The meeting was called to order by Wendy Walker, Chairperson, on Thursday, November 09, 2000 at 7:00 P.M. at the Limington Municipal Building.

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

Regular members absent: Stanley Blake, Jr.; Kreg Rose, Vice-Chairperson.

Alternate members present: Ronald Perkins.

Also attending: Jim Haddow, Attorney for the Town; Matthew Manahan, Attorney for Webster Mill Place; Priscilla Tucker, Secretary; Freeman Abbott, C.E.O.

The first order of business was the approval of the Minutes of the October 26, 2000 meeting of the Planning Board.

The following motion was made by Diane Hubbard:

MOTION:

To approve the Minutes of the October 26, 2000 meeting of the Planning Board.

The motion was seconded by Raymond Coffin and carried.

The Public Hearing of the application of Ralph Estes & Sons for the proposed addition to Trico Millworks, Inc. was next on the agenda. Mr. Estes was present.

Wendy Walker asked about the proposed gravel drive on the plan. Mr. Estes said that the gravel drive is an extension of the driveway.

The business is already in place so there is no need to go through the Performance Standards. A site walk was made.

The setbacks are well within the ranges of the property.

Starting with	320000 square feet
MINUS
pre-existing building	3850 square feet
new addition	2400 square feet
existing driveway	5200 square feet
gravel driveway addition	400 square feet
DEDUCTED FROM ACREAGE	11850 square feet

Leaves 308,150 square feet which represents 3.7% ground coverage.

Richard Jarrett said that he thought this should be documented as a Fact as he was concerned with the acquifer protection district which limited coverage to 10%. There is no problem at this time.

There will be no hours added just space. There will be no changes from what is already agreed upon in the Trico Millworks, Inc. application. The conditions of the original application will apply to this application also. The conditions are that:

1.

All land use activities shall conform with all of the applicable land use standards in Section 6.5.9 of the Zoning Ordinance.

2.

Any signage shall comply with the Zoning Ordinance.

3.

No operation shall begin without a permit issued by the C.E.O.

Freeman Abbott asked about the parking spaces. There is ample parking for the number of employees. Mr. McKinnon said they may add one or two employees and that the addition is basically for storage.

Harold Jordan made the following motion:

MOTION:

To approve the permit for a 40 x 60 addition to the existing Trico Millwork, Inc. building with the conditions stated.

The motion was seconded by Diane Hubbard and carried unanimously.

The next order of business was the Webster Mill Place. Wendy Walker, Chairperson, introduced Jim Haddow, Town Attorney; Matthew Manahan, Attorney for Webster Mill Place; Genie Nakell and Steve Drane representing Webster Mill Place.

Wendy Walker said that the meeting will address the letter of concerns received from Attorney Matthew Manahan. The meeting will be very specific for the sake of everyone concerned. We will answer all of the concerns in an effort to put the matter to rest. Attorney Jim Haddow is present to answer any outstanding questions.

laws that apply and the Board doesn't give Mr. Haddow a chance to give advice until after the Board has reached resolution. The Board has just done that again as you have asked each member of the Board to come to a decision before you know the standards.

Wendy Walker said she had just asked the Board for their feelings. She then asked Attorney Haddow to give the consequences of what was just stated regarding Ron Perkins objectivity and the Board's feelings.

Attorney Haddow first explained what the objectivity means here. He said that as of today there is no application pending before the Board and there has been no public hearing so there has been no actual evidence presented to the Board. Wendy Walker told Attorney Haddow there had been a public hearing on the previous application. Attorney Haddow said that the Board is early 'in the process of evaluating this. It is important that the members of the Board not be advocates for private positions at least until all of the evidence is in. At that point it is appropriate for the Board members, having heard all of the evidence, to discuss among themselves what their views are based on tile evidence. It is crucially important that the Board apply standards, as you all know and have heard before, to the evidence and arrive at a decision based on the evidence. That is the position you are in. If you come to, I have not reviewed any t:ypes, I have not reviewed transcripts of the tapes, I have seen Attorney Manahan's documentations of what went on at the prior meetings. Really, what you all have to do is make a decision, each and everyone of you not just one Mr. Perkins although he has been called into question. Each and everyone of you have to make a decision of whether you are actually able to come to the process of evaluating the evidence that may come before you, in light of the law as it is written down in the Ordinance and in State Statutes objectively. That is to say without a preconceived idea about how this will all come out. More importantly without applying standards that are not in the ordinance. It is important for you all to understand that your role here is not that of a legislative body. Even though you all make sense a leaning one way or another among the people of the town, that leaning one way or another in the town cannot affect the decision that you make. The decision you make has to be irrespective of political pressure. It has to be based exclusively on the evidence and the law. That is what you are being asked, can you make that decision based on the evidence and the law without respect to political pressure, without whatever your personal biases may be. In fact, the applicant and the abutters and anyone opposed to this are entitled to have an objective Board. That is the general Picture. In terms of the consequences, if there is a Board member who can be shown to have been non-objective, if that Board member participates actively in the discussion and/or votes and the vote goes against the party that objects to that Board member, then there is a significant risk that an appeal in Superior Court will likely say this process was tainted and send it back for a new hearing based on that problem. That is the risk. It is ultimately the Board's decision to make not the Attorneys. It is your decision to make.

Wendy Walker said another question she had on what Attorney Haddow said is whether or not Ron Perkins votes, just so that everyone here understands what the situation is, if Ron participates but does not vote are the consequences the same?

Attorney Haddow said that the consequences, in his opinion, would be the same.

Mr. Perkins asked if the Comprehensive Plan had to be then ruled out.

Attorney Haddow responded that one of the requirements in the Subdivision Ordinance is that the subdivision proposal must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. So, the answer to the question is, the Comprehensive Plan is part of what you should be considering. You must be very careful about that though because the Comprehensive Plan is a much more general document than the other standards that are applied here. There is some very recent case law which I happen to be personally very familiar that says from the law court, that if you have a provision in ordinance that will be applied by a Board like the Planning Board, it is to general if it permits the Board to fill in the blanks, then that provision is probably going to be deemed unconstitutionally vague. You have to be very careful about how you use the Comprehensive Plan because if you take a provision of the Comprehensive Plan that is fairly general and you accumulate evidence that is very specific in an effort to either promote or defeat an application, you run a risk that the decision will be overturned on that basis. You do not have to ignore the Comprehensive Plan, you have to be careful how you use it. The Comprehensive Plan is part of the criteria to be applied by the Board in evaluating this application and every subdivision application. For that matter I think it is also included in the conditional use criteria and I think you can also read it into the site review criteria. You have to be careful how you use it. That is part of the job.

