Limington Planning Board Minutes
<--Prev       Index       Next-->

Planning Board AgendaPage 1
Planning Board Minutes Page 1  Page 2  Page 3  Page 4  Page 5  Page 6  Page 7  Page 8  Page 9  Page 10
Dr. Tom Larsen Letter Page 1  Page 2  Page 3  Page 4
Joseph Romano Letter Page 1  Page 2  Page 3
Dick Jarrett LetterPage 1
Warren Eldridge LetterPage 1
Jim Haddow Letter Page 1  Page 2  Page 3
Micheal Cooper Letter Page 1  Page 2 
Citizen PetitionPage 1

THURSDAY JULY 13, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M.





[Note: for woodworking shop]

[Note: location on the Mill Turn Road]

[Note: Off Route 25 behind Burning Rose Subdivision]
[Note: actual application is by Kirt Cochran
on land leased from Verne (Billy) Blake]




Note: Distributed with this agenda were copies of Maine Law 38 MRSA 490-A thru 490-M in relation to gravel pits (submitted by Diane Hubbard).

These minutes were approved at the July 27, 2000 Planning Board meeting with no changes.



The meeting was called to order by Wendy Walker, Chairperson, at 7:00 P.M. on Thursday July 13, 2000 at the Limington Municipal Building.

Regular members present: Wendy Walker, Chairperson; Stanley Blake, Jr.; Chris Clark; Raymond Coffin; Diane Hubbard; Harold Jordan.

Alternate member present: Kreg Rose.

Also attending: Priscilla Tucker, Secretary; Freeman Abbott, C.E.O.

The meeting was videotaped by David Smith.

The first order of business was the approval of the minutes of the June 22, 2000 meeting of the Planning Board.

The following motion was made by Diane Hubbard:

MOTION: To approve the Minutes of the June 22, 2000 meeting of the Planning Board.

The motion was seconded by Raymond Coffin and carried unanimously.

The next order of business was the application for cabinet shop/woodworking shop by Tim Bickford. There were two items which had to be provided before approval of the application could be granted, the. plot plan and the floor area and ground coverage. Mr. Bickford was present and did provide the information.

The following motion was made by Chris Clark:

MOTION: To approve the application for a cabinet shop/woodworking shop by Tim Bickford.

The motion was seconded by Kreg Rose and carried unanimously.

The application from Kirt Cochran for an organized recreational paintball course was reviewed for completeness. The deed is outstanding and will be available at the next meeting. A Public Hearing will be held on the application on June 27, 2000.

Planning Board Minutes
July 13, 2000
Page 2

The continuation of the Dearborn Brothers Construction application for a gravel pit was next.

There was discussion of the Shoreland Zoning setbacks as to whether it should be within 100 feet or 250 feet from a great pond.

The mandatory Shoreland Zoning Ordinance relative to the issue was reviewed by the Board. The Chairperson will contact Edward Sullivan, Commissioner of Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) who submitted the amendment to the Town for his legal opinion.

Thomas Larsen, resident of Millturn Road, distributed a list (copy attached) which enumerated his concerns with the gravel pit project. He requested that the Board consider these in making any decisions.

A woman asked where the Comprehensive Plan came into play. Diane Hubbard answered that it was a plan not a binding document as the Ordinance is. She then asked if there would be a new plan.

Lorraine Libby said that she understood the Comprehensive Plan is supposed to be updated every five (5) years and that the material in the Comprehensive Plan was the basis that the. Zoning Ordinance was drawn from.

Charlie Miller stated it was his understanding the Comprehensive Plan was to be renewed every ten (10) years. He also said that the White Brothers pit had shown an increase in wildlife and deer population.

Mary O'Bradovitch said the wildlife had actually been misplaced. The wildlife population had increased but it is misplaced.

Ron Dearborn said he would meet all of the requirements for approval but would not perform the upgrades to the road as previously discussed. This, he said, was the neighbors decision.

The Extractive Industry submission requirements (Section 8.8, Zoning Ordinance) were next reviewed. All items were found complete.

The Performance Standards (Section 8.8.C, Zoning Ordinance) were then reviewed. There are fourteen (14) requirements which must be met.

