Town of Buxton Planning Board Meeting
Minutes of September 10, 2007
Prepared by: Hilda Lynch
Members Present: Harry Kavouksorian, Keith Emery, Jeremiah Ross, III, Jim Logan, Caroline Segalla, and David Anderson.
Members Absent: Barbara Elwell
Others Present: Fred Farnham; Dan & Roberta Aceto; Joshua Jewett; Jeff Larimer; Don Gnecco (MSAD 6); Suzanne Lukas, Superintendent MSAD 6; Carol Weeks, Asst. Superintendent MSAD 6; Jean Harmon; Joshua Heckman
Public Hearing: Josh Jewett & Jennifer Granillo are requesting an amendment to Butternut Hill Estates; Tax Map 3, Lot 45.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Call to Order
Chairman Jeremiah Ross, III, called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m.
Public Hearing for Josh Jewett & Jennifer Granillo
Keith made a motion, seconded by David, to open the public hearing. The vote was unanimous in favor.
Jere stated that the request from Josh was to amend the previous subdivision plan; the Board needed a copy of the plan dated June 28, 2007. The plan was included in the Board’s packet, and Jere asked for questions or comments. Caroline asked about the issue of road frontage – requires 250 feet of road frontage in the rural zone. To access the lot, she wondered if the 50-foot right-of-way overrode the 250 ft. road frontage requirement. Jere reviewed the road frontage of 163 ft. on one side of the hammerhead, 50 and 50 ft. Caroline reviewed the requirements of lot frontage from the ordinances and inquired of Fred about this item. Her issue has to do with this parcel not being a lot of record and part of the subdivision originally. She was curious about how it was confirmed by the Board to get to this point. She also has issues with the hammerhead and knows that Fred has provided information about this. The ordinance specifically says that access cannot be off of a
hammerhead, amended in ‘04. Fred explained that there are a number of places where there is road frontage – off Skip Rd., 528 ft off Quail Trail, and 125 ft on the long leg of Green Ridge Dr., 325 ft along the turnaround. He thinks this should provide adequate frontage. Fred thought it had been put to rest last meeting regarding the hammerhead; he doesn’t see any questions on that. Jim says the plan doesn’t really specify the footage on the plan, which brings the question up. L4 is not described by a dimension. Jim referred to a finding fact and order (Tim Brown and Frank Jewett). However, “any future plans for the residual area will be submitted for review and approved by the commissioner prior to such development.” This is the site location amendment that he was referring to that would be a condition of approval. Josh has submitted his application for the NRPA. Keith still has an issue with the
hammerhead, even though Fred has clarified it. Jere explained that the plan doesn’t specify some things. He asked for questions from abutters or the general public and none were presented.
Moved by Keith, seconded by Jim, to close the public hearing. The vote was passed unanimously.
Jere asked the Board how they’d like to proceed with this minor subdivision amendment. The 5th condition would be a NRPA permit from DEP. The 6th condition would be an amendment to the site location approval plan dated 12/17/75. Jere also reviewed the four general conditions for approval. Jim asked about the gravel driveway, which he believes only scales about 10-12 ft. wide. Jim wondered if Josh planned to widen this. Josh said that it would be widened to 15 ft. Fred stated he felt it was wide enough at this point.
Jim moved, Dave seconded, to find the application complete and in compliance with provisions of Article 13 of the Buxton Zoning Ordinance. The vote was 3 in favor - 3 opposed (Harry, Keith and Caroline). The motion does not pass.
Dave made a motion, seconded by Jere, to approve the application with conditions stated from tonight and previous meetings. The vote was 3 in favor – 3 opposed
(Harry, Keith and Caroline). Jere stated that unfortunately a tie vote would mean that this application would not pass.
Josh asked what is needed from him. Caroline feels that this lot wasn’t a part of the original plan so thinks people bought their property with this as open space. The significant wetland and hammerhead are still issues for her. In the town’s comprehensive plan, she says the town wants to maintain areas of significant wetland. Because it was not a “lot of record” on the original plan, she would have to say “no.” Keith stated that the hammerhead was the main issue for him and because the parcel is wet. He’s not sure about it. Harry thinks the town’s ordinance would be superseded because it says the driveway would not be permitted off the hammerhead.
Josh asked why it would have been approved - why his father would have been allowed to put it in - in the first place. Keith thought he just put it in. Josh is pretty sure that his father received DEP approval in the first place. Jim stated that wouldn’t have included planning board approval for a hammerhead.