Ron Perkins said that then what he tried to do was to look into the Comprehensive Plan and what we want to do with this town and, in his opinion, interpreted what was going on with the project and said what he said. He said he may have expressed an opinion and apologized if the opinion was negative to Webster Mill. Everything he said when he did his research on the Comprehensive Plan, he came up with in an honest and sincere way. Obviously, because of the negativity of what he has come up with, it was detrimental to the Webster Mill project. They were all based on fact.

Attorney Haddow said what you have to be careful with about the Comprehensive Plan, I am not sure just what process you went through, if you go into the Comprehensive Plan and read it and develop an overall view of what you think the people who wrote it meant about where the town would be going and you then use that for a bases of denying the application, I think that is the kind of thing that is likely to be a problem with subsequent

appeal. That kind of Gestaldt sense of the overall intent of what the people who wrote the Comprehensive Plan meant is more a legislative function than a judicial function. What you are doing here is more like being Judges or Jurors than like being members of the legislature. I'm not suggesting that is that you did, I'm saying when you look at the 91 Comprehensive Plan to use it, the only way you can use it effectively here is to pick out specific sections that say, for example low income housing is allowed in X zone, you can go into the Comprehensive Plan and say that is clearly consistent with an application for low income housing in this zone. If it said low income housing is disfavored in zone X then the contrary would be true. It doesn't say anything at all about low income housing and you get the Gestaldt feeling from this that this is what they meant.

Wendy Walker said let's say using that example it says low income housing is generally disfavored in the particular zone, I am still hearing that it is a general document and that it is not a reason to say it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

Attorney Haddow: That is one of the criteria you have to look at, and have to determine how to weigh that. I would say you have to be careful about making that preclusive on film. I'm not, it's clear to me that the Zoning Ordinance contemplates the development of multi-family housing in the commercial zone. I think that if the Comprehensive Plan did say low income housing, was allowed in X zone that is pretty specific.

Diane Hubbard said that it goes basically to the Comprehensive Plan being a guideline, the ordinance is the last word. That would be the simple way to put it.

Attorney Haddow: That is correct. The only reason the Comprehensive Plan has any application whatsoever to your deliberations is that it says in one of the criteria that the plan has to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If that criteria were not there you would not there you wouldn't even have to look at the Comprehensive Plan in evaluating an application. It is there you are required to look at the Comprehensive Plan. What I am telling you is how you use it is what is going to determine whether your decision will ultimately stand up in Court. If the Comprehensive Plan contains a specific provision that is relevant then you will need to apply it. If, however, if you are working on a sense of what the people meant, I would certainly stay away from that. It is dangerous. If your decision is otherwise supportable on other grounds it would be a bad idea to rest it on that sort of general ground.

Ron Perkins: The Comprehensive Plan is the heart beat of the town, I'm assuming. In other words, this is what everybody wants Limington to be someday. That is our plan for the future. That is for the whole town, every resident of this town. If every member of this town is not happy with the situation, but yet this situation legally passes the ordinance with the exception of making everyone in the town not happy would that still

go through so that the people putting it in can make their money and leave and the town has got to put up with them, and we have no say over it.

Attorney Haddow: Let me rephrase your question a little bit. First of all the Comprehensive Plan does not have the force of law all by itself. It's a planning document, it's a document that was enacted by the town by a vote of the town. It is suppose to be in the nature, of let's say, a blueprint. Then what happens to that blueprint, in theory, is that there is a total array of ordinances. The ordinances are the law, the Comprehensive Plan is not. If 100% of the voters in the town are opposed to the application, it does not matter. The only thing that matters to you as a member of the Planning Board is whether the application conforms to the requirements in the records. That is one part of the question, as I understand it. The other part of the question is what about the Comprehensive Plan, does it have any force. That goes back to Diane's question. The answer is yes, it has force to the extent that it is incorporated into the criteria that you have to apply. Again, this is a situation where when you apply those criteria of the Comprehensive Plan, you have to be very careful to pull out only the most specific provisions if you are going to rely on them to make a decision one way or the other on any application. If the democratic process really doesn't have any application as far as the voters of the town are concerned, in consideration of an application or a permit. The voters spoke when they enacted the ordinance. Your job is to look at that and you will look at the evidence and vote however you decide based on the evidence and the law. It would be wrong to come in here as a member of the Planning Board and vote either in favor of or against any application based purely on the fact that you know there is a majority of people out there who want you to vote that way. You cannot do it that way. Does that answer your question?

Ron Perkins: It doesn't make me very happy but yes, I call that a democratic process where you can make everybody in town miserable and our Comprehensive Plan means nothing if all of the criteria of the ordinance is met with the exception of making everybody miserable.

Attorney Haddow: Think of it this way. Think about a judge and he is sitting up there and there is a case in front of the judge and the judge is deciding the case. He gets to the end of the case and the judge sees the outcome of the case if applied to law is going to be unjust or unfair. It doesn't matter, he can't change the outcome because he thinks the outcome is going to be unjust or unfair. He has to apply the law as it is written.

Ron Perkins said that it may probably be the law but it doesn't make sense.

Attorney Haddow: In the big picture it does. The reason is if there is a problem with the ordinance, the voters can go change it any time. That's, in theory, what happens. That's

the relief. It is crucially important that the process be applied the same way every single time. If an applicant comes here and whether it is your next door neighbor wants to put in a home office which isn't going to bother anybody or there is somebody who wants to put an oil refinery on top of the Aquifer Protection District, whatever it may be the same set of standards must be applied to everyone. You can't find one way when people like it and another when they don't. That would not be fair.

Wendy Walker: Some of the members are new and I felt that had to be answered. Given what we have just heard and now understanding the difference. I know a lot of your focus has been on the side of the Comprehensive Plan rather than the Zoning Ordinance. Does that change what we have said before.

Ron Perkins: For me to be objective?

Wendy Walker: You have to be objective and if you were called to vote or deliberate on a point of the application, could you be fair?

Ron Perkins: You know I think there would be a doubt in my mind as far as being objective is concerned. When it comes to being fair, I can be extremely fair but I think that if somebody is going to dump something into a town that doesn't want it and then leave, that is not fair. So I'm not sure I can be objective because I have been inundated with phone calls, faxes and other things. It is not easy. I know Mr. Manahan would love to get me off here because I have brought up some points that make too much sense.

Wendy Walker: Let's not go there. We are here on a professional capacity and let's keep it that way.

Ron Perkins: I can be fair. I will say this, I will be fair. You can take that for what it is worth. I can be fair and I will be fair.

Wendy Walker: If it is o.k. with everybody here, I will take a few minutes and let you digest that and think about it before I ask you to respond because there is certainly a fair amount of things that Jim can talk about while we think about it. We will re-visit it in about ten or fifteen minutes. Think about what you have just heard. It is not going to be about deliberations but I need another piece of information from Jim. The Board has to decide, it is not up to me.