Planning Board Minutes
July 13, 2000
Page 3

No part of any extraction operation shall be permitted within 150 feet of any property or street line, except that drainage ways to reduce run-off into or from the extraction area may be allowed up to 100 feet of such line. Natural vegetation shall be left and maintained on the undisturbed land. No action taken.

If any standing water accumulates, the site shall be fenced in a manner adequate to keep children out. Measures shall be taken to prevent or halt the breeding of insects. There will be no standing water. There is no definition of standing water at present.

No slopes steeper than 3 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical shall be permitted at any extraction site unless a fence at least 6 feet is erected to limit access to such locations. No action taken.

Before commencing removal of any earth materials, the owner or operator of the extraction site shall present evidence to the Planning Board of adequate insurance with a company licensed to do business in the State of Maine, in an amount not less than $ 1,000,000. Against liability arising from the proposed extraction operations, and such insurance shall be maintained throughout the period of operation. No action taken.

Any topsoil and subsoil suitable for purposes of revegetation shall, to the extent required for restoration, be stripped from the location of extraction operations and stockpiled for use in restoring t location after extraction operations have ceased. Such stockpiles shall be protected from erosion, according to the erosion prevention standards of this section. No action taken.

Sediment shall be trapped by diversion, silting basins, terraces and other measures designed by a professional engineer. No action taken.

The, sides and bottom of cuts, fills, channels, and artificial water courses shall be constructed and stabilized to prevent erosion or failure. Such structures are to be designed and built according to the Maine Soil and Water Conservation Commission Technical Guide, Standards and Specifications. No action taken.

Lagooning shall be conducted in such a manner as to avoid creation of fish trap conditions. The applicant shall submit written approval from the Maine Department of Marine Resources, the Department of Environmental Protection, and/or the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, as applicable, prior to consideration by the Planning Board. There will be no lagooning.

Planning Board Minutes
July 13, 2000
Page 4

The hours of operation? at any extraction site shall be limited as the Planning Board deems advisable to ensure operational compatibility with nearby residents. The hours of operation at the extraction site shall be 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p. m., Monday through Friday and 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Saturday. There shall be no operation on Sunday.

Loaded vehicles shall be suitably covered to prevent dust and contents from spilling or blowing from the load, and all trucking routes and methods shall be subject to approval by the Road Commissioner. No mud, soil, sand, or other materials shall be allowed to accumulate on a public road from loading or hauling vehicles. No action taken.

All access/egress roads leading to or from the extraction site to public ways shall be treated with suitable materials to reduce dust and mud for a distance of at least 300 feet from such public ways. No action taken.

No equipment debris, junk or other material shall be permitted on an extraction site. Any temporary shelters or buildings erected for such operations and equipment used in connection therewith shall be removed within 30 days following completion of active extraction operations. There may be a small building for containment.

The applicant's plans shall specify a close out and rehabilitation plan. Rehabilitation should begin as soon as possible in accordance with the time limits established in the close out./rehabilitation plan. A yearly report shall be filed with the Code Enforcement Office indicating the progress of the rehabilitation until the pit is closed and the rehabilitation, including all planting has been completed.

If any substantial change is desired by the owner or operator to the close out/rehabilitation plan, the plan shall be resubmitted to the Planning Board for review and action, because only the Planning Board is authorized to approve, any substantial alteration to a conditional use permit. Substantial shall be defined in this context to include a change in the timetable of more than six months, as set forth in the plan.

Within six months of the completion of extraction operations at any extraction site or any or more locations within any extraction site, ground levels and grades shall be be established in accordance with the approved plans filed with the Planning Board.

All debris, stumps, boulders, and similar materials shall be removed or disposed of in an approved location or, in the case of inorganic materials, buried and covered with a minimum of two feet of soil

Planning Board Minutes
July 13, 2000
Page 5

The extent and type of fill shall be appropriate to the use intended. The applicant shall specify the type and amount of fill to be used.

Storm drainage and water courses shall leave the location at the original natural drainage points and in a manner such that the amount of drainage at any point is not significantly increased.

At least four inches of top oil or loam shall be retained or obtained to cover all disturbed areas, which shall be reseeded and property restored to a stable condition adequate to meet the provisions of the "Environmental Quality Handbook, Erosion and Sediment Control", as amended or revised, published by the Maine Soil and Water Conservation Commission.

No slope greater than 3 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical shall be permitted.

