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

THURSDAY AUGUST 10, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M.





[Note: location off of the North Road]


[Note: Off Route 25 off of Town Farm Road]

[Note: location on the Mill Turn Road]





These minutes were approved at the August 24, 2000 Planning Board meeting with no changes.



The meeting was called to order by Wendy Walker, Chairperson, at 7:05 P.M. on Thursday, August 10, 2000 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 the meeting: Priscilla Tucker, Secretary; Freeman Abbott, C.E.O.

The meeting was videotaped by David Smith.

The first order of business was approval of the Minutes of the July 27, 2000 meeting

The following corrections to the Minutes are to be made:

Page 3, paragraph 7, sentence 4 should read, "If there is any problem they may be able to find the person.

Page 4, paragraph 4, sentence 3 should read, "He said there was a case of vandalism involving a Rogue Paintball customer and the police. . . . ."

Diane Hubbard made the following motion:

MOTION: To approve the Minutes of the July 27, 2000 meeting, with the corrections noted above.

The motion was seconded by Kreg Rose and carried unanimously.

Wendy Walker, Chairperson, stated that because of all of the volume of work before the Board such as four cell towers, gravel pit petition, Webster Mills multi family low income housing, White Brothers subdivision, it would be necessary to schedule extra meetings. A meeting will be held on Monday, August 14 at 7:00 P.M. following the Site Walk at Webster Mills at 6:00 P.M. Also at the 7:00 P.M. meeting the four applications of Mike York will be reviewed; Dearborn Brothers application for gavel pit will be addressed; the gravel pit amendment to the ordinance will be continued.

Planning Board Minutes
August 10, 2000 Meeting
Page 2

A regular meeting is scheduled on August 24th at 7:00 P.M. There will be a Public Hearing on Webster Mills Place; Public Hearing on four applications for communication facilities by Mike York; Public Hearing on application by Firestorm Paintball and review of application for minor sub-division by White Brothers.

A workshop meeting is scheduled for August 29, 2000 to work on ordinance amendments.

A meeting is scheduled for September 9, 2000 from 9:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. Public Hearing will be on Zoning and Growth Ordinance; public hearing on Personal Wireless Services Facilities and Tower Ordinance Petition?, Public Hearing on White Brothers application for minor sub-division.

The next order of business was review of the application by Stephen Emma to operate an outdoor recreational paintball business.

Stephen Emma briefly described the project. He said the proposed project would be located on 14.5 acres on North Road on property owned by Albert Earle. There will be provision for parking forty vehicles off road. They plan to have port-a-potties. They plan to erect a pro-shop and sanitary facility. There are no wetlands on the property. There are no abutting buildings within a half mile.

After reviewing the application, it was requested that the plan include the existing buildings. parking lot, and the entrance and exit to the site.

A site walk is scheduled for August 15, 2000 at 6:00 P.M. The Public Hearing will be held at the August 24, 2000 meeting.

Wendy Walker, Chairperson will check with the Selectpersons to determine whether the public will be allowed to participate in the site walk.

The next order of business was the Rogue Paintball application for organized recreational paintball. The Board did complete a site walk. Wendy Walker read a letter from the Saco River Salmon Hatchery concerning the Whaleback Brook.

Kirt Cochran responded that there is no intention to play near the brook any closer than 200 feet.

Planning Board Minutes
August 10, 2000 Meeting
Page 3

Lorraine Libby recommended that a condition be placed on approval that no one will be any closer than 500 feet of abutters. She further asked for the condition that no play be allowed within 500 feet of the Francis Small Trust. She did not feel that there should be any games on the snowmobile trail.

Stanley Blake said that the applicant will not be on the north side of the brook. They will be 961 yards from the river and the river will be netted.

Lorraine Libby was concerned with sensitive areas and requested that signs be placed at these areas warning people that they are going into a paintball operation area. Some of these areas are used for hiking, ATV's and snowmobiles.

Kirt Cochran stated that he had no problem putting up signs.

Lorraine Libby asked if the permit could be reviewed annually. Wendy Walker responded that the ordinance did not give this authority to the Planning Board. Jason Earle felt that if the review was necessary it could involve people who are opposed to paintball courses. Kirt Cochran said that he felt the same, that these people could come in at that time to raise problems.