Attorney Manahan: My own issue as the Board proceeds, it's important that if the Board is going to decide Mr. Perkins can't participate that he not participate starting now.

Wendy Walker: You are right and my next question is for Attorney Haddow so it doesn't impact that. Jim, you and I have had a couple of e-mail notes about how to read the dimensional requirements table in the Zoning Ordinance. We had some conversations here, Attorney Manahan has presented another translation that that table can be read and we have decided to defer to your judgment, how you would read it.

Attorney Haddow: The question is how do I read it from out here.

Wendy Walker: If you would also consider Mr. Manahan's viewpoint if you think it is what the ordinance is trying to say.

Attorney Haddow. I continue to believe that the opinion that I gave in the beginning is correct on the question of the 60, 40. The reason is these are essentially uses that are listed in the dimensional requirements table and therefore you are to treat the multi family dwellings as a single use even though there are three structures. It seems to me that the plain language in the ordinance is different. It says lots and structures in all districts shall meet or exceed the following minimum requirements. My view is, with all respect to Mr. Manahan, I stick with my original opinion on that.

Wendy Walker: Knowing that, we need other things answered. Another one of the outstanding questions was whether this is a minor subdivision or whether it is a major subdivision.

Attorney Haddow: There are a couple of things. One is you can call it a major subdivision if you want to. Set aside for a moment the issue of whether these are lots or not. You can make that decision within your discretion under the subdivision ordinance. You can decide that. Stepping back for a minute, in looking at the question of lots and whether to treat these as separate lots or not, I think you have all realized that there is no definition of lots in the subdivision ordinance. So, that leaves you at sea. Mr. Manahan has suggested that we should really look at the definition of lot in the Zoning Ordinance, as an indication of what the subdivision ordinance means. If you do that then you don't have, you have arguably three lots rather than twenty-two. I will start by saying either way you cut this you will come up with some inconsistencies in the subdivision ordinance and you have to make a call one way or another. 1, given the current state of the State Subdivision law, and given the language of the subdivision itself, I think both the intent of the subdivision ordinance and the application of the subdivision ordinance are better served if each unit is treated as a lot. I admit that will run into a problem with 9.8.3 is the only Section of the Subdivision Ordinance that I discovered that really causes a problem in treating these individual units as lots. My suggestion to you is that you look at section 12.1 and 12.2 because I believe that in Section 12.1 and 12.2 you can craft a waiver to section 9.8.3 if you deem the fact appropriate given that the specific nature of

this application is just to say this is not twenty-two separate lots of land. It is pieces of land with twenty separate buildings on them. So the requirement for one hundred feet of frontage per lot is ridiculous when you have twenty-two hundred feet of frontage for three buildings is obviously excessive. If you decide that you want to cut back that I think you can do that under those Sections. I urge you to read the Law Court decision on those sections, it is Jarrett vs. Limington. That talks about the limits of the Board's powers. If you follow that carefully, I think it is within your power to correct that. I actually think that that is a result you get that way, by treating a unit as an individual lots otherwise under the subdivision he is more consistent with County and State subdivision law and the obvious intent of this subdivision ordinance is doing it the other way around. There is no definition in the subdivision ordinance as long as you haven't done something inconsistent as some prior time I would urge you to do it that way. I think that is the better choice from a legal standpoint. I think it would be defensible.

Wendy Walker: Any other questions?

Diane Hubbard: Going back to the point, we have set precedence on that on the square footage on each one of the units.

Attorney Haddow: That is not what I was talking about.

Wendy Walker: Whether each building is a lot or a unit is a lot.

Attorney Haddow: I am talking about road frontage. Square footage, I don't know of any applications for square footage. No one has asked about that.

Diane Hubbard: The dimensional table use. We have set precedence with that.

Attorney Haddow: What do you mean by that, I am not aware of that.

Diane Hubbard: It would be the Burning Road Subdivision for multi-family housing, was 60, 40. This is consistent with that.

Attorney Haddow: Those were duplexes and he put up several of those, didn't he?

Diane Hubbard: That's right but we considered it multi-family dwellings.

Attorney Haddow: You required 100,000 square feet per duplex and this was consistent.

Diane Hubbard: This was actually in rural so required 120,000.

Wendy Walker: Those were burning issues and I just wanted to bring those forward.

Wendy Walker: We need to decide whether or not we feel that Ron can operate in an objective capacity given what has already occurred. We have heard Jim's reasoning for, not reasoning but explanation on how if his opinion can be viewed as tainting the deliberations or the decision, we could be up for appeal on any decision we make anyhow. Knowing this, and this is not a decision I can make, I am not even going to render my decision. Does anybody have a different feeling than they had before?

Diane Hubbard: As much as I like you Ron, nothing personal, but I think you are relying on the Comprehensive Plan and you're following that so much you have lost sight of the ordinance. Push comes to shove, the ordinance is what we have to go by. Again, we have to follow that and I would hate to see whatever conclusion we come to at the end of this when we vote to have it go to appeal because they would say it was tainted. I feel at this point you are to emotionally involved. I know it is a wonderful thing but I think you have put to much into the Comprehensive Plan at this point and not concentrated enough on the ordinance. I'm not sure whether at this point, where you have gone so much into the Comprehensive Plan that you can pull into the ordinance.

Chris Clark: Well, I guess I feel a lot of emotion coming out with the ordinance issue. I'm right next door to this project almost. I am a businessman. I hear all of this but the ordinance is the bottom line. I sense a lot of emotion and I guess I have to change my decision.

Raymond Coffin: I guess I have to feel the same way after hearing what he said. I feel bad for that but he has pretty much said where he stands.

Harold Jordan: I agree with what he just said.

Wendy Walker: Well, then by a show of hands, all of those who feel that Ron should not participate in the deliberations and in favor of asking him to step down. The show of hands was unanimous. All of those in favor of him staying on? It is nothing personal. I would not want you to not stay involved because I think there will be a lot of great learning as this is one of the biggest problems we have had to deal with. I can't allow you to sit at this table at this point and participate although I would encourage you to participate in the audience as we will be coming up on the Public Hearing and I think you will have feedback.

Ron Perkins: All I can say is that Mr. Manahan won and any time I have to compromise my morals and guidance to comply with the law when I know it is wrong, I won't do it. That is what they have asked me to do and that's why I told them honestly that I would be fair but I don't know about being objective. I can't be objective if it is wrong and it is wrong. I know you don't care and I know that nobody building this cares about the people in this town but I happen to love this town and with the amount of phone calls I have received maybe I have got a little emotion going. But right is right and wrong is wrong and you are wrong.

