It is particularly important that the Board obtain advice from the Town Attorney on the question of how many "lots" are included in the proposed subdivision. The answer to that question bears, for example, on the applicability of Subdivision Ordinance Section 10.3.2.11, which the Board discussed at the October 12 meeting. It is my understanding, based on both Jim Haddow's August 29, 2000 email to you and my subsequent conversations with Mr. Haddow, that his advice to the Board in the August 29 email was not intended to be his final word on the issue.

        Fourth, we object to the Board's effort to manufacture ways to make the WMA project more expensive. It is clear from a review of the videotape of the October 12 Planning Board meeting that the Board seeks to make the project prohibitively expensive. For example, the Board discussed the possibility of requiring WMA to install sidewalks on Route 25. Such a requirement is inappropriate, given that such sidewalks would benefit the entire Town. WMA cannot be asked to fund such improvements to the Town's infrastructure.

        Fifth, we object to the participation of any member of the Board who has demonstrated opposition to the project. Such participation violates WMA's right to a fair and impartial tribunal. See, e.g., Pelkey v. City of Presque Isle, 577 A.2d 341 (Me. 1990). We request that the Board excuse from participating in this matter any member who has expressed opposition to the WMA project. In particular, we object to the continued participation in this matter of Ron Perkins. At the October 12 meeting Mr. Perkins clearly expressed his opposition to the WMA project. For example, Mr. Perkins made several statements similar to the following:

• "We've got to stop this" project "on the ground that we have inadequate services. We will be the low income hub of Maine."
• "I'm trying to look out for the Town. We need to stop this thing."
• "As much as we'd like to see crime hold water [to kill the project], it won't."

        Sixth, we object to the Planning Board's slow pace in this matter. Without answers to the legal issues discussed in my September 21 letter, WMA cannot proceed to prepare its final application. That letter has been pending now for well over a month. There is simply no reason the Town Attorney could not have been asked to immediately respond to the issues raised in that letter.

        Several other issues arose at the October 12 meeting. We request that the Board also seek the advice of the Town Attorney on those issues.

        First, members of the Board stated that it appears that WMA does not have enough road frontage, because the Ordinance requires 1,250 feet. In fact, the access road is a "road" under the Ordinance's definition because it will be a "private way with a minimum right-of-way width of thirty (30) feet and constructed to meet the private road definition contained in" the Ordinance. The access road, together with existing road frontage on Route 25, has more than enough frontage to satisfy the Ordinance requirements.

        Second, Mr. Jarrett stated that if WMA makes money on the laundry facilities in the community building, then that facility must be a commercial use that requires an additional 60,000 square feet of lot size. That is simply not true. The question, as I noted in my September 21 letter, is whether the community building is a principal use or an accessory use. Because it would be incidental and subordinate to the principal multifamily dwelling use on the property, the community building is an accessory use even if WMA makes money on the laundry facilities. The fact that someone makes money on something does not convert that use from an accessory use to a principal use. If it did, that would mean that a dwelling could be converted to a principal commercial use by the mere presence of a soda dispensing machine in the basement.

        In any case, as shown by the attached description of WMA's laundry arrangements, once the cost of utilities, janitorial services, and building maintenance are paid from the net income there is little or no profit from the laundry facilities. The laundry is provided to the residents as a convenience, not as a source of income to the development. The community building is locked and not used by the general public.

        Third, the mere fact that the Boston/Edgecomb lot may use an existing driveway to serve a commercial use does not make that driveway a "street." As I explained in my September 21 letter, to be a "street" under the definition of that word the right-of-way must be public. The mere fact that the public may be allowed to use the right-of-way, though, does not make it public, because the owner may at any time prohibit anyone from using the driveway. Because neither Boston/Edgecomb driveway is public, they are not "streets," and thus there is no prohibition under Subdivision Ordinance Section 10.3.2.12 on constructing a street (in this case the Webster Mill Place access road) within 1,000 feet of that driveway.

        Additionally, Mr. Jarrett was correct when he stated that Section 10.3.2.12 applies only to entrances proposed within the subdivision.

        In my September 21 letter I requested a copy of the Limington Subdivision Ordinance that includes any post-1972 amendments. At the October 12 meeting the Board directed the Code Enforcement Officer to send me a copy of the Town's Subdivision Ordinance. Should I assume that the copy sent to me includes all post-1972 amendments (if any)?

        Given the difficulty the Planning Board has had in handling this application, we request that the Town Attorney be asked to be present at any future meetings at which the Planning Board discusses this matter. Further, because we did not receive notice of tonight's meeting, we request that the Planning Board not consider this matter at tonight's meeting; we will not be able to be present. Instead, we ask that the Board simply request that the Town Attorney respond to the points in my September 21 letter, and to the additional points in this letter, as soon as possible.

        Thank you for your continued attention to this matter.

Sincerely, Matthew D. Manahan

Webster Mill Place
Application to Planning Board
Limington, Maine

LAUNDRY INCOME

York-Cumberland Housing Management Corporation leases coin-operated washers and dryers for its properties from Mac-Gray Co., Inc. (P.O. Box 475, Standish, Maine, 1-800-237-7050, contact is George McCrillis) The income from the machines is collected quarterly by Mac-Gray and is divided equally between Mac-Gray and the property, Mac-Gray's portion being reimbursement for the rental and maintenance of the machines. Below is an example of collections, gross rent, and net income for a 3-month period for the laundry equipment at Steeple Square, a 73 unit family property in Westbrook with 35 3-bedroom, 15 2-bedroom and 23 1-bedroom apartments, pro-rated for 20 units:

	Steeple Square:	Pro-Rated for 20 Units:
Gross Income	$1,384.25	$379.25
Net Income	$   553.70	$189.62
Per Month	$   184.56	$  63.20
Less	Water/Sewer	Oil (hot water)
	Natural Gas	Electricity (dryers)
	Janitorial	Janitorial
	Maintenance (building)	Maintenance (building)

The cost of utilities, janitorial, and building maintenance is not tracked separately for the laundry use. However, once these are paid from the net income each month, there is little or no "profit" from the laundry facilities. The laundry is provided to the residents as a convenience and not as a source of income to the development. The community building is locked and not used by the general public.