Diane Hubbard asked if it wasn't the C.E.O.'s responsibility to act on the review.

Nancy Bozenhart asked if this wouldn't be setting a precedence requiring a review and would it not be discriminating against paintball. The safety net is the C.E.O.

The following conditions were set forth as a result of the discussion:

There shall be a two hundred (200) foot buffer at Whaleback Brook
There shall be a five hundred foot buffer at the Francis Small Trust.
The hours of operation shall be from 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. for playing or when the sun goes down.
There shall be two (2) port-a-potties.
There shall be no permanent structures.
There shall be nets at speedball.
There shall be game boundaries marked by police tape which is biodegradable.
There shall be a permanent sign at the front and back entrance stating the days and hours of operation.

Planning Board Minutes
August 10, 2000 Meeting
Page 4

David Smith stated that he felt that the classification of the land should be changed to commercial use and taxed as a business.

Willard Boothby stated that he thought it would be a good idea to have the Town Attorney present at the meetings to address any legal issues.

Diane Hubbard made the following motion:

MOTION: To approve the application for an organized recreational paintball course by Kirt Cochran with the conditions that: 1) There shall be a two hundred (200) foot buffer at Whaleback Brook; 2) There shall be a five (500) hundred foot buffer at the Francis Small Trust; 3) The hours of operation shall be from 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. for playing or when the sun goes down; 4) There shall be two (2) port-a-potties; 5) There shall be no permanent structures; 6) There shall be nets at speedball; 7) There shall be game boundaries marked by police tape which is biodegradable; 8) There shall be a permanent sign at the front and back entrance stating the days and hours of operation.

The motion was seconded by Chris Clark and carried unanimously.

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

DEP has sent a letter that states Dearborn's road is far enough away from the pond and wetland as necessary.

Kreg Rose stated that he had a meeting with the Selectmen and Dearborn Brothers Construction relative to the road. The Selectmen said they could not pave the road in the near future but if Dearborn wanted to upgrade the road they had no objection.

Planning Board Minutes
August 10, 2000 Meeting
Page 5

Kathy Maddocks, Selectperson, stated that they had advised Dearborn Brothers that if they wanted to improve or pave the road, the Selectmen had no objection. She further stated that at this point and time the Town is not going to pave. They will maintain the present road and replace the culvert.

Dr. Larson stated that he wants the road to be paved before a permit is granted so that the road will not deteriorate as in other instances.

Wendy Walker, Chairperson, said that she had called four of the abutters of other Dearborn Brother Pits, including a person not supplied to her. The feedback was all positive regarding noise, dust, traffic, landscaping and reclaiming land.

A letter from Dr. Larsen was read (copy attached).

Donna DeLude felt that the matter should be tabled until the Board could find out what monetary benefit the business would provide to the Town, if any. Wendy Walker stated that there is no provision in the ordinance for this action. She did state that there was mention in the Comprehensive Plan of a Committee.

Kathy Maddocks, Selectperson said that there was a Committee at one time but before she came to office. It is a voluntary Committee and perhaps needs to be re-established. Donna DeLude said she would be willing to serve on the committee.

Nancy Bozenhart said that it is important to have balances of applications. Everyone should have the right to open business on their property, if appropriate. It is an issue of private property rights.

Lorraine Libby asked what about the rights of the people in the area. It will have an affect on their property values. Wendy Walker said that there is no evidence that, property values will become lower.

David Smith questioned whether the Board was using just the Ordinance to make a decision or the Comprehensive Plan or both. Wendy Walker said understanding the Ordinance is important and consideration of the Comprehensive Plan is also necessary.

Lloyd Boston had concerns with the health issue. He wanted to know who was responsible and liable if a suit is brought for illness due to silica. Wendy Walker answered that it was the Town's responsibility, the Planning Board is only accountable to enforce the ordinance.

Planning Board Minutes
August 10, 2000 Meeting
Page 6

Lloyd Boston felt that the Board needed someone with more qualifications to make a decision on the health issue. He said that silica is a federal health issue.

Ron Perkins asked if there was documentation of the health hazard and further stated that the Board also has a responsibility to the applicants of the gravel pit.