Can I express my opinion from the audience as a member of the town?

Wendy Walker: Yes, as a member of the town in a public capacity and only as it relates to the issues.

Attorney Manahan: Let me state for the record that I do object to a member of the Board participating as a member of the audience when he has clearly expressed his views.

Wendy Walker: Everyone has a night to speak.

Attorney Haddow. Mr. Perkins retains his First Amendment rights. I think that as long as he is held at the same standards as every other member of the public who comes here to speak the recognition that he may or may not have standing as an opponent or whatever, as long as the same restrictions apply I don't believe you are required to muzzle him.

Wendy Walker: At the point it becomes personal attacks, I will ask you not to speak?

Mr. McKinnon: I am a little confused about the ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. What does the ordinance allow you to do?

Wendy Walker: The ordinance essentially sets the guidelines and the rules. This is allowed here, this is the size that is required, this is how it can operate. Straight facts that you can measure.

Mr. McKinnon: The application for the housing would by the ordinance pass?

Wendy Walker: It could but we don't know.

Mr. McKinnon: The reason I ask is I have five acres and if I sold the land they could come back here with another permit and might want to build twenty units with five septic tanks. I own nine acres. I don't think my chances for getting it approved would be very

good. This is a project that will do Limington no good. You are putting people who need help out in the country with no transportation, no public transportation. It is a $100 a month if you want to work in Portland driving a car. Where are they going to get jobs? There aren't that many jobs in Limington. To begin with the citizens never had a chance for a public meeting or input before this was started. This was rushed through and nobody knew it for a long time. It is not fair for the citizens and not fair to you the Board. It's a tough battle. I personally would be ashamed to be the one who got that application the way it was done.

Wendy Walker: Mr. Manahan I know you are not really suppose to be participating in this because we are just trying to address issues. I think it might be easier and faster if we agree that we have closed an issue as we went along. If you don't mind I will pass through and make sure that we have really resolved each of these as we move down the list.

Wendy Walker: I think I am going to let them ask the questions during the break? We won't have any discussion or put anything into the record. You have already said you are concerned about how long this process is taking. I would like this process to move along. None of us wants to spend eight months getting through it, and Genie I am sure you will agree with that.

Attorney Haddow: I just want to make one suggestion to satisfy Mr. Manahan, if you will just write down the questions that have been asked.

Wendy Walker: I will do that. Two of the biggest deals we have had to get by is to determine whether or not or how to manage whole thing was lots. I think that Attorney Haddow has answered that in the same way that we were determining it which is each unit is going to be determined a lot. One of the reasons that was important is because we had to determine whether or not it is a major or minor subdivision. The second reason that was important was we have to determine what the application fee is for this project. Priscilla, were you able to get a document from the Selectmen or the Town Clerk that had what the subdivision fees.

Priscilla: No

Wendy Walker: I told you I would have that closed. We do have that. Essentially what we found out is that there is no document on file in the office that says that the lot fee for a subdivision is this. We promised you a notorized statement or some legal document saying what that was so you could have it for your records. We don't know yet, what we can use is precedence and that means we will have to go into our files and check receipts to determine what other people have paid. We already know that they have paid $200 per lot for an application fee in a subdivision. So you can consider that an answer. I will have to dig up some receipts to prove to you that we are not making it up. Will that be o.k. with you or should we hold some public hearings and get the Selectmen together because it will take longer if we do it that way.

Freeman Abbott: The Selectmen set the fees anyway without Public Hearings.

Wendy Walker: Well, I want to make sure that it doesn't appear as though we are making something up for this particular project.

Freeman Abbott: Well, doesn't Dick have it written in his book at $200?

Wendy Walker and Diane Hubbard responded that they all have it in their books but it is all hand written.

Diane Hubbard: It is all hand written, there is no actual documentation from the Selectmen.

Attorney Manahan: Just so that we can move this forward, the Board's process makes sense at this stage. I'm not sure it is, that's fine. I may make a note when we file it that we are paying this amount essentially with reservations of rights. The process should move forward.

Wendy Walker: The subdivision itself, you understand now that it at this point is twenty lots in that subdivision and that we still have the two pieces, parcels, lots or whatever in the front. The original application was for twenty and then we have what was lot 1, 1 may have it backward and it is lot 2, that Mr. Blake and you were going to get together on. You are clear that based on what we heard before that's two lots up front is a total of 22.

Now you can calculate an application fee. That was question No. 1. I want to check these off so I make sure we don't skip over anything.

Road frontage. Let's go back to Jim's note and we will be very brief about this. We know that you can request a waiver but I will say that when we looked at your original plan document, when we were calculating road frontage I know we have to calculate along side the access road and add that into the road frontage. We weren't clear on some of the measurements on that so on your next plan can you just make sure that that access road, we were trying to do math and we couldn't make it work, if the numbers are clear then we can do the math.

Attorney Manahan: In terms of the way the access road centers is what you are saying?

Wendy Walker: Yes, well, the land and then it turns off into certain buildings and we don't know what the little parking area is.

I think we got to the place on the laundry building, that it was an accessory use and no additional land was going to be required for that. There was the outstanding question and I will defer to Jim on this one also, that if it is a coin operated laundry in there what makes the difference between simple accessory use and the coin pays for the maintenance of the washing machines and when it becomes a commercial use.

Attorney Haddow: I think I would definitely not spend a tremendous amount of time on this issue. But if you will pass a definition of accessory use and commercial use you should be able to get that to come out. Really what you're asking yourself is is this coin operated laundry a use independent of the residential use and if it is not then, if they are having people come in from Jo Joy Road and do their laundry, that's a whole different situation from if this is a use of the residents. It seems to me that if this is a coin operated laundry for the residents, the fact that it is in a separate building instead of their basement doesn't seem like to much to me.

Diane Hubbard and Wendy Walker said that it was just for the people who live there.

Wendy Walker: I know lot size could change on this whole thing but when I was reading through the documents and there is a fair amount of them, old vs new, so who knows what I have confused, old and new. I am getting a bunch of different numbers on what the total acreage is and what the total square feet is and one calculation will say twenty-seven acres and another it is not. We will Just be asking when you come back. I am not going to justify this whole plan because I know it is going to change and I know it will be ridiculous to spend time with it. We were trying to do the calculations like we did for the little building over here on bow much to subtract out and do we have enough land left over for the actual project. We couldn't match your numbers with our calculations.

Genie: I think the only confusion is the net vs gross. We need like 1,200,000 to come up with the 900,000 net. I think that is part of the confusion.