There was some question about the plan that the Board was looking at versus a plan given the Board by Fred showing what exists. Jim is wondering if the new plan of Tooth & Assoc. showing that the driveway comes off the side of the hammerhead is where the problem lies. This pavement is going to change so that the driveway will no longer be coming off the hammerhead. Jim thinks it meets the spirit of the ordinance. This addresses the concerns about plowing the end of the hammerhead.
Caroline asked about the amendment of the ordinance-- definition of hammerhead. Did it stem from a previous application? This was done, Jere stated, because of a previous subdivision having been approved with a driveway coming off the hammerhead that caused a problem with plowing. Jim doesn’t think it was clearly articulated that the plan includes a change which would not bring the driveway off of the hammerhead. Harry is concerned about taking pieces of the ordinance and ignoring it, thus setting precedence. Jim thought that this change that he’s looking at on the plan is not uncommon in his work. He isn’t concerned about the Board doing anything to establish a precedent. He thinks that if a board makes a decision in error, they would not be compelled to make the same
decision again. Jim believes that the Board is not a precedent setting one – but one that would hear the merits of each case. He feels that this is an attempt to meet the ordinance requirements. Jere asked about having the hammerhead fixed correctly.
Josh stated that the extra pavement left over which was spread out is what made it so much wider than the other side of the hammerhead. He suggested that it just be cut out but got some negative feedback from the Board previously.
David thought the questions were resolved and that people in the subdivision were not told that this would be open space. He also commented that there were no abutters here to speak against this. Jim stated that it says right in the deed that the residual space would only be for drainage. As long as drainage is not impeded, it should be all right, he thought. Josh said that’s why he did what was needed to get the 60,000 ft.
Fred believes that Jim is on the right track and believes that he gave the Board each a copy of the turnaround. If you took the 15 ft from it, you’d see where the road should have been placed, which is now being proposed. Fred explained how to interpret the plan and feels that it is just a matter of semantics. Jere thought that if the pavement issue is resolved, then this might solve the problem. Keith stated that the hammerhead must be paved 20 ft wide with two feet of shoulder. Jere suggested making it a condition of approval that the hammerhead is built to town standards.
Harry moved to reconsider the first vote, seconded by Jere. Harry would like it stated that a condition would be to have the hammerhead according to town specifications. Keith stated that this condition would need to be part of a later motion. This motion is only to reconsider the earlier vote. The motion is passed 4 – 2 (Caroline and Keith opposed). The 7th condition would be to have the hammerhead as depicted on the plan of 6/28/07 and the hammerhead be constructed to town standards and approved by the road commissioner. A motion was made by David, seconded by Jere, to find the application complete and in compliance with provisions of Article 13 of the Buxton Zoning Ordinance. The
motion passes 4 – 2 (Caroline and Keith opposed).
A motion was made by Harry, seconded by David, to rescind the earlier 2nd motion regarding approval of the application with conditions stated from previous meetings. The motion was carried 4 – 2 (Caroline and Keith opposed).
A motion was made Harry, seconded by David, to approve the application with conditions stated from tonight and previous meetings. The motion is carried 4 – 2 (Keith and Caroline opposed).
Jere stated that there will need to be a copy of the new Mylar of the subdivision plan to be signed by the Planning Board. He would hope to do that before Fred issues any permits. Josh has some things to do prior to that. Jim suggested getting the DEP approvals. Jere stated that the Road Commissioner Larry Owen would need to go down and provide a letter stating that the hammerhead is within the confines of the plan and that the pavement has been corrected and done correctly.
Josh thanks the Board.
Discussion of site walk for Dan & Roberta Aceto who are requesting a conditional use permit for a 30’ x 60’ construction company storage facility to be located off Cousins Road; Tax Map 8, Lot 10A.
Jere stated that there was a site walk on August 30th. All were in attendance except Keith and Barbara. They walked the property from the road all the way back to where the proposed building would be. Fred Farnham, as well as a couple of other people, was there.