Bob O'Bradovitch said that the Ordinance states that it provides protection of life and health of the residents and Comprehensive Plan states that the gravel pits are the third least desirable business. He continued that the pits do not create jobs and their taxes are minimal. The C.E.O. does not have the equipment to test the air or noise levels.

Mr. Rainey, Dearborn Brothers, stated that the Bureau of Mines and Quarries, OSHA, and DEP come into any pit at any time without notice to test.

Kreg Rose stated that he received a letter from Mark Stebbins in which he stated that Mr. Dearborn had only to file a "Notice of Intent to Comply" to establish or operate a five (5) acre gravel pit.

Mr. Dearborn said that he would have to use the existing road while he built the new road. There will be a couple of trucks going in each day. They will probably be building Millturn Road after they finish the new road. There will be no hauling from the pit until the new road is finished.

Wendy Walker asked the Board members for their comments. Diane Hubbard said she felt the new entrance and exit is beneficial. She has no problem with the road.

Kreg Rose said he didn't have a problem with the road. He would like a condition, however, that when the traffic reaches a certain point that the Millturn Road will be paved.

Stanley Blake said that the road is not going to be near the Shoreland Zoning and will be on high ground. Millturn Road has never been fixed and it floods out every Spring.

Ron Perkins said that it sounds like with the upgrading it will be good for the people. He said OSHA should handle any health issues.

Planning Board Minutes
August 10, 2000 Meeting
Page 7

Raymond Coffin stated that he felt Dearborn Brothers proved they were going to be a good neighbor and he is going to do the best he can at the site.

Joseph Romano blamed Mr. Dearborn for not answering the resident's questions. He felt that was why the paving was dropped.

Diane Hubbard said that she felt that between the restrictions imposed by the Board and other agencies that all issues would be addressed.

Chris Clark said that he understood what a business goes through just for insurance. The business has to comply with all regulations. I think they will do a good job.

Harold Jordan said he thought they have done a good job.

Freeman Abbott had no comments.

Wendy Walker said she felt the most exciting part was when Dearborn agreed to pave the Millturn Road and was disappointed at the turn of events.

Joseph Romano said that they asked all the questions and because they were not well versed in the process they lost. He said they met in good faith with Dearborn. Mr. Romano became agitated and said that if the pit does go in, that's fine but he'll still oppose it.

Bob O'Bradovitch stated that Ron Perkins was not correct because OSHA exists only to protect workers. Wendy Walker said the Board does not have the authority to address OSHA.

Dr. Larsen raised the question of dust again. Wendy Walker asked Ron Dearborn if there was any chance of getting the road paved now. He stated that he might put the road in at some point but doesn't know when and questioned when the Town could do it.

Kathy Maddocks said that the Town could not do it within the next couple of years.

Mary O'Bradovitch said why can't a condition be included stating that the road will be paved.

The application will be held over to the Monday, August 14, 2000 meeting at which time it will be voted on.

Planning Board Minutes
August 10, 2000 Meeting
Page 8

Wendy Walker said that a petition amendment of the Zoning Ordinance entitled Personal Wireless Service Facilities and Towers has been presented to the Selectmen. The Public Hearing will be scheduled for Saturday, September 9, 2000 at 9:00 A.M.

The Petition for enactment of Ordinance to be entitled "Protection of Residential Properties from Mineral Extraction Industry Amendment to the Limington Zoning Ordinance was the next issue before the Board.

David Smith gave a brief overview of the petition as well as a history of the prior amendments submitted. The petition is being presented to protect the property owners and property rights. They do not feel that pits should be around homes. He stated that the gravel pit issue always brings out crowds but they should attend other meetings as well.

The first speaker was Mike White, owner of White Brothers, Inc. Lorraine Libby questioned his participation because he was not a resident of Limington. Mr. White, it was determined, can speak. He stated that he felt that Item number 5 and 6 were illegal.

Because of the hour it was decided to carry this issue over to Monday, August 14, 2000 at 7:00 P.M.

Diane Hubbard made the following motion:

MOTION: To adjourn the August 10, 2000 meeting of the Planning Board.