No action taken.

Prior to beginning excavation on the site the applicant shall file with the town a bond payable to the Town with sureties satisfactory to the Planning Board, or some other form of security including, but not limited to, an escrow account, a security deposit, a passbook or letter of credit. In determining the amount of the bond or the security, the Board shall take into consideration the characteristics of the site, the excavation plan, and the rehabilitation plan which may call for a phased plan for closing out each section of the pit as it is exhausted. In no instance shall the amount be less than 125% of the estimated cost of rehabilitation. All proceeds of forfeited bonds or other security shall be expended by the Town for reclamation of the area for which the security was posted, and any remainder shall be returned to the operator or owner.

If the operator has partially reclaimed the land, the Board shall issue to the operator a release of such securities as the Town has held on deposit to cover the part of the reclamation so long as the remaining amount of security held by the Town is deemed sufficient to cover the cost of the remainder of the reclamation.

Within sixty days, after the date of completion of reclamation provided in the mining plan, the operator shall file with the Planning Board a final report containing such information as shall be determined by the Board. Upon the filing of the final report, and upon determination that this article has been complied with, the Board shall release the securities, if any, still in the Towns possession.

Planning Board Minutes
July 13, 2000
Page 6

If the owner of a site does not begin to rehabilitate the site within 6 months of when the reclamation plan schedules rehabilitation, or discontinues use of the site as defined herein without rehabilitating the site, the Town may enter the site, perform the work required to meet the rehabilitation plan, and place a lien on the property to collect any expenses it incurs for which it does not have performance guarantees. No action taken.

Mr. Dearborn said he may have to install a security light if there is any vandalism at the site. He further stated that he would take care of putting calcium and water on the road. He said he was a larger company than was previously at the site. He has six trucks that he has with and hires five to seven.

Martha Walker asked if there would be additional trucks from other companies using the pit. Mr. Dearborn said there could be but only at minimal times.

Lorraine Libby asked the Road Com missioner if the road was constructed for this kind of traffic. She said they pay the taxes for upkeep of the roads.

The Road Commissioner said the road was built for logging and it has never been rebuilt.

Mrs. Libby asked what happens when trucks come up on Route 117 onto the road. Mr. Perron stated that there is a stop sign so drivers are obligated to stop there.

Mrs. Libby asked what the site distance was there. The Road Commissioner said the site distance was 300 feet.

Mr. Larsen stated that if this project is approved it is very important that the road be paved.

Joyce Whitney said she is not against the pit. It is a health issue as the residents will be embroiled in dust. A paved road would lessen the noise also.

Donna DeLude said the silica in the air is a serious health issue. Mr. Perron stated that the pit and road are monitored by the DEP for silica and noise with monitoring devices. The DEP can come any time without warning to do their inspections. A crusher is not allowed which eliminates a lot of noise. The company has water trucks and they can call Blue Rock to put down calcium when necessary.

Don Whitney said Dearborn did meet with the neighbors and they knew the paving was important and he is furious that the neighbors did not want the paving.

Planning Board Minutes
July 13, 2000
Page 7

Richard Jarrett read a letter (copy attached) from Joseph Romano, an abutter who could not attend the meeting. He stated his concerns which he wants the Board to consider.

The Section 9.7.G. 1, Standards Applicable to Conditional Uses was reviewed.

It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed use meets all of the following criteria. The Board shall approve the application unless it makes written finding that one or more of these criteria have not been met.

The use will not have an adverse impact on spawning grounds, fish aquatic life, bird or other wildlife habitat. The Board is waiting for a letter from the Inland Inland Fisheries and Wildlife addressing the issue.

The use will conserve shore cover and visual, as well as actual, access to water bodies. The Board is requesting clarification on the setbacks from Richard Baker from Shoreland Zoning, Phone 287-7730.

The use is consistent with the. Comprehensive Plan. No action taken.

Traffic access to the site meets the standards contained in this ordinance; and traffic congestion has been addressed in accordance with performance standards in this ordinance. No action taken.

The site design is in conformance with all municipal flood hazard protection regulations. No action taken.

Adequate provision for the disposal of all waste water and sold waste has been made. No action taken.

Adequate provision for the transportation, storage and disposal of any hazardous materials has been made. No fuel will be stored on the site.

