AGENDA
| 1. | ELECTION OF OFFICERS |
| 2. | APPROVAL OF MINUTES FEBRUARY 22, 2001 |
| 2A. | REVIEW MICHAEL HANSON APPLICATION |
| 3. | REVIEW OF PLANNING BOARD BY-LAWS |
| 4. | OLD BUSINESS |
| 5. | NEW BUSINESS |
| 6. | ADJOURNMENT |
[These are draft minutes]
TOWN OF LIMINGTON PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
The Planning Board meeting was called to order by Wendy Walker, Chairperson, on March 08, 2001 at 7:10 P.M. at the Limington Municipal Building.
Regular members present: Wendy Walker, Chairperson; Stanley Blake, Jr.; Chris Clark, Raymond Coffin; Diane Hubbard; Ronald Perkins.
Regular member absent: Harold Jordan.
Alternate absent: Kreg Rose.
Also attending: Priscilla Tucker, Secretary. The Code Enforcement Officer, Freeman Abbott was absent.
The meeting was videotaped by Richard Jarrett.
The first order of business was the election of officers. The election could not be held because not all members were present as required.
The next order of business was the approval of the Minutes of the February 22, 2001 meeting.
The following motion was made by Diane Hubbard:
MOTION: To approve the Minutes of the February 22, 2001 meeting of the Planning Board. The motion was seconded by Chris Clark and carried unanimously.
The next order of business was the review of the application by Michael Hanson to construct a single family home in the Resource Conservation District. Mr. Hanson was present.
Wendy Walker asked Mr. Hanson what he intended to do about the road. Mr. Hanson stated he was prepared to abide by the decision of the Planning Board.
MOTION: To accept as complete the application by Michael Hanson to construct a single family home in the Resource Conservation District. The motion was seconded by Chris Clark and carried unanimously.
A site walk was scheduled for March 16, 2001 at 5:00 P.M. The members will meet at the Municipal Building.
The Public Hearing will be held on March 22, 2001.
The application by Stephen Emma, Firestorm Paintball, to extend the operating hours was reviewed for completeness. Stephen Emma and Andrew Earle were present and explained their request to extend their hours.
When questioned about the new road that was to be constructed, Stephen Emma explained that the new road was in but has not been plowed.
The lighting for night play was questioned. Stephen Emma said that he has been in touch with an electrician. Wendy Walker requested that Mr. Emma provide a drawing of the location of the lights on the property and the type of lights.
Wendy Walker further requested a drawing indicating the location of the buildings because, as she was informed, there are two buildings that have been removed.
Ronald Perkins wanted to know the proposed extended hours of operation and Wendy Walker said that would be negotiated later.
The Board members unanimously stated that they did not feel a site walk was necessary.
The matter was tabled until after the break to provide time for Stephen Emma to draw the requested plan for lighting and location of buildings.
The review of By-laws was the next item for discussion. A change in the Rules of the Limington Planning Board is recommended by the Board. It shall state that if any applicant for a conditional use permit is not present when their application is reviewed or at the Public Hearing then no action will be taken.
Planning Board Minutes
March 08, 2001 Meeting
Page 3Wendy Walker stated that she will make the change to the document and provide copies for the members to review.
The application by Genie Nakell, York Cumberland Housing, to make changes to the Growth Ordinance was reviewed.
Richard Jarrett stated there were only three methods for changing the ordinance which includes action by the Selectmen, Planning Board or by individual petition. The Planning Board members unanimously expressed their opinion that the Selectmen should be involved in any decision regarding the application. Stanley Blake, Jr. said that he would bring the matter to the Selectmen during the break.
The meeting took a ten minute break.
The meeting reconvened and Stanley Blake, Jr. said that the Selectmen declined to be involved in the matter.
The following motion was made by Stanley Blake, Jr.:
MOTION: To decline action on the application by Genie Nakell, York Cumberland Housing, to change the Growth Ordinance and to notify her that she may file a petition in the Town. The motion was seconded by Chris Clark and carried unanimously.