Les Berry, Engineer with BH2M Engineers, represented Dan and Roberta Aceto. He stated that the plans have been revised. He went out and walked the site, did a storm water report and had Mark Hampton provide a letter on the wetlands. Les went over the specs of the site. In respect to storm water management, most is regulated by the Maine DEP Storm water Law. A project with less than one acre of new impervious surface, more than one acre of disturbed land falls under the “permit by rule” category. A “permit by rule” means that they would have to submit the plan and application to the State and wait 14 days. If they don’t receive anything back, then the permit is basically good to go. The plan shows the erosion control structures on
sheet 1 with the details on sheet 2. A built up stone roadway would be constructed to catch silt and dirt dragged out during construction. Check dams and ditches are proposed just before the culverts. Four depressions would require culverts. He outlined the types of culverts that would be needed for the wetlands. They’ve provided a USGS map that would show the full extent of it. They’re providing a letter from Mark Hampton stating how they determined the wetlands, and he had two locations. There were none of special significance. The final condition is whether this is an allowed use or not. Mr. Berry received a letter from Drummond, Woodsum, which he reviewed. From this letter, the business doesn’t really fit into any particular slot – looks like they’re trying to force it into a place where it doesn’t really fit. He thought the Planning Board must have dealt with construction businesses in the past, so
he contacted Fred to see what has been done in the past. Fred was going to get a letter together regarding what has been done in the past on construction businesses.
Fred responded and talked about the past history of some projects that relate to what is being proposed. Fred gave out a handwritten letter to the Planning Board and read this letter for the record. The specific use is not described in the Land Use Table for the Aceto’s business, so a method is provided to determine the proper category. This activity would be in the rural district and requires either permitted or conditional uses that are allowed. He submits that elements of extractive industry and auto repair garage comprise the basis for this proposed use. The review of this application is very similar to three other sites that the Planning Board has approved. Three businesses were cited: Pompeo Sand & Gravel, Gorham Sand &
Gravel, and Justin Dearborn’s building. Fred believes these businesses have all of the issues of the proposed business. He believes that the wording of the applicant’s intended use might be changed to construction equipment maintenance facility or vehicle garage and equipment facility. To uphold the Board’s consistency, it should be worded similar to those listed previously as approved.
Jere stated that the Board also has a letter from the town attorney dated 9/7/07. His determination is that this business would fall under warehouse and storage space. As proposed, it is not a permitted use in the rural zone. He stated that the Board would have to make a decision.
Harry asked about the proposed fuel storage tank – 1000 gal. tank? Dan says, “yes.” The ordinance states that bulk fuel storage of 1000 gal. or more would not be permitted. Harry feels that the business is more commercial use and that it does fall more under storage and warehouse than an auto repair facility and would concur with the attorney. Keith stated that a 1000 gal. tank holds less than 1,000 gals.; he doesn’t feel that this is bulk fuel. Keith agrees with Fred that Pompeo and Gorham Sand and Gravel projects were considered as accessory uses as they were both in gravel pits. He agrees that this is a commercial operation and doesn’t think it can be allowed, and he finds it hard to go against the attorney when he comes up with that
Jim agrees with Fred and is somewhat disappointed that the attorney doesn’t define extractive industry…”excavation or storage of stockpiled material.” Storage of 25 cubic yards of material meets the definition of extractive industry which is a permitted use in a rural zone with conditional approval. Jere asks if the applicant needs to apply for conditional use for an extractive industry? Jim didn’t get the conclusion from the attorney’s letter that it couldn’t be done. He sees a similarity with the information presented with the warehouse and storage definition in our ordinance, which is an apparent conflict. He suggested that Mr. Aceto come back to the board with a definition that meets the conditions a little more closely. The form
it’s in now – as a proposed warehouse is listed as a non permitted use. He has difficulty with it because it does appear to conflict directly with the ordinance. He suggested that a barn would be considered different even though a lot of the elements would be the same. He struggles mostly with the packaging of it.
David read with interest the letter from the attorney; he thought some time ago that the application describes correctly the use and that it’s going too far to make it extractive – a repair facility is not a licensed garage, even though there may be licensed mechanics there. He thinks Mr. Aceto has presented it correctly and that, unfortunately, it doesn’t meet the standards.
Caroline struggles with this because this application has gone pretty far. The fact that they’re debating seems to be trying to make it fit the ordinance. She can see how the extractive industry fits with the storage, but then you have to take all of the other things that are part of that. She is concerned about setting precedence and wonders if the use meets the ordinance. She asks Dan if he received a copy of a letter they’d received from one of the abutters. She appreciates that everything has been done to make this lot approvable. It would be easier if it was just an extractive industry. There is a business that is a couple of lots over that is a landscaping business, but it’s a home occupation which is a permitted use. Having a
home built there would make it another story.
