Specifically, § 9.7, (G), (d), (l) and (n) are not met in the current proposal:

1)

§ (d) requires that all traffic access to the site meet the standards in the ordinance (8% overall maximum, with no greater than 10% for short segments under 200', § 7.10(e),) this proposal far exceeds those standards.

2)

§ (l) requires compliance with all performance standards as a precondition to any conditional use approval. Road slopes in excess of 8% except for short (200') segments at 10% are not permitted under § 7.10(c)

3)

§ (n) prohibits adverse impacts on rare and irreplaceable natural areas. Steep road slopes are prohibited to prevent excessive erosion and sedimentation in the towns natural undeveloped areas. Road slopes of 15% or more as proposed by Mr. Hanson will cause significant damage in a area of the town recognized under the zoning ordinance as a rare and irreplaceable natural area

As I understand it, the Planning Board my be reconsidering its prior conditional approval based on some opinion of the town's attorney which was solicited by one or more of the town's selectmen. Mr. and Mrs. Libby were denied access to that letter, so it is not possible for me to address its contents, except to say that to the extent it may opine that the December 15, 1999 variance has any validity at all, it is flat wrong. Since the town's interested and affected citizens have been denied access to this letter, it can not be considered by the Planning Board as evidence in any event, nor could the Board entertain this or any other new evidence without holding a new public hearing under § 9.7 (D).

Finally, under State zoning law and the town's zoning Ordinance the selectmen have no role in the granting of variances or conditional use appeals. The function of the Board of Appeals and the Planning Board is to apply the town's ordinances fairly and equally to all of the Limington's citizens.