Wendy Walker said she would notify Genie Nakell of the decision. The Selectmen will be requested to refund the application fee to the applicant.
The application by Stephen Emma, Firestorm Paintball, was reopened. A drawing was distributed to the Board members by Mr. Emma which indicated the location of the proposed lights and remaining buildings.
Stanley Blake, Jr. asked what the height of the light poles would be. Stephen Emma answered that the poles would be twelve to thirteen feet high. The lights would be five hundred watt halogen.
It was the unanimous decision by the Board members that a site walk was not necessary.
Planning Board Minutes
March 08, 2001 Meeting
Page 4Ronald Perkins made the following motion:
MOTION: To accept as complete the application by Stephen Emma of Firestorm Paintball to extend the operating hours. The motion was seconded by Diane Hubbard and carried unanimously.
The Public Hearing is scheduled to be held on March 22, 2001.
A letter was received from the law office of Maxine Paul Pouravelis who represents Donna Dulude and Lloyd Boston. They have asked the attorney to evaluate Webster Mill Place effect on their property. The attorney stated in the letter that standards require the Board to demand, evaluate and submit for peer review the mass calculation in addition to plume calculations. The letter will be included in the next meeting package.
The letter from Richard Jarrett to Steve Kelly, Haley & Aldrich, Inc., who is performing the independent peer review of the hydrogeological. submissions by Webster Mill Place. A copy of the letter will be included in the next meeting package.
A letter was read from Richard Jarrett which urged the Board to budget time in the coming year to review and revise the Comprehensive Plan. He further stated he would serve on a committee as a citizen.
The subdivision ordinance should be addressed during the coming year also. Wendy Walker has a copy of the sample ordinance provided by Southern Maine Planning Board.
Wendy Walker informed the Board that three of the proposed ordinance amendments did not pass. They were, 1) Access to Lots; 2) Miscellaneous; 3) Land Use Changes.
Wendy Walker also distributed copies of a subdivision plan review checklist
MOTION: To adjourn the March 08, 2001 meeting of the Planning Board. The motion was seconded by Raymond Coffin and carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M.
| LICENSED IN N.Y. AND ME. | PHONE 207-774-2266 207-775-3786 FAX 207-874-0531 |
March 5, 2001
BY FAX TO 207-775-2360 AND BY MAIL
James B. Haddow, Esq.
Petruccelli & Martin LLP
P.O. Box 9733
Portland, ME 04104-5033Re: Limington Planning Board - Proposed Webster Mill Place
Dear Jim:
Donna Dulude and Lloyd Boston, abutters of the proposed Webster Mill Place development, have asked me to assist them in evaluating the subdivision's effects on their property. One of their concerns involves the development's proposed septic system. I understand the Planning Board is in the process of determining the adequacy of the R. W. Gillespie & Associates, Inc., nitrate impact assessment in view of Limington's Subdivision Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. I believe the Board may be seeking your counsel regarding the adequacy of the present study, and I write to offer my clients' thoughts on the matter.
As you know, Limington does not have public sanitation facilities or a public water supply, and lies over a large sand and gravel aquifer that the Town wishes to protect as a potential supply of a public water system (see the Comprehensive Plan at p. 31 and pp. 74-75). Limington's Comprehensive Plan - most recently amended and reenacted in 1997 - encourages subdivisions with the important caveat that development be "limited in areas that it would damage and that in other areas, development be designed so that it will not degrade [the Town's] natural resources, with a minimum of disruption to private property rights (Comprehensive Plan, p. 29)."
Moreover, Limington's first natural-resources goal in its Comprehensive Plan is to "ensure the quality of ground and surface waters for present and anticipated needs." As a means of implementing the goal, the Comprehensive Plan at pages 68-69 enjoins: "Apply performance standards designed to protect groundwater quality to all types of development. " Comprehensive Plan, pp. 68-69, emphasis in original
James B. Haddow, Esq.