A storm water drainage system capable of handling a 25?year storm without adverse impact on adjacent properties has been designed. There will be internal drainage and ditches.

Adequate provisions to control soil erosion and sedimentation have been made. There will be internal drainage.

Planning Board Minutes
July 13, 2000
Page 8

There is adequate water supply to meet the demands of the proposed use, and for fire protection purposes. No water will be necessary.

The provisions for buffer strips and on-site landscaping provide adequate protection to neighboring properties, including public areas, from detrimental features of the development, such as noise, glare, fumes, dust, odor, adverse. visual impact, and the like. Buffers have been discussed with the neighbors.

All performance standards in. this ordinance, applicable to the proposed use will be met. No action taken.

The use will not result in unsafe or unhealthful conditions. Asthma and dust health concerns have been addressed.

The use will not have an adverse impact on natural beauty, historic sites, or rare and irreplaceable natural areas. The Board is waiting for response from Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

The concern was expressed about the reclamation and bonding. Stanley Blake explained that the Town has requirements for reclamation. There were a lot of pits in Town before the Ordinance was passed. The Board will ensure there is reclamation.

Mr. Larsen said there was a pit there before and is it in the acquifer protection zone. The Chairperson said that she would investigate this.

A lady asked where the Dearborn has a history of doing this work in other owns can he show us claims from them. Mr. Dearborn said that at the site visit he recommended that the Town contact other towns. Wendy Walker, Chairperson will check with the towns.

Bob O'Bradovitch suggested contacting the neighbors of these other pits. Mr. Perron said that he would supply the Chairperson with the names, addresses and town contacts.

Richard Jarrett distributed a list (see attached) of his concerns for the Board to consider.

Lorraine Libby stated that the Board will require the company meet State requirements on the project.

Planning Board Minutes
July 13, 2000
Page 9

David Smith raised a concern about granting an open ended permit for 100 acres. Mr. Perron said that the 100 acres will be used within the limits set forth by DEP.

Nancy Bozenhart added that a condition could be made a part of approval that required that all DEP regulations are met.

Mike York said that he owned tenements on dirt roads near pits and that none of the tenants have made complaints.

The Public Hearing will be continued on July 27, 2000.

The application of Michael Hanson was addressed. A letter of opinion on the Appeal Board's decision was distributed. The letter upholds the decision of the Appeals Board. Lorraine Libby distributed a copy of the letter from her attorney who states that the decision is illegal. The Chairperson will get back to the Town Attorney regarding the issue.

The election of a vice-chairperson was the next order of business. Diane Hubbard nominated Chris Clark as vice-chairperson, seconded by Kreg Rose. Chris Clark declined the nomination because of lack of time. The matter will be taken up at the next meeting.

Richard Jarrett distributed copies of the petition to change the gravel pit ordinance as informational for the Board.

Ron Edwards identified himself as an abutter of the proposed paintball project. He stated he arrived at the meeting late but wanted to say he was concerned about the location of the project. He felt they might come into his yard. He will attend the Public Hearing on July 27th.

Planning Board Minutes
July 13, 2000
Page 10

Chris Clark made the following motion:

MOTION: To adjourn the July 13, 2000 meeting of the Planning Board.

The motion was seconded by Kreg Rose and carried unanimously.

The meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M.

Return to top of page

Dr. Tom Larson letter
Page 1

Of equal importance are the following concerns of the Millturn Road neighbors regarding application to the Town of Limington Planning Board by Dearborn Brothers Construction to open a gravel pit on Millturn Road.

1)  Wildlife: The Little Ossipee River and its associated ponds and wetlands in Limington are an area of sitings of Blandings Turtles, an endangered species of turtle in Maine. (See p.33, p.71 7.E, p.72 7.F Comprehensive Plan) (Ordinance 6.6.2., 6.6.5.) The land in question on Millturn Road is a turtle nesting ground. If it is a habitat of an endangered species this application should be disapproved. Boyd Pond and its surrounding wetlands are rated 1H as discharge wetlands with a high wildlife rating on the town of Limington Comprehensive Plan Wetland and Wildlife Habitat Map. DEP records show Boyd Pond and associated wetlands rated high in Wildlife on the Freshwater Wetlands Map.