The motion was seconded by Harold Jordan and carried unanimously.

The meeting adjourned at 10:45 P.M.

State of Maine STATE OF MAINE

August 7, 2000

Ron Dearborn
Dearborn Brothers
999 Narragansett Trail
Buxton, ME 04093

Re: Haley Pit, Millturn Road, Limington

Dear Mr. Dearborn:

I am Writing in response to your request concerning the permitting requirements for the Haley Pit.

Excavations for sand, gravel and fill that are more then 5 acres in size excavated since 1970 are regulated under the Performance Standards for Excavations, 38 MRSA 490-C. Both the reclaimed and excavated areas of the pit are added together in determining whether the 5-acre jurisdictional threshold is met. Prior to establishing or operating a 5-acre gravel pit, an applicant must file a "Notice of Intent to Comply"

In 1992, the Department initiated formal enforcement action against Bruce Haley for operating a 7.4 acre gravel without first obtaining a permit from the Department. As part of the Consent Decree, the excavated am of the gravel pit was reclaimed. Since the area of the gravel pit is larger than 5 acres, the Department's jurisdictional threshold has been met. In order to excavate any additional material from the pit, you must first submit a "Notice of Intent to Comply" to the Department. I have enclosed the appropriate application form.

During our telephone conversation, you asked if the Department's permitting process has any impact or bearing on the local process. These two permitting processes are separate and independent of each other. A municipality under home rule authority can adopt local ordinances regulating gravel extraction. If a town ordinance has a standard that is more stringent than the Department's standard, you must comply with standard that is mom restrictive.

I hope this letter clarifies any confusion concerning the Department's permitting requirements. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at (207) 287-7810.


Mark Stebbins
Mark Stebbins, Mining Coordinator Division of Lard Resource Regulation

cc. Craig Rose, Planning Board, town of Limington

AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333-0017
(207) 287-7688
207) 941-4570 FAX; (207) 941-4564
(207) 822-6300 FAX: (207) 822-6303
(207) 764-0477 FAX: (207) 764-1507

web site:


Thomas J. Larsen
110 Millturn Road
Limington, Maine 04049

Wendy Walker, Chairperson
Planning Board
Town of Limington
Limington, Maine

RE: Dearborn Brothers Construction's use of Millturn Road for their proposed gravel pit operation.

Dear Ms. Walker,

Please read and carefully consider the following information while representing Limington in your dealings with Dearborn Brothers Construction regarding the use of Millturn Road as an access for their proposed gravel pit.

Zoning Ordinance. Article V11 Performance Standards. General Requirements.

Article 7.8.B. Requirements for Commercial and Industrial Establishments.
1. Access points from a public road to commercial and industrial operations shall be so located as to minimize traffic congestion and to avoid generating traffic on local access streets of a primarily residential character.

Article 7.20.A. Traffic Impacts and Street Access Control.
Provision shall be made for vehicular access to the development and circulation upon the lot in such a manner as to safeguard against hazards to traffic and pedestrians in the street .... access and circulation shall also conform to the following standards and the design criteria below.
1. The vehicular access to the development shall be arranged to avoid traffic use of local residential streets.

In other words, keep Millturn Road safe for traffic and pedestrians ( 11 homes with 30 to 40 residents) by not using Millturn Road for commercial or industrial development.

Comprehensive Plan 10.A. pages 81 & 82: It is legitimate to make new development that is responsible for increased traffic pay for it. Either by requiring specific system improvements (paving/ traffic management) or by impact fees. Also, effective would be to reduce the overall traffic on unimproved roads by reducing the allowable housing, density and not allowing commercial use.

If, despite the above ordinances that direct the Town to keep commercial/industrial traffic away from primarily residential streets, the Town Officials feel that Millturn Road is an acceptable location for this proposed plan. Then Millturn Road must be widened adequately at the 117 end, designed to not flood, be paved, have sidewalks for bike riders and pedestrians, and 'no engine brakes" signs posted. Please learn from the Sand Pond Road experience and give out no permit until after all of the road improvements are completed.
Options: 1) Grant permit after applicant makes above improvements and paving is completed by the Town according to the Town's paving schedule and budget, or
2) Grant permit after town makes all above improvements to the road and applicant pays for it, or
3) Grant permit after applicant makes all above improvements.

