The Planning Board meeting was called to order by Wendy Walker, Chairperson, on February 22, 2001 at 7: 10 P.M. at the Limington Municipal Building.

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

Alternate member present: Ronald Perkins.

Also attending: Priscilla Tucker, Secretary; Freeman Abbott, Code Enforcement Officer.

The meeting was videotaped by Richard Jarrett.

The first order of business was approval of the Minutes.

Diane Hubbard made the following motion:

MOTION:

To approve the Minutes of the February 08, 2001 meeting of the Planning Board.

The motion was seconded by Chris Clark and carried unanimously.

The next order of business was the Public hearing on the application of Manley Brackett to construct a utility barn.

The Board members went on a site walk on February 17.

The Board reviewed the ordinance requirements for approval to determine whether the application was in compliance.

The percent of lot coverage was calculated as follows: 16980 divided by 280,000 which equaled approximately 6% lot coverage. This is well within the twenty percent (20%) allowed in the ordinance.

Mr. Brackett requested a waiver for the stormwater plan in Section 9.8.F-H of the ordinance.

Diane Hubbard made the following motion:

MOTION:

To accept the request for waiver of the stormwater plan required in Section 9.8.F-H of the Zoning Ordinance.

The motion was seconded by Kreg Rose and carried unanimously.

Kreg Rose made the following motion:

MOTION:

To approve the application by Manley Brackett to construct a utility barn.

The motion was seconded by Diane Hubbard and carried unanimously.

The next order of business was the Public Hearing of the application by Kevin Martell to operate a wood storage area on his property located on South Road.

Mr. Martell provided a copy of the correct deed to the property to the Board.

A site visit was held on February 17, 2001.

The board reviewed the ordinance requirements for approval to determine whether the application was in compliance.

It was determined that a Finding of Fact is that according to the Land Use Table in the Zoning Ordinance, Section 6.2, Table I, General the property is located in number 17Q "Other Commercial Activities."

There were two further conditions which shall be included to approval of the application. The first is that the roads shall be twenty-four (24) feet wide and the second, there shall be a buffer between lots 48.4 and 48.3.

Kevin Martell said he would plant hemlocks in staggered rows as a buffer between lots 48.4 and 48.3. The Planning Board suggested a fence which would include use of a snow fence.

Diane Hubbard made the following motion:

MOTION:

To approve the application by Kevin Martell with the conditions the roads shall be twenty-four (24) feet wide and that a buffer be put in place between lots 48.4 and 48.3 which can be staggered rows of hemlocks or a fence as suggested by the Planning Board which could include use of a snow fence.

The motion was seconded by Kreg Rose and carried unanimously.

Wendy Walker then updated the Board on the meeting held on Thursday, February 15 regarding the independent water study.

Steve Kelley with Haley and Aldrich was in attendance. Tom Greer, Cynthia Thayer, Wendy Walker, Diane Hubbard, and Richard Jarrett were in attendance.

There were several concerns raised at the meeting. The first was that the mass balance calculation was not included in the second application. Steve Kelley did not feel that this was actually necessary.

There was a concern about the isocones that were drawn on the maps in the application. It appears that some were drawn in the wrong direction. Cynthia Thayer and Steve Kelley were going to review this a contact Wendy Walker. At this time no one has contacted Wendy Walker.

There was also concern about the laundry building run-off.

The impact of fertilizer on the tight knit area was discussed. Tom Greer reported that he didn't think this would be a problem as there were no plans to use much fertilizer.

Richard Jarrett had several concerns. He has submitted a letter to the Board stating Ins concerns but stated them now.

First he was concerned that the mass balance calculation was not included. He said that maybe at this time there was no problem but in twenty or thirty years there could be a problem. Mass balance is an important calculation.

He did not notice the water level calculations, water level determinations were not mentioned in the hydro-geological study. Tom Greer stated that the soils were not rated as severe so they would not have to meet the standards in the Zoning Ordinance.

which were just given were cluster sub-divisions so you had the acre and a half between them and they were a little more spread out. This one, they felt, was so close together.

Wendy Walker said she does not want this to go to appeal after all of the time put into it because of an undo hardship. She will present all of the information to the Town Attorney and see 'If he feels that the Board puts itself at risk by requiring this. We can then have another conversation when we have a response.

Donna Delude said that she is an abutter and is concerned about her property and the welfare of her child. She is so frustrated.

Point two is the water levels-Isocones. The reason the isocones were questioned at the meeting was because they are shown running in the wrong direction on the map in the application. There are plumes and septic running in the same direction.

Wendy Walker said they would have the water levels confirmed. The Section 10.6.1 of the Sub-division Ordinance relates to wells and standby systems and water levels are required. Donna Delude said that there are seven houses across the street on one well.

Richard Jarrett said that there was a reserve area would be much closer to the well and property line. It seems that future septic systems would be a problem.

It is hard to tell how far down the bedrock is, explained Richard Jarrett. If there was a draught you could conceivably have the water level go down to bedrock and then you would have the models all break down. This should be calculated. It may be that the bedrock is so far down that it doesn't matter which is what their model assumes.