Wendy Walker: Yes, and what was forward math and what was backward math, I think was probably getting us caught. As long as it is clear on what you present back to us and we can all make sense of the numbers, that is all that I aim concerned with. We were here trying to do the math ourselves and we were not matching with any of yours.

Wendy Walker: This has been a killer. We have five minutes. We probably cannot answer this in five minutes but street, road, driveway. The whole conversation about whether, or how to measure road frontage and access points onto Route 25, all come back to the original lot which was a big lot that had a night-of-way that the Edgecomb has. There is an old tote road that is not being used at this point which is essentially an access road and then there is a statement in the Zoning Ordinance that says no more than one entrance way onto Route 25 every 1,000 feet. First there was the access road to the proposed subdivision and the driveway to the Edgecomb property, which I guess we are having a little bit of a question about whether it is a driveway or an access road given that there is a commercial use going on there. However, that needs to play into it. There are not 1,000 feet difference between. What we are trying to determine is if we are getting

caught up in ourselves, if this right-of-way that is already there is even an issue and, I will stop.

Attorney Haddow: You are referring to Section 10.3.2.12 in the Subdivision Ordinance.

Wendy Walker: Yes, there are two things that say and that is one of them.

Attorney Haddow: I think that Mr. Manahan had a couple of arguments about this, if I am not mistaken. One point that I think you made was that entrances really means streets and streets really means public streets. I am looking at page 4 of his letter dated September 21 and he is saying that entrances must mean streets because of the Section that is entitled streets. I think that is not a supportable reading section. It is clear here that entrances and streets are two different things. What they are talking about here is entrances onto streets and that is why it belongs in this category, streets. It does not mean that every way that is described in it is necessarily a street. I don't think that that holds up. Similarly, if you look at the definition of streets in the Subdivision Ordinance, which is the other basis of your argument, it says the word street means and includes such ways as alleys, avenues, boulevards, highways, roads and streets and other rights-of-ways. The other argument there is that other rights-of-way must mean only other public rights-of-way. Again, I don't read that that way. I think that is a little bit _____ because first of all alleys doesn't necessarily mean a public way. Even so other rights-of-way there is nothing in it it seems to me, even accepting the rule "_________", I don't read it that way. I think that for better or worse, what this says is that an entrance or any entrance, pardon me, whether it be a public or private entrance onto a street and again a street can be either an arterial or a collector, can only exist at a certain rate of frequency. Then there is the question as to what of these things are entrances. That's a more difficult point it seems to me. I believe there is a thing there which is going to be the entrance for the proposed development, it is a tote road. I haven't seen the plan. So the question is whether that amounts to an entrance. I think that would require a Finding of Fact on your part rather than a conclusion of law on my part. Whether or not the use of the tote road constitutes an entrance seems to me it is more a Fact question than law.

Wendy Walker You mean the existing entrance or it will an entrance when it becomes an access road.

Attorney Haddow: If it is an entrance now, then there really isn't any question in my view, because they are not creating an entrance where there isn't one. If it is an entrance now, it is an entrance. Upgrading it is a separate question and may implicate some other

issues but as to the frequency with which the entrance exists that there are already entrances at a frequency that are closer together than whatever it is suppose to be, 1,000 feet then that pre-exists the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance. It is a prior non-conforming use. The question really is whether that use if it is used as an entrance whether that use has persisted to a degree to preserve it's status as an existing non-conforming use. But, there is no question in my mind that a driveway is an entrance for purposes of the Subdivision Ordinance. Also, the Zoning Ordinance provision which is in Section 7.10, I think it is the same rate of frequency, same distance requirements apply. It is Section 7.20.D.3. They don't speak to adjacent driveways by driveway types. What I am saying is that having told you what I think about the requirement in the Subdivision Ordinance you have got, I don't think that Section 7.20.D.3 I don't think that is an issue. We have just decided that we have twenty lots here in the driveway. I don't think that is an issue.

Wendy Walker: Those being the issues, if I understood this correctly, if we determine that the tote road is not currently an entrance then we are violating the 1,000 feet between entrances rule because we already have an entrance and want to build a new one within 1,000 feet.

Attorney Haddow: Well, I wouldn't put it that way. I think that if you find that the existing tote road is not an entrance then what the Subdivision Ordinance says is you are suppose to have 1,000 feet on an arterial between an existing entrance and any new entrances. I do want to address this quickly. Mr. Manahan also suggested that that should not apply to existing entrances, it should only apply to distances between any new and any other new entrance. I don't think the ordinance supports that either. In the dimensional requirements section and look at note D, there is some room for the Planning Board to vary some dimensional requirements in the commercial zone. I don't think that footnote gives you the authority to vary this dimensional requirement. I think if there is any authority to vary that 1,000 foot dimensional requirement it would have to be Section 12.1 and 12.2 and again I think you would have to look at that Jarrett vs Town of Limington case very carefully because I am not sure you are authorized even by those sections to vary the dimensional requirements. You have to be very careful about that. I have to tell you I have not looked carefully at that question because it was beyond the scope that you asked me to look at. Just so you are aware that that may be something. If you get to the point that you think you would consider that, or somebody is asking you to do it, I suggest that you send me that question because I'll need to look at it more carefully.

Attorney Manahan: So is it my understanding is that access to this proposed development is a street or a driveway?

Attorney Haddow: I don't think it matters.

Attorney Manahan: It doesn't matter? Very interesting.

Wendy Walker: Take a ten minute break.

Attorney Manahan: After the break may I have a clarification on that. I am a little bit confused about that.

Wendy Walker: Yes.

Wendy Walker: Mr. Manahan, for your benefit, the person's question had nothing to do with Webster Mill but had everything to do with how the Comprehensive Plan relates to the Zoning Ordinance and if there is a mismatch where is the attention to be paid to get them more in alignment? I will go out on a limb and say that I did say the Zoning Ordinance is the best place to get them more in alignment.

The second one was to the comment of why a multi family dwelling which was essentially residential is being considered in the commercial zone when the Zoning Ordinance essentially says generally discourage residential units in a commercial zone. I went out on another limb and I said yes but the dimensional requirement table does allow for multi family dwellings in a commercial district, therefore, it's an o.k. thing to consider.

Attorney Haddow: You are right but I just want to support you further by saying the land use table specifically permits multi family dwellings in the commercial district so it is not just the dimensional requirement but also the land use table is pretty clear on that. As a matter of fact, I looked at that myself after I looked at note B in the dimensional requirements.

Wendy Walker: The third question on entrances being 1,000 feet apart. Really what is going on here is that we have a proposed road, not yet determined whether or not it is a new entrance or not, but on the assumption that it is a new entrance we have been focusing on the Boston property being an entrance that is closer than the 1,000 feet.