Comprehensive Plan 4.D. page 64: ... to minimize impacts of commercial development (traffic/access problems, noise, visual pollution, neighbors, air pollution ( dust), and public service demands) the plan must pass the 'good versus harm' test. The plan must yield more good to the Town than harm , more benefit than cost.... Basicly force the applicant to be a good neighbor.

In other words, the applicant's plan must benefit the Town (increase tax revenue, create new jobs, improve quality of life) not cost the Town (cost of paving roads, lowering property values/tax revenue, causing nuisances of operation ). If the applicant's plan does not pass this test it is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the Town. (Ordinance 9.7.G.) Hopefully you will agree that it would be wise to protect the largest source of revenue that the Town has, the homeowner and business person who has improved their land with a permanent home or building and pays their taxes.

I hope you have a good meeting. Thank you for your consideration. I pray for God's blessings on the Dearborn Company, the Town Officials, and my neighborhood.

Thomas J. Larsen
Thomas J. Larsen

A Brief History of Gravel...

Mid 1998
Limington voters overwhelmingly enact a six month moratorium to be effective starting in March of 1998. This is to give the Planning Board a chance to work on new ordinances.

Early November 1998
As a result of the moratorium, The Planning Board developed a proposal to change the zoning ordinance which was then put before the voters on the November Ballot. With 900 residents voting, the amendments narrowly missed enactment by only a 10 vote margin.

Late November 1998
After the election, Sandra Negus submitted a petition from over 100 register voters with changes to the proposal that might be more agreeable to the Limington voters. The Planning Board held a public hearing to gather input on this proposal but did not recommend that it be given to the voters.

February 1999
The selectmen formally refused to place the amendments on the ballot citing as one fact that the voters had just rejected the Planning Board proposal. The selectmen did however recommend that the Planning Board work with the citizens to draft a new proposal to be presented to the voters in 1999. Unfortunately this recommendation was not mentioned to the full Planning Board until very late in 1999. Consequently, the Planning Board has not undertaken any new review of the gravel pit problem.

July 2000
petition is submitted from 108 registered voters in Limington . This is the petition under discussion tonight.

I am sorry that I cannot be here to present the attached explanations in person. One reason I was so keen that the Planning Board adhere to the 30 day hearing requirement was because I wanted to be present. However, I am sure that Dave Smith will be able to answer any questions.

Thanks, Dick Jarrett

Item 1 - Setbacks

Current ordinance Pits setback 150 ft from property boundaries
1998 Planning Board recommendation Pits setback 300 ft from property boundaries
Negus Proposal Pits setback 100 ft from property boundaries.
Pits setback 500 ft from existing dwellings.
2000 Proposal Keep property boundary setback at 150 ft.
Add setback 500 ft from existing dwellings.

Many people felt that the planning board recommendation was too restrictive in that when it wished to increase the property boundary setback to 300 feet, a tremendous amount of land was excluded from gravel production. The Negus proposal was apparently designed to achieve the goal of protecting existing homes from new gravel excavation by keeping the pits back 500 feet from the houses. Unless the pit bordered a lot of houses on all sides and the houses were very close to the property lines, the Negus proposal would make for far less land unavailable for gravel production than the planning board recommendation. Furthermore, the Negus proposal actually allowed gravel operations to go closer to the property lines (100 ft) where there were no houses. Because the Planning Board strenuously objected to this 100 ft setback, the setback was left at 150 ft in the 2000 proposal. None of the proposals wished to change the 150 ft setback from the streetline.

The 2000 proposal should protect existing houses better than both the existing ordinance and the 1998 Planning Board proposal. Furthermore, the 2000 proposal should have far less impact on typical gravel pit operations than the 1998 Planning Board recommendation.

Item 2 - Hours of Operation

Current ordinance Unspecified - Hours set by the Planning Board
1998 Planning Board recommendation 6AM-6PM M-F
6AM-4PM Sat
No Sunday
Cap of 60 hours per week
Negus Proposal 7AM-5PM M-F
7AM-1PM Sat
No Sunday
(Total of 56 hours per week)
2000 Proposal 7AM-5PM M-F
7AM-1PM Sat
No Sunday
(Total of 56 hours per week)

In the current ordinance, the hours are not set although the Planning Board has been given the authority to set these hours. In the past, the Board of Appeals have changed the hours that were set by the Planning Board.