2)  Boyd Pond (Maine Great Pond) and Wetlands associated with a Great Pond: Wetland areas outlined in blue on the site plan adjacent to Boyd Pond are Resource Protection areas that fall under the Resource Conservation District- Shoreland Zoning. (Mandatory Shoreline Zoning Act File #1?99 5.B) (p.57 1.E, p.58 1.F Comprehensive Plan) (Ordinance 6.4.6.A.1.3.4.) Plan does not appear to show the upland edge of Pond and associated wetlands. Plan does not show setbacks around wetlands-250 feet. (Ordinance 6.4.6.A.1) Mineral extraction including sand and gravel is not permitted in these areas because of high wildlife value (Ordinance 6.4.7. p.39 & p.41, 9.7.G.1.a.b.c.n.), and because of Resource Conservation. (Ordinance Table 1 p.29)
    DEP report: Boyd Pond had a Moderate/Sensitive rating in 1991- (Average water quality with a high risk potential for phosphorus recycling from lake bottom sediments.)
    DEP report: Threshold violated in late 80's causing an area of erosion and sediment into Boyd Pond. Records do not mention that reclamation was completed to DEP satisfaction. This site may still be in violation of thresholds for the shoreland zone. (Ordinance p.15, & 9.7.G.1.i, 6.4.6.A.1) (Comprehensive Plan p.69 7.A)(Natural Resource Protection Act)
    DEP report: Wetlands adjacent to Boyd Pond had 1500 square feet filled-in in the past with high slopes around the wetlands that erode into the wetland. There is no mention of the problem being addressed to the satisfaction of the DEP in their records. This may also still be in violation. (Comprehensive Plan p.32) (Ordinance 6.4.6.A.1.3.4, 7.15) (Natural Resource Protection Act)

3)  Former Non-conforming Pit on Millturn Road: DEP records show this not to be a legal pit because there were no borrow permits from the town or the state on file. Acreage exposed by previous operations was 7.7 acres according to DEP calculations. This exceeds the 5 acres shown on the site plan. The Planning Board needs to be sure Maine State regulations are met in this plan before considering this application. Can an illegal pit be reopenned as a pit? (Ordinance 8.8.E) Who assumes the responsibility to fulfill past court orders to reclaim the damaged area to the town and DEP satisfaction? (Ordinance 8.8.c.3. for example) How can the old DEP case be closed if the court order to perform certain reclamation procedures was not completed? If

Larson Page 2

reclamation was never completed to the satisfaction of the DEP how can the area be considered stable for the same type of activity?

4)  Application: Can this pit be reopenned or grandfathered since it was never a legal pit to begin with? Does this application and plan meet town, county, state, and federal regulations? This application specifies 100 acres to develop as a pit. Five to 100 acre extracting operations must go through the DEP. Present site is 7.7 acres according to the DEP records. Does the board have a completed DEP application for this proposed operation? (Ordinance 8.8.B.1, 9.7.A.) Additional permits may be necessary in this case, for example a Natural Resource Protection Act permit especially since The Natural Resource Protection Act was violated by previous operations. Planning Board should review all past and present DEP records, York County Soil and Water Conservation District records, and Maine Attorney General records pertaining to this site before considering this application. (Ordinance 9.7.H) It seems that a copy of the sales contract for the land should be included with the application. There is no provision for fuel storage on the application.

5)  Groundwater/Aquifer: Is this proposed site in an Aquifer Protection Zone? This site is within 1000 feet of existing wells. Which direction does the groundwater flow in this area? (Ordinance 6.5.1., 6.5.2., 6.5.9.B., 8.8.B.3., 8.8.B.4.h.) (Comprehensive Plan p.68 6., 6.A)

6)  Millturn Road Traffic Congestion/Safety: We are familiar with a large gravel pit operator who has a company policy to operate pits where they have direct access to State Highways because avoiding local residential roads is "the responsible thing to do." Without direct access to Rt.117 this site plan should be disapproved. (Ordinance 7.20.A.1.)
Has a traffic study been done to evaluate the impact on the Millturn Road neighborhood of full?time heavy truck traffic? Paving Millturn Road will mean heavier use and increased truck traffic congestion leading to greater pedestrian and vehicle safety hazards. (Ordinance 7.20.A, 7.20.A.4) Four to six months of the year the east end of Millturn Road is impassable and not maintained. This site plan makes the west end of Millturn Road a medium volume driveway to a heavy equipment commercial industrial site. (Ordinance 7.20.B.1.b, 7.20.B.5.a.b.c.d) Traffic, including school buses, delivery trucks, and mail carriers will be forced to travel out to Rt.117 through the congestion of industrial truck traffic. (Ordinance 7.8.B.1.) Does the town wish to give their road to heavy commercial industry after committing themselves to a residential subdivision in this area? Millturn Road is a local residential road that will service a neighborhood of eleven homes and 30 - 40 people.