There is actually another residence on the opposite side even closer than the Boston. And on the opposite side of the street is the antique or mill and there is the question of whether or not entrances on the opposite side of the street count.

Attorney Haddow. The question is based on a wrong premise. The 1,000 feet isn't between this entrance and any other entrance in the world. It is only between this entrance and any other entrance from the subdivision, it's within the subdivision? The reason we focus on the Boston property is the Boston property shares a boundary with the subdivision and the driveway or access way that comes down from the Boston property is an already existing entrance way on the subdivision property. You measure 1,000 feet from that not from any other existing driveway. Now there are other driveway distance requirements in Section 7 that are entirely separate and that you also have to look at, but the 1,000 foot requirement is within the subdivision. Another word you cannot have two closer than 1,000 feet apart for the single subdivision.

Wendy Walker: Dick, you are the one who originally brought that up, I think or one of the people who had some emotion around it. Is that your understanding?

Dick Jarrett: That is my understanding.

Wendy Walker: Mr. Manahan, you had some questions on what Jim had said before.

Attorney Manahan: I think I understand it. I spoke with Jim during the break and I think I understand it. I want to thank Mr. Jarrett for saying what he just said too.

Diane Hubbard: Would you like to share those questions with us?

Attorney Haddow: Actually they were basically question 3.

Wendy Walker: The next point we have in our document was the $200 vs. whatever fee. We have already acknowledged that that is still out there.

Attorney Manahan: I am sorry to interrupt but did you want to resolve whether or not this existing tote road is an existing entrance way right now. Another words we can give you information on that.

Wendy Walker: Well, I guess I would have to ask you that where we don't have an actual plan in front of us, do you actually intend to use that as the same access road in the new plan because we don't even know that at this point.

Attorney Manahan: What we currently intend to do is to use the existing tote road as our entrance, as our access road unless this Board tells us that we can't because it is not an existing tote road, in which we would use the right-of-way that is currently adjacent to the Boston/Edgecomb property to access our subdivision.

Wendy Walker: O.K.

Attorney Haddow: What I would say is I would urge the Board to not make a Finding of Fact tonight on the issue of whether the entrance way is an entrance or not because in my view that decision is going to require the taking of some evidence and you are going to need to give people a little bit of opportunity to present evidence on that issue, interested parties. I think that if you make that Finding of Fact tonight without, I assume it is part of what you will want to look for example is what is the frequency of use over the course of however many years it has been, I don't know. At least the potential is there for that and I don't know what the people may want to do in that regards. I would just urge the Board to consider giving the people an opportunity to be heard on that.

Attorney Manahan: This is a publicly noticed meeting and we are prepared to present testimony on that and to the extent that anyone else in the audience wants to present comment on that, we wouldn't object to that.

Attorney Haddow: It is a public meeting but I don't believe it was noticed as a Public Hearing. People may not have come prepared to present evidence as they might.

Attorney Manahan: As Chair has pointed out to me many times every Planning Board meeting in Limington is a Public Hearing.

Wendy Walker: Every meeting is opened to the public. That is why the public is sitting here and I am actually talking to them tonight. That is true. But we are not here taking questions from the audience which is essentially what we do during a Public Hearing. My greater concern here, and I agree with Jim, that nobody came here prepared to discuss the tote road because whatever. Also, we do not have an actual application that we are looking at. We have a former application.

Attorney Manahan: My problem, and I understand you cannot help me here, my problem is that we need to know how to put together the application. We want to put the road where we already proposed it but the problem is if we put it there and come in with our final application and you say well, we don't think that is an existing road and it is within 1,000 feet of the current Boston/Edgecomb right-of-way then we will have to revise it and put it in the Boston/Edgecomb entrance. So, I am asking, hoping for some guidance

so that we can figure out where to put the access road in the final application in either one of those two spots. I guess the problem is that we are told that right now you can't decide we may have no choice but to put it in the Boston/Edgecomb spot because we know that is an existing entrance way.

Wendy Walker: That is not something we need to deal with. There is no way we can make a decision on that road tonight even if you have facts, we would have to decide that your facts were the only facts that we needed. I'm not sure that is the truth. The Board can decide whether they want to hear the facts and weigh them on something else but I don't think it accomplishes what you want to accomplish which is can we make a decision on it. I don't think we are going to get there tonight. That is my opinion. Anyone else?

Diane Hubbard: I don't think we were prepared for this at this time.

Wendy Walker: From what Jim said if that is currently _____. Let's say it hasn't been used 'in five years and those of us who went on the site walk know that there is more flora than vehicle traffic, then let's presume it will be a new access road.

Attorney Manahan: Maybe I can short circuit this. In thinking about it maybe it doesn't matter.

Wendy Walker: Well, that's what I am saying. Let's just talk about worst case for just a minute. Let's assume that it is a new entrance at this point is there anything that will preclude it from going in based on what you said.

Attorney Manahan: Well, I think is it existing. Oh, I see what you are saying.

Attorney Haddow: It is an entrance that is I gather at least for the purposes of this discussion, people seem to be in some agreement that the existing right-of-way that goes up between, what I understand to be the Boston/Edgecomb property and this property, is an entrance which is in use in some sense. So, what that means, as I read this, the Subdivision Ordinance, you can't put another one in within 1,000 feet unless it is already there. The question here really is is the other one already there or is it one that was there once and been abandoned and not effectively an entrance anymore? It seems to me that is an intensely factual determination because you need to know what it has been used for.

If it has been used for an entrance. I think you have to go back and look at the definition of existing non-conforming use and what has to happen for an existing non-conforming use to be abandoned and make a determination. I think it is fair to say that that one time it was an entrance. The question is whether it was an entrance at the time the new Zoning Ordinance was enacted and whether it remains an entrance or abandoned as such?

Wendy Walker: Let me ask you while we are still on that subject, the property diagonally across the street, the antique mill, does that even fall into this. This doesn't say same side.

Attorney Haddow: Are you talking about Section 7.-

Wendy Walker: I am in the Subdivision Ordinance.

Attorney Haddow: It is completely unrelated because it does not come out of the same subdivision.

Wendy Walker: Because of the right-of-way

Attorney Haddow: The only way that the antique driveway may have any application and I don't know whether it does or not, you have to read it carefully. If Section 7.20 has some sort of minimum distance requirement for driveways across from one another.

Wendy Walker: Well, we don't have to answer that question. So the question is still is are we prepared to decide whether or not that alleged former tote road is existing or not.

Diane Hubbard: I guess it would be fair to them to tell them what we are looking for.

Wendy Walker: They are prepared to present some kind of evidence so we have to decide if we want to hear their evidence. We don't have to make a decision based on it but we can hear it. Is that what you want.