Wendy Walker asked what the importance of the depth of bedrock was. Richard Jarrett answered, you have a huge pool of saturated gravel that you are pumping sewage into. Nothing happens with the sewage until it hits the water table. Then it starts to disperse throughout the water. This is what the model is predicting. If you have a draught, the model breaks down. The sewage runs along the bedrock. If the bedrock is so far down it makes no difference then I can see why draught wouldn't make a difference as it is just lowering the water levels. If there is any chance that the water level is low enough that you are going to hit the bedrock then I think the model no longer works and it is not a valid calculation.

Point three is the soil rating of severe. Wendy Walker said she would E-mail to Tom Greer a copy of the information Richard Jarrett provided with his letter to the Board. The information will be discussed at the next meeting.

Wendy Walker explained that a letter was sent to the Selectmen requesting their response to Genie Nakell regarding the elderly housing and proposed ordinance change. They have responded that York Cumberland would have to deal with the Planning Board either by petition or application. They have no particular opinion one way or the other.

Genie Nakell, York Cumberland Housing has requested an application for change of ordinance.

Elections are next Friday. Wendy Walker wanted to prepare a fact sheet explaining the Planning Board ordinance changes to hand out at the election. This would be illegal and would have to be done at least 250 feet from the polling area.

The following motion was made by Kreg Rose:

MOTION:

To adjourn the February 22, 2001 meeting of the Planning Board.

The motion was seconded by Chris Clark and carried.

The meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M.

Mr. Steve Kelly
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
500 SouthBorough Drive, Suite 10
South Portland, ME 04106-6913

Re: Limington Project

Dear Steve,

      Thank you for working with the Limington Planning Board to perform an independent (peer) review of the hydrogeology submissions for the Webster Mill Place project.  It is comforting to know that a professional is examining the materials that have been submitted for this project.  As a former planning board member, I am cognizant of the fact that board members cannot be expected to be knowledgeable of many technical details and an independent review such as yours is needed to protect the public interest.  I was also a member of the Board when the 1996 hydrogeology amendments to the subdivision ordinance were enacted and can offer you background information on why the laws were written as they are.  It is my opinion that the hydrogeological submissions for this project do not satisfy the requirements of the Limington laws as to both completeness and accuracy.  Although I am a Maine Registered Professional Engineer (#3908), hydrogeology is not my field of expertise.  I hope that my comments based upon my general engineering background will be useful in your professional evaluation.

Issue #1
The fifty percent recharge rate assumed for the entire subdivision is not supported by the documentation in the submitted plan.

      On page 3 of the December 19, 2000 report from R.W. Gillespie & Associates, the following statement is made: "As mapped by project soil scientist Alan Burnell, soils occurring on site consist primarily of Colton, with some Croghan and minor Finch and Tunbridge soils present."  This statement is inaccurate.  For your convenience, I have attached a reduced and excerpted copy of Plan C2 from the project proposal.  This plan includes the high intensity soils map on which this statement is purportedly based.  Even a cursory examination of either the original map or this reduced copy reveals that significantly less than half of the site is actually Colton soils.  In fact the site contains significant sections of steep slopes and soils with very different properties from Colton.
      The report goes on to say "Based upon surficial geology, Maine DEP guidelines (Maine DEP, 1998), and an annual precipitation rate of 46 inches per year, the annual average recharge rate for this site is estimated to be approximately 23 inches."  This statement, based upon a faulty premise, also draws an inaccurate conclusion.  I have attached page 21 from the DEP site location application (38 M.R.S.A. §§ 481-490) which are the DEP guidelines for such recharge calculations.  While the Colton soils can result in 40% to 50% recharge based upon surficial geology, it is very doubtful that the glacial till deposits covering the bedrock at the north end of the site could result in such high recharge rates.  In fact, the table on which this 50% overall recharge rate was assumed specifically lists such soils as furnishing a 5% to 20% recharge rate.  Combined with the fact that these soils are located on steep slopes, it would be hard to justify the assumption that these soils could have a 50% recharge rate.  As further confirmation of a lower recharge rate, if the hydrologic soil group data are considered instead, the Colton soils would average only a 43% recharge rate while the Finch soils would average 33%.  Furthermore, the development is adding well over an acre of new impervious surfaces.  It is not reasonable to assume that these impervious surfaces will have a 50% recharge rate.
      Therefore it is my contention that the conclusion of a 50% overall recharge rate for this subdivision is not supported by the documentation submitted and the DEP regulations referenced.  Note that all three Gillespie reports make these same claims.  The recharge rate claims were also disputed at the 8/29/2000 public hearing but no modification was made in 12/19/2000 report in this regard.

Issue #2
Nitrate Contribution from Development has not been not fully considered.

      The Gillespie report, when performing calculations, only appears to consider the nitrate loading from the proposed septic systems.  Plan map C4 (not attached) shows reasonably extensive loamed and seeded cleared areas over both the Colton and Croghan soils for the residential multifamily housing section.  In addition, the subdivision plan shows two single family residential lots which will likewise most likely have lawns.  The attached DEP guidelines mention specifically a standard for such residential development.  In addition, it could be expected that more than normal amounts of fertilizer might be used to maintain the cleared areas since both Colton and Croghan soils are poorly suited for landscaping purposes.  They are both rated as having severe obstacles which must be overcome because of their droughty nature.
      This anticipated nitrate loading should be included in the calculations.

Issue #3
Section 10.6.1.3 of the Limington Subdivision Ordinance has not been met.