Does the intersection of Millturn Road and Rt. 117 meet DOT safety regulations for road access onto a state highway? What volume/capacity and level of service can Millturn Road handle? (Ordinance 7.20.A.3)

Larson Page 3

7)  Millturn Road Conditions: Millturn Road is rated as one of the most dangerous road segments in Limington. (Comprehensive Plan p.43, p.44, p.54) Danger on Millturn Road is due to hills, curves, and shoulder drop-offs and no posted speed limit. Paving to the proposed pit site will not make the road safer. Truck traffic will increase dramatically if Millturn Road is paved to the proposed site causing more congestion and safety hazards to local traffic and pedestrians. This site plan impact on a poor road should be discouraged. (Comprehensive Plan p.42) Prohibit traffic-generating commercial uses on poor roads.(Comprehensive Plan p.82)

Millturn Road presently goes through wetlands and a flood zone. Will the DEP or other state departments allow taking more wetlands to pave the road? What are the county and state regulations for roads through flood zones? A bridge? Previous use of this site as a pit destroyed the culverts in the flood zone on Millturn Road due to heavy truck use of the road. If the road is damaged, should the taxpayers of Limington bear the cost of repair to Millturn Road due to heavy commercial industrial truck use?

8)  Planning Board: The Town of Limington ordinances are to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the people who live in Limington. (Ordinance 1.3) Are present planning board decisions to be consistent with past planning board decisions? Putting heavy commercial industry in the middle of an approved subdivision would be inconsistent and detrimental to the welfare and safety of the neighborhood. Families have purchased land and built homes based on past planning board decisions to commit the Millturn Road area to being a residential neighborhood. The extraction industry creates nuisances that are not compatible with neighborhoods. Maine State Law protects the rights of those living in neighborhoods from nuisances that are not compatible with neighborhoods. As a planning board you have a responsibility not to create dubious legal situations for the residents of your community. (Comprehensive Plan p.63 4.C) This pit site plan fails the 'more good than harm' test. (Comprehensive Plan p.64 4.D)

The growing pains of Limington will only likely continue. The Planning Board must know that their decisions set precedence for the future. Following your ordinances must be your first priority as a Planning Board. Do you want heavy commercial industry taking over local residential roads? Do you want heavy commercial extraction industry in Natural Resource Protection areas? Do you want heavy commercial industry in the middle of a Board approved subdivision? When you consider the area wetlands, road, and residences this is simply a bad spot for this type of industrial operation. If reviewed carefully the ordinances and plans of the Town of Limington speak in such a way as to disapprove this application.

Larson Page 4


Establish performance standards to minimize the impacts of commercial development (traffic and access problems, noise, visual pollution, neighbors ... ). Commercial development should be 'beneficial'... it must yield more good to the town than harm, more benefit than cost.


Benefits of Gravel Pit

Hardships of Gravel Pit

Dearborn BrothersProfit Maker Cost of paving road
Industrial trucks dealing with pedestrians
Industrial trucks dealing with passenger cars
Dealing with residents

SellerSale of Land

Town of LimingtonResidents may Purchase gravel Locally. Same prices. Expense of widening road
Extra costs of road repairs
Lower property tax revenue vs. homes
Liability to town poor traffic plan

Millturn Residents? Not in compliance with town ordinances
Safety; heavy industrial traffic pedestrians/cars
Industrial & Residential traffic non-compatible
Irresponsible, use of local residential road

Traffic Congestion
Noise, severe startle reflexes of special needs child/crying, neighbors sleep interrupted, quiet sounds of nature muffled/can't enjoy
Undue Hardship, residents sacrifice for others' gain
Welfare, residents can't walk or bike ride
Wildlife Endangered
Health Issues, asthma and respiratory

Millturn Road abused at towns' expense
Natural beauty of land destroyed
Decreased Property Value, no compensation
Uses services to run business outside of Limington

Return to top of page

Joseph Romano Leter
Page 1

July 8,2000

Dear Members of the Planning Board of the Town of Limington:

In my absence, for which I have no control over, I would want for Dick Jarrett to read my concerns aloud for the public and to be considered with the same respect and attention that my presence would receive.