Attorney Manahan: Well, yes we would sort of like you to make a decision based on it obviously. We would like to give you evidence that it is an existing road so that we can use it, if that makes sense.

Wendy Walker: It probably makes sense to hear it just so that you don't have to save information that you already have. I think based the unease that I sense on the Board that a decision is not going to come out of what you present. It will be simply be something to consider.

Attorney Manahan: Well, maybe what you could do is try and give us a better definition of what is existing use. What we are planning on doing is to ask Mr. Blake to tell you what this road has been used for in the last several years and longer than that. If you tell us that, in your view, that an entrance way has to be used on a bi-weekly basis or something like that, that may be different than if you tell us it has to be used on a twice annual basis. If you say it has to be used on a twice annual basis then we can go with that and we will be able to know the answer to that. We can present evidence to you at that point. But if you tell us it has to be used on a weekly basis then we will go with the other option. Do you see what I am saying?

Wendy Walker: I do but there is no way I will be prepared to answer that tonight. My vote would be to talk with the Selectmen and see what the town determines an unused road?

Attorney Manahan: The Ordinance needs some definition. Get back to standards that are vague and the applicant has to be able to know what standards apply before it submits the application.

Wendy Walker: Unfortunately, you want us to put a number out such as if it has been used in the last three years at least four times and has anybody here been thinking about that.

Attorney Haddow: There is nothing in either Ordinance that defines how frequently something has to be used in order to be an entrance. I think you could make some sort of reasonable judgment about that. You have to be careful about it, I think, because you want it to be something that can be applied consistently and has a rational basis. It can't be arbitrary. It can't be capricious. It has to be based on some sensible, rational standards. Obviously, it is not an entrance if nothing ever enters from it. On the other hand it is obviously is an entrance if something enters from it several times a day. Obviously the issue is where between those two termimi the standard applied. I suspect that it is up to you to decide this but if, I think what you need to do is look at the standards for non-conforming use and see if that gives you any guidance. If there is some guidance there that may help you to do this in a way that is rational and supportable. I think, I understand Mr. Manahan's interest in getting through this process as soon as possible but I would suggest to the Board that this issue which is a relatively small issue but has potential to be a little bit thorny. I think the Board should not do anything necessarily with it until the Board has decided to look at the non-conforming use, abandonment of non-conforming use and hear some evidence. I think it is fair to say that

if the issue is going to be frequency of use, I don't think it is necessary to say why we decided that six times a year is not enough but seven times a year is enough. I think as long as all parties know that frequency of use is going to be the issue, I don't think it is a violation of due process because you don't tell them precisely how many times a year while you look at the ordinance and try to make a decision yourself

Wendy Walker: I am ready to go with that.

Attorney Manahan: Just for clarification does that mean and I think that that makes sense but the resumption of use section of the Ordinance does say that one year. Essentially if use has been discontinued for a period exceeding one year then the grandfather use has been given up. I guess maybe what Mr. Haddow is suggesting, if not advising, is that one way to look at this would be that under that provision if we have used it and it has not been discontinued for a period of one year we could still have a right for grandfathered entrance.

Attorney Haddow: I wasn't so advising but be guided by that exclusively but I certainly advise them to look at that and consider that as one possible way of looking at it. Remember though that if that is going to be the standard, what you will need to know is whether there exists in any twelve month period since the map and Zoning Ordinance during which it has not been used. I think you could be certain on the one hand that if there had been any such period since the enactment of the Zoning Ordinance, I think that clearly is abandonment of the use. On the flip side, I'm not sure that's as easy but it could very well be that you will decide that that is the right answer.

Wendy Walker: Can I ask you Jim, it is another generic thing, I don't think we will get to answer in the Ordinance, when you say abandonment of use, certainly anybody can drive over a field and say I use it as a driveway and I do it twice a year and therefore I never abandoned it. It is an example. There is this property we are considering is essentially and has been essentially to date undeveloped and there has never really been a use there other than I am going to drive over this and this looks like a pretty good place to drive. Was there ever really a use other than to drive?

Attorney Haddow: Good question. I don't have the answer. That's a fact question. Whether it was an entrance to begin with is a fair question. I assume it is because there is a road there but that is not necessarily a fair assumption, whether there was an entrance to begin with. I do not think it necessarily needs to be an entrance to twenty dwellings to satisfy because that is not the point. There are questions and to begin with the question as to whether it was an existing non-conforming use and if it was then has it been continued or has it been discontinued?

Wendy Walker: So, we still have that on the table. You have heard my opinion about it. It is true the Zoning Ordinance says non-conforming as of twelve months. That is pretty factual. I have a question in my mind and there is no way that I could answer although the client may have some evidence that will shed some light whether or not this was really an entrance to begin with and I think that is what stuck in my mind Jim's comment about then you could probably read the Ordinance and get your questions answered. How can you have a non-conforming use if there is not a use is where I am stuck.

Attorney Manahan: Well, we can present evidence on that right now.

Wendy Walker: I just want it to be recorded that we have not discussed it.

Chris Clark: I don't know, I would have to do some more reading.

Diane Hubbard: I would like to hear his evidence but there is no way I would be able to make a decision tonight because I'd have to go back through this but I would like to hear his evidence.

Raymond Coffin: About the same. I would like to review change of use under the general provisions for non-conforming uses before any decision.

Harold Jordan: I think we should go over and look at that, there is a lot of information on that and I think we should go over there and discuss it and look it over.

Wendy Walker: I think we are all on the same site. It wouldn't hurt to hear your evidence so that when folks are reviewing the Ordinance they have whatever evidence you have to bear in mind while reviewing it. There is no way we are going to be able to tell you tonight whether or not that road can go in. We are going to have to make that decision.

Attorney Manahan: We can submit with our application an affidavit or something like that as to what the use of it was or some such thing. But John Blake could just address, he is the current owner of the property, and maybe he could just tell you what he has used it for on an annual basis over the last, since he has owned the property.

John Blake: Well, I don't have my records tonight so I don't know how long we have owned it. I believe we have owned it for about nine or ten years. I can tell you now that I believe that it was a tote road in existence when we purchased it and there hasn't been a year go by that I haven't been out at least once or twice and maybe three or four times.

My brother and I own this together you understand. We did extensive logging of it in 1996 and were up there about twenty times. After the logging, because of the way it opened up we had the ice storm of 98 and forester came back and advised me to do a re-cutting of stuff that had fallen. We logged it again in 99 and I was up there extensively in 99. This year I have been up there three or four times. I cut firewood occasionally and taken out some hardwood. Since we have owned it we have always used it several times a year on a yearly basis. I would have no problem making an affidavit to that affect. That is all I can tell you.

Wendy Walker: Is that it?