Jere thought that the examples that Fred gave the Board are all located at gravel pits so they would have extractive use going on. He would lean towards the use on these two examples – Pompeo and Gorham and Sand & Gravel. Jim picked out the “processing OR storage of 25 cubic yards”…doesn’t have to be “and.” The Dearborn facility was approved in the village zone, a permitted use in the village zone. The attorney states that it’s up to the Board to decide how this use affects the conditional use application and how it applies to the land use table. Jere asks for a vote on section 8.1.A of the Buxton ordinance as stated in the attorney’s letter to see if this could be considered a conditional use. Jere assumes that if the application is in
compliance, the application would continue. If not in compliance, the application as presented cannot continue. Caroline asks about denial – can he come right back to the Board? Jere stated he’d have to wait a year. Several think that if he changes the use of the facility, he could come right back to the Planning Board, and they would vote on this use. Dan stated that it could never go a year because he’s dealing with a tight time frame.
Moved by Keith, seconded by David, that the application for conditional use does not meet the provisions of the ordinance for conditional use, and the application is not in compliance with Article 8.1A. The motion passes unanimously.
Jim stated that Dan couldn’t come to the Board with a warehouse application. He would need a strong pitch that the use he plans would meet the conditional use as stated in the Land Use Table for the rural zone. Keith regrets that he’s spent all of this money, and Jere agrees. He is concerned about telling Dan that they wouldn’t look at the application at the first meeting. Jim stated that it isn’t clear how much will be related to vehicle repair. Dan should have a copy of the attorney’s letter. Jim feels if it were repackaged, perhaps some of the Board might be willing to hear it. Keith talked about the precedence that has been set relating to gravel pits. Dave was concerned about the letter they received with photographs, regarding
the hazardous materials. Jere stated that this didn’t pertain to the use question. Jere also stated that the use question had to be addressed first. Dan stated that he just saw the photos five minutes ago. He doesn’t feel this is fair because he’s been booted out of his shop, garage, and barn. He’s bought two containers to move his stuff but doesn’t have everything where he’d like. Jere stated that he wouldn’t have any problem with his business if the use were accepted. Jere thought he might be able to suggest some places where he might be able to store equipment temporarily. Dan says that he does have another place where he can store his equipment but it is some distance away.
Brian Keezer representing SAD 6 is requesting to discuss the plans for the new Buxton elementary school. Tax Map 17, Lot 17.
Presentation by Brian Keezer on the new Buxton elementary school proposed. Brian, a Civil Engineer, and Jeff Larimer, an Architect with Harriman Assoc., presented on this project. This project has gone before the State for approval and the voters of the SAD 6 district. They’re in the process of developing the drawings and planning the construction, and putting this project out to bid sometime in February, 2008. Before the formal application to the Planning Board, he thought they would come to the board with a preliminary overview to see if there are any issues prior to submitting the application. They plan to submit the application in about a month. They’re in the process of getting the DEP application prepared. The Board has
copies of the plans.
The school district has acquired the Sylvestri (sp?) property and is in the final stage of getting the rear portion of the Weeman property. This will give the district about 21 acres in size. The school will be placed towards the rear of the property with its own driveway, drop off area, and parking lot.
The school will be accessed by a new driveway and parking lots. If this is the final decision on the location of the entry drive, then the current driveway would be closed off. They’re currently working with Gorry& Palmer and DOT to find the best place to put the driveway. The site lines work with the driveway in either location. The building committee will determine the location with any comments from the planning board. You lose sight of vehicles coming through the intersection with the new entrance. There will be a 15 mph school zone. During the public meetings there were some comments about the rise and people stopping to make a left turn because there wouldn’t be good sight lines. People coming southbound would be able to
see vehicles stopped much more easily. They’ve met with the Police Chief, and she leans towards the revised location. They’re proposing a two-way driveway – improving the flow of traffic – plenty of room for the alignment of the drive to queue up the buses and vehicles. The use of the Jewett School has yet to be determined, but the usage would be substantially reduced. All of the current students will be moving over to the new school. The existing drive would either be improved or moved. The driveway off Groveville Rd. will remain for use of the Jewett School. Jere asked if there would be a required turning lane on Rt. 22. Jeff said that the traffic doesn’t warrant a turning lane. Brian stated that they’ll need feedback from DOT whether they concur with a report that has been done. They will be allowing for a slightly widened shoulder for people to move over to the right as they enter.