Respectively submitted,

Joseph Romano

Romano Page 2

          The following are a list of serious concerns that my wife and I have pertaining to the proposed gravel pit off of Millturn Road.
          It is not my intention to prevent such an enterprise, but rather it is out of deep concern for the safety, protection of health and general welfare of the residents living on the Millturn Road.
          My concerns are valid and they are supported by the zoning ordinances of Town of Limington (Article 1.3).
          Regarding the use of Millturn Road for direct access to the proposed pit. On page 45 of the town ordinances, it addresses roads and driveways and stipulates that "appropriate techniques will be used to prevent sedimentation of the water body, tributary stream of wetland. The area in which I'm concerned is the portion of Millturn Road that floods during the spring and fall. This low lying area is subject to greatly increased sedimentation and erosion.
          I would want to see a proposal from the applicant as to how such prevention would take place. This is in compliance with Sec. 6.4.8 O.1 page 51. Therefore, a written soil erosion and sedimentation control plan is required.
          Regarding animal life in and around the proposed gravel pit and endangered species. There has not been to date an evaluation of these concerns as prescribed by town zoning ordinances 6.6.5 page 61.
          The ordinance recommends that a report form a wildlife biologist regarding the probable effects may be included. Considering the serious affects such a pit will have on wildlife and respecting the town ordinances as well as the agreement of our last town meeting that such a report should be sought. I would be in serious objection of a permit issued until such a report is submitted and the planning board and towns people can make a more informed decision.
          It is also my concern that the hours of operation comply with the town zoning ordinances that "on a site abutting any residential use between the hours of 10 PM and 7 AM section 7.7 page 63.
          It is also a concern of mine that state regulations be observed as wall as our local zoning ordinances. I have supplied an application form for Freshwater Wetland Alterations, for Tier 1 and 2 Review under 38 M.R.S.A. 48OX of the Natural Resources Protection Act along with this concern I also have supplied the board with State of Maine DEP, site location of Development chapter 380 Planning Permit.
          Along with this material, I have also supplied a copy of the State of Maine guidelines for municipal shoreland zoning ordinances 06?096 DEP chapter 1000. Please review page 16, section F.(10). It was stated by Mr. Dearborn that Diesel storage would be on site, this is a concern of mine and of the state's. See page 18 of same DEP 06?096 chapter 1000 regarding section H, 1-9. These paragraphs refer to the Roads and Driveways and set standards. These address concerns of mine as well, in particular paragraphs 1, referring to sedimentation of the water and how to avoid such a problem.
          Number 7 of the same DEP 06?096 refers to drainage as well and its imperative that these conditions be adhered to. Additionally the information on page 20 of DEP 06?096 will prove helpful to the obligations such a proposed pit requires.
          Please see page 26 Q.1 a written soil erosion and sedimentation control plan is required before a permit shall be issued. Again this plan for soil erosion and sedimentation must be in writing by the Dearborn Brothers and address each of the listed provisions.
          In accordance with these rules section R page 26 states that a soils report based on an on-site investigation and be prepared by state-certified professionals is required. This is a state requirement that the language is clear, must be performed prior to issuing a permit. I have supplied the State of Maine DEP 06-096 chapter 1000 to assist you.
          Finally, I would like to address my personal concerns for such a pit. I believe it is essential that the Millturn Road from 117 to the gravel pit entrance be widened and reconstructed to meet local and state standards. This road should be paved, raised and

Romano Page 3

maintained immediately upon the opening of said gravel pit. The influx of traffic even form the onset will be dramatic enough to warrant immediate reconstruction.
          It is my desire, given the condition of Millturn Road, that the town consider completion of paving the road up to the last house of Millturn Road. The excessive dust will be detrimental to the health of all Millturn Road residents, especially myself who suffers from acute asthma.
          I thank the board for their attention and I want to say that I appreciate the challenge before all of you. I exhort each of you to proceed with your deliberation with respect to my concerns an to the town and state ordinances.
          I appreciate the passions and time schedules of all parties involved but I urge that patience and study of the situation not be sacrificed for expedience.
          I would like to repeat myself again that it is not my intent to prevent the sale of this land nor prevent a gravel pit within it, but rather my sincere concern for my family, residents, environment and wildlife. I respect the ordinances of the town and state and I insist upon those regulations to be examined responsibly and respectfully.