All proposals still allow the Planning Board to further restrict the hours when necessary.

Item 3 - Road Requirements

Current ordinance No special restriction on distance of entrance road from property boundaries so the current 10 ft distance for all roads applies. No requirement to pave public roads but Planning Board still has an obligation to deny permits that will have an adverse effect on Public roads.
1998 Planning Board recommendation Private entrance roads must be kept 75 ft from property boundaries. This effectively requires a minimum of a 170 ft wide right of way.
Requires operator to treat public roads for dust and to repair damage.
Increased sight distances for gravel operations.
Negus Proposal Keep private entrance roads 300 ft from existing houses.
Requires operator to treat public roads for dust and to repair damage.
Requires that DOT permit be obtained when necessary.
Increased sight distances for gravel operations.
2000 Proposal Keep private entrance roads 300 ft from existing houses.
Requires operator to pave public roads to keep down dust and so that the roads can withstand the heavy truck traffic.
Requires that DOT permit be obtained when necessary.
Increased sight distances for gravel operations.

The Planning Board proposal required that a wide right of way regardless of the presence of houses. Both the Negus and 2000 proposal only affect proposed entrances that are near existing homes.

Currently gravel pit operators may tear up taxpayer repaired roads with impunity. In the Sand Pond area, the Limington taxpayers recently bore the cost of paving the roads. This provision places the cost on the applicant who will be using the roads rather than on the taxpayers.

Item 4 - Limit Truck Traffic

Current ordinance No restrictions
1998 Planning Board recommendation No restrictions (see text below)
Negus Proposal 500 cubic yards limit per day
2000 Proposal Allows the Planning Board to establish the maximum amount of truck traffic so that effects on residents will be minimized. However, a cap of 600 cubic yards per day is established.

During the 1998 Planning Board hearings, the public had requested that the Planning Board establish the equivalent of a 250 cubic yard per day cap on all gravel operations. The request came too late in the hearing cycle, however, for serious discussions. The Negus proposal doubled this amount. During the Negus hearings, the Planning Board objected to this amount but did not make their own recommendation. The 2000 proposal places the responsibility on the hands of the Planning Board to establish a cap but places a final maximum limit 20% higher than the Negus proposal. Six Hundred cubic yards is 60 ten-yard trucks per day or 46 13-yard trucks per day.

Item 5 - Initial Reporting
The existence of all pits must be reported to the CEO within 60 days of passage. The Planning Board recommendations were similar but had excluded one operator in Limington. The Negus and 2000 Proposals treat all gravel operators equally.

Item 6 - Permit Renewal
Planning Board permits for all existing permits must be renewed at the end of one year. This is section is similar to all proposals including the Planning Board recommendation.

Item 7 - (Annual) Reporting
Each year, the gravel pit operator must file a report with the CEO and pay a fee. All proposals were similar except that the amount of the fee was not specified in the Planning Board recommendation. The Negus proposal specified a fixed fee to which the Planning Board objected. The 2000 proposal allows the municipal officers to set the fee but establishes a minimum fee to guarantee a minimum level of enforcement.

Item 8 - New pits by old operators
This section requires that both operators and owners of new pits bring their existing pits into compliance before the new pit is allowed. All proposals had similar language except that the original Planning Board recommendation had an unintentional loophole excluding the owners of old pits if the applicant was a new applicant.

Item 9 - Appeals Procedure
This section prevents the Appeals Board from acting as a "super Planning Board" and making new decisions merely because the applicant did not like the decision from the Planning Board or CEO. Instead, the Appeals Board must make a determination that the Planning Board or CEO actually made an error and must stick to the evidence presented to the Board or CEO. Language has been changed to meet objections of legality from the original Planning Board proposal.

Item 10 - Retroactivity
If passed, these proposals will be effective back to the day they were submitted to the Town (June 27, 2000). All proposals including the Planning Board recommendation had a similar provision.

Return to top of page

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