All of the students in Buxton will be consolidated into this new building. Jere asked what we would be talking about for buses in the morning. They’ve calculated that there would be 10 – 12 buses in the morning and 10-12 in the afternoon. The school will be K-5 but with more students and will reduce the number of buses. Jere asked about future expansion. Jeff stated that there may be one or two buses more. There is not an adequate bus loop now. In the afternoon is when the buses queue up. Keith wondered if having additional students would mean a third more buses. The superintendent explained how the buses currently operate and how those can be consolidated.
Jere asked about the maximum number of students and how many the building would accommodate. The design for the building will hold 850, and now there are about 600 students. The size is based on enrollment decisions made by Planning Decisions out of Portland based on a 10-year enrollment plan.
Dave stated that the Comprehensive Plan has shown that the growth rate is nowhere near what was expected. Dave asks about a vernal pool. S.W. Cole has done complete wetlands analyses and has determined that there are no vernal pools on the site. There is land that is no longer a wetland that was designated as a wetland. Since the project has been started, DEP has actually reduced the area of wetlands that you can take before having to mitigate. It was 25,000 ft., which has now come down to 15,000. They’re estimating around 13,000 wetlands being removed. Caroline asked if there would be any flashing signals. “Yes,” they will be added, Jeff stated. They’re expecting flashing lights to be installed on both sides of the
driveway. Do kids ride bikes to school or walk? It is really not a walking, biking community. They wouldn’t encourage a lot of walking. There are not a lot of residences for students to walk from. Currently, 97 percent are bused and the goal would be to reach 99 % transported. Keith knows that kids are dropped off by bus right across the school on Groveville Rd. He thinks that moving the driveway up would be a lot better. Keith stated that you would lose sight in one place or the other. Caroline asked if they could go off the Groveville Rd. side. Brian did a study about bringing the driveway up above the Jewett School. It wasn’t practical to have a 240 ft. driveway with a 10% grade—more than twice of what they would prefer as a maximum.
Caroline wondered if the school is planning to use solar panels or anything like that. The potential is to design it as a “green school,” using as much daylight as possible, light or white colored roof, etc. They are designing it to meet “green” standards.
The schedule has the project going to the State for final funding approval by mid-January to get State approval at their February meeting – second Wed. of Feb., so bids go out the next day – bids are opened in March and construction would start in April – bonding required in May. Jere asked how long it would take to build it; and Jeff stated that they have a schedule of 27 mos. The planned school would open fall, 2010. Jere asked about construction personnel. Jeff responded that when all trades are on site, there could be 60 to 70 people at a time when the building is in full progress.
Jere expressed concern about a site walk being done before the snow flies. They were looking at the first meeting in Dec. to apply. Jere stated that they would like to see the site without snow or ice on it, especially if someone else determines wetland and the site must be evaluated for peer review, etc. Jere stated that they would probably schedule it after the formal application is presented. Perhaps, they will submit the application in Nov., Jeff and Brian said There is only one meeting in Dec. – the 10th. Keith stated that there is no guarantee that a site walk would be set the night after the application is submitted. Some concerns about the weather and inability to predict it were discussed. Jere stated that the
Town of Buxton has no professional planning help whatsoever. He talked about what areas the Board would seek peer review in: wetland delineation, storm water runoff, subsurface waste water disposal, traffic, and ground water analysis for the water supply. Jim spoke about the existing school having some problems with the water, and the engineers are aware of that. They haven’t targeted an area for the well yet. They’ve done traffic studies and wetland delineation. The State will be reviewing that. Jim stated that he thought DEP engineers would know what they have to have in respect to storm water runoff. Jere talked about the town having no public water supply or sewage so the septic fields are enormous. No one, except Jim, would have the expertise to look at things like this, Jere said. Jeff stated that Cole has done this study and has determined the best location for the septic. All of this analysis will be a
part of the application. Jeff stated that they’re looking at DEP submission in mid-October. Jere stated that it would be beneficial to have at least a partial application submitted to the Code Enforcement Office, and other information can be added as it’s ready. The project will take a few meetings—four or five times perhaps. Jeff would like to meet with Fred in advance and submit everything they’ve got—submit a complete application to make it a smooth process. If there are questions now, they want to get working on them now. The school district needs to have a construction contract signed by April, 2008, (third week in April, they go out for the bonds; but they’re actually issued in May). Jeff stated that all of the engineering site work will be submitted as part of the application, and they’d like to keep the lines of communication open.
CEO Report – No report.
