: The reports were accepted and placed on file.
J. Holdsworth reported there have been several complaints in the last few weeks and he has gone out to see about them.
M. Garrett’s letter was received last week regarding the Gardiner permit. John felt it was an issue similar to that on the Seal Point Road. G. Donaldson requested that the CEO review the events that led to the approval of the permit and report back to the board. John responded that someone in the town office was being rude about Stu and John being in collusion. John issued a citation and it was responded to. It was ultimately the CEO’s responsibility rather than the Planning Board’s to issue the permit. John responded via letter but the Planning Board has not yet received it. The members of the Planning Board will review the letter and discuss at the next meeting.
P. Leyendecker had a question about home occupation being moved from one location to another and CEO suggested it be brought before the Planning Board. At issue was a 12x20 foot storage facility (to store items like candies, nuts, jerky, fish, etc.) to be added to the rear of the garage (60 feet from the property line). All deliveries are done during the day with no tractor-trailers. Nothing is sold on premises. M. Havey asked if there were plans for growth and P. Leyendecker responded that he is already “maxed out” and doesn’t plan to grow or have employees. S. Branch made a motion to accept the plans, M. Havey seconded the motion and five voted in favor. The home occupation permit was submitted for record along with these minutes.
Mrs. Ghander on Pheasant Lane brought to CEO’s attention on 29 March that she had hired a builder to build a sunroom and deck, which is now falling apart. An engineer from CES went over the building and said it was a result of poor workmanship. Mrs. Ghander would like to know if she needs a new permit to tear down the structure and start over (did not require planning board approval for first construction). Planning Board can extend the original permit as long as nothing changes. S. Branch made a motion to extend the permit for one year beyond the anniversary date. M. Havey seconded the motion. Five voted in favor.
M. Paige on North Road applied for a permit for a shed but it ran out in March. CEO received a complaint that someone was living in the shed, and he verified that this was indeed fact. CEO has given the individual until 15 April to arrange for a septic system or to find other living accommodations. It was decided that this falls under the jurisdiction of the CEO.
Conservation Commission: No report
1. As D. Ashmore was out of town, discussion on the mobile vending cart was tabled until next meeting. However, several documents from other town ordinances were submitted for consideration.
1. S. Joy, Saltwater Farm, Map 4, Lot 46 would like to add three lots to the existing subdivision. There is a storm water management plan in place, the roads are built, the lots are soil tested, and there is at least 40,000 sq. ft. of upland per lot. Of the original subdivision, six lots are sold and S. Joy still owns three. S. Joy would like to know how to proceed (need for entire process as he is really only adding 2 lots, not 3 with remaining land not to be further sub-divided). In addition, he would like to know if he needs to add electric plans to the plan submission since the electric is in and at least 2 of the new lot owners are hooked up to it. G. Donaldson proposed that the Planning Board review the entire subdivision because of the time frame (under 5 years) because the plan originally was designed for 9 lots. M. Havey stated that the State of Maine statutes may dictate how to proceed and will provide that document (may be found at www.maine.gov) for the next meeting so that all, including S. Joy, may review it. In looking at the pre-application, not sure if the amendments are correct and the setbacks will need to be added (lot 10 has wetland that is not buildable and will need to know how much of each lot is buildable). S. Joy stated that he would rather not add electric poles on the plan, as it will cost additional money to do so. The Planning Board feels S. Joy needs to provide a statement of environmental, natural, and history features. S. Joy asked about site visits. The Board feels there would be a need to have a site visit but will need to determine if this is a new application or an amendment to the original application. The Board clarified which pieces of land S. Joy owns – he has built on nine lots plus owns land outside of the subdivision (is an abutter). There was a question from J. Wuorinen regarding how the wetland study was completed and during what time of year. S. Joy stated that he feels the registered engineer who performed the study had the proper credentials. D. Grasso stated that he purchased lot 8 with the understanding that the property owned by S. Joy would not be further subdivided inside of the 5 years from the application. The Board decided they would wait to review the statute before considering the issue further. S. Joy also asked if he would be able to use the original well studies. G. Donaldson responded that the Board would need to wait until the pre-application could be considered.
2. Mr. Preston Huntley appeared before the Board representing L. Lovett who would like to extend her original permit, which is two years old. There are no changes since the original permit was issued. G. Donaldson proposed the Board approve the request with the condition of providing an accurate map and with CEO approval. L. Lovett is also to provide a temporary stake showing 115 feet from high water mark. S. Branch made a motion that the Board conditionally approve an extension of the permit for one year from 6 April 2004 with the conditions stated by G. Donaldson. C. Ohmart seconded the motion. Five members voted to approve. The conditional permit is submitted with these minutes.
1. Discussion on the questionnaire for planning priorities was tabled until the next workshop.
2. J. Wuorinen shared that several individuals attended a lecture in Ellsworth. One example of something that came to light was using a “test of reason” on technical testimony. The Board may request a second opinion (of the Board’s choosing as to who does the testing).
1. There will be a referendum on 8 June. There was much discussion about whether or not to hold off putting the ordinance changes on the referendum until the Fall. Time is needed to hold open meetings to hear what people are concerned about. An example of the Schoolhouse Road was given as one of the concerns about changing the ordinance – it was the role of the Appeals Board to interpret the ordinance. S. Branch feels we should eliminate the noise restriction changes. J. Pettegrow asked about the noise change and who instigated it. S. Branch explained that it wasn’t any particular individual but rather the Board as a group attempting to find a consistency and extend the Sunday issue of gravel operations to agricultural operations. J. Pettegrow felt that it would be interpreted as ALL commercial operations should be shut down (including the General Store). G. Donaldson and S. Branch stated that was not the intent, only to control noise levels. J. Wuorinen suggested that easier pieces of the changes be placed on the June referendum and hold off on the more difficult pieces until the Fall. S. Branch made a motion to hold a workshop on 13 April at 6:30 pm to determine how to proceed. L. Haft seconded the motion and five voted to approve.
1. For the 13 April workshop the following will be discussed:
a. Planning questionnaire
b. Ordinance changes
c. A request to meet with the Selectmen on 29 April regarding the CEO role
d. Parks ordinance
e. Appeals Board ordinance
The meeting was adjourned at 8:46 pm.
Linda Haft, acting secretary