March 5, 2001 Page 2.All or a significant portion of Webster Mill's soil appears to be rated "severe" for septic systems. Consequently, every appropriate measure must be taken to insure that the drinking water within the development remain safe and adequate for the life of the subdivision and that the subdivision's sewage disposal system not endanger the groundwater supply of other Limington residents.
The Town's Subdivision Ordinance originally banned septic disposal in soils rated "poor" or "very poor." In 1996, the sewage disposal standards were amended (see attached). The new section 10.6. 1. continued to require the installation of a sewer system at the expense of the subdivider and to permit individual septic tanks if a central sanitary septic system were not feasible. Has a finding been made that a central system is not feasible here? That would appear to be the case since the Board is now evaluating whether the subdivision meets the standards for septic disposal. The amended section 10.6.1 permits septic disposal in soils rate "severe" provided a hydrogeological study meeting certain performance standards are submitted.
The Webster Mill applicants have submitted a series of hydrogeological studies performed by R.W. Gillespie & Associates, Inc. As has been their practice with several neighboring subdivisions, Gillespie at first submitted two types of nitrate impact assessments: a nitrate attenuation "plume" calculation and mass balance calculations. Their very first submission on July 14 erroneously assumed too many bedrooms and had to be redone. Their second submission dated later in July showed the soils to be adequate under the plume calculation but not under the mass balance calculation. A third submission relied on the plume calculation only. My clients have asked me whether, from a legal standpoint, the plume calculation is sufficient to meet the applicable standards of the subdivision ordinance and the comprehensive plan. For the following reasons, I believe the standards require the Board to demand, evaluate and submit for peer review the mass balance calculation in addition to the plume calculation:
1 . While the amended 10.6.1 does not explicitly state that both types of calculations must be performed, there is a clear presumption that both will be performed in soils rated "severe" inasmuch as 10.6.1.(1)(c) refers to plume-relevant criteria and 10.6.1.(2) and (3) refer to mass balance-relevant criteria.2. The Soils and Groundwater discussion and table set out in the Comprehensive Plan at pages 31-32 are only relevant with respect to a mass balance calculation. While this language first appeared in the original Comprehensive Plan of 1993, it was reenacted without change in 1997, after the 1996 amendment to 10.6.1. and must therefore be viewed as having continued vitality.
James B. Haddow, Esq.
March 5, 2001 Page 3.3. Only the mass balance calculation will accurately predict whether the soils are compatible with the full development goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
Further, I understand the developer has not provided the data required by 10.6.1.(1)(b) - depth to the water table at representative points throughout the subdivision - and has been asked to go back and perform those samplings.
A question has arisen with respect to the plume calculation itself. I've been advised that the DV figure used by Gillespie, 0.5 ft, is high and that 0.1 ft might be more appropriate. If the Board could ascertain the values ascribed to DT and Vy, (the elements of DV), there might be a better basis to assess the appropriateness of the .5 ft figure.
The calculations presented thus far deal only with nitrate concentration. The other concern of septic system pollution is disease organisms (virus, bacteria). Would you know if the Board plans to inquire about appropriate calculations with respect to that concern?
I know the Board is attempting to do a thorough evaluation of this development. With 22 residences to be built on such poor septic soils, I trust the members will continue to give the sewage disposal considerations their very strictest scrutiny. The health and safety of the residents of the development, of the abutters, and of everyone else in Limington may require a closer look at the feasibility of a central sewage disposal system in place of a potentially problematic septic disposal system.
I'd appreciate your calling me to discuss this further.
Sincerely yours,
Maxine Paul Pouravelis
Maxine Paul PouravelisMPP/hh
Enclosure
cc: Wendy Walker, Chair, Limington Planning Board
Matthew D. Manahan, Esq.
Please note that
www.Limington.org
is not the official website of the Government of the Town of Limington.