Approval of Minutes – 8/27/07
Page 1 – second paragraph – “two mailboxes” should be “individual mailboxes”
Page 5 – 3rd line from bottom – “his” should be “the Langevin’s”
Page 6 – 4th line from bottom – “ “from Josh and is” should be “from Josh and it is”
Page 6 – 2nd to last line of CEO report, “fire chief stating” – delete “stating”
Page 9 – line before Sample Abutter letter – add “the” before town attorney
Keith moved, Caroline seconded. Minutes with corrections are approved unanimously.
Approval of Bills: Portland Press Herald in the amount of $47.60 for The Woodlands subdivision amendment.
Dave asks for a motion for the above bill to be paid for an advertisement about the mailbox issue for The Woodlands subdivision.
Keith moved, seconded by Harry, as stated above. The motion was unanimously approved.
Dave asks if anything has been seen regarding the Royal River Development Company to reduce the bond. He’s getting calls from the Norway Savings Bank to request a refund on money. Keith thought that they’d done some things that they shouldn’t have done. Jere suggested they be directed to the Woodlands people. Jere stated that he has yet to see anything on these items. The road commissioner and fire chief are not going to initiate. The developer is responsible for getting those things resolved. Dave and Jere will meet with the selectmen to discuss future budgeting and regarding carryover of the budget from 2007 to 2008.
Hard copy of attorney’s letter regarding Aceto application
Letter from Mr. Anderson regarding Aceto property – everyone got copies at the Aceto site walk
Letter from Graduate student of Antioch University regarding wetland, vernal pools, etc. – Caroline thought that each should do separate surveys. Keith stated that they’ve come up with the answers in the past at a meeting. Jere stated that each could fill this out prior to the next meeting. Jere asks if Krystal would send a copy of the survey to each board member to fill out.
Memo to Selectmen – Shoreland Zoning maps – letter from Southern Maine Regional Planning – no formal certification for the zoning map other than DEP who would review it for shoreland zoning requirements.
Letter from Board of Selectmen dealing with Carryover accounts – will deal with this at Selectmen’s meeting on Wednesday
Copy of the current budget.
Orton Family Foundation – survey
August/September issue of Maine Townsman
David Anderson has provided a list of Planning Board members with phone numbers in case they’d need to contact one another
a. Sign the Woodlands Amended Subdivision Plans – does not see that here.
b. Amendment to Planning Board Bylaws – Letter to Board of Selectmen, newsletter committee, Portland Press and anyone else who needs to be contacted – first meeting with new time will be October 8th.
Moved by Keith, seconded by Jim, to approve the change in the bylaws 3.3 that a planning board member may not hold an office of the Board of Appeals. The motion passed unanimously.
c. Letter from Patrick Langevin – he is formally withdrawing their application for a B & B on Marshall Lane, off Joy Valley Road. They will operate as an assisted living facility.
d. Keith attended a Selectman’s meeting and found that they’d put the Comp Committee together. He says the Selectmen keep saying they want communication between the two Boards. He thought the Planning Board should have received a memo about it in case anyone wanted to serve on the committee, to keep the communication going both ways. Jim says he hasn’t heard anything about it, and he was a previous member of that committee. Jean Harmon stated that the committee has not been put together. She talked about how it has been placed in the newsletter and advertised for some time. They’re actively looking for people to be on the Comp Plan. They haven’t communicated because they haven’t had any interest expressed. They’re communicating in various ways
with the public are still actively looking for people to serve on their Comp Plan. There is no slight intended towards any Board. Anyone is welcome to volunteer their time. It is quite intensive. Jim expressed concern about the Selectmen receiving that, it going to vote and then went nowhere. A year has elapsed before it is back in front. People from the State Planning Office told the selectmen to hold off and have only more recently suggested that it be done. Jere suggested that if anyone is interested, please contact the Selectmen’s office. Keith would like to serve on he committee if appointed to it. Keith felt there should be Planning Board members on it because they will have to work with it. Jim would like to see it become a guide for ordinance review and change, and he feels that even tonight he’s become aware of some shortcomings in the ordinances. Jere said he feels there will be some
inconsistencies if one were to go through the ordinances and thinks they can do some work on it. Some should relate to the Comprehensive Plan; but if the ordinance is changed and the plan is still in limbo, how do you affect the two. A discussion was held about ways to do this work.
Keith moved, Jim seconded to adjourn at 9:38 p.m. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Hilda E. Lynch
Approval Date: __________________
Jeremiah Ross, III, Chairman Signature Date