Respectively submitted,

Joseph Romano

Additionally: Please review Natural Resources Protection Act 38 MRSA 480A to Z, Statue
These sections 480C - 480D 1-5 also support my concerns and I submit them for your review.

Joseph Romano

Return to top of page

Dick Jarrett Letter

Dick Jarrett
280 Tucker Road
Limington, ME 04049

July 13, 2000

Limington Planning Board
PO Box 240
Limington, ME 04049

Dear Planning Board Members:

There are several issues with the proposed Dearborn Brothers Construction gravel extraction operation on the Mill Turn Road that I feel should be given greater scrutiny by the Board. I hope that you will take these comments under consideration.

(1) It would be an error of law to allow the proposed internal pit road to be located as shown on the plan presented at the June 22 meeting. Specifically, Section 6.4.6.A.1 of the Limington Zoning Ordinance states that areas within 250 feet of great ponds which are rated "moderate" or "high" by the MDIF&W as of 1/1/73 shall be included in the Shoreland Resource Conservation Zone. The lower section of Boyd pond is shown on the shoreland map as being in the Resource Conservation zone and the same area (ID # 58) is shown to have a Wildlife Value Rating of "High". Furthermore, Note 3 on Limington Zoning Table 6.4.7 specifically prohibits Mineral Extraction (including sand and gravel) in Resource Conservation areas designated as such because of wildlife value. Finally, even if no extraction was contemplated within this area and only a road was to be constructed, both section 7.10.A and section 6.4.8.H.3 of the Limington Zoning Ordinance prohibit a road within the Resource Conservation District for this case.

(2) Section 8.8.B.1 of the Limington Zoning Ordinance requires that the applicant submit at this time all applicable State permits. The applicant is applying to the Limington Planning Board for a 100 acre mineral extraction operation adjacent to a great pond. State Permits are required for such an operation and must be submitted to the Board before approval can be granted for a 100 acre pit.

(3) The site walk revealed that the site contains numerous wetlands. The site walk also revealed that these wetlands have not been delineated or flagged. Because no extraction operations may take place within 75 feet of a wetland, such flagging and mapping must be done before approval can be granted.

(4) There is a question as to whether the high water mark shown on the plan corresponds to the true high water mark of Boyd Pond. Each year the water rises to or over the Mill Turn Road and the plan does not agree with common experience. Since gravel extraction cannot take place within a measured distance from the high water mark, the determination of the true high water mark must be made before the Board can approve the limits of extraction.

(5) The plan should show the design and location of the impervious surface required for fuel transfer as well as a fuel spill response plan.

Thank you,
Dick Jarrett
Dick Jarrett

Return to top of page

Warren Eldridge Letter

IFW IFW Phone: 657-2345- ext. 109

Wednesday, July 12, 2000

Wendy Walker, Chairperson
Town of Limington
Planning Board
PO Box 240
Limington, Maine 04049

Re: Application for Gravel Pit by Dearborn Brothers Construction

Dear Ms. Walker:

          I have reviewed the materials sent to me regarding this application, it would appear that the major change before review is changing the location of the entrance road closer to Boyd Pond for an unknown distance before connecting back to the existing road system. In my opinionm this change should have minimal impacts on the adjacent waterfowl wading bird habitat provided the proposed 100' setback is maintained in a well wooded state and proper erosion control measures maintained for this distance.

          While some proposed work is planned within the shoreland zone, it was not clear to me what type of district it would be occuring in. Specific implications of this should be addressed to The Department of Environmental Protection's Shoreland Zoning Unit. State House Station # 17 Augusta, Maine 04333 or calling 287-7730.

Warren Eldridge
Warren Eldridge
Asst. Regional Wildlife Biologist

Return to top of page

Please note that is not the official website of the Government of the Town of Limington.