Attorney Manahan: That is it.

Wendy Walker: I'm just going to ask the Board to review what they feel is pertinent and we will have to review it at the next meeting and put that one away for you. If you want to proceed with documents you might want to have plan A and plan B. That way you don't have to stay put and do nothing. Were there any other outstanding questions on that September 21 letter that we have not answered, Matt.

Attorney Manahan: I guess the letter of September 21 is probably taken care of.

Wendy Walker: You sent another document out dated October 26. 1 am not going to read this. Do you have any outstanding questions at the end of what we have covered to date.

Attorney Manahan: Could you give me about thirty seconds so I can look at one section.

Wendy Walker: While you do that I think Jim wants to say something.

Attorney Haddow: This is a more general point that I wanted to point out to the Board. I mentioned to you that the standards require, the Subdivision standards and Zoning Ordinance standards and the State Statutes. I don't know if you all have copies of the State Subdivision Standards or not but I brought copies in case you don't. I just want to point out to we shouldn't be fooled by the fact that a lot of these standards are the same as the ones in the Subdivision Ordinance because they are not all the same. One thing I wanted to point out to you on this to direct your attention to is because you are obligated to apply both of these sets of standards and there is substantial overlap, if you look at page one of the Subdivision Ordinance criteria letter H, these are the Subdivision criteria

in the Subdivision Ordinance on page 1. This says "Purpose" 1.1. Look at letter H, that appears in our Ordinance but not in the Statutes anymore. It did at one time but it is still a valid criteria you need to apply. If you look at the Statute, particularly on the back page of the Statute, pretty much everything from 12 down is not in the Ordinance but those are criteria that you should apply. So just be aware when you are looking at this stuff. The Subdivision Statute was amended not to long ago so it may be different. I just wanted to point that out to you because it sometimes helps to have specific statutes of what we do and I think you will see other than that the first 11 criteria Statutes are identical to yours.

Wendy Walker: The whole front side of this you said is already included.

Attorney Haddow: The whole front side of the Statute is included in the Ordinance.

Wendy Walker: You have had your minute Matt.

Attorney Manahan: More than a minute. There is one question that I did have that some of these decisions that the Board has made, I think raises is 10.3.2.11 which is, and I just want to clarify it, that our understanding is correct now based on what the Board has decided. That is, this is a subdivision containing fifteen lots or more and so it shall have at least two street connections with existing public streets or streets shown on official map if such exists or streets on approved subdivision plan for which bond has been filed. Our proposed plan that you saw before has two connections from the parking access area on the access road and I just want to be clear that because now that it is fifteen lots that in fact that access road is a street under Mr. Haddow and this Board's now interpretation of what is a street under the Subdivision Ordinance. Therefore, the question I am asking, do you see the section I am pointing at? At the top of page 33.

Attorney Haddow: Yes, I do.

Attorney Manahan: So we shall have at least two street connections with the sketch. We are not going to do street connections on existing public streets or streets shown on official map, at least not at this point. We skip to four streets on the approved subdivision plan for which a bond has been filed. We are going to, presumably have an approved subdivision plan and this will be a street on that approved subdivision plan. So I just wanted to clear that those two access ways to our interior street to qualify under 10.3.2.11.

Wendy Walker: Because there are more than fifteen lots then you need two access roads out of the place.

Attorney Haddow: I don't think that is what it says. I think the definition of street includes what is going to be constructed inside the project. So, if the project is approved there will be a street inside that approved project, approved subdivision. I don't believe this to mean that there has to be two ways out onto Route 25.

Attorney Manahan: You couldn't have two.

Attorney Haddow: I don't think that it was meant to require multiple entrances onto 25. I think that the point was to simply have adequate traffic flow inside the subdivision. I think that is the point. The language is pretty straight forward there.

Wendy Walker: I think we have made our way to it. But, it was definitely a concern that was out there.

We also brought up that we wanted to have an independent water study done given that it has so far taken two and will be on the third year before it is done. Obviously, we have not ordered that because we do not know what the plan is so what would they possibly study. Just so you don't think we are dragging our feet on that. As soon as we have a plan we will still keep pursuing an independent water study in addition to yours.

Attorney Manahan: Nitrate?

Wendy Walker: Yes, nitrate. They are changing a fair amount and we are not scientists and so we know we have two different people coming to some terms that seem to agree then we can probably count on this. All that said. The next thing from you is probably, well, you need answers from us, you need the pricing on the lot fee, you need us to make a decision on whether or not that tote road is currently being used or whether or not is going to be considered a new entrance or pre-existing entrance. I think that is all you need from us. I think we should be able to do that at the next meeting which is next week. The following Thursday happens to be Thanksgiving.

Jim, thank you very much. I don't think we need you at the next meeting but we will be getting back to you.

Do we any old business?

Attorney Manahan: Excuse me but there is a little confusion about that last fee we talked about. $200 per lot is what we were thinking you were going to go with.

Wendy Walker: It will be but if you require some documentation we will be willing to provide it.

Attorney Manahan: That would be good but we will probably proceed. The second thing was the tote road.

Wendy Walker: Everyone is going to go home and do their homework. Then we will all get together and decide whether it was an existing use, in which case it is an upgrade of a road and we will have that conversation.

Attorney Manahan: So you're going to decide that essentially. Are you going to take testimony from the public at the next meeting or are you just pretty much going to decide.

Wendy Walker: We have to discuss it. It is going to have to come up at the Public Hearing. We have to wait ten days so we can't make it for next week.

Attorney Manahan: So next week you are pretty much going to decide amongst yourselves what you think.

Wendy Walker: Well, we will look at the Zoning Ordinance and see what the questions are the folks have here.

Attorney Manahan: So if the standards are if it is like one year.

Wendy Walker: One year or whether there was use anyway. The public isn't really going to be able to help us. Blake is giving for you. That is about as much testimony you are going to get from the owner.

Diane Hubbard: Unless there is anyone who can dispute that it has not been used and have documentation that it has not been used.

Attorney Manahan: I am just trying to determine whether I need to be here next week.

Wendy Walker: You can decide whether you want to be here or not. It is not a Public Hearing but we are definitely going to discuss it.

Attorney Manahan: Thank you all very much. Thank you all for the time you are putting into this. We appreciate it very much. We are sorry to be such trouble.

Wendy Walker reviewed the items on the next agenda, i.e., zoning modifications, discussion of Webster Mill, Public Hearing for Daicy.

A letter will be sent to Michael Harmon regarding a permit for his junkyard.

The following motion was made by Raymond Coffin:

MOTION:

To adjourn the November 09,2000 meeting of the Planning Board.

The motion was seconded by Diane Hubbard and carried unanimously.

The meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M.